
Milton Friedman: Is Capitalism Humane? (1977) [video] - eigenvalue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Tf8RN3uiM
======
JackRabbitSlim
"Where do you have the greatest degree in equality?" The answer to that looks
very different in 2020 than it did in 1970.

"Look at the wage rate between the foreman and the worker in Iussia" \- I
have, a foreman in the US today makes twice the hourly rate of the worker and
that's before benefits packages and other compensations low level hourly
workers do not get. So it can be more than double.

In fact, the OECD's own data the US is now has a wider inequality gap than
Russia.

[https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-
inequality.htm](https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm)

Only in economics could someone be so provably wrong yet considered a
luminary...

~~~
yaa_minu
The talk was given in 1977 when at the time Russia was socialist. This is no
more the case. A better comparison can be made today with say Venezuela.

------
tothrowaway
Anyone looking for a challenging read should consider Milton Friedman's book
"Capitalism and Freedom". It's short, but very dense. He covers topics like a
negative income tax (which you've heard of) and ideas you've probably never
considered (like school vouchers, elimination of occupational licensure, and
elimination of tariffs).

The downside is, if you find his arguments convincing, it will leave you
feeling even more angry about the current role of government in society.

------
throwanem
"Capitalism prevents concentrations of power" was a pretty wild take even for
1977! Here in 2020, it's _arrantly ludicrous._

~~~
yaa_minu
The concentration of power, in this case, refers to political power not
market(economic) power. If you think about it carefully, economic power often
is very weak and vulnerable as they often derive them from consumers which
means they can only maintain it by giving consumers what they want. People
like Bezos, Bill Gates are far less powerful than say, Putin, Erdogan, Xi,
etc.

As an example, how far did Bloomberg's billions take him in the democratic
nomination?

~~~
throwanem
In what way does capitalism act to prevent concentration of _political_ power,
then?

------
cSoze
At about 8 minutes he starts talking about looking at the outcomes of the
different systems. Specifically he brings up incarceration rates and
inequality. It's interesting how poorly the United States currently stacks up
on those measures compared to democratic socialist countries.

~~~
yaa_minu
45% of incarcerations in the US are due to the drug war [1].

[https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...](https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp)

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
Which greatly benefits the private prison–industrial complex, which can lobby
in favor of such war, and increase its profit.

~~~
yaa_minu
So the solution is to abolish capitalism right? Assuming you're right with
your "lobbying" claim, how can you solve this by increasing government
involvement in the economy? won't it be the same corrupt politicians who would
be more empowered to pass laws to benefit their cronies?

Criminal justice reform or simply decriminalizing drug use will eliminate this
problem entirely.

------
sharemywin
The main argument for Capitalism is choice and competition. Any argument of
freedom without choice to me is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm not sure laissez faire capitalism if there is such a thing has proven it
doesn't consolidate into monopolies or cartels. Especially when it comes to
distribution, communication and software(with bundling).

~~~
injb
Can you give an example of a monopoly that has been brought about and
maintained by capitalism - i.e. not maintained by organized crime or the power
of the government, but by the principles of free market capitalism alone?

~~~
karatestomp
Got any examples of capitalism that aren't maintained by a government?

[EDIT] OK that was a bit glib. My point is things are a lot more complicated
than "capitalism does this, government does that" and the two are essentially
inseparable. Further this entire thread is full of "markets = capitalism"
which is missing the mark—tendencies toward free market policies are a
defining feature of capitalism, but free markets _per se_ aren't identical to
capitalism.

~~~
hfdh434535
Good point, and we need to recognize that every so-called free market still
relies on governments to enforce the rules (to enforce contracts, to issue
currency, to protect against fraud, etc). If governments disappeared tomorrow,
we would not have a free market utopia spring up in it's place. Instead we'd
have a no-rules situation where the powerful could take advantage of the weak.
Some other system, potentially worse than what we already have, would fill the
power vacuum.

~~~
injb
Well I agree that governments can do some beneficial things. But there's a few
problems with what you're saying here (and I hope I'm not taking you too
literally): firstly, all the rules you list can be handled with alternatives.
Secondly, the fact that the sudden disappearance of government would not lead
to a utopia doesn't mean that governments are fundamentally needed (although
they might be). As an analogy: if crude oil disappeared tomorrow, we would not
have a renewable energy utopia - we'd have a disaster. Does that mean that
there's no alternative to crude oil? Of course not. Finally, a "situation
where the powerful could take advantage of the weak" is really just the
situation that we have now, and must always have. It's really a tautology.

