7 ms·

The problem with that solution is that it's kicking the can down the road for another generation to reset the system once it returns to the gigantism of old. Th

The problem with that solution is that it's kicking the can down the road for another generation to reset the system once it returns to the gigantism of old. The best solution, the hardest one because it will hurt the most, is to place all ownership of capital in a common trust. No more Bill Gateses. No more George Soroses. Just everyone having a common share in the same pool of capital from which to subsist. This doesn't mean you can't have personal property, it just means you can't plant a flag on some land and declare "I am the king of my own kingdom" as it were.

snrplfth 10y ago
But capital is dynamic and ever-changing. Also, a huge amount of it, quite possibly a majority in how you measure it, is in human skills and knowledge. Capital is not a pool of objects that, once made, forever provide a return. All machines wear out or are obsoleted, buildings require maintenance or become badly located, people change throughout their lives, products and preferences change, making old capital lose value and new capital emerge. Making a "common trust" of capital changes none of this, and it cannot be comprehensibly divided into shares. And the personal-property/capital distinction is flawed. Is a car personal property? Does it matter if I use it to commute to work, or to deliver pizzas? There's essentially no comprehensible criteria to distinguish personal property from capital property. And I really don't see how "placing all ownership of capital in a common trust" is not gigantism. It's the most total gigantism, the ultimate monopoly. Whosoever operates that trust really is the king of all.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  >But capital is dynamic and ever-changing. Also, a huge amount of it, quite possibly a majority in how you measure it, is in human skills and knowledge. Again, this doesn't reflect the historicity of the ownership of capital. Today's equivalent to land monopoly would be intellectual property where individuals and firms have effectively monopolized lawful use of labor to produce a wide variety of products. This is especially disastrous when it comes to patents since there's no reasonable justification for such monopolization since it is by definition rent seeking. Therefore, I ask why do you feel it's logical to continue down the path of further monopolizations which inevitably harm the economy as a whole and individuals in their pursuit of material betterment? >And the personal-property/capital distinction is flawed. Is a car personal property? Does it matter if I use it to commute to work, or to deliver pizzas? There's essentially no comprehensible criteria to distinguish personal property from capital property. No it's not flawed because capital is the means of production itself. Your car isn't a means for production that can be naturally monopolized. But if you demanded a toll for a stretch of road that happens to be out front of your house that would be capital and it would be rent seeking since the act of ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing your part of the road. The act of demanding a toll for the road crossing is what capitalism does as a whole. It says "I will use force to extract rents on things which clearly are a necessary component to life without adding value in said transaction nor pay for the socialization of the costs/risks of my ventures." >And I really don't see how "placing all ownership of capital in a common trust" is not gigantism. It's not gigantism because it's not done at a national level. I support radical localism.
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    Non monopolised capital is still capital. And there are many goods that blur the line.
    - norea-armozel 10y ago
      >Non monopolised capital is still capital. And there are many goods that blur the line. Owning tools that can make things (capital) does not make one a capitalist anymore than one who owns a firearm does not make one a soldier. I think this has to be the most important point that so many miss when discussing the failures of capitalism in that they conflate so many things with the role of a capitalist (or rentier) with things or roles that aren't in any capacity like it. The mere possession does not constitute the role.
      - UK-AL 10y ago
        But how you separate personal possessions from capital possessions, if all capital is meant to owned by the community. Is a bread maker capital? Will i be allowed to own a bread maker? What if we start giving bread as gifts to our friends. Then they reciprocate those gifts? Trading bread for other things? At what point does it become capital?
        norea-armozel 10y ago
        I would say it's the scope that defines the issue. If you own a bread maker it's not really depriving anyone of making their own bread. But if I own a bread making factory where I either flood the market to control bread making in general or otherwise use bullies with clubs to stop you from making your own bread then I'm abusing my position as a capital owner. That's the real problem that I think gets lost or outright ignored in this sorts of discussions (i.e. people too focused on personal possessions of their cars, homes, and bread makers). Owning capital in itself isn't inherently bad. It's when you monopolize the use of it or use it as a means to deprive others from acquiring access to capital for their own purposes (ex. IP laws) then you're acting in a manner that's dishonest and in opposition to the natural order of markets (maximizing production based on immediate demand).
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
Just everyone having a common share in the same pool of capital from which to subsist. This doesn't mean you can't have personal property Actually that's exactly what it does. As soon as you can have "personal property", aka private property then whatever was supposed to be in that pool isn't there and can grow on it's own. it just means you can't plant a flag on some land and declare "I am the king of my own kingdom" as it were You seem to be describing the obscure philosophy of georgism. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

