Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[Poopadoop]

Like what?

They're value judgments of course but I believe the distribution of resources in a strictly capitalist system tends to be overly skewed towards having a few very well-off individuals at the expense of the people in the middle and at the bottom.

I don't think a 'everyone for themselves, survival of the fittest' economy in general leads to a happy society because it lacks a certain brotherhood and common empathy for your fellow man. To give a concrete example, the quality of your health care is not something I think should, in general, depend on your wealth.

[wufwugy]

They're value judgments of course but I believe the distribution of resources in a strictly capitalist system tends to be overly skewed towards having a few very well-off individuals at the expense of the people in the middle and at the bottom.

I don't think a 'everyone for themselves, survival of the fittest' economy in general leads to a happy society because it lacks a certain brotherhood and common empathy for your fellow man. To give a concrete example, the quality of your health care is not something I think should, in general, depend on your wealth.

I know this is very long so I don't expect you to watch, but in case you want to. Milton Friedman has long discussed how free market capitalism benefits the poorer more greatly than the richer.



My added input is that government favors are what make such divides, and that when government is prohibited from giving favors, the markets are most open to the most diverse and lowest cost alternatives, which helps the poor.

Friedman is explicit: there is no example in the world of a first-world society that didn't become that way but for free market capitalism.

[Poopadoop]

I know this is very long so I don't expect you to watch, but in case you want to. Milton Friedman has long discussed how free market capitalism benefits the poorer more greatly than the richer.



My added input is that government favors are what make such divides, and that when government is prohibited from giving favors, the markets are most open to the most diverse and lowest cost alternatives, which helps the poor.

Friedman is explicit: there is no example in the world of a first-world society that didn't become that way but for free market capitalism.

That's fine and he may be right (didn't watch but I might some time), but it doesn't address my other point. If you take capitalism to it's extreme, there's no recourse for anyone who lacks resources to obtain things they might desperately need.

[wufwugy]

That's fine and he may be right (didn't watch but I might some time), but it doesn't address my other point. If you take capitalism to it's extreme, there's no recourse for anyone who lacks resources to obtain things they might desperately need.

That's already the case. Capitalism improves access. Government bills its programs as helping the least fortunate, but it doesn't. This isn't entirely due to corruption either. For example, the least fortunate are made worse off by "good" programs to help them because those programs by nature are disincentives for their improvement.

[Poopadoop]

That's already the case.

If we're talking about healthcare, that's the case in the US (or at least it was), not in most wealthy countries where healthcare is subsidized.

[wufwugy]

If we're talking about healthcare, that's the case in the US (or at least it was), not in most wealthy countries where healthcare is subsidized.

It's even worse for you guys. The subsidies hide the negatives better.

[Poopadoop]

It's even worse for you guys. The subsidies hide the negatives better.

Lol.