Reddit Reddit reviews 23 Things They Don't Tell You about Capitalism

We found 8 Reddit comments about 23 Things They Don't Tell You about Capitalism. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Books
Economics
Free Enterprise
23 Things They Don't Tell You about Capitalism
PENGUIN GROUP
Check price on Amazon

8 Reddit comments about 23 Things They Don't Tell You about Capitalism:

u/[deleted] · 19 pointsr/Socialism_101

Go easy on them.

Find points where they can come and meet you:

So as a socialist you may be pro 2nd amendment? Maybe?

You can discuss the 1st too. Important to both sides though in different ways.

You could also note that Marx & Engels praised capitalism for several different reasons -

https://socialistworker.org/2009/05/11/the-point-is-to-change-it

u/frequentlywrong · 10 pointsr/europe

> its pretty universally acknowledged that free trade is a good thing.

Funny how no one ever asks "good for who and good for what?". Good for prices and good for international corporations bottom line sure. Easy to make that economic model. Unfortunately we don't live in mathematical economic models, we live in the real world.

Most would consider it better to have:

  • Domestic employment, not third world pollute all you want, barely above slave labor.

  • Domestic successful companies, not international corporations who only take money out of the local economy.

    > I would argue that protectionism in that time didn't help economic conditions at all.

    If you actually care about this topic I suggest: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/0141047976

u/ProblemY · 4 pointsr/europe

> You can't turn back time, more and more jobs will be lost to automation and robots.

We had automation for decades now and somehow we still need factory workers. People are massively overestimating impact that robotics will make. I recommend this book, there is a chapter on that.

> The real economic task is one of redistribution of wealth.

That would be preferable but literally anyone proposes something like that is called a communist and branded crazy.

u/Fairleee · 3 pointsr/BritishPolitics

For anyone interested, I can recommend Ha-Joon Chang's 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. Dr. Chang is a Reader of Economics at Cambridge, and is well known for taking free-market ideologies and policies to task, and there is a great chapter where he addresses the, "private will always outperform public" myth. It's aimed at someone with no specialist knowledge of economics, so it can be somewhat simplistic in places, but it does a good job of giving a general critique of free-market, neo-liberal ideology.

Also, as someone who travels by East Coast a few times a year (York to London), I completely agree. East Coast is by far the best service I have ever used; it would be appalling to privatise it.

u/TubePanic · 3 pointsr/italy

Prima di tutto una osservazione: il libero mercato (nell'accezione di Friedman) non solo non esiste ed e' solo un costrutto ideologico astratto, ma non tiene conto di alcune 'deficienze' sistematiche insite nella natura umana, che lo renderebbero disastroso se applicato pienamente. Se ti interessa, per la prima affermazione puoi leggere questo, e per la seconda quest'altro.

Comunque, ecco come la penso io:

> a) perché tanti italiani non credono nel libero mercato?

Non e' vero; in quasi nessuno in Italia crede nel libero mercato, principalmente per ignoranza economica di base. E' stato sempre cosi', dai tempi della scala mobile fino ad oggi quando il presidente dell'Associazione Bancaria Italiana Patuelli addossa le colpe della fragilita' del sistema bancario Italiano "al liberismo". L'Italia e' sempre stata un paese di caste e corporazioni. e solo in tempi recentissimi e' stata 'forzata' ad allentare le tendenze protezioniste dilaganti in tutto.

L'imprenditore che in Italia va avanti non e' certo quello piu' capace di competere; e' quello piu' ammanicato con la politica/la finanza/l'ente locale o quello piu' furbo (che evade piu' tasse). Per il tipico padroncino, liberalizzare va bene quando si da' la possibilita' di licenziare i dipendenti, salvo poi urlare e strepitare quando gli stranieri ti comprano le ditte (chi si ricorda dell'Alitalia che "deve restare Italiana"?), o contro l'Euro, o per rimettere i dazi, o per avere contributi dallo stato per tener su il proprio carrozzone inefficiente.

Questo atteggiamento si vede dappertutto: dai contadini che pretendono i contributi per continuare a coltivare prodotti di cui non c'e' bisogno, ai piccoli gestori di imprese di servizi che campano solo con commesse dal comune, ai gestori delle banche tenute nella bambagia con anni di protezionismo e corporativismo, che ora si trovano esposti alla maretta della finanza globale.

Quindi no, il libero mercato non esiste (fortunatamente), ma purtroppo in Italia si disprezza anche quel po' di liberismo che consentirebbe all'economia di decollare senza sconquassi.

Poi, una opinione personale sul libro di Friedman:

> "Free to Choose"

.. il fatto e' che per alcune cose non dovrebbe esserci "liberta' di scelta", perche' non funziona: l'esempio classico e' la spesa per la sanita'. E' provato e dimostrato in tantissimi esperimenti che se dai alla gente la possibilita' di "comprarsi" copertura sanitaria a seconda delle proprie esigenze, i risultati sono disastrosi: le persone sistematicamente sottovalutano la propria necessita', il sistema non viene finanziato correttamente e la gente crepa (tipicamente per malattie costose da trattare ma a cui non si vuol pensare, tipo il cancro).

