3 ms·

Well I am a communist, so that makes sense. Crony capitalism is just capitalism, by the way. It's designed to work that way. In Apple's case, the "massive capi

Well I am a communist, so that makes sense. Crony capitalism is just capitalism, by the way. It's designed to work that way. In Apple's case, the "massive capital expenses" have been paid for many times over in profit; when does the compensation shift back to the people creating the day-to-day value? Never, I guess? And by the way, I'm not talking about the $300k engineers in Cupertino. I'm talking about the people who were throwing themselves of factory roofs until they set up nets to take even that measure of freedom away.

r_smart 8y ago
|Employees are all exploited by their employers, who steal most of the value created which they had little to no hand in. Didn't that turn out to be bullshit? Like, years ago. Pretty sure that guy made the story up. Also, those people weren't employees of Apple. And I'll take crony capitalism and wealth inequality over gulags and the tens of millions of people who have been killed by their communist overlords (who were also hoarding all the wealth).
- normal_man 8y ago
  I'm sorry, this is bog-standard capitalist clap-trap. Capitalism has killed many more, and will continue to kill millions and millions as the effects of climate change worsen, than the concept of equitable distribution of wealth.
  - r_smart 8y ago
    |Capitalism has killed many more Please support that claim. |will continue to kill millions and millions as the effects of climate change worsen Communist countries, past and present, hardly have a sterling reputation when it comes to environmental considerations. Edit: Oh, and you ignored that the Foxconn thing was manufactured. Unless that's what you're calling clap-trap, but I assume not.
burfog 8y ago
Wow, an actual communist. OK, I need to ask you a few questions. Why should we risk it? You might say that previous attempts were "not real communism", but that is what we end up with when we try. We've killed 160 million people trying to implement communism, or at least following leaders who tell us they will implement communism. It doesn't seem wise to try again, does it? Why would things go down differently? It's awfully risky to take the gamble, don't you think? What motivation would there be for start-up founders? If that just isn't needed because the state owns all business, how do we ensure that unproductive business doesn't uselessly stay funded while productive business is never initiated? If there is no legitimate way to obtain great wealth, don't you think people might turn to methods that are not legitimate, such as the corruption? History shows that communism quickly turns the culture toward corruption, and that this dissipates very slowly once communism is removed.
- normal_man 8y ago
  Why do we continue to risk capitalism? In America, a huge amount of the population are in an extremely precarious economic situation, if not in outright poverty, all so a tiny upper class can increase it's wealth exponentially. Wages for workers haven't meaningfully increased in decades, while corporate profits skyrocket. Globally, capitalism is the driving force behind the near-extinction level event of climate change. Why do we mindlessly go along with capitalism but wring our hands over the suggestion of anything more equitable? I truly do not give a fuck about start up founders, sorry. Again, is our current system, in which companies can literally pay politicians to fight against any and all regulation that would limit their ability to generate obscene profit, somehow free of corruption? Maybe not the answers you were expecting, but I reject the premise that capitalism is the rational default and that equitable distribution is some crazy idea I need to justify. And by the way, communism is what I'm shooting for, but we have a long way to go to get there and any step on that path is an improvement. A capitalist model with robust safety nets like Scandanavian countries would be a fine first step, for example. Ultimately unsustainable, because capitalism is unsustainable, but still progress.
  - burfog 8y ago
    Your complaints about capitalism can mostly be handled without giving up all the benefits. Poverty exists everywhere, especially under communism, but right now a good deal of the source is competition from immigrants and outsourcing, both of which can simply be restricted. The fact that corporate profits skyrocket isn't something for most people to directly care about (jealousy is a nasty emotion) but FWIW this goes away if anti-monopoly laws are enforced and if corporations are prohibited from becoming huge. Before you blame climate change on capitalism, please note the coal mines in North Korea and in China. Nothing could be more equitable than people keeping whatever share of the pie they have earned. I also truly do not give a fuck about start up founders... but if they aren't well-rewarded then they won't bother. What replaces them? Do you think that instead the government would operate all businesses? Without the possibility of bankruptcy, bad businesses (operating as government agencies) will continue sucking up subsidies. New ones will not be created unless the dictator is convinced that they would be useful to him. The corruption problem we now have with politicians is indeed bad, but clearly this hasn't become universal throughout our culture. In a communist society, one might pay the store clerk a bit of extra cash to have him hide a bit of meat in order to save it for you. It all becomes totally habitual with all of the ordinary people you interact with every day. It's not just a matter of politicians. I agree that the situation in the Scandanavian countries is unsustainable. Freeloaders are an increasing problem. The workload (taxes) have reduced the birthrate, and the low birthrate means that fewer workers will be sharing the load of supporting the old, each problem leading to the other problem and thus these countries are in a death spiral.

