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

After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

theanarchistlibrary.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 253 posts

Re: After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

#201

Post by moistly »

mdp2021 wrote: post #191
glogla wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what gets up and downvoted, most of people on HN are ancap or fascists. I guess it makes sense - startups are gold rush, VC's are the ones giving away shovels for portion of gold should there be any, and founders are people who either found gold or believe they will. I wonder if most of people have political outlook like this. If they do, it is both sad and comforting, because then the humanity is doomed to…

Upvote and downvote do not work that way at HN and should not be interpreted that way without analysis. Here it is not about how you feel: it is about whether you make sense. Experience mostly reflects the principle (some noise must be expected).

Your claim is fallacious. It is not rooted in any formal study of HN voters or voting outcomes. It is just a story HN members tell themselves to feel special. Reality is, HN is like every other social media platform, and feelings deeply influence voting around here. IMO it is obvious.

Re: After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

#202

Post by nightski »

KittenInABox wrote: post #200
nightski wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So all of that is possible in today's economic model. You don't need to make capital investment illegal for that to happen. Looking forward to the next crowdfunded carbon capture worker cooperative. Heck the SEC just raised the crowdfunding limit for startups to $5M so time will tell. I do find it interesting that your social circle is willing to bet their entire net worth on a risky startup where the reward is a sal…

Even in the example you provided a labor-led, democratically funded entity can only receive 5M while capital-led, private investor funded entity has no real limit.

Investing in startups is hard, as I am sure Y-Combinator would attest. The layperson is not prepared to invest in them. To vet the companies, their leadership, the feasibility of their ideas, etc... Especially with a low payout. I can understand the SEC's hesitation as this could easily lead to scams. Just look at kickstarter and all the things that have gone down there.

Really what the parent is proposing is something like -

Here is a savings account. You can throw chunks of money in it at startups that have a high chance of failing. But if they succeed you'll only earn bank level interest since it's not capital investment. So you have a small chance at earning bank level interest.

Where is the incentive?

Re: After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

#203

Post by qsort »

dbingham wrote: post #194
qsort wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My proposal is essentially that we make this the requirement So basically we are abolishing the ability for any business to hire employees? This would be terrible, especially for the poor. Owner and employee are different risk profiles, it's neither useful nor beneficial to impose by law that nobody can be an employee any longer, especially for those who can't afford the risk. It's also very easy to route around th…

> Owner and employee are different risk profiles, it's neither useful nor beneficial to impose by law that nobody can be an employee any longer, especially for those who can't afford the risk. The owner doesn't carry the risk - the business does. That's the whole point of a limited liability corporation. And there's no reason those liability protections couldn't be strengthened further. Plus, this is seriously undere…

> Someone living pay to pay check

Someone living pay to paycheck can not afford to be an owner in the first place. The structure being LLC or whatever makes no difference: the vast majority of business enterprises just fail.

You are effectively forcing everyone to be a business owner even when they might have no will, interest or ability to be one, something that disproportionately damages those who would putatively be helped by this system.

> You could pretty easily tweak contract law to get rid of this workaround.

Yes you can. You can do that in my world, where regulated employment, you know, exists, and you can easily show how an operation like that is fraudolent.

> And replacing them with power. They don't need those protections when they are in control. They can devise their own rules.

How would they be in control? Magic? The invisible hand? How would a law mandating that everyone be an owner, assuming for the sake of argument something like that is possible and enforceable, make a minimum wage worker in control of his own destiny?

It doesn't work, it's a pipe dream, and it's ironically the same argument used by hyper libertarian right-wing types.

> if you don't think anybody wants to get to a place with less inequality

Pointless rethoric. Literally everyone wants that, like everyone wants an extra million in their bank account.

I'm disagreeing that what you're proposing will get us there.

Re: After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

#204

Post by nightski »

guerrilla wrote: post #197
nightski wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't an insult, it was a critique. Any economy built on promises that can be thrown out at will is just a house of cards. Where do you even start with that? That's just one thing, the article is filled with half thought out premises that when taken to their conclusion fall apart. In reality it is the author making serious accusations that require evidence, not my critique.

