|
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 October 24 2022 01:36 Artisreal wrote:
china is a dictatorship. there is not enough "left" in their politics to compensate for the traditional right omnipotent dictator fantasy.
The amount of times I had to explain to my friend that China isn't communist because the word "Communist" is part of the CCP's name is frustrating.
|
On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism.
It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists
|
On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists
I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism.
A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities.
Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism.
As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it.
|
|
|
On October 24 2022 13:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it. How is your preferred communist country doing it better? I would ask how you would change it but given you are against incremental change the only question to pose to you it what system should it be. In the past it seemed to be China but given that all of China's growth under Xi has been him opening private markets to have have owners make massive profits on the backs the unpaid rightless workers, non existent environmental rules the same way that the west once did. And he is far more effective at consolidating power as well as getting rid of any remotely effective workers rights groups or unions.
You're never going to get an actual answer. The best way to allocate scarce resources is with our current system of free markets and private property with government setting and enforcing the rules. There's a whole field of science dedicated to economics but people like GreenHorizons just choose to ignore this to continue living in their socialist fantasy.
edit: To be clear I don't mean that there's never a reason for government to intervene in markets. There are market failure and the like and sometimes markets aren't an option.
|
On October 24 2022 15:02 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 13:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it. How is your preferred communist country doing it better? I would ask how you would change it but given you are against incremental change the only question to pose to you it what system should it be. In the past it seemed to be China but given that all of China's growth under Xi has been him opening private markets to have have owners make massive profits on the backs the unpaid rightless workers, non existent environmental rules the same way that the west once did. And he is far more effective at consolidating power as well as getting rid of any remotely effective workers rights groups or unions. You're never going to get an actual answer. The best way to allocate scarce resources is with our current system of free markets and private property with government setting and enforcing the rules. There's a whole field of science dedicated to economics but people like GreenHorizons just choose to ignore this to continue living in their socialist fantasy. edit: To be clear I don't mean that there's never a reason for government to intervene in markets. There are market failure and the like and sometimes markets aren't an option.
I don't think GH is 'living in a socialist fantasy'. There are some obvious pitfalls in setting up our economic systems relying on infinite growth and exploitation of labour. I would think he'd be fine with private property and some level of free market.
|
On October 24 2022 13:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it. How is your preferred communist country doing it better? I would ask how you would change it but given you are against incremental change the only question to pose to you it what system should it be. In the past it seemed to be China but given that all of China's growth under Xi has been him opening private markets to have have owners make massive profits on the backs the unpaid rightless workers, non existent environmental rules the same way that the west once did. And he is far more effective at consolidating power as well as getting rid of any remotely effective workers rights groups or unions.
The problem with asking "How is your preferred communist country doing it better" is that the US has spent an awful lot of time and resources trying to destabilize those communist countries.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think communism is the answer (even if I do think our current crop of Capitalism is a massive problem), but you can't exactly look at communist countries where the US has done everything short of an actual invasion to make sure it didn't work as proof Communism doesn't work.
|
On October 24 2022 15:02 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 13:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it. How is your preferred communist country doing it better? I would ask how you would change it but given you are against incremental change the only question to pose to you it what system should it be. In the past it seemed to be China but given that all of China's growth under Xi has been him opening private markets to have have owners make massive profits on the backs the unpaid rightless workers, non existent environmental rules the same way that the west once did. And he is far more effective at consolidating power as well as getting rid of any remotely effective workers rights groups or unions. You're never going to get an actual answer. The best way to allocate scarce resources is with our current system of free markets and private property with government setting and enforcing the rules. There's a whole field of science dedicated to economics but people like GreenHorizons just choose to ignore this to continue living in their socialist fantasy. edit: To be clear I don't mean that there's never a reason for government to intervene in markets. There are market failure and the like and sometimes markets aren't an option.
See, the bolded doesn't exactly sound like what's happening right now.
We are in this situation, imo, because government isn't setting rules and enforcing them but instead is intermingled with capitalist corporation to the point they might as well be the same thing.
|
On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it.
I am a bit confused about how you use "capitalism" when I suspect you can also mean "market economy". The 2 are 2 sides of the same coin, as showed in every communist attempt, there will always be a market no matter how much you regulate, and some will operate in that market in ways which make them rich.
