> We are all Capitalists, until the Market comes after the stuff we love.
Anyone with half a brain isn't a "Capitalist" (with a big C, like in your example) which is why every single prosperous nation (including USA) regulates markets to avoid destruction of their prosperity and society.
Colloquial "capitalism" today is just cronyism that in no way resembles the capitalism that Adam Smith wrote about. We really should move towards Rhine Capitalism, the only system that has stood the test of time and truly benefits everyone.
He also wrote about the problem with monopolies, but that was later on in his book so we forgot to do that part so the market isn't properly free.
He only used that metaphor a few times, and he did not attribute the sort of mystical power to the metaphor that modern neoliberal economists do. He never proposed the modern extreme interpretation of the concept, nor did he suggest that government should release all control over the economy.
Marx treated Smith rather favorably, and credits him for first understanding that labor in general is what creates value. Smith is best understood as an early pioneer in understanding political economy and trade. He likely wouldn’t recognize or understand the capitalism of today (nor would Marx).
Adam Smith was writing in the 1770s. At the time, only ~5% of the economy was capitalist. The rest was feudal, where lords owned the land and extracted rents.
Going from a feudal system to a capitalist system was great. All of a sudden people got payed wages, the creation of capital (productive goods) was incentivized. It created a much more dynamic economy.
What we are seeing now is a transition from capitalism to technofeudalism. You no longer buy things, you rent them from corporations that have much more power than you.
Additionally, the giant platforms (youtube, facebook, et al), are like a feudal lord's lands: people post / create content mostly for free, the lord extracts rents from the society (ads, etc). The many have no power, the lords get to organize their platforms however they want, prices rise because of the advertising spend, so even if you don't use facebook you bear the burden.
The entire point of anti-trust is to ensure a capitalist system doesn't transition back into a feudal one.
dist-epoch · · focus · HN ↗
Yes, it's the manufacturers fault, not the unbelievable market demand.
We are all Capitalists, until the Market comes after the stuff we love.
izacus · · focus · HN ↗
Anyone with half a brain isn't a "Capitalist" (with a big C, like in your example) which is why every single prosperous nation (including USA) regulates markets to avoid destruction of their prosperity and society.
MrDrMcCoy · · focus · HN ↗
fhn · · focus · HN ↗
fragmede · · focus · HN ↗
iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
Marx treated Smith rather favorably, and credits him for first understanding that labor in general is what creates value. Smith is best understood as an early pioneer in understanding political economy and trade. He likely wouldn’t recognize or understand the capitalism of today (nor would Marx).
atmavatar · · focus · HN ↗
upboundspiral · · focus · HN ↗
Going from a feudal system to a capitalist system was great. All of a sudden people got payed wages, the creation of capital (productive goods) was incentivized. It created a much more dynamic economy.
What we are seeing now is a transition from capitalism to technofeudalism. You no longer buy things, you rent them from corporations that have much more power than you.
Additionally, the giant platforms (youtube, facebook, et al), are like a feudal lord's lands: people post / create content mostly for free, the lord extracts rents from the society (ads, etc). The many have no power, the lords get to organize their platforms however they want, prices rise because of the advertising spend, so even if you don't use facebook you bear the burden.
The entire point of anti-trust is to ensure a capitalist system doesn't transition back into a feudal one.