Anti-market bias seems to be the unifying constant.
So the fascists are those with "pro-market" bias? If we are allowed to use terminology like "left" willy nilly.
No, that wouldn't make any sense. Fascism and Socialism are on the same side of the statism fence. Both are anti-free markets. Both argue in favor of a large, powerful government with full control over the economy. The sole variance between them is how they implement and direct their statist controls, not whether they do.
The left / right premise as far as Socialism and Fascism is concerned is a fraud.
I'm with Alex generally, but disagree with this sentence: "We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow" In the last sixty years, a tremendous amount of money has been poured into education. Much money has been allocated to increase college enrollment. But, IMO, for the vast majority of people, college education is a luxury social club. Spending more money o…
I went to the best physics program in Sweden. It was pretty amazing and at something like $50 per year essentially free. In addition, the government provided ~$300 per month in assistance plus a low interest ~$900 loan.
Any good policy or form of governance (including socialism) will look bad if executed poorly.
Tragic that we all inevitably grow up to replace the old outdated system we grew up rebelling, nee disrupting, against. Hunter S. Thompson said something profound and unique to his position. He remarked his biggest fear, and the man knows a thing or two about fear, was waking up to realization that the same people he went to high school with ended up running the show. Here we are. I'm at the same age now as when Marc…
In the end, how much of tech was just about a few guys aggrandizing themselves, not actually benefiting others? From my viewpoint, an enormous amount. Disruptive, my ass. These guys are chasing the same stupid status symbols that everyone else is. They are not the ubermensch that society holds them up to be, just people who finally Made It (tm). Motives are exactly why the outcome will be just as rotten as before.
Then they go hungry. When they are ready to work and to eat, their local employment office will be ready with a job and a paycheck. But in the meantime, they need to stay off my lawn. I am a believer in anti-vagrancy laws, so I think with the "jobs for everyone" comes enforcement against sleeping on street benches and panhandling.
Your plan depends on everyone being able to work. There are a lot of illnesses and disabilities(physical and mental) that make that assertion not true. Would you have these people starve?
No, I said very clearly in my original comment that everyone gets a job, even schizophrenics and quadriplegics. There is something that everyone can do. If you are physically disabled you can monitor security cameras or transcribe city council recordings or something. If you are mentally disabled you can still probably pick up trash in city parks. There is some make work job available for almost anybody. The only exception would be the extreme mentally ill, who would need to be treated and provided supportive housing as they are now. But if you are mentally able, but just unwilling, then you go hungry. Or maybe you get a soup kitchen and a bed in a shelter. But in someway it will be unpleasant and hard, so as to disincentivize sloth.
In the US they are effectively deregulated in close to every way the actors care about (aka regulatory capture). Additionally, enforcement of the few regulations that exist is close to nonexistent. Edit: downvotes, so here's some references: On Regulatory Capture: a growing number of respected commentators now argue that regulatory capture of public agencies and public policy by leading banks was one of the main caus…
I cannot find any hard data on the very long term trend of numbers of SEC enforcement actions, but they seem to be on the rise in the long term, though they have fluctuated greatly. From the books I've read and interviews I've heard, it seems that the opposite is true; financial sector prosecutions have become so common that it is now regarded as a 'cost of doing business' more than a stain on one's reputation. edit:…
The SEC prosecution thing is interesting.
My view is that if businesses are viewing prosecution as merely a 'cost of doing business' then it is really evidence they are pretty ineffective as both an enforcement measure and a disincentive to breaking the rules.
(To make it clear, I'm not anti-market at all! I just think an effective and efficient market relies on the rule of law to function correctly)
> Well, we’re three decades into an era of systemic deregulation and financialization. The result? Not really, finance and banking are still the most regulated sectors on earth. Hardly deregularized.
Net regulations on banking and finance have increased drastically over the last 20 years. Indeed, regulation over the whole economy has increased drastically.
That's a fact that is easily demonstrated. The regulations are all public. The US economy is by far the most regulated economy on earth. There is no close second.
I'm with Alex generally, but disagree with this sentence: "We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow" In the last sixty years, a tremendous amount of money has been poured into education. Much money has been allocated to increase college enrollment. But, IMO, for the vast majority of people, college education is a luxury social club. Spending more money o…
> My policy preference would be a law that creating a universal wage subsidy of $7.75 an hour, thus guarantees every worker a total wage of at least $15 an hour. I really like this idea. Lately I've been thinking about minimum wage laws (SF, $15/hr min wage, etc) and something about it rubs me the wrong way. It feels like minimum wage laws are a convenient way for governments to take all the credit for improving the…
Yes, exactly. The economic right wing has a valid point, that many small business owners cannot bear the burden of a higher minimum wage. Asking a factory owner who is barely making payroll due to competition from China to boost his wages could be a death knell. The money for wage increases needs to come from those who are the big winners in the winner-takes-all-games that are technology and globalization.
>Slipping back to what - the horrors of statism that we saw in the 20th century? No, why should it? Just because we've learnt neoliberalism is flawed doesn't mean we should unlearn that statism was also disastrous (in different ways). I think (hope?) it's slipping back to somewhere in-between i.e. better regulated free markets, a sensible approach to privatisation and the acknowledgement that capitalism vs socialism…
No, why should it? Just because we've learnt neoliberalism is flawed doesn't mean we should unlearn that statism was also disastrous (in different ways). Thanks for keeping on making my point :) There is no "we". There is you and some people that are in ideological agreement with you, but there is no we. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?
Fair criticism. To be honest, I just (arrogantly) assumed we'd reached a point and accumulated enough evidence to remove any argument that the 20th century's experiments with communism and socialism and the recent 25 year infatuation with neoliberalism were anything other than overall failures. Judging by the down votes I'm getting, I'm clearly wrong and the idealogical battles rage on (mine included).
Just a clarification: Cab drivers are protesting Uber because Uber takes away their business and there's nothing they can do about it. It's not because they feel pressured to become Uber drivers and take less money - Uber drivers make a shit ton of money. It's the cab OWNERS who are really fucked.
> It's not because they feel pressured to become Uber drivers and take less money - Uber drivers make a shit ton of money What evidence do we have that this is true or, if so, will remain so past the period when they're recruiting to enter a new market? It seems a lot more likely that Uber is going to keep gradually lowering the rates paid to drivers to maintain their profit margins amidst competition.
I've spoken to every Uber driver that I've ever had, every one in SF was on pace to make 6 figures this year and thrilled with it. Average seems to be 80-100k depending on how much you drive. Cab drivers have to work their asses off on someone else's terms to even approach that.