[AustinG08]

In this example? I don't know, maybe this is what capitalism looks like in Nepal, but I've never been so I have no idea. All I know is my paycheck isn't drenched in blood, sweat, and tears, which to be clear, I am very grateful for.

[mordrax]

True our paychecks may not be, however, the goods and services that we consume from developing nations will most definitely be 'drenched in blood, sweat and tears'.

This is also capitalism is it not?

I think the previous guy was trying to say that there is no morality in capitalism and therefore words such as extreme and pure do not apply. Capitalism is only concerned with money, nothing else.

[jdmichal]

> I think the previous guy was trying to say that there is no morality in capitalism and therefore words such as extreme and pure do not apply. Capitalism is only concerned with money, nothing else.

Pure can certainly still apply. After all, there is no morality in the existence of water, but water can still be pure.

[jdmichal]

You said it seems like an "extreme" form. Now you don't know what that means? I don't mean to seem confrontational; I simply didn't and still don't understand your comment.

So far my guess is that, as hinted in this and another response [0], that "extreme" is being used as a euphemism for "things I morally disagree with". Which, to me, does not make it any less "pure", but is rather your judgement on what "pure" capitalism is.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11376801

[AustinG08]

Well capitalism is defined as: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

I don't see how this tragic event is a pure form of anything except tragedy.

[jdmichal]

A tragic event happened. The Sherpa valued going home to mourn, and also valued being paid. I believe that collyw was suggesting that in "pure" capitalism, payment wouldn't occur unless services are rendered. So the ideas of "going home to mourn" and "being paid" would be incompatible. The result as stated was that "being paid" was considered to be of higher value, and thus they would continue. This is capitalism, because the Sherpa were privately allocating their capital (in this case, themselves and their skills) to what they considered the most valuable pursuit at the moment.

I don't make any value judgements in the above, except perhaps in the first sentence. It's simply my interpretation of the comment, and how the quote was representing "pure" capitalism in my understanding.

I think by now you have sufficiently, if indirectly, answered my question of what you meant by "extreme". It seems like I was probably correct in my guess.

[AustinG08]

Ok, I think I see what you're after. But take for instance a pirate ship. They're off looting and plundering. They lose half their crew to cholera. The crew wants to go home, but they won't have any money, thus they won't be able to eat. Is that "pure" Piracy, or is it just a demoralizing tragedy? In most societies, you gotta work to eat. I don't think it's necessarily a function of capitalism.

[jtuente]

Okay, excusing how bad the analogy is on a practical basis, let's look at what's going on here.

1. The pirates leave port to plunder, commit general acts of piracy and get that booty.

2. The pirates contract cholera and half the crew is incapacitated or dead.

Point 1 is widely considered unethical, but the reasons that it is considered unethical depends on what basis you hold for ethics (stealing from a person vs stealing from society vs stealing from government vs liberating from "the system", that kind of difference).

Point 2 is tragic (extreme distress), but could also be considered "karmic" (for lack of a simpler expression) depending on your ethical viewpoint.

Is it pure piracy? Well, did they pirate anything? If not, then no that's not piracy, it's misfortune. Did they pirate something and then lose it because of the cholera? If so, then yes it's still piracy, they still committed the act.

>In most societies, you gotta work to eat. I don't think it's necessarily a function of capitalism.

No, it's a function of a living and dying organism which requires sustenance. Capitalism is simply a means of trading value #1 for value #2 between organisms in which the organisms respect property rights (capital) of the individual organism.

[jdmichal]

> In most societies, you gotta work to eat. I don't think it's necessarily a function of capitalism.

If I had a billion dollars in the bank, I would not need to work to eat, despite living in a capitalist society. So yes, needing to work to eat is not a function of capitalism. Capitalism just says that an entity that has food gets to decide how to assign that food, since food is just another form of capital. Socialism would say that the community should decide.

[mfoy_]

Some people would argue that social capital provides a better balance. Allowing, for example, the Sherpas to go home without fearing starvation or poverty.