~~~
hfdh434535
I apologize for not being clear enough, and I think I misread your intentions.
There are people on HN who believe the government could be abolished tomorrow
and replaced with private services, including a private military force, and
that this would make everyone more free, since the invisible hand of the
market would do the job of protecting the rights of the ordinary people. I
mistook you for one of those people.

Governments aren't fundamentally needed per se to create a free market. But
rules are needed. And whatever system we have to enforce those rules would
resemble a defacto government. How that governments power is distributed,
who's interests it represents, and how far it goes in regulating the market
may vary.

Without someone enforcing rules to keep monopolies in check, I think those
monopolies would become defacto governments. And they wouldn't be democratic.
This is what I mean (but did not carefully express) when I said that some
government intervention in the markets are needed to prevent the powerful from
take advantage of the weak. (And it can go the other way too... governments
tilting the scale in favor of existing powerful interests.)

------
viburnum
The trick with Milton Friedman is to find the one ludicrous assumption his
whole analysis hangs on.

~~~
injb
Which is?

~~~
andrepd
I haven't watched this particular lecture, but I watched (part of) a rather
popular series of lectures, and he had such gems as "colonial empires spent
more money in the colonies than they got in return", or "the wheel was never
invented in Africa until Europeans arrived", which are such ludicrous,
patently false statements that you're even at a loss as how to react.

~~~
conanbatt
Do you have a source for the first claim? Adam smith himself writes about how
it is more expensive for the British to provide military defense for Colonial
America than what they get from the trade rights.

~~~
ssivark
Well, presumably that was why they didn’t put up as much of a fight when the
American states wanted freedom. Compare with what happened in the other
colonies. It is silly to think they would have continued a multi-century high-
effort enterprise at a continuing operating loss.

EDIT: _multi-century_. Yes, governments sometimes do stupid things (on shorter
timescales), but it’s also a great opportunity for each new
government/generation to pin the folly on the old, and do better.

~~~
leftyted
Not everything is about economics.

It is often argued that the gulag in the USSR was never a net gain
economically. You could conclude one of two things from that:

1\. The Soviets were dumb or

2\. The Soviets had other reasons for maintaining an expansive network of
prisons

I would go with 2 and I'd also argue that the colonial powers had other
reasons for maintaining colonies.

~~~
andrepd
?

How is that remotely comparable? The main purpose of the gulag system is plain
enough: punishment, control, and only secondarily, slave/forced labour for
economic gain.

The colonial system is precisely the opposite: the main purpose is to extract
value, through extraction, trade, industry, etc, from the colonies to the
mainland.

~~~
leftyted
It's "remotely comparable" because it has been argued that the Soviet economy
only worked as well as it did due to slave labor, i.e. that the gulag existed
primarily for "slave/forced labour for economic gain". And people make similar
arguments about the colonial powers.

> The colonial system is precisely the opposite: the main purpose is to
> extract value, through extraction, trade, industry, etc, from the colonies
> to the mainland.

That's your opinion; I don't think it's true. I think the point of colonialism
is an attempt to guarantee the nation state's survival. Churchill:

> We shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this
> island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire
> beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the
> struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and
> might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

I don't pretend to know whether or not colonies were a net-benefit
economically. But, either way, I don't think economic arguments provided the
fundamental justification for colonialism. I think the colony exists for the
same reason the family, the polis, the nation state, and the empire exist,
which is a desire for immortality or, if you prefer, an attempt to prevent the
achievements of men from being obliterated by time.

------
yogthos
Betteridge's law of headlines applies here

------
rconti
Without watching a 45 minute video, I assume the argument is something like:

> whatever system most effectively leverages comparative advantage / generates
> the most wealth / most efficiently allocates resources is that which is most
> humane, because it has the possibility to lift the most people from poverty,
> from inhumane conditions.

It is, of course, up to societies to regulate the allocation of those
resources to maximize the realization of that possibility.

