|
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 January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised
Nobody's forcing you to be a nurse, that'd be socialism. You chose to become a nurse because it pays better than other jobs, or for personal reasons. Unless you were born rich, or worked enough.
What's really "forcing" you here is the desire for property, wealth accumulation, or simply earning a living. But you can achieve it however you like when the job market works, that's capitalism. Not a bad thing in my book.
|
Northern Ireland25633 Posts
On January 21 2020 09:53 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 09:19 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:13 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 09:09 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:48 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom. Thanks for the clarification on your point. Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though? Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces? I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate. My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource. If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first. So the problem is how debt is leveraged rather than how people actually live and are remunerated? I'm not even sure what problem you are referring to. Besides private property being harder to come by and wealth being harder to amass, we live in pretty comfy times compared to the past, materially speaking. At least in Europe. The current policy efforts lie in ensuring that money isn't too easy to come by, but also not too hard, and to keep the system afloat for as long as possible. You don’t see the problem in wealth and property being harder to obtain in a system predicated on obtaining both? Not when I'm not 90 years old and need a nurse that needs to be poor enough to have an incentive to work such a tasking job. A minimum of working force is always required for a functioning society, unless you think it's just to eliminate unproductive members. The system struggles with finding a solution for that with monetary policy. And at the same time to stop the population from growing to unsustainable levels. Ironically, the demographics trap can only be escaped with an ever increasing population. That sounds like a dangerous mentality for both your nurse and you. Lol, I'm not 90. It was just an example, because it's one of the biggest problems we face. Expanding debt meets shrinking ageing population and one leads to the other. Actually, that makes the debt system quite useful in controlling our numbers, but is already leading to a lack of workforce, yet only a few companies can afford to pay more to get some, so we need some more debt to replace the missing consumption from the missing workforce. It's a ponzi cat-chases-tail-thing from an unethical but rational mind. The only thing I care about is how to not draw the short stick at the end of the road and encouraging friends to do the same.
As opposed to I don’t know, taxing the rich and redistributing things down, or any number of alternatives.
If you want to be unethical go about your life that way though, I’ll try and keep touch so I can let that nurse you have when you’re 90 know how you feel about their work and station in society.
Almost certainly not going to happen as I have a much lower life expectancy sadly
|
Northern Ireland25633 Posts
On January 21 2020 10:00 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised Nobody's forcing you to be a nurse, that'd be socialism. You chose to become a nurse because it pays better than other jobs, or for personal reasons. Unless you were born rich, or worked enough. What's really "forcing" you here is the desire for property, wealth accumulation, or simply earning a living. But you can achieve it however you like when the job market works, that's capitalism. Not a bad thing in my book.
Not sure how you read my posts that way. But granted you seem to reduce human endeavour and spirt to earning potential I don’t particularly care either.
|
On January 21 2020 10:01 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:53 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 09:19 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:13 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 09:09 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:48 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom. Thanks for the clarification on your point. Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though? Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces? I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate. My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource. If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first. So the problem is how debt is leveraged rather than how people actually live and are remunerated? I'm not even sure what problem you are referring to. Besides private property being harder to come by and wealth being harder to amass, we live in pretty comfy times compared to the past, materially speaking. At least in Europe. The current policy efforts lie in ensuring that money isn't too easy to come by, but also not too hard, and to keep the system afloat for as long as possible. You don’t see the problem in wealth and property being harder to obtain in a system predicated on obtaining both? Not when I'm not 90 years old and need a nurse that needs to be poor enough to have an incentive to work such a tasking job. A minimum of working force is always required for a functioning society, unless you think it's just to eliminate unproductive members. The system struggles with finding a solution for that with monetary policy. And at the same time to stop the population from growing to unsustainable levels. Ironically, the demographics trap can only be escaped with an ever increasing population. That sounds like a dangerous mentality for both your nurse and you. Lol, I'm not 90. It was just an example, because it's one of the biggest problems we face. Expanding debt meets shrinking ageing population and one leads to the other. Actually, that makes the debt system quite useful in controlling our numbers, but is already leading to a lack of workforce, yet only a few companies can afford to pay more to get some, so we need some more debt to replace the missing consumption from the missing workforce. It's a ponzi cat-chases-tail-thing from an unethical but rational mind. The only thing I care about is how to not draw the short stick at the end of the road and encouraging friends to do the same. As opposed to I don’t know, taxing the rich and redistributing things down, or any number of alternatives. If you want to be unethical go about your life that way though, I’ll try and keep touch so I can let that nurse you have when you’re 90 know how you feel about their work and station in society. Almost certainly not going to happen as I have a much lower life expectancy sadly
Here's a stupid example. There's a bar nearby, that's always stuffed. You pay 3-4 bucks a beer in an average bar, yet 5 in the full one, and you pay to enter.
