5 ms·

No. TPP, huge inequality, centralization, unemployment ARE NOT a consequence of free market capitalism. In such case, automation just doesn't outpace the labo

No. TPP, huge inequality, centralization, unemployment ARE NOT a consequence of free market capitalism. In such case, automation just doesn't outpace the labor market. Now, when tech companies are partying with an artificial economy controlled by the government, they have more than enough money to that.

loup-vaillant 11y ago
> TPP, huge inequality, centralization, unemployment ARE NOT a consequence of free market capitalism. Then what's the cause? Surely you have a guess?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - loup-vaillant 11y ago
    From the slant of your comment, I guess you're an Anarcho-Capitalist: a Right Wing Libertarian who think universal private property will solve most current problems. If I'm right, you think the problem is the state, and the solution is getting rid of it. You are probably overlooking, ignoring, or downplaying the power of private corporations, or you think they would lose their power once we get rid of the state. My guess is different. I think that if we get rid of the state, we're more likely to get a corporate government than anarchy. Like what's described in the Continuum TV show. Whether that's a good thing… well at least, we would no longer kid ourselves about living in a democracy. --- Sorry if I put words in your mouth, but you forced my hand.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Anarcho-Capitalist: a Right Wing Libertarian who think universal private property will solve most current problems FWIW there are variations of anarcho-capitalism such as agorism, which is much less overtly propertarian (i.e. either advocating land value tax or not readily accepting the labor theory of property), and moreover which makes a distinction between entrepreneurs and mere capital owners.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        We can keep dividing and refining labels, but at some point one has to ask - isn't it better to consider problems on case-by-case basis and trying to find the right answer instead of subscribing to an entire philosophy wholesale?
        vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        I don't really subscribe to any of the aforementioned, but the GP did make a statement which I felt needed to be qualified. Otherwise, I agree.
    - cjsthompson 11y ago
      There's no such thing as an "anarcho-capitalist". Anarchy refers to the absence of hierarchy not absence of rules. A competitive dog-eat-dog system such as capitalism is by definition hierarchical.
    - timtas 11y ago
      Anarcho-Capitalist, Right Wing? Not really. All them I know are hard core peacenicks who want to end the drug war and Wall Street bailouts. They're more Nader than Cheney.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
People seem to be assuming that free market capitalism means companies are perfectly happy about competition, because competition is what we expect to see under perfect free market conditions. No, companies do not like competition; any sane (not to mention rational) actor in such a system will do anything it can to ensure its own monopoly. Pitting various actors with such tendencies against each other is kind of the core idea of market economy. It's pretty obvious that some actors will temporarily get ahead, and then capitalize on that to get further ahead. Hence inequality, centralization and TPP, which is another stepping stone towards companies being in charge of governments, and not the other way around. As for unemployment, there are many things that give rise to it, but part of it is definitely market optimizing things so much that people are being pushed under minimum survivable wage and have to rely on (the bad, communist) welfare to survive. Automation is playing a serious role here, even companies know that (hence the "don't vote for increased minimum wage, or we'll have no choice but to replace our workers with robots" ads that started to appear).
- dovereconomics 11y ago
  Obviously, companies want less competition, but if they use a political system to do that, it's not free market capitalism.
  - Demiurge 11y ago
    And if they use private guns for hire to do it?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    The line dividing "market" and "political system" is blurry and pretty arbitrary, like most lines in models we make. There's nothing in reality that makes meddling with politics unkosher; if it increases profit, then the incentives created by the economy will make companies choose to do so. The problem isn't that they're crossing some arbitrary lines - the problem is with the incentives that lead them to it.
    - lprubin 11y ago
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
Of course, they are consequences of today's corporate capitalism! To have a shiny vision of capitalism, that just is not compatible with reality, does not help. Communism's failure was not, that it was not a nice idea, it's failure was, that it's thoughts where not compatible with reality! Reality is, that international corporations have huge stacks of money and plenty of lawyers and lobbyists. And they use it for the only ethics they got: profits. And TTP, inequality, centralization, unemployment ... are results of the thrive to more and more profits for the owning people at the expense of the working people. Today's capitalism is shaped by the profit motive -- and the profit motive has no morals and no ethics. And when you talk about "free market" -- there is no such thing. A real free market would give everybody the same chance. But the situation today is, that the big corporations are shaping the laws and the small players can not. So there is no such thing as a free market with free and equal competition in reality.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I guess we should try and move away from labels a little bit - because a lot of time is spent discussing whether communism is true communism, or if what we have is capitalism, corporationism, corporate state capitalism or whatever. Name it however you like, it doesn't change that there are processes you mentioned that bring about the results we don't like. We need to focus on those. > Today's capitalism is shaped by the profit motive -- and the profit motive has no morals and no ethics. In a way, our economy is a paperclip maximizer. It doesn't love or hate you, but you're an expendable resource that can be used to make something else (profit within the system).
  - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
    I would agree. Labels and names are not helpful, because everybody has his own view of it. For some, capitalism is hell, for some it means the only rescue against the hell of communism and vice versa. Your last sentence describes it very well. It is the mechanics, which are the driving force -- and the direction is predefined by the mechanics. The driving force we have today is profits ... and the result is a de-humanized and un-ethical society, because profits are not ethical at all.
lumberjack 11y ago
Why is it always "free markets" but never "competitive markets"? Also last I checked Facebook and Google were operating in very free markets and yet they don't really have any competition.
- lprubin 11y ago
  Search Engine Market Share: Google 67% Yahoo 10% Bing: 10% Baidu: 8% AOL: 1% Other: 2% Just because 67% of consumers are choosing Google search despite a myriad of other options, doesn't make it a monopoly nor does it mean they don't have competition. Google is constantly being pushed by its competitors to improve and maintain its marketshare. Google is also competing with every type of advertising on the planet.
- loup-vaillant 11y ago
  > Why is it always "free markets" but never "competitive markets"? I would put my money on newspeak. "Free" sounds more positive than "competitive". Freedom is like always good, while competition makes it clear that there will be losers as well as winners. It's also much harder to be against freedom than competition. Often, we want cooperation instead of competition. But what could possibly replace freedom?
aagha 11y ago
> TPP, huge inequality, centralization, unemployment ARE NOT a consequence of free market capitalism. They're not?! How can you say that? Did you forget to put a /s (sarcasm) tag?

