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

Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#131

Post by clairity »

dragonwriter wrote: post #129
clairity wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the history is debated, and knowledge is generally retrospective and rationalized. besides, the historical origin of capitalism has little to do with its pragmatic purpose. capitalism wouldn't be a practiced (locally optimal?) economic system were it not relatively efficient at allocating capital in an economy. decentralization of the means of production is also a critical feature of its success, but i'm sure the 18t…

> capitalism wouldn't be a practiced (locally optimal?) economic system were it not relatively efficient at allocating capital in an economy. Why not? It's certainly reasonable to expect productive efficiency (at least in some sense of output, though not necessarily the pure aggregate utilitarian sense it is normally used) ceteris paribus to lead to better survival of an economic meme, but it seems unwarranted in the…

sure, it's premature to be absolutely sure of the reasons for capitalism's current success (and potential demise), but that doesn't mean we can't draw any conclusions.

the underlying conjecture is that capitalism combines with modern political and cultural systems to create broad distribution of esteem and opportunity, while also being more efficient at it, so that attention is drawn toward positive-sum production (and away from zero-/negative-sum conflict), making it more stable than other systems like feudalism.

moreover capitalism seems to be flexible enough to combine with diverse political and cultural systems. the modern mixed economy, then, can be thought of as an expression of the pragmatic holistic sociopoliticoeconomic system (vs. the ideal) as it counteracts various forms of self-serving distortions.

do you believe maximizing personal capital is a worthy goal in itself, or is there another reason for the debate?

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#132

Post by claudiawerner »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #117
claudiawerner wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

It is imposition of the will of capital, as the personification goes. As such it is also the imposition of its representatives - politicians, churches and economists. Even water flowed down hills before capitalism - so the natural analogy is only half way there, perhaps a much more recent (and thoroughly capitalist) natural analogy would do: the pollution of the earth!

More than a bee builds a hive, we're responsible because we are thinking creatures, with the power to change nature and make it ours.

"The institutions of feudalism are artificial institutions, those of the bourgeoisie are natural institutions. In this, they resemble the theologians, who likewise establish two kinds of religion. Every religion which is not theirs is an invention of men, while their own is an emanation from God. When the economists say that present-day relations — the relations of bourgeois production — are natural, they imply that these are the relations in which wealth is created and productive forces developed in conformity with the laws of nature"

On intention, we'd agree that intention is a very human thing. Does the air show intent? Do animals show intent? No, intent is human - and so the force of capital must also be, or so it would go if we don't use the power of abstraction. To think abstractly about the situation, we recognise that abstract entities do have intentions of their own. Socialists don't want to go about blaming, they want to get on finding the most abstract form of this system, which is totalitarian: it absorbs every section of society (from interactions every day, to leisure time, to work time, to our relationships, to art, philosophy, science...) to work for it. If you don't conform as a capitalist or a worker, you're out. Intention is the question when we want to blame someone, but not even Marx blamed (or praised) the capitalists.

"To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them."

I think we have reached the point where the growth of the market should be questioned, and whether its worse continuing to serve this external alien authority, both as capitalists and as workers. The question of what follows is to many still an open one, as I'm sure you'd agree if I were to say my own (which you can probably guess is). Can there be a society without the kind of coercion capitalism uses to "redirect our resources"? Maybe you don't think so, but by saying the answer is "no", we're throwing out weighing up its criticism (sociological, economic, moral, artistic) and where it has excelled over any previous system.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#133

Post by dnautics »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #116
jiveturkey wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)"…

Nope. Inflation is the problem with contemporary capitalism.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#134

Post by andrenth »

claudiawerner wrote: post #132
entropicdrifter wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? It is imposition of the will of capital, as the personification goes. As such it is also the imposition of its representatives - politicians, churches and economists. Even water flowed down hills before capitalism - so the natural analogy is only half way there, perhaps a muc…

But “the will of capital” is defined by market demand; in other words, consumers. This is what makes it different from totalitarian imposition.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#135

Post by claudiawerner »

andrenth wrote: post #134
claudiawerner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? It is imposition of the will of capital, as the personification goes. As such it is also the imposition of its representatives - politicians, churches and economists. Even water flowed down hills before capitalism - so the natural analogy is only half way there, perhaps a muc…

But “the will of capital” is defined by market demand; in other words, consumers. This is what makes it different from totalitarian imposition.