It's pretty simple, these guys work more, so they demand more, and people still pay for it. Now I give everyone 100 bucks for free a day, tax it from whatever you want. You have just devalued the work of everyone present and past, and they will charge more. At some point, people realize their work is getting constantly devalued, and quit altogether.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's compounding interest serfdom.
I would add mass immigration (among other factors) damaging unions and keeping wages low. Also moving manufacturing overseas.
|
On January 21 2020 10:07 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 10:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 09:53 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 09:19 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:13 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 09:09 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:48 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:
[quote]
Thanks for the clarification on your point.
Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though?
Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces?
I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate. My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource. If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first. So the problem is how debt is leveraged rather than how people actually live and are remunerated? I'm not even sure what problem you are referring to. Besides private property being harder to come by and wealth being harder to amass, we live in pretty comfy times compared to the past, materially speaking. At least in Europe. The current policy efforts lie in ensuring that money isn't too easy to come by, but also not too hard, and to keep the system afloat for as long as possible. You don’t see the problem in wealth and property being harder to obtain in a system predicated on obtaining both? Not when I'm not 90 years old and need a nurse that needs to be poor enough to have an incentive to work such a tasking job. A minimum of working force is always required for a functioning society, unless you think it's just to eliminate unproductive members. The system struggles with finding a solution for that with monetary policy. And at the same time to stop the population from growing to unsustainable levels. Ironically, the demographics trap can only be escaped with an ever increasing population. That sounds like a dangerous mentality for both your nurse and you. Lol, I'm not 90. It was just an example, because it's one of the biggest problems we face. Expanding debt meets shrinking ageing population and one leads to the other. Actually, that makes the debt system quite useful in controlling our numbers, but is already leading to a lack of workforce, yet only a few companies can afford to pay more to get some, so we need some more debt to replace the missing consumption from the missing workforce. It's a ponzi cat-chases-tail-thing from an unethical but rational mind. The only thing I care about is how to not draw the short stick at the end of the road and encouraging friends to do the same. As opposed to I don’t know, taxing the rich and redistributing things down, or any number of alternatives. If you want to be unethical go about your life that way though, I’ll try and keep touch so I can let that nurse you have when you’re 90 know how you feel about their work and station in society. Almost certainly not going to happen as I have a much lower life expectancy sadly Here's a stupid example. There's a bar nearby, that's always stuffed. You pay 3-4 bucks a beer in an average bar, yet 5 in the full one, and you pay to enter. It's pretty simple, these guys work more, so they demand more, and people still pay for it. Now I give everyone 100 bucks for free a day, tax it from whatever you want. You have just devalued the work of everyone present and past, and they will charge more. At some point, people realize their work is getting constantly devalued, and quit altogether.
That is likely to happen when you add new money in the economy. There's no new money in the situation you describe. The people who talk about basic income have full arguments about that, the experiments made don't show the result you expect.
|
On January 21 2020 10:22 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's compounding interest serfdom. I would add mass immigration (among other factors) damaging unions and keeping wages low. Also moving manufacturing overseas.
Of course, hence Republicans winning Michigan for the first time in over 30 years.Top Dems will just keep on calling the working class voting in their own interest on mass immigration racists since they're so deep in that hole now of course.Bernie sort of gets it but looks like there'll be funny business again like in 2016.
|
On January 21 2020 13:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 10:22 Xxio wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's compounding interest serfdom. I would add mass immigration (among other factors) damaging unions and keeping wages low. Also moving manufacturing overseas. Of course, hence Republicans winning Michigan for the first time in over 30 years.Top Dems will just keep on calling the working class voting in their own interest on mass immigration racists since they're so deep in that hole now of course.Bernie sort of gets it but looks like there'll be funny business again like in 2016.
