3 ms·

Makes me wonder how many of the complaints about capitalism are really about corruption, and if people would have a more favorable view of it if we didn't have

Makes me wonder how many of the complaints about capitalism are really about corruption, and if people would have a more favorable view of it if we didn't have this system of interlocking directorships, revolving public/private appointments, regulatory capture, and backroom handshakes between government and corporations that seems to shut many Americans out of the capitalist wealth-creation engine.

inigyou 2mo ago
Could it be that capitalism implies or causes corruption?
- timacles 2mo ago
  I’m thinking any human made system implies corruption
- lapcat 2mo ago
  I would say that private financing of election campaigns causes corruption. It becomes one dollar one vote instead of one person one vote.
  - Ekaros 2mo ago
    Financing election campaigns is corruption. Then again I suppose you can't operate elections without some type of campaigning happening someway... So how to fix it is nearly unsolvable question.
- therealdrag0 2mo ago
  Corruption of what?
Bjartr 2mo ago
I think part of it is that it can be argued that benefitting from such corruption within the system is itself a capitalistic action and therefore justifiable from within. Pursuing regulatory capture is just one action of many for maximizing shareholder value, to the point that not doing so is arguably a failure of leadership. At least to some. (To be clear, I disagree with this in principle)
- hellisothers 2mo ago
  But are either of these Capitalism? Sure they’re capitalist in the way the world works but the OP is touching on ideals and theory.
ifwinterco 2mo ago
The US is not really capitalist, it’s an oligarchy - a small number of people like Larry Ellison essentially control everything. It’s always been like that, even going back to the 19th century and the robber barons of the gilded age
- ozlikethewizard 2mo ago
  That is the natural end state of capitalism though? Capital begets more capital, eventually concentrating power as far as possible. Sure you get upstarts here and there, particularly with technological innovation, but the trend is always consistent.
  - ifwinterco 2mo ago
    Arguably the natural end state of every system to be honest. Power, money and influence were concentrated in the Soviet Union, they're concentrated in modern day China...
    - ozlikethewizard 2mo ago
      Wouldn't argue. I guess the difference is philosophical. Capitalism is designed to reach that end goal, the very nature of capital growth requires consolidation. Philosophically, both the USSRs & China's implementations of socialism were "intended" to be pathways to communism, where power is controlled communally. The fact that no country has managed to transition out of the socialist state into communism is a pretty damning indictment of it though, power corrupts in all it's forms.
- lapcat 2mo ago
  This was by design of the oligarchic founders, who were very skeptical of the majority, so it goes back to the 18th century too.
  - ifwinterco 2mo ago
    To be fair the US has been an extremely successful country all things considered, so maybe they were onto something
jodrellblank 2mo ago
I wonder if people would have a more favorable view of it if it wasn't a way to whitewash the wealthy crushing the poor as if they were a commodity like stones, and then direct blame onto the poor for not working hard enough, and present the crushing as virtuous. As a parlour game for the wealthy to use markets to find the best price for a slab of marble or a Faberge egg, it's fine. As a system for finding the best price for a loaf of bread which doesn't take into account how close to starving someone's family is, it's terrible. As a system where an insurance company puts a number on a spreadsheet for the risk of a warehouse full of wood burning down and the owner uses that to decide whether to install a fire alarm and sprinkler system, it's fine. As a system where the owner uses that to decide whether to install a fire alarm and sprinkler system in an office based on how expensive it is to replace the dead employees, it's terrible. When the employer can't put a sprinkler system in because any competitor which doesn't can undercut prices, it's terrible. [Regulation which says offices must have fire alarms does not fix the general class of this race-to-the-bottom / exploit inhumanely as hard as possible problem]. When people can use contracts to come together to build a rocket engine, it's fine. When the idea is that you would use your perfect knowledge of everything down to whether a workplace has a fire alarm before deciding whether to accept a contract, it's ridiculous. You don't have enough lifetime or cynicism to find all the nooks and crannies people will be trying to cut corners with your life and safety. When the idea is that humans are rational and cannot be manipulated, it's ridiculous. When the practical result of that is that the wealthy can tell the employees that unions are bad, it's terrible. Note that this isn't classical corruption because the wealthy might believe that's true (unions harm the wealthy!), it's a problem of wealthy having lawyers and marketers to spread their message and nannys to free up time for them to learn things, vs others having no spare time or effort or assistance to counter it. As a system where the person with the best use for a piece of land can buy it and use it, it's fine. As a system where employees have a 2 hour commute because all the homes closer have been bought up by the wealthy who don't even live in their spare homes, and this effect keeps one class of people as 'employees' because they have neither time nor effort nor opportunity to do anything about it, it sucks. If we all had a magical base quality of life and could "play at capitalism" as a parlour game where the points don't matter the consequences are abstract - you know, like the rich do - then a lot more people would like it. Consider the situation where 'Capitalism rewards risk' but the only sensible advice for what to do with your money is to invest it in a diversified index fund because anything else is risky. If you do that and stay relatively poor, you aren't taking enough risk to get rich, you idiot, get good. If you take risk and lose, you're an idiot who should have known better and invested in something else "like I did". If you take a risk and win, then you can play off your "lottery win" as you being a more meritorious capitalist. This leads to a situation where the more desperately someone needs money, the less risk they can afford to take to get money, trapping people at the bottom. The less they can afford lawyers to review contracts, the less they can afford to wait and consider their options, the less they can afford to travel for more options, the fewer options they have in terms of borrowing or terms of renting. As a haves-get-richer, have-nots-get-screwed system, it's bad - at least, unfair, inhumane, eploitative, cruel.

inigyou 2mo ago

Could it be that capitalism implies or causes corruption?

timacles 2mo ago
I’m thinking any human made system implies corruption
lapcat 2mo ago
I would say that private financing of election campaigns causes corruption. It becomes one dollar one vote instead of one person one vote.
- Ekaros 2mo ago
  Financing election campaigns is corruption. Then again I suppose you can't operate elections without some type of campaigning happening someway... So how to fix it is nearly unsolvable question.
therealdrag0 2mo ago
Corruption of what?

