> Now, in a system that has the rule of law you cannot be prevented to do something that isn't illegal.

In a systme that has the rule of law, the lawmakers can choose to make certain behaviours legal if or when they harm the society. For example, private and corporate tax loopholes can be closed, and corrupt behavior can be outlawed or a liability instituted that the harmed party can claim.

It's childish not to blame capitalist governments for allowing certain kinds of corruption that are left to fester.

Of course it is up to lawmakers to decide. Nothing to do with my point or capitalism, though.

Capitalism cannot function without people exploiting the system for personal gain. If some CEO decided to stop trying to make as much money as possible but rather commit their resources to providing some sort of public good, they would be succinctly ousted by the board. Or their firm would tank, because companies that don't put profit first can't survive on the market.

Jeff Bezos can amass $100 billion in wealth and donate it to philanthropic causes, but if he decided to open source AWS or pay his workers a living wage, or pay publishers a reasonable price for books, etc, he wouldn't have $100 billion in the first place.

> Or their firm would tank, because companies that don't put profit first can't survive on the market.

I would argue that this is not strictly speaking true. There are successful companies which don't (seemingly) put profit first. Examples include Morning Star (tomatoes, not the newspaper)[1], Mondragon[2] and perhaps most co-operatives in general.

[1] http://www.morningstarco.com/

[2] https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/

One aspect that is often overlooked is that it is necessary to balance the books. This is an universal requirement when resources aren't unlimited and it applies to physics, biology, and economics.

Capitalism very clearly and unapologetically forces this, while some people imagine that, somehow, that constraint does not apply in other systems.

> “Capitalism cannot function without people exploiting the system for personal gain.”

no, that’s too strong a claim. capitalism’s innovation is that it redirects greed into productive uses and allows personal gain in the process. so it explicitly accounts for our greed but doesn’t depend on it. it allows more pro-social forms of trade and competition as well.

the reason it seems so heartless/exploitative is that highly competitive markets push the competitors to extremes and money is used to keep score. and people cheat easily; some not to lose, some to win at all costs. (even in non-highly competitive markets this happens if status is highly sought by owners/execs)

> Capitalism cannot function without people exploiting the system for personal gain.

What national economic system can function without people exploiting the system for personal gain?

I often wonder about this, and here’s my (u/dys)topian vision:

The top 5% of children in some measure of ideal traits for just ruling are whisked away to a bubble where they are educated for the purpose of governing, with no opportunity to ever rejoin the general populace. They have absolute power but no opportunity to benefit themselves or their families.

That or we could tax externalities globally.

Socialism, ie a system whereby resources are allocated according to some sort of public good as opposed to mere expansion of capital

Are you suggesting that in practice under a socialist system corruption doesn't take place, or just in theory?

I'm saying a small number of people amassing a large amount of wealth through exploitation of the labor of others for personal gain is not what drives a socialist economy. Corruption and exploitation exists in all societies, but in capitalism it is a necessary element for the function to survive. There is no non-exploitative, fair capitalism.

Is there non-explotative, fair socialism?

Redistributing a shrinking pie. Sounds like a great plan.

Capitalism is the only system that limits the corruption. Unless the people are being forced to work/buy/sell with amazon, they are by definition not being exploited. Bezos is the richest person in the world because he provided a better service with a focus on long term profit. The world is different now because of it and people think its better because they are choosing to do it.

Bezos didn't build Amazon or AWS, his workers did. He contributed as CEO, but the work was done by thousands of smart, hard-working and talented people around the world, but they don't own the company. Bezos's salary is just $80,000 a year -- his wealth doesn't come from the work he does for Amazon but the fact that he is the one who owns the capital and reaps the profit.

such salaries are exhibit #1 for why we need to equalize taxes between capital and labor (e.g., recognize capital gains as ordinary income)

> Bezos's salary is just $80,000 a year

So he's not subject to max SSN and Medicare taxes?

There is no cap for Medicare taxation.

His workers would not have built it if he had not directed them to do it and provided them the resources to do it.

That's correct, but why does he have the resources to do it? Because he came from a rich family with capital to invest. Why isn't capital distributed evenly across all workers, not just of Amazon, but in an entire society, so that everyone shares in the profits instead of one man? What is exceptional about the fact that he had the capital to make an initial investment, why does that mean he should be a billionaire? We invested collectively in the technology that created the internet in the first place through publicly funded research, and yet we do not see the material benefits, only a small few do.

What would it mean for capital to be distributed evenly? Under such a system, what would be the advantage for someone to save and invest rather than consume? (After all, on "turn 2", the capital is going to all be redistributed so it's even again. Then again on turn 3...)

Could you sketch out your idea a bit more? At the moment, I'm not getting it.

>Unless the people are being forced to work/buy/sell with amazon, they are by definition not being exploited.

There are tons of ways to force people that don't involve putting a gun on their head...

>Unless the people are being forced to work/buy/sell with amazon, they are by definition not being exploited.

"forced" can happen in more ways than one. Workers in third world sweatshops aren't forced by law to work there, but they are forced by capitalism to work there to feed their families.

Also: Exploit (v)

2. To use selfishly for one's own ends.

Employees who freely take the best option available to them are not made better off if that option is removed.

I don't believe that Bezos or other employers are acting selfishly when them employ people, even when they make a margin on that labor. (In fact, if they don't make a margin on that labor, they would be better off to stop employing that person, meaning the situation where the employee and employer both make money on the deal is the most stable state.)

They are made better off if their wages are improved, ie if they organize and struggle for a minimum wage or a union. Employers will work their employees as much as possible for as little pay as possible, only the law and organized struggle prevents them from paying less. Capitalism encourages businesses to reduce their costs as much as possible, including labor costs, so obviously they will do anything they can to pay people less unless they fight back

> Capitalism cannot function without people exploiting the system for personal gain.

That's a baseless claim.

Well, at least it has history in its favor. There has been no counter-example...

If anything, empirically it's true. It's the opposite idea that's fairy tale baseless...

The claim is baseless and meaningless. Your reply is pure fallacious logic.