this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
1540 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

59495 readers
3081 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MonkeyBusiness@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

In my lurking time here, I have seen many comments on Lemmy that criticize capitalism, but I think it's not as bad as it is made out to be on here. I earn money by working, can spend my money on what I want, and can start a business if I wanted to. The best businesses are rewarded with more money while poor businesses fail. I don't see anything wrong with that. Admittedly, it is possible that I am wrong because I have never studied economy other than the short lessons from required college classes my first two years. Do you have any objective sources where I can start to learn? I tend to be liberal/Democrat, btw.

[–] BlueMacaw@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

Wouldn't your comment equally apply to being a small business owner (let's say blacksmith) under feudalism? As a good blacksmith, you will earn more clients and prestige, while poor blacksmiths won't get repeat business. You might be able to expand your forge and hire more people to do the tedious work of making chainmail or whatever.

I don't know that anyone can ever provide an "objective" source on capitalism. Anyone who writes on the topic has inherent biases. Here are a few: https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/1608462471

https://www.amazon.com/Slow-Down-Manifesto-KOHEI-SAITO/dp/1662602723

https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/doughnut-economics-paperback/

https://www.amazon.com/What-Wrong-Capitalism-Ruchir-Sharma/dp/1668008262

https://www.amazon.com/There-Are-No-Accidents-Disaster_Who/dp/1982129689

https://www.amazon.com/Deaths-Despair-Future-Capitalism-Anne/dp/0691217076

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Yup. "Capitalism" has become a punching bag for people who are frustrated about some form of government protectionism or lack of interventionism. If you ask someone to define it, you'll get wildly different answers based on whatever they're frustrated by. The real problem is cronyism, where the "haves" get special treatment from those in power so both sides benefit.

Example w/ Musk and TrumpAs an example, look at Elon Musk buddying up to Trump. There are two explanations (probably more) here:

  • Musk actually thinks Trump is the best thing since sliced bread
  • Musk wants protectionism in the form of more EV tariffs, which will absolutely benefit his cash cow, Tesla

This all happens under "capitalism" because Musk is motivated to get more capital, but it's happening through government, which ends up essentially as a government subsidy of Tesla (and other domestic EVs) using taxpayer dollars (in this case tariffs). It's not a direct handover of cash, but when your foreign competition needs to charge twice as much as they normally would, there's less motivation for your company to drop prices.

Capitalism is intended to be a system where the market is largely separate from the government, but everything is co-mingled and people point to the knotted mess as "capitalism," when really it's a mess of different political ideologies all messing with market forces. What we actually need is for more capitalism, as in less government interference w/ the market, so market forces can actually fix things.

Potential solutions to better use market forcesThis means:

  • less protection for corporations - rich people using tactical bankruptcies indicates a broken system
  • fewer regulations, but higher penalties - regulations reduce the penalties for bad action to a fine, we need lawsuits and jail time
  • fairer tax system - we currently reward capital gains far more than earned income, we exclude a significant amount of inheritance from taxation, and we have structures (trusts and whatnot) to further protect money from taxation; the tax system should be drastically simplified to reduce abuse
  • enforce anti-trust more consistently and frequently

There's certainly more we could do, but the above should significantly help correct the major problems we see today. Right now, it takes a massive scandal for a wealthy person or very large business to fail, and the above would dramatically reduce the scandal needed to cause one to fail.

"More capitalism" doesn't mean screwing over the poor either. In fact, if you look at the Nordic countries, they're actually more capitalist than the US ins many ways, and they have solid social programs. The difference is that there are clearer boundaries between government and the market, so you don't end up with as much weird "collaboration" between companies and the government.

I personally believe in UBI/NIT (Universal Basic Income/Negative Income Tax) instead of most welfare programs (perhaps keep Medicare/Medicaid, but replace Social Security, food/housing assistance, etc) to minimize the disruption of natural market forces. That would be a very capitalist-friendly solution where the government and the market stay in their own lanes.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

First time hearing negative income tax but sounds like an idea i had after a nice walk after the edible kicked in lol

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's basically UBI, but with income caps. So if you make above a certain threshold, your benefits reduce and completely disappear by a second threshold.

Milton Friedman was a pretty notable supporter.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)