loup-vaillant 11y ago

> TPP, huge inequality, centralization, unemployment ARE NOT a consequence of free market capitalism. Then what's the cause? Surely you have a guess?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- loup-vaillant 11y ago
  From the slant of your comment, I guess you're an Anarcho-Capitalist: a Right Wing Libertarian who think universal private property will solve most current problems. If I'm right, you think the problem is the state, and the solution is getting rid of it. You are probably overlooking, ignoring, or downplaying the power of private corporations, or you think they would lose their power once we get rid of the state. My guess is different. I think that if we get rid of the state, we're more likely to get a corporate government than anarchy. Like what's described in the Continuum TV show. Whether that's a good thing… well at least, we would no longer kid ourselves about living in a democracy. --- Sorry if I put words in your mouth, but you forced my hand.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Anarcho-Capitalist: a Right Wing Libertarian who think universal private property will solve most current problems FWIW there are variations of anarcho-capitalism such as agorism, which is much less overtly propertarian (i.e. either advocating land value tax or not readily accepting the labor theory of property), and moreover which makes a distinction between entrepreneurs and mere capital owners.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      We can keep dividing and refining labels, but at some point one has to ask - isn't it better to consider problems on case-by-case basis and trying to find the right answer instead of subscribing to an entire philosophy wholesale?
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        I don't really subscribe to any of the aforementioned, but the GP did make a statement which I felt needed to be qualified. Otherwise, I agree.
  - cjsthompson 11y ago
    There's no such thing as an "anarcho-capitalist". Anarchy refers to the absence of hierarchy not absence of rules. A competitive dog-eat-dog system such as capitalism is by definition hierarchical.
  - timtas 11y ago
    Anarcho-Capitalist, Right Wing? Not really. All them I know are hard core peacenicks who want to end the drug war and Wall Street bailouts. They're more Nader than Cheney.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

