Government getting involved and putting their thumb on the economy is as capitalist as it gets.
South Sea Trading bubble, East India Company, Lake Eyrie Canal, trans continental railroad. Teapot Dome.
The government has ALLWAYS had its thumb on the scale for big business interests and if you think that’s not true I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.
Right next to some beachfront property in Arizona.
You’re listing things and going “BAD” so Capitalism is bad.
A trading bubble is really just economics. Can’t really say Capitalism causes that. The East India Trading Company is mercantilism which as evil as that specific company was the idea of trading goods from one country to another is like the core of our entire economic trade system today. Teapot Dome was flagrant corruption which happens in any economic system, the Canal and the railroad are more examples of labor exploitation which you can easily argue was less bad than the labor exploitation that came before it and led to better labor laws in the country.
It’s like you’re pointing at a gun and saying “FIRE MADE GUN, FIRE BAD!” because guns kill people. It’s pretty caveman.
I mean, capitalist do the same thing with socialism every day. It takes a lot of propaganda to get people to believe that caring for your neighbors = bad.
Yes it is - capitalism demands that in fact. You’re thinking of free-markets. Capitalism inevitably destroys free markets.
Lets see if we can agree on some definitions.
What you’re describing as “free-markets” I know as laissez-faire capitalism. This definition came from, unsurprisingly, the French in the 18th century and was used heavily by Adam Smith in the book The Wealth of Nations. I think we all agree there are very few, if any, true large scale laissez-faire capitalism in operation today.
What have in most places is regulated capitalism where there are government rules that change the outcome to a different outcome (sometimes better/sometimes worse) that would have occurred under laissez-faire capitalism.
Are we in agreement with these definitions or do we still have discussion needed to arrive at the same place?
OK sure - if we’re being strict and academic about this - perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn’t really exist, and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.
perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn’t really exist,
I agree with this without any reservations.
and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.
I take exception with “always”. In the USA for example, there have been many notable exceptions where state capitalism implemented protections from abuses that pure laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed. The National Labor Relations Act was a state action that allowed for collective bargaining of workers. More recently the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau acted as an agent against uncheck capitalist forcing a fair playing field.
I’d probably agree if you changed your word to “frequently” though.
No this was capitalism in action. Capitalism bred the innovation in TRON.
Governments getting involved and putting their thumb on the scales to control the economy is the opposite of capitalism.
Government getting involved and putting their thumb on the economy is as capitalist as it gets.
South Sea Trading bubble, East India Company, Lake Eyrie Canal, trans continental railroad. Teapot Dome.
The government has ALLWAYS had its thumb on the scale for big business interests and if you think that’s not true I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.
Right next to some beachfront property in Arizona.
I don’t understand your comment.
You’re listing things and going “BAD” so Capitalism is bad.
A trading bubble is really just economics. Can’t really say Capitalism causes that. The East India Trading Company is mercantilism which as evil as that specific company was the idea of trading goods from one country to another is like the core of our entire economic trade system today. Teapot Dome was flagrant corruption which happens in any economic system, the Canal and the railroad are more examples of labor exploitation which you can easily argue was less bad than the labor exploitation that came before it and led to better labor laws in the country.
It’s like you’re pointing at a gun and saying “FIRE MADE GUN, FIRE BAD!” because guns kill people. It’s pretty caveman.
I mean, capitalist do the same thing with socialism every day. It takes a lot of propaganda to get people to believe that caring for your neighbors = bad.
did you read the article? TRON was heavily backed by the japanese government.
Say the line!!
“That isn’t REAL captialism”
Lmao
Just like the dumbasses say “the Soviet Union wasn’t REAL communism”?
Except I’m correct. A government implementing protectionist policies to control economic sectors is not capitalist.
Yes it is - capitalism demands that in fact. You’re thinking of free-markets. Capitalism inevitably destroys free markets.
Lets see if we can agree on some definitions.
What you’re describing as “free-markets” I know as laissez-faire capitalism. This definition came from, unsurprisingly, the French in the 18th century and was used heavily by Adam Smith in the book The Wealth of Nations. I think we all agree there are very few, if any, true large scale laissez-faire capitalism in operation today.
What have in most places is regulated capitalism where there are government rules that change the outcome to a different outcome (sometimes better/sometimes worse) that would have occurred under laissez-faire capitalism.
Are we in agreement with these definitions or do we still have discussion needed to arrive at the same place?
OK sure - if we’re being strict and academic about this - perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn’t really exist, and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.
I agree with this without any reservations.
I take exception with “always”. In the USA for example, there have been many notable exceptions where state capitalism implemented protections from abuses that pure laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed. The National Labor Relations Act was a state action that allowed for collective bargaining of workers. More recently the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau acted as an agent against uncheck capitalist forcing a fair playing field.
I’d probably agree if you changed your word to “frequently” though.
fair - I agree ;)
Government tipping the scales to help their capitalist mates seems to be exactly how capitalism works.
And North Korea is definitely a democratic republic 🙄🙄
Except I never said you were factually incorrect, since that seems to be the most important thing for you to get out of this exchange.
It is capitalism. It’s all part of the system.