6 ms·

To be fair, it's not really capitalism he is arguing against, but rather Special Interest groups misusing their position in a capitalistic system. Milton Friedm

To be fair, it's not really capitalism he is arguing against, but rather Special Interest groups misusing their position in a capitalistic system. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning liberal / "capitalist", spoke against monopolies and Special Interest groups for ~30 years [1]. I would have loved to see a Milton Friedman and Thomas Piketty debate although. :-) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2T2Ee8zm6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2T2Ee8zm6s

nhaehnle 11y ago
Are you so sure about that? Capitalism is at its core about the (private) accumulation of capital in the sense of means of production. This capital is used by human labour to produce things. Technological change is ultimately a process by which the ratio of capital input to human labour input increases.[0] In a sense, robots (automated machines) are the perfection of capital, where the ratio becomes arbitrarily high: human labour becomes decreasingly needed until it's basically unnecessary. Private ownership of this capital - which is what capitalism is all about - is then absolutely the problem, because it pits a small group of capital owners against a majority which depends on the products produced by that capital without having anything useful to trade left. [0] How you measure this ratio is an important but difficult topic, and in fact one must be careful not to let an implicit definition of measures frame the discussion.
- maratd 11y ago
  > In a sense, robots (automated machines) are the perfection of capital, where the ratio becomes arbitrarily high: human labour becomes decreasingly needed until it's basically unnecessary. Where is the evidence for this? Your entire arguments falls apart when this isn't the case. As manufacturing moved towards automation, labor moved toward rendering services. The number of jobs is highly correlated to the size of the population. We didn't see a reduction in available employment due to automation. We simply saw a shift in the type of work performed, with jobs moving toward things that were more difficult to automate.
  - scotty79 11y ago
    >> Technological change is ultimately a process by which the ratio of capital input to human labour input increases. > Where is the evidence for this? If you do more with same amount of people it still holds true. It doesn't mean technology causes people to loose jobs only that human labor needed for unit of stuff made per unit of capital decreases as technology progresses.
  - spoiler 11y ago
    I kinda agree that jobs shifted, but you can't forget that not everyone is able or wants to shift. If you create a "perfect" car mechanic robot, the cat mechanic won't suddenly find a better job. He could maybe seek a job in another type of industry, but why should he have to? He was perfectly content working on cars.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    You seem to be ignoring the current wave of automation, and focusing on the one that started with the industrial revolution. Automation used to provide muscle, and thus replace manufacturing. Nowadays it starts to provide brains, which makes it replace services. As it continues, where will the human labour go? The number of jobs was highly correlated to the size of population so far, but we already see the rise of bullshit jobs, that serve each other in closed loops, providing no real benefit except of wasting resources to give some people something to do. It's not as obvious as ordering people one day to dig up a hole and the next day to fill it up again, but e.g. a lifecycle of a leaflet - from commissioning, designing and printing it, to delivery, giving it to people and having it end up in a thrash can, seems really similar.
    - maratd 11y ago
      > Nowadays it starts to provide brains, which makes it replace services. As it continues, where will the human labour go? Is there actual evidence of this? As in, actual statistics rather than grandiose claims of AI destroying the human race? Yes, you might get replaced by a piece of software and you may need to retrain to a different industry, but this has always been true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction > The number of jobs was highly correlated to the size of population so far, but we already see the rise of bullshit jobs This doesn't make any sense. At some point, someone is handing over money and expects a specific amount of work be done, which he finds to be a good exchange. It's far easier not to hire someone, than to hire them. So if you don't need work done ... you don't hire anyone. Why would someone pay someone else money to perform "bullshit"? You only have instances of this when it is mandated by regulation, not in a free market.
- scotty79 11y ago
