wols

Agreed. But capitalism provides both the incentives and the means for corruption.

Why do you think it is that punishments are minor and sporadically enforced? Could it have something to do with people who have so much money that they can influence laws?
Do you think it's unreasonable to say, as a way to combat monopolies and corruption: "You can't have that much money. There's clearly no other use for such sums than gaining undue power. Past [insert specific net worth maximum], 100% of what you make will be taxed and/or distributed to your workers"?.

I think conflating capitalism with trade is wrong. Trade (and markets) existed long before modern capitalism. So did the concept of money.

I agree that the way you described it, it sounds very natural (not that that really is an argument, but whatever).
But the reality of capitalism is that the Y I'm buying from my profits is not some other commodity (as your example implies).
Y is someone else's business that also sells X. Or some completely unrelated business that sells Z. Or Y is a bribe to the mayor so that the city buys all its X from me, even though I don't have the best quality or price. Or it's a "donation" to the new mayor's campaign, leading him to remove the rule that one person can not own more than 3 homes in the city, so I can buy more houses and rent them out and make more profit.
It's capital I use to open X businesses in other cities. Maybe someone already sells X there and the local citizens quite like their service. They don't care for my X. But I have enough capital to start aggressively underselling, at a loss to myself. Now it doesn't matter that my service is worse, or that the people had some loyalty to the local X seller. I'm selling at half the price, it's a no-brainer to buy from me. I wait a few months and the local X seller is now out of business. I can raise my prices back up, nice. This works quite well, I'll repeat it in other cities. If someone catches on and complains, I'll just bribe the mayor to look the other way. Or I'll buy the local newspaper and have them paint me in a positive light.

I agree that blindly throwing money at a problem is not a good solution. Unfortunately this basic insight is often abused into an argument that spending on social programs shouldn't be increased at all, or worse should be decreased.
Well targeted social spending is actually profitable for the government. Healthy, housed, educated citizens produce a lot of value.

I was curious too so I did a quick search. Here's what I found:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron-Buchko/publication/229592641_The_effects_of_employee_ownership_on_employee_attitudes_An_integrated_causal_model_and_path_analysis/links/5fc6ea9245851568d132333d/The-effects-of-employee-ownership-on-employee-attitudes-An-integrated-causal-model-and-path-analysis.pdf.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5277/w5277.pdf

A cursory read suggests that ownership increases job satisfaction and commitment, though the correlation with job satisfaction is less strong. Overall a positive, perhaps mild effect on employee happiness and potentially positive effect on firm performance.

So your suspicion that ownership doesn't have a strong effect on employee happiness seems to bear out.

My main argument wasn't about individual employee satisfaction though. The point was that worker ownership of organizations gets rid of the owning class (effectively: if everyone is an owner, the class conflict dissolves) while keeping markets and competition, making central planning less relevant.

I was trying to suggest approaches that are neither radical nor utopian, and like you pointed out yourself, that we already employ effectively. The main proposed difference is scale: past a certain size, all companies would be worker owned.
I don't think markets are bad. Uncontrolled concentration of wealth is.

I'm skeptical of the claim that well-regulated capitalism is the best option, but depending on just how well-regulated it is, I agree that it can be a good option.
Though one might argue at that point whether you're really still talking about capitalism. For instance, the main characteristic I have an issue with is capital accumulation. If we regulate that one out I think we're going to get much better outcomes. Would the result still be considered capitalism?

The problem with just regulating capitalism while keeping the core mechanisms is that if wealth accumulation is still allowed to happen, resources will tend to concentrate in the hands of a few. This is not only inequitable and wasteful but more importantly it gives them power, which they will inevitably try to use to chip away at the regulations.

I mostly agree with your points on housing. On health I'll say that many of the issues you mention are either the result of or at least exacerbated by the influence of capital on government.

I want to first point out that the government being corruptible is not a problem that capitalism just solves. Almost all countries today are capitalist, and that doesn't prevent their governments from being totalitarian or corrupt or mismanaging their resources (Russia as an example).
The government still has all the power. But now there's a small group of people who can influence that power (let's not kid ourselves - mainly through corruption) to the detriment of everyone else.