snrplfth 10y ago

But capital is dynamic and ever-changing. Also, a huge amount of it, quite possibly a majority in how you measure it, is in human skills and knowledge. Capital is not a pool of objects that, once made, forever provide a return. All machines wear out or are obsoleted, buildings require maintenance or become badly located, people change throughout their lives, products and preferences change, making old capital lose value and new capital emerge. Making a "common trust" of capital changes none of this, and it cannot be comprehensibly divided into shares. And the personal-property/capital distinction is flawed. Is a car personal property? Does it matter if I use it to commute to work, or to deliver pizzas? There's essentially no comprehensible criteria to distinguish personal property from capital property. And I really don't see how "placing all ownership of capital in a common trust" is not gigantism. It's the most total gigantism, the ultimate monopoly. Whosoever operates that trust really is the king of all.

norea-armozel 10y ago
>But capital is dynamic and ever-changing. Also, a huge amount of it, quite possibly a majority in how you measure it, is in human skills and knowledge. Again, this doesn't reflect the historicity of the ownership of capital. Today's equivalent to land monopoly would be intellectual property where individuals and firms have effectively monopolized lawful use of labor to produce a wide variety of products. This is especially disastrous when it comes to patents since there's no reasonable justification for such monopolization since it is by definition rent seeking. Therefore, I ask why do you feel it's logical to continue down the path of further monopolizations which inevitably harm the economy as a whole and individuals in their pursuit of material betterment? >And the personal-property/capital distinction is flawed. Is a car personal property? Does it matter if I use it to commute to work, or to deliver pizzas? There's essentially no comprehensible criteria to distinguish personal property from capital property. No it's not flawed because capital is the means of production itself. Your car isn't a means for production that can be naturally monopolized. But if you demanded a toll for a stretch of road that happens to be out front of your house that would be capital and it would be rent seeking since the act of ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing your part of the road. The act of demanding a toll for the road crossing is what capitalism does as a whole. It says "I will use force to extract rents on things which clearly are a necessary component to life without adding value in said transaction nor pay for the socialization of the costs/risks of my ventures." >And I really don't see how "placing all ownership of capital in a common trust" is not gigantism. It's not gigantism because it's not done at a national level. I support radical localism.
- UK-AL 10y ago
  Non monopolised capital is still capital. And there are many goods that blur the line.
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    >Non monopolised capital is still capital. And there are many goods that blur the line. Owning tools that can make things (capital) does not make one a capitalist anymore than one who owns a firearm does not make one a soldier. I think this has to be the most important point that so many miss when discussing the failures of capitalism in that they conflate so many things with the role of a capitalist (or rentier) with things or roles that aren't in any capacity like it. The mere possession does not constitute the role.
    - UK-AL 10y ago
      But how you separate personal possessions from capital possessions, if all capital is meant to owned by the community. Is a bread maker capital? Will i be allowed to own a bread maker? What if we start giving bread as gifts to our friends. Then they reciprocate those gifts? Trading bread for other things? At what point does it become capital?
      - norea-armozel 10y ago
        I would say it's the scope that defines the issue. If you own a bread maker it's not really depriving anyone of making their own bread. But if I own a bread making factory where I either flood the market to control bread making in general or otherwise use bullies with clubs to stop you from making your own bread then I'm abusing my position as a capital owner. That's the real problem that I think gets lost or outright ignored in this sorts of discussions (i.e. people too focused on personal possessions of their cars, homes, and bread makers). Owning capital in itself isn't inherently bad. It's when you monopolize the use of it or use it as a means to deprive others from acquiring access to capital for their own purposes (ex. IP laws) then you're acting in a manner that's dishonest and in opposition to the natural order of markets (maximizing production based on immediate demand).

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

Just everyone having a common share in the same pool of capital from which to subsist. This doesn't mean you can't have personal property Actually that's exactly what it does. As soon as you can have "personal property", aka private property then whatever was supposed to be in that pool isn't there and can grow on it's own. it just means you can't plant a flag on some land and declare "I am the king of my own kingdom" as it were You seem to be describing the obscure philosophy of georgism. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism