7 ms·

The promise of capitalism for the average person (as opposed to an economist or a business proprietor) was the ability to vote with your wallet, be it through d

The promise of capitalism for the average person (as opposed to an economist or a business proprietor) was the ability to vote with your wallet, be it through deciding what to buy or who to work for. You still often hear that message from people who are less aware of the dark clouds up above: "just buy a different product" or "just quit and get a new job" - but centralization and monopolization make either impossible. Monopolies have an unfair amount of leverage in this game that must be dealt with. Bring in corporate breakups, bring in increased leverage for the workers (it's time to say the u-word), and maybe, just maybe, we can salvage this system yet. I don't know about you, but it was the dream of making the world better for everyone and not just a handful of CEOs that sold me on the tech industry. I sure would like for that dream to come true, no matter how many zeroes in valuation it costs.

luckylion 6y ago
And when everyone is fed, housed, clothed and given a smart phone, somebody will still stay "but is the world actually better? Look, inequality is still a thing, that guy has a much better smartphone." You can't remove capitalism from the last few centuries of massive progress and just say "it would have happened without it as well".
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Why don't we first work to make that future into a reality, and then argue?
  - luckylion 6y ago
    We have been for quite a while, and we're getting closer every year. Come join us and help.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- emptyparadise 6y ago
  I think having everyone be healthy, fed, housed and clothed is a good baseline. Inequality in the shape of "this person has a better phone than me" is much, much more preferable to "this person can afford to feed their family and I can't." I'd certainly like to believe that we can achieve that.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    And the actual wealth inequality is so much larger it’s frankly hard to give an analogy with consumer goods.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    It is impossible, in a literal and practical sense, for everyone to be healthy. That is a baseline that cannot be achieved, even in theory. This isn't a minor nitpick. You've articulating an impossible thing as a target. There is no sane path forward from that starting point. Fed, housed and clothed is a great baseline, but it has nearly nothing to do with inequality. If everyone in the world was fed, housed and clothed I expect all the inequality measures would be about the same as they are now.
    - emptyparadise 6y ago
      Access to health care is the path forward. That's also the practical meaning of my words - thanks for providing the opportunity to clarify that. And I think removing the main problem caused by inequality has everything to do with inequality. It's not the end all, but like I said, it's a great baseline.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        Done & done. We've got all of that covered in most parts of Europe, free health care, free housing, free food, free clothes, free TV. And yet: inequality is the number one issue and there's no hint of it ever being enough, and we're still looking at more redistribution, because, in the end, everybody could have better free health care, more spacious free housing, exotic free food etc.
- fxtentacle 6y ago
  I thought we're talking about a country where 1 in 5 is on food stamps?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    And those people are more or less fed with the food bought with those food stamps. Actual malnutrition is vanishingly rare in the US. Yes, they might not get the most nutritious or balanced diet but they get the calories they need, oftentimes too many. This is exactly the kind of moving target the parent is complaining about. Pretty much everyone is fed. But people then move the goalposts and pretend the progress didn't happen because they're not fed nutritiously enough or it requires too much work, etc, etc. I'm not denying that there's more work to do but it's folly to pretend that western nations have not more or less solved hunger compared to the situation even 50yr ago.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      The US was the first country in history to end the specter of famine. This happened in the early 1800s as a direct result of capitalism. By the end of the 1800s, US citizens were the best fed in the world. Even the poor had access to fresh vegetables (thanks to railroads). You can see this in the statistics for average height, which shot up all through the 1800s. Other countries did not really catch up until after WW2, and then only when they turned to capitalist agriculture.
- rvense 6y ago
  But you can't remove labour unions or government intervention either. Capitalism didn't come up with workplace safety standards and it didn't make kids go to schools instead of working in factories.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    It kind of did. Nobody wants to stop a factory line to hose a worker out of it and workers that are scared of getting maimed or killed are less productive. Workplace safety is a win-win in most cases. We didn't get government mandated workplace safety until it was basically the norm and people convinced the government to crack down on the places it wasn't the norm. Many, dare I say most, societal changes follow this "the change mostly happens then the government forces the stragglers to get on board" manner. You simply don't have strong legislation in democracies until after the public opinion has already shifted (see same sex marriage for another example).
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      True enough. Child labor laws came about after child labor became unproductive - you can see this in that there exemptions in the law where it was still productive, such as agricultural work. Kids make for lousy workers. For example, for the sake of this discussion put aside your moral feelings, and think about kids in your workplace. That's right, there's little useful they could do, and you'd have to dedicate adults to trying to get them to do something useful. Think of what schoolteachers go through trying to get work out of kids. Think of what parents go through trying to get their kids to clean their rooms.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        One would expect child labor shops to not have the same moral reservations that parents and teachers have.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        Abusing people doesn't result in very effective workers. It's another reason why free markets outproduce coercive economic systems.
- okbuddy 6y ago
  The US is currently facing up to 11 million evictions. Maybe _some_ baseline for equality is better than none? I have a feeling you'd be the guy disingenuously concern trolling, just like you are now, with "but look they have a better smart phone!"
- WalterBright 6y ago
  And it fact, it wouldn't have. Countries the world over have remained poor in the last few centuries until they decided to go capitalist, and then they got wealthy. The evidence that capitalism produces prosperity is overwhelming.
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
I agree with the goals, but I think a hot war between government and megacorps isn't the way there. It does seem to me that monopolies are successful because the underlying business environment requires them, without fixing that, breaking monopolies would become an expensive game of whack-a-mole. When invasive species take over an environment, the most efficient way to rehabilitate it is often to tolerate and harvest them. Eventually the nutrients they were able to extract where nothing else could thrive become more available and more niches get created. It's unfortunate to be in a lean time historically, but I think tech monopolies need to make themselves obsolete, I don't think it can be done to them while preserving the environment that allowed them to thrive.

luckylion 6y ago

And when everyone is fed, housed, clothed and given a smart phone, somebody will still stay "but is the world actually better? Look, inequality is still a thing, that guy has a much better smartphone." You can't remove capitalism from the last few centuries of massive progress and just say "it would have happened without it as well".

Apocryphon 6y ago
Why don't we first work to make that future into a reality, and then argue?
- luckylion 6y ago
  We have been for quite a while, and we're getting closer every year. Come join us and help.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
emptyparadise 6y ago
I think having everyone be healthy, fed, housed and clothed is a good baseline. Inequality in the shape of "this person has a better phone than me" is much, much more preferable to "this person can afford to feed their family and I can't." I'd certainly like to believe that we can achieve that.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  And the actual wealth inequality is so much larger it’s frankly hard to give an analogy with consumer goods.
- roenxi 6y ago
  It is impossible, in a literal and practical sense, for everyone to be healthy. That is a baseline that cannot be achieved, even in theory. This isn't a minor nitpick. You've articulating an impossible thing as a target. There is no sane path forward from that starting point. Fed, housed and clothed is a great baseline, but it has nearly nothing to do with inequality. If everyone in the world was fed, housed and clothed I expect all the inequality measures would be about the same as they are now.
  - emptyparadise 6y ago
    Access to health care is the path forward. That's also the practical meaning of my words - thanks for providing the opportunity to clarify that. And I think removing the main problem caused by inequality has everything to do with inequality. It's not the end all, but like I said, it's a great baseline.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Done & done. We've got all of that covered in most parts of Europe, free health care, free housing, free food, free clothes, free TV. And yet: inequality is the number one issue and there's no hint of it ever being enough, and we're still looking at more redistribution, because, in the end, everybody could have better free health care, more spacious free housing, exotic free food etc.
fxtentacle 6y ago
I thought we're talking about a country where 1 in 5 is on food stamps?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  And those people are more or less fed with the food bought with those food stamps. Actual malnutrition is vanishingly rare in the US. Yes, they might not get the most nutritious or balanced diet but they get the calories they need, oftentimes too many. This is exactly the kind of moving target the parent is complaining about. Pretty much everyone is fed. But people then move the goalposts and pretend the progress didn't happen because they're not fed nutritiously enough or it requires too much work, etc, etc. I'm not denying that there's more work to do but it's folly to pretend that western nations have not more or less solved hunger compared to the situation even 50yr ago.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    The US was the first country in history to end the specter of famine. This happened in the early 1800s as a direct result of capitalism. By the end of the 1800s, US citizens were the best fed in the world. Even the poor had access to fresh vegetables (thanks to railroads). You can see this in the statistics for average height, which shot up all through the 1800s. Other countries did not really catch up until after WW2, and then only when they turned to capitalist agriculture.
rvense 6y ago
But you can't remove labour unions or government intervention either. Capitalism didn't come up with workplace safety standards and it didn't make kids go to schools instead of working in factories.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  It kind of did. Nobody wants to stop a factory line to hose a worker out of it and workers that are scared of getting maimed or killed are less productive. Workplace safety is a win-win in most cases. We didn't get government mandated workplace safety until it was basically the norm and people convinced the government to crack down on the places it wasn't the norm. Many, dare I say most, societal changes follow this "the change mostly happens then the government forces the stragglers to get on board" manner. You simply don't have strong legislation in democracies until after the public opinion has already shifted (see same sex marriage for another example).
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    True enough. Child labor laws came about after child labor became unproductive - you can see this in that there exemptions in the law where it was still productive, such as agricultural work. Kids make for lousy workers. For example, for the sake of this discussion put aside your moral feelings, and think about kids in your workplace. That's right, there's little useful they could do, and you'd have to dedicate adults to trying to get them to do something useful. Think of what schoolteachers go through trying to get work out of kids. Think of what parents go through trying to get their kids to clean their rooms.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      One would expect child labor shops to not have the same moral reservations that parents and teachers have.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        Abusing people doesn't result in very effective workers. It's another reason why free markets outproduce coercive economic systems.
okbuddy 6y ago
The US is currently facing up to 11 million evictions. Maybe _some_ baseline for equality is better than none? I have a feeling you'd be the guy disingenuously concern trolling, just like you are now, with "but look they have a better smart phone!"
WalterBright 6y ago
And it fact, it wouldn't have. Countries the world over have remained poor in the last few centuries until they decided to go capitalist, and then they got wealthy. The evidence that capitalism produces prosperity is overwhelming.

SuoDuanDao 6y ago

I agree with the goals, but I think a hot war between government and megacorps isn't the way there. It does seem to me that monopolies are successful because the underlying business environment requires them, without fixing that, breaking monopolies would become an expensive game of whack-a-mole. When invasive species take over an environment, the most efficient way to rehabilitate it is often to tolerate and harvest them. Eventually the nutrients they were able to extract where nothing else could thrive become more available and more niches get created. It's unfortunate to be in a lean time historically, but I think tech monopolies need to make themselves obsolete, I don't think it can be done to them while preserving the environment that allowed them to thrive.