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

The German Mittelstand

kieranvelasquez.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: The German Mittelstand

#61

Post by vrganj »

ahartmetz wrote: post #59
vrganj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several decades being 1.8 decades since the last major crisis?

I mean something like 1930-1975 in the US and 1950-1990 in Germany.

Those decades of working capitalism in Germany were subsidized by cheap Gastarbeiter labor from Southern and Eastern Europe, and cheap Eastern Bloc manufactured goods on unfavorable terms.

In the US, they were subsidized by overthrowing democracies across Latin America to keep the extraction flowing - key words being United Fruit Company, Guatemala, Chile, Operation Condor.

The prosperity in Frankfurt and Detroit was always paid for elsewhere. The economic miracle was a miracle of exploitative extraction, a miracle only for the already privileged.

Re: The German Mittelstand

#62

Post by summa_tech »

decimalenough wrote: post #49
Incipient wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the fundamental premise is much of an issue - it's what a (mostly) free market is meant to do. Someone sells a chair for $100, someone else believes they can sell it for $80, so they do. There are two main complicating factors (outside of brand reputation and possibly some others?) 1) quality - someone accepts the $80 chair which is a little bit more wonky 2) the $100 company spent a few years developin…

The original Aalto stool, consisting of three pieces of bent wood and a circle, costs $479: https://www.finnishdesignshop.com/en-au/product/aalto-stool-... The IKEA copy, identical except that the circle is more of a triangle, costs $19: https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/kyrre-stool-birch-60416925/ Both companies are very profitable, but I'm sure IKEA shifts a lot more units. And the Aalto stool is solid wood and will las…

Laminated wood veneer for legs, plywood for seat. Not as disposable as the eternal LACK, but also not bent wood.

Re: The German Mittelstand

#63

Post by ahartmetz »

vrganj wrote: post #61
ahartmetz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean something like 1930-1975 in the US and 1950-1990 in Germany.

Those decades of working capitalism in Germany were subsidized by cheap Gastarbeiter labor from Southern and Eastern Europe, and cheap Eastern Bloc manufactured goods on unfavorable terms. In the US, they were subsidized by overthrowing democracies across Latin America to keep the extraction flowing - key words being United Fruit Company, Guatemala, Chile, Operation Condor. The prosperity in Frankfurt and Detroit was…

Oh, please, stop this guilt cult nonsense. Economic progress (much of which is technological progress) is a positive-sum game for the most part, it doesn't require exploitation of this or that foreign ethnicity, and that was never a critical part of it after the East India Company or something. That exploitation has also been more important to make the rich richer than to make the poor richer, which is what "capitalism was working" is about.

Countries have stopped relying on imports for national security reasons often enough in history and they did fine after a few years of adjustment. I mean, apart from the consequences of war.

Re: The German Mittelstand

#64

Post by OroPla »

vrganj wrote: post #57
OroPla wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth repeating, since so many people have different ideas about what capitalism is, but it's only having the means of production (factories, tools, employees, etc.) in private hand (as opposed to being owned by the government - a monopoly) with the purpose of making a profit (so you do not have to live paycheck to paycheck). None of that has consolidation (might as well call it monopoly) at the end game. But th…

If the means of production are in private hand and private individuals acquire profit, they will inevitably use said profits to acquire more means of production, which will beget more profits, more means of production, etc etc. They will use those riches to buy out competitors, to bribe (or "lobby" in polite parlance) legislators to tilt the rules in their favor, until they have reached near-monopoly. The free market…

That's where legislation is supposed to step in to prevent monopolization, which currently is not happening sufficiently.

The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse.

Re: The German Mittelstand

#65

Post by topaz0 »

Wood bending is way older than the nr 14. Plenty of that stuff in 18th c. Europe but apparently it was a common technique in lots of cultures before they had any contact with europeans too, going way back.