Communism is a nice idea, but fails to take into account that there will be aspiring, cynical and egocentric people operating inside it. "The greater good" isn't enough motivation for a population to work and invent, they need personal incentives, and in communism, there are not enough of them. Then, there are democratic problems as well, as shown in China, communism lacks a way to hold leaders accountable when they get too much power or screw up. If communism is always right, how do you adress failures and exploitation?
|
On October 24 2022 15:42 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 15:02 RvB wrote:On October 24 2022 13:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it. How is your preferred communist country doing it better? I would ask how you would change it but given you are against incremental change the only question to pose to you it what system should it be. In the past it seemed to be China but given that all of China's growth under Xi has been him opening private markets to have have owners make massive profits on the backs the unpaid rightless workers, non existent environmental rules the same way that the west once did. And he is far more effective at consolidating power as well as getting rid of any remotely effective workers rights groups or unions. You're never going to get an actual answer. The best way to allocate scarce resources is with our current system of free markets and private property with government setting and enforcing the rules. There's a whole field of science dedicated to economics but people like GreenHorizons just choose to ignore this to continue living in their socialist fantasy. edit: To be clear I don't mean that there's never a reason for government to intervene in markets. There are market failure and the like and sometimes markets aren't an option. I don't think GH is 'living in a socialist fantasy'. There are some obvious pitfalls in setting up our economic systems relying on infinite growth and exploitation of labour. I would think he'd be fine with private property and some level of free market.
That is at the crux of the issue that most capitalists struggle with. They must operate under the false hope they can balance out problems of capitalism like the exploitation of labor or predatory wealth accumulation with social programs, regulation, and/or outsourcing the exploitation to people you don't see, and so on. All the while they refuse to recognize that the exploitation and ostensibly unlimited accumulation of wealth so you can disproportionately influence your ability to amass more wealth at the expense of externalities (typically marginalized/oppressed people's well beings and far too often lives') are inextricable characteristics of capitalism.
If people don't want socialism/communism to supersede capitalism that's their prerogative, but if they refuse to recognize the core characteristics of capitalism they aren't dealing with reality and neither will their prescriptions/analysis.
A core philosophical underpinning of capitalism is that the unfettered invisible hand of homo economicus is superior to governmental redistributions, regulations, etc because they are inevitably corrupted by "crony" capitalists. Rather than reconcile this and resolve to supersede capitalism because of this inescapably catastrophic flaw, capitalists insist on deliriously and/or despondently trying to advocate/manufacture a "New and Improved" capitalism without the inextricable characteristics that make capitalism "work" in the first place. That's part of why I find the infatuation with salvaging capitalism so ridiculous and heartbreakingly sad.
|
|
|
On October 24 2022 15:42 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 15:02 RvB wrote:On October 24 2022 13:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it. How is your preferred communist country doing it better? I would ask how you would change it but given you are against incremental change the only question to pose to you it what system should it be. In the past it seemed to be China but given that all of China's growth under Xi has been him opening private markets to have have owners make massive profits on the backs the unpaid rightless workers, non existent environmental rules the same way that the west once did. And he is far more effective at consolidating power as well as getting rid of any remotely effective workers rights groups or unions. You're never going to get an actual answer. The best way to allocate scarce resources is with our current system of free markets and private property with government setting and enforcing the rules. There's a whole field of science dedicated to economics but people like GreenHorizons just choose to ignore this to continue living in their socialist fantasy. edit: To be clear I don't mean that there's never a reason for government to intervene in markets. There are market failure and the like and sometimes markets aren't an option. I don't think GH is 'living in a socialist fantasy'. There are some obvious pitfalls in setting up our economic systems relying on infinite growth and exploitation of labour. I would think he'd be fine with private property and some level of free market.
A market economy does not require growth but growth is certainly desirable. Long term growth comes from a more efficient use of resources and that's how we pay for our current standard of living. How do you propose to fund things like our welfare state and the green energy transition instead? Exploitation of labour is vague. There are plenty of labour protection rules and it's not a coincidence that western mixed economies are better on labour rights than any other country.
On October 24 2022 15:51 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 15:02 RvB wrote:On October 24 2022 13:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it. How is your preferred communist country doing it better? I would ask how you would change it but given you are against incremental change the only question to pose to you it what system should it be. In the past it seemed to be China but given that all of China's growth under Xi has been him opening private markets to have have owners make massive profits on the backs the unpaid rightless workers, non existent environmental rules the same way that the west once did. And he is far more effective at consolidating power as well as getting rid of any remotely effective workers rights groups or unions. You're never going to get an actual answer. The best way to allocate scarce resources is with our current system of free markets and private property with government setting and enforcing the rules. There's a whole field of science dedicated to economics but people like GreenHorizons just choose to ignore this to continue living in their socialist fantasy. edit: To be clear I don't mean that there's never a reason for government to intervene in markets. There are market failure and the like and sometimes markets aren't an option. See, the bolded doesn't exactly sound like what's happening right now. We are in this situation, imo, because government isn't setting rules and enforcing them but instead is intermingled with capitalist corporation to the point they might as well be the same thing.
