5 ms·

Of course there's no followup discussion. The fact that software engineering is "destroying jobs" is the wrong problem to focus on, but any discussion that appr

Of course there's no followup discussion. The fact that software engineering is "destroying jobs" is the wrong problem to focus on, but any discussion that approaches the right problem -- capitalism -- is practically taboo in United States.

unimpressive 10y ago
But what's the alternative? Removing the incentive gradient of capitalism doesn't create paradise, it just creates a new incentive gradient that can be even more perverse and horrifying than the last. http://www.sigcis.org/?q=node/85 http://www.sigcis.org/?q=node/85 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Broken-clock Ayn Rand did get something right in a scene in Atlas Shrugged where the [malicious and grossly incompetent] government figures toast to the "end of the age of money," and are interrupted by a [flawless and endlessly brilliant] capitalist who warns them that it will only usher in "the age of pull." Power and money are largely interchangeable in a free market world where there's always a way to get what you want. At least money can be measured, and that makes it honest, sort of.
  - Kostchei 10y ago
    except, when you start looking into cash//fiat money (as opposed to promissory notes), it is anonymous and inherently dis-honest. What would be honest is a system where the "wealth" associated with an action could be traced. You could tell when wealth from a prostitution transaction, collected by a pimp, was paid to a councilman or official as a bribe. Our current cash system washes that stain and banks do their best to maintain that "privacy", with varying degrees of success.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  But don't forget about http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. Capitalism, while great initially, is getting very problematic now - its incentive gradients pull us more and more in directions we don't want to go. We need to alter those gradients, it's not a question anymore. I don't think there's a coherent "ideology" that would be better (nor do I generally think accepting ideologies wholesale is a good idea), but UBI feels like a part of the right solution.
deepsun 10y ago
I believe the right problem is progress, not capitalism. I'm an emigrant from a non-capitalistic country, by the way.
- david927 10y ago
  You're right that the problem is that progress, with each step, benefits fewer people. Why capitalism is cited is that it exacerbates the problem. If you look at Switzerland or Sweden, you don't have the same issues that you're having in the US. There are protections. Health care is provided, universities are free.
clock_tower 10y ago
Indeed. The world needs to return to feudalism (EDIT: it looks like I said "feudalism" and meant "the current economic model of Europe"...), with elites -- who are more or less permanent and hereditary even in capitalism -- having, and believing and accepting that they do have, clearly-defined obligations towards the common people and towards the collective defense of the realm. Of course, there'll always be room for islands of capitalism (imagine New York or San Francisco as a free city), and a modern neo-feudal system will allow social mobility more readily than the original; but still. I'm not trolling, by the way. The usual assumption is "if not capitalism then communism," but there are older, more interesting systems out there. (There are also younger, scarier systems out there. The far right is getting disconcertingly strong in Europe, and indeed in the US; I think that if we don't explicitly choose some sort of neo-feudalism, we're going to get neo-fascism instead, or possibly just the original kind of fascism.) (Disclaimer: neo-feudalism does not mean the revival of torture and oppression. One, "revival" implies that they aren't currently with us. Two, I think that a king, who answers only to God, assassins, his own conscience, and his hopes for his heirs, is less likely to turn lawless or pander to bloodthirsty mobs than a president is.)
- mac01021 10y ago
  > The world needs to return to feudalism Traditionally feudal lords have aimed mostly spend the minimal amount possible on welfare for their serfs - staving off social unrest but keeping for themselves as much as possible of the GDP subject to that constraint. Are you suggesting that neofeudalism will somehow do better in this respect? Or simply that that would be better than what we have now? > is less likely to turn lawless What's meant by this? It might true in the tautological sense that the despot acts within the law by definition, whatever he does. But I sense that's not what you mean.
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    > Will some sort of neo-feudalism do better than historical feudalism? I think that what I'm groping towards by saying "neo-feudalism" is the existing European social model with the optional addition of ermine capes, as someone else commented below... This discussion has actually taught me a few things, and I don't have a pre-existing opinion here. > Kings and lawlessness A president's timeframe is likely to be "until the end of my term in office," at least if the behaviors of the last few presidents are any indication; a king's timeframe is, at least, "until the end of my life", more likely "forever" since he's handing off the kingdom to his children. (Or she to her children in a queen's case.) This should make it easier to resist panic and opinion polls, and make decisions that pay off in the long term -- like remaining a good country to surrender to. On the other hand, when a king goes wrong it's hard to stop him -- especially in a context where the king has most of the country's military power. (And decentralized military power creates its own problems; the French religious wars, for example, lasted 80 years and ended in autocracy.) A tyrannical elected leader (like Hitler) could secure power just as solidly as a tyrannical king could, so elections are no protection there, but what about an incompetent king versus an incompetent elected leader? Get a president with bad judgement, it'll be over in four or eight years; get a king with bad judgement and your country might be permanently wrecked. So, I'll revise my previous statement: the world needs the European social model, but should probably stay about as democratic as Europe probably is now. But I stand my position that "capitalism is the problem" means that there are multiple other choices that can be looked at, not just communism. Problems with communism don't mean that capitalism is flawless; and problems with capitalism don't mean that we should abolish private property. Or maybe what I'm groping towards is this: if people behave responsibly, things will probably be all right, but if they don't, things will go badly. But that's what Confucius said, and his system ended up as a cloak for autocracy...
pjlegato 10y ago
Bernie Sanders seems to be quite popular as an openly socialist presidential candidate, so it cannot be said that it is practically taboo to discuss the supposed shortcomings of capitalism in the US.
- dibujante 10y ago
  He's not really a socialist, though. He's a social democrat, which is a much less extreme and more reasonable political position. It just seems extreme in the US because Americans tend to catastrophise their political orientations. "You think that the speed limit should be 65? I can't stand to breathe the same air as someone who thinks that 60 isn't the right speed limit."
  - pjlegato 10y ago
    Sanders has described himself as a "socialist" on numerous occasions. In any case, bickering over the validity of different schemes of leftist political ontology was not the point. The point is that OP's belief that criticizing capitalism is somehow taboo in the US is factually wrong. Sanders indisputably roundly and frequently criticizes capitalism to anyone who will listen, and he's quite popular as a presidential candidate for exactly that reason. A lot of leftists, particularly non-American leftists, seem to imagine the US is some sort of Ayn Randian fantasyland where everyone is rabidly pro-capitalist and any views to the contrary are self-censored as a taboo. Sanders' candidacy (among many other data points) amply falsifies this misconception.
    - dibujante 10y ago
      Well, then Sanders is wrong. Socialism is state ownership of "the means of production". Socialism is planned economy. Socialism is the USSR. Sanders' criticism of capitalism can be entirely adequately paraphrased as "the safety net is inadequate". Americans (and pretty much all Westerners) are generally uniformly pro-capitalist. A debate over the extent to which the present capitalist system should be regulated is being presented as a debate over whether or not a capitalist system should be practiced at all. It's nonsense. Regulated capitalism is a fait accompli and no one is challenging it because it works.

