Even if you want certain people to get hurt by this (and there is definitely a baying mob that seems to want to cause as much suffering as possible because they just don't like certain classes of people), keep in mind that this could cause a 2008-style recession that hurts everyone.
Who do you think gets hurt more by an economic downturn? The billionaires who lose millions and end up still being rich, or the working people who lose their jobs and can't afford housing? This isn't a theoretical question, we know the answer because it happened before.
Eventually I suppose they'll be right, but primarily as a result of one of those broken clock coincidences ...
People are not rational. Homo economicus is a myth.
That is incorrect, spite is seeking the deliberate harm of another. It’s possible for spite to include hurting yourself to inflict it, but that’s not in any way necessary.
Is everyone getting hurt ideal? No. But that’s a different question than is it justice.
IMO this is what happened during 2008. The government tried to minimize harm at the expense of justice, and people are angry because they don’t realize how bad it could have been.
That's called "capitalism". Socialism has nothing to do with it.
Please try not to muddle basic terminology like this. It makes discourse harder for everyone.
Please stop trying to redefine basic terminology to suit your agenda.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalis...
I argue that usage of the term "crony capitalism" is itself a form of capitalist ideology.
Yet a Marxist site is used as an unbiased source. Oh, the irony.
You're welcome to present a capitalist site as a source for the definition you prefer, and I'd be happy to discuss that.
Just don't use a dictionary, please! It's the wrong tool for the job here, regardless of political leanings.
The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.
Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society.
Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; used in whatever ways they choose.
The main classes under capitalism are the proletariat (the sellers of labour power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labour power). The value of every product is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of this product.
There is no singular definition of capitalism, but many others would differ on the distinction you've drawn from earlier posts. E.g., a system based on the reinvestment of excess profits does not necessarily equate to crony-capitalism. It seems your issue is with the person using the word "socialism" to describe a social ill of crony capitalism. But there is a distinction there that is being muddled in the conversation.
I think you're confusing "free market" USAmerican right-Libertarian ideology with capitalism itself.
Capitalism, simply put, is defined as private ownership over the means of production, and the people who have that ownership are called the capitalist class. None of that precludes any sort of collusion.
Where does capitalism define "non cronyism" as a central tenet? Can you point to a working example of "non-crony" capitalism?
>By that same logic, tyrannical despots could be argued as a stated goal of socialism.
A central tenet of socialism is that is rejects despotism and tyranny. Supporters of socialism explicitly reject tyrannical behavior and seek to root it out if it appears.
On the other hand, capitalists cheer every time they wield state power to enrich themselves and excuse it as "just business".
It’s no different than saying “dictatorial socialism”. The fact that a rather simple distinction has to be explained multiple times by multiple people becomes a chore and a Sisyphean task when it is clear someone doesn’t want to acknowledge the difference.
It's possible to be a rational maximiser of something other than profit.
You are glad that rich execs play Heads they win and Tails they dont lose game at the expense of the taxpayer?
Heads I win, Tails I dont lose.
You also ignored that govt/Fed keeps printing more money, so the taxpayer ultimately loses with inflation.
The government's intervention creates moral hazard: those that played with fire got burnt, and those who didn't didn't, but those who didn't get burnt were positioning themselves to take advantage of the opportunities that the crispy bodies would have generated.
But the government swooped in and saved the crispies, without penalty to them, at the cost of those who had proper risk-adjusted positioning.
We see this time and time again. The government is changing the rules after the game is over to change the losers to winners. It's nonsense.