  > Private ownership of this capital - which is what capitalism is all about - is then absolutely the problem It's only a problem if you can't/won't tax. If you can tax owners of the capital and give away that money to other people (bureaucrats, army, unemployed, everybody) everything still works just fine. Everybody still has money to buy stuff and this keeps the game that capital owners play between themselves live. The only way we can screw this up is to weaken the governments and strengthen the corporations to the point that governments won't be able to tax. So probably private armies are bad idea, also neglecting people so that they pummel their own governments. So it's ok if billionaires own all the robots, that make stuff, sell stuff to poor (everybody who's not a billionaire), as long as government can tax billionaires 98% tax and bomb them if they don't pay up.
  - Floegipoky 11y ago
    Is that just a thought experiment, or do you really think that would work? Because I don't think it would work. Why would producers give bombs to the government? Why would they give food to the populace? Why would they submit to taxation when they have more power than the entity trying to tax them?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Indeed. The government can now threaten to bomb a company because most companies are small enough not to pose a threat (though I wouldn't be sure if the USGOV would really be able to bomb Lockheed Martin). But as the companies merge and band together, at some point the government may start hearing demands to be met if they want to keep their satellite guidance active, or not accidentally showing capital city as an active target.
    - scotty79 11y ago
      > Is that just a thought experiment, or do you really think that would work? That's how it already works. Money is taken from capitalists and redistributed to bureaucrats and military and some expended to appease the populace. > Because I don't think it would work. Why would producers give bombs to the government? Because it's good money and government has already plenty of bombs to force people to make more bombs for them. Similarly you could ask, why on Earth any company supplies stuff to IRS. Because it's profitable and because you could face consequences if you openly refuse. > Why would they give food to the populace? Because populace will pay them with money, for the cheapest, best quality food they can make. Money will come almost in full from producers pockets, but it won't be a problem for them because as long as competition pays the same or more then it's all good. > Why would they submit to taxation when they have more power than the entity trying to tax them? Wait!? US capitalists have more firearms, bombs, tanks and planes than US army? What I am saying is that it's not some scheme that will get established. I'm saying that it's already the case. Governments are still stronger than corporations, same way North Korea is stronger than South Korea. Technologically and socially way behind, but with huge army. I'm basically saying that monopoly on violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence is the factor that keeps capitalism from eating us, and right after that, itself.
- tnorgaard 11y ago
  Good questions you raise, nhaehnle. First of, I don't try to pretend to be a scholar in economics, so please bare with me. That a capital system contains people/entities that accumulate wealth is exactly why I finished off with the Thomas Piketty comment. His very interesting book, Capital in the 21st Century, argues that our current system favours capital owners and we should tax capital, not income. About labour being displaced, I can recommend Second Machine Age by Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson, however it does not contain silver bullets. :-) I can only theorize on what Stephen Hawkings meant with his answer, but to me it didn't look like a general critic of capital, but more the system we have now.
joesmo 11y ago
Special Interest groups misusing their position in a capitalistic system is capitalism. You can't separate the two. Wherever capitalism exists, special interest groups misusing their position exist. Thus, I'd say the problem is not divisible. It's just like communism. Wherever communism exists, tyranny and oppression exists. Every single place. For capitalism, it's the special interest groups which in many cases rise to the level of tyranny and oppression and serve the same purpose. I don't know if there is a solution for special interest groups in capitalist systems, but as long as people keep separating this as 'not part of capitalism' there won't be. There certainly isn't one for the communist equivalent.
- lkjhgfd 11y ago
  Special interests are less of a problem in capitalism than in any other -ism. (Communism, mercantilism, feudalism, socialism, fascism) Tyranny and oppression are arguably worse in communism than any other -ism. (yes, arguably, even worse than feudalism!)
  - Sammi 11y ago
    Doesn't mean they still aren't a huge problem. Hawkins' concern still stands.
  - reagency 11y ago
    Fascism is totalitarian capitalism, just as Communism is totalitariam socialism. Don't conflate economic models with government models.
    - vixen99 11y ago
      What is totalitarian capitalism? Can you give an example?
- collyw 11y ago
  >>Wherever communism exists, tyranny and oppression exists. Like politicans, you seem to be confusing communism with totalitariansim. True communism, with the people making the rules has yet to be tried. Instead we have seen totalitarian regiems labaeling themselves as communism.