If that were the case we'd have no corporate tax and much less regulation on corporations in general. As an example, the Basel capital requirements are a lot stricter than banks advocated for after the crisis (and now). You can argue that they have too much influence but they're not the same thing as the government.
On October 24 2022 17:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 15:42 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 24 2022 15:02 RvB wrote:On October 24 2022 13:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it. How is your preferred communist country doing it better? I would ask how you would change it but given you are against incremental change the only question to pose to you it what system should it be. In the past it seemed to be China but given that all of China's growth under Xi has been him opening private markets to have have owners make massive profits on the backs the unpaid rightless workers, non existent environmental rules the same way that the west once did. And he is far more effective at consolidating power as well as getting rid of any remotely effective workers rights groups or unions. You're never going to get an actual answer. The best way to allocate scarce resources is with our current system of free markets and private property with government setting and enforcing the rules. There's a whole field of science dedicated to economics but people like GreenHorizons just choose to ignore this to continue living in their socialist fantasy. edit: To be clear I don't mean that there's never a reason for government to intervene in markets. There are market failure and the like and sometimes markets aren't an option. I don't think GH is 'living in a socialist fantasy'. There are some obvious pitfalls in setting up our economic systems relying on infinite growth and exploitation of labour. I would think he'd be fine with private property and some level of free market. That is at the crux of the issue that most capitalists struggle with. They must operate under the false hope they can balance out problems of capitalism like the exploitation of labor or predatory wealth accumulation with social programs, regulation, and/or outsourcing the exploitation to people you don't see, and so on. All the while they refuse to recognize that the exploitation and ostensibly unlimited accumulation of wealth so you can disproportionately influence your ability to amass more wealth at the expense of externalities (typically marginalized/oppressed people's well beings and far too often lives') are inextricable characteristics of capitalism. If people don't want socialism/communism to supersede capitalism that's their prerogative, but if they refuse to recognize the core characteristics of capitalism they aren't dealing with reality and neither will their prescriptions/analysis. A core philosophical underpinning of capitalism is that the unfettered invisible hand of homo economicus is superior to governmental redistributions, regulations, etc because they are inevitably corrupted by "crony" capitalists. Rather than reconcile this and resolve to supersede capitalism because of this inescapably catastrophic flaw, capitalists insist on deliriously and/or despondently trying to advocate/manufacture a "New and Improved" capitalism without the inextricable characteristics that make capitalism "work" in the first place. That's part of why I find the infatuation with salvaging capitalism so ridiculous and heartbreakingly sad.
That's a lot of words pointing out the flaws you think capitalism has but you're dodging the question of an alternative. You don't have to write a book but what is some policy you would implement right now to change the perceived flaws of the current system?
|
If that were the case we'd have no corporate tax and much less regulation on corporations in general. As an example, the Basel capital requirements are a lot stricter than banks advocated for after the crisis (and now). You can argue that they have too much influence but they're not the same thing as the government.
Funny you mention corporate tax, considering most corporations famously don't or barely pay any corporate tax in the first place.
Just because there are some token regulations doesn't mean governments are fulfilling their obligation to regulate (and punish breaking regulations).
|
On October 24 2022 18:03 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +
If that were the case we'd have no corporate tax and much less regulation on corporations in general. As an example, the Basel capital requirements are a lot stricter than banks advocated for after the crisis (and now). You can argue that they have too much influence but they're not the same thing as the government.
Funny you mention corporate tax, considering most corporations famously don't or barely pay any corporate tax in the first place. Just because there are some token regulations doesn't mean governments are fulfilling their obligation to regulate (and punish breaking regulations).
Funny that you respond to one example but ignore the other. Do you have an actual argument or what?
|
Your other point wasn't relevant to what I said?
I'm saying that just because some regulation exists doesn't mean governments are doing nearly enough. You responded to that by pointing out... a rather specific set of regulations?
I don't know what the relevance of a specific requirement for banks has to do with with my overarching point that governments aren't doing enough to fulfill their obligation to regulate and enforce market excesses across the board.
|
The logic applied to capitalism being without alternative (for the person arguing the point) is rather similar to someone (passively or actively) profiting from systemic racism saying changes should be made incrementally.
From the perspective of a white man, the plight of anti racist activist looks similar to those grassroots climate change activists.
Everyone knows the status quo is bad (except popular denialists) and when it comes to civil disobedience as a means to force action, (as years upon years upon years of) quiet protests were fruitless, activists are faced with their legitimate protests being deemed too intrusive to everyday life of people who (sometimes falsely) consider themselves not to be affected by the crisis.
Much akin to that capitalism is what some consider the best there ever was.
