> Capitalism is a handful of people who own the means of production and the rest of us trying to get by.
Well, good thing then that the "means of production" for software development consist of a 500€ laptop, which is well within reach of just about every programmer in the Western world.
>Well, good thing then that the "means of production" for software development consist of a 500€ laptop, which is well within reach of just about every programmer in the Western world.
Sure, now tell me your opinion on this idea I have
Today for music there are many parasites that suck the profits and creators barely get something. So my idea is to make a cooperatives (or non-parasitic company) to help the creators of content. First step is to have mobile apps and here we just HIT the parasites, Apple and Google , any transaction or subscription will be taxed by7 this parasites. It seems impossible to make money for the right people without fating up the parasites.
When people say capitalism is bad, what they're saying is allowing people to choose is bad. Because no one is forcing these products on anyone and nearly everyone has at least heard of the issues and mostly don't care.
>When people say capitalism is bad, what they're saying is allowing people to choose is bad. Because no one is forcing these products on anyone and nearly everyone has at least heard of the issues and mostly don't care.
My issue is with "free markets" solve everything when most of the time you don't have free markets(like when you have too few competitors or when you have collusion not to compete ) , or when you forget to specify that free market would solve the problem but only after you make illegal all the bad or evil practices companies will abuse. If someone is an economist is there a theorem /law that proves that imperfect free market will covere to an evil state so you always need supervision to intervene when you notice the effects and apply a correction/bug fix ?
In my example with mobile applications we don't have free markets , where free market would mean you have many agents competing to offer you something, we have basically 2 competitors and this 2 are happy to be in a balance and share this big pie then aggressively competing to make happy the custoemrs but reduce their profits.
Don't confuse free with unregulated. Not even Adam Smith wanted unregulated markets. Free simply means everyone is equally free to play in the same market created by a system of laws and equal enforcement. And I doubt you'll find anyone defending monopolies or duopolies. All systems are corrupted, we just try to minimize it when we can.
Well, good thing then that the "means of production" for software development consist of a 500€ laptop, which is well within reach of just about every programmer in the Western world.