Which is good, I can't figure out how anybody can see the government owning everything as a good thing for anyone.
If you just look at postal services across the world, as an example, or anything else run by government, they're 100 times less efficient then competitors and their workers always look like they're super-miserable. Imagine if that was the only option.
I would say both less efficient and less profitable.
If you're saying FedEx people are also depressed, then maybe it's just delivering boxes that's the problem?
But I think it's pretty safe to say that there is nobody more pissed off than post office workers. Are they nice in Estonia? Luckily I do most stuff online nowadays but when I have to go to the post office it's always an awful experience.
I would say it's more likely that the hours and wages are the problem.
A few grumpy delivery workers aside, most people in Estonia are nice in general. You should come visit :)
I don't know where you are but consider that the reasons your postal workers are pissed of may go deeper than simply being government employed. Could it be your state-owned services are being managed in way that makes their workers unhappy because they are run by people who think that government services even need to be profitable in the first place?
I'm in Poland, but I'm from Italy and I've lived in the U.S. for a few years. Worst post offices in Italy by far, but Poland and U.S. pretty similar.
Other low-paying jobs don't seem to generate the same amount of unhappiness.
I have no idea what the reason is, to me it's just that governments can't do anything right because they're too big with no oversight.
That's why I was complaining about socialism, anywhere I've been where the government runs more than just post offices it was hell.
In Poland, all these Soviet buildings and if you look at old pictures of people standing for hours in queues for bread. Truly horrific. I was recently in Cuba and even if they can't talk about it many people told me they would flee right away if they could, but the government doesn't give them passports. Socialism destroys everything.
If you're talking about the US, you're glossing over a couple of really important points. The USPS is required to provide universal service. I'm sure providing service to NYC and SF is extremely profitable, and providing service to rural Iowa where the cows outnumber the humans 100:1 isn't. USPS doesn't get to pick and choose.
FedEx and UPS do... and in fact in those rural communities often uses the USPS for last mile service.
Capitalism is a moral framework as much as it is an economic system, especially in the US where it is deeply entangled in the Protestant work ethic and prosperity gospel ideals.
Is that in any dictionary, though? Capitalism means capitalism, free market with citizens owning companies.
If it's deeply entangled in the Protestant work ethic and prosperity gospel ideals in the U.S., then what's bad is the Protestant work ethic and prosperity gospel--whatever that might be.
Capitalism is what capitalism does. Name one "capitalist" economy strictly and exclusively defined by a "free market with citizens owning companies." None. There are no free markets. Governments always own some interest in companies, regulate and interfere in markets. Culture and morality always influence class and power hierarchies, and by extension economic systems. The real world is more complex than dictionary definitions allow.
Right, I agree that governments should stay out of people's business.
If you're saying that governments always mess with the free market, then I guess we're in socialist-capitalist economic systems..? Still better than just socialist.
If your definition of capitalism requires pure free markets, and you consider any regulation of markets by government to be socialism, then yes all existing economic systems are socialist and no capitalist systems exist.
Personally I don't find a framework so reductionist that it considers the USSR and the US to be equivalent to be very useful.
Well all the things OP complained about are inherently caused by capitalism but I think it’s probably possible to engage in capitalism in a way that is cognizant of those issues and actively trying to avoid them instead of treating them as eh that’s just how business is done
Then I'd suggest, in good faith, avoiding the "Ugh, capitalism" framing in the future. That just comes across as lazy, which doesn't help your point. As exemplified by the replies you got, all arguing about words.
I admit I could've probably used more words but when someone says "it's just business" that is a clear example of how the particular flavor of capitalism we live under has enabled and indeed encourages brushing away any moral and ethical qualms as "it's just business" and as you say, it was quite interesting to see how many people immediately jumped to dictionaries, communism, and whatever else the moment capitalism was criticized.
Which is good, I can't figure out how anybody can see the government owning everything as a good thing for anyone.
If you just look at postal services across the world, as an example, or anything else run by government, they're 100 times less efficient then competitors and their workers always look like they're super-miserable. Imagine if that was the only option.