4 ms·

The religion is capitalism. Millions of people believe in it with such fervor that any criticism of the idea feels like a criticism of them personally. Any crit

The religion is capitalism. Millions of people believe in it with such fervor that any criticism of the idea feels like a criticism of them personally. Any criticism of deities (billionaires) or their church (business) is dismissed as sour grapes, because our deities are always benevolent.

simonh 5y ago
I really wish, pretty please, if every time someone slagged off capitalism here they would suggest their alternative. I know what you're against, but that's not useful or interesting because you don't even say why. What are you for? How would you fix this flaw, this one here in this thread that you say is because of capitalism. Why is it because of capitalism and what's your solution to it? Why would your system not have this flaw? Can you give an example of a non-capitalist system that avoided this problem? That would be an interesting and useful comment. Even if I disagreed with you I would gladly upvote it as a useful contribution. Yes this is a flaw in capitalism, simply because it's a flaw in human nature. What system is going to change that? As Adam Smith said in the Wealth of Nations: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." These people are vile scumbags, they are taking the freedoms and benefits liberal democracy and capitalism provide and abusing them. We should expose them, counter their narrative, lobby our representatives and use the freedoms liberal democracy and capitalism provide us to oppose them.
- orwin 5y ago
  Worker-owned companies, only financed by debt and not actions. You can have the top management own 20% of the company, middle management 20%, and the workers 60%, prorate the votes following that, and vote should be anonymous. On highly disputed issues (defining a new direction that needs more than the CEO/CTO opinion), you can have a lottery to form a team representing those percentages. Make the workers invested in the company, in the product, in security. Having your top management paid to extract as much money as they can for the investor is a recipe for exploitation and poor products.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Workers own 60% of the company? Sweet! I assume they put up 60% of the capital costs too?
    - sdenton4 5y ago
      Curiously, we generally don't expect founders to show up with their own capital...
      - ericd 5y ago
        They typically do, actually. How do you think those initial formation and other legal fees get paid in most companies? And they’re usually working for free for a while (sometimes years) before the company is in a state where it can raise money by selling equity. Put those together, and the founders have frequently put in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into a company that was worth precisely $0 when they started.
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        What? That's the standard model. Use your own funds to create an MVP, and use that MVP to raise outside capital. (no bank will give you a loan for an MVP)
      - refurb 5y ago
        Yeah we do. And they also tend to work for below market wages for years. Are workers willing to do that?
        minikites 5y ago
        Workers have been working below market wages for decades. If wages had kept pace with productivity improvements and inflation, wages would be far higher today. Instead, the benefits of technology and other productivity improvements have all gone to the handful of people you relentlessly defend.
        5y ago
- Olreich 5y ago
  Eh, I think it’s worth the old college try of “anything new please” without further corroboration. Everything we’ve tried at large scales has sucked for the majority of the population.
- Frost1x 5y ago
  You don't have to provide a fix to a discovered problem. Discovering and pointing out a problem is valuable in and of itself. If you force every problem discovery process to provide a fix, you create disincentive to the discovery process itself. It is nice to have a solution when you identify a problem but you also can't just ignore a problem because you don't have a clear solution. Recognize the problem helps others to suggest solutions to the problem. If you can provide iron clad proof no alternative solution exists, then do that. Passing around the burden of proof merely to prop up a position that clearly also doesn't help the problem helps no one. Let's all carry the burden of proof. I for one think part of the issue is with indefinite capital accumulation. We adhere fundamentally to property ownership and that your property is yours forever. This results in pockets of wealth that create many of the problems we currently see in capitalism as practiced in the US. Competitive forces designed