Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

#21

Post by Barrin92 »

NietzscheanNull wrote: post #8
JohnFen wrote: post #3

The problem is that, apparently, abusing people wholesale is profitable.

Drug dealing is profitable. Chattel slavery was exceptionally profitable. To allow profitability to be our measure of permissibility is to sacrifice civil society at the altar of enterprising tyrants. Economics should never be a substitute for ethics.

>Chattel slavery was exceptionally profitable.

it wasn't. Slave economies are exceptionally unprofitable and unproductive. To take the US as an example. Liquid wealth, i.e. capital, was vastly larger in the North than in the slave owning states, the industrial output of New York exceeded the entire Confederacy and it was that profitability, wealth and mechanized agricultural production that did them in.

Even Marx recognized this by the way, following feudalism capitalism was a progressive force, it was profit, productivity and surplus that enabled civil society, the north was more civil because it was rich and had unlocked modern forms of production. The problem of capitalism is not profit or lack of civil society.

Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

#22

Post by dionian »

"Voters turn towards fascist leaders when democracy no longer serves workers, Kurz says. “New Deal” reforms during the Great Depression limited monopoly power and provided benefits to the vulnerable. According to Private Power and Democracy’s Decline, these reforms precipitated a “half-century of sustained innovations, rapid economic growth and stable income distribution”. Reagan-era reversals of those reforms led to what Kurz calls the “second Gilded Age”, when technological firms could accumulate monopoly power and wealth while most Americans, especially blue-collar workers without college degrees, saw their wages stagnate as the cost of living rose. It was this economic disenfranchisement, rather than cultural forces, that led to the rise of Maga, according to Kurz."

The MSM has been pushing hard for establishment Rs and most Ds, and tech oligarchs were sinking money in D areas like Zuckerberg in WI in 2020. (A "maga" election, per the articles comment)

I agree that tech oligarchy shouldn't be influencing politics so much, but i dont think this makes Dems or anyone else 'fascist' necessarily.

Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

#23

Post by ch4s3 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #21
NietzscheanNull wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug dealing is profitable. Chattel slavery was exceptionally profitable. To allow profitability to be our measure of permissibility is to sacrifice civil society at the altar of enterprising tyrants. Economics should never be a substitute for ethics.

>Chattel slavery was exceptionally profitable. it wasn't. Slave economies are exceptionally unprofitable and unproductive. To take the US as an example. Liquid wealth, i.e. capital, was vastly larger in the North than in the slave owning states, the industrial output of New York exceeded the entire Confederacy and it was that profitability, wealth and mechanized agricultural production that did them in. Even Marx rec…

Contemporary anti-capitalists are way to influenced by the "king cotton" theory, which as you point out is completely wrong.

Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

#24

Post by tao_oat »

simianwords wrote: post #20
throawayonthe wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes that's why it's inhumane and relies on unequal exchange/exploitation of the global south while still backsliding on domestic welfare appeasement policies

Global south is not exploited inhumanely. This ideology called "thirdworldism" or "decolonialism" is becoming popular but it ultimately fails on any scrutiny. The west has not got rich at the expense of the global south. Both have gone up .

> The west has not got rich at the expense of the global south

What timeframe are you considering in this opinion?

Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

#25

Post by Zigurd »

Barrin92 wrote: post #21
NietzscheanNull wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug dealing is profitable. Chattel slavery was exceptionally profitable. To allow profitability to be our measure of permissibility is to sacrifice civil society at the altar of enterprising tyrants. Economics should never be a substitute for ethics.

>Chattel slavery was exceptionally profitable. it wasn't. Slave economies are exceptionally unprofitable and unproductive. To take the US as an example. Liquid wealth, i.e. capital, was vastly larger in the North than in the slave owning states, the industrial output of New York exceeded the entire Confederacy and it was that profitability, wealth and mechanized agricultural production that did them in. Even Marx rec…

True, but "better than slavery or feudalism" isn't a winning tagline. Nor should it be an excuse for letting capitalism tear down civil society as it has been doing in the US recently.

Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

#26

Post by unfitted2545 »

simianwords wrote: post #20
throawayonthe wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes that's why it's inhumane and relies on unequal exchange/exploitation of the global south while still backsliding on domestic welfare appeasement policies

Global south is not exploited inhumanely. This ideology called "thirdworldism" or "decolonialism" is becoming popular but it ultimately fails on any scrutiny. The west has not got rich at the expense of the global south. Both have gone up .

Wow. Tell that to the cobalt miners in the DRC.

Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

#27

Post by GerryAdamsSF »

Barrin92 wrote: post #21
NietzscheanNull wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug dealing is profitable. Chattel slavery was exceptionally profitable. To allow profitability to be our measure of permissibility is to sacrifice civil society at the altar of enterprising tyrants. Economics should never be a substitute for ethics.

>Chattel slavery was exceptionally profitable. it wasn't. Slave economies are exceptionally unprofitable and unproductive. To take the US as an example. Liquid wealth, i.e. capital, was vastly larger in the North than in the slave owning states, the industrial output of New York exceeded the entire Confederacy and it was that profitability, wealth and mechanized agricultural production that did them in. Even Marx rec…

It was profitable for the slave owners.

History is not a Paradox game where there is rational top down control.

Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

#28

Post by jmyeet »

There are essentially three forces shaping society going forward:

1. Everything is great. You either own a lot of capital or you think you will one day. You're fully in support of the current system;

2. There are problems but they can be fixed with a nicer, kinder capitalism, more regulation and so on. This essentially makes you a social democrat. This is still a pro-capitalist position, ultimately. You might also call yourself progressive; and

3. You believe that capitalism is fundamentally flawed and the problems of the current system, such as ever-widening wealth inequality, are an inveitable consequence of capitalism. This is the anti-capitalist position and makes you a leftist. You can't be a leftist and not be anti-capitalist.

Last century and going back to even the 2000s, tech companies and their founders were upstarts, rebels and often counter-cultural. That era is long gone. Some here might decry how often politics creeps into HN but all that's happened is that tech companies have gotten so large that they have become tools of the state. You can't be a rebel and a trillion dollar company. To maintain your status, you end up moving in lockstep with US domestic and foreign policy.

My point is there is no making this system more humane without overthrowing the US government, essentially. Imperialism is the highest form of capitalism and there is no true opposition to American imperialism in the mainstream US political system. Like, at all.

Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

#29

Post by Zigurd »

dionian wrote: post #22

"Voters turn towards fascist leaders when democracy no longer serves workers, Kurz says. “New Deal” reforms during the Great Depression limited monopoly power and provided benefits to the vulnerable. According to Private Power and Democracy’s Decline, these reforms precipitated a “half-century of sustained innovations, rapid economic growth and stable income distribution”. Reagan-era reversals of those reforms led to…

Based on the recent NYT poll, a lot of rank-and-file Democrats think Democratic politicians aren't anti-fascist enough. One can sort of see the logic of the politicians who are focusing, correctly, on keeping independents on board. But it is weak sauce nevertheless.

Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech

#30

Post by jorvi »

slwvx wrote: post #7
saulpw wrote: post #6

"Capitalism" can't become more humane, by its nature. Money is a great technology for coordinating people and work, but capitalism (being the system in which the capital class is allowed to allocate resources without oversight, and to reap the vast majority of the rewards of everyone's labor and invention) systematically optimizes away anything that is not monetizable. And humanity is neither monetizable nor optimiza…

I think social democracy is, by its nature, trying to be a humane system while allowing a form of capitalism. The Nordics may not be a perfect example of social democracy, but a useful one. Looking closer to home, the progressive era in the US was all about making society more humane while still allowing capitalism. In the sense of capitalism of these examples, I definitely think it can be humane. For a more recent e…

The progressive era in the US had nothing to do with capitalism, it's a different axis. And also a very useful red herring for the people with capital. "They have you fighting a culture war so you aren't fighting a class war" and all that jazz.
Post reply on HN