[rajanaccros]

> I don’t think any CEO can be moral if your primary obligation is “shareholder value”.

I am really glad I am starting to see a lot more posts here on HN with regard to this fact. Capitalism is literally destroying everything and has proven itself not to be a viable system for long term sustainability and a healthy society and ecosystem.

Some of the smartest people on the internet aggregate on HN and some have still not figured this out. Either because 1) They haven't taken the time to look into the n-order knock on effects that are produced by capitalism in it's current form, or 2) they are too interested in self-enrichment to make any changes to behavior for their own comfort and convenience.

We should get of publicly traded corporations and Wall Street should disappear in my opinion. It is that publicly traded shareholder value that drives all the crimes against society/environment in this late stage. However, we are up against a severely selfish and entrenched minority with a ton of power who won't let that happen ... at the cost of everything.

[Daz1]

Capitalism is the driving force behind everything you enjoy about your modern, comfortable life.

[rajanaccros]

How is it the driving force behind everything comfortable? If another system was in place are you saying that we would not have had progress towards human comfort? And it seems you are assuming that I wouldn't give up a comfortable life for a more fair and just system with less market externalities? If your measure for success is comfort, then you are the exact person I am trying to convince that we need something else.

[Daz1]

Because capitalism is the only system which incentives continual innovation through market competition, removes non-competitive organisations which fail to meet consumer demand from the market, and empowers consumers to make choices which are in their self-determined best interest.

[rajanaccros]

> Because capitalism is the only system

This is what largely I am arguing against. I think the benefits of capitalism have been proven, but the negatives are largely brushed aside. I think this form of capitalism is dangerous (and I should have been more explicit about that in my original comment). My original comment was to get rid of publicly traded companies and remove wall street altogether. Private companies can continue to exist and compete but the profit motive to solely deliver growth and profit to public shareholders has distorted the whole system into pro-forma income sheets at the best and to outright devastation and exploitation at the worst. Private companies would be largely in check because they wouldn't grow unchecked by raising capital they don't have by going public. In so doing, they wouldn't be "in debt" (overloaded non-technical sense of debt) to shareholders. This would lead to more sustainability and less growth over everything mindset. The knock on effects I mentioned would contribute to a more just and fair system.

That said, I am not an economist, but I would like to see this world exist for future generations. And this economic system isn't it.

[Kbelicius]

> Because capitalism is the only system which incentives continual innovation through market competition

Why would a for profit company invest into basic research without a clear goal to monetizing that research while their competitor is spending that money on marketing?

[Daz1]

What is the implication of your question?

[Kbelicius]

Implication is that the claim: "Because capitalism is the only system which incentives continual innovation" has no basis in reality. By the lack of answer to the posed question I'm guessing you are starting to agree?

[Eisenstein]

I assume they are stating that we don't actually live in a pure capitalist society, or else your definition is wrong.

[XorNot]

As much as I disagree with the OP, this is just as naive. What we enjoy about our modern lives in Western societies is a productive mixed-market economy. The "pure capitalism" argument is just as naive as to pretend it's failed with no redeeming features (which itself, is fallacious because the critics propose no alternative they care to describe - but pointing out a problem with the current system doesn't mean anything if you can't raise a reasonable alternative).

[AndrewKemendo]

There are plenty of critics proposing alternatives

I get a monthly magazine called Jacobin that is filled with bough criticisms and alternatives

Trying to find people who aren’t either fundamentally greedy or barely hanging on is nearly impossible so it’s just mostly people exploiting each other.

I am personally trying to build a cooperative that is mutually owned by employees, and it’s structurally really hard because the legal system doesn’t know anything about how to do that. The entire system is built on the assumption of profit maximization. You don’t go into a banking situation, without telling them the type of business, and the type of profit that you expect. so in every single aspect of attempting to do commerce in the United States, or worldwide today, the default functional system, which everybody uses, because there is no alternative system to use, makes it effectively impossible to do something else without totally building it yourself from scratch.

[XorNot]

> You don’t go into a banking situation, without telling them the type of business, and the type of profit that you expect.

But that's because you're not just banking with someone, you're asking them for a loan. That money has a cost associated with it so the bank quite reasonably wants an indication you're able and likely to repay it.

Waste is waste under any economic model: if the input costs in whatever form they take exceed outputs the endeavor isn't viable.

[pikelet]

Meanwhile, just last year people living a couple of blocks from me were removing sludge a metre high from the floors of their homes due to river flooding levels we've never seen before. Very comfortable indeed.

[briandear]

You’re blaming capitalism for flooding? If that’s the direction we are going, then I could find dozens of famines, dozens more environmental disasters that can be blamed squarely on socialism and communism.

[Timon3]

Capitalism is definitely not the driving force behind most of the great art I enjoy in my modern life. Capitalism destroys art, and it's hard to imagine just how much great art we've missed out on because the artists had to stay busy with work so they can live.

[briandear]

If people aren’t willing to pay for it, is it “great?”

[Timon3]

If an artist has limited time (as all humans do), they can either work a regular job and have a guaranteed income, or they can create art and possibly starve, even if their art is great. You understand that, right?

You can't go up to people and say "hey, I have this incredible idea for an art project, please give me enough money for 5 years go work on this". A few artists can, but most a) won't convince other people that their specific idea is as good as it might be, and b) can't create enough publicity to actually get enough people's eyes on their ideas.

Your "it's not great if people don't want to pay for it" might work in a system where every human can talk to every artist and compare everything. But that is not our world. There will always be people who are undiscovered, there will always be people who could create great things, but don't have enough money.

But I don't think a capitalist can actually understand this.

[prottog]

> Capitalism is literally destroying everything

You can't give credit all the credit to capitalism. Communism destroyed what was the fourth-largest lake in the world, which was so big that it was called a "sea"[0].

> Some of the smartest people on the internet aggregate on HN and some have still not figured this out. Either because 1) They haven't taken the time to look into the n-order knock on effects that are produced by capitalism in it's current form, or 2) they are too interested in self-enrichment to make any changes to behavior for their own comfort and convenience.

The age-old adage that anyone opposed to your viewpoint is either stupid or evil.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

[rajanaccros]

> You can't give credit all the credit to capitalism. Communism destroyed what was the fourth-largest lake in the world, which was so big that it was called a "sea"[0].

The age-old adage that if it is not capitalism, it must be communism.

> The age-old adage that anyone opposed to your viewpoint is either stupid or evil.

Which one are you? Sure my take was reductionist, but you are using my critique to distract is disingenuous. You are trying to defend capitalism by saying that you are not stupid or evil. If I have missed an adjective to describe people who have not discovered this ruthless system of destruction what would it be? Ignorant? Willfully Ignorant?

[brigandish]

> Which one are you?

I don't think HN is for you.

[rajanaccros]

A flippant dismissal deserves a flippant reply.

[brigandish]

Somewhere else, maybe. To think one's opponents are evil or stupid only reveals a lack of self-awareness, arrogance, and over-confidence. Just as the spoon cannot taste the soup, someone displaying those qualities will learn nothing here, and no one will learn anything from them except a bad example, hence why I think HN is not for someone like that.

There's always Reddit.

[rajanaccros]

> only reveals a lack of self-awareness, arrogance, and over-confidence

Says one with the hubris to decide what is right for me.

[wahnfrieden]

Both state and capital can be bad. Of course.