Stessa storia per le spese previdenziali: dare liberta' assoluta su quanto contribuire per la pensione (ammettendo contributivo puro, come dovrebbe essere) significa creare un esercito di vecchietti poveri in canna.

Tutti questi problemi sono ben studiati dall'Economia Comportamentale, che offre anche una serie di soluzioni e raccomandazioni.

Personalmente, penso che dovremmo prendere il meglio dagli USA (cultura imprenditoriale prima di tutto), ed evitare le storture piu' aberranti (vedi il sistema sanitario e la scuola).

Ultimo punto:

> c) come la potreste risolvere la situazione economica? (se non ciò detto sopra)

Rendendo piu' facile fare impresa e iniziare attivita', semplificando la giustizia, distruggendo e bruciando le migliaia di leggi, norme e leggine che rendono il fisco ostile, complicato e bizantino. Ho letto qui che se mio padre mi fa un bonifico di 10000 euro per aiutarmi a comprare casa, il fisco puo' bloccarmi il conto come "sospetto evasore"; e se faccio - diciamo - un progetto gratis per un amico, poi il fisco puo' impormi di pagare una tassa come se mi fossi fatto pagare.

In un paese cosi' non e' possibile fare impresa. Coi risultati che si vedono.



u/ee4m · 2 pointsr/Shitstatistssay

>No actual economist I've ever heard of disagrees with free market economics

The consensus is its harming growth and caused the global crash. Mixed economies are preforming better.

It was shit in the 1800s, and early 1900s, its back and its still shit.

Here is one of the economists.

>Chang (Bad Samaritans) takes on the "free-market ideologues," the stentorian voices in economic thought and, in his analysis, the engineers of the recent financial catastrophe. Free market orthodoxy has inserted its tenterhooks into almost every economy in the world--over the past three decades, most countries have privatized state-owned industrial and financial firms, deregulated finance and industry, liberalized international trade and investments, and reduced income taxes and welfare payments. But these policies have unleashed bubbles and ever increasing income disparity. How can we dig ourselves out? By examining the many myths in the narrative of free-market liberalism, crucially that the name is itself a misnomer: there is nothing "free" about a market where wages are largely politically determined; that greater macroeconomic stability has not made the world economy more stable; and a more educated population itself won't make a country richer. An advocate of big, active government and capitalism as distinct from a free market, Chang presents an enlightening précis of modern economic thought--and all the places it's gone wrong, urging us to act in order to completely rebuild the world economy: "This will some readers uncomfortable... it is time to get uncomfortable."


http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-about-Capitalism/dp/0141047976

u/Doeweggooien · 1 pointr/changemyview

Now let's get to one of the fundamentals of both capitalism and socialist policies. The type of statements as the ones below, you made, is clearly capitalist so lets use that one. When you speak of the consumer in that manner you ASSUME a whole lot of prerequisites, for that to be true. First of all, in reality most of these prerequisites are often not present or function differently. An example: decrease tax on the rich, they will have alot of money to spend, that will make them invest and that creates jobs right? However, in practise they don't necessarily reinvest all that money, also they might not reinvest in industries that offer an optimal increase of jobs. What if they invest in Van Gogh paintings? Hows that going to get you jobs? Its not, thus its better if the government keeps that tax intact, and decides itself where that money will have most positive influence on the economy. Throughout our current predominantly neo-liberal reading of the economy and government policy, the idea is that we should deregulate and let the market work freely. But thats all based on a whole lot of assumptions which have already been proven to be non-existent or functioning in a different way. That's problematic. If you're not aware of the assumptions that are made to argue certain policies than you cannot really understand their merit. One of the assumptions that I find incredibly problematic is that the market will respond to the needs of society right? However, the market really doesn't necessarily function that way. Mostly because then you assume the market is some allknowing system that can adapt to all societies needs. That's ofcourse not the case. Another problematic assumption is that businesses/corporations supposedly can be trusted to perform their activities in a moral, responsible, attentive matter. That's in my opinion so utterly wrong that I cannot fathom how one could demand less regulation. You will get fucked up badly if you remove regulations, unless ofcourse youre a billionaire, then youll be fine.

>What you can do is punish "misbehaving corporations" by taking your dollars (pounds, euros, etc.) elsewhere. That is freedom.

This for example does not work for the practical reason that many businesses are essential and of such a size that you cannot avoid them. Also, you cannot simply assume that everyone has an income that allows them to choose accordingly. Those are just practical objections to individual action. It is however much more complicated, because how are you going to find out that some corporation uses slavery? How will you as an individual find out that certain chemicals in products might be harmful to your health? How would you find out that the origins of what you consume are really from that region? Now you might say; why would a business make products harmful for your health? thats not in their interest right? But this is just an incorrect assumption of how corporations etc function. Cars and their fumes are very harmful to us humans. Its not the car producers who care about that whatsoever. Its the governments that research harmful effects and the course of actions and regulations that need to be put in place to avoid further harm. As we've found out, eventhough we have these regulations in place to protect our well-being, companies will corrupt their software’s and cars in such a way that they can fool the regulations in place. Why? Because it makes them more money. Good thing is we got governments who regulate the car industry so they could give them a big ass multibillion dollar fine. This is also true for food. ESPECIALLY for food. Do you have any idea how terrifying the food industry was before regulations? There's no intrinsic motivation for a company to spend money on making or researching how to make a product less harmful. The only way they would is if its essential to maintaining their customers and thus their profit. But the alcohol and tobacco industry are prime examples of why in practice this does not happen. What do they care if a smoker dies at his 50th year due to smoking? Theyve got a new 12 year old kid addicted. That's their only requirement. Why would a food corporation spend millions if not hundreds of millions on making their product less harmful. The loss of 20.000 dead consumers worldwide per year does not represent enough of a profit loss to justify spending millions upon millions on research and product development. Then you might say, yes but but but stop buying. Nope... youre not even aware that shit is killing you because you dont have the means or the time to research the product.

