Comment on Intel CPU Temperature Monitoring Driver For Linux Now Unmaintained After Layoffs
Mniot@programming.dev 13 hours agosocialized capitalism
I think I understand your complaint, but I’d say “free market” rather than “capitalism”. But regardless of what we call it, it doesn’t actually exist unless you have a more powerful external system regulating it.
Start with a truly free-market capitalist system. One company manages to temporarily pull ahead (through luck and skill). The rational thing for the company to do isn’t “make better products” (that’s hard) but “destroy competing companies” (much easier). And the end-product would be that the company becomes a government so it can force consumers to pay.
So I’d argue that socialized capitalism (which I’m picturing as a socialist system that permits certain specific free markets and handles the fallout of business failures) is what you actually want.
HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Not exactly. And larger companies simply CANT destroy competition without assistance from the government.
If you are free to choose what to buy, and who to buy it from, you can choose to buy from the startup. You can choose to buy from the guy running a business out of the back of his pickup. Or out of his garage. Or any number of options.
Problem is, right now we have our government enabling monopolies. Propping up failing, or non-profitable businesses by making it illegal to do business without spending millions or more on regulations that seem good on the surface, but when you start to dig into them, you see the vast majority of them were actually pushed by the big name businesses to stifle competition.
Our wallets should be the only regulation. Would you willingly buy products from a company that doesn’t respect the environment? No? Well guess what! That’s the power of the free market.
There’s, right now, a hybrid truck manufacturer in Canada that is right now staring down the barrel of excessive regulations that will limit their ability to build hybrid semi trucks.
How many other would-be entrepreneurs simply don’t even bother trying because there’s no way they can afford it?
How many small 1 to 2 person businesses would be in existence right now to compete with all these large companies?
Mniot@programming.dev 8 hours ago
When I read your message, I get the impression that you think of “The Government” as this independent actor. I see it as a system that is primarily controlled by wealthy people. Either directly or through their funding advertisements (including astroturfing/bot-farms) to promote what they want.
So the larger companies do get government assistance… because they are the government. And this isn’t some kind of weird coincidence. It’s fundamental to capitalism’s operation. You can’t have a system that’s based on capital and then have it be unbiased towards entities who have vastly more capital!
HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
It’s odd that you think it’s fundamental to capitalism when it’s exactly the opposite. True capitalism is an unfettered marketplace.
What we have now is a system here the profits are private, but the losses are socialized.
You may think that’s an effect of capitalism, but it most definitely is not.
You are conflating a system of governance with a system of economics. And I get it, because in a controlled economy, the government is usually the one doing the controlling.
What we have is something in the middle, taking the worst aspects of truly free-market capitalism, and marrying it with the worst aspects of a controlled economy.
Our government the picks winners in this setup we have. Instead of letting the market decide.
Your issue is that you see all the things this half-breed, partially-socialist economy gives us, and you blame it on the market. But the market didn’t get us here.
History tells me what will happen if we finally give in, and give total control of the economy over to the politicians. And I do not want that for my children, or their children.