[flagged]
You started a doozy with this and perpetuated it downthread. Seriously not cool.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, we'd appreciate it.
Some of your comments on this thread tipped your hand (to me at least) that you must be a new account here. I was right. You seem like you may not have read the comment guidelines.
I'd like to see the positives in some of this but my friend it comes across really tone deaf and dripping with bias. I don't really disagree with some of your points, but it's wrapped up in language that might be best suited elsewhere. There's room for improvement when it comes to your rhetoric and if the downvotes didn't make that clear I'm hoping this feedback helps ongoing.
Wait, isn’t a politburo the executive committee of a communist party? How can that be corporate and own the media?
Wait how is selling apps capitalist success? What capital is winning here? I guess the corporate capital of the company owning the App Store. Or is it the capital that the app making guy is building up?
I guess when you use your own language, the things you say sound very alien, and can’t be used to communicate. You could be saying anything so you’re saying nothing at all.
I am confused. I thought us conservatives are fixated on corporate. Either way I am far from conservative in the sense you imply. If i do cross boundaries on some concepts thats because i am not fixated on ideology.
The politburo is the corporate board.
The corporate own the media through money.
Selling apps is capitalism because money moves. Free movement of capital is a core value of capitalism.
Clogging it in the hands of a few means money doesnt move freely. The politburo control it and with it it controls the narrative, the media and our lives. We are not free, much like people are not free in communism.
I guess it is confusing because i am reversing roles. In my view pure, proper, capitalism is where money is largely managed by small and medium sized entities, as to allow it to flow freely and to set the mover of capital free in the process.
Freedom is indie.
> I guess it is confusing because i am reversing roles. In my view pure, proper, capitalism is where money is largely managed by small and medium sized entities, as to allow it to flow freely and to set the mover of capital free in the process.
That's awesome, it's just never been done long-term and never will be.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726812...
You claim that you're not fixated on ideology, but in the same breath you talk about core values of capitalism.
The corporate board (actually the board of directors) jointly supervise a company. It's not the decision making body (that's the CEO), and therefore is not analogous to a politburo. Fun fact: the Communist Party of China has both a Politburo and a Central Committee.
The media (or more precisely, the most of the media in the US, because many countries have broadcasters not financed through private capital) aren't owned by "the corporate". Media (TV, newspapers) are usually corporations themselves, and are owned by shareholders. By capitalists. If you had enough money, you could buy them.
Money moves? Sure it moves when a corporation runs the payroll every month, or when I go buy a popsicle. Or when someone pays someone else to procure him a kidney on the black market. Money in every form and in every economic system, not just in capitalism, will be exchanged, this is because it's the very purpose of money and it's reason to exist.
You have some theories as to why most wealth is concentrated (top 1% owned 46% of global wealth in 2020). There seems to be a conspiracy narrative (the politburos are conspiring to keep the money in the hands of the rich), and a remedy (small entrepreneurs will rise and reclaim the money).
You might be aware that money is locked up in the 1%, because 1) they don't need to spend it, or very little of it, like $5 for an app. 2) the capital that they have lets them extract more money from the 99% (in the form of rent and stock dividends), so the direction of money flow is from the poor to the rich. Your conclusion is that we need more capitalism, but the right kind, not the one we have now, because the one we have right now is actually communism.
It's not the free market part that defines it as capitalism but rather the fact he owns the method of production. He owns the code he writes and he owns the business processes around those applications. He privately owns the capital assets (applications and business processes) which make the money.
Right. Like you don't own anything but still somehow sell it on the open market.
Apparently, "you can't have your cake and eat it, too" is a capitalist prejudice as comrades in the USSR would have ensured us.
Funny enough, this type of entrepreneurship is more common in Vietnam than the US (I have lived in both, now in Vietnam).