Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoMoreNicksLeft | Hacker News Reader

People who say things like you say don't usually seem to have a very good definition of "capitalism".

For me, the word means that I can trade what I own to other people who want it and are offering me something I want in return. It means that, if I scrape and save, I'm allowed to turn around and invest those savings in another endeavor of my own and that whatever profits I make from it are mine to keep.

I know it's not a very eloquent definition, but I think it's rather objective, and I think it describes the western world today, more or less. Is this what you mean by it? Do you mean something else?

I don't see how it concentrates power. There are people who do capitalism poorly, and then they whine about how it was unfair to them.

View on HN

That is not what people generally mean when they say capitalism.

Most generally: "A socio-economic system based on private ownership of resources or capital."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capitalism#English

As for the unfairness:

Capital accumulates capital, debt accumulates debt. When you accumulate capital, you can own resources (land). This means those with capital will accumulate power.

You can talk about being "bad at capitalism" but the implies you assume everyone starts with equal opportunity (capital, land, power).

Your definition an d his are the same. Private ownership of resources or capital = I can freely trade my stuff with others for other stuff.

There is a distinction drawn in the definition between capital goods and goods in general. This is the classic "can you own a toothbrush in a communist country" argument and the answer is, as it always has been, of course yes.

If you can find a toothbrush. And if your neighbors don't turn you in to the secret police for toothbrush hoarding.

Most people just stay on the waiting list for years.

You can have aspects of socialism and capitalism in a single system. These all-or-nothing examples are naive or disingenuous.

> Most generally: "A socio-economic system based on private ownership of resources or capital."

That's circular and moronic.

Even the big about "private ownership of resources" is couched in terms that make it sound as if the person saying it is being excluded and treated unfairly. Do you know which resources capitalism lets a person own, or which person might own it?

Your money in your savings account, and you.

> You can talk about being "bad at capitalism" but the implies you assume everyone starts with equal opportunity (

It doesn't. It does assume they're adults that don't whhine about not everyone ending with inequal outcomes.

It's only circular if you assume that "Capital" doesn't have a definition. It does: Capital is resources that can be invested into the generation of more resources. In order to meet that definition, resources need to have a few characteristics: They either need to be tools of production in of thenselves (like a factory, or a hammer), or they need to be able to be turned into tools (say, iron ore), and they need to be possessable (an RF band or an idea or land only becomes capital when a system ensures it can be possessed), and they need to transferrable (your face isn't capital, the rights to your likeness are).

"Private" in this case distinguishes the system from other where, say, only the state can own capital.

> Capital is resources that can be invested into the generation of more resources. In order to meet that definition

"Capital" is my savings, or my toolbox. Or any number of things which are mine.

Pretending that it's $30 billion of investor financing, so that you can goad others into stealing it is disingenuous.

> I don't see how it concentrates power. There are people who do capitalism poorly, and then they whine about how it was unfair to them.

And the fact that you (and others) can't see how it inherently concentrates power is exactly what's wrong with the current views of pure free-market proponents.

Free markets are bad. Market competition is good. It's that simple and people still don't seem to be able to distinguish them.

The only way to have market competition is to soundly enforce it. Any free market left alone eliminates market competition and consolidates power - that consolidated power then eliminates any efficiency gained from capitalism.

One of the single most important roles of government is to eliminate heavily unbalanced concentrations of power un order to maintain competition.

In the marketplace that means swift eliminating monopolies, in individuals it means maintaining some tempers inequality, and in democracy it means ensuring any concentrated power cannot perform regulatory capture. But you cannot do the latter without ensuring the former two. Everyone seems to recognize regulatory capture and the imbalance of power it involves in democracy, but some how cannot see the exact same issues in the individual or the marketplace. All three require market competition to be healthy and thrive - and aid concentration of power.

> The only way to have market competition is to soundly enforce it.

Which is why NYC taxis are so cheap. All the market competition cultivated by their sale of taxi medallions for $1mil+.

> One of the single most important roles of government is to eliminate heavily unbalanced concentrations of power

I've seen no historical evidence that any government, ever, has even attempted this "role". It would be a little weird if they could manage to do it considering that they are heavily unbalanced concentrations of power themselves.

> I've seen no historical evidence that any government, ever, has even attempted this "role".

It is normal where I am from. We have an entity that govern the competition and its role is to enforce competition whenever a company gains to much market share. That way us, the consumers can avoid monopolies where we would otherwise not have the voting-power within our wallets.

And where is that? And what examples do you have that I should consider?

Why do such claims never come with any details?

> > One of the single most important roles of government is to eliminate heavily unbalanced concentrations of power

> I've seen no historical evidence that any government, ever, has even attempted this "role".

With all due respect, you may not be very familiar with the topic being discussed at all.

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

I'm well aware of what's said in that link.

But I thought we were discussing reality, and not whatever weird fiction you've imagined about those things. That was lip service to the idea, little more. Do you prefer Standard Oil, or Ma Bell where they broke up the national monopoly into a bunch of regional ones with no competition?

Freedom is control, and competition requires a firm controlling organization.

>For me, the word means that I can trade what I own to other people who want it and are offering me something I want in return. It means that, if I scrape and save, I'm allowed to turn around and invest those savings in another endeavor of my own and that whatever profits I make from it are mine to keep.

No offense, but your definition (as distinguishing capitalism from socialism) isn't very good either. Your first sentence is merely the definition of a market, which can still exist just fine under socialism (even the authoritarian varieties extant today feature markets).

