3 ms·
It's not really capitalism, but its late stage cancerous form, where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked, so the markets start to
by drdaeman 2y ago
It's not really capitalism, but its late stage cancerous form, where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked, so the markets start to fail because the competition is killed.
I could be wrong, but I think property use restrictions are actually more of a socialist concept. When done right, they're meant to protect others (aka society, in general - not some businesses that don't like having competitors across the street) from various harms, such as emissions, noise, overcrowding or things like that. In other words, not about what goes on at some property, but what happens to the outside because of it. But as the uncontrolled abuse grew unchecked, it became something else entirely.
This stuff, together with non-competes and exclusivity agreements is something different. I don't know what it is, but it's neither capitalism nor socialism "as they were well-meant", but rather a weird amalgamation of perverted concepts from both, leading to both erosion of healthy markets (so, harming capitalism) and degradation of life quality (so, harming socialism).
- dimal 2y agoIt is capitalism, and I think this is inherent in all stages of capitalism. The goal of any corporation is to maximize profit, period. In earlier forms, monopolists and oligarchs may have used different levers of power, but it’s all ultimately the same thing. Use whatever means are available to make profit.
- pixl97 2y agoHence why we don't allow unrestricted capitalism
- CatWChainsaw 2y agoWell apparently now we do. Yay.
- drdaeman 2y ago> The goal of any corporation is to maximize profit, period. Yea, but that's not some strictly inherent property of capitalism, and I thought stakeholder vs shareholder is still an open issue?
- deprecative 2y agoNoncompetes are capitalistic. Property use restrictions aren't inherently capitalist but how they're used in most cases, particularly within the US, they almost always are. Single family home zoning is the factor in bloated infrastructure and housing prices going up. This protects capital investment of a necessity which ensures exploitation of the working class.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fragmede 2y agocapitalism is about competition and non-competes are literally named a "not gonna compete" agreement. I don't see how's that capitalism at all. If Coca-cola and Pepsi signed a agreement not to compete that was made public, the FTC would go after them. If Microsoft made secret backroom deals that gave them an unfair advantage, the FTC would and did go after them. If you don't like competition, having the government come in and say you're the only one that can do that just isn't how American is supposed to work. Non-competes are anti-capitalism and anti-American. That they're used against bartenders and restaurant servers is just gross.
- Ekaros 2y agoDon't confuse free market and capitalism. They are operated at same time, but capitalism certainly does not have free market as end goal, it would much prefer to have total monopoly.
- TulliusCicero 2y agoThe whole idea of "late stage capitalism" is leftist end times nonsense. > where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked By this reasoning, the Gilded Age was already "late stage capitalism", and yet somehow regulations were implemented and capitalism continued on, in a less shitty form. We've done it before, we can do it again.