Hacker News Reader

Comment by aidenn0 | Hacker News Reader

> This is capitalism working as intended.

1. Many capitalists and libertarians are in favor of antitrust regulations. Cartels are second only to the government in their ability to distort markets

2. Calling the housing market "unregulated" is a joke. In many places the supply is constrained largely due to regulations.

3. The tension between socialism and libertarianism in the US has ended up with kind of an anti-dialectic where we end up with the worst-of-both worlds (if your not a rentier). Any legislation that can reduce competition is framed as benefiting the poor, while any legislation that might upset the status-quo is framed as government overreach.

View on HN

> Many capitalists and libertarians are in favor of antitrust regulations. Cartels are second only to the government in their ability to distort markets

Who enforces these "antitrust regulations"? A gutted "small" government?

> The tension between socialism and libertarianism in the US has ended up with kind of an anti-dialectic where we end up with the worst-of-both worlds

This is an interesting framing, because during the original rise of socialism in the mid 20th century, USA had an extremely productive dialectic of socialism+libertarianism (1930-1960). It was only after the capitalists took over again in the 70s, and pushed back against socialism, that things started to go south for the median American.

To say there is a significant component of socialism in today's USA is absurd, and demonstrates how foreign the concept of "socialism" has become. We are controlled by corporations and the corrupt politicians they manage. There is clearly NOT a dominant thread of "public servitude" that is required for a socially-oriented economy.

> Who enforces these "antitrust regulations"? A gutted "small" government?

Yes? Small doesn't have to mean toothless.

> This is an interesting framing, because during the original rise of socialism in the mid 20th century, USA had an extremely productive dialectic of socialism+libertarianism (1930-1960). It was only after the capitalists took over again in the 70s, and pushed back against socialism, that things started to go south for the median American.

Friedman et. al. (who certainly championed the gutting of antitrust in the US) were able to take over in the at least partly because of a wide range of geopolitical events that happened to depress the US economy, and then Reagan (who Friedman was an advisor to) took credit for the recovery. While counterfactuals are difficult, I think the example of Thatcher (who Friedman also advised and in some ways paralleled Reagan on policy) gets blamed for the UK's economy in the 80s.

> To say there is a significant component of socialism in today's USA is absurd, and demonstrates how foreign the concept of "socialism" has become. We are controlled by corporations and the corrupt politicians they manage. There is clearly NOT a dominant thread of "public servitude" that is required for a socially-oriented economy.

I agree that we are left with the remnants of FDR's socialism that hurt the wealthy the least.

Interesting that those geopolitical events, namely the gas-as-economic-subtrate in alleged peril, took place at the exact time conservatism came swooping to the rescue. Almost like US conservative oil tycoons were colluding with foreign nations in the ME to the detriment of our own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com