Asklemmy

50698 readers

610 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Question about price discovery and competition in american capitalism (feddit.dk)

submitted 2 days ago by Marand@feddit.dk to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've been listening to Aquired recently (podcast about company origin stories) and when talking about privately owned companies (for instance, the recently Mars Inc. episode) they always do back of napkin estimated earnings because the company is private, which apparantly means they don't have to disclose earnings.

But in my country, Denmark, every company earning above 50.000 DKK (=7853 USD) has to disclose earnings. I believe this is for price discovery purposes, so that other entrepreneurs can see how much margin companies have and try to compete if they earn too much money, which is an important part of capitalism, right?

How come this is not required in USA, the "home" of capitalism? If I'm not mistaken of course, my apologies if so.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pmtriste@lemmy.world -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It really isn't. Smith argued (I agree wrongly) that the invisible hand of a free market would correct everything, but that monopolies and restrictions distort the market and that the worst thing we could do would be to allow corporations to dictate law. That was my point. The US has set up too many barriers to entry to reasonably claim it is free market, and corporations have absolute control over the current government.

Any reasonable reading of Smith's Wealth of Nations would be socialist anyway. He outright stated that the capital class had a responsibility to entirely pay for the expenses of the state in caring for the populace.

The better discussion of Smith would be what industries could reasonably be capable of sustaining an actually free market. I would argue that housing, communications, agriculture, and healthcare are impossible to de-monopolize due to practical spatial limitations and therefore would have to be under state control, given Smith's statement that capitalism's invisible hand only works in a free market.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago

Even in Smith's time, the state was already a tool of the capitalist class and centralization was occuring. It wasn't what it looks like today, of course, but today isn't fundamentally different at its core. The US is capitalist today, just at a later stage.

Secondly, capitalists paying for social safety nets isn't socialism. If you want an actual dive on socialism built off of Adam Smith instead of Marx, a fun thought experiment, I recommend the article Adam Smith's Socialism.