I understand the idea, I’m saying the idea is inherently contradictory and stupid.
The government doesn’t need to treat corporations or billionaires with contempt, it just needs to ignore their wants
A corporation only exists as a legal fiction. A corporation can not exist if a state “ignores their wants” because the state is the one granting the desire for the corporation to exist in the first place! Billionaires function similarly via the concept of private property but that one is a bit more roundabout.
They exist because the state intrinsically cares deeply because “billionaires” have every incentive to ensure the state does so. The state “ignoring their wants” does not come close to matching the incentives of the “billionaires” and as such the Nash equilibrium will ALWAYS favor the “billionaires” without equal, or greater, incentives for the state.
You set up a system based inherently on ‘winner takes all’ style conflict and are surprised when the most ruthless and least moral people end up winning?
Any system will break down when the most ruthless and least moral people take control. You could argue that a communist system is no longer a communist system when the ruthless take over, buts that’s just the same as saying a well regulated capitalist system gets fucked up when the ruthless take over. I know capitalism is based on competition and that maybe makes it particularly fragile in that respect, but the competition part also makes it efficient and with the right regulations i think it can be efficient in terms of things that are good for humanity.
The entire philosophy behind capitalism is to reward those that are the most ruthlessly greedy.
That is not true of communism, socialism, anarchism, syndicalism, etc.
To use a sports metaphor; sure a ‘win at any cost’ approach results in fiercer competition and yes a little bit of sportsmanship would make it so less people die. But sportsmanship is diametrically opposed to a win at any cost mentality.
Or the other way to look at it is that it rewards innovation tied with risk taking. It rewards efficiency, and catering to the desires of the population (via purchasing power). Without that, we might get stuck technologically and in other ways. Most other systems do not naturally promote innovation.
No, it encourages a very specific kind of risk assessment. One where those who are ahead are obsessively defensive, risk averse and obsessed with controlling and mitigating any possible risk because they understand that taking the smallest risk could result in an insurmountable setback. Meanwhile those behind aren’t taking reasonable or rational risks, they’re gambling out of desperation. It’s an ecosystem that stifles innovation without external influence.
catering to the desires of the population
Profit, by definition, is the differential between the product/service offered and the payment received. Not even in the most Any Rand reading of capitalism does the producer ‘cater’ to the consumer. The producer manipulates the consumer to their own benefit.
Most other systems do not naturally promote innovation.
Which systems and can you explain why not? Even I can admit capitalism does ‘promote innovation’ via desperate, near suicidal gambles that occasionally work out. That’s such an absurd statement! Even the most conservatist theocratic state naturally promotes innovation in many ways. It’s a matter of degrees, and capitalism is about as close to top of that list as the US is to any metric outside prisons and military.
I’ve seen innovators get some investment and build small businesses. They do this because they think they can create a new product that consumers will want. This is the catering to the public. It’s a risk as they put up their own money, time and effort. It’s not desperate, its a job, but they get to run it. If it works out, they end up with a stake in a worthwhile enterprise and they can get financial rewards. And society ends up with a new product or service. They needed capital investment to get things off the ground, and they had to convince someone with money to make that investment. The person fronting the startup costs gets some financial reward if it works out. So they are motivated to invest in development costs. If the company grows and grows and tries to overcharge, another startup should be able to get some of their business by being more efficient and not as greedy. It can work if the government can enforce rules against anti-competitive behaviors, and regulations about how to treat workers.
Right, we’ve certainly let it get out of control in the U.S. and many other western countries, to lesser degrees. But what else has been shown to work without falling into a fascist nightmare or nose diving quality of life for the majority? As they say, capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others.
Uh, you really should look at the history of quality of life during the communist transitions of both China and the USSR. The incredibly deadly, massive famines that are often pointed to as ‘failures’ are closer to a reversion back to the norm.
The massive poverty reduction often cited as “see capitalism works!” Is >75% China’s communist conversion. Even the world bank admits this! How the hell does a nation of peasant farmers transitioning into the most industrialized and modernized nation on earth, and largely eliminating global poverty, constitute a “nose diving quality of life for the majority”!?
As they say: capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others.
They being idiots with a complete lack of media, historical, political and/or mathematical literacy!