It's still horseshit. And it's still destroying our planet. That is enough reason to rethink work and the attached growth paradigm.
Unless you're willing to do that on a global scale, we're (with virtual certainty) just fucked in the long run.
There is no alternative to facing and tackling the destructiveness of the current economic system.
|
|
|
On October 24 2022 22:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 15:49 Mikau313 wrote:On October 24 2022 13:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it. How is your preferred communist country doing it better? I would ask how you would change it but given you are against incremental change the only question to pose to you it what system should it be. In the past it seemed to be China but given that all of China's growth under Xi has been him opening private markets to have have owners make massive profits on the backs the unpaid rightless workers, non existent environmental rules the same way that the west once did. And he is far more effective at consolidating power as well as getting rid of any remotely effective workers rights groups or unions. The problem with asking "How is your preferred communist country doing it better" is that the US has spent an awful lot of time and resources trying to destabilize those communist countries. Don't get me wrong, I don't think communism is the answer (even if I do think our current crop of Capitalism is a massive problem), but you can't exactly look at communist countries where the US has done everything short of an actual invasion to make sure it didn't work as proof Communism doesn't work. Sure just as every one of America's rivals has tried to destabilize anywhere with American ties, they all only care about themselves and not others. I'm not saying communism does not work, that is not the discussion I'm looking to have. I'm just super bored by the comparison of utopian communism vs actual democracies with capitalism. Zero nuance where everything wrong everywhere is either the capitalism they employ or "capitalist propaganda". It would be equally boring and pointless if someone popped in say that all the issues in America are caused by communism and communist propaganda. It is pretty clear that all capitalist countries are not equal or ran the same, and some do a much better job than others, those are actually interesting discussions. What the communist countries actually are doing well would also be interesting. But pretending that countries like China or Venezuela are even communist to begin with is a hard sell, then that they treat there people better is pointless because it is obviously untrue. Show nested quote +On October 24 2022 17:22 plasmidghost wrote:On October 24 2022 13:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2022 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2022 09:34 Slydie wrote:On October 24 2022 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2022 23:19 EnDeR_ wrote:
It still baffles me that conservatives hold on so tightly to trickle-down economics. It has never worked, all it does is increase inequality... This is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. They're just advocating capitalism. It is much more to it than that. To me, the main features of capitalism is to let the market decide the value of goods and services, then there is large spectrum of what and how this needs regulations and intervention. Some consider that when the rich get too rich, it can be a threat to the principle of free markets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Capitalism_from_the_Capitalists I'm aware of reformists. I find this and most reformist arguments silly. Capital accumulation is a central characteristic of capitalism. A foundational issue the "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" crowd are trying to navigate is that the problem is capitalism functioning as designed. Rather than confront that, capitalists across the political spectrum are trying to redirect the responsibility onto individuals aka the "bad apple" capitalists and their enablers. The composition of these "bad apples" varies with political tendencies and personal affinities. Another problem they face is that capitalists already "won", it's silly to aspire to replacing capitalism's winners with new capitalists for the sake of saving capitalism. As such, the solutions they arrive at lack the systemic foundations needed to be of any functional value as viable solutions and instead function (sometimes unabashedly) to temporally (and frequently cynically) ameliorate rather than rectify the externalities of capitalism in order to hopelessly perpetuate it. How is your preferred communist country doing it better? I would ask how you would change it but given you are against incremental change the only question to pose to you it what system should it be. In the past it seemed to be China but given that all of China's growth under Xi has been him opening private markets to have have owners make massive profits on the backs the unpaid rightless workers, non existent environmental rules the same way that the west once did. And he is far more effective at consolidating power as well as getting rid of any remotely effective workers rights groups or unions. Not to get too off-topic but Vietnam is the closest country to my ideal of socialism and I believe they're doing a good job of it There you go, I do not know a ton about Vietnam. What is it that you like about how they are governed? How do they compare to countries of similar size/situation and what is it that the communism does better?
I agree with everything you've said here, I was mostly pointing that out to avoid the opposite conversation (where you swap communism and capitalism in your sentence about utopian X vs real world Y).
|
On October 24 2022 20:30 Mikau313 wrote:
Your other point wasn't relevant to what I said?
I'm saying that just because some regulation exists doesn't mean governments are doing nearly enough. You responded to that by pointing out... a rather specific set of regulations?
I don't know what the relevance of a specific requirement for banks has to do with with my overarching point that governments aren't doing enough to fulfill their obligation to regulate and enforce market excesses across the board.
You said that corporations and government are so intermingled that they're essentially the same thing. That's something different than government not doing enough and it's what I responded to. The example is specific but I don't see why that matters, examples often are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