You haven't given any reason to think that. I've already addressed why intention is not necessary for the critique. Are you aware of ideas such as structural violence, for instance?

Imagine if you lived in a society in which the idea of liberty simply didn't exist, and the intentions of those in charge were good intentions (as far as they know), and those in charge were numerous, or even the whole populace. Would you call this potentially totalitarian?

Why is capitalism totalitarian? Because it creates a totality in which all life is absorbed, from the economic foundation of society (even you would agree), but also to the way we do science, create art and how we interact with other people.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#136

Post by andrenth »

claudiawerner wrote: post #135
andrenth wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But “the will of capital” is defined by market demand; in other words, consumers. This is what makes it different from totalitarian imposition.

You haven't given any reason to think that. I've already addressed why intention is not necessary for the critique. Are you aware of ideas such as structural violence, for instance? Imagine if you lived in a society in which the idea of liberty simply didn't exist, and the intentions of those in charge were good intentions (as far as they know), and those in charge were numerous, or even the whole populace. Would you…

> Would you call this potentially totalitarian?

Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. How do people in that hypothetical society live? Obviously we cannot tell, but we can study history and check how things go when liberty is discarded.

> Because it creates a totality

This is just word play. The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary:

1) of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.

2) exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#137

Post by claudiawerner »

andrenth wrote: post #136
claudiawerner wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't given any reason to think that. I've already addressed why intention is not necessary for the critique. Are you aware of ideas such as structural violence, for instance? Imagine if you lived in a society in which the idea of liberty simply didn't exist, and the intentions of those in charge were good intentions (as far as they know), and those in charge were numerous, or even the whole populace. Would you…

> Would you call this potentially totalitarian? Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. How do people in that hypothetical society live? Obviously we cannot tell, but we can study history and check how things go when liberty is discarded. > Because it creates a totality This is just word play. The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary: 1) of or rela…

>Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results.

Fantastic, I agree. So then the intentions actually seem to matter very little (or not at all) in the kind of society we create; so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter? What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually?

>The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary

I don't trust the dictionary to define terms which are better defined in their own fields (in this case, sociology or politics or philosophy). But I can see capitalism fitting into the second definition, or the first definition, since you say that the good-intentions-but-unfree society I described before is totalitarian.

Another example: can racism be totalitarian? Even your second definition would seem to suggest so. What about gender roles? In the end, I see no reason at all why totalitarianism must come about as part of a coordinated intention or conspiracy. If good-intentioned bureaucrats can create a totalitarian society, why can't neutrally-intentioned capitalists and consumers?

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#138

Post by joshuaheard »

pranjalv123 wrote: post #27
joshuaheard wrote: post #10

The 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 provides more benefits than feudalism, which in turn provided more benefits than a pre-feudal barter economy. But that doesn't mean that there is no economic system that would provide still more benefits than capitalism.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best system we have.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#139

Post by andrenth »

claudiawerner wrote: post #137
andrenth wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you call this potentially totalitarian? Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. How do people in that hypothetical society live? Obviously we cannot tell, but we can study history and check how things go when liberty is discarded. > Because it creates a totality This is just word play. The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary: 1) of or rela…

>Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. Fantastic, I agree. So then the intentions actually seem to matter very little (or not at all) in the kind of society we create; so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter? What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually? >The word “totalitarian” has a very speci…

> so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter

Because, regardless of intention, results are a consequence of human action.

> What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually?

Are you asking if emergent properties can be totalitarian? I think this question is not very useful. Do we have a real-world system in which nobody is to blame for its properties?

> But I can see capitalism fitting into the second definition, or the first definition

If you're talking about the capitalist societies we have today, yes, they can absolutely be totalitarian. But is that because of capitalism or in spite of it?

The fear of totalitarianism is the reason capitalists defend freedom and the reduction of the state.

> can racism be totalitarian?

The idea of racism? The definition of the word? I don't think so. But a society where racists can exert power over people and reduce their freedom is totalitarian. But we're back to the human factor.

Re: Seven Fixes for American Capitalism

#140

Post by dnautics »

mindslight wrote: post #85
dnautics wrote: post #54

No 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…

From the OP: > The real constraint only kicks in when there’s too much spending relative to a limited supply of goods and services—in other words, when inflation spikes. And there’s been little sign of that in America for decades. It amazes me that this can still be repeated with a straight face. The prices for housing, healthcare, and education have skyrocketed - many would say that the costs for these are the probl…

Drop a line!
Post reply on HN