6 ms·

Right. It’s a symptom of a much more serious problem: Consolidation of capital which is only available to society on speculative grounds which demand returns a

Right. It’s a symptom of a much more serious problem: Consolidation of capital which is only available to society on speculative grounds which demand returns at a rate unsustainable without exponential expansion of the western economy. As a result, almost all of our society’s wealth is caught up in last ditch effort expansion schemes. Startups were actually a decent band-aid in terms of continuing the madness but because they don’t effectively break the capital free from the consolidating parties, but merely stir it a bit, they wind up adding to the cesspool of desperate investments. Rich people are freaking out right now because they can’t find ways to profit off the society without contributing to it.

Spooky23 8y ago
That’s why the focus on controlling property, tangible goods and infrastructure with private interests is pushed so hard. Paper wealth will vaporize when inflation catches up to us. The people who own natural resources, public spaces and infrastructure will be in the best position.
ryandrake 8y ago
> Rich people are freaking out right now because they can’t find ways to profit off the society without contributing to it. I read this all the time: “There’s so much capital out there but nowhere to deploy it!” Our infrastructure is crumbling, the homeless and mentally ill cant get help, teachers have to buy their own school supplies, yet the rich have no idea what to do with all their money and are accumulating more and more by the second.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nostrademons 8y ago
  There's nowhere to deploy it that will generate a return for the investors. There are plenty of ways to deploy it that generate a return for society as a whole - you've listed a bunch, plus founding new universities, conducting basic scientific research, distributing medicine, or even just giving money to the poor. That this is even a distinction should indicate something in our conception of capitalism that doesn't click right. I'm decidedly pro-capitalist compared to most of my peers, but even I think that there's room for some targeted interventions that would both improve equality and make the system as a whole function better. (Top on my list would be for the government to start breaking up monopolies - or at least stop actively creating them, the way the FDA, patent system, and Sarbanes-Oxley do - and for higher taxes on certain economic rents like capital gains and a land-value tax.)
  - mikec3010 8y ago
    > There are plenty of ways to deploy it that generate a return for society as a whole And this is the absolute crux of the problem! The continental divide between the right to own your own property vs the use of government force to redistribute wealth. Seems like this one central problem/divide is the root of 90% of political and economic problems and the reason for our two-party system. I'm not taking a side. It seems like it's a natural consequence of self-preservation and instinct for those with fortunes to not give them away. And it's the nature of government to be inefficient and ever-growing. This seems like the absolute core of the problem with capitalism.
geezerjay 8y ago
> Consolidation of capital which is only available to society on speculative grounds Don't you notice that society is behind the decisions on how they invest their savings? You make it sound like it's a haves vs have nots situation where the have nots don't have any personal savings nor are they investing any cash on their own.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I mean, that's not wrong. That is kinda how it is.
- extralego 8y ago
  For one, that is exactly the case. An overwhelming majority of people in America are in debt, and have no savings. (In the case this isn't obvious: if you have no savings, you have no choice of where to invest your savings.)
  - hueving 8y ago
    Everyone in the middle class who has no savings has chosen to invest in something else: instant gratification of cell phones, TVs, expensive cars, large houses, etc.
    - dlp211 8y ago
      The middle class pays more for needs and less for wants then it did 40, 50, 60 years ago.
      - ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
        Take a look at the chart in this article from HumanProgress.Org https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=597 https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=597 Your statement is only true if you move a significant number of items like "Dishwasher" from want to need. Clothing, Food, Appliances are all now significantly cheaper comparability. Housing is a serious issue that has not followed the progress made in other areas, but there is hope for the future even in that area.
hueving 8y ago
>As a result, almost all of our society’s wealth is caught up in last ditch effort expansion schemes. "almost all" is completely false. Bonds are in no way "last ditch effort expansion schemes", which massively dwarf the equities market.

Spooky23 8y ago

That’s why the focus on controlling property, tangible goods and infrastructure with private interests is pushed so hard. Paper wealth will vaporize when inflation catches up to us. The people who own natural resources, public spaces and infrastructure will be in the best position.

ryandrake 8y ago

> Rich people are freaking out right now because they can’t find ways to profit off the society without contributing to it. I read this all the time: “There’s so much capital out there but nowhere to deploy it!” Our infrastructure is crumbling, the homeless and mentally ill cant get help, teachers have to buy their own school supplies, yet the rich have no idea what to do with all their money and are accumulating more and more by the second.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nostrademons 8y ago
There's nowhere to deploy it that will generate a return for the investors. There are plenty of ways to deploy it that generate a return for society as a whole - you've listed a bunch, plus founding new universities, conducting basic scientific research, distributing medicine, or even just giving money to the poor. That this is even a distinction should indicate something in our conception of capitalism that doesn't click right. I'm decidedly pro-capitalist compared to most of my peers, but even I think that there's room for some targeted interventions that would both improve equality and make the system as a whole function better. (Top on my list would be for the government to start breaking up monopolies - or at least stop actively creating them, the way the FDA, patent system, and Sarbanes-Oxley do - and for higher taxes on certain economic rents like capital gains and a land-value tax.)
- mikec3010 8y ago
  > There are plenty of ways to deploy it that generate a return for society as a whole And this is the absolute crux of the problem! The continental divide between the right to own your own property vs the use of government force to redistribute wealth. Seems like this one central problem/divide is the root of 90% of political and economic problems and the reason for our two-party system. I'm not taking a side. It seems like it's a natural consequence of self-preservation and instinct for those with fortunes to not give them away. And it's the nature of government to be inefficient and ever-growing. This seems like the absolute core of the problem with capitalism.

geezerjay 8y ago

> Consolidation of capital which is only available to society on speculative grounds Don't you notice that society is behind the decisions on how they invest their savings? You make it sound like it's a haves vs have nots situation where the have nots don't have any personal savings nor are they investing any cash on their own.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
I mean, that's not wrong. That is kinda how it is.
extralego 8y ago
For one, that is exactly the case. An overwhelming majority of people in America are in debt, and have no savings. (In the case this isn't obvious: if you have no savings, you have no choice of where to invest your savings.)
- hueving 8y ago
  Everyone in the middle class who has no savings has chosen to invest in something else: instant gratification of cell phones, TVs, expensive cars, large houses, etc.
  - dlp211 8y ago
    The middle class pays more for needs and less for wants then it did 40, 50, 60 years ago.
    - ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
      Take a look at the chart in this article from HumanProgress.Org https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=597 https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=597 Your statement is only true if you move a significant number of items like "Dishwasher" from want to need. Clothing, Food, Appliances are all now significantly cheaper comparability. Housing is a serious issue that has not followed the progress made in other areas, but there is hope for the future even in that area.

hueving 8y ago

>As a result, almost all of our society’s wealth is caught up in last ditch effort expansion schemes. "almost all" is completely false. Bonds are in no way "last ditch effort expansion schemes", which massively dwarf the equities market.