Because with capitalism, the greed is out in the open. Everyone understands it. It is clear and legal to push against the greed of those who have more.
In a system that incentivizes “virtues”, greed will hide behind those virtues. And when you then fight against that greed, you are accused of attacking those virtues instead.
Hey, that makes sense. Now, in this capitalist system that exists in real life—the one that you think is working out better than any alternatives you can think of—are everyone’s cards laid out?
Yes…? We are aware of how bad we’re being fucked. We saw the Panama papers. Rich people dodge taxes with loopholes. War is waged to line pockets. Senators practice insider trading. Huge, major problems exist with capitalism and of course, we can’t know the full extent. What do you think would be different under your preference?
Yes? It’s that obvious? What percentage of the population knows how the animals they consume are raised and slaughtered, or that it’s illegal to show them? What percentage knows that in many other nations, the burger flipping jobs the U.S. loves to debate do pay better, and yet the food is cheaper? What percentage is aware that many European nations simply do not allow large corporations like Google and Facebook to “own” your data, and that they do not have some sort of inherent right to it? All of these things are legal—passing laws to hide information you don’t like, having no obligation to pay livable wages or provide healthcare, lining your pockets with money nobody else knew you could just… take. Seems like a system in which these actions weren’t both legal and highly rewarded could, you know, put more of the cards on the table.
I asked you what would be different under your preferred alternative to capitalism and you’ve responded with policy from other capitalist nations. Perhaps the ideas you have presented are not solutions to capitalisms failings but instead just good ideas that can coexist within a capitalist society. I’m really not sure I understand your point but feel free to clarify if you’d like to continue the discussion.
Actually professor I don’t much care to continue. I asked if all the cards are on the table (because I know they’re not) and you responding with “yes…?” so this isn’t going to go anywhere. Especially since I don’t have a favorite -ism to provide you with so you can tell me how it would never work!
The ideas I’ve presented force cooperation in opposition to capitalist market forces. They coexist in the way my white blood cells coexist with the flu.
By the way, the Panama Papers aren’t available to the public, and they’re culturally relevant because they were secret for so long, and represent an opportunity that isn’t on the table for the rest of us. Better examples are key when upholding the status quo 👌
Any sufficiently large system rewarding kindness will be taken advantage of by selfish people.
The system shouldn’t be sufficiently large then. Decentralized networks are cool.
The cutoff is between 200 and 1000 people.
So why not have a system specifically designed to mitigate greed in lieu of one that incentivizes it?
Because with capitalism, the greed is out in the open. Everyone understands it. It is clear and legal to push against the greed of those who have more.
In a system that incentivizes “virtues”, greed will hide behind those virtues. And when you then fight against that greed, you are accused of attacking those virtues instead.
Absolutely. Greed will always exist and evil people will always take advantage of others. May as well lay everyone’s cards on the table.
Hey, that makes sense. Now, in this capitalist system that exists in real life—the one that you think is working out better than any alternatives you can think of—are everyone’s cards laid out?
Yes…? We are aware of how bad we’re being fucked. We saw the Panama papers. Rich people dodge taxes with loopholes. War is waged to line pockets. Senators practice insider trading. Huge, major problems exist with capitalism and of course, we can’t know the full extent. What do you think would be different under your preference?
Yes? It’s that obvious? What percentage of the population knows how the animals they consume are raised and slaughtered, or that it’s illegal to show them? What percentage knows that in many other nations, the burger flipping jobs the U.S. loves to debate do pay better, and yet the food is cheaper? What percentage is aware that many European nations simply do not allow large corporations like Google and Facebook to “own” your data, and that they do not have some sort of inherent right to it? All of these things are legal—passing laws to hide information you don’t like, having no obligation to pay livable wages or provide healthcare, lining your pockets with money nobody else knew you could just… take. Seems like a system in which these actions weren’t both legal and highly rewarded could, you know, put more of the cards on the table.
I asked you what would be different under your preferred alternative to capitalism and you’ve responded with policy from other capitalist nations. Perhaps the ideas you have presented are not solutions to capitalisms failings but instead just good ideas that can coexist within a capitalist society. I’m really not sure I understand your point but feel free to clarify if you’d like to continue the discussion.
Actually professor I don’t much care to continue. I asked if all the cards are on the table (because I know they’re not) and you responding with “yes…?” so this isn’t going to go anywhere. Especially since I don’t have a favorite -ism to provide you with so you can tell me how it would never work!
The ideas I’ve presented force cooperation in opposition to capitalist market forces. They coexist in the way my white blood cells coexist with the flu.
By the way, the Panama Papers aren’t available to the public, and they’re culturally relevant because they were secret for so long, and represent an opportunity that isn’t on the table for the rest of us. Better examples are key when upholding the status quo 👌