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

Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 230 posts

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#221

Post by hrasyid »

xg15 wrote: post #130
mschuster91 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Telcos can’t cut you off, but ISPs can. Well, ISPs are replaceable (okay, they will offer different speeds). Get cut off, select another ISP (or mobile data). A telco is not easily replaceable though, as the phone number is your unique handle that often cannot be changed easily (which is why you have the right to keep your number in Europe across providers)...

> Get cut off, select another ISP (or mobile data). Comcast customers would like to have a word with you.

Yes as a comcast customer I'd like to know where to find this magical "another ISP"

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#222

Post by jrs235 »

quadrangle wrote: post #218
jrs235 wrote: post #205

Why do so many people put democracy on a pedestal? Majority rules scares the shit out of me. We don't need what the majority wants. We need protection for minorities. The greatest minority being the individual. So long as a person isn't physically harming others leave them alone and let them be. Mobocracy, a majority without limits, is worse than a relatively steady and stable dictator.

Democracy means rule by the people. It does NOT require that majority-rule be the mechanism (that is itself about the worst mechanism for democracy, second only to minority-rule).

Thank you for replying. Thank you for clarification and correcting my defaulting to "Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#223

Post by AKrumbach »

quadrangle wrote: post #216
AKrumbach wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument seems to subtly imply that the only efficacious means to "level an uneven playing field" is government regulation, and not some other, non-government process such as boycotts. Government regulation is, ultimately, only one item in the civic toolbox of society. If it turns out this is flawed, and will in the long run generate more negative outcomes than positive ones, abandoning the tool does not mean ab…

Boycotts are historically extremely ineffective. They require absurd amounts of coordination and go against incentives each individual has. If you have strong enough coordination, we end up calling it "government".

By your logic, a labor union "strike" must also be extremely ineffective. (They require massive coordination and go against each individual's incentive to work.)

Yet they do work, and we don't call labor unions "government".

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#224

Post by _jal »

rayiner wrote: post #192
_jal wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice. If you'd like to convince me I'm wrong, you'll have to explain why these companies, which are subject to the same pressures as others and hire from the same pool of execs, will behave differently than the rest of the herd of large public firms. If you want to argue they'll lobby, manipulate and bribe less than average among peer-firms, well, that argument could be made. But if you want to argue that ther…

> If you want to argue they'll lobby, manipulate and bribe less than average among peer-firms, well, that argument could be made. You’re begging the question by assuming that this conduct is what keeps “peer firms” big. That’s the point in dispute. I’d say that there is good reason to believe why that isn’t true. Walmart spent just $7 million on lobbying last year. It’s a company with $500 billion in revenue. Does it…

This is obviously a pretty pointless back-and-forth.

You're attempting to treat lobbying as a binary. Does it make logical sense that Walmart would spend $7M if it didn't feel that investment had a return?

Of course large companies are buoyed by other factors. But as congress-critters famously pointed out a while back, Silicon Valley had to learn to lobby. And they did, otherwise Bad Things could happen.

Also,

> People take as a shibboleth

I don't know what tribe you're trying to make me a member of, but, uh, no.

> But that flies in the face of the actual data

If you're talking about the gap between $7m and $.5T, that dataoid demonstrates nothing other than that multinational retailers operate much larger firms than politicians do.

My question stands: how is AZON playing a different game than they various sportball leagues?

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#225

Post by major505 »

pjmorris wrote: post #6
major505 wrote: post #2

Well, I will not subscribe to the new yourkers for just an article, but my anwser wold be hell no. Intervencion of govern in the free market.... maybe.

I'd argue that the primary interventions of government in the free market involve the creation and support of currency, and the provision of property rights. It's hard for me to imagine a market of any significant size without those things. The absence of government intervention may not be what capitalism wants.

I'm ok with govern creating a small set of rules and enforcing them. But as litle as possible. Specially in types of business that aren't vital to population. I can understand certain rules like in insurance companies of some types of banking services.

I'm not ok with intervencions, like the banks bailout of 2008, the the goverment just save banks that should have break. This kindo f intervention isn't fair form most of the market, and should be avoided.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#226

Post by krapp »

major505 wrote: post #225
pjmorris wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that the primary interventions of government in the free market involve the creation and support of currency, and the provision of property rights. It's hard for me to imagine a market of any significant size without those things. The absence of government intervention may not be what capitalism wants.

I'm ok with govern creating a small set of rules and enforcing them. But as litle as possible. Specially in types of business that aren't vital to population. I can understand certain rules like in insurance companies of some types of banking services. I'm not ok with intervencions, like the banks bailout of 2008, the the goverment just save banks that should have break. This kindo f intervention isn't fair form most…

>This kindo f intervention isn't fair form most of the market, and should be avoided.

Even if it means a global market collapse and depression?