I can't help you if you don't know where to start to support your own claims but rhetorical hand-waving probably isn't it. That you disagree with Graeber isn't really indicative that he fundamentally misunderstand finance though. He's kind of a well-received[1] expert on the subject, even according to the Financial Times[2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years#Cri... 2. https://www.ft.com/cont…

My point was is the author didn't even provide any detail on where his claims (not mine) would lead or how they would work. Why does the burden keep being put on me to disprove his claims instead of him being required to prove that they do work?

Re: After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

#205

Post by sleepysysadmin »

t-3 wrote: post #116
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't see what communism has to do with everyone needing to be employed full time. That's just what they made of it in the USSR etc. Like your definition says: and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. That equates to everyone working. There's very few exceptions, usually like you lack arms and legs or something extreme to allow you not to work. Afterall, how do you stop 'You w…

> Afterall, how do you stop 'You work, I'll be at home collecting UBI and watching TV.' Well, if there's no money (because it's not necessary), there wouldn't be a UBI anyway? Communism is supposed to come after socialism and before anarchy, in theory. First you build an egalitarian society with a mindset of peaceful cooperation, then you get them to all work together for the greater good, and finally you dissolve th…

>Well, if there's no money (because it's not necessary), there wouldn't be a UBI anyway? Communism is supposed to come after socialism and before anarchy, in theory. First you build an egalitarian society with a mindset of peaceful cooperation, then you get them to all work together for the greater good, and finally you dissolve the 'taskmaster' of the state, as society is perfect and no longer needs it.

Lets put capitalism vs communism aside.

I imagine a world where we have fully automated producing essential things. Why can't we have a factory farm fully automated using entirely robots producing food at cost. The same can be done for widgets. Robot arms can just do everything entirely. Someone just has to build this; I've been to one of those greenhouses. It picked thousands of pounds of tomatoes, delivered them to packaging, packaged, and shipped every day with only 3 people. The 3 people are for 2 functions. Q/A making sure its not picking rotten stuff and making sure the trucker doesnt do anything.

We can get to the point that the payment for your groceries is watching advertisements or whatever. Simply because the cost of those goods are that small.

If I could be assured my family was fed and such. Maybe I'd quit my job and entrepreneur and do something else. That's the appeal of communism. The idea that innovation and such takes off. The reality is that under communism you have societal collapse. Cuba hasn't built anything in forever. They have no factories, nobody would work in them. They also dont automate, their population has been stagnant and thermodynamics is wrecking their country. In order to have that upward push in communism, you need slaves. Gulags get shit done.

Re: After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

#206

Post by vinceguidry »

iammisc wrote: post #186
vinceguidry wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those things would be great. But if we, the most affluent people in the world and best positioned to make our voices heard, make excuses for Zuck, make excuses for Amazon, make excuses for all these businesses that extract wealth without supporting their communities, then we'll just keep building unholy unequal pyramids, where what's normal is completely, irreparably broken, replicating the teetering social st…

> We need to not leave it up to the Kalanicks of the world to change the social order, reinventing taxis for fun and profit. Why? Uber materially improved my access to taxis. Why does everyone diss on uber's business model (I understand the company itself is a bit meh), but the idea of hailing cab drivers with an app, and then encouraging people to drive (i.e., ridesharing) is a great one. Ultimately, I'd rather leav…

> the idea of hailing cab drivers with an app, and then encouraging people to drive (i.e., ridesharing) is a great one.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this, I thought most here already understood it. But okay. Nothing about hailing cab drivers with an app changes the economics of transportation. What changed the economics was exploitation. Not that the cab industry was really all that much better. But what's wrong with Uber and the gig economy at large is that we're letting huge companies with big budgets get away with not respecting labor norms. And so they have changed those norms, for the worse.

It's a clear-cut example of the tech industry making things better for the well-off, and worse for those trying to scrape by.

Re: After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

#207

Post by guerrilla »

nightski wrote: post #204
guerrilla wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help you if you don't know where to start to support your own claims but rhetorical hand-waving probably isn't it. That you disagree with Graeber isn't really indicative that he fundamentally misunderstand finance though. He's kind of a well-received[1] expert on the subject, even according to the Financial Times[2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years#Cri... 2. https://www.ft.com/cont…

My point was is the author didn't even provide any detail on where his claims (not mine) would lead or how they would work. Why does the burden keep being put on me to disprove his claims instead of him being required to prove that they do work?

