4 ms·
Capitalism is more than just free trade. Trade happens between two parties. Capitalism happens between three parties. The additional party is the capitalist who
by __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 agoI cannot even relate to your line of reasoning - a simple concept stretched beyond it's simple original intent.
- immibis 2y agoA quip that may be simple enough to work: Capitalism is to capital as monarchy is to monarch.
- relaxing 2y agoTake 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 agoI'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 agoThat 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 agoI 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.
- dennis_jeeves2 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. While they targeted the 'capitalists' they had an agenda to push: socialism. Free market in itself cannot be an agenda, it's too vague and simple. I suspect they did have a problem with free markets, though it was never explicitly stated: A true free market causes enormous differences in wealth. (though everyone is better off). A difference in wealth is a big social motivator for resentment regardless of how well off the bottom most rung of society is. Also notice the comment I responded to - the poster used the term 'capitalism/free markets' - so the poster knew exactly the connotation of capitalism ( i.e of free market).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]