11 ms·

That's an interesting misconception of what capitalism is. I had not seen that one before. Thank you for sharing.

dang 4y ago
Please don't be snarky and please make your substantive points without swipes. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
For what it's worth, I Googled "Define: capitalism" and when I saw: > an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. I synthesized this to what I wrote above. If you disagree that's fine, but I think "for profit" is a critical aspect of capitalism, and while it's arguably true that HN provides YC with "a profit" it's an intangible and indirect one, which to me is not "straightforwardly capitalistic".
- smbullet 4y ago
  I'll admit I was a bit snarky but my thanks was genuine - I enjoy learning why people believe the things they do. Anyways, my final argument is if an individual asset of a company doesn't directly generate revenue yet increases company profit, would it not be "un-capitalistic" if that company were to extinguish that asset? It seems to me that throwing away profit would be antithetical to that definition of capitalism. The $30k espresso machine in the Google office does nothing to generate revenue, however it helps Google become more competitive in the labor market which (at least they think) increases profit. None of these situations are edge cases, they are just natural outcomes that exist when people are free to compete. If it is expected that a decision will lead to a profit, it seems straightforward that one would make that decision. It was fun discussing this with you, I hope you have a good day.
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    That sounds capitalistic, just not "straightforward" is all I was trying to say.

dang 4y ago

Please don't be snarky and please make your substantive points without swipes. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

SpeedilyDamage 4y ago

For what it's worth, I Googled "Define: capitalism" and when I saw: > an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. I synthesized this to what I wrote above. If you disagree that's fine, but I think "for profit" is a critical aspect of capitalism, and while it's arguably true that HN provides YC with "a profit" it's an intangible and indirect one, which to me is not "straightforwardly capitalistic".

smbullet 4y ago
I'll admit I was a bit snarky but my thanks was genuine - I enjoy learning why people believe the things they do. Anyways, my final argument is if an individual asset of a company doesn't directly generate revenue yet increases company profit, would it not be "un-capitalistic" if that company were to extinguish that asset? It seems to me that throwing away profit would be antithetical to that definition of capitalism. The $30k espresso machine in the Google office does nothing to generate revenue, however it helps Google become more competitive in the labor market which (at least they think) increases profit. None of these situations are edge cases, they are just natural outcomes that exist when people are free to compete. If it is expected that a decision will lead to a profit, it seems straightforward that one would make that decision. It was fun discussing this with you, I hope you have a good day.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  That sounds capitalistic, just not "straightforward" is all I was trying to say.