The end of capitalism has begun • Hacker News Board

Re: The end of capitalism has begun

#71

Post by Retra » Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

johndevor wrote: post #20

Retra wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self sufficiency and dependency are not a 1-dimensional parameter. You can be self sufficient in some aspects, and dependent in others, and each of us can be like this in different ways. Both aspects have their merits, and it is very easy to see that those merits are fundamental necessities. Governance is hard.

Dependency does not mean government. A homeless man can be dependent on a church for food and shelter, but that does not mean governance.

What I meant is that governance implies some dependencies. Ones that people may not want, which makes it hard to know what dependencies to apply through governance.

Re: The end of capitalism has begun

#72

Post by rtz12 » Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 6:30 PM UTC

davidgerard wrote: post #4

I'm fairly sure people were thinking this in the 1970s, just before neoliberalism came along and destroyed all in its path.

The real neoliberalism came along a lot earlier. The 1970s were the time when the meaning of the word "neoliberalism" got warped.

Re: The end of capitalism has begun

#73

Post by Turing_Machine » Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 7:07 PM UTC

tstactplsignore wrote: post #30

vegancap wrote: post #17

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…

>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). 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 r…

You're using United Fruit as a counter-example to state corporatism?

United Fruit got its monopolies by subverting Central American governments, then maintained them by using the power of the United States government, up to and including actual raw military force.

If there's a better historical example of state corporatism, I can't think of what it could possibly be.

Re: The end of capitalism has begun

#74

Post by TYPE_FASTER » Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

The success of Uber, Airbnb, Ebay, Amazon underwhelms his argument. Information technology, and really the internet, have worked around traditional anti-capitalistic forces like taxes and regulation very effectively.

Re: The end of capitalism has begun

#75

Post by sebastianz » Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

vegancap wrote: post #17

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…

> anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you

Sorry for veering slightly off topic but since you mentioned this, may I ask if you have a recommendation of a few important books that would make a core of a "economics 101"?

Re: The end of capitalism has begun

#76

Post by bcg1 » Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 7:48 PM UTC

vegancap wrote: post #17

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…

You're correct but I think he is more on your side than not.

Where you want to lay claim to 'capitalism' as meaning 'free markets' I believe he chooses to relegate the term 'capitalism' to the sort of crony-stroking global corporate fascism that has evolved instead of free markets. I've often thought that free market advocates should just give up on claiming the "real" meaning of the term capitalism and just invent a new word that can't be conflated as easily.

That said, I'm not sure what to think about this gentleman's article and conclusions. It seems he is able to identify things that actually ARE real problems... however my initial reaction to what he describes as 'postcapitalism' is to be skeptical and to suspect that he may have an agenda. His rhetoric is notably light on actual details, however it has a subtle yet distinct flavor of forced redistribution that leaves an unpleasant taste.

Re: The end of capitalism has begun

#77

Post by tstactplsignore » Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 8:11 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #73

tstactplsignore wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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). 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 r…

You're using United Fruit as a counter-example to state corporatism? United Fruit got its monopolies by subverting Central American governments, then maintained them by using the power of the United States government, up to and including actual raw military force. If there's a better historical example of state corporatism, I can't think of what it could possibly be.

That is a large part of my point- natural monopolies, or more generally, any concentration of wealth in a capitalist society, rapidly progresses towards what you call "state corporatism" (but what I would just call "capitalism"). You seem to miss my main point - it was claimed that "corporate monopolies are rarely [the] result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism"- my point is that state corporatism is the be-all and end-all unadulterated capitalism; the latter becomes the former, one is not a perversion of the other. "State corporatism" is merely a cop-out word to describe any inconveniently obvious examples of coercive forces within a capitalist society, so they can be dismissed as un-capitalist, and in some cases even twisted so that any laws which protect the public from unadulterated capitalism are guilty by association.

Re: The end of capitalism has begun

#78

Post by omonra » Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 9:55 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #55

omonra wrote: post #38

I find the article lacking. Author makes a bunch of controversial yet unsupported statements. Even if they're true (something he doesn't really bother proving), the logical links from one to the next are missing. Ie I can't even dismiss it as typical Guardian progressive ranting - because there is no coherent story to dismiss, more of a hot-potch of terms. Putting it down in the 'not even wrong' file.

That's more or less correct. The problem is real (we don't need that many people to make all the stuff) but the proposed solutions are no good. He's into co-ops and "local", which just don't do much in the developed world because the big guys are not inefficient. (You're not going to beat WalMart on price with your local grocery co-op.) Then there's some Marxist analysis, which doesn't help; Marx wrote when companies…

Thanks.

Re the Bernie Sanders quote, it's actually not true (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/...).

For start it omits taxes and wealth transfers - and secondly it measures 2009-2013.

2009 was the year right after the crash when 1% experienced a sharp decline in income.

Thirdly, the huge increase in healthcare (hence insurance) costs is largely carried by employers. That's one of the main reasons for stagnant wages of late - total compensation has been increasing but the increase is flowing into benefits - thus flat income.

I have been thinking myself about the issue of inequality and think it's being obfuscated by the language used (whereby it's discussed in terms of rich vs poor instead of US poor vs foreign poor).

Ie - how are the wages for the top 1% (lawyers, doctors, bankers, etc) affecting the wages for the bottom 50%? If anything I think that immigration has been a much larger factor (for the low skilled / paid sector of the economy).

Re: The end of capitalism has begun

#79

Post by omonra » Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 10:04 PM UTC

papaf wrote: post #66

omonra wrote: post #38

I find the article lacking. Author makes a bunch of controversial yet unsupported statements. Even if they're true (something he doesn't really bother proving), the logical links from one to the next are missing. Ie I can't even dismiss it as typical Guardian progressive ranting - because there is no coherent story to dismiss, more of a hot-potch of terms. Putting it down in the 'not even wrong' file.

I can't even dismiss it as typical Guardian progressive ranting FYI because it is not clear from the article, but this is actually a marketing piece for a book: Postcapitalism is published by Allen Lane on 30 July. Paul Mason is the award-winning economics editor of Channel 4 News. His books include Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere: the New Global Revolutions ('Compact, urgent, present-tense, declarative and addictive…

I guess he leaves the good bits for the book :)

Re: The end of capitalism has begun

#80

Post by tcbawo » Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 11:21 PM UTC

MCRed wrote: post #59

tstactplsignore wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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). 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 r…

Telecom-- a government granted tri-opoly. The FCC limits the number of organizations who can license spectrum in a given metro area. Airlines-- government regulated, airports are local government monopolies and they limit competition. Microsoft- Not a monopoly in any line of business I have been waiting for a long time for someone to come up with an example of an actual natural monopoly that exercises monopoly pricin…

The seems like a life imitates art/art imitates life question. It seems impossible for a completely unbiased government free from favored interests. Every sufficiently large corporation exerts influence or receives favors as a localized tax source or employer of voters.