3 ms·

It's not a great write up. It did not mention the largest problem of capitalism: the capitalization of ground rent in asset prices. It instead fixates on anothe

It's not a great write up. It did not mention the largest problem of capitalism: the capitalization of ground rent in asset prices. It instead fixates on another explanation: human desire for riches. > Again, the problem is not riches per se, but the fixation on riches. The desire for riches is not problematic if the majority of people are willing to cooperate to acquire wealth, and seek income from increasing the mastery of humanity over the environment rather by obtaining at the expense of others. Effective cooperation requires distinguishing between income which is positive sum, which adds to the aggregate stock of wealth, and income which is zero sum, which merely transfers existing wealth from others. Both types of income are mixed together when capitalized into asset prices. Effective cooperation requires individuals to devise methods for distinguishing between the two and communicate these methods with others. Capitalism vs socialism debates tend to prevent this from happening because they emphasize either productive income or unproductive income without advancing the practical arts and sciences for distinguishing between the two in manner which allows the majority of individuals willing to engage in cooperative production to do so more efficiently.

xupybd 5y ago
>>>The desire for riches is not problematic if the majority of people are willing to cooperate to acquire wealth, and seek income from increasing the mastery of humanity over the environment rather by obtaining at the expense of others. Effective cooperation requires distinguishing between income which is positive sum, which adds to the aggregate stock of wealth, and income which is zero sum, which merely transfers existing wealth from others Isn't this a problem with the nature of individual humans not the structure of human society?
- airhead969 5y ago
  The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. - James Madison No. It's a problem of excessively-corrupt, under-regulation of individual greed that only a professional, more "angelic," functional, legitimate, ethical, and sensible human social structure (government) can and must limit fairly to prevent a few individuals from hoarding treasure and destroying others. When a few rich individuals effectively own the government in all but name, they own enough power to make it do their bidding and block anyone else from challenging them. They will never relinquish such power willingly because they "need" it to protect themselves and their greed and entitlement makes them believe it's theirs alone. Revolutionary communism probably isn't the answer, but revolutionary sensible something else might be. There is no other way except extremely clever chicanery to remove the influence of billionaires. Nothing has changed in the principles or human nature; only the culture, fashions, laws, power, technologies, income, and wealth distribution... and especially that nearly all of the controls have failed pertaining to the regulations of gaining and amassing excessive wealth (taxes and such), and purchasing influence (campaign finance reform, etc.). Thankfully, there is not yet an Emperor who decided to not leave after their term, so some controls on power related to government are operating as designed (but for how long?) Revolutionary communism or similar without full control would simply assassinate one billionaire after another until they understood the message clearly: that their personal survival depends on them returning a large fraction of their looted treasure and all control back to a government independent from corporate influences.
airhead969 5y ago
It's a fairly incomplete and myopic treatment. The issue is the drug of absurdly-profund, narcissistic entitlement, beyond greed, married with power it affords and corrupts creates a vicious cycle of vampiric extraction and unlimited desire for even more than is necessary for one or a million people. They then strangle and squeeze millions of people in multitudes of ways and destroy the planet for the self-righteous, vainglory, insular belief in one's omnipotent and omniscient destiny. Meanwhile, their thinking exists in an extremely narrow filter bubble divorced from reality of the existential threats their empires and systems create, risking ecocidal, omnicidal, and suicidal collapse for vaults of accumulated, stolen, and hoarded treasure.

xupybd 5y ago

>>>The desire for riches is not problematic if the majority of people are willing to cooperate to acquire wealth, and seek income from increasing the mastery of humanity over the environment rather by obtaining at the expense of others. Effective cooperation requires distinguishing between income which is positive sum, which adds to the aggregate stock of wealth, and income which is zero sum, which merely transfers existing wealth from others Isn't this a problem with the nature of individual humans not the structure of human society?

airhead969 5y ago
The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. - James Madison No. It's a problem of excessively-corrupt, under-regulation of individual greed that only a professional, more "angelic," functional, legitimate, ethical, and sensible human social structure (government) can and must limit fairly to prevent a few individuals from hoarding treasure and destroying others. When a few rich individuals effectively own the government in all but name, they own enough power to make it do their bidding and block anyone else from challenging them. They will never relinquish such power willingly because they "need" it to protect themselves and their greed and entitlement makes them believe it's theirs alone. Revolutionary communism probably isn't the answer, but revolutionary sensible something else might be. There is no other way except extremely clever chicanery to remove the influence of billionaires. Nothing has changed in the principles or human nature; only the culture, fashions, laws, power, technologies, income, and wealth distribution... and especially that nearly all of the controls have failed pertaining to the regulations of gaining and amassing excessive wealth (taxes and such), and purchasing influence (campaign finance reform, etc.). Thankfully, there is not yet an Emperor who decided to not leave after their term, so some controls on power related to government are operating as designed (but for how long?) Revolutionary communism or similar without full control would simply assassinate one billionaire after another until they understood the message clearly: that their personal survival depends on them returning a large fraction of their looted treasure and all control back to a government independent from corporate influences.

airhead969 5y ago

It's a fairly incomplete and myopic treatment. The issue is the drug of absurdly-profund, narcissistic entitlement, beyond greed, married with power it affords and corrupts creates a vicious cycle of vampiric extraction and unlimited desire for even more than is necessary for one or a million people. They then strangle and squeeze millions of people in multitudes of ways and destroy the planet for the self-righteous, vainglory, insular belief in one's omnipotent and omniscient destiny. Meanwhile, their thinking exists in an extremely narrow filter bubble divorced from reality of the existential threats their empires and systems create, risking ecocidal, omnicidal, and suicidal collapse for vaults of accumulated, stolen, and hoarded treasure.