I love the nuanced, good faith engagement; however I’d disagree on one small aspect. The goals of capitalism and the goals of government are diametrically opposed. Free market competition also has to be propped up by government, because the end result of competition is one winner (monopoly) and a multitude of losers (failed/acquired companies). This incentivizes business executives to influence government to break down regulations. Oligarchy is capitalism working perfectly, not a failure.
The comment may represent good faith from the standpoint of its author, but worth noting is that fallacious premises, often ones widely proliferated, tend to sneak their way into discussions.
From left-liberal rhetoric, we are now accustomed to phrasings akin to that of “well-regulated capitalism”. Such appeals to purity simply misdirect substantive analysis away from the true causes for the outcomes they claim to antagonize.
It may seem pleasant to assert the possibility of a capitalism in some ideal form, somehow absolved of the indictments directed at its true manifestation, but doing so is only avoiding the deeper and essential structural criticism.
No particular policy would overcome the fallacy in your argument, because any failure of some particular capitalist society could be dismissed as attributable to improper regulations, instead of to intractable dysfunction of the system at large, of capitalism itself.
Coming to your argument about policy, you have not responded to my concerns.
Regulation, including antitrust laws, is not something separate from capitalism but rather a component of it. To ensure fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices that could stifle competition, governments often enact regulations like antitrust laws. These laws aim to maintain a level playing field and protect consumers from monopolies or anti-competitive behavior. So, regulation is a tool used within the framework of capitalism to promote competition and prevent abuses of market power.
I can provide you with a detailed list of ways that government can reform to protect itself from the rich and corporate entities breaking down these regulatory systems. This list does include throwing away capitalism.
I love the nuanced, good faith engagement; however I’d disagree on one small aspect. The goals of capitalism and the goals of government are diametrically opposed. Free market competition also has to be propped up by government, because the end result of competition is one winner (monopoly) and a multitude of losers (failed/acquired companies). This incentivizes business executives to influence government to break down regulations. Oligarchy is capitalism working perfectly, not a failure.
The comment may represent good faith from the standpoint of its author, but worth noting is that fallacious premises, often ones widely proliferated, tend to sneak their way into discussions.
From left-liberal rhetoric, we are now accustomed to phrasings akin to that of “well-regulated capitalism”. Such appeals to purity simply misdirect substantive analysis away from the true causes for the outcomes they claim to antagonize.
It may seem pleasant to assert the possibility of a capitalism in some ideal form, somehow absolved of the indictments directed at its true manifestation, but doing so is only avoiding the deeper and essential structural criticism.
I listed clear policy steps that can be taken to ensure a fairer system. This definitely doesn’t seem fallacious.
Your response sidesteps the objection.
No particular policy would overcome the fallacy in your argument, because any failure of some particular capitalist society could be dismissed as attributable to improper regulations, instead of to intractable dysfunction of the system at large, of capitalism itself.
Coming to your argument about policy, you have not responded to my concerns.
Regulation, including antitrust laws, is not something separate from capitalism but rather a component of it. To ensure fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices that could stifle competition, governments often enact regulations like antitrust laws. These laws aim to maintain a level playing field and protect consumers from monopolies or anti-competitive behavior. So, regulation is a tool used within the framework of capitalism to promote competition and prevent abuses of market power.
I can provide you with a detailed list of ways that government can reform to protect itself from the rich and corporate entities breaking down these regulatory systems. This list does include throwing away capitalism.
deleted by creator