this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
94 points (98.0% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
161 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rivermonster@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Capitalism is the problem, as usual. The only goal is maximizing profits, not value to society or country, not as a solution to problems, not anything but profit even when detrimental to the society in which it operates. If you harm the country but increase profits for the minority wealthy, then you're a good capitalist.

[–] Smk@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Capitalism works for small market. It fails horribly for large market like housing. A small market where everyone can participate and compete is totally fine. Big market where you already need to be rich as fuck to do anything is the problem. We are more and more in big market. Every business domain is big. There is no place for smaller player anymore. No one can just build their home anywhere they like. You need specialized people and that's a cost. Capitalism is totally fine when the market can be entered by anyone.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Capitalism does work for large markets, just not ones where the demand side of the market is structurally disadvantaged.

Distribution, logistics and warehousing are great for capitalism, for example. Healthcare and housing, though, very much are not.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You only need to be rich because of regulatory barriers, though.

Without such barriers, multiple people could buy a Toronto or Vancouver residential property (they're needlessly huge) and build many Japanese style homes (if not something more dense) on the plot. All very affordable when divided up.

We just can't do that because the government says "no".

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Greed ruins every economic system

Capitalism was supposed to avoid all the problems we face.

[–] rivermonster@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm really unclear what that means.

Are you saying that capitalism was supported to avoid all the problems we currently have under capitalism?

I'm seriously asking because I really didn't understand, and no offense is intended.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes; under Mercantilism the nobles could sit around all day and their wealth would increase off the backs of the workers

Enter Capitalism where you no longer have generational wealth and pay is based on how many hours you put in. The goal is that the artisan will be the richest in society because they spend their life working

Or at least in theory; it fails when you add capitalists which just occupied the nobles branch before

[–] folkrav@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I mean, are capitalists really added in? They're baked in the system, from where I stand. How did it ever try to solve generational wealth, when wealth can be accumulated/inherited? When was it ever about wages, and not about profit incentives and private ownership of production? And is "spending your life working" the thing we want to encourage as a society?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If we change systems then people with wealth and power will erode it or seize the power vacuum created

Also you are correct in saying you can’t have a Capitalist nation with inheritance

A more recent example is Communism where every country that claims to adopt it doesn’t do that, instead they tend to adopt more authoritarian measures and centralized governments

Going back even further you can look at Christianity where people are supposed to be banned from having wealth but they needed to get the elite on board for it to spread

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A more recent example is Communism where every country that claims to adopt it doesn’t do that

Huh? There is no country that has ever claimed to have adopted communism. The "Communist countries" are so-named because they are ruled by the Communist Party – similar to calling Canada a "Liberal country" because the Liberals hold power – not because they have actually achieved communism or believe they have achieved communism.

Those countries often claim that they are working towards post-scarcity (the precondition of communism), but that's quite different.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Canada is considered a liberal country regardless of the party in power

[–] folkrav@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This point of view always leaves me scratching my head. What's the point, exactly? Are we genuinely arguing that we are not living in a capitalist society?

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Are we genuinely arguing that we are not living in a capitalist society?

We live in a mixed economy. We do have private ownership of capital (capitalism), but we also have community ownership of capital (socialism).

Is that still a capitalist society? Formal definitions of "capitalist society" suggests to me that you must have a capitalism economy and also a government that I think most people here would call "libertarian". That does not describe Canada.

[–] folkrav@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is a very narrow definition of capitalism by which I can't think of a single country that would qualify. I'll be honest, it's the first time someone argues with me that our modern world of Keynesian macroeconomics isn't fundamentally capitalist.

I also strongly disagree that having social components to your market economy makes you not Capitalist. Free Market is not all Capitalism is.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Free Market is not all Capitalism is.

Capitalism most definitely has nothing to do with free markets. Capitalism is very specifically the state of having private ownership of capital. Nothing more, nothing less. Clearly you can have capitalism and regulated markets. There is no market in Canada that is not regulated, but we still manage private ownership of capital just fine.

"Capitalist society" is something else, but not well defined, so that is where the question stems from. You disagree with the definitions I could find, which is fair, yet failed to offer your own. Is there a reason you are running away from the question and going on weird random tangents?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The point is that you’re not going to get rid of the problems unless you get rid of the people that seek power