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

Okay I understand the issue. You think that Capitalism is the economic order of the 1940s-80s.

Capitalism is a system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law. A Union violates the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. (Restricts who and at what price can be employed) Taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. ("taxation is theft" etc)

Why are all Public Efforts a form of redistribution? Cause if they were not then they would simply be a corporate effort. If you are just trading value for value there is no need for government. (Game theory aside) This is why in highly capitalist countries like the USA the medical system remains private.

"As taxation has become less progressive over the years inequality has skyrocketed and investment in infrastructure has tanked which actually works against the interests of the capitalists. So, properly speaking capitalism and progressive taxation make great bedfellows"

I dont mind arguments where one states that capitalism can be so self destructive that constraining its natural tendencies leads to higher economic output. BUT dont then confused this new tamed object with the original savage beast. It is a category error when you give someone a wolf for a pet when they asked for a dog. If you hear "dog" when someone else actually says and means "wolf" you will aid in a great deal of suffering.

I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty




> I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty

I have a copy of it, understand the central thesis (r>g), agree with conclusion of the central thesis (inequality increases), and agree with the proposed counter-measures (progressive tax regimes, Tobin tax, …)

I don't believe that Capitalism creates r>g. I believe human greed creates r>g. So r>g leads to capitalism's excesses: I agree that capitalism in and of itself is merely the system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law …

I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. I'd go further, anyone who makes a claim like that is either an apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" (in short, an ideologue).

I strongly strongly disagree that taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. Again, I'd go further, anyone who makes a claim like that is either an apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" (in short, an ideologue).

> Why are all Public Efforts a form of redistribution? Cause if they were not then they would simply be a corporate effort.

Ever wondered why city and county councils are sometimes called corporations or are said to be incorporated? I may be going out on a limb here but I doubt you did. There's no God-given rule that every single part of society must be privately run. No sane person actually believes that. Police? Emergency services? Army? (To name the obvious ones). What, wars outsourced to unaccountable mercenaries? Policing crime outsourced to the lowest bidder? Guess what, we used to have voluntary and competing fire services and they used to start fires to create work for themselves! Eventually people copped on and decided that they should be publicly funded.

> If you are just trading value for value there is no need for government. (Game theory aside)

Vacuous. Literally devoid of sense.

> This is why in highly capitalist countries like the USA the medical system remains private.

With how many uninsured. Roughly 30 million, isn't it? And how many needless deaths a year. I think the number is around 40,000? You're basically saying that you're okay with the status quo, a status quo which results in needless death. Luckily people with the extreme views that you have are outliers. Over 70% over people in the USA want Medicare for All. It's coming. It's happening and there's nothing people with the views you have can do about it. Here is Life Expectancy measured against Health Expenditure compared in the developed world: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_exp... That's the reality you're living in and want to continue to live in.


First Im Canadian and I like Canada. My personal views are reflected best by someone like Noam Chomsky. So obviously im non of these apply "apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" "

However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions" Perhaps your thinking of unions that dont have scab laws backing them?

I think worse still is this concept "I don't believe that Capitalism creates r>g. I believe human greed creates r>g. "

Greed is an individual choice and it has very little to do with the structure of capitalism. I think Marx even points to the lack of choice that the capitalist has in their pursuit of profit and the inevitable resulting exploitation. Charity in capitalism is like vegetarianism in Lions.

related is a doc on negative liberty: https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-trap/


I'm Irish and I like Canada.

> First Im Canadian and I like Canada.

You can't extol the virtues of the US healthcare system and then say you like Canada. That's contradictory. You can't say that you "like" Canada (a social democracy) but also say you admire the US healthcare system (non socialised healthcare). Make up your mind.

> However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate […]

No. That's not defining something, that's stating a belief. Your have opposing beliefs. Neither of us is wrong by definition. When you think about it, that's not how belief and ideology works. My point is though that the overwhelming majority of Canadians and Americans agree with my position even if that position is not reflected 100% of the time in the social policy of the day. We could be all wrong, but hey, you got to either convince us all (and you're not doing a good job of it) or hope that the powers that be prevail. And history tells us they won't

I know about negative and positive liberty, I studied philosophy.

I've also read Chomsky. He's a frickin' anarcho-syndicalist, he's on record as being an anarcho-syndicalist. A syndicalist is someone who believes in unions! How can you say your views are reflected best by someone like Chomsky and in the next breath decry unions.

Everyone is self-interested. That's as close to a law of human nature as any that you can get. Randian capitalism relies on the fact that people ought to only look out for themselves, and invariably do. Capitalism is a _system_, humans _animate it.

It's been great debating you, but please read over what I've written a couple of times before you reply to me. That might sound really condescending, but I don't mean it to be, I swear. I think we actually see eye-to-eye on a lot of things …


Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor.

I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy.

Its sorta like the Communism. If a communist country decides to have markets and private property to create incentives then it really cant be said to be communist anymore. Private property is antithetical to Communism just as redistribution is antithetical to Capitalism.


> Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor.

Sorry, I misread you, I was projecting onto you. I stand by my other claims.

> I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy.

You're not describing what Capitalism means, you're describing what you _think_ it means. When I say Capitalism I mean Capitalism, if I wanted to say Mixed Market economy I'd say Mixed Market economy.

> Its sorta like the Communism.

Vacuous.

> If a communist country decides to have markets and private property to create incentives then it really cant be said to be communist anymore.

Never disagreed with this. Not that Communism was mentioned.

> Private property is antithetical to Communism

True claim, the hint is in the name.

> just as redistribution is antithetical to Capitalism.

False claim.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/13/its-free...

And to reiterate, neither are unions antithetical to Capitalism.

[1] https://www.vox.com/2014/9/1/6094051/three-sentences-no-one-...

[2] https://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/labor-day-are-unions...

---

If your entire argument hinges around the assertion that once an entirely 100% pure Capitalist system (market economy w/ attendant private property rights and share-holding and dividends and profit taking, the whole nine yards) has any tweaking whatsoever it stops being a Capitalist system … giving you what Forbes says “[a] social democratic version of a market economy” … then I don't know what to say …

It's entirely correct to still classify a version of a market economy as a market economy. So long as the fundamentals and essentials are unchanged a thing remains itself, not to be trite but a blue house is still a house. To argue otherwise is unhelpful at best.


> but a blue house is still a house.

This was a bad analogy – a better one would be 'a houseboat is still a house (and a boat)' (two things coming together and still being identified with each rather than something modifying another thing) – in coding terms: multiple inheritance versus single inheritance plus an interface?


Multiple inheritance is evil :)

Anyway I do think there is more going on here than a mere semantic disagreement about a word. However I dont think it can really be covered in a casual HN post.

I would say I did find that one article quite amusing. "And Smith is right in that pretty much nowhere has ever managed to limb up out of peasant destitution without the use of a market economy and the associated price system. "

The USSR used central planning (Gosplan) to manage their economy. They were the first space fairing nation on earth. What kind of author is this author to make these claims in direct contradiction to the historical record.




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

Search: