Get Rid of Capitalism?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

First of all, capitalism *is* crony capitalism. You don't get one without t'other, and it is working fine.

Second, we actually know exactly how to make it work even better for more people. It just takes the sort of vigorous anti-trust, and financial and industrial regulations you get from a lefty-wefty like Teddy Roosevelt. We can continue to abandon sensible policies and statecraft in pursuit of a 'pure,' laissez-faire, trickle-down fairy tale if we like, and then start wincing about how capitalism isn't working 'cause of cronyism... but that misunderstands the 'problems' and ignores the known solutions.

And, as we move closer and closer to a zero-cost production, 3D, nano-tech, Star Trek, post-scarcity, post-capital society, the problems just work themselves directly the fuck out, since I can just trade smiles and hugs for water and iPods.

[tue4t]

First of all, capitalism *is* crony capitalism. You don't get one without t'other, and it is working fine.

That's just lazy and you don't get to just make up outright lies without getting called out.

Either explain why or go learn some actual economics and logics or something. Not only are they fundamentally different, but we have historical evidence of different shades of laissez faire throughout history which very clearly indicates that the two concepts (cronyism and free market capitalism) can be disassociated even if you want to flee to the level of pragmatic truth where humans interact with concepts.

A domestic dog is not a wolf, unless i guess you've been molly coddled by weak ideologies like socialism into playing fast and loose with definitions and always thinking your emotional intuitions represent truth.

Second, we actually know exactly how to make it work even better for more people. It just takes the sort of vigorous anti-trust, and financial and industrial regulations you get from a lefty-wefty like Teddy Roosevelt. We can continue to abandon sensible policies and statecraft in pursuit of a 'pure,' laissez-faire, trickle-down fairy tale if we like, and then start wincing about how capitalism isn't working 'cause of cronyism... but that misunderstands the 'problems' and ignores the known solutions.

First, the entire definition of cronyism is the involvement of government force as a proxy for monopolisation and special favours. Your solution to cronyism is to increase government economic interventionism? When I have cancer, do i reach a state of health by getting more cancer or less cancer?

Anti-trust? Go read the history of microsoft and ibm. IBM was absolutely destroyed by antitrust, allowing another dominant player (microsoft) to take over, which was subsequently also extorted by lazy ass rent seeking political cronies.

Make your case from historical evidence then. Shouldn't be hard since you "actually know exactly". Because as far as i recall post ww2 britain was a shitshow of exactly the type of state economy you want. While free market germany absolutely destroyed by the war overtook them in less than a generation.

And, as we move closer and closer to a zero-cost production, 3D, nano-tech, Star Trek, post-scarcity, post-capital society, the problems just work themselves directly the fuck out, since I can just trade smiles and hugs for water and iPods.

Here's what you don't understand with your socialist utopian dreaming. The only way you will approach zero cost production is if people have incentive to do so. That incentive only exists within free markets where people get to keep the fruits of their labour. To paraphrase elon musk, technology doesn't just passively advance like some external law of physics. It constantly requires the hard work of very smart people for very long periods of time, and that's just when it comes to maintenance. You think you can just "trade a smile" for their efforts?

You shut the door to your socialist dream the very second you implement your command economy. Infact a hundred million people died, the world plunged into nuclear crisis, and countries destroyed all around the world from east asia to africa to south america because of the gospel of scientific socialism and the promised heaven of economic abundance.

Second, star trek is fiction and like all fiction is meant to be taken as an honest exploration of ideas, not as gospel. You ever notice how there's still an efficient allocation of resources according to merit? Does everyone get to become the captain of their own ship, let alone fly one of those godahm things? Why do all you socialists never talk about the oppressive star fleet class monopolising all the ships and preventing other people from using them? Let alone the structure of top down meritocracy WITHIN STAR FLEET ITSELF.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I wasn't the one suggesting we were inexorably moving towards a post scarcity utopia. I just think it is the sort of problem you want to have.

Now, by 'free market' Germany, do you mean highly subsidized Germany? Although, I suppose I can't really expect you to use words in a meaningful way if you use a phrase like 'shades of laissez-faire.'

What is that supposed to mean?

Laissez-faire; from French: laissez faire, lit. 'let do') is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government intervention such as regulation, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies.

A shade would imply some government intervention, at least, and thus, not laissez-faire. Capitalism rests on the state intervening in many ways, large and small. From issuing corporate charters, to protecting shipping lanes, investing in infrastructure that isn't initially profitable and insuring lenders to encourage easy credit for the entrepreneurial minded. These aren't inherently bad things. If you think they count as 'socialism,' you are probably confused about what that word means as well, seeing as none of those propositions limit private ownership of the means of production.

A market can be quite free in regards to products getting to consumers, and still be cronyism right to the core.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Anti-trust? Go read the history of microsoft and ibm. IBM was absolutely destroyed by antitrust, allowing another dominant player (microsoft) to take over, which was subsequently also extorted by lazy ass rent seeking political cronies.

Sorry, I missed this little gem.

So what? That is the point of anti-trust. Creative destruction in order to create opportunities for better products or ideas that would be shut out by a monopoly. Better for the consumer, better for economic growth. The fuck do I care if it is IBM or Microsoft? They can both eat my rod.

Microsoft too big? Bust 'em up, and let someone with better ideas take a crack at innovating in the market.

[tue4t]

Only a fool tries to rationalise a justification for their violent looting. Let me go burn down the local store and then claim credit for the hard work of the people who try to build it back up again.

For you to use creative destruction in the context of government destroying something with unprincipled legal force out of directionless incompetence and greed is really something. You seem to have your definitions rather malevolently twisted around.

Capitalism revolves around voluntary, mutually beneficial transaction and private property rights that are based on the idea of self ownership. Players compete non-violently.

Crony capitalism is when the players hire muscle (government) to bypass voluntary consent between players in some way or another. Players compete violently.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I see.

The problem is that you just don't know the definition of capitalism, or understand the function of anti-trust in a market economy.

Burning and looting.

[Okeefenokee]

Let me go burn down the local store and then claim credit for the hard work of the people who try to build it back up again.

That's it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Apparently, the Manichaean school of economics is an easy sell, since morality plays are simple to understand.

Would that the world was actually a morality play.

[Fife]

[Fife]