|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 05 2019 11:05 JimmiC wrote:
What technological advancements has socialism produced so far? And this is not me saying that capitalism is better then socialism. It is me wanting some sort of proof other than your word that capitalism is 100% the problem and that socialism will create a utopia of equality. Because so far changing the ism has changed the group that is advantaged, but not created the equality you seem convinced will be achieved. So far culture, psychology, education, norms and a whole bunch of other factors have shown to have a much larger impact than which ism you run politically.
Soviet scientists were pretty good. Numerous nobel prizes in a highly charged political atmosphere. Numerous inventions. Perhaps you have forgotten Sputnik?
|
Heavily socialist/centralized societies are pretty good at accomplishing discrete goals, but they do so at the expense of broad-based innovation and capital development.
|
On June 05 2019 11:22 xDaunt wrote:
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism. It will do what every other revolutionary advance in technology has done: it will cause tremendous deflationary pressures on a broad base of goods of services, thereby raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere.
Stable, widespread fusion energy will be huge.
There are two sides to this: one is that energy makes it easier to recycle and transform resources into other resources, so natural resources will become relatively less valuable and BRIC countries that rely upon natural resource harvesting will find their ascension up the wealth ladder blocked; two is that cheaper energy encourages centralization, i.e. the opposite of localization/decentralization, and provides even greater returns to single firms focusing on minimizing labor. The price of energy is arguably the main limiter of the tendency to centralize ad infinitum since so much is spent on last mile distribution networks and such. Energy in other words is crudely substitutable for labor. And the late capitalist world system is threatened when humans feel obsolete.
|
On June 05 2019 12:14 xDaunt wrote:
Heavily socialist/centralized societies are pretty good at accomplishing discrete goals, but they do so at the expense of broad-based innovation and capital development.
Is becoming the greatest manufacturing center in the world a "discrete goal"? China's GDP in 1998 was around $1T. In 2017 it was $12T. Seems like pretty good capital development.
|
On June 05 2019 12:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 11:22 xDaunt wrote:
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism. It will do what every other revolutionary advance in technology has done: it will cause tremendous deflationary pressures on a broad base of goods of services, thereby raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere. Stable, widespread fusion energy will be huge. There are two sides to this: one is that energy makes it easier to recycle and transform resources into other resources, so natural resources will become relatively less valuable and BRIC countries that rely upon natural resource harvesting will find their ascension up the wealth ladder blocked; two is that cheaper energy encourages centralization, i.e. the opposite of localization/decentralization, and provides even greater returns to single firms focusing on minimizing labor. Plentiful energy is arguably the main limiter of the tendency to centralize ad infinitum since so much is spent on last mile distribution networks and such. Energy in other words is crudely substitutable for labor. And the late capitalist world system is threatened when humans feel obsolete.
I don't see why abundant energy necessarily means the unraveling of the capitalist system. Like I said, abundant energy will necessarily devalue a broad base of goods and services, but it won't devalue everything. There will always be some degree of scarcity. Have you read The Golden Age by John C. Wright? I think it provides a very interesting vision of what a future with nearly infinite energy and powerful AIs might look like. Just as a spoiler -- the economy is still capitalist. The difference is that resources have been redeployed such that other things have more value.
|
|
|
On June 05 2019 12:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 12:14 xDaunt wrote:
Heavily socialist/centralized societies are pretty good at accomplishing discrete goals, but they do so at the expense of broad-based innovation and capital development. Is becoming the greatest manufacturing center in the world a "discrete goal"? China's GDP in 1998 was around $1T. In 2017 it was $12T. Seems like pretty good capital development.
