5 ms·

>that doesn't mean Capitalism itself is problematic I think you've misread my comment: I was condemning the Communist position, not defending it. Capitalism ha

by zeteo 13y ago

>that doesn't mean Capitalism itself is problematic I think you've misread my comment: I was condemning the Communist position, not defending it. Capitalism has historically functioned as an economic system only. There are important human activities, with heavy economic impact, that have nowhere been successfully conducted through financial, market-based "voluntary exchanges". Politics would be one (I sure hope the market for Congressional votes is inefficient), and basic scientific research another.

anoncowherd 13y ago
Not really, I was mostly just addressing this: >> But that doesn't mean capitalism is good at all; let's abolish it, we can build a much better economic system from scratch. You suggested "building" a "much better" "economic system". I'm suggesting Capitalism is not much of an "economic system", assuming I'm right about it consisting of voluntary exchanges, and that the idea of building an economic system is flawed. There's Freedom, and then there's Coercion. The latter doesn't result in desired outcomes. > Politics would be one (I sure hope the market for Congressional votes is inefficient), and basic scientific research another. Well, political power is clearly up for sale, and eagerly bought all the time, all over the world. That's not really relevant to the economy though, nor is "basic scientific research". Research happens when scientists do what they love doing - some kind of economic incentive for doing that can be arranged somehow, when necessary.
dredmorbius 13y ago
Capitalism has historically functioned as an economic system only. I'd suggest you revisit your history, specifically David Ricardo's Political Economy, a theory for which he purchased a seat in England's Parliament in order to spread its precepts (Arnold Toynbee describes this in his Lectures on the Industrial Revolution). Later championed by the banker who purchased his personal papers, as well as The Economist Newspaper, whose founding prospectus declared that "free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day." http://www.economist.com/node/1873493 http://www.economist.com/node/1873493

by zeteo 13y ago

anoncowherd 13y ago

Not really, I was mostly just addressing this: >> But that doesn't mean capitalism is good at all; let's abolish it, we can build a much better economic system from scratch. You suggested "building" a "much better" "economic system". I'm suggesting Capitalism is not much of an "economic system", assuming I'm right about it consisting of voluntary exchanges, and that the idea of building an economic system is flawed. There's Freedom, and then there's Coercion. The latter doesn't result in desired outcomes. > Politics would be one (I sure hope the market for Congressional votes is inefficient), and basic scientific research another. Well, political power is clearly up for sale, and eagerly bought all the time, all over the world. That's not really relevant to the economy though, nor is "basic scientific research". Research happens when scientists do what they love doing - some kind of economic incentive for doing that can be arranged somehow, when necessary.

dredmorbius 13y ago

Capitalism has historically functioned as an economic system only. I'd suggest you revisit your history, specifically David Ricardo's Political Economy, a theory for which he purchased a seat in England's Parliament in order to spread its precepts (Arnold Toynbee describes this in his Lectures on the Industrial Revolution). Later championed by the banker who purchased his personal papers, as well as The Economist Newspaper, whose founding prospectus declared that "free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day." http://www.economist.com/node/1873493 http://www.economist.com/node/1873493