5 ms·

That so much a loaded partisan view of the world... The citizens are capitalists: they are (almost) all looking to put their saving where the interest rate is

by Joky 9y ago

That so much a loaded partisan view of the world... The citizens are capitalists: they are (almost) all looking to put their saving where the interest rate is the highest, they would (almost) all protect their private property and seek to increase their own capital, and is anyone seriously considering that the government should run the means of production? Workers protection need some balance: pushed to the extreme it leads to competitive loss. The "general welfare" of all citizens does not means you have to push the cursor all the way: France switched to 35h weekly legal a few years back, but why not 30h? Or 20h? That would surely improve the happiness of workers! What about PTO? Legally entitled to 5 weeks currently in France, why not double it? Etc...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Daishiman 9y ago
No, it's absolute truth. Workers in generally are simply incapable of owning means of production beyond very small businesses, and their participation of the market as stockholders is minimal and comes with near-zero ability to influence the companies for which they might be shareholders. Capital should be at the service of society, not the other way around. We know that we can have perfectly functional societies where wealth is distributed more evenly and less work is done at the lower end of the pyramid at essentially no disadvantages in quality of life for anyone involved.
- Joky 9y ago
  What is "absolute truth" here? The manichean opposition that is proposed between "promote the general welfare of all citizens" and "give capitalists the opportunity to make as much money as they can"? This is what I was addressing and I'm still considering as a very manipulating rhetoric that does not leave any place for nuance and balance.
  - Daishiman 9y ago
    The nuance and balance exists in the practice of states with maker-driven capitalist economies that still make an effort to capture and funnel a part of profits to the benefits of the participants of society regardless of their position in the market. On the contrary, it's a vocal minority of libertarians that want to insist that benefits to capitalists are indispensable to the welfare of the rest.
pjc50 9y ago
Savings come from income. Savings are a small fraction of income: http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-savings-rates-by-income-wealth-class/ http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-savings-rates-by... Apart from housing, many people have remarkably little savings. In the UK, there are all sorts of schemes to make people become capitalists like this with their pensions, but I'm not sure if their hearts are really in it. And I think most people are smart enough to realise that cutting their income but boosting savings rates by a tiny fraction is going to result in a smaller savings pile and a worse life in the meantime.
maxxxxx 9y ago
"Workers protection need some balance" Exactly. Balance is the keyword. The last decades have shifted this balance towards capital owners and the Trump administration is trying to do even more. "France switched to 35h weekly legal a few years back, but why not 30h? Or 20h? " You could ask the same questions the other way: "Corporate tax to 0%? Dividend taxed at 0%? Patents and copyrights never expire?" The "economy" is not a natural law like gravity but human created. We can decide where the balance should be.
anigbrowl 9y ago
I don't want to be a capitalist and to spend all my waking hours wondering if I'm competing as effectively as possible against every other micro-capitalist out there. I mean, I have a life plan that involves accumulating sufficient capital to provide approximate financial security, but that's just a fancy way of saying I hope to put together enough to stop worrying about it. What I actually want is somewhere to live and work in modest comfort free of distractions, and to able to travel and visit interesting places at regular intervals. I like making art for art's sake (as opposed to commercial design or monetizable brand creation etc.). I'm not super-talented or super-skilled, I just have an overriding compulsion to produce things that are aesthetically pleasing to me. It might even be a form of brain damage, because this compulsion hasn't done me much economic good but it still takes priority over other activities. I have absolutely no desire to get rich off it, just not to be poor. Realistically, if my work does have art value in the eyes of others most of that is likely to accrue to the work long after I am dead, like this Basquiat that someone decided to park $110 million in yesterday: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/arts/jean-michel-basquiat-painting-is-sold-for-110-million-at-auction.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/arts/jean-michel-basquiat... Being in a constant state of financial anxiety/arousal is not freedom.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  The capitalists would be in trouble if everybody wanted to be capitalist. We also need people who do the actual work and want to do it well. Capitalists and workers need each other and should respect each other.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I don't buy into this capitalist/worker distinction either, which is just a fancy name for wage slavery.

by Joky 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Daishiman 9y ago

No, it's absolute truth. Workers in generally are simply incapable of owning means of production beyond very small businesses, and their participation of the market as stockholders is minimal and comes with near-zero ability to influence the companies for which they might be shareholders. Capital should be at the service of society, not the other way around. We know that we can have perfectly functional societies where wealth is distributed more evenly and less work is done at the lower end of the pyramid at essentially no disadvantages in quality of life for anyone involved.

Joky 9y ago
What is "absolute truth" here? The manichean opposition that is proposed between "promote the general welfare of all citizens" and "give capitalists the opportunity to make as much money as they can"? This is what I was addressing and I'm still considering as a very manipulating rhetoric that does not leave any place for nuance and balance.
- Daishiman 9y ago
  The nuance and balance exists in the practice of states with maker-driven capitalist economies that still make an effort to capture and funnel a part of profits to the benefits of the participants of society regardless of their position in the market. On the contrary, it's a vocal minority of libertarians that want to insist that benefits to capitalists are indispensable to the welfare of the rest.

pjc50 9y ago

Savings come from income. Savings are a small fraction of income: http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-savings-rates-by-income-wealth-class/ http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-savings-rates-by... Apart from housing, many people have remarkably little savings. In the UK, there are all sorts of schemes to make people become capitalists like this with their pensions, but I'm not sure if their hearts are really in it. And I think most people are smart enough to realise that cutting their income but boosting savings rates by a tiny fraction is going to result in a smaller savings pile and a worse life in the meantime.

maxxxxx 9y ago

"Workers protection need some balance" Exactly. Balance is the keyword. The last decades have shifted this balance towards capital owners and the Trump administration is trying to do even more. "France switched to 35h weekly legal a few years back, but why not 30h? Or 20h? " You could ask the same questions the other way: "Corporate tax to 0%? Dividend taxed at 0%? Patents and copyrights never expire?" The "economy" is not a natural law like gravity but human created. We can decide where the balance should be.

anigbrowl 9y ago

I don't want to be a capitalist and to spend all my waking hours wondering if I'm competing as effectively as possible against every other micro-capitalist out there. I mean, I have a life plan that involves accumulating sufficient capital to provide approximate financial security, but that's just a fancy way of saying I hope to put together enough to stop worrying about it. What I actually want is somewhere to live and work in modest comfort free of distractions, and to able to travel and visit interesting places at regular intervals. I like making art for art's sake (as opposed to commercial design or monetizable brand creation etc.). I'm not super-talented or super-skilled, I just have an overriding compulsion to produce things that are aesthetically pleasing to me. It might even be a form of brain damage, because this compulsion hasn't done me much economic good but it still takes priority over other activities. I have absolutely no desire to get rich off it, just not to be poor. Realistically, if my work does have art value in the eyes of others most of that is likely to accrue to the work long after I am dead, like this Basquiat that someone decided to park $110 million in yesterday: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/arts/jean-michel-basquiat-painting-is-sold-for-110-million-at-auction.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/arts/jean-michel-basquiat... Being in a constant state of financial anxiety/arousal is not freedom.

maxxxxx 9y ago
The capitalists would be in trouble if everybody wanted to be capitalist. We also need people who do the actual work and want to do it well. Capitalists and workers need each other and should respect each other.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I don't buy into this capitalist/worker distinction either, which is just a fancy name for wage slavery.