6 ms·
Goldman Sachs is the extreme example of capitalism gone wrong. I find it interesting this sort of thing is rarely, if ever, presented as government gone wrong.
by ataggart 14y ago
Goldman Sachs is the extreme example of capitalism gone wrong.
I find it interesting this sort of thing is rarely, if ever, presented as government gone wrong. Not everything based on self-interest falls within capitalism. When someone steals, commits extortion, etc., no one considers it an "example of capitalism". And yet when the government engages in such at the behest of self-interested parties, "capitalism" gets the rap. Quite odd.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jshen 14y agoIt's because the people that want the system this way call it capitalism. If you say "banks shouldn't be too big to fail" you are called an anti-capitalist, etc, etc. Maybe the people doing this name calling are misusing the term, but it catches on.
- jobu 14y agoInteresting point in semantics. Crony Capitalism and Political Prostitution are basically different facets of the same thing. Perhaps it depends on who you blame more: the politicians for taking the money, or business people for offering it. Either way, the main question is how do you counter it or at least balance it out so the little people don't get trampled?
- jeffdavis 14y ago"Crony Capitalism" Which is an oxymoron; government favoritism is the antithesis of capitalism. The fact that money is involved doesn't make it capitalism.
- Evbn 14y agoWhat does non-government have to do with capitalism? Libertarianism is a different word.
- jeffdavis 14y agoCapitalism is about transferable private property rights. In order to be transferable, they need to be enforced somewhat evenly. Libertarianism is a different concept that includes economic policies and non-economic policies.
- wwweston 14y ago> I find it interesting this sort of thing is rarely, if ever, presented as government gone wrong. I don't think this is true. It's named as government corruption often enough, and it's framed from that direction fairly frequently in some political media, both by people who believe it's a corruption of what government should/could be and who believe it's inherent in government power. > When someone steals, commits extortion, etc., no one considers it an "example of capitalism" This seems truer than your first contention -- not only is it generally rare that crime is considered just another response to incentives, even people who think of it this way (myself and probably some economists included), it's fair enough to draw a line between a formal definition of capitalism and crime. But then again, in this kind of discussion it's probably worth recognizing that terms like "capitalism" (or "socialism", for that matter) are usually used as shorthand in a heavily context-dependent sense, rather than as anything formally defined. I think it's better to be more precise so as to avoid hang-ups like this, but then again, being prescriptive or pedantic can have it's own hangups. Capitalism may not simply mean any laissez faire system founded largely on self-interest, but it's easy enough to accept it as a label for a class of possible systems for the sake of discussion about whether or not it's unfair to blame a private party for capture of a democratic/republic nation-state, or whether to blame the state for being there to capture.