nhaehnle 11y ago

Are you so sure about that? Capitalism is at its core about the (private) accumulation of capital in the sense of means of production. This capital is used by human labour to produce things. Technological change is ultimately a process by which the ratio of capital input to human labour input increases.[0] In a sense, robots (automated machines) are the perfection of capital, where the ratio becomes arbitrarily high: human labour becomes decreasingly needed until it's basically unnecessary. Private ownership of this capital - which is what capitalism is all about - is then absolutely the problem, because it pits a small group of capital owners against a majority which depends on the products produced by that capital without having anything useful to trade left. [0] How you measure this ratio is an important but difficult topic, and in fact one must be careful not to let an implicit definition of measures frame the discussion.

maratd 11y ago
> In a sense, robots (automated machines) are the perfection of capital, where the ratio becomes arbitrarily high: human labour becomes decreasingly needed until it's basically unnecessary. Where is the evidence for this? Your entire arguments falls apart when this isn't the case. As manufacturing moved towards automation, labor moved toward rendering services. The number of jobs is highly correlated to the size of the population. We didn't see a reduction in available employment due to automation. We simply saw a shift in the type of work performed, with jobs moving toward things that were more difficult to automate.
- scotty79 11y ago
  >> Technological change is ultimately a process by which the ratio of capital input to human labour input increases. > Where is the evidence for this? If you do more with same amount of people it still holds true. It doesn't mean technology causes people to loose jobs only that human labor needed for unit of stuff made per unit of capital decreases as technology progresses.
- spoiler 11y ago
  I kinda agree that jobs shifted, but you can't forget that not everyone is able or wants to shift. If you create a "perfect" car mechanic robot, the cat mechanic won't suddenly find a better job. He could maybe seek a job in another type of industry, but why should he have to? He was perfectly content working on cars.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  You seem to be ignoring the current wave of automation, and focusing on the one that started with the industrial revolution. Automation used to provide muscle, and thus replace manufacturing. Nowadays it starts to provide brains, which makes it replace services. As it continues, where will the human labour go? The number of jobs was highly correlated to the size of population so far, but we already see the rise of bullshit jobs, that serve each other in closed loops, providing no real benefit except of wasting resources to give some people something to do. It's not as obvious as ordering people one day to dig up a hole and the next day to fill it up again, but e.g. a lifecycle of a leaflet - from commissioning, designing and printing it, to delivery, giving it to people and having it end up in a thrash can, seems really similar.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > Nowadays it starts to provide brains, which makes it replace services. As it continues, where will the human labour go? Is there actual evidence of this? As in, actual statistics rather than grandiose claims of AI destroying the human race? Yes, you might get replaced by a piece of software and you may need to retrain to a different industry, but this has always been true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction > The number of jobs was highly correlated to the size of population so far, but we already see the rise of bullshit jobs This doesn't make any sense. At some point, someone is handing over money and expects a specific amount of work be done, which he finds to be a good exchange. It's far easier not to hire someone, than to hire them. So if you don't need work done ... you don't hire anyone. Why would someone pay someone else money to perform "bullshit"? You only have instances of this when it is mandated by regulation, not in a free market.
scotty79 11y ago
> Private ownership of this capital - which is what capitalism is all about - is then absolutely the problem It's only a problem if you can't/won't tax. If you can tax owners of the capital and give away that money to other people (bureaucrats, army, unemployed, everybody) everything still works just fine. Everybody still has money to buy stuff and this keeps the game that capital owners play between themselves live. The only way we can screw this up is to weaken the governments and strengthen the corporations to the point that governments won't be able to tax. So probably private armies are bad idea, also neglecting people so that they pummel their own governments. So it's ok if billionaires own all the robots, that make stuff, sell stuff to poor (everybody who's not a billionaire), as long as government can tax billionaires 98% tax and bomb them if they don't pay up.
- Floegipoky 11y ago
  Is that just a thought experiment, or do you really think that would work? Because I don't think it would work. Why would producers give bombs to the government? Why would they give food to the populace? Why would they submit to taxation when they have more power than the entity trying to tax them?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Indeed. The government can now threaten to bomb a company because most companies are small enough not to pose a threat (though I wouldn't be sure if the USGOV would really be able to bomb Lockheed Martin). But as the companies merge and band together, at some point the government may start hearing demands to be met if they want to keep their satellite guidance active, or not accidentally showing capital city as an active target.
  - scotty79 11y ago
    > Is that just a thought experiment, or do you really think that would work? That's how it already works. Money is taken from capitalists and redistributed to bureaucrats and military and some expended to appease the populace. > Because I don't think it would work. Why would producers give bombs to the government? Because it's good money and government has already plenty of bombs to force people to make more bombs for them. Similarly you could ask, why on Earth any company supplies stuff to IRS. Because it's profitable and because you could face consequences if you openly refuse. > Why would they give food to the populace? Because populace will pay them with money, for the cheapest, best quality food they can make. Money will come almost in full from producers pockets, but it won't be a problem for them because as long as competition pays the same or more then it's all good. > Why would they submit to taxation when they have more power than the entity trying to tax them? Wait!? US capitalists have more firearms, bombs, tanks and planes than US army? What I am saying is that it's not some scheme that will get established. I'm saying that it's already the case. Governments are still stronger than corporations, same way North Korea is stronger than South Korea. Technologically and socially way behind, but with huge army. I'm basically saying that monopoly on violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence is the factor that keeps capitalism from eating us, and right after that, itself.
tnorgaard 11y ago
Good questions you raise, nhaehnle. First of, I don't try to pretend to be a scholar in economics, so please bare with me. That a capital system contains people/entities that accumulate wealth is exactly why I finished off with the Thomas Piketty comment. His very interesting book, Capital in the 21st Century, argues that our current system favours capital owners and we should tax capital, not income. About labour being displaced, I can recommend Second Machine Age by Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson, however it does not contain silver bullets. :-) I can only theorize on what Stephen Hawkings meant with his answer, but to me it didn't look like a general critic of capital, but more the system we have now.

