Two things that can have a major positive impact: end usury/interest, end artificial inflation.
Seven Fixes for American Capitalism
111–120 of 146 posts
Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism
#112The title implies Capitalism is broken. It's not. Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history. American Capitalism has produced the telephone, the automobile, the personal computer, the cell phone, the internet, and made us one of the richest countries in the world. A better title would be, Tweaks that can make American Capitalism Better.
> Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history.
Provably false. One example is the Islamic economic system. It was famously noted that there were no more people who accepted charity during the rule of Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, because poverty was basically eliminated.
Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism
#113The title implies Capitalism is broken. It's not. Capitalism has provided more benefits to more people than any other economic system in history. American Capitalism has produced the telephone, the automobile, the personal computer, the cell phone, the internet, and made us one of the richest countries in the world. A better title would be, Tweaks that can make American Capitalism Better.
Ok. We found a good move. But did we find the best move? Or, somewhat more weakly, can we find a better move? Don't let the good be the enemy of the better.
If you're interested, read up on the Islamic economic system. It allows for competition in a similar fashion that capitalism does, but it is still controlled. It also abolishes evil practices that feed on the poor like usury and interest, yet ensures that the poor get a good share by means of charity and other ways.
Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism
#114Two things that can have a major positive impact: end usury/interest, end artificial inflation.
Interest != usury.
And what do you mean by "artificial" inflation? QE?
Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism
#115No mention of ending inflation, which is a deliberate state-driven policy to steal from the poor to give to the rich and make the state "look good" by lowering the metric of unemployment: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi... "even in the long run, it’s really, really hard to cut nominal wages. Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significan…
> No mention of ending inflation
Did you mean to say "No mention of ending low inflation"?
Otherwise your comment doesn't make sense to me.
Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism
#116No mention of ending inflation, which is a deliberate state-driven policy to steal from the poor to give to the rich and make the state "look good" by lowering the metric of unemployment: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi... "even in the long run, it’s really, really hard to cut nominal wages. Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significan…
a. isn't krugman arguing FOR inflation? b. why is low unemployment bad? let's say we have a deflationary economy, doesn't that lead to high unemployment which is a feedback to more deflation? how is that not a bad thing? excuse my naivete
I think the problem was in dnautic's phrasing.
I initially read it as "No mention of ending (inflation, which is a deliberate state-driven policy to steal from the poor to give to the rich)".
But after reading the follow-up from dnautic (peer to this comment), I now think the intended meaning was "No mention of (ending inflation), which is (a deliberate state-driven policy to steal from the poor to give to the rich)".
That is, dnautic (if I understand correctly) is saying that the problem is ending inflation, rather than that inflation is the problem.
Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he's talking about economic stasis, let's give it a go: 1) Economics are the monetary interactions of a given society, subgroup, population, etc 2) stasis refers to not just stagnation, but a complete lack of change 3) total lack of change at a meta-scale like a society only exists in totalitarian societies 4) in the case of total economic stasis, you would need a command economy/controlled economy 5) in the scena…
I think your post hides a few ideological conveniences which you've used to bolster your argument, or at least make it suond convincing. For instance, >total lack of change at a meta-scale like a society only exists in totalitarian societies Does it? Why? >in the scenario of a command economy, some of the people involved in the economy would fundamentally need to be oppressed Why? Where does the oppression come in? I…
It's true that my post is grossly simplified for the sake of an exercise in pseudo-formal logic. This is largely for the sake of readability, as it was pretty long already.
>>total lack of change at a meta-scale like a society only exists in totalitarian societies
>Does it? Why?
This is genuinely interesting to me, so I'm going to try to write out my intuitive reasoning. Please bear with me and feel free to point out any errors.
1) The natural state of closed systems is to change unless at an equilibrium. (2nd law of thermodynamics)
2) In order for an economy to stop changing you need to be at some sort of equilibrium, typically these are either brought about by implicit military force with a government or by economic force in the case of functional monopolies.
3) While monopolies can crush entire industries, they have yet to take over entire societies without government assistance, to my knowledge
4) Therefore when you're talking about (relatively) complete stasis within an entire society's economy, you must be talking about a scenario where either government intervention is involved, or perhaps a hypothetical scenario where a single monopoly has taken over the entire economy and therefore functionally replaced the government.
I would say either of those hypothetical societies are roughly equivalent to totalitarianism, at least with regards to the economy, which is still the domain we're talking about, right?
>Why? Where does the oppression come in? If it is being told what to produce then doesn't capitalism do the same, though through a distributed model of command?
A distributed model of command? By allowing market forces to dictate what is in-demand and what is not, is that an imposition by an external will, or is it closer to gravity and surface tension defining the path of water as it flows down a hill?
I would argue that a fundamental aspect of oppression is intention. The market itself has no fundamental intentions but to grow. That said, it is bad at certain types of planning and must be redirected in many cases with external force in order to get it to work in the best interests of the public.
Having said all that, I don't think that we disagree on any of the points you've made. I was steelmanning Bezos' argument as suggested by the parent comment, not trying to make my own (except the very last paragraph). Yes, the use of "liberty" was assuming a bourgeois definition, this was because I had assumed it was the definition that Bezos was using.
Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism
#118A lot of analyses of capitalism miss out on the fact that the problems it creates vary widely by sector. Warren Buffet said that if "a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down." 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,…
> “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.
Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am constantly surprised by the reaction to the word socialism . I live in the UK, where the government takes 50% of GDP, and spends it mostly on communal activities - shared ownership. We share our resources so that the sick can get treated, our children educated, our air space protected from Russian invasion. We are sharing most of our national resources, and handing them out according to principles of those who n…
>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 .. ?
Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> 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? yes. I have contributed a small part of labor, but probably more importantly I have sold my Intellectual Property - my Personal data, to Facebook who then monetise it and give me no cut of the proceeds. It is an interesting framework from fallingf…
If you sold them something then you should send them an invoice. Or, did you agree to their terms and conditions of using their website/mobile app voluntarily? This makes no sense to me.
to make an (extreme and not equal example) you can enter a contract to sell your liver - society has decided that such contracts should be illegal. we shall probably make a similar decision on selling personal data.