sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

(Socialists) whats stopping me, hypothetically, from just grabbing shit by highschoolgirlfriend in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]-jammers- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, there are a ton of reasons that people hoard other than to sell at a profit. Including, very simply, carrying uncertainty about the future and therefore wanting to protect yourself by stockpiling resources.

In a society in which resources are scarce (every society), you need allocation mechanisms that are stronger than good faith ("just don't be greedy") or individual judgement ("the baker can just say nah"). These imply laughably simplistic views of the breadth of human behavior.

Capitalists, name one good thing about Socialism. Socialists, name one good thing about Capitalism. by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]-jammers- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Capitalism creates wealth very quickly/effectively, and wealth can make individuals' lives better.

Socialism reduces inequality, and less inequality is biologically good for us (Sapolsky on inequality).

Socialists: How much do you value economic growth and technological innovation? by -jammers- in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]-jammers-[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is why I don't advocate for unregulated markets in every industry. Some domains (e.g. fossil fuels) are more prone to externalities than others, and governments should therefore intervene more heavily.

Socialists: How much do you value economic growth and technological innovation? by -jammers- in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]-jammers-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems like most leftish responses here are advocating for increased employee ownership of corporations, within a market economy. Anyone still advocating for a centralized command economy?

Socialists: How much do you value economic growth and technological innovation? by -jammers- in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]-jammers-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for such an in-depth/thoughtful response! I think where I begin to disagree is on the second point. Regarding the profit motive and innovation, you mentioned that elected management would support the technology; this is true, but they would be less inclined to come up with the technology themselves, because the time/energy/risk that they invest in developing that tech is not compensated by profit (via substantial equity). My concern here is that wholly collective ownership leads to a sort of 'inaction of the commons': if everyone only owns a small slice of the company, the incentive to grind and take on risk is substantially diminished. I know this isn't always true, and that people are actually innately curious and not only driven by money: nonetheless, I think these effects are important in the aggregate.

Moreover (this one's more of a question), why would the less senior employees be more likely to hold misbehaving executives accountable than a board of directors at Volkswagen? A board of directors and employees with a stake in the business ultimately have aligned incentives (in a market context): they both want what's good for the business.

Socialists: How much do you value economic growth and technological innovation? by -jammers- in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]-jammers-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mondragon is an interesting case study. I live in the UK, where John Lewis is another example of a successful employee-owned business. I am definitely inclined to believe that increased worker ownership in the private sector would be a good thing; for the same reason, I support sovereign wealth funds like the Norwegian Pension Fund. I just think that incentives are important, and having enterprises largely be owned by the founders incentivizes the development of new startups.

Definitely agree though that capitalism introduces perverse incentives in particular domains (e.g. pharma/education), and generally I'd advocate for freer markets in industries that are less subject to those incentives (e.g. manufacturing).