4 ms·

If capitalism prices me out of owning property, then I've not much use for it.

by XorNot 10mo ago

ezst 10mo ago
Maybe what you're calling capitalism is just oligarchy, in which case the nuance really doesn't matter.
- HPsquared 10mo ago
  I think the standard argument is that capitalism inevitably develops into oligarchy. Even the most basic setup of property rights protected by a legal system, presupposes a central authority of some kind who makes the ultimate decisions. Where there is law, there are courts, executive and legislative functions. More complex structures like joint stock companies introduce their own dynamics but also depend on a central authority to enforce contract law. Everything is downstream of security.
thrance 10mo ago
Billions are already "priced out" of owning property, why do you think you joining them would have any broader impact? EDIT: I don't know why I'm being downvoted. Billions of human beings have absolutely nothing to their names, and they have no power to change things. Because they own nothing. That's a basic fact of our globalized capitalist economy.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- gosub100 10mo ago
  The capitalist system depends on having some people below it to exploit, African villagers notwithstanding.
- codyb 10mo ago
  I guess the broader impact is cause the people on here actually do have assets and can donate, vote, call, and influence. So if the upper middle and lower upper classes are being hollowed out... Well... what's that leave? Just the super rich, and the rest... And considering the way the super rich are acting, I suppose they're just fine with that. The morally bankrupt sacks of shit that most of them seem to be, or become...
kakacik 10mo ago
Trust me, losing freedom you most probably consider as basic as air we breathe since your birth will stop such petty worries. And no system would give you property just because it would be nice, neither did communism (I know since I grew up in it and saw its destruction of everything good first hand - it had to be bought for non-trivial money with good old mortgages, and only regime-aligned people could).
- XorNot 10mo ago
  The spectrum of possible civic organization is not binary, and is not capitalism and communism in opposition. Though the insinuation of such is routinely used to justify the ongoing stratification of wealth, and corruption of government.
  - kakacik 10mo ago
    Well maybe but what examples out of real world do you mean? Nobody is justifying anything here btw, I don't get why people hyperfocus on imperfections and claim whole thing is useless without understanding underlying reasons and thus options for fixes. Or providing long term working & proven alternatives.
  - 9rx 10mo ago
    > and is not capitalism and communism in opposition. Hard to say. The prevailing assumption, and basis for the Communist Party (on paper, at least), is that capitalists will try to block reaching a state of post-scarcity — the necessary precondition for communism. This is why they are sometimes considered to be at odds with each other. They don't have to be. And thus far they don't seem to be. Capitalism, and especially American capitalism, has done far more to getting us closer to post-scarcity than anything else, with US-centric agriculture innovation being the shining example. We're almost there in that particular area. But we're not there yet and things can quickly turn. It is apparent in that agriculture progress that the capitalists remain deathly afraid of losing control (see the tales of Monsanto, John Deere, etc.), which is exactly the foundation on which the assumption is built.
    - 10mo ago
victorbjorklund 10mo ago
If communism you wouldn’t own anything?
- beepbooptheory 10mo ago
  This is not the case, has been corrected a million times by millions of people, and, frankly, if it was about anything else would not be considered appropriate on HN as a comment. We can do better than play out the same conversations also happening in middle school cafeterias. It helps everyone and could even reinforce your opposing views on the matter. You do your entire ideological position a disservice just doing this old hat!
dominicrose 10mo ago
Property prices are a big concern nowadays indeed, especially in high-demand areas. Complete (rich) strangers can come and outbid you. In the most capitalist places (rich areas without rent control), you can rent a place for years trying to save money to buy in the area and see the rent grow fast enough that you can't buy and even have to leave as a renter. Capitalism seems to work well for transportable things though, including cars. A house isn't transportable and it also tends to be something quite unique, which makes it incompatible with production in series. Even if you are somehow authorized and able to buy a cheap home, you still have the issue of the terrain, which can be more expensive than the home. That being said I'm sure that there are people living on cheap (per square meter) terrain and happy about it, but that requires the ability to make the best of it, work on it or find work close to it.