r_smart 8y ago

|Employees are all exploited by their employers, who steal most of the value created which they had little to no hand in. Didn't that turn out to be bullshit? Like, years ago. Pretty sure that guy made the story up. Also, those people weren't employees of Apple. And I'll take crony capitalism and wealth inequality over gulags and the tens of millions of people who have been killed by their communist overlords (who were also hoarding all the wealth).

normal_man 8y ago
I'm sorry, this is bog-standard capitalist clap-trap. Capitalism has killed many more, and will continue to kill millions and millions as the effects of climate change worsen, than the concept of equitable distribution of wealth.
- r_smart 8y ago
  |Capitalism has killed many more Please support that claim. |will continue to kill millions and millions as the effects of climate change worsen Communist countries, past and present, hardly have a sterling reputation when it comes to environmental considerations. Edit: Oh, and you ignored that the Foxconn thing was manufactured. Unless that's what you're calling clap-trap, but I assume not.

burfog 8y ago

Wow, an actual communist. OK, I need to ask you a few questions. Why should we risk it? You might say that previous attempts were "not real communism", but that is what we end up with when we try. We've killed 160 million people trying to implement communism, or at least following leaders who tell us they will implement communism. It doesn't seem wise to try again, does it? Why would things go down differently? It's awfully risky to take the gamble, don't you think? What motivation would there be for start-up founders? If that just isn't needed because the state owns all business, how do we ensure that unproductive business doesn't uselessly stay funded while productive business is never initiated? If there is no legitimate way to obtain great wealth, don't you think people might turn to methods that are not legitimate, such as the corruption? History shows that communism quickly turns the culture toward corruption, and that this dissipates very slowly once communism is removed.

normal_man 8y ago
Why do we continue to risk capitalism? In America, a huge amount of the population are in an extremely precarious economic situation, if not in outright poverty, all so a tiny upper class can increase it's wealth exponentially. Wages for workers haven't meaningfully increased in decades, while corporate profits skyrocket. Globally, capitalism is the driving force behind the near-extinction level event of climate change. Why do we mindlessly go along with capitalism but wring our hands over the suggestion of anything more equitable? I truly do not give a fuck about start up founders, sorry. Again, is our current system, in which companies can literally pay politicians to fight against any and all regulation that would limit their ability to generate obscene profit, somehow free of corruption? Maybe not the answers you were expecting, but I reject the premise that capitalism is the rational default and that equitable distribution is some crazy idea I need to justify. And by the way, communism is what I'm shooting for, but we have a long way to go to get there and any step on that path is an improvement. A capitalist model with robust safety nets like Scandanavian countries would be a fine first step, for example. Ultimately unsustainable, because capitalism is unsustainable, but still progress.
- burfog 8y ago
  Your complaints about capitalism can mostly be handled without giving up all the benefits. Poverty exists everywhere, especially under communism, but right now a good deal of the source is competition from immigrants and outsourcing, both of which can simply be restricted. The fact that corporate profits skyrocket isn't something for most people to directly care about (jealousy is a nasty emotion) but FWIW this goes away if anti-monopoly laws are enforced and if corporations are prohibited from becoming huge. Before you blame climate change on capitalism, please note the coal mines in North Korea and in China. Nothing could be more equitable than people keeping whatever share of the pie they have earned. I also truly do not give a fuck about start up founders... but if they aren't well-rewarded then they won't bother. What replaces them? Do you think that instead the government would operate all businesses? Without the possibility of bankruptcy, bad businesses (operating as government agencies) will continue sucking up subsidies. New ones will not be created unless the dictator is convinced that they would be useful to him. The corruption problem we now have with politicians is indeed bad, but clearly this hasn't become universal throughout our culture. In a communist society, one might pay the store clerk a bit of extra cash to have him hide a bit of meat in order to save it for you. It all becomes totally habitual with all of the ordinary people you interact with every day. It's not just a matter of politicians. I agree that the situation in the Scandanavian countries is unsustainable. Freeloaders are an increasing problem. The workload (taxes) have reduced the birthrate, and the low birthrate means that fewer workers will be sharing the load of supporting the old, each problem leading to the other problem and thus these countries are in a death spiral.