Thread by @mhbx

Another entry into the conversation of the systemic relationship between society & wealth/#Capitalism. Embedded in the conversation are a number of questions:
>What is an economy for?
>What is the first principle of wealth?

newyorker.com/news/our-colum…

A few more questions, there are many more. All of which need to be addressed as part of the larger conversation we are being compelled to engage, however reluctantly.

>What is the first principle of economics?
>how much is enough.

> Are there different dialects of #Capitalism that need to be distinguished as essential to having a rational conversation?
eg. is there a difference between how a capitalistic economy works at the local level that is different from its multinational corporate versions?

I posit that a great deal of confusion around the subject of economic systems is taking the basic principles of incentive, supply/demand, competition & etc that seem to function fairly well at the local level, but fail badly to work meaningfully when attributed to the national &

global levels. Meaning, for example, that the role of government is completely different in each of these domains. While presumably, the Gov is there to set the rules and adjudicate contracts & etc, and it does that reasonably well at the local levels, at the upper levels

it is not uncommon for the government to be either working as partners with the corporations, or by whatever means, honest or nefarious, to be compelled to be subservient to them. This skews everything (IMO). To not make this distinction seems to limit the ability to understand

To close this unexpected thread, just to acknowledge, in reference to the article, that there is a "dialect" of this in play at the individual or family level as well.
These questions engage the entirety of human history and will not be easily answered. But they must be engaged.