~~~
oDot
If you agree that capitalism makes for the most efficient allocation of
resources, there is no need to regulate that allocation.

~~~
yogthos
The real question is towards what end those resources are being efficiently
allocated. Capitalism is an incredibly efficient system for accumulating
resources with a tiny percentage of the population at the expense of everyone
else. This is precisely why late stage capitalist societies inevitably turn
into oligarchies.

~~~
oDot
Free markets are NOT a zero sum game.

If I buy an iPhone from Apple for $1000, you'd think they "accumulated
resources at my expense", but I got something -- an iPhone.

That iPhone is worth for me more than $1000, otherwise I'd keep the $1000.

For Apple, it's worth less, otherwise it would raise the price or go bankrupt.

Both parties are better off.

What people call "late stage Capitalism" is not Capitalism at all -- it is
Cronyism. It is the private sector buying favors from the government.
Capitalism prevents that by definition.

True capitalism may as well make people very rich, and although I've not
verified it, I am willing to concede that it widens the wealth gap. However,
poor people in capitalist countries are far richer than they would have been
without it.

Why would you care about the gap? Care about how you are doing.

~~~
yogthos
Of course markets are a zero sum game. The reality is that capital owners
accumulate majority of the resources in the country. Then they use these
resources to manipulate laws, fund political campaigns, and news organizations
for their own benefit. Average American cannot afford an unexpected $400
expense [1], while 3 richest people own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the
country [2]. Thinking that this isn't a zero sum game takes a lot of naivete.

Under capitalism the government is nothing more than a management committee
for the rich because the rich have millions of times more political influence
than a regular citizen. Here's what a long term Cambridge study [3] found
about the effects of capitalism in America:

>What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly
constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want
governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of
their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does
not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy
outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with
organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong
status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large
majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

This mythical true capitalism you speak of has never been observed in practice
because it's at odds with basic human nature. Capitalism favors psychopathic
behavior because those who are willing to be ruthless, to step over others,
cheat, lie, and steal will out-compete those who do not. Likewise, the idea
that poor people in capitalist countries are far richer than they would be
without it is a complete and utter fantasy. [4]

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-
americans-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-
cant-handle-a-400-unexpected-expense.html)

[2]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-ric...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-
americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-
finds/#1a9eb78a3cf8)

[3] [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-
poli...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-
politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-
and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/core-reader)

[4] [https://sci-
hub.tw//https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10....](https://sci-
hub.tw//https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/AD12-7RYT-XVAR-3R2U)

~~~
oDot
I have demonstrated precisely how it is not zero sum, using the iPhone
example.

> Under capitalism the government is nothing more than a management committee
> for the rich...

You are mixing definitions here. Capitalism means private ownership, and what
you've described there is government control. The US has Cronyism, not
Capitalism. Your argument for it being mythic also mises the mark. Cheating,
lying and stealing are illegal under Capitalism.

The 4th citation is completely false, as it considers non-capitalist countries
capitalist. In that list, half the countries are "Mostly Unfree" or
"Repressed" according to the Index of Economic Freedom[0].

If you actually look at capitalist countries, that paper supports that so-
called "fantasy", as the countries mentioned as "High-income" are "Free" or
"Mostly free". Irony at its best.

[0]
[https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking](https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking)

~~~
yogthos
>I have demonstrated precisely how it is not zero sum, using the iPhone
example.

My claim is that capitalism accumulates wealth with a small percentage of the
population who then end up running the country as an oligarchy. Your iPhone
example does not in any way contradict that.

>You are mixing definitions here. Capitalism means private ownership, and what
you've described there is government control.

No, I've described how capitalists subvert the government to the interests of
the rich oligarchy produced via the system of capitalism.

>Your argument for it being mythic also mises the mark. Cheating, lying and
stealing are illegal under Capitalism.

That's the whole point, cheating, lying, and stealing are all effective means
of being competitive under capitalism. Since making profit is the sole metric
for success, these behaviors are inherently encouraged by the system.

>The 4th citation is completely false, as it considers non-capitalist
countries capitalist.

False, the study clearly explains its methodology and the definition for
capitalist countries.

>In that list, half the countries are "Mostly Unfree" or "Repressed" according
to the Index of Economic Freedom[0].

The discussion is whether capitalism improves quality of life, and the study
clearly shows that it's false across the board.

Meanwhile, I fundamentally disagree with your definition of freedom. A system
that forces people to sell vast majority of their lives simply in order to
survive is a form of slavery. It takes an incredibly dim mind to primarily
conceive of freedom in terms of consumerism.