unimpressive 10y ago

But what's the alternative? Removing the incentive gradient of capitalism doesn't create paradise, it just creates a new incentive gradient that can be even more perverse and horrifying than the last. http://www.sigcis.org/?q=node/85 http://www.sigcis.org/?q=node/85 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Broken-clock Ayn Rand did get something right in a scene in Atlas Shrugged where the [malicious and grossly incompetent] government figures toast to the "end of the age of money," and are interrupted by a [flawless and endlessly brilliant] capitalist who warns them that it will only usher in "the age of pull." Power and money are largely interchangeable in a free market world where there's always a way to get what you want. At least money can be measured, and that makes it honest, sort of.
- Kostchei 10y ago
  except, when you start looking into cash//fiat money (as opposed to promissory notes), it is anonymous and inherently dis-honest. What would be honest is a system where the "wealth" associated with an action could be traced. You could tell when wealth from a prostitution transaction, collected by a pimp, was paid to a councilman or official as a bribe. Our current cash system washes that stain and banks do their best to maintain that "privacy", with varying degrees of success.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
But don't forget about http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. Capitalism, while great initially, is getting very problematic now - its incentive gradients pull us more and more in directions we don't want to go. We need to alter those gradients, it's not a question anymore. I don't think there's a coherent "ideology" that would be better (nor do I generally think accepting ideologies wholesale is a good idea), but UBI feels like a part of the right solution.

deepsun 10y ago

I believe the right problem is progress, not capitalism. I'm an emigrant from a non-capitalistic country, by the way.

david927 10y ago
You're right that the problem is that progress, with each step, benefits fewer people. Why capitalism is cited is that it exacerbates the problem. If you look at Switzerland or Sweden, you don't have the same issues that you're having in the US. There are protections. Health care is provided, universities are free.

