4 ms·

The "gig economy" you speak of is only part of the economy and centred in certain industries. It's a high risk, high reward which leads people to put in the eff

The "gig economy" you speak of is only part of the economy and centred in certain industries. It's a high risk, high reward which leads people to put in the effort for low pay now, because if they are successful, they'll be afforded greater financial freedom in future. It is not necessary for anyone to actually take up these roles, as there are businesses which will hire and pay employees well, for stable jobs, but with little options for making a fortune unless they accumulate shares over many years, and the company does well long-term. The fact that people take up the high risk jobs is part of the human condition - everyone wants to get rich as quick as possible. > People appear not to like the US/Silicon Valley style (including "too big to fail" socialized losses for corrupt companies), and since they don't get offered a "capitalism with rules" as an alternative, they're willing to consider other things. This is blaming socialist intervention for the perceived problems of capitalism. Under capitalism, companies don't get bailed out but they go bankrupt and get replaced by better competition. The reality is we live in "capitalism with too many rules" and too much state meddling. The abundance of rules is beneficial to the big players who can afford big legal teams, and harms the individual who cannot open a simple family business without battling with so much red tape, meaning the big players don't have to worry about small competitors. The big players also make use of IP laws to gain advantage over smaller players. IP laws are a socialst idea too. Working $10/hr and having reduced purchasing power is also a result of socialist policies. The idea of a "minimum wage" is perhaps the most horrendous of policies. All it does is create a ceiling for what was intended to be a floor for unskilled workers. Meanwhile, it forces the cost of all goods and services upwards to compensate for the additional wages employers must pay, and it means that people who are not productive enough to make "minimum wage" can't earn anything at all, and must rely on welfare (another socialist programme). Socialists have played the devil's greatest trick, in pretending that many of the problems we have are a result of capitalism, but they are in fact, a result of hidden socialism. And the solution to those problems: more socialism. This has been the "progression" since post WW1. It is also a mistake to look at profit making as a sin, and here lies the root of socialism: jealousy. Although capitalism benefits society as a whole by increasing the standard of living for everybody through innovation, some people make far more money than others and it breeds resentment among the ones whose lives only improve by a little in comparison. Instead of being grateful that their standard of living is improving as a result of capitalism, they are become ungrateful and bitter. A welfare state adds to this by making them dependant, instead of responsible.

luckylion 8y ago
> It's a high risk, high reward No, it's really not. There's no high reward when you've worked delivering food work a month. It's lost time. > It is also a mistake to look at profit making as a sin Which nobody does. They view the hardcore exploitation as a sin. The "entrap them in debt". The "buy the lawmakers and write the rules". The price fixing, data hoarding & selling, the "let's just do illegal stuff and pay a ridiculously small fine"-shit. It's really not about "nobody is allowed to make a profit". Sorry, I'll never understand the hardcore libertarians - it's indistinguishable from sociopathy to me.
- sparkie 8y ago
  > I'll never understand the hardcore libertarians - it's indistinguishable from sociopathy to me. Yet every example we know of where trade has had the fewest obstacles (Britain during Victorian reign, Hong Kong under UK rule, Japan during the Meiji, Singapore post independence, Taiwan since split with China), we see a rapid improvement of the quality of life in just a couple of generations. Every socialist system we know of (USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Venzeula, etc) has turned to shit in just a couple of generations. I wonder which one is more sociopathic and not just seems to be the case. > They view the hardcore exploitation as a sin. The "entrap them in debt". The "buy the lawmakers and write the rules". The price fixing, data hoarding & selling, the "let's just do illegal stuff and pay a ridiculously small fine"-shit. It's really not about "nobody is allowed to make a profit". The bigger the government, the more corruption in it. These are arguments for small government, because the smaller it is, the less corrupt it can be. Entrapping into debt is the consequence of a high time preference economy where people are encouraged to spend rather than save. Money is not worth keeping because it is deliberately inflated. Austrian economists promote low time preference, because it's the accumulation of capital which enables things to get done without taking from the pocket of taxpayers. Data hoarding can be avoided by simply boycotting the companies involved. If enough people cared about it, the companies would have to change their stance. I'm not sure government interference is really going to help here if people aren't willing to help themselves. I also see it as a consequence of people being like overgrown children and not bearing any personal responsibility. There are countless examples from as far back as the 1800s of wealthy people putting their money towards public good, and doing a far better job of it than modern governments do now. Part of today's problem is also down to culture. It is seen as hip to be rich and blow your money on cars, houses and prostitutes. Communities are no longer a thing because big government has taken over nearly every role where people would've previously come together to solve problems. Real altruism is still practised by some of the super wealthy, but there's a significant amount of virtue signalling because it's a lot easier than performing.

luckylion 8y ago

> It's a high risk, high reward No, it's really not. There's no high reward when you've worked delivering food work a month. It's lost time. > It is also a mistake to look at profit making as a sin Which nobody does. They view the hardcore exploitation as a sin. The "entrap them in debt". The "buy the lawmakers and write the rules". The price fixing, data hoarding & selling, the "let's just do illegal stuff and pay a ridiculously small fine"-shit. It's really not about "nobody is allowed to make a profit". Sorry, I'll never understand the hardcore libertarians - it's indistinguishable from sociopathy to me.

sparkie 8y ago
> I'll never understand the hardcore libertarians - it's indistinguishable from sociopathy to me. Yet every example we know of where trade has had the fewest obstacles (Britain during Victorian reign, Hong Kong under UK rule, Japan during the Meiji, Singapore post independence, Taiwan since split with China), we see a rapid improvement of the quality of life in just a couple of generations. Every socialist system we know of (USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Venzeula, etc) has turned to shit in just a couple of generations. I wonder which one is more sociopathic and not just seems to be the case. > They view the hardcore exploitation as a sin. The "entrap them in debt". The "buy the lawmakers and write the rules". The price fixing, data hoarding & selling, the "let's just do illegal stuff and pay a ridiculously small fine"-shit. It's really not about "nobody is allowed to make a profit". The bigger the government, the more corruption in it. These are arguments for small government, because the smaller it is, the less corrupt it can be. Entrapping into debt is the consequence of a high time preference economy where people are encouraged to spend rather than save. Money is not worth keeping because it is deliberately inflated. Austrian economists promote low time preference, because it's the accumulation of capital which enables things to get done without taking from the pocket of taxpayers. Data hoarding can be avoided by simply boycotting the companies involved. If enough people cared about it, the companies would have to change their stance. I'm not sure government interference is really going to help here if people aren't willing to help themselves. I also see it as a consequence of people being like overgrown children and not bearing any personal responsibility. There are countless examples from as far back as the 1800s of wealthy people putting their money towards public good, and doing a far better job of it than modern governments do now. Part of today's problem is also down to culture. It is seen as hip to be rich and blow your money on cars, houses and prostitutes. Communities are no longer a thing because big government has taken over nearly every role where people would've previously come together to solve problems. Real altruism is still practised by some of the super wealthy, but there's a significant amount of virtue signalling because it's a lot easier than performing.