~~~
oDot
> My claim is that capitalism accumulates wealth with a small percentage of
> the population who then end up running the country as an oligarchy. Your
> iPhone example does not in any way contradict that.

Please do not change the subject, we were discussing zero sum game.

> No, I've described how capitalism subverts the government to the interests
> of the rich oligarchy produced via the system of capitalism.

Capitalism requires a separation of economy and state. What you're describing
is Cronyism:

> Cronyism is the practice of partiality in awarding jobs and other advantages
> to friends or trusted colleagues, especially in politics and between
> politicians and supportive organizations.[0]

If capitalism is polluted with cronyism, you get Crony Capitalism:

> Crony capitalism is an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a
> result of risk, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus
> between a business class and the political class.[1]

> That's the whole point, cheating, lying, and stealing are all effective
> means of being competitive under capitalism. Since making profit is the sole
> metric for success, these behaviors are inherently encouraged by the system.

Except for the part where you spend jail time for fraud or theft.

> False, the study clearly explains its methodology and the definition for
> capitalist countries.

> The discussion is whether capitalism improves quality of life, and the study
> clearly shows that it's false across the board.

Look, the point here is not terminology. If you think Ghana is capitalist (as
the paper claims), I can see why you won't like that system. Please consider,
for the sake of this discussion, my definition of capitalism.

> Meanwhile, I fundamentally disagree with your definition of freedom. A
> system that forces people to sell vast majority of their lives simply in
> order to survive is a form of slavery. It takes an incredibly dim mind to
> primarily conceive of freedom in terms of consumerism.

That's the beauty of Capitalism. You're free. If you don't like the way of
life, you go with people who think the same way, and you build yourselves a
_voluntary_ communist heaven. No one will stop you, as in capitalism, all the
state does is protect you from violence (which I guess is a role we agree on).

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism)

~~~
yogthos
>Please do not change the subject, we were discussing zero sum game.

I'm not changing the subject. My claim is that it's a zero sum game of
resource accumulation. We're now at the point where over half the resources in
the world have been accumulated with a handful of individuals. Capitalism is
the engine that allowed this to happen.

>Capitalism requires a separation of economy and state. What you're describing
is Cronyism:

Cronyism is a necessary result of capitalism. People who have capital will
always be able to influence the state, there is no way to separate the two.
Capitalists are able to buy media, fund political campaigns, bribe
politicians, and so on. This is why capitalist countries necessarily turn into
oligarchies.

>Except for the part where you spend jail time for fraud or theft.

Rich people in Western countries practically never go to jail for fraud and
theft. The most egregious example was the 2008 global economic collapse where
millions of people lost all their savings and none of the people responsible
were punished. What's more, the institutions and people responsible got
massive bailouts at the expense of tax payers.

>That's the beauty of Capitalism. You're free.

Vast majority of people under capitalism have to spend large portions of their
lives working just to live. This idea that you can just go and do whatever you
like is a total fantasy because the only people who have the means to do that
are those who were lucky enough to be born rich. The rest of the population
has to spend their lives subsidizing the lifestyle of these birth lottery
winners. Any regular person needs to work for at least 40 hours a week just to
live, this is majority of their week taken away from them. It's utter
absurdity to claim that they're free to build themselves anything in the
little free time they have remaining.

You appear to have an incredibly infantile understanding of the relationship
between capitalism and society.

~~~
oDot
> I'm not changing the subject. My claim is that it's a zero sum game of
> resource accumulation. We're now at the point where over half the resources
> in the world have been accumulated with a handful of individuals. Capitalism
> is the engine that allowed this to happen.

And here you just changed the subject. You again talk about the wealth gap.
The wealth gap and zero sum game are not the same subject.

> Cronyism is a necessary result of capitalism. People who have capital will
> always be able to influence the state, there is no way to separate the two.
> Capitalists are able to buy media, fund political campaigns, bribe
> politicians, and so on. This is why capitalist countries necessarily turn
> into oligarchies.

But buying the state has nothing to do with capitalism -- it has to do with
the existence of a state, and the existence of rich people. Rich people exist
in every system we ever had in history, so unless you suggest we do something
other than a state, all that is left is to strengthen our protection of
capitalism with a better constitution.

