this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
307 points (95.8% liked)

politics

18909 readers
4063 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If this was Biden, we'd hear no end of how he has dementia.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Government intervention to block competition is against the basis of capitalism, a facade is accurate enough

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Government intervention in the economy doesn't mean it's not Capitalism IMHO: I see that as an unnecessarily restrictive definition. I think of capitalism in more broad terms as being for-profit private ownership of trade/industry.

I can agree that there's some theoretical upper limit at which Crony Capitalism turns into an outright Corporate State, but I don't think we're quite there yet, and hopefully we can avoid it (as much as we seem to be headed that way, unfortunately).

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Capitalism is literally defined by free markets, which means little to no government intervention, and specially not the government helping certain corpos crush their competitors

What you have in your country is a whole different thing

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So my point from the start is that it seems inevitable that capitalists would levy their economic power to gain political power. The laissez-faire ideal sounds good (for those with capital, anyway), but without institutional protections against it, those with the most money would be dumb not to levy that money so they can rig the system.

So we're quibbling over different thresholds at which government intervention means it's no longer "Pure Capitalism", but from my perspective Regulatory Capture is kind of inevitable, without protections against that happening. So that's why I think it's just part of Modern Capitalism in most places, and an "Oligarchy with a Capitalist Facade" is just a different life-stage of Capitalism. I'm all in favor of the institutional controls against corporate takeover/influence of governmental bodies. Corporate lobbying is a cancer, because it's drowning out the public's voice in politics.

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, the state needs to set up rules to specifically prevent corruption of the market.

You don't seem to get that the rest of the world views capitalism differently from the US

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're making a pretty big assumption! I've lived most of the last fifteen years in South America, so I actually do have a good hold on how folks in other nations view capitalism, and the USA's economic and political systems. My job for years was in a biological research institute that was part of the Uruguayan government, and before that for a decade I worked in small towns across the Amazon, in Peru and Colombia.

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You went from America to America's playground

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ah, so when you said the "rest of the world", you are excluding Latin America. Where is your high horse located, and what do you think the rest of the world includes?

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

Outside of those regions

Also, you didn't really explain how they didn't see capitalism as the lack of direct government intervention