>when the consumer already has ultimate control in their spending decisions. I am not talking about regulation of natural monopolies, so please do not use that as an argument. It will be ignored. All socialism does is increase Government corruption (see former Soviet Union) and reduce your own individual freedoms. How is that better than just being a responsible consumer?

That's the problem, the consumer does not have the ultimate control in their spending decisions. Now you already want to remove regulation of monopolies as a valid argument. Eventhough the regulation put in place in respect to natural monopolies was for THE GREATER GOOD. Which is a recurrent factor. Just a sidenote, if you want to have a real debate, you cannot exclude valid arguments from the debate prior to the debate simply because you personally don't view them as valid. However, lets ignore them as you wish. So lets get to this idea that the customer has ultimate control and freedom. Thats utter crap. Ill tell you why, when you go to the stores. There's only so many products you can buy. SO you are per definition restricted by the products that the market as a whole offers you. You can ONLY choose from the products that are OFFERED to you. Now there's massive corporations such as nestlé, etc. which simply cannot be avoided, and if you do you're stuck with the products from a few other corporations who areprobably guilty of the same shit. Therefore you need governments to regulate those corporations. Seriously though, you DO NOT have much freedom OR control as a customer. You are incredibly restricted by the market. Also, for many alternative productrs which are made by a more moral company means the price is alot higher. However, you cannot pay it because wages are too low. Why are wages too low? Because theres no regulation....


Or this one:
>If you say "too many people are irresponsible", then I will say "who are you to say what someone's choices should be?"

Because as a society you can/could/should take care of one another. Or not, depending on how you view your place as a human on this world. Anyway, in reality most people say that we should take care of irresponsible people. Why? well.... look at the Heroin Epedimics... Drugs are theoretically perfectly legitimate products which are pretty much one of the best examples of capitalist ideology. However, most societies in the world have decided that those products are harmful to such an extent that we cannot let people decide for themselves on that matter. You do the same with denying children access to alcohol. Or denying children access to cars. Its not the corporations or producers who push for such regulations. Its the government/people.
Its the same with having a police which will ensure that your neighbour doesnt slit your throat and takes your car. What has this to do with capitalism and economics? Well, it does to serve as an example that in society we CONSTANTLY put laws and regulations in place to PROTECT the weak against the powerful. In our current world Corporations/businesses in general are among the most powerful entities. We thus need to be protected against them through governments. Some corporations are so incredibly powerful that nations need to COOPERATE to avoid too much harm.

And that in the end is the core to it, you attribute way way way too much influence to individuals. Even if a whole lot individuals come together they cannot create a strong enough force without interference of the government. Look at laborlaws etc. Look at the past and all these practises which look despicable and disgusting to you are removed by regulating abuses that comce from a capitalist system. Now the mistake is to interpret criticism of capitalism as 'thus capitalism fails entirely whoop whoop communism'. NO, the point is to identify where capitalism and the market can not be trusted to make the choices that are best for society/the commonm good. That's where we as a society THROUGH the government interfere.

Which brings me to my last point. Yes, the American government has many flaws which have for a great deal to do with legalised bribery through lobbying etc. However, there's plenty of societies in Europe where it does work a lot more effectively. In my country people do not hate government, nor regulation. Sure theyre oftne not satisfied, but thats inevitable. But pretty much everyone understands the necessity of the government. Because the government isn't the enemy. Its OUR means to influencing corporations and the economy. That's why Americans need to start understanding their own society/government/economy differently, so they can retake the government to make it function FOR the people as it is supposed to.

Also I would highly reccomend the following book: https://www.amazon.de/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/0141047976
Its very easy to read, its cheap, its compact and not long. No in depth knowledge of economics is required. Its also quite funny while giving very useful insights how many assumptions which are made of how the economy works are flawed and incorrect. Its not some "Libtard" attack on capitalism. It just shows very well how some of the systems of our economies work, and how the dominant reading of how the economy works is often inaccurate..

u/SuperCorbynite · -1 pointsr/ukpolitics

I would start with this -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141047976/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

It will help dispel many of the myths and wrongful beliefs you have.

If you want to understand what is going wrong in the world that's leading these crashes we are having, Michael Pettis writes online on these issues and has some great resources available -

http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets?lang=en

This in particular is a good read, its what opened my eyes to everything else, and underpins a lot of my thinking -

http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/55084