Re: The German Mittelstand

#66

Post by vrganj »

ahartmetz wrote: post #63
vrganj wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those decades of working capitalism in Germany were subsidized by cheap Gastarbeiter labor from Southern and Eastern Europe, and cheap Eastern Bloc manufactured goods on unfavorable terms. In the US, they were subsidized by overthrowing democracies across Latin America to keep the extraction flowing - key words being United Fruit Company, Guatemala, Chile, Operation Condor. The prosperity in Frankfurt and Detroit was…

Oh, please, stop this guilt cult nonsense. Economic progress (much of which is technological progress) is a positive-sum game for the most part, it doesn't require exploitation of this or that foreign ethnicity, and that was never a critical part of it after the East India Company or something. That exploitation has also been more important to make the rich richer than to make the poor richer, which is what "capitali…

Tell that to Salvador Allende or Jacobo Árbenz.

Re: The German Mittelstand

#67

Post by ahartmetz »

vrganj wrote: post #66
ahartmetz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, please, stop this guilt cult nonsense. Economic progress (much of which is technological progress) is a positive-sum game for the most part, it doesn't require exploitation of this or that foreign ethnicity, and that was never a critical part of it after the East India Company or something. That exploitation has also been more important to make the rich richer than to make the poor richer, which is what "capitali…

Tell that to Salvador Allende or Jacobo Árbenz.

I am not denying that the West did bad things, merely that these were necessary conditions for Western prosperity.

Re: The German Mittelstand

#68

Post by vrganj »

OroPla wrote: post #64
vrganj wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the means of production are in private hand and private individuals acquire profit, they will inevitably use said profits to acquire more means of production, which will beget more profits, more means of production, etc etc. They will use those riches to buy out competitors, to bribe (or "lobby" in polite parlance) legislators to tilt the rules in their favor, until they have reached near-monopoly. The free market…

That's where legislation is supposed to step in to prevent monopolization, which currently is not happening sufficiently. The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse.

> The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse.

Why? That's just an assertion with no backing. If the government is democratically elected, how is democratic control over resources worse than a few oligarchs acting autocratically?

> which currently is not happening sufficiently.

This is not by accident. This is due to the mechanisms described above, a direct result of capitalism. A few have been able to amass enough resources to use them to influence lawmakers and tilt the board in their favor. It's not an accident. It's what actually existing capitalism does.

Re: The German Mittelstand

#69

Post by esafak »

decimalenough wrote: post #49
Incipient wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the fundamental premise is much of an issue - it's what a (mostly) free market is meant to do. Someone sells a chair for $100, someone else believes they can sell it for $80, so they do. There are two main complicating factors (outside of brand reputation and possibly some others?) 1) quality - someone accepts the $80 chair which is a little bit more wonky 2) the $100 company spent a few years developin…

The original Aalto stool, consisting of three pieces of bent wood and a circle, costs $479: https://www.finnishdesignshop.com/en-au/product/aalto-stool-... The IKEA copy, identical except that the circle is more of a triangle, costs $19: https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/kyrre-stool-birch-60416925/ Both companies are very profitable, but I'm sure IKEA shifts a lot more units. And the Aalto stool is solid wood and will las…

This is a great demonstration in the value of approximation. The IKEA is close enough for most people's tastes at a much more attractive price point.

Re: The German Mittelstand

#70

Post by OroPla »

vrganj wrote: post #68
OroPla wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where legislation is supposed to step in to prevent monopolization, which currently is not happening sufficiently. The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse.

> The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse. Why? That's just an assertion with no backing. If the government is democratically elected, how is democratic control over resources worse than a few oligarchs acting autocratically? > which currently is not happening sufficiently. This is not by accident. This is due to the mechanisms described above, a direct result of capitalism.…

Because the government then by default has a monopoly on everything. The worst of the worst. It doesn't matter who the people with the monopoly are, it matters that there is a monopoly. It's like saying that a just king is better than separation of powers. Maybe, but in which way do you ensure the king stays just?

How is it that the means of production being privately owned for profit has the consequence of legislation failing to prevent monopolies? The government managed to break up the monopoly that Standard Oil had become back in 1911 just fine with capitalism existing, did it not?

Post reply on HN