[Brendinooo]

The author lays most of this at the feet of capitalism, and I agree that the system has excesses that have contributed to the atomization of society, which can cause people to slip through the cracks, but...has any other system been obviously _better_ at supporting those with disabilities? Did feudalism or communism do this better?

(I think about the "worst system, except for all the other systems" quote often)

[paulryanrogers]

Democratic socialism. The US has quite a few such experiments like the New Deal. And they've been quite a bit better than the grinding, unbridled industrialism that consumed and spat out young and old alike.

[impossiblefork]

I think what you want is a welfare state, not socialism.

Socialism is not necessarily cuddly. "To each according to his contribution" is the one sentence description of it after all. I want socialism, because it's "to each according to his contribution" but "to each according to his contribution" isn't obviously this nice cuddly we-take-care-of-everybody type thing.

I'd call the New Deal an attempt to bring discipline to go from capitalism to free markets, to control excesses, prevent monopolies and otherwise preventing people from locking down the economy so that there can be competition, and that's a goal compatible with socialism, because it does bring us closer to "to each according to his contribution" but it isn't an attempt at creating socialism, but of breaking capitalism down to create a market economy with free markets (capitalism is not a market economy, capitalism is the accumulation of capital by some to the exclusion of others, so capitalism and a market economy with free markets are actually things that are extremely incompatible).

[ghusto]

Read up on "democratic socialism" because it was a term I wasn't familar with. I have to say people should be mindful of words and ideas meaning different things in different places.

"Capatalism" means something different in the USA than it does in say France. In the USA, any attempt to keep check of or reign in capatalism is seen as socialism, and governemnt overreach. In France it's seen as common sense, though they would still say they practice "capatalism". Similarly, taking care of people that can't take care of themselves is obvious in France, but seen as nearing socialism in the USA.

It's important to note, because when people go for things like "democratic socialism", they may not be against what they think they're against.

[Brendinooo]

How does Portugal compare to the US and France? (I actually don't know, though a quick search indicates it's more like France than the US.)

The author of this post apparently lives in Porto.

[pharrington]

There's no way in hell that humans have tried all possible forms of governance and economic systems.

[inigyou]

Even just capitalism with more regulation and safety nets (the ones most countries implement don't work very well) would suffice here.

[Brendinooo]

>the ones most countries implement don't work very well

I guess this is the basis of my critique: the author seems to be writing as though capitalism is robbing him of some ideal that would otherwise exist: invoking the so-called "Protestant work ethic" to describe a system that took over the world and made us all worse off.

That doesn't feel right to me because I don't think previous economic systems did better at protecting the vulnerable. (But I'm not sure, that's why I framed my comment the way I did!)

Most replies to me are framed more as either "do what Europe does" (but the author lives in Europe!) or "we haven't gotten there yet" - which...sure! We shouldn't accept the status quo. But that's a different argument.

[inigyou]

Why limit the discussion to the current system and past ones? That's like saying memory safety is bad because before C++ there was assembly code and that was even less safe.

[Brendinooo]

> which...sure! We shouldn't accept the status quo. But that's a different argument.

[inigyou]

It's literally the exact same argument.

[Brendinooo]

Restoring something that was lost is very, very different than creating something that hasn't been done before.

[xbmcuser]

I think most people conflate the 2 things the current problems are not just because of capitalism but rather the capture of the government by capitalism.

[smallmancontrov]

If you don't discipline capitalism with a firm hand, double insulation guarantees that it takes over the government.

[xbmcuser]

I agree with you. I don't believe pure capitalism or pure socialism works; we need something in between. China is somewhat like that, but because of the type of government it has, it is viewed with a jaundiced eye. Countries exist for their citizens, so things like healthcare, housing, and most infrastructure should be provided or subsidized by the government.

[throwaway837379]

Whose effort should be taxed more to provide money to subsidize it?

[xbmcuser]

After capital reaches a certain amount, wealth is no longer about effort. Capital keeps generating more capital. As long as you tax that capital and force it back into the economy, things will be okay. Otherwise, it will destroy the economy. This is a simple math problem that people, even on Hacker News where logic and math are valued, simply ignore. If the pie grows by 5% but 80 to 90% of that growth is captured by a small percentage, they will keep taking more as their capital increases, leaving a smaller share of the pie to be divided among more and more people. Ie the feudal times where most economic output was controlled by a few. The world is fast moving back to those times.