4 ms·

It's interesting that economic power is not perceived as hierarchical by the author. Or rather it seems like an ideological view. Also: > The rich get really

by dgb23 5y ago

It's interesting that economic power is not perceived as hierarchical by the author. Or rather it seems like an ideological view. Also: > The rich get really rich, and the poor get poorer by comparison. Unfortunately, this has always been true. It is not an artifact of modern economics. This is not true as far as I know. There have been times in recent history between the early ~1900 and ~1970 where the income gap decreased and worker protection increased. It was a time of stronger worker movements, unions, emancipation and policy aimed at the larger demographics of the public. The 70's mark a shift towards neo-liberal ideology in the western world. The article is riddled with dystopian suggestions. There are some things I can agree with. For example I very much agree with the importance of workplace transparency. And there is also an underlying tone of empathy with the unfortunate, but it comes off as patronizing. I think the biggest fallacy is to think that our societies are becoming more meritocratic almost by default (as assessed in the article). Ignoring whether that is a good thing or not, I doubt this is true at all or if it even can be measured objectively.

csa 5y ago
> It was a time of stronger worker movements, unions, emancipation and policy aimed at the larger demographics of the public. A lot of the things you mentioned only developed during the time when there was (or seemed to be) a compelling competing ideology. Communism/socialism was seen as a potential alternative to capitalism during that time, and I think that the competition of ideas during that time led to more benefits for the lower end of the economic ladder.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Just ideas? Not massive union participation and protests across the Western world, revolutions and wars to force it?
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    That's how competition of ideas looks like - with people being in conflict over these ideas, and those ideas (or ideologies as "idea packages") having to change and compromise to win over more people or be outcompeted as their supporters get outnumbered, defeated or even eliminated.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      So if you have an idea, and I have an idea, and I beat you to death, my idea has won?
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        Well yes, militarily defeating most proponents of an idea is a reasonably effective way of subduing that idea or ideology. For historical examples, the nazi ideology is probably a major example, with the idea becoming much less prominent and widespread after WW2, all the while it's obvious that it would be quite popular in much of the world if the war had turned out differently. The idea of divinely sanctioned monarchy is another big one which was generally accepted but then mostly lost out through applied violence. The USA Civil war might also be thought of as this kind of war of ideas.
        ModernMech 5y ago
        I disagree. I would say we have phrases like "war of ideas" to differentiate between actual war. It would seem to me that literal war indicates a failure of a war of ideas. If what you say is true, then the only conclusion to draw is "might makes right". i.e. whoever has the biggest stick has the best ideas. That's something I'll have trouble accepting.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      Or maybe they didn't fight over ideas at all but resources and power.
- Animats 5y ago
  A lot of the things you mentioned only developed during the time when there was (or seemed to be) a compelling competing ideology. Communism/socialism was seen as a potential alternative to capitalism during that time, and I think that the competition of ideas during that time led to more benefits for the lower end of the economic ladder. Yes. I've made that point before, but it's not a mainstream position. Many of the problems we have with capitalism come from capitalism being a monopoly, and acting like one. Here's anti-communism PR from the 1949-1955 on the distribution of wealth. Back then, capitalism had to be sold in a competitive market.[1][2] [1] https://archive.org/details/Americas1955 https://archive.org/details/Americas1955 [2] https://archive.org/details/MeetKing1949 https://archive.org/details/MeetKing1949
imtringued 5y ago
>Unfortunately, this has always been true. It is not an artifact of modern economics. That part doesn't even make any logical sense because there is nothing in economics that requires growing inequality. It's usually political power structures that need growing inequality. I would go one step further and say that growing inequality is bad for economic growth and has often ended in a revolution.

by dgb23 5y ago

csa 5y ago

> It was a time of stronger worker movements, unions, emancipation and policy aimed at the larger demographics of the public. A lot of the things you mentioned only developed during the time when there was (or seemed to be) a compelling competing ideology. Communism/socialism was seen as a potential alternative to capitalism during that time, and I think that the competition of ideas during that time led to more benefits for the lower end of the economic ladder.

guerrilla 5y ago
Just ideas? Not massive union participation and protests across the Western world, revolutions and wars to force it?
- PeterisP 5y ago
  That's how competition of ideas looks like - with people being in conflict over these ideas, and those ideas (or ideologies as "idea packages") having to change and compromise to win over more people or be outcompeted as their supporters get outnumbered, defeated or even eliminated.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    So if you have an idea, and I have an idea, and I beat you to death, my idea has won?
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      Well yes, militarily defeating most proponents of an idea is a reasonably effective way of subduing that idea or ideology. For historical examples, the nazi ideology is probably a major example, with the idea becoming much less prominent and widespread after WW2, all the while it's obvious that it would be quite popular in much of the world if the war had turned out differently. The idea of divinely sanctioned monarchy is another big one which was generally accepted but then mostly lost out through applied violence. The USA Civil war might also be thought of as this kind of war of ideas.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        I disagree. I would say we have phrases like "war of ideas" to differentiate between actual war. It would seem to me that literal war indicates a failure of a war of ideas. If what you say is true, then the only conclusion to draw is "might makes right". i.e. whoever has the biggest stick has the best ideas. That's something I'll have trouble accepting.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Or maybe they didn't fight over ideas at all but resources and power.
Animats 5y ago
A lot of the things you mentioned only developed during the time when there was (or seemed to be) a compelling competing ideology. Communism/socialism was seen as a potential alternative to capitalism during that time, and I think that the competition of ideas during that time led to more benefits for the lower end of the economic ladder. Yes. I've made that point before, but it's not a mainstream position. Many of the problems we have with capitalism come from capitalism being a monopoly, and acting like one. Here's anti-communism PR from the 1949-1955 on the distribution of wealth. Back then, capitalism had to be sold in a competitive market.[1][2] [1] https://archive.org/details/Americas1955 https://archive.org/details/Americas1955 [2] https://archive.org/details/MeetKing1949 https://archive.org/details/MeetKing1949

imtringued 5y ago

>Unfortunately, this has always been true. It is not an artifact of modern economics. That part doesn't even make any logical sense because there is nothing in economics that requires growing inequality. It's usually political power structures that need growing inequality. I would go one step further and say that growing inequality is bad for economic growth and has often ended in a revolution.