If capitalism prices me out of owning property, then I've not much use for it.

by XorNot 10mo ago

If capitalism prices me out of owning property, then I've not much use for it.

ezst 10mo ago

Maybe what you're calling capitalism is just oligarchy, in which case the nuance really doesn't matter.

HPsquared 10mo ago
I think the standard argument is that capitalism inevitably develops into oligarchy. Even the most basic setup of property rights protected by a legal system, presupposes a central authority of some kind who makes the ultimate decisions. Where there is law, there are courts, executive and legislative functions. More complex structures like joint stock companies introduce their own dynamics but also depend on a central authority to enforce contract law. Everything is downstream of security.

thrance 10mo ago

Billions are already "priced out" of owning property, why do you think you joining them would have any broader impact? EDIT: I don't know why I'm being downvoted. Billions of human beings have absolutely nothing to their names, and they have no power to change things. Because they own nothing. That's a basic fact of our globalized capitalist economy.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
gosub100 10mo ago
The capitalist system depends on having some people below it to exploit, African villagers notwithstanding.
codyb 10mo ago
I guess the broader impact is cause the people on here actually do have assets and can donate, vote, call, and influence. So if the upper middle and lower upper classes are being hollowed out... Well... what's that leave? Just the super rich, and the rest... And considering the way the super rich are acting, I suppose they're just fine with that. The morally bankrupt sacks of shit that most of them seem to be, or become...

kakacik 10mo ago

Trust me, losing freedom you most probably consider as basic as air we breathe since your birth will stop such petty worries. And no system would give you property just because it would be nice, neither did communism (I know since I grew up in it and saw its destruction of everything good first hand - it had to be bought for non-trivial money with good old mortgages, and only regime-aligned people could).

XorNot 10mo ago
The spectrum of possible civic organization is not binary, and is not capitalism and communism in opposition. Though the insinuation of such is routinely used to justify the ongoing stratification of wealth, and corruption of government.
- kakacik 10mo ago
  Well maybe but what examples out of real world do you mean? Nobody is justifying anything here btw, I don't get why people hyperfocus on imperfections and claim whole thing is useless without understanding underlying reasons and thus options for fixes. Or providing long term working & proven alternatives.
- 9rx 10mo ago
  > and is not capitalism and communism in opposition. Hard to say. The prevailing assumption, and basis for the Communist Party (on paper, at least), is that capitalists will try to block reaching a state of post-scarcity — the necessary precondition for communism. This is why they are sometimes considered to be at odds with each other. They don't have to be. And thus far they don't seem to be. Capitalism, and especially American capitalism, has done far more to getting us closer to post-scarcity than anything else, with US-centric agriculture innovation being the shining example. We're almost there in that particular area. But we're not there yet and things can quickly turn. It is apparent in that agriculture progress that the capitalists remain deathly afraid of losing control (see the tales of Monsanto, John Deere, etc.), which is exactly the foundation on which the assumption is built.
  - 10mo ago

victorbjorklund 10mo ago

If communism you wouldn’t own anything?

beepbooptheory 10mo ago
This is not the case, has been corrected a million times by millions of people, and, frankly, if it was about anything else would not be considered appropriate on HN as a comment. We can do better than play out the same conversations also happening in middle school cafeterias. It helps everyone and could even reinforce your opposing views on the matter. You do your entire ideological position a disservice just doing this old hat!

dominicrose 10mo ago

Property prices are a big concern nowadays indeed, especially in high-demand areas. Complete (rich) strangers can come and outbid you. In the most capitalist places (rich areas without rent control), you can rent a place for years trying to save money to buy in the area and see the rent grow fast enough that you can't buy and even have to leave as a renter. Capitalism seems to work well for transportable things though, including cars. A house isn't transportable and it also tends to be something quite unique, which makes it incompatible with production in series. Even if you are somehow authorized and able to buy a cheap home, you still have the issue of the terrain, which can be more expensive than the home. That being said I'm sure that there are people living on cheap (per square meter) terrain and happy about it, but that requires the ability to make the best of it, work on it or find work close to it.