10 sats \ 5 replies \ @21millioins 5 Mar \ parent \ on: 1 in 3 small public companies is unprofitable charts
I think there are a lot of concepts that you got wrong.
The austrians got it right, the problem is lack of capitalism + fiat. that generates weird economic effects and perverse incentives.
Wealth """concentration""" isn't a thing to be concerned only for those who are envious. Under hard money and Free Market 100% lassie faire the economy thrives, don't have such a cyclical bubles from the business cycle and capital goes with people who take better care of it. And yes, some people work harder, are more productive and thus accumulate more capital than others and it is fine.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to be based or something but I honestly thing there is a lot of your point of view that is based in a lack of understanding of what capitalism is. Though I also think there is a bit of true in going against "this" system, since a lot of fortunes were created not on the basis of providing value to society but in being close to a politician or the money printer.
As i said, im no economist. I leave Economic definitions to the Chief Finacial Officer who i often figth with over decisions.
Im a chemist, that happen to read some papers on extreme capitalism.
Im not defining nothing here.
I believe by professional experience that we live in some sort of extreme capitalism that is leading to the disappearence of commercial margins for small companies. As distribution is not even of fair ( as you mentioned the money printer proximity) and leads to a disruption of a healthy economy.
reply
feel free to agree or disagree, you don't need a credential, different opinions are valuable too on its own but I think you are leaning into a wrong diagnostic of the problem.
For me the money printing is one leg of the table, but also the ideas that goes in the line of "we need to make a little regulation here and there and call it a day". I think that there is a very good reason for nature to not design but yo be "humble enough to admit the limit of her knowledge and let things evolve" so to speak.
I fear unforeseen consequences, and those are the norm dealing with complex systems where all the variables are heavily coupled. That is why I think that the real problems of 100% free market are way better than the alternatives.
Top down rules are 1 size fits all, if we are lucky we all win, but if we are not, we all fail. Since is extremely unlikely than a modification in a complex system improve it (more ways to disorder it rather than to order it, like entropy) top down rules are almost a guarantee to failure IMO. Fail globally (most probable) or win globally
On the other side, on the free market with at least one who makes an improvement, everybody can copy it (I.E. a private regulation, practice, knowhow, that improves both parties) but if anyone fails, the failure is not socialized. Fail locally or win globally
reply
you are leaning into a wrong diagnostic of the problem.
i migth,
I only speak from experience. Despite generate hundereds of millions in the last decade, im no economist. But as a business manager, i see how we are killing capitalism with several of the things we mentioned previously
reply
I'm sure that if you look into the austrian school of economic at the very least you will get a truly different perspective on the matter.
reply
I read some stuff,
I agree with some parts.
Im not agains capitalism.. i just think our current is broke and needs a fix. Probably we need a lot of de-regulation. But i also believe we cant have zero regulation.
Part of me belives in anarchy, but my scientific side i think push me somewhere to technocracy
reply