Hacker News Reader

Comment by cies | Hacker News Reader

Or decentivice (is that a word?) places that have had enough growth for now (is that even possible under capitalism?). This could be federally arranged. Sure freedom, but the govt also has an allocation function, and some of these towns are said to suffer under the load of the new jobs.

View on HN

I think you meant "disincentivize". I agree that there should be strong incentives to spread prosperity to smaller towns. Japan has an interesting tax program that boosts the small towns in the country: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2018/10/19/japanese-hometown-tax/

> ...is that even possible under capitalism?

I don't get why people throw around the word "capitalism" like that. The U.S. legal system isn't organized around "capitalism" in any real way.

The U.S. historically was a liberal republic, though lately the republicanism had given way to a stronger administrative state on all levels.

And it's that that really influences how things are influenced with respect to urban development: regulators, HUD, local zoning boards, transportation planning, transportation energy regulations, etc. Not much of that screams "private control of the means of production" or even "free market".

Capitalism is, in my opinion, any system that allows for capitalists to keep their capital.

Free market has, in my opinion, very little to do with capitalism; contrary to popular belief.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com