to keep things in place can be countered when enough wealth is amassed. Law and regulation can be bought and manipulated. Public opinion can also be fairly well manipulated. Clear out mass inheritance options, set forth ways to cap off mass wealth accumulation and redistribute it to society beyond a point that increases as often as say, minimum wage increases. If wealth wants a higher ceiling, they need to make sure the bottom isn't left behind. Provide progressive tax rates beyond those limits that discourage hoarding wealth and using it counterproductively, if we believe we reward success through wealth. Just some starter ideas, not a claimed solution for the situation at large. Retroactively applying principles may not even be possible without core restructuring in culture and law. Capitalism is great, it's the best system we've seen so far, but what is going on now isn't great and it's not healthy for society. It doesn't necessarily have to be wiped clear but it needs some restructuring or bandaids attached to resolve some very real fundamental issues we have, otherwise we're going to have a society focused on exploitation acquiring value over the actual value creation we praise capitalism for.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Oh I fully accept this is an actual problem, these people are vile and need to be fought vigorously and resolutely. I just don't see what that has to do with capitalism, or actually the economic system at all really. Do powerful leaders and managers in non-capitalist systems not engage in lobbying and not promote the interests of their industry? Do they not engage in unsavoury practices when doing so? How does the system act to prevent that? On the contrary all the attempts at non-capitalist systems I'm aware of are based on a system of central planning and the allocation of resources on a bureaucratic or political basis. Fundamentally capitalism is based on freedom of ownership (of property and capital), freedom of labour (to work for or hire others) and freedom of association (to form companies). Planned economies by necessity restrict or eliminate some or all of these freedoms, but those restrictions never stop at economic activities. After all almost everything has some economic dimension. In practice this has always seemed to end up with highly coercive, opaque bureaucratic systems in which factional lobbying and influence peddling isn't just a flaw, it becomes the system.
- jtr1 5y ago
  Can you provide an explanation of Exxon's behavior that is not driven by the incentive to deliver profits to their shareholders? I'd certainly be open to another way of understanding the situation, but this behavior is so common among corporations of their size, it seems like the simplest explanation to me. Personally, I think the thing most people are angry about is the wild misalignment between the doctrine of shareholder primacy and the well-being of society overall. Exxon is governed by a board which is elected by its shareholders and has a fiduciary responsibility them. But its stakeholders are a much larger group of people. To be clear, I think that so-called "stakeholder capitalism" is a scam if there is no mechanism to enforce it. Instead, I think you need an organizational form that incentivizes both efficient operation and the best interests of the people affected by its behavior. This seems to me an as-yet unsolved organizational optimization problem. Unfortunately, at the rate the climate is changing, we don't have the luxury of experimenting to find that form. Short-term, I think the best option for a company with such enormous impact is a government entity with at least tangential accountable to voters. To this end, I would prefer to see Exxon nationalized and forced to wind down their hydrocarbon extraction operations.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Wow, major kudos for a pretty imaginative and bold solution. I don't think it would work though. You'd end up with the biggest stakeholders in the fossil fuel industry, with the most to lose from it winding down, being the government and the tax payer. That's the mother of all conflicts of interest. Now the oil industry leadership aren't lobbying government, they are the government. Now all those oil industry workers you need to sack are government employees in civil service unions. What could possibly go wrong?
    - jtr1 5y ago
      So what's your alternative? I'm all ears.
      - simonh 5y ago
        Use the freedoms that liberal democracy and capitalism give us to fight them back. Expose their corruption, counter-lobby our representatives, use the courts where laws are broken, vote. There is no magic bullet, corruption will always have to be fought. The question is which system gives us the best framework to fight it in. I say a system that respects individual freedoms.

simonh 5y ago

I really wish, pretty please, if every time someone slagged off capitalism here they would suggest their alternative. I know what you're against, but that's not useful or interesting because you don't even say why. What are you for? How would you fix this flaw, this one here in this thread that you say is because of capitalism. Why is it because of capitalism and what's your solution to it? Why would your system not have this flaw? Can you give an example of a non-capitalist system that avoided this problem? That would be an interesting and useful comment. Even if I disagreed with you I would gladly upvote it as a useful contribution. Yes this is a flaw in capitalism, simply because it's a flaw in human nature. What system is going to change that? As Adam Smith said in the Wealth of Nations: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." These people are vile scumbags, they are taking the freedoms and benefits liberal democracy and capitalism provide and abusing them. We should expose them, counter their narrative, lobby our representatives and use the freedoms liberal democracy and capitalism provide us to oppose them.

orwin 5y ago
Worker-owned companies, only financed by debt and not actions. You can have the top management own 20% of the company, middle management 20%, and the workers 60%, prorate the votes following that, and vote should be anonymous. On highly disputed issues (defining a new direction that needs more than the CEO/CTO opinion), you can have a lottery to form a team representing those percentages. Make the workers invested in the company, in the product, in security. Having your top management paid to extract as much money as they can for the investor is a recipe for exploitation and poor products.
- refurb 5y ago
  Workers own 60% of the company? Sweet! I assume they put up 60% of the capital costs too?
  - sdenton4 5y ago
    Curiously, we generally don't expect founders to show up with their own capital...
    - ericd 5y ago
      They typically do, actually. How do you think those initial formation and other legal fees get paid in most companies? And they’re usually working for free for a while (sometimes years) before the company is in a state where it can raise money by selling equity. Put those together, and the founders have frequently put in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into a company that was worth precisely $0 when they started.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      What? That's the standard model. Use your own funds to create an MVP, and use that MVP to raise outside capital. (no bank will give you a loan for an MVP)
    - refurb 5y ago
      Yeah we do. And they also tend to work for below market wages for years. Are workers willing to do that?
      - minikites 5y ago
        Workers have been working below market wages for decades. If wages had kept pace with productivity improvements and inflation, wages would be far higher today. Instead, the benefits of technology and other productivity improvements have all gone to the handful of people you relentlessly defend.
        5y ago
Olreich 5y ago
Eh, I think it’s worth the old college try of “anything new please” without further corroboration. Everything we’ve tried at large scales has sucked for the majority of the population.
Frost1x 5y ago
You don't have to provide a fix to a discovered problem. Discovering and pointing out a problem is valuable in and of itself. If you force every problem discovery process to provide a fix, you create disincentive to the discovery process itself. It is nice to have a solution when you identify a problem but you also can't just ignore a problem because you don't have a clear solution. Recognize the problem helps others to suggest solutions to the problem. If you can provide iron clad proof no alternative solution exists, then do that. Passing around the burden of proof merely to prop up a position that clearly also doesn't help the problem helps no one. Let's all carry the burden of proof. I for one think part of the issue is with indefinite capital accumulation. We adhere fundamentally to property ownership and that your property is yours forever. This results in pockets of wealth that create many of the problems we currently see in capitalism as practiced in the US. Competitive forces designed to keep things in place can be countered when enough wealth is amassed. Law and regulation can be bought and manipulated. Public opinion can also be fairly well manipulated. Clear out mass inheritance options, set forth ways to cap off mass wealth accumulation and redistribute it to society beyond a point that increases as often as say, minimum wage increases. If wealth wants a higher ceiling, they need to make sure the bottom isn't left behind. Provide progressive tax rates beyond those limits that discourage hoarding wealth and using it counterproductively, if we believe we reward success through wealth. Just some starter ideas, not a claimed solution for the situation at large. Retroactively applying principles may not even be possible without core restructuring in culture and law. Capitalism is great, it's the best system we've seen so far, but what is going on now isn't great and it's not healthy for society. It doesn't necessarily have to be wiped clear but it needs some restructuring or bandaids attached to resolve some very real fundamental issues we have, otherwise we're going to have a society focused on exploitation acquiring value over the actual value creation we praise capitalism for.
- simonh 5y ago
  Oh I fully accept this is an actual problem, these people are vile and need to be fought vigorously and resolutely. I just don't see what that has to do with capitalism, or actually the economic system at all really. Do powerful leaders and managers in non-capitalist systems not engage in lobbying and not promote the interests of their industry? Do they not engage in unsavoury practices when doing so? How does the system act to prevent that? On the contrary all the attempts at non-capitalist systems I'm aware of are based on a system of central planning and the allocation of resources on a bureaucratic or political basis. Fundamentally capitalism is based on freedom of ownership (of property and capital), freedom of labour (to work for or hire others) and freedom of association (to form companies). Planned economies by necessity restrict or eliminate some or all of these freedoms, but those restrictions never stop at economic activities. After all almost everything has some economic dimension. In practice this has always seemed to end up with highly coercive, opaque bureaucratic systems in which factional lobbying and influence peddling isn't just a flaw, it becomes the system.
jtr1 5y ago
Can you provide an explanation of Exxon's behavior that is not driven by the incentive to deliver profits to their shareholders? I'd certainly be open to another way of understanding the situation, but this behavior is so common among corporations of their size, it seems like the simplest explanation to me. Personally, I think the thing most people are angry about is the wild misalignment between the doctrine of shareholder primacy and the well-being of society overall. Exxon is governed by a board which is elected by its shareholders and has a fiduciary responsibility them. But its stakeholders are a much larger group of people. To be clear, I think that so-called "stakeholder capitalism" is a scam if there is no mechanism to enforce it. Instead, I think you need an organizational form that incentivizes both efficient operation and the best interests of the people affected by its behavior. This seems to me an as-yet unsolved organizational optimization problem. Unfortunately, at the rate the climate is changing, we don't have the luxury of experimenting to find that form. Short-term, I think the best option for a company with such enormous impact is a government entity with at least tangential accountable to voters. To this end, I would prefer to see Exxon nationalized and forced to wind down their hydrocarbon extraction operations.
- simonh 5y ago
  Wow, major kudos for a pretty imaginative and bold solution. I don't think it would work though. You'd end up with the biggest stakeholders in the fossil fuel industry, with the most to lose from it winding down, being the government and the tax payer. That's the mother of all conflicts of interest. Now the oil industry leadership aren't lobbying government, they are the government. Now all those oil industry workers you need to sack are government employees in civil service unions. What could possibly go wrong?
  - jtr1 5y ago
    So what's your alternative? I'm all ears.
    - simonh 5y ago
      Use the freedoms that liberal democracy and capitalism give us to fight them back. Expose their corruption, counter-lobby our representatives, use the courts where laws are broken, vote. There is no magic bullet, corruption will always have to be fought. The question is which system gives us the best framework to fight it in. I say a system that respects individual freedoms.