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

We Should Own the Economy

elysian.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: We Should Own the Economy

#31

Post by slibhb »

ActorNightly wrote: post #23

>If we don’t do something about it we could lose democracy. I love how people are still pretending like this didn't happen already. If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken. But as an aside, the issue isn't necessarily the wealth inequality, its the fact that the average person in US enjoys a relatively good life. This is why most of US didn't show up to vote in 2024. This create…

> If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken.

Care to make it interesting?

Re: We Should Own the Economy

#32

Post by altruios »

slibhb wrote: post #27
mugwumprk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump." That's an interesting question. I haven't seen a poll of the richest US citizens. Which is odd, considering our general obsession with wealth. I suspect that, between Harris and Trump, the 100 richest would go for Trump.

I probably shouldn't have chosen 100. But, say, the top 1%, 5%, or 10% -- I think would go for a moderate liberal over someone like Trump. Of course, Harris outspent Trump considerably which is another piece of evidence against the whole "money owns politics" story.

You've not interacted the kool-aid drinkers. C.Yarvin is doing some sith lord 'mind to pudding' on these folk. Reason is out the window when 'rationality' walks in the door.

Re: We Should Own the Economy

#33

Post by dns_snek »

slibhb wrote: post #27
mugwumprk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump." That's an interesting question. I haven't seen a poll of the richest US citizens. Which is odd, considering our general obsession with wealth. I suspect that, between Harris and Trump, the 100 richest would go for Trump.

I probably shouldn't have chosen 100. But, say, the top 1%, 5%, or 10% -- I think would go for a moderate liberal over someone like Trump. Of course, Harris outspent Trump considerably which is another piece of evidence against the whole "money owns politics" story.

> which is another piece of evidence

N=1, and ignoring the fact that the only people who can run for president in the first place are those with billions in backing.

Re: We Should Own the Economy

#34

Post by Muromec »

dragonwriter wrote: post #30
Muromec wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the risk of falling on the deaf ears, but where from comes the idea that communism is the opposite (or less of) capitalism and not an unattainable global maximum of it instead? Planned economy as practiced by all vertically integrated monopolies may be the opposite of free market and the biggest attempt at communism was just that, but it's not the core idea of it.

> I understand the risk of falling on the deaf ears, but where from comes the idea that communism is the opposite (or less of) capitalism and not an unattainable global maximum of it instead? From literally every piece of communist theory/philosophy ever (okay, well, “opposite” is too strong, “radical response against and rejection of the basic premsies of", though...) I mean, communism can be envisioned as sort of t…

I mean I get it, the Cold War was between capitalism and communism if you ask US and we were sure which side won until the last November, but.

The core idea is just what the article is advertising -- the person to see most benefit of their work is the one doing the work. Having enough shares of the company you are working for and high enough taxes to pay for nuking american fascists if needed is a) good approximation of it b) isn't just the opposite of what most of the supposedly capitalistic countries are doing, but is also a very good approximation of what they are supposedly doing.

Re: We Should Own the Economy

#35

Post by Muromec »

diggan wrote: post #10
Muromec wrote: post #8

Oh, the actual communism is cool again? What is happening in US, for real?

I don't want to be the one, but did you actually read the article? Author is talking about "vision for the future of capitalism", "create an elevated vision for capitalism", and "project about creating more owners", so if anything it's like neo-capitalism or something, nowhere near communism if you have proper understanding of the concept.

You can make another step forward to reduce overheard and put all the shares of those owners into a holding company, vote for the managing person of it and you will pretty much get soviet union. The rest of the soviet union you will have to grow in process of such transformations to deal with marginal ill effects of it.

Re: We Should Own the Economy

#36

Post by pyrale »

Muromec wrote: post #29
pyrale wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not someone asking for communism, just for the return of a more healthy capitalism where everyone has a chance to invest, as opposed to some sort of feudalism where private ownership of strategic companies becomes more common, monopoly is the goal of every owner, and competition is seen as a harmful. This capitalism of yesterday was also a key part of protecting us from people being enrolled in totalitarian worl…

I understand the risk of falling on the deaf ears, but where from comes the idea that communism is the opposite (or less of) capitalism and not an unattainable global maximum of it instead? Planned economy as practiced by all vertically integrated monopolies may be the opposite of free market and the biggest attempt at communism was just that, but it's not the core idea of it.

> I understand the risk of falling on the deaf ears

Always good to cast yourself as unheard in your first sentence.

> where from comes the idea that communism is the opposite (or less of) capitalism

No one said they're opposite, but no one reasonably claims they're compatible. Communists, quite simply, want means of production to be collectively owned. There's a lot of debate among communists about what collective means, but no one reasonably claims that collective means "private ownership".

Re: We Should Own the Economy

#37

Post by Muromec »

ActorNightly wrote: post #23

>If we don’t do something about it we could lose democracy. I love how people are still pretending like this didn't happen already. If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken. But as an aside, the issue isn't necessarily the wealth inequality, its the fact that the average person in US enjoys a relatively good life. This is why most of US didn't show up to vote in 2024. This create…

Oh, you will have election a-okay, it's not that modern dictatorships don't care to do the dance. The problem is the deep suspicion of who will win them forming 4 years in advance.

Re: We Should Own the Economy

#38

Post by bryanlarsen »

slibhb wrote: post #31
ActorNightly wrote: post #23

>If we don’t do something about it we could lose democracy. I love how people are still pretending like this didn't happen already. If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken. But as an aside, the issue isn't necessarily the wealth inequality, its the fact that the average person in US enjoys a relatively good life. This is why most of US didn't show up to vote in 2024. This create…

> If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken. Care to make it interesting?

Of course there's going to be an election in 2028. They have elections in Russia. That doesn't make Russia a democracy, though.

Re: We Should Own the Economy

#39

Post by Muromec »

slibhb wrote: post #20

The chunk of the economy you own should be proportionate to the amount you contributed to growing the economy. In modern, functioning economies, this is more or less the case. The idea that inequality will lead to lopsided political power hasn't yet been proven. If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump. People who focus so muc…

>People who focus so much on inequality should rethink their priorities. Actually, living in a highly unequal economy is fine as long as.

I don't think anybody cares much about the inequality itself (if anything, most people to care actually benefit from it), but apparent positive feedback loop that converts more wealth into more political power into more wealth, which seems to undermine first caveat you mentioned and also apparent erosion of the second at the same time.

Re: We Should Own the Economy

#40

Post by xnx »

ActorNightly wrote: post #23

>If we don’t do something about it we could lose democracy. I love how people are still pretending like this didn't happen already. If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken. But as an aside, the issue isn't necessarily the wealth inequality, its the fact that the average person in US enjoys a relatively good life. This is why most of US didn't show up to vote in 2024. This create…

> If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken

Dictatorships can still have elections. Putin won his last election with 88% of the vote

Post reply on HN