9 ms·

> A great solution to disincentivize all investment into capital markets While I agree with your argument here, that opening line really raises questions. Do

> A great solution to disincentivize all investment into capital markets While I agree with your argument here, that opening line really raises questions. Do we want "capital markets" at all if they're structured in a way that incentivizes risking innocent people's lives to reward the market participants with increased profits, without any equivalently existential consequences when that risk goes bad and hundreds of people die as the next Boeing airliner ploughs a hole in the ground? Something's deeply wrong with how things work now, and capitalism is looking awfully like the root cause.

anonym29 2y ago
>Something's deeply wrong with how things work now, and capitalism is looking awfully like the root cause. I don't refute that there are big problems with how things are currently being run, but what evidence exists suggesting that an alternative economic system is the solution? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but China has far more industrial accidents and avoidable deaths than the US does, no? We also didn't have the same extent of the kinds of problems being discussed here in the past, while the US was still a capitalist country then too, right? That makes me ponder whether a change in the implementation of capitalism is to be blamed more so than capitalism itself - if not a combination of that and other factors unrelated to the economic system. It's not difficult to draw a line back to when we shifted away from a more "stakeholder-y" capitalism towards shareholder value maximization as a motif, but that begs the question: why were we more unified and stakeholder oriented back then, but not so much anymore, if the rationale behind shareholder value maximization was as true then as it is now?
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  "But China" doesn't say as much against non-capitalist systems as you think it does. It still runs capitalism, just more state controlled. It's the mirror side of the corporate-controlled government of the US. Shareholder value maximization is not what changed, but zero regulation happened, and securitization so that nobody knows where to really go with pitchfork and torches. Probably somewhere overseas to seize random tax haven assets.
smackeyacky 2y ago
It's far more that "regulatory capture" is the root cause here. That Boeing knowingly and deliberately played fast and loose with the rules around how the 737 MAX was certified and got away with it because they had outsize influence with the FAA. It's not exactly capitalism, but it is a regulatory failure that exposes the corruption of the institutions that oversee Boeing. Corruption is the cause.
- mcculley 2y ago
  Leftists have a coherent argument about this: Capitalism always results in corruption because capital can influence/buy government. Our implementation mostly uses lobbying and the revolving door instead of direct bribes, but nevertheless results in 737 MAX. Maybe we can improve the system in the U.S. and make it less corrupt. I hope so, but I am not very optimistic. I want free markets, free trade, private property, and the capitalism that arises from these forces. But our current implementation is not proving itself to be ideal.

anonym29 2y ago

>Something's deeply wrong with how things work now, and capitalism is looking awfully like the root cause. I don't refute that there are big problems with how things are currently being run, but what evidence exists suggesting that an alternative economic system is the solution? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but China has far more industrial accidents and avoidable deaths than the US does, no? We also didn't have the same extent of the kinds of problems being discussed here in the past, while the US was still a capitalist country then too, right? That makes me ponder whether a change in the implementation of capitalism is to be blamed more so than capitalism itself - if not a combination of that and other factors unrelated to the economic system. It's not difficult to draw a line back to when we shifted away from a more "stakeholder-y" capitalism towards shareholder value maximization as a motif, but that begs the question: why were we more unified and stakeholder oriented back then, but not so much anymore, if the rationale behind shareholder value maximization was as true then as it is now?

AstralStorm 2y ago
"But China" doesn't say as much against non-capitalist systems as you think it does. It still runs capitalism, just more state controlled. It's the mirror side of the corporate-controlled government of the US. Shareholder value maximization is not what changed, but zero regulation happened, and securitization so that nobody knows where to really go with pitchfork and torches. Probably somewhere overseas to seize random tax haven assets.

smackeyacky 2y ago

It's far more that "regulatory capture" is the root cause here. That Boeing knowingly and deliberately played fast and loose with the rules around how the 737 MAX was certified and got away with it because they had outsize influence with the FAA. It's not exactly capitalism, but it is a regulatory failure that exposes the corruption of the institutions that oversee Boeing. Corruption is the cause.

mcculley 2y ago
Leftists have a coherent argument about this: Capitalism always results in corruption because capital can influence/buy government. Our implementation mostly uses lobbying and the revolving door instead of direct bribes, but nevertheless results in 737 MAX. Maybe we can improve the system in the U.S. and make it less corrupt. I hope so, but I am not very optimistic. I want free markets, free trade, private property, and the capitalism that arises from these forces. But our current implementation is not proving itself to be ideal.