3 ms·

He was correct, Capitalist refers to a very small number of people who own and manage capital. My definition (the textbook definition), was describing a system

by criley2 13y ago

He was correct, Capitalist refers to a very small number of people who own and manage capital. My definition (the textbook definition), was describing a system of capital ownership. Unless you labor under the delusion that capital is not owned by a very small number of people, I do not know how that definition caused you to think the exact opposite of the definition. Also, I am not wielding "greedy" as an insult, as I clarified immediately after using it. This is a greed motivated system. It is what it is. It is not an insult, it is a description. I apologize if you disagree but I am not really interested in debating if water is wet.

sp332 13y ago
Sure :) I'm just wondering how a different system would deal with greedy people. If the system discourages greed, doesn't that increase the incentive for greedy people to corrupt the system?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I'm just wondering how a different system would deal with greedy people. It would harness greed to produce social good rather than assuming greed will naturally produce social good. Note that you actually see many elements of this alternative to capitalism in most modern developed economies, which are mixed economies that specifically adopted elements of alternatives to capitalism (largely, specifically drawn from the universe of socialist thought) to mitigate the harms of capitalism identified by 19th Century socialist critics.
criley2 13y ago
>I'm just wondering how a different system would deal with greedy people. If the system discourages greed, doesn't that increase the incentive for greedy people to corrupt the system? Of course it does. In fact, if you want an even better line: if it's a greed motivated system and we work against greed, we're directly disincentivizing economic activity. It's absolutely a fine line to draw. History has examples of the economic noose of overregulation just as surely as it does the industrial dystopia of underregulation. It's a lot like medicinal drugs (medicine). The difference between a poison and a cure is dosage. Too much or too little and you can hurt someone instead of helping them. Or the interaction of multiple different treatments create new and possibly terrible outcomes. Regulation (greed control) to me is very similar. The difference between good regulation and bad regulation is very minor, it's dosage. A good policy applied the wrong way is just as bad as a bad policy. Multiple policies of regulation may interact in new and crazy ways. So to me the proper regulation of Capitalism is like trying to dose a new drug. It's extremely difficult and nuanced to do well. And even if done well, as you pointed out, there is always the incentive to cheat, and always the fallout of the disincentivization our actions cause.

by criley2 13y ago

sp332 13y ago

Sure :) I'm just wondering how a different system would deal with greedy people. If the system discourages greed, doesn't that increase the incentive for greedy people to corrupt the system?

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I'm just wondering how a different system would deal with greedy people. It would harness greed to produce social good rather than assuming greed will naturally produce social good. Note that you actually see many elements of this alternative to capitalism in most modern developed economies, which are mixed economies that specifically adopted elements of alternatives to capitalism (largely, specifically drawn from the universe of socialist thought) to mitigate the harms of capitalism identified by 19th Century socialist critics.

criley2 13y ago

>I'm just wondering how a different system would deal with greedy people. If the system discourages greed, doesn't that increase the incentive for greedy people to corrupt the system? Of course it does. In fact, if you want an even better line: if it's a greed motivated system and we work against greed, we're directly disincentivizing economic activity. It's absolutely a fine line to draw. History has examples of the economic noose of overregulation just as surely as it does the industrial dystopia of underregulation. It's a lot like medicinal drugs (medicine). The difference between a poison and a cure is dosage. Too much or too little and you can hurt someone instead of helping them. Or the interaction of multiple different treatments create new and possibly terrible outcomes. Regulation (greed control) to me is very similar. The difference between good regulation and bad regulation is very minor, it's dosage. A good policy applied the wrong way is just as bad as a bad policy. Multiple policies of regulation may interact in new and crazy ways. So to me the proper regulation of Capitalism is like trying to dose a new drug. It's extremely difficult and nuanced to do well. And even if done well, as you pointed out, there is always the incentive to cheat, and always the fallout of the disincentivization our actions cause.