What jobs to people in Michigan lose because of "mass immigration"?
|
On January 21 2020 13:55 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 13:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 21 2020 10:22 Xxio wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's compounding interest serfdom. I would add mass immigration (among other factors) damaging unions and keeping wages low. Also moving manufacturing overseas. Of course, hence Republicans winning Michigan for the first time in over 30 years.Top Dems will just keep on calling the working class voting in their own interest on mass immigration racists since they're so deep in that hole now of course.Bernie sort of gets it but looks like there'll be funny business again like in 2016. What jobs to people in Michigan lose because of "mass immigration"?
You miss the part where he said moving manufacturing overseas? It's about Trump's appeal to working class voters.It's why the Dems are going to lose in 2020.The way things are going maybe they won't even win Minnesota, Trump was very close last time.
Maybe the Dems could win with Sanders but he won't get the nomination.Biden still up by 8-10 points,somehow.Can't see the woke brigade getting behind him.
|
On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often  It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really?
Fascists, I'd call them fascists.
|
On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 02:49 ChristianS wrote:
I always think it’s bizarre that people talk about capitalism as though it’s entire organizing principle is greed. That seems most relevant when having, say, top marginal tax rate discussions (e.g. “why would billionaires bother to create another billion dollars of value for society if we tax 70% of it?” type discussions), but for most of society, they usually seem to be scrambling to “earn enough to live”. At the low end that literally means trying to afford food and warmth, but even for the middle class that means trying to afford healthcare, pay rent in a neighborhood that’s “safe” for their kids, trying to save money to retire or send their kids to college, etc.
“Greed” seems like a weird tab to file that under. It seems especially absurd to call the poor “greedy” for wanting food and shelter, but even a family wanting to afford an apartment in a neighborhood with good schools seems pretty different from the “greed” of wanting to increase your net worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. Filing it all under “want” would make a little more sense, but then you’re not describing anything unique to capitalism, you’re just restating the concept of scarcity (which any and every economic system is designed to address).
Also hi everyone! Long time no post! It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) . the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists.
Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content?
But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it?
To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better?
|
5930 Posts
On January 21 2020 14:25 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 13:55 Gahlo wrote:On January 21 2020 13:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 21 2020 10:22 Xxio wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's compounding interest serfdom. I would add mass immigration (among other factors) damaging unions and keeping wages low. Also moving manufacturing overseas. Of course, hence Republicans winning Michigan for the first time in over 30 years.Top Dems will just keep on calling the working class voting in their own interest on mass immigration racists since they're so deep in that hole now of course.Bernie sort of gets it but looks like there'll be funny business again like in 2016. What jobs to people in Michigan lose because of "mass immigration"? You miss the part where he said moving manufacturing overseas? It's about Trump's appeal to working class voters.It's why the Dems are going to lose in 2020.The way things are going maybe they won't even win Minnesota, Trump was very close last time. Maybe the Dems could win with Sanders but he won't get the nomination.Biden still up by 8-10 points,somehow.Can't see the woke brigade getting behind him.
It’s the same as people blaming the Australian bushfires solely on arsonists/Greens (despite literally having no real political power ever) not the fact that Australia has been dry as fuck for ages, been a victim of decades of environmental destruction and fire services that have been ignored and gutted.
It appeals to people who want simple solutions and a simple target to blame but what they’re believing in is mostly untrue. If we’re talking about car industry migration honestly, most of the work is either being automated or being shifted to the Southern states where workers are not unionised, pay is worse and working conditions are significantly worse.
This has been going on well before Trump, Toyota/Mazda/Volvo have moved some production to South Carolina. Volkswagen has plants in Tennessee. A few others are in Louisiana along with a decent number of small parts manufacturers. It’s capitalism and the free market in action.
I’m not convinced Trump is going to do as well as he did in the rust belt come 2020 for that reason. Those jobs aren’t really coming back to the rust belt because there’s zero incentive for them to come back even with the trade war.
Because a large component of the issue is domestic in nature and the four years Trump has been president has not made things better for the sort of guy who thought a trade war would get them closer to getting a factory job that could support a wife, two kids and a mortgage.
|
On January 21 2020 10:00 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised Nobody's forcing you to be a nurse, that'd be socialism. You chose to become a nurse because it pays better than other jobs, or for personal reasons. Unless you were born rich, or worked enough. What's really "forcing" you here is the desire for property, wealth accumulation, or simply earning a living. But you can achieve it however you like when the job market works, that's capitalism. Not a bad thing in my book.
