Basically, the use of a flagrant applause light to disguise confused thinking in this article is a big red flag. He is advocating a peculiar view of economic development held in some very right-wing economics circles, but economic development is not altruistic in the sense that the Effective Altruism movement means: it does not generate utility for any particular human individuals who happen to be suffering now, and in fact often generates very few “hedons” per marginal dollar invested, because the rich are well into diminishing happiness returns to marginal wealth increases.
economic development is not altruistic in the sense that the Effective Altruism movement means: it does not generate utility for any particular human individuals who happen to be suffering now
Which “capitalism”? The word is used to mean too many things.
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense that has been around since the Dutch and British East India Companies: the synergy, at the national level, of military force and private investment to meet those ambitions of the national elite that could not be funded by the hereditary conqueror class alone?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Adam Smith — an independent private business sector, enabled by government regulation to prevent collusion and fraud, but freed from nationalist mercantilism?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Marx — a globalizing economy focused around the ownership of capital by a shrinking minority class; with the non-owning class eventually reduced to possessing nothing of value but their labor, and their eventual privation through mechanized overproduction?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Ayn Rand — an economy in which the greatest human aspirations are realized through the unshackling of great men from their subjection to unworthy men, and from irrational ideologies such as altruism?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of the “first world”, the Western faction in the 20th-century Cold War, with its particular institutions, ideologies, and alliances — but particularly with its opposition to the “communist” Soviet and Chinese geopolitical axes?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of particular current political parties or forces which are opposed to social-democratic measures (e.g. national health care) and various forms of industrial regulation (e.g. environmentalism)?
Does that not create a bit of a problem, then, given that capitalism is one of the best things that humanity came up with during the last few centuries?
I don’t take that as given, particularly since taking such a statement as given tends to involve packing all the nice things about modernity into the word “capitalism” while simultaneously shoving all the nasty consequences of capitalism into some other word.
I think the claim is that capitalism increases (something like) total wealth but this does not necessarily entail increasing the wealth of each personal individually. In fact, most people could see their wealth decrease under capitalism, and some such as Piketty would (I think) say that this is the limit we are heading towards.
While I agree that capitalism is responsible for quite a few good things, at the end of the day it’s just an (extremely stable) economic system, and figuring out realistic ways to deal with some of its shortcomings seems like an incredibly important problem, though not one I know how to solve.
The rich getting ever riches doesn’t sound stable to me, since the poor periodically get fed up and hang the rich. Capitalism+redistribution could be stabler though.
I think the claim is that capitalism increases (something like) total wealth but this does not necessarily entail increasing the wealth of each personal individually.
Perhaps, but it does increase the wealth of nearly each person individually. The average American today, heck even the bottom 1% American today is wealthier then a rich ring ~200 years ago.
Basically, the use of a flagrant applause light to disguise confused thinking in this article is a big red flag. He is advocating a peculiar view of economic development held in some very right-wing economics circles, but economic development is not altruistic in the sense that the Effective Altruism movement means: it does not generate utility for any particular human individuals who happen to be suffering now, and in fact often generates very few “hedons” per marginal dollar invested, because the rich are well into diminishing happiness returns to marginal wealth increases.
Like capitalism?
Which “capitalism”? The word is used to mean too many things.
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense that has been around since the Dutch and British East India Companies: the synergy, at the national level, of military force and private investment to meet those ambitions of the national elite that could not be funded by the hereditary conqueror class alone?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Adam Smith — an independent private business sector, enabled by government regulation to prevent collusion and fraud, but freed from nationalist mercantilism?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Marx — a globalizing economy focused around the ownership of capital by a shrinking minority class; with the non-owning class eventually reduced to possessing nothing of value but their labor, and their eventual privation through mechanized overproduction?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Ayn Rand — an economy in which the greatest human aspirations are realized through the unshackling of great men from their subjection to unworthy men, and from irrational ideologies such as altruism?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of the “first world”, the Western faction in the 20th-century Cold War, with its particular institutions, ideologies, and alliances — but particularly with its opposition to the “communist” Soviet and Chinese geopolitical axes?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of particular current political parties or forces which are opposed to social-democratic measures (e.g. national health care) and various forms of industrial regulation (e.g. environmentalism)?
I mean capitalism as the empirically observed economic organization of the world’s richest countries for the past couple of centuries.
If by that you mean, “capitalism does not generate utility for any particular human individuals” and so on, yes.
Does that not create a bit of a problem, then, given that capitalism is one of the best things that humanity came up with during the last few centuries?
I don’t take that as given, particularly since taking such a statement as given tends to involve packing all the nice things about modernity into the word “capitalism” while simultaneously shoving all the nasty consequences of capitalism into some other word.
I think the claim is that capitalism increases (something like) total wealth but this does not necessarily entail increasing the wealth of each personal individually. In fact, most people could see their wealth decrease under capitalism, and some such as Piketty would (I think) say that this is the limit we are heading towards.
While I agree that capitalism is responsible for quite a few good things, at the end of the day it’s just an (extremely stable) economic system, and figuring out realistic ways to deal with some of its shortcomings seems like an incredibly important problem, though not one I know how to solve.
The rich getting ever riches doesn’t sound stable to me, since the poor periodically get fed up and hang the rich. Capitalism+redistribution could be stabler though.
Perhaps, but it does increase the wealth of nearly each person individually. The average American today, heck even the bottom 1% American today is wealthier then a rich ring ~200 years ago.
Heh. It’s just the system which achieved this :-)
I’ll agree with that, if you agree it’s also one of the worst.