> it seems like you're trying to deny that this is exactly what capitalism has become.
How so? Yes, that's what capitalism has become. That idea serves as the entire basis of the discussion. If it were denied as you now suggest, what on earth are we talking about?
> The only sensible thing to do is regroup at a different metric/term besides capitalism.
Right. As before, this is what HN in the olden days would have done. Instead of redefining a word (and without even offering a new word to reference back to previous connotations), it would have created or found a non-conflicting word to fit the different scenario (to the point of pedantry). ...But that doesn't tug at the heartstrings in the new era of low value, appealing to emotion, slop. As was said at the onset, the changing definition of capitalism is what has brought on the apparent change in sentiment towards capitalism.
You must have forgotten to read the thread before replying (or were blinded by your own irrational emotional connection to the word capitalism)?
The definition of "capitalism" has not changed. Rather, capitalism has progressed at its logical conclusion - turning more and more things into capital. This is frustrating when we want to champion the progress that capitalism has brought, but it is what it is.
It seems like you're trying to invoke some pure version of capitalism that wasn't corrupted by imaginary property and other government giveaways [0], wasn't corrupted by money printing debt treadmill demanding ever-more assets to collateralize, didn't result in ever-increasing wealth concentration, etc. But this isn't what we have, and it's not clear that we could have even possibly had something different. Thinking that a problem can be solved merely by applying more vigilance is the fallacy of fundamentalism.
By regroup at another term, I mean describing the things we like about capitalism, so we can hopefully have some of those things even as the modern distaste for capitalism as a whole grows. Hence the reference to free markets in my original comment [1]. Things like private ownership, decentralization, competition, individual liberty, a stomach for some inequality, and so on.
[0] radio spectrum is another good example. Turning most of it into exclusive privately-administered slices definitely solved real problems, especially of technology at the time. But this was blessed by academic hand-waving away the downsides (Coase) to support the lucrative agenda. And it has certainly created real entrenched problems in the current day - now most innovation is being done in the tiny slices of unlicensed spectrum.
[1] FWIW "free market" is still probably not a good term to rally around given how much it's already been staked out by people interested in control rather than freedom, only looking to apply "freedoms" that increase their own power
> Rather, capitalism has progressed at its logical conclusion - turning more and more things into capital.
In actuality, what we really have is feudalism — with us turning more things into land!!!
You can play that silly semantic game all day long, but the reality is that, in practice, intellectual property is not considered to be the same as capital. It has its own set of rules that are unique to it and, especially in the USA, it is considered something extra special in way that is entirely unlike capital. Actions speak louder than words.
Yes, it is capitalism because that's what we've decided to call it, but that is possible because the definition of capitalism has changed over time to accommodate. Take your time machine back in time and tell the people that capitalism is made up of the random ideas you came up with on the spot and they will look at you like you have three heads.
How so? Yes, that's what capitalism has become. That idea serves as the entire basis of the discussion. If it were denied as you now suggest, what on earth are we talking about?
> The only sensible thing to do is regroup at a different metric/term besides capitalism.
Right. As before, this is what HN in the olden days would have done. Instead of redefining a word (and without even offering a new word to reference back to previous connotations), it would have created or found a non-conflicting word to fit the different scenario (to the point of pedantry). ...But that doesn't tug at the heartstrings in the new era of low value, appealing to emotion, slop. As was said at the onset, the changing definition of capitalism is what has brought on the apparent change in sentiment towards capitalism.
You must have forgotten to read the thread before replying (or were blinded by your own irrational emotional connection to the word capitalism)?