5 ms·

Huge indictment of capitalism that we have an unbelievably high level of productive capacity and can't do any of these things: make hospital equipment including

by 0x262d 7y ago

Huge indictment of capitalism that we have an unbelievably high level of productive capacity and can't do any of these things: make hospital equipment including ventilators; produce enough masks; keep hospitals open (there has been a steady trend of closures brought on by financialization (profiteering) and mergers); train adequate numbers of hospital staff; and the most ridiculous so far is every business is desperately trying to stay open even for non-essential things, like Amazon. Profiteering is undercutting every possible thing. The profit motive over a democratically planned economy is horrible most of the time but really becomes a mess in a crisis.

minikites 7y ago
But sometimes we get cheap flat screen TVs, so it's impossible to say whether capitalism is bad or not. (with thanks to dril: https://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762 https://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762)
- kazinator 7y ago
  If your life depended on getting a flat screen TV, capitalism would ensure that it costs you $25K if you're uninsured, or a $500 deductible if you're insured, whereby your insurer pays another $8K due to either being big enough to negotiate, or else being owned by the same company.
- mnm1 7y ago
  That's beyond absurd. So we get cheap, unnecessary items, while many don't have access to healthcare, are homeless, are literally starving, or all three and that somehow makes it impossible to say whether capitalism is good or bad? I'd say that fact alone makes US capitalism bad. Trading millions of lives for cheap TVs and other garbage. I really hope you were joking but knowing this forum, that's probably too much to hope.
  - 0x262d 7y ago
    it is a meme and is meant sarcastically, see the linked tweet.
lliamander 7y ago
> The profit motive over a democratically planned economy is horrible most of the time but really becomes a mess in a crisis. Why not have bread lines only in a crisis, when you can have them all the time instead?
- ardy42 7y ago
  You know, there's a vast spectrum of economic policy options between central planning and laissez faire, and you don't even have to be consistent about which gets picked for each industry. I think the OP was advocating for a different spot on that spectrum for certain things, not one of the extremes for everything.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    This is not a "hey, maybe we should require some stockpiles" like they do in Switzerland (didn't stockpile enough masks, sadly enough). The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position. Developed countries all find some balance between central planning and laissez faire, but they do so by assuming the free market as the default. Intervention and central planning is only applied to specific cases where there is a concrete public interest in doing so.
    - ardy42 7y ago
      > The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position. No. You just seem to have reacted reflexively seeing the word "planned" placed next to the word "economy," without seeking any clarification or understanding or even really putting it in context. The OP was clearly focused on criticizing prioritization of profit-seeking over all other interests, and the corrosive effect that has had on our ability to respond to this present crisis. > Developed countries all find some balance between central planning and laissez faire, but they do so by assuming the free market as the default. Intervention and central planning is only applied to specific cases where there is a concrete public interest in doing so. And you know what? This crisis is uncovering a lot of areas where less laissez faire and more government intervention would have been "concretely in the public interest." The market system is an imperfect means to an end, not an end itself.
salawat 7y ago
You might want to make your comment again without using the phrase "planned economy". It doesn't matter that you're probably using it to mean "an economy under the active influence of a government through large work orders in response to a crisis"; many economically versed individuals will take a gigantic dump on you regardless because they figure you're dog-whistling communism, intentionally or not. Just figured you may want to know, because you have a decent point.
- 0x262d 7y ago
  Thank you, but I know. I am actually promoting state ownership and democratic control of all important, nationally coordinated industries. I am a marxist. I don’t mean Stalinism, but a level of democratic, worker-controlled socialism never seen before (although people who hate socialism don’t care about the distinction anyway). I also believe that while many people are allergic to this right now, especially on meritocracy-loving hacker news, over time, this position will become more popular with most people because capitalism is structurally unable to solve its own problems and increasingly people’s recognition of that will overcome their fear of the unknown. I think this has a lot of intellectual appeal. Capitalism has done a lot of progressive things and nationally coordinated, centralized industry is incredible. People often point that out and they’re right. But the economy and industry we have now is socially operated - through an international division of labor from farmers to programmers - even though it is privately owned and run not to satisfy the needs of workers and people, but to increase profits. This central contradiction between how production is organized - profit for those who own capital - and who runs it and who it should benefit - everyone, as decided democratically - is behind the dysfunction and social crises we’re rapidly plunging into. Hold onto your seat! Things are going to get crazy, and I recommend reading Marx, he’s a lot more lucid and clear thinking than people who go half way like Bernie. In the meantime I’m not worried about people who dump on me for the horrors of “communism” because they sound more absurd every week.
- minikites 7y ago
  >economically versed individuals Economically versed individuals would agree with the parent comment, not yours.