A centrally managed economy is not the only alternative.
Workers of an organization can be the owners of that organization, rather than a few wealthy elites or the government. That way, they see the fruits of their labor rather than it being syphoned off. They have a say in how the organization is run, they can vote on who manages it and replace them when the way it's managed is bad for the workers.
Let's say ownership of a company automatically goes from its founders to all workers (this might well include the founders) when it reaches a certain size.
What would incentivize anyone to try to start a company in such an environment? Why not guarantee the founders a certain percentage of the profits even if they decide to stop working when the company changes ownership? Where does the capital come from to build a company in the first place? Government - hear me out. Taxes still exist, and continue to pay for things like infrastructure and healthcare and education and housing (these things are probably better managed by government than markets). And part of the tax revenue goes into an investment fund that is managed locally (think city, and/or county level). Citizens have direct voting power over what projects get financed with their taxes.

More pragmatically, a first (I would say reasonable) step would be to limit the amount of power an individual can get. Nobody needs a billion dollars to live, much less hundreds. Change the incentives: implement aggressive progressive taxes.
Heavily tax vacant houses and invest in affordable housing. Stop subsidizing the aviation industry and the fossil fuel industry and the meat industry and instead invest in healthcare and education and public transport and farmers.

Capitalism is a nightmare without regulation. Simply start by adding more (good) regulation and enforcing it consistently.

You're missing the point.

The "villain" in this situation is a system that allows a minority of people to attain huge amounts of wealth and power and incentivizes them to keep increasing both as much as possible without regards for others. It's not the people that follow the incentives.
Unfortunately one of the incentives when you're part of the owning class is wanting to perpetuate the system: it's working pretty well for you.

Individual members of the owning class can be great people. But as the original comment stated: most people will usually put their own interests above yours. The problem isn't that they do so, the problem is that their interests are in opposition to yours.

The analysis isn't (as you seem to think) at the level of "you're part of the owning class, therefore you're evil and we hate you", but "there should be no owning class, its existence leads to needless conflict and suffering".

Let's not get it twisted though: while the real villain is capitalism, it's always one class that does all the stealing, and the lying, and the gaslighting, and the manipulating, and the cheating.
Power corrupts.

"They have all the guns" is a metaphor in the context of class warfare.

I mean that they have the means to employ force (usually through police, but not exclusively) in their interest as well as having the entire power of the state behind them (disproportionate wealth means they have disproportionate political influence which means they can lobby for laws to be adjusted in their favor. Even when the law seems just, it is rarely applied in the same way to wealthy people in practice).

Not to mention that they can and do buy influence over the media apparatus, controlling narratives and tricking the working class into acting against their own interests.

Within the framework of class conflict, those are the "guns".

It's almost like their class interests changed and class interests influence behavior.

Almost like it's proving their point. Capitalist critique is not about individual "bad" people but about a system with perverse and harmful incentives.

(granting your claim for sake of argument - feel free to support it with data)

That's true. However.

The owning class has interests directly opposed to the working class, which makes that "natural" trait toxic to the working class. In addition, the owning class has a lot more power.

Your landlord wants to make as much money as possible for as long as possible. (fair enough right?) The problem is that for that to happen

• demand needs to stay high or go higher which means that
• supply needs to stay low which means that (at the level of class interests, not personal belief)
  Your landlord doesn't want new affordable housing to be built in your area. They want you to never own a house, never have any cheaper rent options. They don't want to have to keep renting to you at the price you are paying now.
  They don't want to have to invest money in making your apartment/house safe or comfortable.

The problem is not that people will put their own wellbeing above yours, it's that their wellbeing is in conflict with yours. A conflict of interests between classes... class conflict... class warfare. And they have all the guns.
It doesn't have to be this way.

The point is that you're not fixing the problem, you're just masking it (and one could even argue enabling it).

The same way adding another 4 lane highway doesn't fix traffic long term (increasing highway throughput leads to more people leads to more cars leads to congestion all over again) simply adding more RAM is only a temporary solution.

Developers use the excuse of people having access to more RAM as justification to produce more and more bloated software. In 5 years you'll likely struggle even with 32GiB, because everything uses more.
That's not sustainable, and it's not necessary.

I think they meant the only language we transpile to for the express reason that working with it directly is so unpleasant.

Java is not transpiled to another language intended for human use, it's compiled to JVM bytecode.

People don't usually develop software directly in the IR of LLVM. They do develop software using vanilla JavaScript.

I can't for the life of me figure out how your proposed method helps in the described scenario.

Maybe I misunderstood it, can you elaborate?

If you kept going for a few paragraphs, this might have turned into a decent copy pasta. Shame, really.