• The Myth of Capitalism Exposed
    121 replies, posted
They have a point. Any actual capitalist should be shaking their heads at government regulations that favour monopolies. No capitalist should favour Cronyism. For example only US based companies are allowed to fly US domestic routes. This is done in the name of safety and protecting US jobs, but means only people with loads of money and are American can muscle into a market. The American qualifier limits competition. Healthcare is a particularly bad case of Cronyism. People in the US aren't allowed to go across state lines to get healthcare providers, they must come from your state of residence. Even worse are "Certificate of Need". In 35 US states you can't build medical facilities unless you get a CoN from the state, which will only be granted if there is a "need" for a new healthcare provider. CoN were adopted under the guise of helping people by stopping "unnecessary hospitalisations". The idea being that if hospitals have too many beds, they'll concoct reasons to keep patients around and rip them off, instead of shuffling them out and replacing them with "real" sick people. The reality is it kills competition. I've been told the reason the ISP market is so monopolised is because the barriers to entrance are ridiculous. The laws are designed to make it basically impossible to lay new cable or meet various regulatory requirements.
Any government regulation ends up just creating monopolies, may it be intentionally or not, hell, the FCC was created on the 1930's specifically to cartelize the telecom market. One of the biggest myth of all in this regard is the notion that telephone service is a natural monopoly. There is nothing at all "natural" about the telephone monopoly enjoyed by AT&T for so many decades, it was purely a creation of government intervention.
what about regulations designed to prevent them?
Oh, it's the "cronyism" excuse again. The "but REAL communism has never been given a chance!" of capitalism.
'Actual capitalists' should look at the market freedom of Scandinavia and it's modern interpretation of social democracy and be excited. As is obvious by now, pursuit of 'actual capitalism' isn't what drives these people's policy and monetary choices. As an aside, arguments like this to me often just sound like 'not real capitalism' operating on an assumption that if you do it right it'll work. What's doing it right? >The left attacks the grotesque capitalism we see today, as if that were the true manifestation of the essence of capitalism rather than the distorted version it has become. We know Capitalism has issues. 'More free market' isn't a magic band aid solution to the problems the left identifies with it.
So is all criticism of any system just an "excuse" in your eye?
I think he was pointing out the hypocrisy of people who would say 'muh not real communism haha gottem' and in the same breath claim that 'this isn't real Capitalism' or it's 'corporatism/cronyism' etc.
More the fact that it's used by libertarians and the like to handwaive what a broken piece of shit the capitalist model is by saying "not REAL capitalism!!" and insisting that just letting the invisible hand of the free market sort everything out would fix everything.
Free and open market is how you get child labor and union strikes that are put down by paid police.
Complete market regulation is how you get USSR. Complete free market is how you get Shadowrun.
TBH what economic system isn't vulnerable to human greed fucking it all up
any system in which someone can attain power at all is prone to that
Democratic Syndicalism
Fine, lets just tear down everything, and you can tell everyone what the new system is, and how it's a flawless replacement for capitalism. I don't LIKE capitalism, but I have to accept it's a better system than the other things we've come up with. Nothing else fosters innovation, creativity, at the same level. That isn't arguable.
Nothing fosters creativity like soulless appeasement of shareholders at any cost.
Because that's what I'm arguing for, right? I'm not arguing with someone who's sole tool in an argument is to use strawmans and hollow arguments to push their point. I'm a victim of capitalism, like most of you, I'm not well off, but if I look at the history of our society, I strongly doubt things that you love, and take for granted, and base your fucking identities around would exist without capitalism.
man, you go for the 'well sure lets just tear everything down' rebuttal every time as if someone's attacked your very being. he didn't even say we should do that, he was just rightly pointing out that this is just your standard 'freer the market, freer the people' libertarian piece. it's tearing things down in the other direction.
I mean if you're arguing for the merits of capitalism as a driver of creativity and innovation then yes that kind of is what you're arguing for??? There are things that people "love and take for granted" probably wouldn't exist if slavery had never existed either, or if WW2 never happened, what's your point? Who knows what the world would look like if we had abandoned capitalism before now, playing the historical "what-if" game isn't much of an argument. We can, on the other hand, see what a world that is dominated by capitalism results in, and it's not pretty.
Capitalism, as with anything, needs to be properly regulated to be effective, if you let it go unchained it can manifest in truly damaging and disgusting ways. To right dosage is the difference between medicine and poison. If the goverment doesn't strike the right balance between economic systems of the free market and socialist policies, it can still be a trainwreck regardless, just looking at the example of the distribution of wealth or the stagnant wages despite the increased productivity per work hour tells you enough that the current system is shit. Capitalism isn't bad per say, it can be effective to turn the needs and wants of people and society into a productive work force, but this only works as long as the system doesn't go overboard and starts enriching the few at the cost of the many in very absurd ways.