> Rich people in Western countries practically never go to jail for fraud and
> theft.

Source please. But if true, is probably the fault of cronyism.

> The most egregious example was the 2008 global economic collapse where
> millions of people lost all their savings and none of the people responsible
> were punished. What's more, the institutions and people responsible got
> massive bailouts at the expense of tax payers.

That is the fault of government going hand the hand with the private sector.
Without the government, the crisis couldn't have been that big. In short, the
government had (1) very very low interest rates and (2) encouraged risky home
buying (3) practically insured bad mortgages. Do you think a bank would loan
to someone who can't pay back? Only if the government is there to the rescue.

There's a reason many Austrian economists predicted that crisis to amazingly
fine detail.

Now, you may reply "they did it because rich people bought them". Maybe, but
that's Cronyism, not Capitalism.

> Vast majority of people under capitalism have to spend large portions of
> their lives working just to live. This idea that you can just go and do
> whatever you like is a total fantasy because the only people who have the
> means to do that are those who were lucky enough to be born rich. The rest
> of the population has to spend their lives subsidizing the lifestyle of
> these birth lottery winners. Any regular person needs to work for at least
> 40 hours a week just to live, this is majority of their week taken away from
> them. It's utter absurdity to claim that they're free to build themselves
> anything in the little free time they have remaining.

I get what you're saying, but if you think there's a better way, a truly
capitalist system doesn't stop you from implementing it inside of capitalism.
So if you want that communist heaven, capitalism saves you the need for
revolution, or the need to go find a large-enough desert island. You just
build the commie heaven inside the capitalist land.

> You appear to have an incredibly infantile understanding of the relationship
> between capitalism and society.

That's bold, coming from the guy claiming Ghana is capitalist.

Either way, it seems like we are in agreement that Capitalism is not the
problem, Cronyism is. The disagreement is if the end of all Capitalist systems
is Cronyism. I think Cronyism is independent of Capitalism. All it needs is a
state (=monopoly on force) and rich people. Just look at every country we had
in history, capitalist or not, they all had a ruling class. The solution to
that is to have the constitution limit the power of government even more. That
way, when rich people will come to buy favors, there will be none for the
politicians to sell.

~~~
yogthos
>And here you just changed the subject. You again talk about the wealth gap.
The wealth gap and zero sum game are not the same subject.

It's the same subject, the wealth gap is precisely what's being discussed
here. This is my original comment:

>The real question is towards what end those resources are being efficiently
allocated. Capitalism is an incredibly efficient system for accumulating
resources with a tiny percentage of the population at the expense of everyone
else. This is precisely why late stage capitalist societies inevitably turn
into oligarchies.

If anything, you're the one who keeps trying to change the discussion from the
original topic.

>But buying the state has nothing to do with capitalism -- it has to do with
the existence of a state, and the existence of rich people. Rich people exist
in every system we ever had in history, so unless you suggest we do something
other than a state, all that is left is to strengthen our protection of
capitalism with a better constitution.

In practice, some systems are much more unequal than others. For example,
people like Gates or Bezos simply didn't exist in USSR, there was no
generational wealth, and the highest gap in pay was around 10x. Saying that
there is no difference between that and what happens in capitalist countries
is simply false equivalence.

>Source please. But if true, is probably the fault of cronyism.

And cronyism is a direct byproduct of capitalism and inequality.

And here's a breakdown of prison population by wealth in US. The prisons are
predominantly filled with poor people, and you'll be hard pressed to find a
CEO going to prison for any crime. Just recently Boeing killed two plane loads
full of people due to criminal negligence, nobody's going to jail for that.
The CEO got a golden parachute instead.
[https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html)

>That is the fault of government going hand the hand with the private sector.
Without the government, the crisis couldn't have been that big. In short, the
government had (1) very very low interest rates and (2) encouraged risky home
buying (3) practically insured bad mortgages. Do you think a bank would loan
to someone who can't pay back? Only if the government is there to the rescue.

And why is the government going hand in hand with the private sector? It's as
if, and bear with me here, the private sector bought the government with all
that wealth capitalists have accumulated. It amazes me to no end that you're
unable to make this connection.

>Now, you may reply "they did it because rich people bought them". Maybe, but
that's Cronyism, not Capitalism.

Capitalism is the engine that creates a system of cronyism because it allows
wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few. Again, this is not a complex
concept that a fully grown adult should be struggling with.

>I get what you're saying, but if you think there's a better way, a truly
capitalist system doesn't stop you from implementing it inside of capitalism.
So if you want that communist heaven, capitalism saves you the need for
revolution, or the need to go find a large-enough desert island. You just
build the commie heaven inside the capitalist land.

Capitalism was the cause of the revolutions since it's been around. Meanwhile,
you might want to read up on what USA does to communist and socialist
countries around the world. Go read some history of South Asia, and Latin
America for starters. No single socialist regime has been left unmolested in
the past century.

>Either way, it seems like we are in agreement that Capitalism is not the
problem, Cronyism is.

No, I'm saying that capitalism is a mechanism that allows wealth to be
accumulated with a small percentage of the population, and these people end up
running the country as an oligarchy as is the case with US, and other Western
regimes right now. I don't think any system that allows large scale inequality
is compatible with democracy.

Meanwhile, limiting the power of the government achieves the complete opposite
of what you're proposing. A democratic government answers to its citizens,
while private interests only answer to their owners. Wealth inequality is the
root cause for the corruption of the government, and that's what needs to be
eliminated to have actual democracy and representation of the people by the
government.