joesmo 11y ago

Special Interest groups misusing their position in a capitalistic system is capitalism. You can't separate the two. Wherever capitalism exists, special interest groups misusing their position exist. Thus, I'd say the problem is not divisible. It's just like communism. Wherever communism exists, tyranny and oppression exists. Every single place. For capitalism, it's the special interest groups which in many cases rise to the level of tyranny and oppression and serve the same purpose. I don't know if there is a solution for special interest groups in capitalist systems, but as long as people keep separating this as 'not part of capitalism' there won't be. There certainly isn't one for the communist equivalent.

lkjhgfd 11y ago
Special interests are less of a problem in capitalism than in any other -ism. (Communism, mercantilism, feudalism, socialism, fascism) Tyranny and oppression are arguably worse in communism than any other -ism. (yes, arguably, even worse than feudalism!)
- Sammi 11y ago
  Doesn't mean they still aren't a huge problem. Hawkins' concern still stands.
- reagency 11y ago
  Fascism is totalitarian capitalism, just as Communism is totalitariam socialism. Don't conflate economic models with government models.
  - vixen99 11y ago
    What is totalitarian capitalism? Can you give an example?
collyw 11y ago
>>Wherever communism exists, tyranny and oppression exists. Like politicans, you seem to be confusing communism with totalitariansim. True communism, with the people making the rules has yet to be tried. Instead we have seen totalitarian regiems labaeling themselves as communism.