[someonebaggy]

The alternatives to capitalism are a wide spectrum, ranging from totalitarian dictatorship (aka central planning) all the way to free markets with sensible regulations. What they all have in common is not being capitalism, i.e. not putting power solely in the hands of the wealthiest.

[inglor_cz]

Unregulated capitalism does not exist anywhere on this planet, and the US is in fact quite a bureaucratic country, though less so than many others.

"putting power solely in the hands of the wealthiest."

Do you think it is? Then let some of the wealthiest try to obtain a permit in downtown SF for a mere block of flats, the likes of which used to be built by the thousands 100 years ago. If it takes less than a decade, I would be surprised.

There is a lot of power outside the private sector. Every environmental or political group that sues any project does, in fact, wield a lot of power of the "veto" variety, which used to be prerogative of kings.

[someonebaggy]

The wealthiest are having no problem acquiring permits for data centers. Why would they want flats when DCs are so much more profitable? Last century it was highways.

[inglor_cz]

No problem? Didn't New York (the state) actually stop issuance of permits for data centers for a year or so?

Sure that you can get a permit somewhere, that is just federalism. But you may not get it where you want it, and given that data centers are now a part of the general culture war, I expect that many blue states will now attempt to regulate them out of existence, at least in urban and semi-urban areas.

[sevenzero]

Regulators being paid off arent actually regulating things you know? Regulation as it is, is extremely flawed and prone to corruption.

[inglor_cz]

Bad governance is a very hard problem to solve. We have been living in organized states for over 4000 years and various combinations of corruption and nepotism seem to be common problems regardless of the political and economic system.

The very fact that the question "Quod custodiet ipsos custodes?" (who will guard the guards themselves?) was originally formulated in Latin is an indication of how long has this been going on.

[esme388]

Isn't it "quis"? It would be nice to get a classical education of course but I don't actually know the difference

[ericmay]

Sure but this wouldn't be an argument against capitalism, it's an argument for reform of government. If you think that regulation is extremely flawed and prone to corruption, then governmental systems including socialism and communism would be even more flawed since they are by definition more highly regulated.

[ericmay]

> capitalism, i.e. not putting power solely in the hands of the wealthiest.

This critique doesn't make sense. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. You're actually a capitalist whether you know it or not and you agree with capitalism at a rudimentary level. Your complaint about "power in the hands of the wealthiest" is a matter of government dysfunction, not the economic system. In fact, the economic system, capitalism, is performing well in spite of the poor performance of the governmental system.

Countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway which are often hailed as model countries for livability and "democratic socialist" states are highly capitalistic, and by some measures more so even than the United States.

In this chain of conversation the grandparent wrote something about the 1% destroying the planet. That's a red herring. Everyone jetting around the world taking vacation, buying bottled water, driving cars, eating cheeseburgers, you name it are doing much more actual damage than just the 1% who, while doing a disproportionate amount of climate damage (however we want to measure that) are not responsible for most of the total amount of climate damage. That's not to excuse them, of course, and as a matter of government dysfunction for example ask why luxury goods like private jets or yachts aren't taxed at a much higher rate, or perhaps aviation fuel for private use (I'm not suggesting these are good or bad policies, but just examples at the surface level).

If you want to address climate change you have to not only demand reform across the board, but make personal changes in your own life. If you are unwilling to do that, you'll find yourself in similar company, shouting from the rooftops if only we taxed the billionaires and finding nothing was done to help or fix the situation.

[someonebaggy]

Private ownership of the means of production is one salient feature of capitalism, but it's not the definition. Capitalism is when capital controls everything, more-or-less.

[ericmay]

Nope. Capitalism == private ownership of the means of production. There is no definition that exists or is taken seriously that defines capitalism in a major or minor way as a system in which "capital controls everything".

[1234letshaveatw]

It's must be so interesting to live regulation free! Where abouts are you from?