~~~
oDot
>The real question is towards what end those resources are being efficiently
allocated. Capitalism is an incredibly efficient system for accumulating
resources with a tiny percentage of the population at the expense of everyone
else. This is precisely why late stage capitalist societies inevitably turn
into oligarchies.

"at the expense of everyone else" implies a zero-sum game. Wealth gap,
however, can widen even in a positive-sum game. As demonstrated by my iPhone
example. I can also create a simplified game that does this. Every turn,
player A gets 10 points, and player B gets 1 point. Gap widens, yet all gain.

> In practice, some systems are much more unequal than others. For example,
> people like Gates or Bezos simply didn't exist in USSR, there was no
> generational wealth, and the highest gap in pay was around 10x. Saying that
> there is no difference between that and what happens in capitalist countries
> is simply false equivalence.

This may be true if only currency was measured, but wealth is measured with
assets and services as well (expenses), and in the USSR there was a ruling
class, and those close to it, and they enjoyed much better lives than the
common man in the USSR. They had better goods, better services, and they, yes,
enjoyed Cronyism. Communism is a very poor example, as there is literally a
ruling class the controls other people's lives, which is something I gathered
you want to avoid.

> And cronyism is a direct byproduct of capitalism and inequality.

> And here's a breakdown of prison population by wealth in US. The prisons are
> predominantly filled with poor people, and you'll be hard pressed to find a
> CEO going to prison for any crime. Just recently Boeing killed two plane
> loads full of people due to criminal negligence, nobody's going to jail for
> that. The CEO got a golden parachute instead.
> [https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html)

> And why is the government going hand in hand with the private sector? It's
> as if, and bear with me here, the private sector bought the government with
> all that wealth capitalists have accumulated. It amazes me to no end that
> you're unable to make this connection.

> Capitalism is the engine that creates a system of cronyism because it allows
> wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few. Again, this is not a complex
> concept that a fully grown adult should be struggling with.

All of these talk about either (1) Cronyism is bad or (2) Capitalism
inevitably leads to Cronyism. (1) is something I agree with. (2) You've yet to
demonstrate that is _unique_ to capitalism. Can you give me an example of a
single country where there isn't a ruling class that enjoys better quality of
life and government favors?

> Capitalism was the cause of the revolutions since it's been around.
> Meanwhile, you might want to read up on what USA does to communist and
> socialist countries around the world. Go read some history of South Asia,
> and Latin America for starters. No single socialist regime has been left
> unmolested in the past century.

That is _Cronyism_. Could you stop giving the Cronyisnt aspects of the US as
examples of Capitalism? Capitalism calls for __Non __-aggression, and uses an
Army in self-defense only.

> No, I'm saying that capitalism is a mechanism that allows wealth to be
> accumulated with a small percentage of the population, and these people end
> up running the country as an oligarchy as is the case with US, and other
> Western regimes right now. I don't think any system that allows large scale
> inequality is compatible with democracy.

