21–30 of 88 posts
The author assumes we have 'capitalism' to begin with. Even talks about big banks etc. Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic. Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). He m…
From the fine article: > individualism replaced collectivism and solidarity I find myself wondering if I am part of a remaining few who treasure that. I value self-sufficiency over dependency, moreso as I get older. I have come to realize that there can rarely be an imposed collective benefit that didn't come at the expense of at least one individual. The answer to "is it worth it?" will be dependent on which one you…
Internet mobs have completely failed to take down any number of other bad CEOs, or influence the policy of any nation state in a significantly positive way.
The disconnect is leverage. You can rant all you like online, but corporations only care about sales and the bottom line. Unless Team Rant has a measurable effect there you have no real influence at all.
Internet mobs have been good at shaming middle- and low-status individuals who attract envy and/or who say the wrong thing in public. Careers and reputations have certainly been damaged or destroyed.
But don't confuse that kind of schoolyard game for political or economic influence - they're completely different things.
The author assumes we have 'capitalism' to begin with. Even talks about big banks etc. Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic. Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). He m…
[deleted]
Most of our debt's occur because interest rates are so high, and why are interest rates so high? Because they're pegged above inflation, and why do we have inflation? Because governments bide time and bribe us with free things either funded by debts they've instigates, or by printing fiat currency. Which aren't market ideals, by any definition.
The author assumes we have 'capitalism' to begin with. Even talks about big banks etc. Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic. Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). He m…
That would be historically ironic, wouldn't it? So much so that it has a ring of truth about it. Nature loves a good paradox.
By contrast, all the overtly socialistic authoritarian-Leninist states have evolved into slave states, mafia states, and totalitarian state-capitalism.
Marx's original idea really wasn't that. Boiled down, Marx argued that capitalism would transcend and obsolete itself through its aggressive over-production and innovation. It wasn't something to be imposed from above. It would evolve out of capitalism itself.
The author assumes we have 'capitalism' to begin with. Even talks about big banks etc. Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic. Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). He m…
A historically accurate definition of capitalism (unlike communism for instance, capitalism was given name for the existing system and not for utopian ideal), I believe, would be that it is a system with two characteristics:
1. Most of means of production (capital) is privately owned.
2. Human labor is a market commodity.
I don't agree with the article that death of these things (and so capitalism) is coming, although I can certainly (being a leftist) imagine a free market system where neither of these conditions is true. For example, a system where large majority of economic production happens in democratically controlled worker cooperatives.
From the fine article: > individualism replaced collectivism and solidarity I find myself wondering if I am part of a remaining few who treasure that. I value self-sufficiency over dependency, moreso as I get older. I have come to realize that there can rarely be an imposed collective benefit that didn't come at the expense of at least one individual. The answer to "is it worth it?" will be dependent on which one you…
I don't think this article is really talking about 20th century centralized socialism as we've understood it. I think we do have the potential to shed that cold war narrative and explore other more self-organizing possibilities.
The author assumes we have 'capitalism' to begin with. Even talks about big banks etc. Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic. Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). He m…
Corporatist despotism is the logical conclusion of any laissez-faire capitalist economy just as Stalinism is the logical conclusion of any Marxist economy. Businesses are sticky and over time will tend to clump together, for efficiency reasons, into larger businesses. Once these businesses reach critical mass, they start to have a significant amount of influence over politicians through lobbying and campaign contributions. They use this influence to do something called "regulatory hedging" whereby they can squeeze out competition and achieve monopoly through introducing complicated legal requirements that make it tough for the little guy to get ahead. The FDA and federal tax codes are good examples of this.
This will continue to happen time and again until we put in place good checks against businesses consolidating too much power. Of course, it's too late for that since we've already let them control our political system.
Author needs to get out more.
This statement seems odd to me: Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant. I don't understand how this follows. Wouldn't having more information mean that prices form more correctly?
Only if everyone has perfect information all of the time.
The author assumes we have 'capitalism' to begin with. Even talks about big banks etc. Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic. Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). He m…
Let's talk about this point as a whole. Firstly, I don't think it is well substantiated, and there are numerous examples to the contrary- Microsoft, Standard Oil, United Fruit, telecoms, airlines, railroads- almost anything which requires significant initial investment to grow. But, more importantly- why distinguish between capitalism and what you call "state corporatism"? The corporations who lobby the state, or coerce the state, or even cause the formation of an authoritarian state in ways that work in their favor are merely being good capitalists- they're simply better at competing than other capitalists! When United Fruit coerces the US government into supporting a foreign coup, or a corporation coerces the police or military to massacre striking workers, or big oil asks for huge subsidies- it's no different from a capitalist perspective then investing in advertising or aggressive expansion, and all are about increasing control and centralizing power. If there were no state corporatism, how long would it be before a capitalist caused it to come about? Campaign finance laws, monopoly regulations, and public opinion can be rolled back or simply ignored until power is consolidated; the inherent unequal distribution of power in capitalism means that a comparative few people will always be capable of doing this. In the words of Woodrow Wilson: "If there are men in this country big enough to own the US government, they are going to own it". State corporatism, monopology, and inevitably authoritarianism are the end game of capitalism, not a perversion. You can't put limits on the definition of capitalism so that the second anyone is any good at it, and the most obvious oppression that being good at capitalism causes is then apparent, that suddenly it's "not capitalism" anymore because they didn't play by your rules in a system where the actual rules are what those with money say they are. Hopefully, this should make you more critical of the inherent viability of capitalism.