I'm asking you why you think what you do. He communicated to me why he thinks the way he does and I have no questions about that. I think the essay was clear enough for what it was and didn't think it betrayed any fundamental misunderstanding of finance.

I think what he said is that things aren't working for many, this crisis showed that to everyone and we should therefore keep this in mind and do something about it. The part I liked in particular was the implication that we should keep in mind that the economy exists primarily to satisfy our needs and not the other way around.

I don't see anything there that suggests he misunderstands finance, especially with a reputation for the opposite, or that he doesn't get the philosophy of contract law (I think that's what you're hinting at), so that's why I asked.

Re: After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

#208

Post by lliamander »

glogla wrote: post #163
jdgoesmarching wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This article is pretty clear about its intent: don’t be lulled into a false sense of economic security after the pandemic and build this experience into our understanding of our system. The first step of any solution is convincing people there is a problem. Not just the obvious “things are bad,” but an understanding that these issues are systemic in a way that challenges American ideology. These articles frus…

Based on what gets up and downvoted, most of people on HN are ancap or fascists. I guess it makes sense - startups are gold rush, VC's are the ones giving away shovels for portion of gold should there be any, and founders are people who either found gold or believe they will. I wonder if most of people have political outlook like this. If they do, it is both sad and comforting, because then the humanity is doomed to…

There are probably quite a few ancaps, and I've seen a fair few communists, but I have yet to see a genuine fascist. That suggests to me your using the term more as a slur than as a word that actually means something.

Re: After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

#209

Post by iammisc »

vinceguidry wrote: post #206
iammisc wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to not leave it up to the Kalanicks of the world to change the social order, reinventing taxis for fun and profit. Why? Uber materially improved my access to taxis. Why does everyone diss on uber's business model (I understand the company itself is a bit meh), but the idea of hailing cab drivers with an app, and then encouraging people to drive (i.e., ridesharing) is a great one. Ultimately, I'd rather leav…

> the idea of hailing cab drivers with an app, and then encouraging people to drive (i.e., ridesharing) is a great one. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, I thought most here already understood it. But okay. Nothing about hailing cab drivers with an app changes the economics of transportation. What changed the economics was exploitation . Not that the cab industry was really all that much better. But what's wro…

> Not that the cab industry was really all that much better. But what's wrong with Uber and the gig economy at large is that we're letting huge companies with big budgets get away with not respecting labor norms

Hold on hold on. You previously blamed our current corporate system for preventing workers from owning their means of production.

Uber exemplifies the vision you seek... where individual workers own their own means of production. There is no need for a worker coop for drivers. A driver uses one car -- their own. They do not need to own some large capital investment (it's not like the owners need a factory to work). Why should driver A and B share cars together? That's the very vision of shareholding that you deride.

Uber, the company, is obviously not a worker coop, but frankly, its model is the most viable way towards a vision of worker-owned businesses. If you truly desire worker coops, instead of large corporations, then the vision of uber and the system it seeks to achieve ought to be lauded, even if the specifics of uber's implementations should be scorned.

Unfortunately, all the progressive labor activists made such small worker coops illegal. A more sensible solution would have been add a corporate structure that lets drivers band together for certain collectively purchased services (like health insurance and other benefits), without all the reporting requirements of normal corporations. Instead, they basically banned small businesses.

Re: After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

#210

Post by iammisc »

dbingham wrote: post #198
iammisc wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is likely to be an outdated statistic at best. If you go back three or four genenerations, you will find yourself passing through a time when the US had very high inheritance taxes and a 90% top marginal tax rate. That period of time did likely prevent the formation of dynasties across it. However, those policies have since been repealed and current studies show very low social mobility and a significant incre…

> Even the worst models of climate change do not predict the catastrophic ends you are attempting to paint. You're just distracting from the issue at this point. In general, I find doomsday predictions unvaluable. Nevertheless, i'm not going to fall for this change in goalposts. Yes. Yes they do. [1] That, and climate reality has so far been worse than our worst case models in many respects. [2] [1] https://www.thegu…

Nothing would fundamentally change about human nature and society if the scenario in [1] comes to pass. Humans will still likely thrive and be happy, as we have for many years.

Thanks for being respectful.

Post reply on HN