> Meanwhile, limiting the power of the government achieves the complete
> opposite of what you're proposing. A democratic government answers to its
> citizens, while private interests only answer to their owners. Wealth
> inequality is the root cause for the corruption of the government, and
> that's what needs to be eliminated to have actual democracy and
> representation of the people by the government.

Well, we look differently at the role of government. To me, government isn't
some tool to force other people. I don't care if it's the few rich forcing the
majority middle class, or if it's the majority middle class forcing a rich
minority. I am against forcing (using or threatening the use of physical
force) other people.

This eliminates the "path to Cronyism" you described. When some rich people
(not every rich person is bad) will go and ask for artificially low interest
rates or for favoring regulation that limits competition, the government will
be limited and could not give it to them.

Again -- if you believe some Communist or Socialist heaven is better suited to
supply everyone's needs, no one is stopping you from building such a thing, as
Capitalism lets you live as you wish. If it's as good as you say, most
citizens will probably join you anyway. I'm not sure how democratic it'll be,
but as long as it's voluntary, enjoy yourselves.

~~~
yogthos
>Wealth gap, however, can widen even in a positive-sum game. As demonstrated
by my iPhone example. I can also create a simplified game that does this.
Every turn, player A gets 10 points, and player B gets 1 point. Gap widens,
yet all gain.

That's not what's happening in practice however. Your iphone example is
frankly nonsense because the discussion is about wealth accumulation. And
wealth is being accumulated with a small percentage of the population at the
expense of everyone else. Average American has less savings than they did in
the past decades, and they're forced to work more. Rich accumulate wealth at
the expense of the rest.

Millennial in US have only 3% of the wealth while a handful of people own more
wealth than the rest of the country. Thinking this isn't a zero sum game is
height of stupidity.

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/millennials-have-just-3-of-
us-w...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/millennials-have-just-3-of-us-wealth-
boomers-at-their-age-had-21/)

>This may be true if only currency was measured, but wealth is measured with
assets and services as well (expenses), and in the USSR there was a ruling
class, and those close to it, and they enjoyed much better lives than the
common man in the USSR.

I lived in USSR, and that's completely false, and shows that you have
absolutely no clue what you're talking about. First, there was no ruling class
the way you have in capitalist societies because there was no generational
wealth. The party consisted of regular people, and many of party leaders, like
Khrushchev, came from villages. This was possible because social services like
healthcare and education were evenly distributed. This is what meritocracy
actually looks like. Second, the gap in quality of life was much smaller than
it is in the west, and politicians and administrators were not the highest
earners.

>All of these talk about either (1) Cronyism is bad or (2) Capitalism
inevitably leads to Cronyism. (1) is something I agree with. (2) You've yet to
demonstrate that is _unique_ to capitalism. Can you give me an example of a
single country where there isn't a ruling class that enjoys better quality of
life and government favors?

I don't have to demonstrate that this is something that's unique to
capitalism. I only have to demonstrate that capitalism facilitates this
problem. The fact that other systems aren't perfect is completely irrelevant
to the question. Furthermore, you're making a false equivalence once again
here. And your previous comment clearly shows that you're also deeply ignorant
regarding how USSR actually functioned.

However, even if you were right that other systems failed to address the
problem that is not defense of capitalism. It just means that we need to
continue experimenting and trying new things.

>That is Cronyism. Could you stop giving the Cronyisnt aspects of the US as
examples of Capitalism? Capitalism calls for Non-aggression, and uses an Army
in self-defense only.

Cronyism is byproduct of capitalism. I'm not sure how many times I have to
repeat this. The who are inseparable, and I've already explained why numerous
times. If you still aren't able to wrap your head around this, I don't think
there's anything else I can tell you here.

>Well, we look differently at the role of government. To me, government isn't
some tool to force other people.

It appears that you don't understand what a democratic government is then.

>I don't care if it's the few rich forcing the majority middle class, or if
it's the majority middle class forcing a rich minority. I am against forcing
(using or threatening the use of physical force) other people.

And in your Mad Max world without government who prevents rich people from
forcing poor people to do what they want again?

>This eliminates the "path to Cronyism" you described. When some rich people
(not every rich person is bad) will go and ask for artificially low interest
rates or for favoring regulation that limits competition, the government will
be limited and could not give it to them.

It obviously does not. If you don't have a government that's answerable to the
people, then all you're left with is Darwinism where strong abuse and exploit
the weak.

>Again -- if you believe some Communist or Socialist heaven is better suited
to supply everyone's needs, no one is stopping you from building such a thing,
as Capitalism lets you live as you wish. If it's as good as you say, most
citizens will probably join you anyway. I'm not sure how democratic it'll be,
but as long as it's voluntary, enjoy yourselves.

Again, I've already explained that US has in fact been actively waging wars
against every socialist and communist country out there. US currently forces
sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela, it's done countless coups and regime changes
in Latin America, it has installed brutal dictators like Pinochet, and killed
millions of people to stomp out communism and socialism. You are deeply
ignorant of history and geopolitics making your arguments naive and infantile.