clock_tower 10y ago

Indeed. The world needs to return to feudalism (EDIT: it looks like I said "feudalism" and meant "the current economic model of Europe"...), with elites -- who are more or less permanent and hereditary even in capitalism -- having, and believing and accepting that they do have, clearly-defined obligations towards the common people and towards the collective defense of the realm. Of course, there'll always be room for islands of capitalism (imagine New York or San Francisco as a free city), and a modern neo-feudal system will allow social mobility more readily than the original; but still. I'm not trolling, by the way. The usual assumption is "if not capitalism then communism," but there are older, more interesting systems out there. (There are also younger, scarier systems out there. The far right is getting disconcertingly strong in Europe, and indeed in the US; I think that if we don't explicitly choose some sort of neo-feudalism, we're going to get neo-fascism instead, or possibly just the original kind of fascism.) (Disclaimer: neo-feudalism does not mean the revival of torture and oppression. One, "revival" implies that they aren't currently with us. Two, I think that a king, who answers only to God, assassins, his own conscience, and his hopes for his heirs, is less likely to turn lawless or pander to bloodthirsty mobs than a president is.)

mac01021 10y ago
> The world needs to return to feudalism Traditionally feudal lords have aimed mostly spend the minimal amount possible on welfare for their serfs - staving off social unrest but keeping for themselves as much as possible of the GDP subject to that constraint. Are you suggesting that neofeudalism will somehow do better in this respect? Or simply that that would be better than what we have now? > is less likely to turn lawless What's meant by this? It might true in the tautological sense that the despot acts within the law by definition, whatever he does. But I sense that's not what you mean.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  > Will some sort of neo-feudalism do better than historical feudalism? I think that what I'm groping towards by saying "neo-feudalism" is the existing European social model with the optional addition of ermine capes, as someone else commented below... This discussion has actually taught me a few things, and I don't have a pre-existing opinion here. > Kings and lawlessness A president's timeframe is likely to be "until the end of my term in office," at least if the behaviors of the last few presidents are any indication; a king's timeframe is, at least, "until the end of my life", more likely "forever" since he's handing off the kingdom to his children. (Or she to her children in a queen's case.) This should make it easier to resist panic and opinion polls, and make decisions that pay off in the long term -- like remaining a good country to surrender to. On the other hand, when a king goes wrong it's hard to stop him -- especially in a context where the king has most of the country's military power. (And decentralized military power creates its own problems; the French religious wars, for example, lasted 80 years and ended in autocracy.) A tyrannical elected leader (like Hitler) could secure power just as solidly as a tyrannical king could, so elections are no protection there, but what about an incompetent king versus an incompetent elected leader? Get a president with bad judgement, it'll be over in four or eight years; get a king with bad judgement and your country might be permanently wrecked. So, I'll revise my previous statement: the world needs the European social model, but should probably stay about as democratic as Europe probably is now. But I stand my position that "capitalism is the problem" means that there are multiple other choices that can be looked at, not just communism. Problems with communism don't mean that capitalism is flawless; and problems with capitalism don't mean that we should abolish private property. Or maybe what I'm groping towards is this: if people behave responsibly, things will probably be all right, but if they don't, things will go badly. But that's what Confucius said, and his system ended up as a cloak for autocracy...

pjlegato 10y ago

Bernie Sanders seems to be quite popular as an openly socialist presidential candidate, so it cannot be said that it is practically taboo to discuss the supposed shortcomings of capitalism in the US.

dibujante 10y ago
He's not really a socialist, though. He's a social democrat, which is a much less extreme and more reasonable political position. It just seems extreme in the US because Americans tend to catastrophise their political orientations. "You think that the speed limit should be 65? I can't stand to breathe the same air as someone who thinks that 60 isn't the right speed limit."
- pjlegato 10y ago
  Sanders has described himself as a "socialist" on numerous occasions. In any case, bickering over the validity of different schemes of leftist political ontology was not the point. The point is that OP's belief that criticizing capitalism is somehow taboo in the US is factually wrong. Sanders indisputably roundly and frequently criticizes capitalism to anyone who will listen, and he's quite popular as a presidential candidate for exactly that reason. A lot of leftists, particularly non-American leftists, seem to imagine the US is some sort of Ayn Randian fantasyland where everyone is rabidly pro-capitalist and any views to the contrary are self-censored as a taboo. Sanders' candidacy (among many other data points) amply falsifies this misconception.
  - dibujante 10y ago
    Well, then Sanders is wrong. Socialism is state ownership of "the means of production". Socialism is planned economy. Socialism is the USSR. Sanders' criticism of capitalism can be entirely adequately paraphrased as "the safety net is inadequate". Americans (and pretty much all Westerners) are generally uniformly pro-capitalist. A debate over the extent to which the present capitalist system should be regulated is being presented as a debate over whether or not a capitalist system should be practiced at all. It's nonsense. Regulated capitalism is a fait accompli and no one is challenging it because it works.