5 ms·

I don't see why Capitalists are so often misguided about their Ideology. Capitalism is not a system of capital ownership that encourages competition directly,

by criley2 13y ago

I don't see why Capitalists are so often misguided about their Ideology. Capitalism is not a system of capital ownership that encourages competition directly, it is a system of capital ownership that encourages greedy[1] people to greedily control capital in a way that most benefits themselves, and by proxy, their company, and by proxy, the economy. There is no competition inherent in private capital ownership, but it can exist as a side effect of greedy people attempting to best steer their capital successfully. [1] I use "greed" often, but this is Greed Motivation. That's what this system is. It's not an insult, rather just a descriptor of the motivations we exploit for our economic success. His examples may have been poor but industrialization is full of examples of Capitalism run wild in a regulatory environment that was non-existent. Would you like to defend the purely Capitalistic actions of Rockefeller and Carnegie, and perhaps rationalize the almost complete lack of a middle class during that heyday of nearly unregulated Capitalism or the incredibly poor conditions that large swaths of people were subjected to so that the richest Americans of all time (by a massive, shocking, so-much-more-than-Bill-Gates margin)could get even more wealthy? I'm always shocked when people automatically assume that Capitalism = Competition, when competition is really a side-effect of Capitalism, and one which is often minimized by firms who control capital and believe that their best interest is not in competing aggressively (expensively) but in dominating cheaply (rent-seeking).

vdaniuk 13y ago
One of the heuristics I've developed over years of internet surfing is to instantly disregard any content with terms like greed capitalized or coining new words like "Greed Motivation". FFS Google knows only 7000 pages with "greed motivation" phrase. While you may be absolutely factually correct, which you are not, such argument form is not doing good for the cause you promote. If you really want to spread information about the negative aspects of capitalism, you should try doing that without diatribes and name-calling.
criley2 13y ago
@vdaniuk: You make wild accusations against me, saying that I am name calling? Can you quote me where I did that? Because this was no diatribe and I didn't call anyone names! I conducted myself respectfully--so it is surprising that you would be so disrespectful to me with your false accusation. I think what you've done is a basic against-the-man attack where you "discredit" what I said by inventing fake attacks against me. You're welcome to invent whatever rationalization you need to ignore me, but don't pretend it's anything more than ignorance in action, buddy.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  ...saying that I am name calling? Can you quote me where I did that? You seemed to be calling me a capitalist, but I'll accept your apology if you clarify that.
sp332 13y ago
I thought the main problem with Rockefeller and Carnegie was corruption, not capitalism. They used their political power to override the democratic process, such that most people had no say in their government anymore.
- criley2 13y ago
  That's my point entirely. Capitalism does not breed competition, it breeds success for the private investor. Which in their case, they used government to kill competition and increase profit and personal outcomes, not increase competition and increase outcomes for all. The idea that we can't blame Capitalism for its corruption is laughable. The greed motivation of Capitalism is WHY that corruption exists! Because they want personal success MORE than they want success for all, so they make a decision that benefits themselves/their investment at the cost of society. The outcome of Capitalism without strong regulation in that era was a corruption of weak regulators, corruption of government, and a destruction of competition. I guess you could argue "but what about Capitalism in absence of government entirely" but that sounds too much like the Communists and their "but but TRUE communism, without a state, would TOTALLY work, I SWEAR!"
  - sp332 13y ago
    I'm having trouble with one point of your argument. You seem to be arguing that people who are not capitalists are not greedy or corrupt?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      No, I think the argument is that the greed and corruption of people who are not capitalists aren't as important to the outcome of capitalism, because capitalism is a system in which the economy is organized around the interests (including, inter alia, greed and corruption) of capitalists. Which is why the socialist critics of the dominant economic system of the developed world of the early-mid 19th Century coined the name "capitalism" for the system they were criticizing.
      - 13y ago
jessaustin 13y ago
Perhaps you meant to respond to a different comment? There is no discernible correlation between the 1.5 relatively simple points I made, and whatever it is you've written here. (Hint: I outlined a short history of Ma Bell, and then had a small throwaway dig about Somalia. That's it.)
- criley2 13y ago
  You attempted to discredit his post by attacking the arguments he used. So I called your attempt silly, insinuated your understanding of Capitalism was flawed and provided many more examples of Capitalism without regulation running amok, which was his original argument.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    You attempted to discredit his post by attacking the arguments he used. Holy crap that's some egg on my face. There must be some Latin name for that particular brand of rhetorical gaffe, "attacking the arguments".
    - criley2 13y ago
      It's not a gaffe. I didn't call it a fallacy because it's not a fallacy. I pointed out that you engaged him in debate and crowned yourself winner, and that I attempted to restart the debate by providing better arguments. It's interesting, however, that you invented a new context for my words that has no basis in the words themselves, and then used that as your reply instead of engaging on merits. In fact, I believe there is some Latin name for that particular brand of rhetorical gaffe.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        No "crowning" here. Not really even a "debate". It is a personal bugbear of mine, how many people completely misunderstand our telecom market and the role of the FCC within it. (I worked for many years in telecom, for both the offspring of Ma Bell and for CLECs.) I attempted to correct one such misunderstanding, but somehow you've trolled me into yet another episode of this tired reframing of whatever the hell it was we were discussing. South Korea? Congratulations!

