3 ms·

We don’t need to create a new system. Capitalism is perfectly fine with a few tweaks.

tlb 7y ago
I think Animats' argument is that capitalism isn't getting those tweaks because there's no competition. Capitalism as a system has a near-monopoly. Back when it had serious competition from the Soviet Union, people tried much harder to make it work better. So the new system doesn't have to actually be better overall than capitalism, it just needs to provide some competition to light a fire under policy makers.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I guess we will have to learn how to live without a competitor that brings people together. Otherwise where can we get a replacement for the Soviet Union that scares people enough? China?
  - yifanl 7y ago
    To me, China looks more like the logical conclusion of capitalism than some competing economic system.
    - Animats 7y ago
      Too early to say. The "Asian tigers", Korea, Singapore, Japan, etc. had a similar trajectory. If you believe Pikkety, that type of growth levels off at the level of developed countries once catch-up is achieved. Which is not a bad place to end up. There are then stagnation problems. Japan hit that first. The countries that have hit stagnation, other than the US, tend to build good public infrastructure. This pumps money into the economy, but not through the banks.
- Animats 7y ago
  I think Animats' argument is that capitalism isn't getting those tweaks because there's no competition. Capitalism as a system has a near-monopoly. Back when it had serious competition from the Soviet Union, people tried much harder to make it work better. Exactly. This led to much government regulation to keep big business from getting too heavy-handed. See the previous price discussion on insulin pricing for a modern example. Although drug prices have not been regulated, until recently there was an assumption that blatant overcharging would lead to government action. It didn't. Unions used to have much more power in the US. They had money and votes. Business only had money, and couldn't use it directly without being accused of bribery. Many little, and not so little, restrictions that used to keep businesses from getting too greedy have been removed in recent decades. Glass-Stegall, which kept banks and brokerages separate. Far fewer restrictions on banks. The removal of the restriction on "gambling" in stock markets, which limited derivatives. Allowing interstate branch banking. Repeal of the Utility Company Holding Act. The NYSE allowing multiple classes of stock (like Facebook, Google, etc.). Weakened telecom regulation. Weakened labor law enforcement. Unregistered hedge funds. Pension funds being allowed to invest in hedge funds. The Interstate Commerce Commission. The Civil Aeronautics Board. The list goes on.
hedvig 7y ago
The same who say that never gets around to the tweaks
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  This reminds me of a lot of devs who don’t bother understanding a working but old system and immediately declare it’s crap that needs a total rewrite :)
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    And sometimes an old system actually does need a total rewrite because it's leaking PII everywhere, prone to completely crashing every couple of years and struggles to interface with automation.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      And very often it would keep working nicely with just a few minor changes.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        A few minor changes that never arrive because your company dictates you add new features and functionality than fix tech debt (because tech debt doesn't earn more money). So you have large parts of the codebase which are actively on fire, but not too much on fire that it's costing money yet. Until you run into a hard wall trying to integrate new features that customers request which break the entire system and before you know it, you're still running on C# 3 while all of the other APIs and companies have long upgraded to C# 8 (or switched languages altogether). Then your wildfire turns into a firestorm and your customers start calling in. And they're pissed.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Reminds me of the people who say that regulations strangles innovation, and is the reason why $HUGE_COMPANIES dominate, we must remove the regulations and promote a free market where quality goes up and prices come down, except the second part rarely seems to end up happening, but not before the controls that helped mitigate the abuse of the large players get removed.
brokenmachine 7y ago
What we see now is a completely corrupted form of "capitalism". The playing field is not even close to level. Capitalism is fine but this is not capitalism.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > What we see now is a completely corrupted form of "capitalism". If anything, less so than the 19th Century form for which the word “capitalism” was coined. Capitalism has never been anything but deeply corrupted.

tlb 7y ago

I think Animats' argument is that capitalism isn't getting those tweaks because there's no competition. Capitalism as a system has a near-monopoly. Back when it had serious competition from the Soviet Union, people tried much harder to make it work better. So the new system doesn't have to actually be better overall than capitalism, it just needs to provide some competition to light a fire under policy makers.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
I guess we will have to learn how to live without a competitor that brings people together. Otherwise where can we get a replacement for the Soviet Union that scares people enough? China?
- yifanl 7y ago
  To me, China looks more like the logical conclusion of capitalism than some competing economic system.
  - Animats 7y ago
    Too early to say. The "Asian tigers", Korea, Singapore, Japan, etc. had a similar trajectory. If you believe Pikkety, that type of growth levels off at the level of developed countries once catch-up is achieved. Which is not a bad place to end up. There are then stagnation problems. Japan hit that first. The countries that have hit stagnation, other than the US, tend to build good public infrastructure. This pumps money into the economy, but not through the banks.
Animats 7y ago
I think Animats' argument is that capitalism isn't getting those tweaks because there's no competition. Capitalism as a system has a near-monopoly. Back when it had serious competition from the Soviet Union, people tried much harder to make it work better. Exactly. This led to much government regulation to keep big business from getting too heavy-handed. See the previous price discussion on insulin pricing for a modern example. Although drug prices have not been regulated, until recently there was an assumption that blatant overcharging would lead to government action. It didn't. Unions used to have much more power in the US. They had money and votes. Business only had money, and couldn't use it directly without being accused of bribery. Many little, and not so little, restrictions that used to keep businesses from getting too greedy have been removed in recent decades. Glass-Stegall, which kept banks and brokerages separate. Far fewer restrictions on banks. The removal of the restriction on "gambling" in stock markets, which limited derivatives. Allowing interstate branch banking. Repeal of the Utility Company Holding Act. The NYSE allowing multiple classes of stock (like Facebook, Google, etc.). Weakened telecom regulation. Weakened labor law enforcement. Unregistered hedge funds. Pension funds being allowed to invest in hedge funds. The Interstate Commerce Commission. The Civil Aeronautics Board. The list goes on.

hedvig 7y ago

The same who say that never gets around to the tweaks

Ididntdothis 7y ago
This reminds me of a lot of devs who don’t bother understanding a working but old system and immediately declare it’s crap that needs a total rewrite :)
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  And sometimes an old system actually does need a total rewrite because it's leaking PII everywhere, prone to completely crashing every couple of years and struggles to interface with automation.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    And very often it would keep working nicely with just a few minor changes.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      A few minor changes that never arrive because your company dictates you add new features and functionality than fix tech debt (because tech debt doesn't earn more money). So you have large parts of the codebase which are actively on fire, but not too much on fire that it's costing money yet. Until you run into a hard wall trying to integrate new features that customers request which break the entire system and before you know it, you're still running on C# 3 while all of the other APIs and companies have long upgraded to C# 8 (or switched languages altogether). Then your wildfire turns into a firestorm and your customers start calling in. And they're pissed.
throwaway2048 7y ago
Reminds me of the people who say that regulations strangles innovation, and is the reason why $HUGE_COMPANIES dominate, we must remove the regulations and promote a free market where quality goes up and prices come down, except the second part rarely seems to end up happening, but not before the controls that helped mitigate the abuse of the large players get removed.

brokenmachine 7y ago

What we see now is a completely corrupted form of "capitalism". The playing field is not even close to level. Capitalism is fine but this is not capitalism.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> What we see now is a completely corrupted form of "capitalism". If anything, less so than the 19th Century form for which the word “capitalism” was coined. Capitalism has never been anything but deeply corrupted.