Seven Fixes for American Capitalism • Hacker News Board

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#121

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #90

chasd00 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the concept of labor in socialism is outdated. Consider Facebook, do all the uses who generate the content and activity that gives Facebook its value count towards "labor" and therefore should participate in the rewards of that labor? If everything was still physical factories, staffed by humans, and creating physical widgets then I can at least understand the socialist view. However, in the current market labo…

>Consider Facebook, do all the uses who generate the content and activity that gives Facebook its value count towards "labor" It is labour, so yes. What do you think the concept of labour in socialism is? Only then can we judge if it is inaccurate. For instance, Marx never excluded mental/information-work/management labour, and in fact he mentioned them specifically at many points.

I was seriously just thinking that I'd like to see a Marxist analysis of this from you. So please, keep going.

My initial attempt at it: Facebook is the capitalist, owning the means of production. The workers aren't the employees of Facebook (I mean, yes, those are workers too, but they aren't the ones we're concerned about here). Instead, the workers are the users who generate the content. Facebook profits by keeping the fruits of their labor (their content).

What would it look like for the workers to own the means of production?

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#122

Post by fuzz4lyfe » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 9:16 PM UTC

xtian wrote: post #66

hevi_jos wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What socialism system are you talking about? Just name one socialist country that applies your ideal scenarios. IMHO this system only exist in your mind, it is not real. Countries that people say are Socialist like those in the north of Europe, are really capitalistic societies. I have known plenty of real socialist countries in the world, and they only share misery. In those socialist countries, like Venezuela or Cu…

Both capitalism and socialism have been applied in the kinds of totalitarian contexts you are describing. The real question is more fundamental: for whose benefit does government exist? Is it for the powerful or the powerless? There is a vast ocean of possibilities between paying everybody the same and regressive class-preserving exploitation disguised under lofty free-market ideals.

>for whose benefit does government exist? Is it for the powerful or the powerless?

Why is neither not an option?

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#123

Post by EpicEng » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #119

EpicEng wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We share our resources so that... our air space protected from Russian invasion The US subsidizing more than 70% of NATO probably helps a bit there.

making us more of a socialist civilisation .. ?

Yes. Things may look quite a bit different without ~700B in US NATO funding.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#124

Post by clairity » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #118

clairity wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “That's because the airline industry didn't return profits to investors; instead the vast value created by the industry accrued overwhelmingly to the public, because of competition.“ rhur? competition is essential to capitalism; monopoly returns to investors are not. no one is even guaranteed a profit. you describe exactly how capitalism is designed to work. this kind of basic misunderstanding is part of why we’re…

I think it's a bit much to imply that Warren Buffet missed out on learning economics and finance in high school.

might yours be an intentional misreading? buffett surely knows that capitalism's purpose is to allocate capital efficiently in an economy, not generate outsized returns to investors, which is a form of inefficiency:

"[E]ventually a fundamental rule of economics prevailed: In an unregulated commodity business, a company must lower its costs to competitive levels or face extinction." -- Warren Buffett, in the 1994 Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter

but he's not an impartial observer--a definitional statement that suits his vested interest is not surprising.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#125

Post by mindslight » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

mruts wrote: post #104

dnautics wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, if that's what you believe is the point of inflation. Whom does "investment" benefit? Go down to the tenderloin in SF, look around, and ask yourself if these people are benefitted by 'investment'. And the mechanism, as indicated in the quote, has at least a side effect of lowering the real value of workers (his words, not mine) wages. Inflation is exactly stealing from the poor to give to the wealthy. There's a…

You’re getting this backwards. Inflation helps the poor because the rich are much more likely to invest in job creation (by spending money and hiring people), when we have inflation. deflation is terrible for the poor, unemployment goes up and job creation goes down. If you look at historical data of inflation vs unemployment I’m sure you’ll come to the same conclusion. If the money supply doesn’t increase, it’s actu…

> deflation is terrible for the poor, unemployment goes up and job creation goes down

Yes, this is the standard assertion that is continually repeated to justify the state policy of overwhelming monetary inflation.

But it presupposes that what makes people poor is simply a lack of employment, rather than being unable to keep up with their essential expenses. Of course if you personally benefit from there being more minimum wage workers, this makes perfect sense to you - if 40 hours a week at minimum wage is not enough for someone to pay their bills, they can simply find another job and work 80!

But if you instead consider someone who does have a constant job that we accept as "full time", then having the real purchasing power of their salary generally trending down is certainly doing them no favors. That is the wage theft of inflation.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#126

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 10:15 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #124

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a bit much to imply that Warren Buffet missed out on learning economics and finance in high school.

might yours be an intentional misreading? buffett surely knows that capitalism's purpose is to allocate capital efficiently in an economy, not generate outsized returns to investors, which is a form of inefficiency: "[E]ventually a fundamental rule of economics prevailed: In an unregulated commodity business, a company must lower its costs to competitive levels or face extinction." -- Warren Buffett, in the 1994 Berk…

> buffett surely knows that capitalism's purpose is to allocate capital efficiently in an economy

No, it's not. That's an retrospective rationalization invented centuries after capitalism came into existence, and even after it was named by its critics.

