Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The title implies Capitalism is broken. It's not. Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history. American Capitalism has produced the telephone, the automobile, the personal computer, the cell phone, the internet, and made us one of the richest countries in the world.

A better title would be, Tweaks that can make American Capitalism Better.




For a long time America has been by far the richest country in the world, without a credible second place (though maybe China is that now)

And yet for decades the quality of life of hundreds of millions of Americans is lower than that of people in other, poorer developed countries.

Why is that? What's the point in having the richest country if it doesn't have the best conditions for those living in it?

Is it worthwhile just being rich for the sake of being rich, even if you get no benefit from it?


> And yet for decades the quality of life of hundreds of millions of Americans is lower than that of people in other, poorer developed countries.

This statement is wildly ignorant or intentionally misleading, you are claiming that at the very least 2/3 of all americans have a quality of life worse than other poorer countries. this is simply a false unsubstantiated statement.


No, it's completely true. Most Americans do not have a better quality of life than most Swedes, most Danes, or most Germans.


There is no objective measure of quality of life. It might well be that you personally would rather be poor there than here, but it's not an objective and verifiable statement, and it could easily go the other way. It depends on which factors that you, personally, rate highest.


I agree that there is no 100% objective measure; however, that doesn't mean that we cannot look at common factors and get an overall idea.

Something along the lines of the degree to which one's life allows them to: Meet their physical needs Own a house/land Raise a family Have atonomy Satisfy higher needs such as education, creativity, self improvement, etc.


I think part of many Americans' quality of life definition is the possibility to hit it big and end up in the top 10% and have an even better life than most Swedes/Danes/Germans. Temporarily embarrassed millionaires.


Depending on how you measure how "rich" a country is, the US often isn't #1 and there are plenty that are a close #2 (Japan, Western Europe).

And yes, the quality of life for many Americans is lower than developing countries, but that's because the developing countries have become richer.


Ok. We found a good move. But did we find the best move? Or, somewhat more weakly, can we find a better move?

Don't let the good be the enemy of the better.


Don't let someone's opinion or conceptualization of "better" be the enemy of what's good.


Isn't that exactly what joshuaheard said, though?


No because capitalism, even on paper, will still imply poverty as a structural element. Without poverty and exploitation, the system cannot sustain itself. This without considering waste: Capitalism, being competitive at every scale, implies that to give feedback to the system, you have to waste. Waste resources, waste time, waste lives. The more waste, the better the outcome.

If it works by different assumptions, it stops being capitalism. So if you aim to remove these elements, you're aiming at destroying capitalism.


I cannot figure out how you came to the conclusion that poverty and exploitation are structural elements to capitalism.

In fact, I believe the opposite is true: that capitalism succeeds despite the drag that decisions made under desperate poverty (and the exploitation that comes with that) makes on the system. And, without that drag, capitalism would actually be far more successful than it already is.


One definition of capitalism is simply the re-investment of profits into improvements - better tools, for example. That in no way implies poverty as a structural element.


I believe what GP is trying to say is that capitalism necessarily creates such an element, since they view it as a class structure society.


I believe that's what they are saying, too. I think it's flat-out wrong.

If you and I are both working stiffs, and we both have $50 left at the end of the month, and you buy some beer, and I buy a used sewing machine so I can take sewing jobs in the evening, then I'm a capitalist and you aren't. That doesn't make us of different classes, though, (except that I may be mentally at a different place than you are).


>and I buy a used sewing machine so I can take sewing jobs in the evening, then I'm a capitalist and you aren't

I don't think that's true. In the traditional schema (for its faults and advantages), a capitalist is someone who both owns capital and employs wage labour. If you hired people to work on your sewing machine and kept their produce, that would likely make you a capitalist. At the end of the day, these examples don't work well to illustrate the notion of capitalism as a social phenomenon, rather than one involving two individuals who buy beer.


If you're interested, read up on the Islamic economic system. It allows for competition in a similar fashion that capitalism does, but it is still controlled. It also abolishes evil practices that feed on the poor like usury and interest, yet ensures that the poor get a good share by means of charity and other ways.