China's economic development is the epitome of the double-edged sword that is centralized planning. The Chinese set out to create a manufacturing behemoth, which they successfully did by getting foreigners to invest in China while systematically ripping off their IP. The price that they paid to accomplish this was a very narrow economy that is almost entirely dependent upon exports and prone to gross capital misallocation. The US/China trade war is an existential threat to China that has caused severe damage to their financial markets and is threatening to completely upend foreign investment in China (though China's own actions certainly have exacerbate these issues). For the US, we really don't have much reason to give a shit nationally beyond the pleasure that we derive from shaking big American dick in China's face. We have huge structural advantages to our economy that insulate us from the adverse effects of the trade war.
|
On June 05 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 12:19 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 11:22 xDaunt wrote:
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism. It will do what every other revolutionary advance in technology has done: it will cause tremendous deflationary pressures on a broad base of goods of services, thereby raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere. Stable, widespread fusion energy will be huge. There are two sides to this: one is that energy makes it easier to recycle and transform resources into other resources, so natural resources will become relatively less valuable and BRIC countries that rely upon natural resource harvesting will find their ascension up the wealth ladder blocked; two is that cheaper energy encourages centralization, i.e. the opposite of localization/decentralization, and provides even greater returns to single firms focusing on minimizing labor. Plentiful energy is arguably the main limiter of the tendency to centralize ad infinitum since so much is spent on last mile distribution networks and such. Energy in other words is crudely substitutable for labor. And the late capitalist world system is threatened when humans feel obsolete. I don't see why abundant energy necessarily means the unraveling of the capitalist system. Like I said, abundant energy will necessarily devalue a broad base of goods and services, but it won't devalue everything. There will always be some degree of scarcity. Have you read The Golden Age by John C. Wright? I think it provides a very interesting vision of what a future with nearly infinite energy and powerful AIs might look like. Just as a spoiler -- the economy is still capitalist. The difference is that resources have been redeployed such that other things have more value.
I haven't and won't and am extremely skeptical it serves any enlightening value. But perhaps you could flush out his reasoning and make the case for why it's not just his imagination like his vision of Virgin Mary and other biblical ghosts.
|
On June 05 2019 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 12:19 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 11:22 xDaunt wrote:
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism. It will do what every other revolutionary advance in technology has done: it will cause tremendous deflationary pressures on a broad base of goods of services, thereby raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere. Stable, widespread fusion energy will be huge. There are two sides to this: one is that energy makes it easier to recycle and transform resources into other resources, so natural resources will become relatively less valuable and BRIC countries that rely upon natural resource harvesting will find their ascension up the wealth ladder blocked; two is that cheaper energy encourages centralization, i.e. the opposite of localization/decentralization, and provides even greater returns to single firms focusing on minimizing labor. Plentiful energy is arguably the main limiter of the tendency to centralize ad infinitum since so much is spent on last mile distribution networks and such. Energy in other words is crudely substitutable for labor. And the late capitalist world system is threatened when humans feel obsolete. I don't see why abundant energy necessarily means the unraveling of the capitalist system. Like I said, abundant energy will necessarily devalue a broad base of goods and services, but it won't devalue everything. There will always be some degree of scarcity. Have you read The Golden Age by John C. Wright? I think it provides a very interesting vision of what a future with nearly infinite energy and powerful AIs might look like. Just as a spoiler -- the economy is still capitalist. The difference is that resources have been redeployed such that other things have more value. I haven't and won't and am extremely skeptical it serves any enlightening value. But perhaps you could flush out his reasoning and make the case for why it's not just his imagination.
Frankly, I don't remember all of the details. The point is that even in a world of abundance, laws of scarcity still applied, albeit in different ways. More importantly, his vision was consistent with we have seen in terms of economic development through each of the industrial revolutions that has occurred. Given that you're not willing to accept economic historical fact, there's little value in diving into the vision of a fiction writer with you.
