Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Dude2018 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Dude2018

That's how capitalism and meritocracy work unfortunately.

View on HN

Nope.

There are many forms of capitalism...

Humanistic capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Democratic capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism

Eco-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-capitalism

Inclusive capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism

Neo-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Capitalism

...just to name a few.

Then there's, you know, "capitalism in actual practice".

Which is what the Dude above was referring to.

As long as we don't confuse what we have right now (corrupt cronyism, corporatism, blatant vertical monopolies, blatant government-backed monopsonies, etc.) with an actual free market.

Yep, it's best not to confuse reality with pipe dreams, generally.

I'm not sure what way that sarcasm is cutting. I'll say the "design the problem away" impulse is partly what causes corporatism and monopolies. For example, regulatory capture in which the regulated industries more or less control the regulators.

So I'll say the regulate-the-problem-away impulse is a pipe dream in the long run.

So I'll say the regulate-the-problem-away impulse is a pipe dream in the long run.

I'll call it "the lesser of nightmares".

Being as we've seen where "just let property owners do whatever they want" has lead us to in the past.

Where's that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood

And so now we have strict liability law.

Considering that, I don't believe this case, really justifies your (apparent) paranoia against the free market.

It isn't paranoia when the entire history of the "free market" demonstrates that... (not all, but a far to high proportion of) these entities pretty much will screw over everyone and everything they can, in exchange an extra buck or too -- unless very rigorously constrained from doing otherwise.

Or that is to say, "regulated".

THAT'S why there are so few issues in the heavily government controlled sectors of the economy, like health care, public education and drug policy. /s

There's plenty of issues, of course.

Which again, is why I referred to it as the "lesser of nightmares".

However "look the other way" isn't a very viable strategy either, it can also easily end up with corporate abuse. So what to do?

Aren't those the natural consequences and evolutions of a truly free market?

That's how human morality works unfortunately.

capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

meritocracy: "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability."

morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Here's how I think about "us looking down on them":

Assume both capitalism and meritocracy. Then the question becomes: How should superiors (in profit and ability) treat inferiors? That's the morality question. Try putting yourself in the cafeteria worker's shoes (i.e., you do not have ability and profit). How should you be treated? Surely things other than ability and profit should matter. We think "good" people deserve "good" things. What makes a person "good"? Is someone good if they were born with and then cultivated ability? Doesn't the low wage worker also work hard? Then the differences for ability are determined at birth. Does something determined at birth concern one's morality in the present? How about profit? Does someone's wealth factor into their morality?

I do not think morality is concentrated in the powerful. I think there are immoral powerful people and moral powerless people. I think it is fair to treat a moral person with respect regardless of their power position. I cannot tell whether a person is moral by their ability and profit so, a priori any other evidence, I believe in being respectful to everyone.

tldr: I judge people based on their morality and power isn't a signal. Therefore, I believe it is wrong to look down upon a person based on their power position.

Your definition for capitalism is correct, but might be missing the key point:

> Capitalism is the use of markets as the primary method of resource allocation within a society.

http://www.americanteeth.org/2015/06/21/why-i-m-a-capitalist...

I lost a game of Go to the guy who wrote this. He's a total socialist, but he _gets it_. Capitalism is just using markets, and when he and I use that word we just mean that. But when many progessive-types use that word, they mean all of the perceived evils and unjustice that coming along with that system.

The issue is that there will always be injustices and evil (born of greed). Until the day humans transcend bring humans (i.e., acquire unlimited resource and immortality).

That's how capitalism and meritocracy work unfortunately.

The Dude is absolutely right and spot on with this of course -- and in any case shouldn't have been downvoted for pointing it out.

Systematic social segregation and pervasive, manufactured feelings of inadequacy and inferiority aren't merely "bugs" in modern capitalism; they're among its core features.

That's the "real" problem here (as other commenters have identified in this thread).

The argument for capitalism is that feelings and inadequacy are inherent to the human condition. With that in mind, people should:

1. have property rights so they have some say (even on the vote-with-your-feet level) in how things play out

2. the human condition can be leveraged against itself for general societal improvement

The counterargument is that a small group of humans can somehow design (and maintain!) a system that is somehow less susceptible to humanity.

Sure - you deserve more money by virtue of merit if you work for a company that sells people's data to advertisers. I think Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were pretty clear about that.

> capitalism and meritocracy

No, this is how the market works, but the market is hardly meritocratic. On which merit do you propose we judge workers in order to determine fair compensation for their work?

It is meritocratic, the problem is with the score system.

Capitalism - yes.

"meritocracy" is a myth. Too many people forget that they started the 10-lap race with a 9-lap headstart.

I am personally very thankful for the headstart that my family gave me. Lots of others I grew up with didn't get the headstart.

...And it had nothing to do with me personally, it was an accident of lucky birth.

...because non-capitalist systems like totalitarianism and communism are known for their humanity?

Totalitarianism and capitalism aren't at all mutually exclusive. Likewise, there exist other isms. Democratic socialism, for one. (Although it can be argued that it's capitalism in sheep's clothing.)

> totalitarianism and capitalism aren't at all mutually exclusive

Well, too much further discussion along these lines will turn into a semantic quagmire. However, you can draw a spectrum where "individuals decide for themselves" is on one end and "a central power decides for everyone" is at the other. In that viewpoint, capitalism and totalitarianism are at odds, regardless of whether the central authority is an officer of a government bureau or a corporate one.

Do you believe we live in a meritocracy?

EDIT: I guess this is a bad question since it's really a matter of degrees. Perhaps a better question is: How meritocratic do you feel that our society is?

Meritocratic enough for unequal income between skilled and unskilled labour?

Meritocracy is more about how we sort people into skilled and unskilled labor positions. Which is to say that a pay difference between skilled and unskilled labor is the outcome of a capitalist system but a system which gives everyone an equal shot at being skilled labor is a meritocratic one. Which is why I'm curious about your opinion of how meritocratic our society is today.

The funniest part of this is that Facebook provides almost no value to society, while the food service workers do.

Facebook is providing value. They aren't providing it for free here, which is to say, they are extracting the price for said value.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is providing value, and isn't extracting the price. Therefore they rely on donations. If Wikipedia extracted their price for the amount of value they provide, I'd say they'll be one of the biggest companies in the world.

On the contrary, how we want to use our free time is the most important outcome of society, everything else is work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com