Granted, sixty years ago, a woman couldn’t have a credit card or a checking account in her name. She also had to have her husband’s permission to use birth control, if she could even get it. Fifty years ago she couldn’t have an abortion, which means red states (in the U.S.) have gone back prior to 1972 concerning abortion. I see red states taking more rights, including birth contro. away from women if something isn’t done.
Yes, sixty years ago it was illegal and I see red states (in the U.S,) going back to that given they’ve taken abortion rights away from women. Just by denying women abortions rights, red states have taken way a woman’s right to health care and I would not put it past red states to take away more health care rights away from women. Being in France, I guess you haven’t heard what red states in the U.S. have done to women.
Anarchists tell that " Democracy is keep talking and dictatorship is shut your mouth "
Capitalism needs freedom, private ownership protected, a state of law and independent courts. It prefer democracy as these system are more stable and firm in a democratic system.
But the democracy must be limited so the system cannot be overthrown. experience has shown that such is the case in fact, except in very special cases.
When the core interests of the capitalists are threatened, dictatorship or at least an authoritarian system is preferred.
Anyway, i prefer to live under a democratic system than under a dictatorship.
IMK, free-market theorists prefer talking about laissez-faire or economic freedom.
Your definition of capitalism seems to me quite structuralist.
But free-market theorists prefer empiricism, and concepts such as spontaneous order.
They despise economists who see society and economy as a machine on which you press on buttons to solve problems and get the results you wish.
And, again, in Marxist theory, which has a conspiracy theory flavor, “capitalism” often connotates a group of people conspiring together against another group of people.
This again goes in contrast to free-market theorists who tend to favor individualism and methodological individualism.
They believe sociological phenomena must be explained by the actions of individuals, not by the action of groups of people. They contend that “group of people” is just a name, not a reality.
Experience has shown that there is no spontaneous order. The idea of an invisible hand balancing the system has been disproved.
And, about capitalism, no need to postulate a conspiracy. Each actor acts in its self-interest and the interests converge, sometime at the detriment of the system. Hence the idea of contradictions.
There are places where the capitalists meet and agree, but they do that publicly, as in Davos some years ago.
There can be temporary and locally limited conspiracies, as when a cartel is created.
And in the 70ths, the way the big petrol companies and some governments realized which effects the accumulation of carbon dioxyde would have in atmosphere, decided to hide it, and do nothing, and paid so called scientists to deny it give an idea about the way the system works.
How has it been disproved? Since the idea of the spontaneous order was implemented in economics, we went from 3 dollars per day of per capita income, to 100 dollars per day. Similar thing with life expectancy, and other criteria (Something you acknowledged yourself in other posts, as did Karl Marx).
Isn’t it the idea that economics can be ruled top-down by a special economic bureau that has been disproved by the experience of thousands of deaths?
“Each actor acts in its self-interest and the interests converge” The interests of Elon Musk (with Twitter) converge with the interests of Mark Zuckerberg (Meta)? Are you kidding me?
Free-market is made of competition (not convergence of interests), which is the very basis of free-market economy. Competition can lead potentially to the complete destruction of the opponent (see what happened to Kodak). If you deny that, I don’t know what I can say. Other than it’s conspiracy theory.
Also, the word “system” is very symptomatic of a structuralist way of thought. You don’t take society for what it is (a living body), but for a machine (which it is not).
Exactly what Morgan said, that good and bad actors exist in an economy. You seem to want to just argue, with no conclusion. Anyone can point out contrary examples, but Morgan discussed them in the larger context.
No. Morgane post encompasses too much ideas I disagree with that need to be tackled one by one and clarified.
I don’t get the point in saying that I seek for argument, and in taking side for one user over the other. It sounds just insulting and alienating and breaks the rythm of the conversation.
I don’t think you have a rhythm. You throw out phrases like “spontaneous order” and claim they brought prosperity, but provide no evidence. You don’t respond to comments of the downside of these concepts. For example,
Why would justice so conceived be a mirage? Hayek says, “there can be no distributive justice where no one distributes” (Hayek 1978b, 58 or 1976, 68–69). In Hayek’s words, “considerations of justice provide no justification for ‘correcting’ the results of the market” (1969, 175). So long as traders are voluntarily making pareto-superior moves, there is nothing else that can be said or needs to be said by way of justification.