People seem to be assuming that free market capitalism means companies are perfectly happy about competition, because competition is what we expect to see under perfect free market conditions. No, companies do not like competition; any sane (not to mention rational) actor in such a system will do anything it can to ensure its own monopoly. Pitting various actors with such tendencies against each other is kind of the core idea of market economy. It's pretty obvious that some actors will temporarily get ahead, and then capitalize on that to get further ahead. Hence inequality, centralization and TPP, which is another stepping stone towards companies being in charge of governments, and not the other way around. As for unemployment, there are many things that give rise to it, but part of it is definitely market optimizing things so much that people are being pushed under minimum survivable wage and have to rely on (the bad, communist) welfare to survive. Automation is playing a serious role here, even companies know that (hence the "don't vote for increased minimum wage, or we'll have no choice but to replace our workers with robots" ads that started to appear).

dovereconomics 11y ago
Obviously, companies want less competition, but if they use a political system to do that, it's not free market capitalism.
- Demiurge 11y ago
  And if they use private guns for hire to do it?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The line dividing "market" and "political system" is blurry and pretty arbitrary, like most lines in models we make. There's nothing in reality that makes meddling with politics unkosher; if it increases profit, then the incentives created by the economy will make companies choose to do so. The problem isn't that they're crossing some arbitrary lines - the problem is with the incentives that lead them to it.
  - lprubin 11y ago

PythonicAlpha 11y ago

Of course, they are consequences of today's corporate capitalism! To have a shiny vision of capitalism, that just is not compatible with reality, does not help. Communism's failure was not, that it was not a nice idea, it's failure was, that it's thoughts where not compatible with reality! Reality is, that international corporations have huge stacks of money and plenty of lawyers and lobbyists. And they use it for the only ethics they got: profits. And TTP, inequality, centralization, unemployment ... are results of the thrive to more and more profits for the owning people at the expense of the working people. Today's capitalism is shaped by the profit motive -- and the profit motive has no morals and no ethics. And when you talk about "free market" -- there is no such thing. A real free market would give everybody the same chance. But the situation today is, that the big corporations are shaping the laws and the small players can not. So there is no such thing as a free market with free and equal competition in reality.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I guess we should try and move away from labels a little bit - because a lot of time is spent discussing whether communism is true communism, or if what we have is capitalism, corporationism, corporate state capitalism or whatever. Name it however you like, it doesn't change that there are processes you mentioned that bring about the results we don't like. We need to focus on those. > Today's capitalism is shaped by the profit motive -- and the profit motive has no morals and no ethics. In a way, our economy is a paperclip maximizer. It doesn't love or hate you, but you're an expendable resource that can be used to make something else (profit within the system).
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  I would agree. Labels and names are not helpful, because everybody has his own view of it. For some, capitalism is hell, for some it means the only rescue against the hell of communism and vice versa. Your last sentence describes it very well. It is the mechanics, which are the driving force -- and the direction is predefined by the mechanics. The driving force we have today is profits ... and the result is a de-humanized and un-ethical society, because profits are not ethical at all.

lumberjack 11y ago

Why is it always "free markets" but never "competitive markets"? Also last I checked Facebook and Google were operating in very free markets and yet they don't really have any competition.

lprubin 11y ago
Search Engine Market Share: Google 67% Yahoo 10% Bing: 10% Baidu: 8% AOL: 1% Other: 2% Just because 67% of consumers are choosing Google search despite a myriad of other options, doesn't make it a monopoly nor does it mean they don't have competition. Google is constantly being pushed by its competitors to improve and maintain its marketshare. Google is also competing with every type of advertising on the planet.
loup-vaillant 11y ago
> Why is it always "free markets" but never "competitive markets"? I would put my money on newspeak. "Free" sounds more positive than "competitive". Freedom is like always good, while competition makes it clear that there will be losers as well as winners. It's also much harder to be against freedom than competition. Often, we want cooperation instead of competition. But what could possibly replace freedom?

aagha 11y ago

> TPP, huge inequality, centralization, unemployment ARE NOT a consequence of free market capitalism. They're not?! How can you say that? Did you forget to put a /s (sarcasm) tag?