3 ms·

> Efficiency without social safety nets and other opportunities to replace existing blue collar jobs is brutal capitalism, inappropriate for a developed nation.

> Efficiency without social safety nets and other opportunities to replace existing blue collar jobs is brutal capitalism, inappropriate for a developed nation. This position is not unanimous. I strongly disagree; "brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run. "Social safety nets" merely transfer the burden to more people, increasing it in the process through bureaucratic overhead.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
> This position is not unanimous. I strongly disagree; "brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run. "Social safety nets" merely transfer the burden to more people, increasing it in the process through bureaucratic overhead. The majority of Americans support social safety nets [1], so I won't be arguing that point. Social safety nets have also been shown to reduce poverty, which reduces the burden on those paying taxes for social safety nets. [2] It would be economically irrational (and I'll go as far as to say foolish) not to support them based on that research. [1] http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/2-government-regulation-and-the-social-safety-net/ http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/2-government-regulati... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/social-welfare-programs-food-stamps-reduce-poverty-america https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/...
pm90 8y ago
This view is usually only shared by those who have never had to deal with all the things that come with being poor. Social Safety nets are just that: safety nets. They are not meant to provide a living for everyone, but to cushion the fall for those who have fallen on hard times. To not let the weakest members of the tribe left out when there is no shortage of the basic commodities for existence. We tried Brutal Capitalism before. It lead to all the evils of the Gilded age: poverty, inequality and wanton destruction of the environment by corporations gone amok.
nickpsecurity 8y ago
""brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run" I'm not sure about that. I've watched a lot of scuffles in capitalist markets eliminate most of the competition to turn into lock-in via strong brands, control of territory, copyrights, or patents. The lock-in typically lands on a few companies that become an oligopoly of sorts. These are most noticeable in telecoms, operating systems, big chains of any kind, and so on. Once they form, they barely compete with each other. They mostly screw customers and employees over in common ways to maintain high margins. Internally, they usually form rigid hierarchies that push control more than innovation with the evidence showing they're driven by politics more than performance. If they pay a lot of advertising money, the media will also misrepresent their incompetence taking about how they're in a competitive market, struggling, or so on. Quite a few years on my resume was in one of those companies on Fortune 100 with general public none the wiser. That doesn't even get into all the horrors of capitalism which stim from its incentives and operating environment. These companies systematically mislead people to get talent in the door, demand as much from them as possible, do as little for them as possible, do as much as possible for their controllers, discard them whenever opportune regardless of promises made, externalize as many bad things as possible, and pay bribes to lawmakers to make their evils legal. I don't have to imagine whether that was more compassionate in the long run: we're well into more messed up stuff than I can count that comes directly from financial incentives and moral apathy. If you want to see some of that, the documentary The Corporation has a nice collection of anecdotes. I'd especially cite the examples of media suppression, taking water from Bolivians, and sweatshops. Author uploaded it in pieces on YouTube for free. I'll post first one followed by those clips. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw5Fon_EjGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw5Fon_EjGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3m5lq9FHDo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3m5lq9FHDo Hell, let's add one for parents everywhere who suffer to this day due to the invention of marketing aimed at making kids nag them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi63rXnuWbw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi63rXnuWbw

toomuchtodo 8y ago

> This position is not unanimous. I strongly disagree; "brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run. "Social safety nets" merely transfer the burden to more people, increasing it in the process through bureaucratic overhead. The majority of Americans support social safety nets [1], so I won't be arguing that point. Social safety nets have also been shown to reduce poverty, which reduces the burden on those paying taxes for social safety nets. [2] It would be economically irrational (and I'll go as far as to say foolish) not to support them based on that research. [1] http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/2-government-regulation-and-the-social-safety-net/ http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/2-government-regulati... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/social-welfare-programs-food-stamps-reduce-poverty-america https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/...

pm90 8y ago

This view is usually only shared by those who have never had to deal with all the things that come with being poor. Social Safety nets are just that: safety nets. They are not meant to provide a living for everyone, but to cushion the fall for those who have fallen on hard times. To not let the weakest members of the tribe left out when there is no shortage of the basic commodities for existence. We tried Brutal Capitalism before. It lead to all the evils of the Gilded age: poverty, inequality and wanton destruction of the environment by corporations gone amok.

nickpsecurity 8y ago

""brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run" I'm not sure about that. I've watched a lot of scuffles in capitalist markets eliminate most of the competition to turn into lock-in via strong brands, control of territory, copyrights, or patents. The lock-in typically lands on a few companies that become an oligopoly of sorts. These are most noticeable in telecoms, operating systems, big chains of any kind, and so on. Once they form, they barely compete with each other. They mostly screw customers and employees over in common ways to maintain high margins. Internally, they usually form rigid hierarchies that push control more than innovation with the evidence showing they're driven by politics more than performance. If they pay a lot of advertising money, the media will also misrepresent their incompetence taking about how they're in a competitive market, struggling, or so on. Quite a few years on my resume was in one of those companies on Fortune 100 with general public none the wiser. That doesn't even get into all the horrors of capitalism which stim from its incentives and operating environment. These companies systematically mislead people to get talent in the door, demand as much from them as possible, do as little for them as possible, do as much as possible for their controllers, discard them whenever opportune regardless of promises made, externalize as many bad things as possible, and pay bribes to lawmakers to make their evils legal. I don't have to imagine whether that was more compassionate in the long run: we're well into more messed up stuff than I can count that comes directly from financial incentives and moral apathy. If you want to see some of that, the documentary The Corporation has a nice collection of anecdotes. I'd especially cite the examples of media suppression, taking water from Bolivians, and sweatshops. Author uploaded it in pieces on YouTube for free. I'll post first one followed by those clips. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw5Fon_EjGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw5Fon_EjGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3m5lq9FHDo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3m5lq9FHDo Hell, let's add one for parents everywhere who suffer to this day due to the invention of marketing aimed at making kids nag them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi63rXnuWbw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi63rXnuWbw