|
On June 05 2019 12:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 12:19 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 11:22 xDaunt wrote:
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism. It will do what every other revolutionary advance in technology has done: it will cause tremendous deflationary pressures on a broad base of goods of services, thereby raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere. Stable, widespread fusion energy will be huge. There are two sides to this: one is that energy makes it easier to recycle and transform resources into other resources, so natural resources will become relatively less valuable and BRIC countries that rely upon natural resource harvesting will find their ascension up the wealth ladder blocked; two is that cheaper energy encourages centralization, i.e. the opposite of localization/decentralization, and provides even greater returns to single firms focusing on minimizing labor. Plentiful energy is arguably the main limiter of the tendency to centralize ad infinitum since so much is spent on last mile distribution networks and such. Energy in other words is crudely substitutable for labor. And the late capitalist world system is threatened when humans feel obsolete. I don't see why abundant energy necessarily means the unraveling of the capitalist system. Like I said, abundant energy will necessarily devalue a broad base of goods and services, but it won't devalue everything. There will always be some degree of scarcity. Have you read The Golden Age by John C. Wright? I think it provides a very interesting vision of what a future with nearly infinite energy and powerful AIs might look like. Just as a spoiler -- the economy is still capitalist. The difference is that resources have been redeployed such that other things have more value. I haven't and won't and am extremely skeptical it serves any enlightening value. But perhaps you could flush out his reasoning and make the case for why it's not just his imagination. Frankly, I don't remember all of the details. The point is that even in a world of abundance, laws of scarcity still applied, albeit in different ways. More importantly, his vision was consistent with we have seen in terms of economic development through each of the industrial revolutions that has occurred. Given that you're not willing to accept economic historical fact, there's little value in diving into the vision of a fiction writer with you.
I didn't reject the "fact" I offered a counter in which I used your reasoning/interpretation to justify mass incarceration as positive for the incarcerated. It's not entirely dissimilar from how the same sort of reasoning has been used to justify colonialism, slavery, "boarding schools" for indigenous peoples, and so on as a benefit of capitalism/imperialism/colonialism.
I'm accepting your framing and demonstrating why I find it inadequate.
|
On June 05 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 12:19 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 11:22 xDaunt wrote:
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism. It will do what every other revolutionary advance in technology has done: it will cause tremendous deflationary pressures on a broad base of goods of services, thereby raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere. Stable, widespread fusion energy will be huge. There are two sides to this: one is that energy makes it easier to recycle and transform resources into other resources, so natural resources will become relatively less valuable and BRIC countries that rely upon natural resource harvesting will find their ascension up the wealth ladder blocked; two is that cheaper energy encourages centralization, i.e. the opposite of localization/decentralization, and provides even greater returns to single firms focusing on minimizing labor. Plentiful energy is arguably the main limiter of the tendency to centralize ad infinitum since so much is spent on last mile distribution networks and such. Energy in other words is crudely substitutable for labor. And the late capitalist world system is threatened when humans feel obsolete. I don't see why abundant energy necessarily means the unraveling of the capitalist system. Like I said, abundant energy will necessarily devalue a broad base of goods and services, but it won't devalue everything. There will always be some degree of scarcity. Have you read The Golden Age by John C. Wright? I think it provides a very interesting vision of what a future with nearly infinite energy and powerful AIs might look like. Just as a spoiler -- the economy is still capitalist. The difference is that resources have been redeployed such that other things have more value.
I think there's a crisis of meaning in our world that's pretty much totally ignored by almost every space opera sci-fi book I've ever read. All these far-future worlds have pseudo-complex belief systems and hierarchies and all the rest because the plot demands a(n exotic) sense of meaning from its own characters in order to work. Quite different from the disenchantment under late capitalism. The hard line capitalist apologias only work when the majority of society is feeling the benefits of growth. If people become obsolete that seems unlikely.
In any case, socialists who think that socialism is going to do away with human differences, or differences in values, have simply not thought that hard about it. Markets are useful for some things.
(Also: who knew that John C. Wright was a red-pilled devout Catholic?)
|
On June 05 2019 14:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 12:19 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 11:22 xDaunt wrote:
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism. It will do what every other revolutionary advance in technology has done: it will cause tremendous deflationary pressures on a broad base of goods of services, thereby raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere. Stable, widespread fusion energy will be huge. There are two sides to this: one is that energy makes it easier to recycle and transform resources into other resources, so natural resources will become relatively less valuable and BRIC countries that rely upon natural resource harvesting will find their ascension up the wealth ladder blocked; two is that cheaper energy encourages centralization, i.e. the opposite of localization/decentralization, and provides even greater returns to single firms focusing on minimizing labor. Plentiful energy is arguably the main limiter of the tendency to centralize ad infinitum since so much is spent on last mile distribution networks and such. Energy in other words is crudely substitutable for labor. And the late capitalist world system is threatened when humans feel obsolete. (Also: who knew that John C. Wright was a red-pilled devout Catholic?)
