US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8128

On July 20 2017 03:36 Plansix wrote:

Rather than look at a poll saying the youth don’t believe in capitalism as some shift in rhetoric, ask why that group doesn’t believe in capitalism like their parent did? What changed?

On July 20 2017 03:36 Plansix wrote:

Rather than look at a poll saying the youth don’t believe in capitalism as some shift in rhetoric, ask why that group doesn’t believe in capitalism like their parent did? What changed?

On July 20 2017 03:47 Simberto wrote:


My guess is that the word capitalism has a different meaning to them. It is not "trading goods based on supply and demand" as opposed to central planning by the state, but it means something like "evil corporations exploiting whatever they can for profit"

So basically, they are not talking about the same thing. That is obviously a guess, i don't know them personally. But from my experience, being "critical of capitalism", usually means "being critical of the excesses of capitalism, and of the opinion that government and/or international regulation is necessary to combat these excesses".

The "We need to go full communism", "capitalism is murder" type of people are a tiny minority even within the left. As far as i know, in Germany for example there are less of those guys than neonazis. This says that there are about 27000 such people in Germany in total, about the same as 23000 neonazis. So slightly more. In a country of 80 million people.

On July 20 2017 03:42 mozoku wrote:

They weren't alive when there were actual communists in the world?

I realize where you're trying to go (increased deregulation, etc.), but there's multiple possible explanations it's kind of a moot point. Also, I've already said my piece about social mobility and you can basically apply that to most millennials to figure out why I believe they're such fans on wealth redistribution.

On July 20 2017 03:50 Plansix wrote:

Wealth redistribution is pretty cool when governments do it. The natural fair market route for wealth redistribution is pretty harsh and no one has any fun during it. Remember that the way capitalism redistributes wealth is through failure. Large amounts of concentrated wealth means large, concentrated failures. The great depression was pretty rough. The same with the French Revolution.

On July 20 2017 03:32 mozoku wrote:

I think we're talking past each other a bit here. Something like a majority of millennials agree with the statement "capitalism has done more harm than good" and most American progressives (a large percentage of the American left) are openly disparaging of capitalism.

That said, I think it's more due to differing views on what the word "capitalism" means rather than not agreeing with what you said.

Either way, I'm guessing those groups are fairly similar to the European left. (I'm admittedly less familiar with European politics than I probably should be, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

On July 20 2017 03:58 KwarK wrote:

Capitalism has produced an awful lot of really shitty outcomes because the only check is "can I profit?". The drug trade is a part of capitalism. And so is American intervention throughout Central and South America (death squads etc). And so was Imperial Britain's dismantling of India's economy. And so was the slave trade. Capitalism has killed an awful, awful lot of people and it has a lot to answer for.

However the very idea of expecting it to answer for anything is absurd, it's simply a mechanism. A tool at our disposal as a way to distribute goods and labour. It's been an incredibly powerful tool and has been used to make some really awesome stuff, like iphones. It comes down to the role we give capitalism within our society and how we direct it.

On July 20 2017 03:58 KwarK wrote:

The problem is that capitalism is amoral. The only question it asks itself is "can I profit from doing this?". If the answer is yes then the act should be done, if no then it should not.

Profit loosely correlates with productive activity which is why we like capitalism. Productive activity is good, capitalism incentivises it in many cases, therefore capitalism produces good outcomes. But it also produces a lot of unproductive activity. Wells Fargo is currently arguing the case for deliberately rearranging transactions from greatest to lowest to maximize overdraft fees (if you have $100 and you spend $10, $10, $10, $20, $40 and $70 in a single day in that order they would rearrange them from most to least so the second transaction makes you overdrawn and you get five fees, rather than one for the final transaction). That's not productive, but it does make money. Then there are the productive activities which are amoral, like slavery. Lots of profit, lots of increased productivity too, but we probably shouldn't do that.

Capitalism has produced an awful lot of really shitty outcomes because the only check is "can I profit?". The drug trade is a part of capitalism. And so is American intervention throughout Central and South America (death squads etc). And so was Imperial Britain's dismantling of India's economy. And so was the slave trade. Capitalism has killed an awful, awful lot of people and it has a lot to answer for.

However the very idea of expecting it to answer for anything is absurd, it's simply a mechanism. A tool at our disposal as a way to distribute goods and labour. It's been an incredibly powerful tool and has been used to make some really awesome stuff, like iphones. It comes down to the role we give capitalism within our society and how we direct it.

On July 20 2017 04:22 Falling wrote:

Are the bolded part actually a part of capitalism, or is it more imperialism used in the service of capitalism? Because I'm not sure that capitalism is the lowest cost and maximal profits for any cost, there needs to be a free exchange of goods, aka the free market. One needs to be able to freely sell their goods or not, which wouldn't be the case if one is being compelled to work without pay, or to have one's economy dismantled. I guess in a sense, you are right- there is an underlying assumption of rule of law. The drug trade is capitalist, but the extortion and strong arm tactics limits the free exchange of goods. Rule of law needs to be in effect to guarantee that goods are freely exchanged and that the profit is the result of two voluntary parties and not one held at gun point.

On July 20 2017 04:26 mozoku wrote:

You don't have to convince me. I've never argued capitalism is an end unto itself. On the other hand, I'm highly skeptical of governments' ability to do anything in an anything but inefficient manner, so these capitalism/socialism discussions are almost always matter of tradeoffs and judgment in individual cases. Modern-day socialists have a tendency to lean towards government for solutions; modern-day "capitalists" are split into one camp who are similar to the socialists but lean towards free market solutions, another camp who don't believe a word of what you just said, and another camp who probably believe what you just said, but just wants to maximize the profit they're getting from the system.

Most of the American left assumes that all capitalists/right-wingers fall into the latter two camps (or have least been duped into believing the last is good for them). There's a significant faction of right-wingers that are in the first camp though, but the Left likes to fire up their base by pretending they don't exist and lumping them in with the latter two camps.

So really, we're back to the broken system American political system and it acting as the reflection of a mostly unreasonable electorate at the end.

On July 20 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:
I visited the very flat state of Ohio this weekend and saw some of my very liberal friends there. They are all professors at Ohio State. We got into a bunch of discussions about politics and what we agree and disagree with. Several of them are from academic family backgrounds, while my wife and I are firmly from blue collar families(less so me, but my family all worked in our tiny factory). On the internet, people would consider that to be an echo chamber of people that agree, since we are all liberal. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth, since we all had very different viewpoints on educational, labor, regulation and pretty much everything else. And the view points were even broader when we visited my wife’s remaining family. But I know how everyone in that group voted during the election.

The left and right dynamic is a trap that will make you miss out on really understanding people’s political views and ideas.

On July 20 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:

If that's the only place you sound out your political views, you're living in an echo chamber. It doesn't refer to the self-evaluated size and scope of the disagreements, but rather to how many big picture ideas and understandings of the world are taken for granted ("very liberal" usually refers to a broad set). I absolutely know many insulated Californian liberals that were appalled anyone would vote for Trump, but would also bristle at being called an echo chamber--because they disagree with incrementalism, education, corporate taxation, and foreign affairs. Then they all get out and haven't talked to a single Trump voter about politics seriously and go off on the racism/sexism/stupidity diatribes just as before.

So it really sounds like echo chamber is "close to the truth" instead of "couldn't be farther from the truth"

On July 20 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:

If that's the only place you sound out your political views, you're living in an echo chamber. It doesn't refer to the self-evaluated size and scope of the disagreements, but rather to how many big picture ideas and understandings of the world are taken for granted ("very liberal" usually refers to a broad set). I absolutely know many insulated Californian liberals that were appalled anyone would vote for Trump, but would also bristle at being called an echo chamber--because they disagree with incrementalism, education, corporate taxation, and foreign affairs. Then they all get out and haven't talked to a single Trump voter about politics seriously and go off on the racism/sexism/stupidity diatribes just as before.

So it really sounds like echo chamber is "close to the truth" instead of "couldn't be farther from the truth"

On July 20 2017 04:43 On_Slaught wrote:


Does there exist a world where this, if passed, isn't struck down 9-0 by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720

The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

- requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
- supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

On July 20 2017 04:27 KwarK wrote:

In my view, yes. If it's profitable for an individual to bribe a politician to intervene to improve market conditions and it's profitable for the politician to accept that bribe and provide the service of intervention then how is that not capitalism? The fact that the service is immoral, violates freedom, includes extortion etc isn't relevant to the incentives at play.

One man has money, the other offers a service, the man with money values the service above the price of having the service performed and therefore pays the one offering the service to do it. The two men profit from the exchange. The externalities aren't relevant until a more powerful body makes them relevant.