The state lines things kind of breaks the idea of a lot of healthcare and insurance regulation that states impose to protect consumers. There's good and bad regulation in everything, but allowing loopholes in basically all state imposed regulation means all those insurance companies will relocate to Alabama or something and operate with looser consumer protection rules. This is a big deal when youre talking about something as vital to people's lives as healthcare and the same thing basically happened with credit card companies all being located in Deleware . My state requires health insurance providers offer transition care, but if they were all located in Alabama they might not have to, because theyd be operating by Alabama health insurance law, not Montana. And they would all DEFINITELY relocate operation to states where they are allowed to squeeze the most cash out of people with minimal oversight. It happened with credit cards. The decentralized nature makes it complicated and I err on the side of not allowing it. I'd just prefer a public option or some flavor of universal healthcare.
i just want to know what we’re talking about when we say “capitalism bad!”. Yes it has tons of flaws. Doesn’t that mean we can’t salvage aspects of it? That it has no positives? People are so extreme with their views, why do I have to be so detailed and fine toothed with my “defence” of the subject when no one holds anyone else to that standard. yes it is an attack on my life, I’ve worked hard for what little I have, and I wonder how much there’s Is to lose long term just giving it up whole cloth. Explain to me why I should be enthused about that?
I'm sure communism has positive aspects to it as well. Doesn't mean that it is a sustainable system, though. You're the one who brought up "tearing it all down", nobody here advocated for that. We can criticize the current system and point out how unviable it inherently is, and develop alternatives that keep the positive aspects of capitalism while toning down its abusive side. Anytime you get into debates about capitalism, you get on the defensive as if your life depended on it, and ask for in-depth descriptions of alternatives right there and now. The point of pointing out that it is a flawed system is to get people thinking about what alternatives could work. "You don't have an alternative right now" is not a valid argument to hold onto a sinking ship.
You're engaging with something that nobody is saying. You haven't mounted a defence of Capitalism. As far as I can tell, your 'defence' was simply support for the article. Nobody is even asking you to state your position in certain terms. People are attacking the article, and nobody is saying 'lets tear it down gommunism now'. I'll repost what I said because I'm pretty sure you didn't read them. arguments like this to me often just sound like 'not real communism' operating on an assumption that if you do it right it'll work. What's doing it right? "The left attacks the grotesque capitalism we see today, as if that were the true manifestation of the essence of capitalism rather than the distorted version it has become." Who exactly has deemed the correct 'essence of Capitalism'? We know it has issues and often all I see from these people is advocating 'More free market' as if it's a magic band aid solution to the problems the left identifies with it. It's just surface level basic bitch libertarianism. then, I posted this; this is just your standard 'freer the market, freer the people' libertarian piece. it's tearing things down in the other direction based on what exactly? even though 'crony capitalism' infiltrates the entire world (maybe, hint, it's an inevitability) the countries with less 'bad' regulation still face the exact same problems the rest of us do. so what then?
Im pretty sure thats not even close to a fact but go off I guess
I don't really agree that much with him, but it's not as much as having no valid alternative, and rather not having any alternative. As long as people can trade stuff between themselves, capitalism will exist. The only way to eliminate trade is eliminating property.
I'm happy to have people point out flaws. There are numerous flaws with the system of capitalism. Point them out, I'm happy to have them revealed to more people. However, when I read Geikkamirs post, calling the entire article a "handwaving away the issues of capitalism from a libertarian" which is in and of itself, a total handwaving of the article itself, I didn't see much "grey" room between "tear it all down" and what he's implied here. If people don't want to tear it all down, then why do they phrase their "critiques" of the system as if a totally new system would be a better solution than working to fix the current system?
Capitalism and trade are not the same thing. You can have trade without capitalism. Capitalism is a model pertaining to how wealth should be distributed, primarily. Ultimately a totally new system would be better if one could wave their magic wand and just make it happen, but unfortunately in reality societal change isn't that quick or easy. In the short term trying to make what we have more functional is obviously the best we can do. I think we should gradually be moving further away from capitalism as time goes on, but that doesn't mean I'm saying that we should try to just completely do away with the model that the entire world is currently built around overnight.
The article appears to claim that monopolistic issues stem from things like government regulations, and that thus the reason for those failings is that it's "not true capitalism", implying that the freer the market, the better off the people. That's complete bullshit. Pure capitalism is cancer, it needs to be reined in and limited by governments. There are commonalities between every system, and the line between having two different systems and two different implementations of the same system is arbitrary. What you seem to perceive as tearing it all down may be seen by others as simply changing course. It's kind of a non-debate. What's more interesting is concretely discussing policies rather than fight over which school of thought such or such system belongs to.
I don't think the article argues for total regulation free markets, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what the article advocates. I don't want pure capitalism. However, there are numerous instances of regulation propping up the monopolistic efforts of large corporations. Regulations need to be carefully crafted with the finest details dealt with, and not just thrown at every issue like they'll single handedly solve the issue, the bandaid like approach of regulation at least in the US and Canada has lead to less innovation, less creativity, less freedom, and less growth for the people. I don't support this, but I'm also not going to turn around and say "throw regulations at it" when regulations that were improperly designed(With good and noble intentions quite often) are at play for why we're in the situation we're in currently.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.