I thought everybody knew that through publishing with Castalia House, Vox Day’s outfit. The later novels I think show Catholic sensibilities.
On topic: I think capitalism stays even with future technological energy breakthroughs for reasons already brought up.
|
On June 05 2019 15:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 14:40 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 12:19 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 11:22 xDaunt wrote:
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism. It will do what every other revolutionary advance in technology has done: it will cause tremendous deflationary pressures on a broad base of goods of services, thereby raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere. Stable, widespread fusion energy will be huge. There are two sides to this: one is that energy makes it easier to recycle and transform resources into other resources, so natural resources will become relatively less valuable and BRIC countries that rely upon natural resource harvesting will find their ascension up the wealth ladder blocked; two is that cheaper energy encourages centralization, i.e. the opposite of localization/decentralization, and provides even greater returns to single firms focusing on minimizing labor. Plentiful energy is arguably the main limiter of the tendency to centralize ad infinitum since so much is spent on last mile distribution networks and such. Energy in other words is crudely substitutable for labor. And the late capitalist world system is threatened when humans feel obsolete. (Also: who knew that John C. Wright was a red-pilled devout Catholic?) I thought everybody knew that through publishing with Castalia House, Vox Day’s outfit. The later novels I think show Catholic sensibilities. On topic: I think capitalism stays even with future technological energy breakthroughs for reasons already brought up.
What do you mean with "stays even" and "reasons already brought up"?
Worth clarifying that "markets" and "capitalism" aren't one in the same (at least from a Marxist perspective) as well.
|
On June 05 2019 12:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 12:24 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 12:14 xDaunt wrote:
Heavily socialist/centralized societies are pretty good at accomplishing discrete goals, but they do so at the expense of broad-based innovation and capital development. Is becoming the greatest manufacturing center in the world a "discrete goal"? China's GDP in 1998 was around $1T. In 2017 it was $12T. Seems like pretty good capital development. China's economic development is the epitome of the double-edged sword that is centralized planning. The Chinese set out to create a manufacturing behemoth, which they successfully did by getting foreigners to invest in China while systematically ripping off their IP. The price that they paid to accomplish this was a very narrow economy that is almost entirely dependent upon exports and prone to gross capital misallocation. The US/China trade war is an existential threat to China that has caused severe damage to their financial markets and is threatening to completely upend foreign investment in China (though China's own actions certainly have exacerbate these issues). For the US, we really don't have much reason to give a shit nationally beyond the pleasure that we derive from shaking big American dick in China's face. We have huge structural advantages to our economy that insulate us from the adverse effects of the trade war.
Overrating that dick can be a huge mistake! Don't forget the Chinese has not brought up the big gun yet: dumping their huge reserve US state obligations. The US has a debt driven economy and is much more vulnerable than you think.
The trade war is a terribe idea, both the US, China and the world economy will lose on it and the world IT scene might be split in two.
|
On June 05 2019 12:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 11:05 JimmiC wrote:
What technological advancements has socialism produced so far? And this is not me saying that capitalism is better then socialism. It is me wanting some sort of proof other than your word that capitalism is 100% the problem and that socialism will create a utopia of equality. Because so far changing the ism has changed the group that is advantaged, but not created the equality you seem convinced will be achieved. So far culture, psychology, education, norms and a whole bunch of other factors have shown to have a much larger impact than which ism you run politically. Soviet scientists were pretty good. Numerous nobel prizes in a highly charged political atmosphere. Numerous inventions. Perhaps you have forgotten Sputnik?
Post-WW2 Soviet Union had abandoned all pretenses of being socialist in anything but name only, though.