I understand the idea, I’m saying the idea is inherently contradictory and stupid.
A corporation only exists as a legal fiction. A corporation can not exist if a state “ignores their wants” because the state is the one granting the desire for the corporation to exist in the first place! Billionaires function similarly via the concept of private property but that one is a bit more roundabout.
They exist because the state intrinsically cares deeply because “billionaires” have every incentive to ensure the state does so. The state “ignoring their wants” does not come close to matching the incentives of the “billionaires” and as such the Nash equilibrium will ALWAYS favor the “billionaires” without equal, or greater, incentives for the state.
You set up a system based inherently on ‘winner takes all’ style conflict and are surprised when the most ruthless and least moral people end up winning?
Any system will break down when the most ruthless and least moral people take control. You could argue that a communist system is no longer a communist system when the ruthless take over, buts that’s just the same as saying a well regulated capitalist system gets fucked up when the ruthless take over. I know capitalism is based on competition and that maybe makes it particularly fragile in that respect, but the competition part also makes it efficient and with the right regulations i think it can be efficient in terms of things that are good for humanity.
The entire philosophy behind capitalism is to reward those that are the most ruthlessly greedy.
That is not true of communism, socialism, anarchism, syndicalism, etc.
To use a sports metaphor; sure a ‘win at any cost’ approach results in fiercer competition and yes a little bit of sportsmanship would make it so less people die. But sportsmanship is diametrically opposed to a win at any cost mentality.
Or the other way to look at it is that it rewards innovation tied with risk taking. It rewards efficiency, and catering to the desires of the population (via purchasing power). Without that, we might get stuck technologically and in other ways. Most other systems do not naturally promote innovation.
No, it encourages a very specific kind of risk assessment. One where those who are ahead are obsessively defensive, risk averse and obsessed with controlling and mitigating any possible risk because they understand that taking the smallest risk could result in an insurmountable setback. Meanwhile those behind aren’t taking reasonable or rational risks, they’re gambling out of desperation. It’s an ecosystem that stifles innovation without external influence.
Profit, by definition, is the differential between the product/service offered and the payment received. Not even in the most Any Rand reading of capitalism does the producer ‘cater’ to the consumer. The producer manipulates the consumer to their own benefit.
Which systems and can you explain why not? Even I can admit capitalism does ‘promote innovation’ via desperate, near suicidal gambles that occasionally work out. That’s such an absurd statement! Even the most conservatist theocratic state naturally promotes innovation in many ways. It’s a matter of degrees, and capitalism is about as close to top of that list as the US is to any metric outside prisons and military.
I’ve seen innovators get some investment and build small businesses. They do this because they think they can create a new product that consumers will want. This is the catering to the public. It’s a risk as they put up their own money, time and effort. It’s not desperate, its a job, but they get to run it. If it works out, they end up with a stake in a worthwhile enterprise and they can get financial rewards. And society ends up with a new product or service. They needed capital investment to get things off the ground, and they had to convince someone with money to make that investment. The person fronting the startup costs gets some financial reward if it works out. So they are motivated to invest in development costs. If the company grows and grows and tries to overcharge, another startup should be able to get some of their business by being more efficient and not as greedy. It can work if the government can enforce rules against anti-competitive behaviors, and regulations about how to treat workers.
It turns out reality is a bit different than the 5th grade textbook you keep regurgitating.
That is an incredibly naïve and reductionist perspective.
Right, we’ve certainly let it get out of control in the U.S. and many other western countries, to lesser degrees. But what else has been shown to work without falling into a fascist nightmare or nose diving quality of life for the majority? As they say, capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others.
Uh, you really should look at the history of quality of life during the communist transitions of both China and the USSR. The incredibly deadly, massive famines that are often pointed to as ‘failures’ are closer to a reversion back to the norm.
The massive poverty reduction often cited as “see capitalism works!” Is >75% China’s communist conversion. Even the world bank admits this! How the hell does a nation of peasant farmers transitioning into the most industrialized and modernized nation on earth, and largely eliminating global poverty, constitute a “nose diving quality of life for the majority”!?
They being idiots with a complete lack of media, historical, political and/or mathematical literacy!