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#227

Post by jimmywanger »

Democracy is a threat to capitalism.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC0ZB2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

Basically, it explores how democracy and rule of law are fundamentally not reconcilable, especially when ethnic/religious tensions are inflamed. If an ethnic immigrant minority somehow gets influence (economic or political) people get rapidly irritated. Look at Jews and Chinese. The tyranny of the majority is not compatible with the rule of existing laws, when the existing laws can be changed with the majority.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#228

Post by rayiner »

_jal wrote: post #224
rayiner wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to argue they'll lobby, manipulate and bribe less than average among peer-firms, well, that argument could be made. You’re begging the question by assuming that this conduct is what keeps “peer firms” big. That’s the point in dispute. I’d say that there is good reason to believe why that isn’t true. Walmart spent just $7 million on lobbying last year. It’s a company with $500 billion in revenue. Does it…

This is obviously a pretty pointless back-and-forth. You're attempting to treat lobbying as a binary. Does it make logical sense that Walmart would spend $7M if it didn't feel that investment had a return? Of course large companies are buoyed by other factors. But as congress-critters famously pointed out a while back, Silicon Valley had to learn to lobby. And they did, otherwise Bad Things could happen. Also, > Peop…

> You're attempting to treat lobbying as a binary. Does it make logical sense that Walmart would spend $7M if it didn't feel that investment had a return?

Would Walmart spend only $7 million on lobbying if the return was so crazy high as you’re assuming it is?

> If you're talking about the gap between $7m and $.5T, that dataoid demonstrates nothing other than that multinational retailers operate much larger firms than politicians do.

Price doesn’t relate to size of firm or cost, but rather supply and demand. Under your theory, where lobbying is instrumental in keeping a $500 billion business from being out competed, demand should be high. At the same time, with a very limited number of Congress critters, supply is limited. That should push up the price as other firms bid to secure the supposed benefits Walmart now gets.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#229

Post by nickik »

Stranger43 wrote: post #209
nickik wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I have no idea what you mean by the words you say. By no strech of the imagination was did capitlaism fail. In fact the strech from 1870 to 1914 was the largest and strongest period of growth thanks to capitlaism and increasing trend, specialisation and so on. Feudalistic order as a system of economics had long stopped in most of western Europe and even in Russia. The feudalistic titles still being around an…

To pretend that 1870 to 1910(also known as the long depression in literature) was some kind of glory period of equality and democracy is only almost plausible because of the complete dissater that follows, and completely at ods with just about every credible history book written about that period. Wars of conquest still happen doing that period, and new colonies are still being formed. Where the myth of the glorious…

> also known as the long depression in literature

Modern research agree that there was no 'long depression'. Its an invention of depression era economists who just looked back in history and said 'there was deflation, therefore there was a depression'. There have been multiple books on this but somehow this myth never dies because the left has put it as part of their narrative.

It was a period of sustained growth with recession in between but a strong avg.

I don't really care about inequality and I have never said it was a period of equality, if inequality was high during this period is because it was a new age of globalism and mass production. Of course the first people into that are gone be richer, but if you look at the consumption for everybody its absolutely clear that it was a period of improvement for most people.

Inequality does not automatically mean that the system was unfair or bad.

Secondly, its not wrong the imperialist polices by the US and others gave them some access amount of money and some people profited from that. However, you simply can not explain the amount of growth by point to exploitation of Banana republics, the numbers simply don't add up.

Claiming that companies like the East India were a replacement or somehow economically equal in effect to feudalism is totally wrong. In fact the amount of government granted monopoly was far, far lower during that time. Domestic monopolies were largely removed and trade monopolies were in fact far weaker then most people seem to think. It was possible in the umbrella of the East India company to have basically independent business and trade voyages. This is also how the stock market was invented in the Netherlands (btw without government protection or approval).

I never said a single thing about socialism and I would never claim that Smith was a socialist. I have no idea based on what you made that up.

> My point is that both sides is essentially working from a historic narrative thats more myth then reality, and that it's really hard to explain the incredible increase in wealth that we have seen since the last war to end all war ended as a result of anything but technological developments and prolonged peace

I do not accept this 'balance' view just because its balance. Growth does not magically happen when technology is around and their is peace.

These things have actually been studied by economists and there are tons of country back then and now that live in peace and that have access to those technologies, and you they don't have growth.

Also, technological progress is not automatic, its not a magical thing that just happens. Technological progress comes when people and companies try to improve their position in the market and produce things cheaper or better.

People like the 'evil' Robber Barron were actually some of the most important in that. Standard oil made a lot of innovations in all stages of oil production and so on. However it is not just them but millions of people who lived and worked back then.

Global capitalism and the global gold standard was an unqualified success that produced the largest growth spit in human history up to that point and it was not slowing down before WW1.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#230

Post by srean »

hayd wrote: post #97
tshaddox wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is this any different from people who argue "That's corruption, not socialism"? It’s not at all different. In fact, state socialism and state capitalism are extremely similar systems.

The lack of forced labor camps or worse, the existence of a free press which can expose corruption, mean these systems are not extremely similar...

Where may I find this 'free press' that you mention ?
Post reply on HN