Economics of markets has been written about long before Capitalism changed the class orders and the workers relationships to their labor. Why is this article pretending “markets” are capitalism? We’ve literally written about markets and trade for our entire written history.
Capitalism is not defined by “markets”. Its defined by ones relationship to Capital, Labor, and the ownership of the means of production. You can have Socialist markets, you can have Fascist markets, you can have Slave markets.
I don’t understand why the article is trying to connect this to “Capitalism”. I guess just another “it’s human nature” fallacy. Trying to point to ancient history for some appeal to it.
This has literally nothing to do with capitalism. It’s cool history. But, literally, so many surviving texts are just accounting and trade books because that’s literally what we’ve been writing down the most for all of our species history.
It’s another load of Lolbertarian bullshit, the invisible hand of the market is a holy ghost, emergent simply when two people (even ancient primitives) engage in commerce, don’t you know. The subtext is: the idea that it is dangerous if unregulated is the product of the simple communist mind, even these primitives understood that!
For sure. It’s just frustrating that our entire society seems to connect “trade” and “markets” to being invented by Capitalism. Like, no one knew how to trade their berries for meat, or invent currency until Adam Smith came along and mentioned the “invisible hand”.
For some reason no one seems to take his writings as seriously when he talks about landlords though. So, odd how that worked out. /s
Because our understanding of Capitalism boils down to commerce existing. just like Communism is when the government does something I don’t like.
I’m guessing it’s ai
Sure. Probably written with AI. But some idiot had to prompt it.
I swear Hackernews has a higher concentration of idiots than reddit. At least half of what this bot reposts is total garbage
Sarcastic bot.
