3 ms·

I guess you don't need to be an authoritarian country. Just capitalist with no regulation...

alansaber 1mo ago
State consolidates power or a few megacorps. Unfortunately the middle ground (approximate balance of power) is always tenuous
rustcleaner 1mo ago
Big banks growing up around a central bank is not capitalism, it's financialism. Mandate that any fresh new currency be apportioned and distributed to only living citizens, and a capitalism becomes possible again. As it stands now it's the money printers, and those adjacent, who hold the power. Giving everyone fresh currency, and taxing those of significant wealth to sop up inflation (corporations and individuals), is how business entities get forced into serving the people again. As it stands now they serve those who have the ability to leverage the printing press, and that's not you or I. Addendum: finance is not capital. Capital is the structures used to produce goods. Finance in our system is contractual trickery used to represent capital. To pull from Baudrillard: if capital is the land, finance is the map.
- squigz 1mo ago
  > Mandate that any fresh new currency be apportioned and distributed to only living citizens > Giving everyone fresh currency, and taxing those of significant wealth to sop up inflation (corporations and individuals), is how business entities get forced into serving the people again. This doesn't really sound like capitalism, mate.
  - eru 1mo ago
    I don't agree with the mate's weird ideas, but capitalism is fairly adaptable and works reasonable well even in fairly weird systems. Have a look at eg Germany's social market economy.
    - pjc50 1mo ago
      That is generally considered to be "less capitalist", precisely because less of life is in the market economy. Also since the Stasi Germans have been very twitchy about privacy, which fed downstream into GDPR.
      - eru 1mo ago
        I'm not sure we can blame the Stasi. Well, at least not blame them alone. West Germans were protesting and boycotting a census when East Germany was still her own country.
eru 1mo ago
> Just capitalist with no regulation... In what kind of anarcho-capitalist utopia do you live? Have you seen how many regulations they have over in the US? The Dodd-Frank act alone was 2,300 pages. And that's hardly the only rule they have on the books. You can complain that the regulations are bad, sure. But 'no regulation' is a stretch.
- eecc 1mo ago
  Sure, depends for whom. “Rules for thee, not for me”
  - eru 1mo ago
    Yes, that's definitely a valid complained you might have. There's also what you might call 'economics of scale in compliance'. Ie in absolute terms, the big guys suffer under the rules just as much as you do, but they can amortise the necessarily effort and billable lawyer hours over a bigger business.
- sschueller 1mo ago
  Ineffective non-enforced regulations are to me the same as no regulations.
  - eru 1mo ago
    'No regulation' would be preferable over regulations selective enforced only against people the selectors don't like.

State consolidates power or a few megacorps. Unfortunately the middle ground (approximate balance of power) is always tenuous

rustcleaner 1mo ago

Big banks growing up around a central bank is not capitalism, it's financialism. Mandate that any fresh new currency be apportioned and distributed to only living citizens, and a capitalism becomes possible again. As it stands now it's the money printers, and those adjacent, who hold the power. Giving everyone fresh currency, and taxing those of significant wealth to sop up inflation (corporations and individuals), is how business entities get forced into serving the people again. As it stands now they serve those who have the ability to leverage the printing press, and that's not you or I. Addendum: finance is not capital. Capital is the structures used to produce goods. Finance in our system is contractual trickery used to represent capital. To pull from Baudrillard: if capital is the land, finance is the map.

squigz 1mo ago
> Mandate that any fresh new currency be apportioned and distributed to only living citizens > Giving everyone fresh currency, and taxing those of significant wealth to sop up inflation (corporations and individuals), is how business entities get forced into serving the people again. This doesn't really sound like capitalism, mate.
- eru 1mo ago
  I don't agree with the mate's weird ideas, but capitalism is fairly adaptable and works reasonable well even in fairly weird systems. Have a look at eg Germany's social market economy.
  - pjc50 1mo ago
    That is generally considered to be "less capitalist", precisely because less of life is in the market economy. Also since the Stasi Germans have been very twitchy about privacy, which fed downstream into GDPR.
    - eru 1mo ago
      I'm not sure we can blame the Stasi. Well, at least not blame them alone. West Germans were protesting and boycotting a census when East Germany was still her own country.

eru 1mo ago

> Just capitalist with no regulation... In what kind of anarcho-capitalist utopia do you live? Have you seen how many regulations they have over in the US? The Dodd-Frank act alone was 2,300 pages. And that's hardly the only rule they have on the books. You can complain that the regulations are bad, sure. But 'no regulation' is a stretch.

eecc 1mo ago
Sure, depends for whom. “Rules for thee, not for me”
- eru 1mo ago
  Yes, that's definitely a valid complained you might have. There's also what you might call 'economics of scale in compliance'. Ie in absolute terms, the big guys suffer under the rules just as much as you do, but they can amortise the necessarily effort and billable lawyer hours over a bigger business.
sschueller 1mo ago
Ineffective non-enforced regulations are to me the same as no regulations.
- eru 1mo ago
  'No regulation' would be preferable over regulations selective enforced only against people the selectors don't like.