Bjartr 2mo ago

I think part of it is that it can be argued that benefitting from such corruption within the system is itself a capitalistic action and therefore justifiable from within. Pursuing regulatory capture is just one action of many for maximizing shareholder value, to the point that not doing so is arguably a failure of leadership. At least to some. (To be clear, I disagree with this in principle)

hellisothers 2mo ago
But are either of these Capitalism? Sure they’re capitalist in the way the world works but the OP is touching on ideals and theory.

ifwinterco 2mo ago

The US is not really capitalist, it’s an oligarchy - a small number of people like Larry Ellison essentially control everything. It’s always been like that, even going back to the 19th century and the robber barons of the gilded age

ozlikethewizard 2mo ago
That is the natural end state of capitalism though? Capital begets more capital, eventually concentrating power as far as possible. Sure you get upstarts here and there, particularly with technological innovation, but the trend is always consistent.
- ifwinterco 2mo ago
  Arguably the natural end state of every system to be honest. Power, money and influence were concentrated in the Soviet Union, they're concentrated in modern day China...
  - ozlikethewizard 2mo ago
    Wouldn't argue. I guess the difference is philosophical. Capitalism is designed to reach that end goal, the very nature of capital growth requires consolidation. Philosophically, both the USSRs & China's implementations of socialism were "intended" to be pathways to communism, where power is controlled communally. The fact that no country has managed to transition out of the socialist state into communism is a pretty damning indictment of it though, power corrupts in all it's forms.
lapcat 2mo ago
This was by design of the oligarchic founders, who were very skeptical of the majority, so it goes back to the 18th century too.
- ifwinterco 2mo ago
  To be fair the US has been an extremely successful country all things considered, so maybe they were onto something

jodrellblank 2mo ago

I wonder if people would have a more favorable view of it if it wasn't a way to whitewash the wealthy crushing the poor as if they were a commodity like stones, and then direct blame onto the poor for not working hard enough, and present the crushing as virtuous. As a parlour game for the wealthy to use markets to find the best price for a slab of marble or a Faberge egg, it's fine. As a system for finding the best price for a loaf of bread which doesn't take into account how close to starving someone's family is, it's terrible. As a system where an insurance company puts a number on a spreadsheet for the risk of a warehouse full of wood burning down and the owner uses that to decide whether to install a fire alarm and sprinkler system, it's fine. As a system where the owner uses that to decide whether to install a fire alarm and sprinkler system in an office based on how expensive it is to replace the dead employees, it's terrible. When the employer can't put a sprinkler system in because any competitor which doesn't can undercut prices, it's terrible. [Regulation which says offices must have fire alarms does not fix the general class of this race-to-the-bottom / exploit inhumanely as hard as possible problem]. When people can use contracts to come together to build a rocket engine, it's fine. When the idea is that you would use your perfect knowledge of everything down to whether a workplace has a fire alarm before deciding whether to accept a contract, it's ridiculous. You don't have enough lifetime or cynicism to find all the nooks and crannies people will be trying to cut corners with your life and safety. When the idea is that humans are rational and cannot be manipulated, it's ridiculous. When the practical result of that is that the wealthy can tell the employees that unions are bad, it's terrible. Note that this isn't classical corruption because the wealthy might believe that's true (unions harm the wealthy!), it's a problem of wealthy having lawyers and marketers to spread their message and nannys to free up time for them to learn things, vs others having no spare time or effort or assistance to counter it. As a system where the person with the best use for a piece of land can buy it and use it, it's fine. As a system where employees have a 2 hour commute because all the homes closer have been bought up by the wealthy who don't even live in their spare homes, and this effect keeps one class of people as 'employees' because they have neither time nor effort nor opportunity to do anything about it, it sucks. If we all had a magical base quality of life and could "play at capitalism" as a parlour game where the points don't matter the consequences are abstract - you know, like the rich do - then a lot more people would like it. Consider the situation where 'Capitalism rewards risk' but the only sensible advice for what to do with your money is to invest it in a diversified index fund because anything else is risky. If you do that and stay relatively poor, you aren't taking enough risk to get rich, you idiot, get good. If you take risk and lose, you're an idiot who should have known better and invested in something else "like I did". If you take a risk and win, then you can play off your "lottery win" as you being a more meritorious capitalist. This leads to a situation where the more desperately someone needs money, the less risk they can afford to take to get money, trapping people at the bottom. The less they can afford lawyers to review contracts, the less they can afford to wait and consider their options, the less they can afford to travel for more options, the fewer options they have in terms of borrowing or terms of renting. As a haves-get-richer, have-nots-get-screwed system, it's bad - at least, unfair, inhumane, eploitative, cruel.