by criley2 13y ago

vdaniuk 13y ago

One of the heuristics I've developed over years of internet surfing is to instantly disregard any content with terms like greed capitalized or coining new words like "Greed Motivation". FFS Google knows only 7000 pages with "greed motivation" phrase. While you may be absolutely factually correct, which you are not, such argument form is not doing good for the cause you promote. If you really want to spread information about the negative aspects of capitalism, you should try doing that without diatribes and name-calling.

criley2 13y ago

@vdaniuk: You make wild accusations against me, saying that I am name calling? Can you quote me where I did that? Because this was no diatribe and I didn't call anyone names! I conducted myself respectfully--so it is surprising that you would be so disrespectful to me with your false accusation. I think what you've done is a basic against-the-man attack where you "discredit" what I said by inventing fake attacks against me. You're welcome to invent whatever rationalization you need to ignore me, but don't pretend it's anything more than ignorance in action, buddy.

jessaustin 13y ago
...saying that I am name calling? Can you quote me where I did that? You seemed to be calling me a capitalist, but I'll accept your apology if you clarify that.

sp332 13y ago

I thought the main problem with Rockefeller and Carnegie was corruption, not capitalism. They used their political power to override the democratic process, such that most people had no say in their government anymore.

criley2 13y ago
That's my point entirely. Capitalism does not breed competition, it breeds success for the private investor. Which in their case, they used government to kill competition and increase profit and personal outcomes, not increase competition and increase outcomes for all. The idea that we can't blame Capitalism for its corruption is laughable. The greed motivation of Capitalism is WHY that corruption exists! Because they want personal success MORE than they want success for all, so they make a decision that benefits themselves/their investment at the cost of society. The outcome of Capitalism without strong regulation in that era was a corruption of weak regulators, corruption of government, and a destruction of competition. I guess you could argue "but what about Capitalism in absence of government entirely" but that sounds too much like the Communists and their "but but TRUE communism, without a state, would TOTALLY work, I SWEAR!"
- sp332 13y ago
  I'm having trouble with one point of your argument. You seem to be arguing that people who are not capitalists are not greedy or corrupt?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    No, I think the argument is that the greed and corruption of people who are not capitalists aren't as important to the outcome of capitalism, because capitalism is a system in which the economy is organized around the interests (including, inter alia, greed and corruption) of capitalists. Which is why the socialist critics of the dominant economic system of the developed world of the early-mid 19th Century coined the name "capitalism" for the system they were criticizing.
    - 13y ago

jessaustin 13y ago

Perhaps you meant to respond to a different comment? There is no discernible correlation between the 1.5 relatively simple points I made, and whatever it is you've written here. (Hint: I outlined a short history of Ma Bell, and then had a small throwaway dig about Somalia. That's it.)

criley2 13y ago
You attempted to discredit his post by attacking the arguments he used. So I called your attempt silly, insinuated your understanding of Capitalism was flawed and provided many more examples of Capitalism without regulation running amok, which was his original argument.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  You attempted to discredit his post by attacking the arguments he used. Holy crap that's some egg on my face. There must be some Latin name for that particular brand of rhetorical gaffe, "attacking the arguments".
  - criley2 13y ago
    It's not a gaffe. I didn't call it a fallacy because it's not a fallacy. I pointed out that you engaged him in debate and crowned yourself winner, and that I attempted to restart the debate by providing better arguments. It's interesting, however, that you invented a new context for my words that has no basis in the words themselves, and then used that as your reply instead of engaging on merits. In fact, I believe there is some Latin name for that particular brand of rhetorical gaffe.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      No "crowning" here. Not really even a "debate". It is a personal bugbear of mine, how many people completely misunderstand our telecom market and the role of the FCC within it. (I worked for many years in telecom, for both the offspring of Ma Bell and for CLECs.) I attempted to correct one such misunderstanding, but somehow you've trolled me into yet another episode of this tired reframing of whatever the hell it was we were discussing. South Korea? Congratulations!