Hadren-Blackwater t1_irbwpst wrote on October 6, 2022 at 9:07 PM

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Belarus Leader Bans Price Rises to Tackle Inflation by AlxIp

>but for basic goods, people don't have a choice.

Either way, it will end in empty shelves or price increases.

You can't really force the free market to do what you want for free and/or without harm to the wider economy.

RhythmRobber t1_irf5xp8 wrote on October 7, 2022 at 4:35 PM

You can't force, but he's saying that *regulation* is still necessary. Too much regulation and too little regulation are both just as bad for the average person in the long run

Hadren-Blackwater t1_irfhvci wrote on October 7, 2022 at 6:05 PM

>You can't force, but he's saying that regulation is still necessary. Too much regulation and too little regulation are both just as bad for the average person in the long run

It's best to support and aid the market rather than dictating it to go against economic gravity.

Like the US does, it supports farmers by regulations that make ethanol made from corn be part of gasoline.

This regulation supports farmers, makes fuel cheaper for consumers AND is good for the environment.

See? Capitalism is like science and nature, forces that can't be suppressed, not evil or good, simply a force of human nature.

It is by embracing Capitalism and incorporating it into your POV that environmentalism can prosper.

If tomorrow someone discovers/creates a material that is much cheaper and/or more efficient than fossil fuels/hydrocarbons then you will see capitalists be among its strongest supporters.

Like i said, Capitalism and capitalists are forces of human nature, they don’t care about if something is good or bad for the environment, you or me, or even Capitalism itself (see big corporations selling socialist merch and material, you can literally buy the communist manifesto from Amazon)

It is by accepting Capitalism and directing it naturally towards things that achieve environmentalist goals can we achieve a realistic and sustainable future for our planet.

RhythmRobber t1_irfnsnv wrote on October 7, 2022 at 6:50 PM

You're close, but I think it's better to think of economic systems as tools instead that need to be wielded appropriately. The problems we see is that we adopt economic systems like religions that can't be switched. Capitalism is good for stimulating growth, but extended use of it ultimately ends in a consolidation of wealth and power.

Socialism is good during times of peace and abundance, or after periods of consolidation through capitalism that requires a redistribution of wealth (middle class citizens with redistributed wealth could then have the means to innovate and grow new sectors if you then switch back from socialism to capitalism, for example.

Hell, even authoritarianism has its uses, although it's difficult (but not impossible) to institute temporarily. The handling of COVID is a perfect example of a proper time for authoritarianism for the good of humanity. Too many people were too dumb to follow the rules that could have made the impacts of COVID substantially less, meaning less deaths and less of a hit on the global economy and supply chain. There have been countries that successfully have used temporary authoritarian means for the good of the citizens, and then those powers were abandoned. It's a dangerous move, but the tool itself is just a force, like you said.

So yeah, they're all tools, but as the saying goes "if a hammer is your only tool, then everything starts to look like a nail", and you can cause some real damage when you don't use the right tool for the job. I think the problem arose mainly during the cold war when US vs Russia became Capitalism vs Communism, and economic systems were forced into our personal identities, and we were taught that capitalism was the best system for everything ever, even though it only won out in that particular situation because that situation called for rapid growth, which is something that capitalism is good for.

Hadren-Blackwater t1_irfvpmm wrote on October 7, 2022 at 7:51 PM

>Capitalism is good for stimulating growth, but extended use of it ultimately ends in a consolidation of wealth and power.

So long as institution are weakened/not strengthened.

So long as power is derived from the people/voters and there's transparency in the political process, there is nothing to worry about.

>Hell, even authoritarianism has its uses, although it's difficult (but not impossible) to institute temporarily. The handling of COVID is a perfect example of a proper time for authoritarianism for the good of humanity. Too many people were too dumb to follow the rules that could have made the impacts of COVID substantially less, meaning less deaths and less of a hit on the global economy and supply chain. There have been countries that successfully have used temporary authoritarian means for the good of the citizens, and then those powers were abandoned.

Political and voter realities are the only concern, if the people want to bestow emergency powers on the "imperial" president, then that's democracy and the will of the people (see de Gaul and Caesar)

>It's a dangerous move, but the tool itself is just a force, like you said.

Indeed.

>So yeah, they're all tools, but as the saying goes "if a hammer is your only tool, then everything starts to look like a nail", and you can cause some real damage when you don't use the right tool for the job. I think the problem arose mainly during the cold war when US vs Russia became Capitalism vs Communism, and economic systems were forced into our personal identities, and we were taught that capitalism was the best system for everything ever

I am not American or western but I still uphold the belief that capitalism (excepting laissez-faire capitalism and its ilk, of course) is the all around best mode of economy.

It is a system that supports meritocracy and fosters innovations that improve the quality of our lives.

Sure, some people will benefit more than others but a raising tide lifts all boats big and small and ideal shouldn't be the enemy of good.

>even though it only won out in that particular situation because that situation called for rapid growth,

False, I can't get into it in a reddit comment but communism was the main disease that caused the systematic symptoms that USSR suffered from.

I suggest you read up on communist command economy to properly understand it.