~~~
oDot
You say my iPhone example is nonsense yet you speak about wealth accumulation
in a way that supports my example.

You ignore other countries falling the exact same faults as you say Capitalism

You seem to support a democracy where a majority could vote to oppress a
minority

You blame me for suggesting a world "without government" which is extreme
intellectual dishonesty, especially when I mention limited _government_.

Then you, once again, point at the problems with the US that are Cronyism, not
Capitalism.

Living in the USSR is nothing more than an anecdote, the same way Mainland
Chinese claim wrongs about China, probably without even knowing[0].

I'm sorry, but this is the point where I leave this discussion, as it seems to
go nowhere. I suggest you read a little about the quality of life in the 1950s
in the US, before Cronyism caught up to it, and compare it to the quality of
life in the USSR at the time.

[0]: Warning, difficult to watch.
[https://youtu.be/rbHxeOQA1Mc?t=933](https://youtu.be/rbHxeOQA1Mc?t=933)

~~~
yogthos
>You say my iPhone example is nonsense yet you speak about wealth accumulation
in a way that supports my example.

The concrete numbers do not support your example. You just keep repeating
nonsense over and over, but it's still nonsense. 3 richest people own more
wealth than bottom 50% of the population, while millenials own 3% of the
overall wealth. If you don't understand that there's a vertical wealth
transfer happening to the capital owner class, then I really don't know what
else to tell you.

>You ignore other countries falling the exact same faults as you say
Capitalism

Regardless of what faults other systems have, it's clear that capitalism
causes the problems I've outlined. The discussion is about capitalism and its
impact on society.

>You seem to support a democracy where a majority could vote to oppress a
minority

That's literally how democracy works, people vote and then we enact policies
that are in the interest of the majority. Sounds like you're promoting
authoritarianism here.

>You blame me for suggesting a world "without government" which is extreme
intellectual dishonesty, especially when I mention limited _government_.

I'm not blaming you, I'm pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

>Then you, once again, point at the problems with the US that are Cronyism,
not Capitalism.

Once again I'll repeat that cronyism is a byproduct of capitalism. I've
explained this to you repeatedly, yet you keep on ignoring that and pretending
that these things are separate. Now that's what I call intellectual
dishonesty.

>Living in the USSR is nothing more than an anecdote, the same way Mainland
Chinese claim wrongs about China, probably without even knowing[0].

Again, you ignore the concrete points I made about how USSR function. You're
intellectually dishonest.

>I'm sorry, but this is the point where I leave this discussion, as it seems
to go nowhere.

And here I thought I'd never see the end of your drivel. Meanwhile, you might
want to watch some footage from Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. US killed over
half a million people in Iraq alone buddy.

~~~
Sowas
If you own the device where you read HN on: Would you say it is worth the
money you paid for it? Why/ why not?

~~~
yogthos
It's worth the money I paid for because I use it to do things I'm interested
in doing. However, if you're planning to argue that such a device would not
exist without capitalism, then I'm going to disagree with you.

~~~
Sowas
No, I'm going to argue that you gained more through possessing the device than
by having the money you spent. Unless your stance is that only money is
wealth.

~~~
yogthos
Since money can be exchanged for goods and services, having more money
directly translates into having more options to pursue your interests. If I
had a bit more money, I could get an even better device, or if I was a
billionaire I could pursue interests like making rockets, or any other fancy.

So, my stance is that money directly translates into increased opportunity in
a capitalist society. Meanwhile, the relationship between capital owners and
works is asymmetric where the capital owner keeps majority of the profit from
the value that the workers create.