But I do agree the premise is stupid. Most scientific breakthroughs don't come with profit in mind and tend to rely heavily on public funding. That is "socialist", regardless of what "ism" claims to be in power.
|
On June 05 2019 14:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 12:19 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 11:22 xDaunt wrote:
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism. It will do what every other revolutionary advance in technology has done: it will cause tremendous deflationary pressures on a broad base of goods of services, thereby raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere. Stable, widespread fusion energy will be huge. There are two sides to this: one is that energy makes it easier to recycle and transform resources into other resources, so natural resources will become relatively less valuable and BRIC countries that rely upon natural resource harvesting will find their ascension up the wealth ladder blocked; two is that cheaper energy encourages centralization, i.e. the opposite of localization/decentralization, and provides even greater returns to single firms focusing on minimizing labor. Plentiful energy is arguably the main limiter of the tendency to centralize ad infinitum since so much is spent on last mile distribution networks and such. Energy in other words is crudely substitutable for labor. And the late capitalist world system is threatened when humans feel obsolete. I don't see why abundant energy necessarily means the unraveling of the capitalist system. Like I said, abundant energy will necessarily devalue a broad base of goods and services, but it won't devalue everything. There will always be some degree of scarcity. Have you read The Golden Age by John C. Wright? I think it provides a very interesting vision of what a future with nearly infinite energy and powerful AIs might look like. Just as a spoiler -- the economy is still capitalist. The difference is that resources have been redeployed such that other things have more value. I think there's a crisis of meaning in our world that's pretty much totally ignored by almost every space opera sci-fi book I've ever read. All these far-future worlds have pseudo-complex belief systems and hierarchies and all the rest because the plot demands a(n exotic) sense of meaning from its own characters in order to work. Quite different from the disenchantment under late capitalism. The hard line capitalist apologias only work when the majority of society is feeling the benefits of growth. If people become obsolete that seems unlikely. In any case, socialists who think that socialism is going to do away with human differences, or differences in values, have simply not thought that hard about it. Markets are useful for some things. (Also: who knew that John C. Wright was a red-pilled devout Catholic?)
Sci-fi as a genre works best when it is either a) positive about the future or b) digging into the interesting possibilities of hyper tech. It's ignored because it's depressing and not a very interesting topic for a novel, basically. That's far more the arena of a non-fiction book.
|
On June 05 2019 16:02 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 12:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 12:24 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2019 12:14 xDaunt wrote:
Heavily socialist/centralized societies are pretty good at accomplishing discrete goals, but they do so at the expense of broad-based innovation and capital development. Is becoming the greatest manufacturing center in the world a "discrete goal"? China's GDP in 1998 was around $1T. In 2017 it was $12T. Seems like pretty good capital development. China's economic development is the epitome of the double-edged sword that is centralized planning. The Chinese set out to create a manufacturing behemoth, which they successfully did by getting foreigners to invest in China while systematically ripping off their IP. The price that they paid to accomplish this was a very narrow economy that is almost entirely dependent upon exports and prone to gross capital misallocation. The US/China trade war is an existential threat to China that has caused severe damage to their financial markets and is threatening to completely upend foreign investment in China (though China's own actions certainly have exacerbate these issues). For the US, we really don't have much reason to give a shit nationally beyond the pleasure that we derive from shaking big American dick in China's face. We have huge structural advantages to our economy that insulate us from the adverse effects of the trade war. Overrating that dick can be a huge mistake! Don't forget the Chinese has not brought up the big gun yet: dumping their huge reserve US state obligations. The US has a debt driven economy and is much more vulnerable than you think. The trade war is a terribe idea, both the US, China and the world economy will lose on it and the world IT scene might be split in two.
China doesn't hold enough US debt for it to be a problem as the vast majority is held by US citizens or the government itself with China holding something like 5% of the total. If you look at the past five years, China had already scaled back their US Bond investments before Trump was president.
|
Dumping 5% of the total will still have a big effect. Not just on the US though since if China does that the yuan will appreciate massively. In addition the fed can buy up some of them if necessary. We also don't know how it affects the US bond market. Usually when the market panicks people will buy US treasuries. China dumping them might just lead in others buying them due to the panic. We might just get the same as when the rating agencies downgraded US debt which caused interest rates to go down in the end.
|
China can’t dump their US treasury reserves. They need those reserves to keep their own currency value depressed so as to bolster their export economy and to serve as a hard currency for the purpose of their massive international investment programs. Oh, and they may need it to bail out their numerous troubled banks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