by 0x262d 7y ago

minikites 7y ago

But sometimes we get cheap flat screen TVs, so it's impossible to say whether capitalism is bad or not. (with thanks to dril: https://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762 https://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762)

kazinator 7y ago
If your life depended on getting a flat screen TV, capitalism would ensure that it costs you $25K if you're uninsured, or a $500 deductible if you're insured, whereby your insurer pays another $8K due to either being big enough to negotiate, or else being owned by the same company.
mnm1 7y ago
That's beyond absurd. So we get cheap, unnecessary items, while many don't have access to healthcare, are homeless, are literally starving, or all three and that somehow makes it impossible to say whether capitalism is good or bad? I'd say that fact alone makes US capitalism bad. Trading millions of lives for cheap TVs and other garbage. I really hope you were joking but knowing this forum, that's probably too much to hope.
- 0x262d 7y ago
  it is a meme and is meant sarcastically, see the linked tweet.

lliamander 7y ago

> The profit motive over a democratically planned economy is horrible most of the time but really becomes a mess in a crisis. Why not have bread lines only in a crisis, when you can have them all the time instead?

ardy42 7y ago
You know, there's a vast spectrum of economic policy options between central planning and laissez faire, and you don't even have to be consistent about which gets picked for each industry. I think the OP was advocating for a different spot on that spectrum for certain things, not one of the extremes for everything.
- lliamander 7y ago
  This is not a "hey, maybe we should require some stockpiles" like they do in Switzerland (didn't stockpile enough masks, sadly enough). The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position. Developed countries all find some balance between central planning and laissez faire, but they do so by assuming the free market as the default. Intervention and central planning is only applied to specific cases where there is a concrete public interest in doing so.
  - ardy42 7y ago
    > The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position. No. You just seem to have reacted reflexively seeing the word "planned" placed next to the word "economy," without seeking any clarification or understanding or even really putting it in context. The OP was clearly focused on criticizing prioritization of profit-seeking over all other interests, and the corrosive effect that has had on our ability to respond to this present crisis. > Developed countries all find some balance between central planning and laissez faire, but they do so by assuming the free market as the default. Intervention and central planning is only applied to specific cases where there is a concrete public interest in doing so. And you know what? This crisis is uncovering a lot of areas where less laissez faire and more government intervention would have been "concretely in the public interest." The market system is an imperfect means to an end, not an end itself.

salawat 7y ago

You might want to make your comment again without using the phrase "planned economy". It doesn't matter that you're probably using it to mean "an economy under the active influence of a government through large work orders in response to a crisis"; many economically versed individuals will take a gigantic dump on you regardless because they figure you're dog-whistling communism, intentionally or not. Just figured you may want to know, because you have a decent point.

0x262d 7y ago
Thank you, but I know. I am actually promoting state ownership and democratic control of all important, nationally coordinated industries. I am a marxist. I don’t mean Stalinism, but a level of democratic, worker-controlled socialism never seen before (although people who hate socialism don’t care about the distinction anyway). I also believe that while many people are allergic to this right now, especially on meritocracy-loving hacker news, over time, this position will become more popular with most people because capitalism is structurally unable to solve its own problems and increasingly people’s recognition of that will overcome their fear of the unknown. I think this has a lot of intellectual appeal. Capitalism has done a lot of progressive things and nationally coordinated, centralized industry is incredible. People often point that out and they’re right. But the economy and industry we have now is socially operated - through an international division of labor from farmers to programmers - even though it is privately owned and run not to satisfy the needs of workers and people, but to increase profits. This central contradiction between how production is organized - profit for those who own capital - and who runs it and who it should benefit - everyone, as decided democratically - is behind the dysfunction and social crises we’re rapidly plunging into. Hold onto your seat! Things are going to get crazy, and I recommend reading Marx, he’s a lot more lucid and clear thinking than people who go half way like Bernie. In the meantime I’m not worried about people who dump on me for the horrors of “communism” because they sound more absurd every week.
minikites 7y ago
>economically versed individuals Economically versed individuals would agree with the parent comment, not yours.