[flagged]
> Why this free worker confronts him in the sphere of circulation is a question which does not interest the owner of money, for he finds the labour-market in existence as a particular branch of the commodity-market. And for the present it interests us just as little. We confine ourselves to the fact theoretically, as he does practically. One thing, however, is clear: nature does not produce on the one hand owners of money or commodities, and on the other hand men possessing nothing but their own labour-power. This relation has no basis in natural history, nor does it have a social basis common to all periods of human history, It is clearly the result of a past historical development, the product of many economic revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series of older formations of social production.
You may think it's no biggy since the limit will be so high.
1. First of all, when party A contracts with party B, party C (that's you) does not have a moral right to dictate an upper limit on how many times they can do that or what the terms can be as long as the transaction is legal and A and B are willing participants.
Thus, either A or B can build up an arbitrary amount of wealth and you have exactly zero to say about it. Would you have similar concerns for people who have a disproportionate number of friends, or sex partners, or hit songs, or hell, even votes?
2. If there were to be an upper limit, what is the limit? Today it's a billion dollars. What if it's 100m next, then 10m, then 1m, then 100k? What happens after a couple of decades or centuries of inflation? I suspect you don't care about this because the limit seems far out of reach to you. And so it might be - for now.
3. If there was a limit, who will decide what it should be? What are their incentives? Do you really want a jury of your peers reviewing your financials and drawing lines through it?
4. If there was a limit, who will enforce it? And how? Hand over a check or you go to prison?
There's no way to implement this without an authoritarian regime that has unlimited power over its citizens.
The feudal systems arose as a way to organize military defense locally in the absence of a strong central power like the Roman Empire.
There are castle strongholds, control of choke points, a lower strata that are required to work the land and pay tithe upwards to the military heirarchy.
Feudal systems have existed in times and locations where there was little need for military defense against external forces, they persist in form as a polite, polished, chivalrous bikie club on horses, mafia with great houses.
Warrior nobility systems farm farmers.
A farm is a system with many living beings, but most of the benefits accrue to those we call the farmers.
A farmer farm is a called a fief (feudum in latin), so it's no surprise that under feudalism most of the benefits accrue to those who have control over heaps of feuda.
Would it be true that under capitalism most of the benefits accrue to those who have control over heaps of capital?
[to the original point: capitalism works very well when it allows people to trade and specialise in their comparative advantages; under what conditions might it work less well?]
EDIT:
> little need for military defense against external forces
I think they were also successful even where there was need, as long as those external forces were also based on a warrior class.
What Napoleon managed was to "scale" the nature of warfare; two poorly remembered quotes from a book one of his cavalry generals wrote:
— 10 mamluks could beat 30 french, but 100 to 100 was even, and 300 french could beat 1000 mamluks
— our troopers' horsemanship was pitiful, and their officers' not much better, yet with this cavalry we made the tour of Europe
I'd say both point to innovation in the use of mass over class.
It motivates a search for the mystical beast: Marxist financier (not the pastry?)
(Not to mention elucidates the boney/HF-inspired principle of intertwining* (wrt scaling — CENDEC, decentralizing by centralizing — marxist-financing-in-itself))
Note that 1984's Inner Party, despite not owning anything, benefits from everything; compare Plato's Guardians: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 (or Номенклатура?)
On a straight CenFi note, even Cicero is more subtle than he'd appear by my contextless quote in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41796726 ; he may have enlisted Cato to frown upon usury, but I take http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... as implying that he smiles upon clipping coupons: Sed ut pecuniae non quaerendae solum ratio est, verum etiam collocandae, quae perpetuos sumptus suppeditet...
[the distinction between ownership and benefit in both code and common law jurisdictions has its roots in roman law, but unless either of you are really interested I'm not going to delve in that graveyard]
EDIT: HF? Our Ford?
EDIT2: for an SAP advertorial, I like TLTF! pigs acorns etc.
I recommend this question as an interesting conversation starter at parties: Is it in the self-interest of the most successful capitalists to have a well-functioning capitalism?
There are people who never learned this or have essentially forgotten it. Some ideologies bury such truths.
Among business/tech circles, there is a fairly common disdain of regulation. People can conveniently forget that self-interest taken too far can destroy the conditions that make competition work.
It is one thing to criticize a powerful monopoly that isn’t you. It is another thing to say “Oh. Maybe what I’m doing is part of the problem.”
Any particular reason you believe that?
It’s right, or it isn’t.
Morally you should probably be spending more time figuring out how to get everyone their first car instead of worrying about your legal rights in owning your second.
And if your focus is on providing that first car, then the system currently doing that en masse for billions of previously-poor people is called “capitalism” and your moral imperative is to speed it up, not slow it down.
To be charitable I’ll point out that in general that’s not what you’re arguing for. There is a real sense in which personal freedom is essential to people making it out of poverty. Protecting one person’s and not another’s would defeat the point.
Here is the compromise. It should be easy for people to do things that billionaires would have no point doing (i.e. take out a business loan of $10K) and difficult for billionaires to do things that people would have difficulty doing (hoard the global supply of some good). That’s if your goal is to have an equitable society where everyone is on the same difficulty level, more or less.
Approached this way there would not be a slippery slope because the delineation is quite clear. Moreover there’s no squashing of personal freedom, a billionaire is always free to do things a regular person is able to do. In fact the system we have now basically squashes the freedom of the average person because they are not free to do things (buy a house, have a chance in court) by virtue of not having money while other people have a ton.