221–230 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bezos and Musk reinvested all of their wealth into their own endeavors. Craft policy to support such efforts. You still tax productive activities, just not as much as unproductive activities (such as mega-yachts or sailing teams, which are luxury goods).
Sounds like you want a consumption tax, and not a wealth tax then?
If you were born in an advanced economy in 2000 you've lived through at least two recessions, weak growth, rising inequality and asset prices, and high cost of schooling. Yes, capitalism isn't really looking great right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Future generations are going to look back critically at this time. So much risk taken, so much sacrificed and burned up, so much opportunity, labor, economic freedom spent, all so that a tiny sliver of people born roughly between 1920 and 1950 can have retirement security, second homes, vacations, and on average a massively higher standard of living than anyone else that’s ever lived or will live in the future. When…
Look, I personally am thinking my time as a nigh ancient wizard serving the grand duke of Taos in the protectorate of far southern Utah is going to feking rad, especially when my son's family finally buys themselves out of serfdom in the Terlinguan grasslands and travels up so I can establish a trans-generational cult that passes on my knowledge of psychoanalytics, electronics, and cultivating fungal ethnogens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Socialism is just a word that's used as "not capitalism". The point is, though, if the ownership of capitals (means of production) is so concentrated (1% own 90% of capital), then pretty much the only "solution" is effectively disowning them, consequences be damned. That's clearly in contrast to the spirit (and law) of capitalism, hence many (even capitalists) would simply call it "socialism" (or "communism"), even i…
I see, so is there a better word instead of this misappropriated colloquialism? Its impossible to talk nuances of resource appropriation with an evocative term used inaccurately
Maybe I’m naïve, but to me the word “capitalism” is not an “economic policy” that can be changed through deliberate action, but rather a framework of analysis that makes predictions on supply, demand, and pricing in markets that are varying levels of free. I’m confused when people in my generational cohort say things like “capitalism is unfair” or “capitalism sucks”, in reference to the system of government and benef…
Talk to them, and you'll realize they don't know what the fuck they mean either.
To generalize from my conversations, by "capitailism" they mean some amalgamation of: the fact they're poor, market forces in general, Government policy not providing certain goods/services, financial markets, non-post-scarcity, and snidely whiplash mustache twirling villains lurking in the wings.
But they also mean any aspect of society they don't like and can find a specious connection to market forces. Even if it's something that's just as possible under a communist/socialist government. It just wouldn't exist in their vision of Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism.
>After the 2008 recession, President Obama and the Democrats effectively saved capitalism from itself; a more radical leadership would fight to replace it with a better system. This time around there may be far more pressure from below to do just that, especially with a more organized left and more class conscious young people. As a former soviet occupied country citizen, I am amazed that westerners would want to ove…
It's paradoxical, but the West is falling victim to its own economical success. Inequality is a sign of effective competition and selection mechanism (no matter how moral or amoral it is) where the best (and sometimes the luckiest) gain an edge on others. Natural selection and meritocracy in any free society eventually lead to hierarchy and to inequality. However inequality leads to social unrest. That's why many governments suppress inequality to some extent with taxes, some rich people do charity for the same reason. Suppressing inequality slows down technical progress and development (because it reduces incentive), therefore extremely socialist countries eventually fail (USSR, Venezuela).
The problem with the West is not inequality per se. The American dream (work hard, get rich) was long time a painkiller to inequality because it gave a hope that you can change things. The problem with the West now is that people lost that hope. They don't believe they can change things no matter how hard they try. The American dream doesn't drive anymore (although it's still driving many immigrants). And when the anesthetic effect of the American dream has gone, people saw the inequality as it is, despite it has always been here.
> ... The last economic crisis contributed directly to the rise of populism over the following decade, but the next crisis will come squarely within the age of populism. ... Although the article doesn't mention it, the next recession will also likely come during a powerful wave of job losses tied to automation. Mixing popular resentment over the last debacle in which had few consequences for those responsible with th…
I don’t know about anyone else but I’m tired of the “automation” doomsday predictions that don’t understand we don’t lose jobs, they just transfer with new technology. Did the cottongin end slavery? No. It make it more efficient. Did the rail system go away with national highways? No. We have much better last mile access. Have robots replaced union workers? Union membership has decreased since the 80s, but unemployme…
Maybe I’m naïve, but to me the word “capitalism” is not an “economic policy” that can be changed through deliberate action, but rather a framework of analysis that makes predictions on supply, demand, and pricing in markets that are varying levels of free. I’m confused when people in my generational cohort say things like “capitalism is unfair” or “capitalism sucks”, in reference to the system of government and benef…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would likely improve under democratic socialism (which is not the same model as communism or socialism). Especially if we disconnect healthcare from employment allowing workers more freedom to pick employers or entrepreneurship. People want purpose, but they also need their basic needs met. They have to have hope they won't spend their lives on an economic treadmill where one slip will cause their demise. This is…
> People want purpose, but they also need their basic needs met. That means our garbage would never get collected or our toilets cleaned, because I don't think anybody's intended purpose is doing sanitation. If you're just assigning jobs to give a purpose, you're forcing labor. If not you have dirty living quarters and a glut of artists.
How much of your labor is absolutely necessary, and how much of it consists in generating surplus wealth for the benefit of your capitalist overlords?
>On the other hand, 41 percent of those over 65 supported Biden, compared to 26 percent for Warren and an incredible 2 percent for Sanders. it seems that the ones that grew up in a time when tax policy was closer to bernie sanders' are less likely to support him