The purpose of capitalism which motivated them pushing the changes which formed it was to secure power previously held by the feudal aristocracy in the hands of the mercantile—what would become “capitalist"—class.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#127

Post by mruts » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #125

mruts wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re getting this backwards. Inflation helps the poor because the rich are much more likely to invest in job creation (by spending money and hiring people), when we have inflation. deflation is terrible for the poor, unemployment goes up and job creation goes down. If you look at historical data of inflation vs unemployment I’m sure you’ll come to the same conclusion. If the money supply doesn’t increase, it’s actu…

> deflation is terrible for the poor, unemployment goes up and job creation goes down Yes, this is the standard assertion that is continually repeated to justify the state policy of overwhelming monetary inflation. But it presupposes that what makes people poor is simply a lack of employment, rather than being unable to keep up with their essential expenses. Of course if you personally benefit from there being more m…

That someone will get raises, assuming they are doing something in which their skills matter. A checkout cashier probably won't, because their job is a commodity, i.e, it doesn't matter if they are good or bad at their job, the results will be the same. If someone has skills in which there is competition, lets say a factory workers (there is a tangible difference between the best factory worker and the worst), they will see their wages rise due to inflation. Because of inflation more investment capital will flow into the factory company, and the company will have more money to try and select the "best" factory workers. The competition for labor will then drive up the wages up the factory worker .

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#128

Post by clairity » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 10:44 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #126

clairity wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

might yours be an intentional misreading? buffett surely knows that capitalism's purpose is to allocate capital efficiently in an economy, not generate outsized returns to investors, which is a form of inefficiency: "[E]ventually a fundamental rule of economics prevailed: In an unregulated commodity business, a company must lower its costs to competitive levels or face extinction." -- Warren Buffett, in the 1994 Berk…

> buffett surely knows that capitalism's purpose is to allocate capital efficiently in an economy No, it's not. That's an retrospective rationalization invented centuries after capitalism came into existence, and even after it was named by its critics. The purpose of capitalism which motivated them pushing the changes which formed it was to secure power previously held by the feudal aristocracy in the hands of the me…

the history is debated, and knowledge is generally retrospective and rationalized. besides, the historical origin of capitalism has little to do with its pragmatic purpose.

capitalism wouldn't be a practiced (locally optimal?) economic system were it not relatively efficient at allocating capital in an economy. decentralization of the means of production is also a critical feature of its success, but i'm sure the 18th c. bourgeoisie didn't think about that either.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#129

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 10:51 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #128

dragonwriter wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> buffett surely knows that capitalism's purpose is to allocate capital efficiently in an economy No, it's not. That's an retrospective rationalization invented centuries after capitalism came into existence, and even after it was named by its critics. The purpose of capitalism which motivated them pushing the changes which formed it was to secure power previously held by the feudal aristocracy in the hands of the me…

the history is debated, and knowledge is generally retrospective and rationalized. besides, the historical origin of capitalism has little to do with its pragmatic purpose. capitalism wouldn't be a practiced (locally optimal?) economic system were it not relatively efficient at allocating capital in an economy. decentralization of the means of production is also a critical feature of its success, but i'm sure the 18t…

> capitalism wouldn't be a practiced (locally optimal?) economic system were it not relatively efficient at allocating capital in an economy.

Why not?

It's certainly reasonable to expect productive efficiency (at least in some sense of output, though not necessarily the pure aggregate utilitarian sense it is normally used) ceteris paribus to lead to better survival of an economic meme, but it seems unwarranted in the extreme to assume that that is the only differentiator in the survival of such memes, which is necesat for the implication you suggest to reliably hold.

(And even if it does hold, what does that say about the near-universal evolution away from pure capitalism to various forms of the modern mixed economy?)

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#130

Post by mindslight » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

mruts wrote: post #127

mindslight wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deflation is terrible for the poor, unemployment goes up and job creation goes down Yes, this is the standard assertion that is continually repeated to justify the state policy of overwhelming monetary inflation. But it presupposes that what makes people poor is simply a lack of employment, rather than being unable to keep up with their essential expenses. Of course if you personally benefit from there being more m…

That someone will get raises, assuming they are doing something in which their skills matter. A checkout cashier probably won't, because their job is a commodity, i.e, it doesn't matter if they are good or bad at their job, the results will be the same. If someone has skills in which there is competition, lets say a factory workers (there is a tangible difference between the best factory worker and the worst), they w…

You've laid out a long chain of handwaving causality, stated as if each link happens automatically. But the market is not fully efficient, so default states matter.

What you're effectively arguing is that only the direct upsides matter, as the direct downsides will be erased by market feedback. Surely you can appreciate that the dynamics of the situation are quite different when a person has to rely on continually getting raises just for their financial situation to remain the same.

Tangentially, the productivity difference between a good worker and an average worker is exactly what businesses have worked to eliminate over the past few decades - via moving intelligence to larger processes, with individuals treated as cogs. And they've been quite successful at it.