You don't know what socialism is.
You're a terrible person because you don't see any issue fucking good will people because they're not selfish enough according to you.
And I dare you to say you contribute as much to society as nurses.
|
On January 21 2020 20:50 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 10:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised Nobody's forcing you to be a nurse, that'd be socialism. You chose to become a nurse because it pays better than other jobs, or for personal reasons. Unless you were born rich, or worked enough. What's really "forcing" you here is the desire for property, wealth accumulation, or simply earning a living. But you can achieve it however you like when the job market works, that's capitalism. Not a bad thing in my book. You don't know what socialism is. You're a terrible person because you don't see any issue fucking good will people because they're not selfish enough according to you. And I dare you to say you contribute as much to society as nurses.
The German Democratic Republic wasn't socialism? You weren't even allowed to go where you wanted.
Venezuela wasn't socialism? I don't even know what they are since their economy collapsed, but it isn't a fun place to live in.
Everyone who believes in the virtues of socialism can take a trip to Cuba and see if they like it.
Maybe you can give me an example of working socialism where individual rights aren't suppressed without that frothy undertone.
|
On January 21 2020 21:00 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 20:50 nojok wrote:On January 21 2020 10:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised Nobody's forcing you to be a nurse, that'd be socialism. You chose to become a nurse because it pays better than other jobs, or for personal reasons. Unless you were born rich, or worked enough. What's really "forcing" you here is the desire for property, wealth accumulation, or simply earning a living. But you can achieve it however you like when the job market works, that's capitalism. Not a bad thing in my book. You don't know what socialism is. You're a terrible person because you don't see any issue fucking good will people because they're not selfish enough according to you. And I dare you to say you contribute as much to society as nurses. The German Democratic Republic wasn't socialism? You weren't even allowed to go where you wanted. Venezuela wasn't socialism? I don't even know what they are since their economy collapsed, but it isn't a fun place to live in. Everyone who believes in the virtues of socialism can take a trip to Cuba and see if they like it. Maybe you can give me an example of working socialism where individual rights aren't suppressed without that frothy undertone.
So now we're back to saying that capitalism taking advantage of people needing to work is all hunky-dory, because otherwise you have this scary thing called Socialism. People who have a passion for helping others can be ridden for that passion all the way to the bank, because eh, they want to help people, and you wouldn't want Socialism, would you?
I didn't realize the whole world worked on such stark binaries.
|
I bet ChristianS feels pretty good right now
On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:
The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.”
|
5930 Posts
Socialism is a super wide umbrella, what do you even define socialism as? East Germany is not the same as Venezuela is not the same as Cuba. Are socialist policies in a mixed market economy socialist enough to be socialist?
It is like saying China is communist like the USSR, they're not remotely close in how their political and economic systems work.
I mean if we're bringing up Venezuela, their economy failed because they never leveraged their state ownership of hydrocarbons into avoiding the Dutch Disease. On the flipside, Norway absolutely did.
|
On January 21 2020 21:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 21:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 20:50 nojok wrote:On January 21 2020 10:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised Nobody's forcing you to be a nurse, that'd be socialism. You chose to become a nurse because it pays better than other jobs, or for personal reasons. Unless you were born rich, or worked enough. What's really "forcing" you here is the desire for property, wealth accumulation, or simply earning a living. But you can achieve it however you like when the job market works, that's capitalism. Not a bad thing in my book. You don't know what socialism is. You're a terrible person because you don't see any issue fucking good will people because they're not selfish enough according to you. And I dare you to say you contribute as much to society as nurses. The German Democratic Republic wasn't socialism? You weren't even allowed to go where you wanted. Venezuela wasn't socialism? I don't even know what they are since their economy collapsed, but it isn't a fun place to live in. Everyone who believes in the virtues of socialism can take a trip to Cuba and see if they like it. Maybe you can give me an example of working socialism where individual rights aren't suppressed without that frothy undertone. So now we're back to saying it's totally okay that capitalism taking advantage of people needing to work is all hunky-dory, because otherwise you have this scary thing called Socialism. People who have a passion for helping others can be ridden for that passion all the way to the bank, because eh, they want to help people, and you wouldn't want Socialism, would you? I didn't realize the whole world worked on such stark binaries.
You can reply with whataboutism all you want, there still isn't an historic example of a fair socialism. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
What would you back the currency with, if not debt?
I don't understand why people who find capitalism bad just have the kneejerk reaction of flocking to another extreme.
It would be sufficient to replace the broken cogs, in my opinion.
On January 21 2020 21:53 Womwomwom wrote:
Socialism is a super wide umbrella, what do you even define socialism as? East Germany is not the same as Venezuela is not the same as Cuba. Are socialist policies in a mixed market economy socialist enough to be socialist?
It is like saying China is communist like the USSR, they're not remotely close in how their political and economic systems work.
I mean if we're bringing up Venezuela, their economy failed because they never leveraged their state ownership of hydrocarbons into avoiding the Dutch Disease. On the flipside, Norway absolutely did.
In my definition, socialism is when the government owns the economy, you get paid by the government, and you also have duties to perform towards your government.
|
On January 21 2020 21:58 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 21:47 NewSunshine wrote:On January 21 2020 21:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 20:50 nojok wrote:On January 21 2020 10:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised Nobody's forcing you to be a nurse, that'd be socialism. You chose to become a nurse because it pays better than other jobs, or for personal reasons. Unless you were born rich, or worked enough. What's really "forcing" you here is the desire for property, wealth accumulation, or simply earning a living. But you can achieve it however you like when the job market works, that's capitalism. Not a bad thing in my book. You don't know what socialism is. You're a terrible person because you don't see any issue fucking good will people because they're not selfish enough according to you. And I dare you to say you contribute as much to society as nurses. The German Democratic Republic wasn't socialism? You weren't even allowed to go where you wanted. Venezuela wasn't socialism? I don't even know what they are since their economy collapsed, but it isn't a fun place to live in. Everyone who believes in the virtues of socialism can take a trip to Cuba and see if they like it. Maybe you can give me an example of working socialism where individual rights aren't suppressed without that frothy undertone. So now we're back to saying it's totally okay that capitalism taking advantage of people needing to work is all hunky-dory, because otherwise you have this scary thing called Socialism. People who have a passion for helping others can be ridden for that passion all the way to the bank, because eh, they want to help people, and you wouldn't want Socialism, would you? I didn't realize the whole world worked on such stark binaries. You can reply with whataboutism all you want, there still isn't an historic example of a fair socialism. I'd be glad to be proven wrong. What would you back the currency with, if not debt? I don't understand why people who find capitalism bad just have the kneejerk reaction of flocking to another extreme. It would be sufficient to replace the broken cogs, in my opinion.
One logical fallacy among many, I think, is assuming that everyone is flocking to the other extreme. I'd say another is that you can't define exactly what that extreme is. Socialism is a conveniently flexible term for your argument.
|
On January 21 2020 21:58 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 21:47 NewSunshine wrote:On January 21 2020 21:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 20:50 nojok wrote:On January 21 2020 10:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised Nobody's forcing you to be a nurse, that'd be socialism. You chose to become a nurse because it pays better than other jobs, or for personal reasons. Unless you were born rich, or worked enough. What's really "forcing" you here is the desire for property, wealth accumulation, or simply earning a living. But you can achieve it however you like when the job market works, that's capitalism. Not a bad thing in my book. You don't know what socialism is. You're a terrible person because you don't see any issue fucking good will people because they're not selfish enough according to you. And I dare you to say you contribute as much to society as nurses. The German Democratic Republic wasn't socialism? You weren't even allowed to go where you wanted. Venezuela wasn't socialism? I don't even know what they are since their economy collapsed, but it isn't a fun place to live in. Everyone who believes in the virtues of socialism can take a trip to Cuba and see if they like it. Maybe you can give me an example of working socialism where individual rights aren't suppressed without that frothy undertone. So now we're back to saying it's totally okay that capitalism taking advantage of people needing to work is all hunky-dory, because otherwise you have this scary thing called Socialism. People who have a passion for helping others can be ridden for that passion all the way to the bank, because eh, they want to help people, and you wouldn't want Socialism, would you? I didn't realize the whole world worked on such stark binaries. You can reply with whataboutism all you want, there still isn't an historic example of a fair socialism. I'd be glad to be proven wrong. What would you back the currency with, if not debt? I don't understand why people who find capitalism bad just have the kneejerk reaction of flocking to another extreme. It would be sufficient to replace the broken cogs, in my opinion.
The cogs are not broken. They are functioning very logically based on the premises of the economic system and the ideology sustaining it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