As for the second part, that's the exact thing that proponents of socialism assert you are not free to do under capitalism. Your average worker has no hope of saving up to be able to "start an endeavor", and even well-off ones often are beholden to investors, which forces you to part with a substantial part of your profits you made to people who contributed no work to your endeavor. Likewise, if your business does become profitable, it is usually going to be as a result of work others did, not profits "you" made.

The key part of capitalism is that any profits in excess of the bare minimum go to the owners of capital, not the workers. Unless you have capital yourself, you either have no access to the means of production, or are forced to give up a substantial part of the value you produce.

> which can still exist just fine under socialism

Theoretically, it's claimed.

Where are the markets in Venezuela? Which bakery could you go to in the Soviet Union when the bread line was long and the shelves empty at the state store?

Why is it that such places always end up using some sort of ration ticket instead of real currency?

> As for the second part, that's the exact thing that proponents of socialism assert you are not free to do under capitalism. Your average worker has no hope of saving up to be able to "start an endeavor",

No, they're just lazy losers. I read somewhere once that you can buy the hotdog cart at Costco for $400 or $450 like that.

But I suppose the ones that whine that they can't start an endeavor want to skip to the end of the game, where they own $500 million in McDonald's stock and a few dozen franchise stores... so my example doesn't count.

There exist opportunities for people at all levels of capital.

I'm not an entrepreneur myself, don't have any knack for it. But it's nice to know that the commies are always there, hiding in the shadows ready to swoop in and confiscate, if say, I did buy a food truck and put my brother-in-law to work running it.

> The key part of capitalism is that any profits in excess of the bare minimum go to the owners of capital,

You mean, the owners of the business. Sure. Why should it be otherwise.

No one with capital would trust the sorts of people who do minimum wage scutwork to be the sorts of partners who should be cut in on the profit. Go read r/antiwork and tell me those are the people who you'd trust with your life-savings. All they bring to the table is talentless meniality and a bad attitude.

> you either have no access to the means of production, o

What is a "means of production"? Are you lusting after some billionaire's water-powered Jacquard loom?

We're on Hacker News, if I'm not mistaken. The means of production for most of us is a laptop, and internet connection, and our brains. But maybe you're right, most people don't have access to that last one.

So go start your $450 hotdog cart and let us know how it goes instead of making unfounded assumptions and constructing strawman arguments on the internet.

Well, the problem is: hot dog cart might be a great business, until you account for all the government regulations, taxes, stupid sanitary requirements, etc. severely limiting your earning potential. Things like that were much easier in late 19th/early 20th century US. Capitalism is a great system, the only thing that can break it is too much government involvement.

"Stupid sanitary requirements." Incredible. Motte and bailey argument. It's weird that "sanitary regulations cut profits too much" is the safer position you are retreating to.

It's funny that you're mad about taxes when every step of the hot dog cart business requires public infrastructure. Contract law, credit cards, the highways to deliver hot dog carts to Costco, the streets to take you to Costco, "stupid traffic safety laws" that mean your car doesn't explode on the way, the public areas you plan to sell hot dogs from, "stupid flammable gas safety laws" that let you cook them without exploding, "stupid food safety laws" that mean you can buy known edible hot dog materials, currency, a legal system that prevents people from taking your money after the sale. There is a lot.

Or were you going to run your cart using whatever you can hunt out in an unpaved woods and cook it on gathered firewood?

Stupid sanitary requirements in food service.

With you until that last line. Street vendors have been regulated as far back as Pompeii.

You're describing the operation of markets.

Capitalism is independent of the operation of markets. Its definining characteristic is that the investment of capital in a human venture is treated preferentially to the investment of labor. Specifically, claims on the profit made by the venture first and foremost reside in invested capital, not invested labor.

It's pretty trivial to imagine how capitalism could retain this characteristic even in the presence of planned economies and/or highly regulated markets.

You're describing commerce, a practice as old as humanity. Capitalism is a relatively recent development with very specific traits.

is that not just a no true scotsman argument? what you describe doesn’t exist anywhere at scale, humans have never found a way to do this idea at scale.

Same faulty logic affected the communists too.

Your comment is incoherent. What specifically are you saying that we don't do at scale? (I never mentioned "scale", but apparently it is important to you, so...)

People trade things at scale all the time. Some trades are apparently valued in the millions and billions of dollars. Some people have savings that are large fortunes, and they often invest them.

You must be talking about something I am not, but it's difficult to figure out what the words even mean to you.

Your definition of capitalism is incomplete. You’ve described the essence of capitalism - as you see it - and people not adhering to your choice subset don’t ‘have a very good definition of "capitalism"‘

You’ve made a no true scotsman argument because all these other capitalist systems with their wage labour grievances and their accelerating inequalities tearing at the coherence of societies’ fabric are not _really_ what’s at the core of capitalism and if they just did it better then it’d be awesome.

The scale part comes in because what you describe - capitalism without wage labour - exists all over the world today, but only in the small. You cannot grow it to a country sized system.

> and people not adhering to your choice subset don’t ‘

Other people aren't bothering to define it at all. I could work with their definitions, if they ever bothered to speak them. Hell, if they ever bothered to even hint at what those might be.

This isn't about a difference in definition, but the other side not defining it at all. And all the waffling here, by you and others, suggests that this might not just be some oversight, but the same sort of strategic fallaciousness the left is infamous for.

The rest of your comment is as incoherent as the first. I'm not sure what "no true scotsman" argument you think I'm making. My definition applies, in varying, to most nations in western civilization. But most especially to those the leftists are most critical of. Take your pick.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com