For proofs these seem to be full of qualifiers and straw man arguments. They're not terribly compelling. Take the Greedflation example. Inflation is in part driven by greed. The rebuttal that corporations are in a constant state of greed supports the statement, it doesnt undermine it.
The "wage dictation fallacy" part is just plain weird. Saying "the wages are not set by the market, not by corporations" makes absolutely 0 sense unless you just forget that "the market" is mostly corporations.
If anyone thinks it's a two-sided fair negociation, they need to look up the word "monopsony". HN users in particular might want to ask google or chatgpt about the "High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation".
In healthy markets this greed is checked by competitors undercutting them.
We don’t have healthy markets in key areas of the economy. There has been massive consolidation and what we have now is akin to cartel pricing.
Regarding the McDuck fallacy the author writes:
These companies then use the money for their growth, operations, r&d, job creation, etc.
Our capitalist system is very good at extracting profits and driving down labor costs. The surplus goes primarily to those who have stocks and other investments. This overwhelmingly benefits those at the top. A few people in the U.S. have more wealth than the bottom 150 million people. It’s an obscene situation. The distribution of resources is grossly unfair.
The OP looks like it's just capitalist/libertarian talking points.
Honestly, I'd like some discussions of the real fallacies of capitalism, like "you can tell what people really want by what markets make" (often deployed to silence legitimate criticism), etc.
Propaganda like the OP isn't really compelling, because it papers over the real complexity of the world by quoting chapter and verse from oversimple models (if it's even being honest at all).
7 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 36.3 ms ] threadI'm an actual capitalist, and even I have to admit that the article is basically nonsense.
Capitalism can be defended, but doing so by lieing isn't necessary
If anyone thinks it's a two-sided fair negociation, they need to look up the word "monopsony". HN users in particular might want to ask google or chatgpt about the "High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation".
In healthy markets this greed is checked by competitors undercutting them.
We don’t have healthy markets in key areas of the economy. There has been massive consolidation and what we have now is akin to cartel pricing.
Regarding the McDuck fallacy the author writes:
These companies then use the money for their growth, operations, r&d, job creation, etc.
Our capitalist system is very good at extracting profits and driving down labor costs. The surplus goes primarily to those who have stocks and other investments. This overwhelmingly benefits those at the top. A few people in the U.S. have more wealth than the bottom 150 million people. It’s an obscene situation. The distribution of resources is grossly unfair.
Honestly, I'd like some discussions of the real fallacies of capitalism, like "you can tell what people really want by what markets make" (often deployed to silence legitimate criticism), etc.
Propaganda like the OP isn't really compelling, because it papers over the real complexity of the world by quoting chapter and verse from oversimple models (if it's even being honest at all).
lol, and stock buy-backs, and other cash grabbing schemes.
Honestly these points are all weak.