Comment by mpyne | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mpyne | Hacker News Reader

Seems important to note that the article doesn't seem to be about capitalism per se, but "business-friendly" capitalism as currently practiced in the U.S. and parts of Europe.

In that regard the conclusion (regarding wealth inequality) really isn't that surprising. If the ROI of having money is really higher than the ROI of earning money (i.e. by wages) then the conclusion over time is as simple as the solution to a binary star system containing a black hole... eventually through the iterative process of the economy any given dollar is likely to fall into the basket of the rich guy, and it is much harder to escape that basket than the basket of the poor guy who needs to spend simply to live.

The article doesn't seem to conclude that capitalism is flawed though (at least to the extent that Marxism is called for), but that our actual capitalist system needs corrections made before revolutionary corrects get imposed by force.

Indeed, it would be wrong to suppose that if capitalism is flawed, that therefore Socialism or Communism, or in fact any other system proposed so far, must be superior. As the article points out capitalism isn't monolithic, as various parts of the world calibrate it differently. I am becoming convinced though that western capitalism dies need some recalibration.

My understanding is that is actually "Crony Capitalism", which then if the article redefined it as such, I would agree.

Sure, we can label it whatever, but a turd is still a turd. If we're experiencing crony capitalism then we need to take action to correct it.

The turd in crony capitalism is government.

Add in corporations?

> Seems important to note that the article doesn't seem to be about capitalism per se, but "business-friendly" capitalism as currently practiced in the U.S. and parts of Europe.

Interesting how I've seen this argument a lot lately. It's a nice mirror of the exact same argument I heard a lot about communism and/or socialism in the 1980s: that criticism of communism wasn't so much about communism per se, but about the Leninist/Stalinist way many countries had implemented it.

I think the big lesson of the 20th century is that both have their weaknesses, and that we should be looking for a good balance between the better aspects of the two. Something like Sweden, I guess.

> I think the big lesson of the 20th century is that both have their weaknesses, and that we should be looking for a good balance between the better aspects of the two.

Yes, life at the extremes of any philosophy or ideology tends to turn out badly IMO. Things are just too complex to be distilled into very simple solutions, try as we might.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com