If my car has a broken headlight, my car is still broken and I still fix it, even if it has been providing value and even if it still does so. The implication is only that it isn't living up to its promises, not that it is not worth keeping. (Besides, the title refers to American Capitalism.)


Capitalism has ignored negative externalities for a long time, and now the bill is nearly due. The environment is devastated, climate change will disrupt the ecosystem services we take for granted, and inequality is giving rise to political turmoil.

A better title would be, How to save Capitalism before it's too late.


> Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history.

Provably false. One example is the Islamic economic system. It was famously noted that there were no more people who accepted charity during the rule of Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, because poverty was basically eliminated.


How many people need to be working for sub-poverty wages before we can say American capitalism isn't perfect? How many inches do the oceans need to rise? How many people need to file bankruptcy due to medical bills?

No wonder we can't fix our problems if people insist on pretending their aren't any.


"The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one" — Will Mcavoy


I don't believe anyone has claimed American capitalism is perfect only that it's better than the known alternatives.


Capitalism provides more benefits than feudalism, which in turn provided more benefits than a pre-feudal barter economy. But that doesn't mean that there is no economic system that would provide still more benefits than capitalism.


Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best system we have.


Why does capitalism get the credit for industrial and scientific breakthroughs? That's begging the question, no? There is absolutely zero proof that these things are inclusive of one another, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Especially when the current capitalistic system is not reasonably sharing the benefits of these breakthroughs?


What is reasonable? And more to the point, what non-capitalist system has ever been more reasonable?


>What is reasonable?

I think not having a continual decline in purchasing power and living standards despite increases in productivity and consistent technological breakthroughs is pretty reasonable.


Is that reasonable when heath-care costs, at 20% of the economy, are increasing at 10+% a year? The economy is not growing even close to fast enough to offset this. Our productivity is not increasing even close to fast enough.


>Is that reasonable when heath-care costs, at 20% of the economy, are increasing at 10+% a year?

Yes.

One, because cash flow one way doesn't justify cash flow another way. Regardless of other costs. So I'm not sure how one relates to the other. Purchasing power and real wages don't necessarily mean you have more money to spend freely. It's a way of looking at how average workers are getting their slice of the pie, so to speak.

Two, because the fundamental reason these costs are increasing are also because of the economic system that is hoarding wealth -- the product of productivity -- into one class tier. This class tier has almost no real input or contribution to productivity and technological advancements, yet are quite literally the only ones benefiting from it.

Continuing, there is absolutely no reason for healthcare costs to have increased as much as they have. Not at current spending levels. I wish people would understand this. There is no fundamental, principle reason why healthcare costs go up except greed and the system we have chosen to implement. Price increases happen because you have private companies that have continually increased prices -- and in some cases taken drugs that used to be free and now charge thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, for products and services. A lot of which are funded directly by federal grants, and none of which the public receives returns on. Our ineffectual government (when it comes to regulatory matters) has done nothing to curtail this.

https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02...

and

https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02...

We have every ounce of data telling us "this system is wrong, it is not functioning by any metric" Yet a large portion of the populace doesn't care or continues to adhere to the mantra. It's not religious, it's an economic cult sprinkled with political astrology. Capitalism has its place. But it needs to be put back in its place, so to speak.


Lol, you can't use health care and capitalism in the same sentence. The most heavily regulated and government controlled industry happens to also be the poorest ran and most corrupt? So many carveouts for the politically connected? State mandated hospital sections to limit competition? The whole industry is a horror show of the dumbest most self defeating rules imaginable, and yet capitalism takes the blame?


>you can't use health care and capitalism in the same sentence.

I most certainly can. Because the poorly defended ideas of capitalism have infected the healthcare system. It is principally the reason why healthcare in the U.S. is in such a sorry state, as I outlined earlier. You can't sit there and invoke a no true scotsman just to validate voodoo economics.

We see other systems working just fine. You should ask yourself "what does it look like if I my ideas and perceptions are wrong."


> Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history.

Stop spinning this as an argument that capitalism is not broken. It's merely less broken than alternative systems and evidently only works in conjunction with heavy regulation.

Historic examples of (nearly) unregulated capitalism exist and they are horrifying.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: