Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On September 10 2018 17:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 10 2018 17:35 Big J wrote:
On September 10 2018 15:34 schaf wrote:
On September 10 2018 07:36 pmh wrote:
On September 10 2018 06:05 solidbebe wrote:
On September 10 2018 05:49 Big J wrote:
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
That bolded part is only true when the gains from the productivity increase are spread among the population, which necessitates a more socialist political field. In a capitalistic system, the owner of the most robots will be the biggest winner and the resulting consumer prices don't really help people with no job. In my opinion it will lead to even bigger concentration of capital in a few hands.
I think he is saying the same thing and I believe you are both wrong. Your views, as well-meaning as they might be, are simply a bad abstraction of reality and the root of bad socialism. What is overall production? Surely, the Soviet Union had a great overall production. But it lacked mechanisms that made the economy produce what the people wanted and needed. It produced exactly what the central planners drew joy from, so mainly nukes, tanks and rockets.
Despite being extremely critical towards "capitalism" being a system that achieves that, I find this to be an insanely inspirational piece on the topic:
lol Milton Friedman, really?
The point is that everyone here agrees that capitalism is the best system, and since we are not in the 1980’s, we don’t believe anymore that unregulated unrestricted free market is a good option unless you are insanely rich and don’t care for anyone. There is a balance between the morally bankrupt randian « greed is good, be an egoistical douchebag » crap and far left fantasies.
By the way, schaf is right. Artificial intelligence and automation will require us to think out of the box because what is coming to us with our current thinking is an insane explosion of inequalities, and an impoverishment of a very large chunk of the population.
Not everyone
The big issue imo with automation is less about jobs and a lot more about the distribution of the gains in productivity. Capitalism doesn't have a way to address that widening gap, really it works to expand it until checked against it's will.
Harder for me to parse sources for European news but it seems you are seeing a rise in homelessness in several European countries as well.
While I agree that widening wealth gap and unemployment are the real challenges our societies will face when it comes to the technological revolution to come, I disagree that there are no way to address those inequalities within a capitalist system. A strong welfare state, high taxation, emphasis on high quality, free education and so on and so forth are still the best tools we have.
We don’t know anything that remotely works outside capitalism. It’s just that between Norway and Texas, there is a lot of margin, within capitalist coordinates, to chose what kind of society one wants.
I just wanted to make clear that I said capitalism (as I've seen it defined) doesn't have a solution, and opposes the corrective measures you mention.
How have you seen capitalism defined? It's all very well to use broad sweeping statements when talking about terms, but everybody uses these words in different ways for different subsets of politics and economics. It is far more useful and interesting to talk about how you see the world, and how these forces may or may not interact.
On September 10 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How have you seen capitalism defined?
I've read/heard several descriptions, none of them had a solution for wealth inequality. It's not uncommon to see pro-capitalism arguments that wealth inequality is good actually.
On September 10 2018 05:43 Artisreal wrote: @bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!). And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
I think there have been demonstrations in Chemnitz with as few as 300 people that have been sold to me as a major point of political focus these days. 500 elderly means that they are few and they are mostly old, but want to dictate their ancient views of cultural pureness over the young.
The measures against automation "for the masses" are quite simple: Deregulation and lower wages. You just make human labor competitive with new technology. Automation is eating heavily into jobs already, but new work is created instead. It is just cheaper work. Now you are either a neoliberal and believe in the invisible hand, ergo capital is neutral and doesn't serve the capitalist, ergo everything is fine. Or you are critical and believe richness helps creating an income. For the second case everything has been said by original socialists, exactly for that scenario.
Deregulation and lower wages? Automation is going to annihilate millions of jobs in the coming decades, what are lower wages going to help, when there is no work?
Universal basic income and a complete shift in how we look at the need to work as a society are going to be the real solution.
Still though in response to automation being a more pressing issue than climate change. Id argue automation is something we have all the time in the world to figure out, climate change is not.
Well yes,millions of jobs will disappear because of automation. But the good news is milions of jobs will also appear because of automation. On an abstract level,the number of jobs is kinda irrelevant in the very end. What matters is the economic production. As long as production/captiva is growing we can all be better off all the time,job or not. It just comes down to how the production is being devided amongst the population.
The biggest thread to western economics and the world economy as a whole is demographics I think. When the world population starts to stabilize there will be an enormous crisis the seize of which we have never seen before.
That bolded part is only true when the gains from the productivity increase are spread among the population, which necessitates a more socialist political field. In a capitalistic system, the owner of the most robots will be the biggest winner and the resulting consumer prices don't really help people with no job. In my opinion it will lead to even bigger concentration of capital in a few hands.
I think he is saying the same thing and I believe you are both wrong. Your views, as well-meaning as they might be, are simply a bad abstraction of reality and the root of bad socialism. What is overall production? Surely, the Soviet Union had a great overall production. But it lacked mechanisms that made the economy produce what the people wanted and needed. It produced exactly what the central planners drew joy from, so mainly nukes, tanks and rockets.
Despite being extremely critical towards "capitalism" being a system that achieves that, I find this to be an insanely inspirational piece on the topic: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
lol Milton Friedman, really?
The point is that everyone here agrees that capitalism is the best system, and since we are not in the 1980’s, we don’t believe anymore that unregulated unrestricted free market is a good option unless you are insanely rich and don’t care for anyone. There is a balance between the morally bankrupt randian « greed is good, be an egoistical douchebag » crap and far left fantasies.
For what it's worth Friedman isn't some sort of Randian egoist either, he was one of the biggest propotents of the negative income tax after all, which is worth talking about in the age of automation.
Milton posed the negative income tax as a wholesale replacement for any and all safety net programs, so while there's a hint of something other than Randian egoism, to attribute to him any kind of truly collectivist policy is a mistake.
I definitely wasn't suggesting that he was a 'true collectivist', but he generally argued from a point of view of overall welfare. There's some anecdote about him arguing with Mises and the latter just storming out of the room calling him a socialist lol.
Friedman is no objectivist at all. Rand herself disliked most classical liberals (including Friedman). She was incredibly dogmatic and intolerant of other views even those advocating many of the same policies.
Friedman himself is pretty left compared to some other classical liberals advocating a negative income tax, public funding for schools (until high school) and a one currency system.
Anyway objectivism is only one part of liberalism and I known very few people who subscribe to such views.
That's the video where Mises storms out of the room.
Also: Rand loved the FBI and trying to report people to the FBI. She opposed goverment power if it was going to be used against her, but had no problem trying to send the goverment after people she didn't' like.
On September 10 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How have you seen capitalism defined?
I've read/heard several descriptions, none of them had a solution for wealth inequality. It's not uncommon to see pro-capitalism arguments that wealth inequality is good actually.
That’s not a definition. Capitalism is the system in which the means of production are private and for profit, with wage labor and capital accumulation. That’s more or less it.
So unless you want to nationalize everything (and not only specific segments of the economy - note for Danglar), you are within the parametres of capitalism.
That’s why also instead of talking of socialism so that you-know-who can say that « Venezuela! », we should simply differenciate between free market capitalism and welfare capitalism. Unless we have some maoist in disguise here, that’s what the economic segment of this discussion is about.
Danemark, Norway or Iceland are capitalist countries, and the inequalities are much, much smaller than anywhere else on the planet. You don’t need The Revolution to reduce inequalities.
On September 10 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How have you seen capitalism defined?
I've read/heard several descriptions, none of them had a solution for wealth inequality. It's not uncommon to see pro-capitalism arguments that wealth inequality is good actually.
That’s not a definition. Capitalism is the system in which the means of production are private and for profit, with wage labor and capital accumulation. That’s more or less it.
So unless you want to nationalize everything (and not only specific segments of the economy - note for Danglar), you are within the parametres of capitalism.
That’s why also instead of talking of socialism so that you-know-who can say that « Venezuela! », we should simply differenciate between free market capitalism and welfare capitalism. Unless we have some maoist in disguise here, that’s what the economic segment of this discussion is about.
Danemark, Norway or Iceland are capitalist countries, and the inequalities are much, much smaller than anywhere else on the planet. You don’t need The Revolution to reduce inequalities.
If the means of production of something is not private/for profit then it isn't capitalist by way of the definition you've provided.
I'd also say that it's a sectarian fight about whether taxes even exist in a free capitalist society (let alone the suggested welfare/social programs). Rather than try to cram something like free college education and universal healthcare into some contorted definition of capitalism where you would call them capitalist enterprises think it's just easier to recognize them as not being capitalism. But I guess that's just me.
On September 11 2018 15:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 10 2018 21:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
On September 10 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How have you seen capitalism defined?
I've read/heard several descriptions, none of them had a solution for wealth inequality. It's not uncommon to see pro-capitalism arguments that wealth inequality is good actually.
That’s not a definition. Capitalism is the system in which the means of production are private and for profit, with wage labor and capital accumulation. That’s more or less it.
So unless you want to nationalize everything (and not only specific segments of the economy - note for Danglar), you are within the parametres of capitalism.
That’s why also instead of talking of socialism so that you-know-who can say that « Venezuela! », we should simply differenciate between free market capitalism and welfare capitalism. Unless we have some maoist in disguise here, that’s what the economic segment of this discussion is about.
Danemark, Norway or Iceland are capitalist countries, and the inequalities are much, much smaller than anywhere else on the planet. You don’t need The Revolution to reduce inequalities.
If the means of production of something is not private/for profit then it isn't capitalist by way of the definition you've provided.
I'd also say that it's a sectarian fight about whether taxes even exist in a free capitalist society (let alone the suggested welfare/social programs). Rather than try to cram something like free college education and universal healthcare into some contorted definition of capitalism where you would call them capitalist enterprises think it's just easier to recognize them as not being capitalism. But I guess that's just me.
Mate we are talking about a capitalist economy vs a non capitalist economy. Capitalism is an economic system.
What I said originally is that I assumed none of us opposed capitalism in itself, meaning no one here thinks the means of production should be entirely owned by the state and not for profit. That’s it. I don’t know what you are even arguing at that point.
It’s not contorted it’s fucking textbook.
And France is a capitalist country with a capitalist economy, yet it has public healthcare and free education. That’s why we talk about welfare capitalism. Because an economy can be capitalist without being entirely tax free with no state intervention whatsoever in the economy. Because you know, nuances.
I sincerely don’t know why you are just unable to back off, but it makes you impossible and phenomenally tedious to discuss with.
On September 11 2018 15:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 10 2018 21:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
On September 10 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How have you seen capitalism defined?
I've read/heard several descriptions, none of them had a solution for wealth inequality. It's not uncommon to see pro-capitalism arguments that wealth inequality is good actually.
That’s not a definition. Capitalism is the system in which the means of production are private and for profit, with wage labor and capital accumulation. That’s more or less it.
So unless you want to nationalize everything (and not only specific segments of the economy - note for Danglar), you are within the parametres of capitalism.
That’s why also instead of talking of socialism so that you-know-who can say that « Venezuela! », we should simply differenciate between free market capitalism and welfare capitalism. Unless we have some maoist in disguise here, that’s what the economic segment of this discussion is about.
Danemark, Norway or Iceland are capitalist countries, and the inequalities are much, much smaller than anywhere else on the planet. You don’t need The Revolution to reduce inequalities.
If the means of production of something is not private/for profit then it isn't capitalist by way of the definition you've provided.
I'd also say that it's a sectarian fight about whether taxes even exist in a free capitalist society (let alone the suggested welfare/social programs). Rather than try to cram something like free college education and universal healthcare into some contorted definition of capitalism where you would call them capitalist enterprises think it's just easier to recognize them as not being capitalism. But I guess that's just me.
Mate we are talking about a capitalist economy vs a non capitalist economy. Capitalism is an economic system.
What I said originally is that I assumed none of us opposed capitalism in itself, meaning no one here thinks the means of production should be entirely owned by the state and not for profit. That’s it. I don’t know what you are even arguing at that point.
It’s not contorted it’s fucking textbook.
And France is a capitalist country with a capitalist economy, yet it has public healthcare and free education. That’s why we talk about welfare capitalism. Because an economy can be capitalist without being entirely tax free with no state intervention whatsoever in the economy. Because you know, nuances.
I sincerely don’t know why you are just unable to back off, but it makes you impossible and phenomenally tedious to discuss with.
Sorry, I presumed by quoting and responding to my reply to another poster you would be expecting me to respond. I've said my piece, I think it must have been miscommunicated based on your response but I won't dispute it further if it's that burdensome.
On September 11 2018 17:54 solidbebe wrote: Is there anyone who actually thinks western european nations arent capitalist because we have social welfare programs/constructions?
I very much think they are capitalist if that was unclear.
The reference to certain European countries as "socialist" in the US was born out of hyperbole from our political right, and then got bundled up in the progressive movement where a combination of political ignorance and irony caused the identification of "socialist countries" to become blurred between groups using it hyperbolically/pejoratively, group using it ironically ("Socialist countries sound nice"), and a group of political novices (at least to this part of the political spectrum) using it seriously, and with good intentions, but wrongly. At least that's my perception anyway.
On September 10 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How have you seen capitalism defined?
I've read/heard several descriptions, none of them had a solution for wealth inequality. It's not uncommon to see pro-capitalism arguments that wealth inequality is good actually.
That’s not a definition. Capitalism is the system in which the means of production are private and for profit, with wage labor and capital accumulation. That’s more or less it.
So unless you want to nationalize everything (and not only specific segments of the economy - note for Danglar), you are within the parametres of capitalism.
That’s why also instead of talking of socialism so that you-know-who can say that « Venezuela! », we should simply differenciate between free market capitalism and welfare capitalism. Unless we have some maoist in disguise here, that’s what the economic segment of this discussion is about.
Danemark, Norway or Iceland are capitalist countries, and the inequalities are much, much smaller than anywhere else on the planet. You don’t need The Revolution to reduce inequalities.
I don't like how your definition assumes that we know what terms like "means of production", "wage labor" or "profit" are. In my view they are or rather can be results of capitalist systems, but not the other way around. E.g. without a capitalist society I don't necessarily have wage labor. I could have only slave labor, or communal or feudal systems.
I think that - under the assumption that we know what a state is - a capitalist state is one that: 1) defines what capital is (typical examples: produced goods, services, patents, land, a state currency, enterprises, shares, animals, slaves, roads, weapons, natural resources...) 2) establishes individual control rights for capital, what is known as private property 3) establishes the terms under which private property can be traded (typically this includes contract rights, a state currency and trade taxes and regulations).
To close the loop to people like Ayn Rand: they don't make that distinction between capital and property. An owner has a "natural right" to capital and the state's only job is to protect "natural rights". Seeing the state as origin of any right is already socialism in that view. The rights are naturally given, the state only has to protect them.
Also, to close the loop to tomorrows vote one the copyright reform. The EU is in the technical process of 1) and 2) on the whole topic of the internet, based on a pretty Randian argumentation that assumes intellectual property to just be there and the EU having to protect it. Basically the technical implementation of decentralized computer networks has been so successfull, but is so complicated, that we are only using its abstraction "the internet" to talk about it. So conservatives are now trying to put a new property law on top of it, disregarding that there are already property rights of various forms for everything that the internet is made up of. Essentially this process is overwriting many of the other rights.
It'd be helpful if we could somehow untangle ourselves from the political framings of the 19th and 20th centuries. A large majority understand capitalism is the best economic system in that it creates the right incentives for innovation and wealth creation. The US is still stuck in the 20th century discussion of the government's role in education and health but that discussion is non-existent in Europe.
The wealth inequality and the welfare of the population going forward are really important discussiosn to have but even here we should take into account that we're moving towards a different world than what we've experienced before. Here's how I think it'll be different. - While automation may cause a lot of disruption to the labor market, the principal effect may very well be massive reduction of prices. That has already happened to a huge number of manufactured items with the China+automation effect. Going forward, that will affect even more markets of manufactured goods while AI could disrupt services, making them way cheaper too. - The robber baron sort of inequality where a few magnates will own all the robots doesn't seem all that likely to me. Robber barons need high barriers to entry - those existed in the 1900s in oil and railroads but today they exist mainly in tech companies that rely on network effects (hi Google, FB, Amazon). Those new 'robber barons' already exist but I don't necessarily think that AI and automation will make create these sorts of industries. - You'll continue to be able to buy expensive goods in luxury segments. Until we eliminate the human 'bug' of worry about status, that'll continue to exist.
In this scenario, the potential for a citizen with a median income in Western Europe to have a really jolly good life is great. I'd even say that more wealth redistribution will have limited effects. The really issue and where politics should be focusing on is in urban planning and real estate. At some point when everyone has enough money for food, entertainment, transportation, the scarcity is in housing. Increasing wealth all around will make housing/rents increase and eliminate a good share of that increase. Those are the real bottlenecks and where what matters is the quality of governance, moreso than their political colors.
That's true. Most issues that today would improve the average citizens quality of life in rich Western nations are related to the effectiveness of governance and providing services like housing, education, elderly care, health care and so forth. The class war rhetoric is deeply misguided and largely happens in the abstract. If you want to have a real impact today get involved in your cities politicsand try to convince people to build more housing and simplify zoning regulation. Business, government and markets all have a role to play.
When it comes to tech I'm more worried about the social impact that companies like Facebook have on our politics. Characterising Mark Zuckerberg et al as robber barons seems more than a little odd. If they were poor nobody else would be better off. They've largely generated wealth rather than extracted it from anyone, so people would be better off to focus on the few actual robber barons still around.
On September 12 2018 05:55 Nyxisto wrote: That's true. Most issues that today would improve the average citizens quality of life in rich Western nations are related to the effectiveness of governance and providing services like housing, education, elderly care, health care and so forth. The class war rhetoric is deeply misguided and largely happens in the abstract. If you want to have a real impact today get involved in your cities politicsand try to convince people to build more housing and simplify zoning regulation. Business, government and markets all have a role to play.
When it comes to tech I'm more worried about the social impact that companies like Facebook have on our politics. Characterising Mark Zuckerberg et al as robber barons seems more than a little odd. If they were poor nobody else would be better off. They've largely generated wealth rather than extracted it from anyone, so people would be better off to focus on the few actual robber barons still around.
You are talking about theoretical concepts, in reality all of those things are being cut, because they are not affordable with the existing income/consume taxed, capital tax free system. Just because you have "a system" for these things doesn't make it good or affordable. You are living in a country where young students in parks are putting cans next to the trash so that the poor people, many of them elderly people, who need to acquire can deposit for a living, can easily find them.
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” ― Warren Buffett, 2006
And the situation has gotten worse than in 2006 today.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/productivity-wages-g20.jpg)
