I do not believe that is a necessary truth. What we currently do is not the only thing we can do.
I have very little interaction with alternative economies, though, so sadly my knowledge is all theoretical.
I’m gonna have to disagree… culture and economic system are tightly intertwinned. The culture we do have is a part of the capitalist system, like it or not. That doesn’t mean it’s all negative or bad, but the two are related. Culture doesn’t operate outside of the economic system that dominates a society, it operates within and through it.
5 Likes
The simple answer is that unregulated capitalism enables greedy arseholes. Shkreli came from modest circumstances, Junior Koch didn’t, but by nature and/or nurture both are greedy arseholes who had a profound disconnect from the rest of humanity the moment they came into their fortunes.
2 Likes
Some people are born as assholes.
Most of them do not act like the assholes they really are, because they can’t afford it (in every possible meaning of “afford”.)
3 Likes
They’re stuck taking out their abusive dickishness on family members and work subordinates instead of inflicting it on the public at large.
3 Likes
For example, here’s a thought experiment: why do we have brands of food; in other words, how does having two different kinds of milk on the shelf create a more efficient system?
2 Likes
Were there no tiny Latina in this thread it would be necessary to invent one.
5 Likes
In my observation regulation also causes some of the worst excesses of capitalism as its exploited by the asshole class. Skrelli was enabled by a drug regulation ecosystem involving disconnected
payers and abusable IP laws.
A classic example is who buys a rent-controlled building with low rents. Not a stand-up guy I can tell you that, its the scumbag who is willing to go to war with the tenants. Rent control creates a cage match that doesn’t exist in places with unregulated rents and without restrictive zoning.
1 Like
I see greed for money as the same mentality as greed for food. I knew a guy who was immensely overweight. At two parties he sat defensively at the food table, eating out of the serving dishes in front of everyone, hoping other guests were too polite to ask him to stop. Most people were. I don’t see how he got invited, maybe he wasn’t. Clearly he didn’t need the food, but it wasn’t about food. It was about domination.
Sometime during the Afghan war there was talk about a dust or water vectored virus that could inject designer dna into cells that caused people to question their own fanaticism. It was used on the Taliban. It may have just been opportunistic hype but if not… perhaps DARPA could modify that technology a bit to address the roots of selfishness in the vicinity of Wall st. or maybe the air conditioning system in Congress. Do it NOW guys.
Still, you can’t deny his amazing artistic talents.
Also, I just love his Laurie Anderson “Sharky’s Day” palm tree shirt.
Sometimes I wonder if greed is only ambition without a goal, coupled with selfishness. Because we want to reward ambition but punish greed, and so on.
Capitalism rewards greed, so it really is both: the greedy, though lack of morals, game the system and their success encourages others to go to the Dark Side. Everyone wants to be a badass Sith Lord, the rich guy sitting oth the throne. If winning means having the most points and we measure those points in dollars, then of course people will slip into greed.
1 Like
That’s a good point. On an individual level, we often develop brand loyalties - coke vs. pepsi vs. dr. pepper, nike vs. converse, etc.
Awesome when a state enables unlimited, unrestricted greed.
Hate to point out that Ayn Rand’s bleating weren’t a prescription for a state should run but a complete fantasy.
But here we are.
1 Like
In the oversimplified to uselessness version, it encourages quality in both by letting the buyer see that there are two distinct entities. If Farmer A is shoddy, then the customer can choose Farmer B instead. Or Farmer A has better apples, but Farmer B is cheaper, so you can decide what is important to you. Later it’s Company A and Company B. Thus both A and B try not to let the other guy win. That at least is the theory.
Since we humans are not as rational as we believe to be, though, we tend to get in ruts and stick with a brand that is good enough until forced to drop it. And it only works as long as A and B are actual competitors. And stuff.
You get the idea, I hope.
1 Like
Illusion of choice is first step in process of manufacture consent, comrade.
Learn this from many year watching Squirrel
Wise woman once say “Freedom of choice is 50 kinds of breakfast cereals with different names, with ingredients that all read exactly the same”.
1 Like
Basically, we have done trillions of experiments over thousands of years, and found that in every case where only one supplier controls access to or production of a necessary good, the supply costs more to produce and is of lower quality than the same good distributed through a multiply participant market to informed consumers. The branding is informational, so you know you’re getting real Stonyfield® milk from contented cows.
Good markets will crowdsource quality control and ongoing oversight; that’s what a marketplace does, and what monopolies don’t. When a single entity controls quality and oversight it will be captured, but if the market is both free and fair (only possible through regulation of course) then the consumers are the quality control and oversight mechanism, which works, in an enduring fashion, and also at the lowest possible cost.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
