What a bunch of bullshit. Like clockwork, another failed economist has crawled out of the woodwork to make a quick buck by blaming capitalism right at the top of an economic bubble. Turns out studying economics might pay off after all!
'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech
51–60 of 63 posts
Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech
#52The 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.
This isn't true on a societal scale even though a few slaveholders built a bunch of grandiose mansions. Enslaved people were less economically productive than free people. It also locked economies into less productive, lower sectors like agriculture. The South resisted industrialization despite it being more profitable because it was incompatible with an economy built on minimally skilled slaves.
It was not profit that kept slavery alive well into the 19th century in the Americas and Muslim countries. It was something more sinister and evil.
Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"The Great Tax Wars" by Steven R. Weisman is about the debate about taxes during the progressive era. On p 123 [1] we read
“Since 1860, federal taxation had increased sixfold, yet the tax burden was primarily borne by the poor. At the same time, corporate profits had increased tenfold, much of it untaxed. It cost rich Americans 8 to 10 percent of their earnings to finance the government, while the poor paid taxes equivalent to 75 to 80 percent of their savings.”
[1] https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Great_Tax_Wars/kw-Q...
Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Profitable/unprofitable is the wrong way of looking at it, because it implicitly ignores opportunity costs. Putting your money in a savings account at a big bank might be "profitable" in the sense you're getting paid some meager interest rate (eg. 0.1%), but it's definitely not the best option, like a money market fund or equity ETF. What OP probably meant was that slavery was worse than the alternatives, like puttin…
Then why didn't slave owners sell all their slaves and put the money in savings accounts?
I think you're missing the point OP was making. He's saying it's profitable but not optimal, those who recognised that quickly outstripped the slave owners in wealth.
I could ask you about your spending habits and why you don't pump all your money into an S&P 500 ETF, but that's ignoring time and consumption preferences you have, as well as perceived opportunity cost. It's not a useful observation to make at an individual level.
Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech
#55I am becoming more convinced that it is not Capitalism itself that is toxic, but Big Business.
If (in some hypothetical way) businesses were capped at e.g. 15 staff - innovation would be slower, but it would be:
- More sustainable
- More locally adapted
- The supply chain ecosystem as a whole would be more resilient
- Damaging decisions by a few huge businesses would not outweigh good decisions from the other 99% of businesses, as happens today.
Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech
#56Earlier 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. This isn't true on a societal scale even though a few slaveholders built a bunch of grandiose mansions. Enslaved people were less economically productive than free people. It also locked economies into less productive, lower sectors like agriculture. The South resisted industrialization despite it being more profitable because it was incompatible with an economy built o…
Lobbyists?
Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech
#57I am becoming more convinced that it is not Capitalism itself that is toxic, but Big Business. If (in some hypothetical way) businesses were capped at e.g. 15 staff - innovation would be slower, but it would be: - More sustainable - More locally adapted - The supply chain ecosystem as a whole would be more resilient - Damaging decisions by a few huge businesses would not outweigh good decisions from the other 99% of…
I sort of agree with you, but how would you run any kind of industry on 15 employees? I think my limit would be somewhere in the ballpark of 100-200. That feels "big" to me, but not "huge faceless corporation"
Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chattel slavery was exceptionally profitable. This isn't true on a societal scale even though a few slaveholders built a bunch of grandiose mansions. Enslaved people were less economically productive than free people. It also locked economies into less productive, lower sectors like agriculture. The South resisted industrialization despite it being more profitable because it was incompatible with an economy built o…
Lobbyists?
In early islamic texts you will find making slavery easier again (the Eastern Roman Empire was phasing it out and tightening the rules significantly, because Christianity) was a goal of the early muslims, and you will find exactly why it was such an explicit goal, ie. what they wanted those slaves for ...
https://sunnah.com/muslim%3A1438a
https://sunnah.com/abudawud%3A2172
https://sunnah.com/bukhari%3A6603
So to answer your question: why bring back slavery? Free prostitutes, or even better: getting paid to rape random women you just abduct.
Ie. Why? Some things are just not available for free in any other system.
... and this is still being done today in some societies for that same "reason". So you can say it succeeded.
Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech
#59Capitalism with a human face doesn't make sense. It's like talking about Ethical Theft. It might have served its purpose, but now it's time to move on.
Any idea what would work comparably well instead? There were many experiments; none seemed to be successful, unless you consider the current semi-capitalist China a social success.
Socialism yes indeed! But to say that China is semi capitalist is seeing the glass half empty; they are still in the preliminary stage of socialism. It's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be as long as it goes above and beyond what has been achieved by capitalism. I recommend The East is still red by Carlos Martinez about that. It deconstructs a lot of misconceptions about what China is and isn't.
Re: 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"The Great Tax Wars" by Steven R. Weisman is about the debate about taxes during the progressive era. On p 123 [1] we read “Since 1860, federal taxation had increased sixfold, yet the tax burden was primarily borne by the poor. At the same time, corporate profits had increased tenfold, much of it untaxed. It cost rich Americans 8 to 10 percent of their earnings to finance the government, while the poor paid taxes equ…
> those who do have capital and earn their income from labor...
I meant "those who do NOT have capital ...