You weren’t replying to the meme, you were replying to someone else in the origin of this fork of the comment chain. I’m implying that you in particular have no nuance.
Fair enough, but again, you somehow had even less nuance and pulled the classic bit of feigning superiority.
Edit: oof, you unironically suggest Sowell in another comment as a good resource. Looks like I’m correct, the superiority was indeed completely unfounded.
Instead of berating him for not leaving a robust enough comment for your taste, why don’t you ask for more information? Calling capitalists uninformed or rent seekers is way more unfair than alluding to historical or economic evidence to the contrary. The latter clearly leaves itself more open to good faith discourse, getting nothing out of it has simply been a failure on your part
No. Of course not. But my point was that we understood rent-seeking as a negative in Capitalism FROM THE OUTSET. You can’t criticise people today who point out that flaw in Capitalism on the basis of not “know[ing] history and economics”
The problem with this argument (when it’s used against capitalism) is that rent-seeking is fixed by more capitalism, at least when we don’t mean capitalism that’s made out of straws. It’s fixed by competition, transparency and fewer opportunities for lobbying. In other words, a smaller, more pro-markets governments.
Whatever. I don’t agree with you but that’s not the point. My point was that you can’t dismiss people making criticism about rent seeking as if they’re naive, as you did
Or perhaps we know history and economics.
What history? What economics? Vague gesturing and feigning superiority without actually saying anything is peak.
Edit: turns out the economics was just Sowell all along, lol. Guess we have an AnCap over here.
You’re implying that the meme “capitalism bad” has amazing amounts of nuance.
You weren’t replying to the meme, you were replying to someone else in the origin of this fork of the comment chain. I’m implying that you in particular have no nuance.
Well, you’re not wrong, but what I replied to (“don’t know what capitalism is” and “are rent seekers”) wasn’t exactly filled with nuance, either.
Fair enough, but again, you somehow had even less nuance and pulled the classic bit of feigning superiority.
Edit: oof, you unironically suggest Sowell in another comment as a good resource. Looks like I’m correct, the superiority was indeed completely unfounded.
Instead of berating him for not leaving a robust enough comment for your taste, why don’t you ask for more information? Calling capitalists uninformed or rent seekers is way more unfair than alluding to historical or economic evidence to the contrary. The latter clearly leaves itself more open to good faith discourse, getting nothing out of it has simply been a failure on your part
The very first thing they said was “what history? What economics?” - so yeah, they’ve asked for information.
Or not. Adam Smith - the father of Capitalism recognised the problem of Rent Seeking behaviour.
Fine point, but he’s not exactly the last person to write about free market capitalism.
No. Of course not. But my point was that we understood rent-seeking as a negative in Capitalism FROM THE OUTSET. You can’t criticise people today who point out that flaw in Capitalism on the basis of not “know[ing] history and economics”
The problem with this argument (when it’s used against capitalism) is that rent-seeking is fixed by more capitalism, at least when we don’t mean capitalism that’s made out of straws. It’s fixed by competition, transparency and fewer opportunities for lobbying. In other words, a smaller, more pro-markets governments.
Whatever. I don’t agree with you but that’s not the point. My point was that you can’t dismiss people making criticism about rent seeking as if they’re naive, as you did