I don’t understand your point. The most important feature of capitalism is the private ownership of capital. Capitalism isn’t “hustle, fuck bitches get money” or whatever. Money and wage labor goes back to the founding of civilization. It isn’t a new invention.
In the wealth of nations Smith talks great lengths about the labourer being king of the market not the landowners and that with advancement in technology costs should go down except land owners prevent that
The whole system is supposed to favour the labourer compared to Mercantilism where the rich got richer because they owned the production
It also praised the American colonies for open immigration saying they could double their population faster than anyone in Europe and that would double their economy
I think one of the main problems with Smith’s conception of capitalism is that he didn’t account for how huge and pervasive and intrusive advertising would become. He naively assumed that the best product would dominate the market when actually people will buy whatever is thrust in front of the their eyes a thousand times a day.
And of course corporate lobbying wasn’t such an issue in his time.
No, the problem with Smith’s capitalism is that he’s constantly misrepresented
He was descriptive, not prescriptive. He was not an advocate of capitalism, he was explaining it - and if you read the wealth of nations and your takeaway was “Lassie Faire capitalism is a good idea”, reread it
I appreciate your critique but I’ve got to be honest and say that I’m not going to spend any more time in my life trying to justify late stage capitalism. It will eventually be replaced and pass into history like every other economic system, if it doesn’t kill us first. 💣
And we know now that his analysis on the outcome of capitalism is incorrect. Capitalism exists for the private property holders to extract as much wealth and power as possible from their privileged position. That unrelenting pursuit of profit has led to even worse inequality, and is collapsing entire ecosystems. It’s a disaster of an economic system full of contradictions. Those contradictions are now causing capitalism to collapse in on itself.
That’s a simplification
Mercantilism had private ownership of production
Capitalism is pay based on hours worked (only way to get rich is to work more hours than someone else)
deleted by creator
Yeah, capitalism was drawn up to prevent that
Turns out that people with money/power will influence laws to their own benefit
I don’t understand your point. The most important feature of capitalism is the private ownership of capital. Capitalism isn’t “hustle, fuck bitches get money” or whatever. Money and wage labor goes back to the founding of civilization. It isn’t a new invention.
So did private ownership
That wasn’t what Capitalism was about
In the wealth of nations Smith talks great lengths about the labourer being king of the market not the landowners and that with advancement in technology costs should go down except land owners prevent that
The whole system is supposed to favour the labourer compared to Mercantilism where the rich got richer because they owned the production
It also praised the American colonies for open immigration saying they could double their population faster than anyone in Europe and that would double their economy
I think one of the main problems with Smith’s conception of capitalism is that he didn’t account for how huge and pervasive and intrusive advertising would become. He naively assumed that the best product would dominate the market when actually people will buy whatever is thrust in front of the their eyes a thousand times a day.
And of course corporate lobbying wasn’t such an issue in his time.
We have term limits for governments but not for corporations
Their ability to last indefinitely allows them more control than anyone thought possible
And no matter what system you choose; they will act in self interest that will allow them to expand/erode the system to benefit themselves
No, the problem with Smith’s capitalism is that he’s constantly misrepresented
He was descriptive, not prescriptive. He was not an advocate of capitalism, he was explaining it - and if you read the wealth of nations and your takeaway was “Lassie Faire capitalism is a good idea”, reread it
I appreciate your critique but I’ve got to be honest and say that I’m not going to spend any more time in my life trying to justify late stage capitalism. It will eventually be replaced and pass into history like every other economic system, if it doesn’t kill us first. 💣
My point is that Adam Smith wasn’t really an advocate of capitalism, he explained it and made a strong case for the necessity of regulation
Smith can talk all he wants, that doesn’t make his analysis correct.
He wrote the book on capitalism
The system literally came from that book
And we know now that his analysis on the outcome of capitalism is incorrect. Capitalism exists for the private property holders to extract as much wealth and power as possible from their privileged position. That unrelenting pursuit of profit has led to even worse inequality, and is collapsing entire ecosystems. It’s a disaster of an economic system full of contradictions. Those contradictions are now causing capitalism to collapse in on itself.
So you realize that the problems with capitalism are what it set out to prevent
That doesn’t make the core of capitalism the opposite
That means it’s not true capitalism
The problem is greed that will exist in any system because people with power will degrade/morph any system to be self serving
capitalism prioritizes greed what are you talking about?
What system doesn’t?
deleted by creator
Started strong, then jumped right off a cliff with this argument. Just wrong about everything in the last sentence, pretty impressive.
You really should read Wealth of Nations
We don’t live in a capitalist society, it’s important to note because the “dream of capitalism” is impossible to achieve
I have. Your definition is just bad, bro.
So you know capitalism paints that landowners are bad and the labourer as essentially
Claims the labourer should be the one that gets the money
Claims money should be given out based of effort
But you think giving money out based on effort is a bad definition for it
That’s right?