2 ms·

It doesn't reward greed, it rewards value. You could just as well say national borders reward invasions.

ty6853 1y ago
No, greed is a necessary component. Because under capitalism both parties don't execute the trade, rationally at least, unless both are greedily better off. Without greed it goes from a positive sum system to a destructive system because you no longer have the parties being better off from the transaction. From a cursory standpoint that might be ok (the economy won't implode if some small fraction does this like a minority of commercial activity being charity functions) but you basically lose most the information conveyed in prices and cost causing complete loss of productive allocation and it is an economic implosion.
- isoprophlex 1y ago
  Do note that nothing in this system incentivizes behaviour that creates societies that could last, say, several hundred years.
- robertlagrant 1y ago
  You're mischaracterising "not wanting to overpay" and "getting something you need in return for what you have in excess" as "greed". It's a pointless conversation if you're willing to do that. You're just changing definitions before arguing them.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    I will allow for sake of argument then trading for needs to be excepted. Under your definition it would also implode, just not fully destruct.
    - robertlagrant 1y ago
      Trading for wants is no different to trading for needs from a capitalism perspective. It just removes the need for a central bureaucracy that decides what counts as a need.
komali2 1y ago
This is a redefining of terms classic in capitalist analysis. An example I'll take from Cory Doctorow: Google search isn't getting worse. We know this because nobody's toppled Google's monopoly on search. Because of the magic of the market, if what you perceive as search being worse was actually search being worse, then, Google would no longer dominate. Since google continues to dominate, actually, search isn't worse. Capitalist analysis requires QED circular logic to justify its inherent contradictions. Capitalism may occasionally reward value, but very, very rarely does it reward value more than greed. Proof: teachers are some of the worse paid jobs in our society despite being essentially the backbone of our nation. A single teacher in the course of a year can completely alter the course of history for a classload of kids. Multiply over a two decade career... And that's just elementary school. Highschool teachers will influence hundreds of kids each semester. Yet their wages in many states cap out at around what a recruiter makes. Recruiters being nothing more than middlemen between a labor market and a hiring market - as a former recruiter, trust me, that multi billion dollar industry creates essentially no value. Of course the capitalist analysis means the entire system is immune to criticism - "actually, teachers don't get paid much because they don't add much value, if they added more value, they'd get paid more." QED. Circular logic. "The multi tens of billions of dollars American health insurance industry adds value. If it didn't, it wouldn't be worth multi tens of billions of dollars." Capitalism rewards greed, and the greediest are the most capitalistically rewarded.

No, greed is a necessary component. Because under capitalism both parties don't execute the trade, rationally at least, unless both are greedily better off. Without greed it goes from a positive sum system to a destructive system because you no longer have the parties being better off from the transaction. From a cursory standpoint that might be ok (the economy won't implode if some small fraction does this like a minority of commercial activity being charity functions) but you basically lose most the information conveyed in prices and cost causing complete loss of productive allocation and it is an economic implosion.

isoprophlex 1y ago
Do note that nothing in this system incentivizes behaviour that creates societies that could last, say, several hundred years.
robertlagrant 1y ago
You're mischaracterising "not wanting to overpay" and "getting something you need in return for what you have in excess" as "greed". It's a pointless conversation if you're willing to do that. You're just changing definitions before arguing them.
- ty6853 1y ago
  I will allow for sake of argument then trading for needs to be excepted. Under your definition it would also implode, just not fully destruct.
  - robertlagrant 1y ago
    Trading for wants is no different to trading for needs from a capitalism perspective. It just removes the need for a central bureaucracy that decides what counts as a need.

komali2 1y ago

This is a redefining of terms classic in capitalist analysis. An example I'll take from Cory Doctorow: Google search isn't getting worse. We know this because nobody's toppled Google's monopoly on search. Because of the magic of the market, if what you perceive as search being worse was actually search being worse, then, Google would no longer dominate. Since google continues to dominate, actually, search isn't worse. Capitalist analysis requires QED circular logic to justify its inherent contradictions. Capitalism may occasionally reward value, but very, very rarely does it reward value more than greed. Proof: teachers are some of the worse paid jobs in our society despite being essentially the backbone of our nation. A single teacher in the course of a year can completely alter the course of history for a classload of kids. Multiply over a two decade career... And that's just elementary school. Highschool teachers will influence hundreds of kids each semester. Yet their wages in many states cap out at around what a recruiter makes. Recruiters being nothing more than middlemen between a labor market and a hiring market - as a former recruiter, trust me, that multi billion dollar industry creates essentially no value. Of course the capitalist analysis means the entire system is immune to criticism - "actually, teachers don't get paid much because they don't add much value, if they added more value, they'd get paid more." QED. Circular logic. "The multi tens of billions of dollars American health insurance industry adds value. If it didn't, it wouldn't be worth multi tens of billions of dollars." Capitalism rewards greed, and the greediest are the most capitalistically rewarded.