10 ms·

>capitalism/free markets have serious limits to what they can achieve Why do you have to take shots at capitalism/free markets? Capitalism/free markets does no

>capitalism/free markets have serious limits to what they can achieve Why do you have to take shots at capitalism/free markets? Capitalism/free markets does not automatically imply that you can harm someone health. Capitalism/free markets solely implies financial/trade freedom.

bluGill 2y ago
> Why do you have to take shots at capitalism Capitalism was a straw-man invented by Marx to take shots at. Of course he has to take shots at it, that is the whole point. Mean while what people really do is far more complex and not suitable a 30 second pot shot. The real people doing "capitalism" are too busy doing to try to make sense of just how complex human behavior is, and so don't have time to defend it in philosophy.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >Capitalism was a straw-man invented by Marx to take shots at. Of course he has to take shots at it, that is the whole point Make perfect sense indeed...
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Capitalism is more than just free trade. Trade happens between two parties. Capitalism happens between three parties. The additional party is the capitalist who neither produces the traded goods nor consumes them, but is entitled to a share of control/profit due to some kind of abstraction (e.g. property rights). It's pretty directly related lead poisoning because in the case of mere trade both parties are close enough to the lead to have incentives to avoid it. It's quite plausible that the dynamics change significantly when you add a third party at sufficient remove to feel safe from the hazard, yet who still has a controlling stake in the transaction.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  I cannot even relate to your line of reasoning - a simple concept stretched beyond it's simple original intent.
  - immibis 2y ago
    A quip that may be simple enough to work: Capitalism is to capital as monarchy is to monarch.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    Take some time to think it over. You’ve been fed the idea that it’s integral to your livelihood, but never asked to consider the dictionary definition, let alone the far-reaching effects.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    I'm not aware of any stretching. That's just what the word means. Why bother create a whole new word unless you meant something other than "free trade". Wouldn't they have said "free trade" if that's what they meant?
    - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
      That is a fair enough point. Most likely the way it is got this way to do with it's history and perhaps its marketing or specifically it's anti-marketing by the communists/socialists. A free market sounds less threatening so they do not use that term.
      - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        I have to imagine that when they term was coined in the 1700s, they avoided using "free markets" because they didn't have a problem with free markets. They aimed to criticize capitalists specifically since it was capitalists and not free markets that we're causing the problems. Not propaganda, but criticism targeted enough to be constructive. To oppose something as broad as free markets would be pointless.

bluGill 2y ago

> Why do you have to take shots at capitalism Capitalism was a straw-man invented by Marx to take shots at. Of course he has to take shots at it, that is the whole point. Mean while what people really do is far more complex and not suitable a 30 second pot shot. The real people doing "capitalism" are too busy doing to try to make sense of just how complex human behavior is, and so don't have time to defend it in philosophy.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>Capitalism was a straw-man invented by Marx to take shots at. Of course he has to take shots at it, that is the whole point Make perfect sense indeed...

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

Capitalism is more than just free trade. Trade happens between two parties. Capitalism happens between three parties. The additional party is the capitalist who neither produces the traded goods nor consumes them, but is entitled to a share of control/profit due to some kind of abstraction (e.g. property rights). It's pretty directly related lead poisoning because in the case of mere trade both parties are close enough to the lead to have incentives to avoid it. It's quite plausible that the dynamics change significantly when you add a third party at sufficient remove to feel safe from the hazard, yet who still has a controlling stake in the transaction.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
I cannot even relate to your line of reasoning - a simple concept stretched beyond it's simple original intent.
- immibis 2y ago
  A quip that may be simple enough to work: Capitalism is to capital as monarchy is to monarch.
- relaxing 2y ago
  Take some time to think it over. You’ve been fed the idea that it’s integral to your livelihood, but never asked to consider the dictionary definition, let alone the far-reaching effects.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  I'm not aware of any stretching. That's just what the word means. Why bother create a whole new word unless you meant something other than "free trade". Wouldn't they have said "free trade" if that's what they meant?
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    That is a fair enough point. Most likely the way it is got this way to do with it's history and perhaps its marketing or specifically it's anti-marketing by the communists/socialists. A free market sounds less threatening so they do not use that term.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      I have to imagine that when they term was coined in the 1700s, they avoided using "free markets" because they didn't have a problem with free markets. They aimed to criticize capitalists specifically since it was capitalists and not free markets that we're causing the problems. Not propaganda, but criticism targeted enough to be constructive. To oppose something as broad as free markets would be pointless.