🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@magitweeter

> How does it come to be that utility is the determiner of profit in a “free market”, whatever that means?

Through a very complex system of laws and regulations that are carefully selected. I could not ellucidate such a complex and complete system trivially here in these comments in a single night.

That said, if you'd like to touch on a small fraction of some of the major regulations that keep a market free we can certain touch on some of the major points in a non-exhaustive manner.

1) free education and training for everyone at every level. You cant have equity (equal oppertunity, not equality) if peoples start in life in terms of skills and abilities arent equal.

2) Good generous caring results-based conditional welfare... in others words, a system that makes sure the poor have the absolute basic to survive no matter what, and enough to thrive as long as they are willing to do their part.

3) Strong anti-trust (anti-monopoly) laws that are enforced. Monopolies mean the market isnt free. You cant have a free market if monopolies can control it.

4) Strong laws and strong enforcement against corruption, particularly price fixing. Regulations mean nothing if you can simply collude to circumvent them.

These 4 are probably some of the most important top 4 elements neccesary for a capitalism to be a capitalism (as I defined it), though as I stated they are only a very small tip of the iceburg.

@aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@freemo

Given your stated willingness to answer my questions, let me rephrase my last few replies in the form of a question:

How does it come to be that utility is the determiner of profit in a “free market”, whatever that means?

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@freemo

«a free market (a market where utility is the determiner of profit...)»

This sounds like an incredibly difficult, if not impossible, thing to achieve. I for one don't see a way to achieve it without outright abolishing private property as we know it.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@magitweeter

> This sounds like an incredibly difficult

Most governments eventually fail no matter what ideology they employ, this is true of capitalist, communistic and everything else. Yes governments are incredibly difficult to do successful. No argument there.

> I for one don't see a way to achieve it without outright abolishing private property as we know it.

Its been done, and those governments have all failed too. Even when they are democratic they have literally been voted out of existance by the massive starvation it tends to result in.

So we have very clear proof that simply enacting such a policy in a government system will absolutely not be a magic fix for these ills.

@aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@magitweeter

> Of course, but that work could be provided by anyone.

It absolutely could... Any case of a resource being turned into a utility could be done by anyone. The point here is in capitalism the people whoa re **most effective** at converting resources to utilities are the ones who get assigned those abilities through the free-market pressures that drive it.

If a tenant were as good or better than the landlord at driving utility then in a healthy capitalism they would be a home owner and not a renter, thats the whole point.

> A tenants' union

Nothing stopping such an entity from existing in a capitalist government. The key is such an entity will only exist (for long) if they can provide such a utility better than everyone else.

> It takes no special skill and neither does it require ownership of the building.

It absolutely does take special skill. Evaluating the quality of a managerial service and who you defer such services to is very much a skill. Pick a bad service and you loose everything (as you provided bad utility), pick a good one and you thrive. You also need to be ready to switch services should your current service decline in quality.

> The only reason it's the owner who gets to do that job is that they're legally entitled to.

No that isnt the only reason. They are legally entitled to **and** provides the best utility in doing it. If they were only legally entitled to but didnt provide good utility they would pick a poor service and have lost their property as a result, which would mean a newer better landlord would take their place that can provide that utility better.

@aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@freemo I think that graph is reasonable, but only if you're talking about the people who are regularly tuned into politics.

I think the folks who don't pay attention most of the time probably fit closer to a standard bell curve.

@Vincarsi

> you're mischaracterizing capitalism as something that doesn't have inherent flaws.

No I wouldnt say so. I am not claiming its flawed or not. Capitalism itself is one ideology, as with all ideologies it does not and can not exist in a bubble. There is no such thing as a "pure capitalism" because a capitalism is one among many principles that must be combined to form a government.

Flaws arise in how one combines the various principles available to them to form a system of government than incorporates those principles.

