TheOneWithAReallyLongName on Nostr: Wall Street - Directly trades in the private ownership of productive ventures - The ...
Wall Street
- Directly trades in the private ownership of productive ventures
- The things they own are productive, which is how they derive profit from owning them
- Wall Street is practically all markets. Stock market, futures, currencies, if you can make a buck off of it, Wall Street is running markets for it.
So it ticks all the boxes for capitalism as you've listed them. Literally all of it resembles Wall Street.
A revolving door of government officials doesn't invalidate that. Paying off government officials to get bailouts and other free rewards from the government doesn't invalidate that. Using the state for violence to secure favorable market positions doesn't invalidate that. All of these things are just what the owner class under capitalism will do when exposed to levers of power: they use their capital to buy things and power that will enable them to secure more capital.
To argue otherwise is little different than arguing that true capitalism can only occur under anarchy as any government will provide levers of power for them to abuse and pervert the system. But under anarchy, you'll simply see those with the most resources spend them on armed forces to establish their own fiefdom in which they can maximize their profits, and then you see the exact same revolving door, bailouts, and "state" violence to protect market positions.
- Directly trades in the private ownership of productive ventures
- The things they own are productive, which is how they derive profit from owning them
- Wall Street is practically all markets. Stock market, futures, currencies, if you can make a buck off of it, Wall Street is running markets for it.
So it ticks all the boxes for capitalism as you've listed them. Literally all of it resembles Wall Street.
A revolving door of government officials doesn't invalidate that. Paying off government officials to get bailouts and other free rewards from the government doesn't invalidate that. Using the state for violence to secure favorable market positions doesn't invalidate that. All of these things are just what the owner class under capitalism will do when exposed to levers of power: they use their capital to buy things and power that will enable them to secure more capital.
To argue otherwise is little different than arguing that true capitalism can only occur under anarchy as any government will provide levers of power for them to abuse and pervert the system. But under anarchy, you'll simply see those with the most resources spend them on armed forces to establish their own fiefdom in which they can maximize their profits, and then you see the exact same revolving door, bailouts, and "state" violence to protect market positions.