As I have mentioned many times I continually assert the adjective "healthy capitalism" to distinguish it from unhealthy capitalism, which can certainly exist as well (and have plenty of flaws). What makes a capitalism healthy or not comes from the nuance in how one combines principles along side it.

> The very fact you keep talking about "healthy capitalism" belies that you know you're talking about a fantasy where all of the problems with capitalism are magically solved.

Quite the opposite, if I thought capitalism was perfect as a pure ideology without the need for any other principles or nuance then I would not need the adjective "healthy". The fact that I am using that adjective is exactly the evidence that it isnt a fantasy and that I am well aware that unhealthy capitalism can also exist.

> I'm not interested in a system that's only good if everyone does it right.

Since capitalism is not a "system" it is a pure ideology, and a system only comes about when you combine principles and nuance to create an overall mechanation this statement is nonsensical to the context.

> The world has been brought to the brink of destruction under capitalism

The world has been brought to the brink of destruction under quite many principles in play, many of which have had unhealthy manifestations. This includes communistic countries (which also are equally nuanced).

> it doesn't matter what it's like healthy when it's so easily sickened.

Agreed, which is why the overall system selected must be one that is not easily sickened.

@Radical_EgoCom

@Radical_EgoCom

> A few individuals concentrating wealth among themselves isn't desirable

It is if those individuals are providing the most utility to society. Absolutely it is.

> at least not to the poor

Even to the poor. A society that maximizes utility of its resources benefits the whole of society when that society has equity (instead of equality). Which as I said is an element of a healthy capitalism.

> as it creates a power imbalances that favor the elite

No, it creates power imbalances that favor the people who add the most utility to society, making them elite. Which again, is exactly what we **want**.

> These power imbalances exist because the capitalist system inherently prioritizes profit over the well-being of workers and the community

Incorrect. capitalism inherently prioritizes utility, profit without utility doesnt exist in a healthy capitalism. As for the well-being of workers, you only get maximum utility if you have healthy workers, ergo a healthy capitalism will not dismiss the health of its working populace.

> making checks and balances insufficient in preventing exploitation and oppression.

Since your prior was wrong your posterior is likewise wrong.

> It's not individual or collective action that's at fault, it's the inherent nature of #capitalism.

Since you are repeatedly mischaracterizing what capitalism even is this conclusion falls flat.

@Vincarsi

@aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social

> Even if you don't include america.

Agreed, I am not including america here specifically. I am speaking of capitalism as a whole (which would include the whole of the EU, the UK and the overwhelming majority of countries world-wide).

> Capitalism in every conception creates inequality.

It doesnt create inequality, it fairly rewards people for the amount of utility they give to society. Since people give utility to society unequally, this means people are **fairly** rewarded and those rewards are unequal.

Capitalism (when healthy) provides equity (fairness) not equality (everyone event) which is exactly how it should be!

> Not just in the context of incom [sic] But in the context of access to resources.

Agreed, and this is a good thing. People who provide more utility to society **should** have access to more resources since they have proven to be more effective in converting resources to utility.

Again equity over equality. The bigger issue is if people have the same access to opportunity. In other words, **if** you can demonstrate you provide utility to society will you have the equity of having access to the resources you have demonstrated you earned. A healthy capitalism does just that.

> Even in some of the european countries non-citizens are forced to pay out of pocket for healthcare.

If you can afford healthcare you should be paying for it out of pocket. If you cant society should help you with welfare programs. A capitalism does not preclude social welfare.

> No human should be denied treatment.

Agreed, and when a capitalist government provides healthcare to those who cant afford it, they are still a capitalist country. Capitalism is not mutually exclusive with social welfare.

> The market decides your worth, which is arbitrary and non-sensical.

No it doesnt. It defines your access to resources, and it isnt arbitrary, it is based on the utility you provide to society (in a healthy capitalism).

The fact that you think a persons worth as an individual is synonymous with the resources they have access to is a very concerning POV.

@Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@Radical_EgoCom

> concentrates wealth and resources into the hands of a few rich individuals

Yes, though, it distributes fairly based on their contribution to society when operating in a healthy way. Societies dont have an equal distribution of people contributing equal utility, ergo you **should** see unequal distribution of wealth in a healthy government with a typical population.

> which is what leads to the kind of conditions that the OP is talking about

Fully disagree. Uneven distributions of wealth does not, in and of itself, lead to lower quality of life or less charitable works. In fact, it has been objectively shown that rich people give significantly higher percentages of their income to charity than middle class or poor.

> where wealthy people hoard resources for themselves and refuse to give any to others

That does not line up with reality IMO. Very few rich "hoard wealth" which would look like a mountain of resources sitting in a vault collecting dust (such as useful minerals, or other materials useful to society). In fact they dont even tend to hoard money itself. Almost all rich people have all of their money actively in the community and used for social utility. For example in investment in businesses. No person who hoarded wealth would be rich because wealth looses value with time. You only become rich by not hoarding wealth (putting your money out into the community, at a risk of loosing it or getting a return).

@Vincarsi

@Radical_EgoCom

> Concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals inherently creates systemic inequalities and power imbalances

While the word "systematic" is a bit nebulous here, and not too important, overall I'd say yes, this is true, it creates power imbalance, and that is a GOOD thing.

There should not be equal power, there should be power imbalance. People who have demonstrated they have produced the most utility for society **should** have more power than those who dont. This ensures those with a demonstrated track record of providing utility for society continue to maximize societies utility.

Now the important part, of course, is having the proper checks on those powers. A president has more power than a citizen, this is fine because we have checks on that presidents power, checks that (ideally) ensure that if that power is abused they loose that power.

> investments by the wealthy do not address the root causes of poverty

Agreed. I am not claiming that investments by the wealthy alone address the root cause of poverty. While having wealthy people in a society is a good thing I am in no way proposing it solves all of life's ills. I am also in no way claiming we should be without social programs. All countries in europe are capitalistic for example, most of which also include social welfare as part of their capitalist governance, and that is an important aspect of a healthy capitalist government, but must be done carefully to do right as well.

> exploitation perpetuated by the #capitalist system.

Capitalism doesnt exploit people. People exploit people. And if markets allow exploitation then they arent free markets, and therefore are not capitalist in nature.

@Vincarsi

@Radical_EgoCom

> Concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals creates a power imbalances that favor the wealthy elite at the expense of the majority,

Thats a circular argument. Concerntrating wealth creates wealthy people, absolutely, thats the point. It doesnt favor the wealthy, it creates them, exactly as we should want it to (assuming this is concentration is a factor of utility, which in a healthy capitalism it is).

> checks and balances within a capitalist system are sufficient to prevent abuse of power that these power imbalances spawn.

Whether they are sufficient or not dependent entierly on the government. Some government lack sufficient checks and balances on power, others do not. There is nothing inherent about capitalism that garuntees these checks and balances are absent.

> Capitalism itself inherently exploits workers through the extraction of surplus value from their labor.

Wrong, capitalism provides the necessary utility to workers to allow their labor to have surplus value, surplus value that their labor would not have on its own.

> It's not correct to only attribute exploitation to individual actions...

Agreed, it would be incorrect to attribute exploitation **only** to individual actions. Which is why i didnt do that, I expressed both the effects of individual actions and collectively (checks and balances are a collective actions).

> and ignore the effects of #capitalism

Its not the effects of capitalism, so those arent ignored.

@Vincarsi

@freemo In the early 90s when I was introduced to ham radio, my Elmer had a laminated copy of The Amateurs Code. He said it’s the first thing every prospective ham must learn. Not knowing any different, learn and try to live by it I did. It wasn’t until I had been licensed for almost 20 years I started to wonder what happened. Seems many hams don’t even know of its existence. Very apparently. Now just shy of 30 years in, I’m an elmer, and I start with what my Elmer told me.