10 ms·

That's just objectively not true - welfare systems stop people from becoming homeless or starving in the street all the time. Libertarianism/neoliberalism is t

That's just objectively not true - welfare systems stop people from becoming homeless or starving in the street all the time. Libertarianism/neoliberalism is the ideological model that doesn't care about the poor - social democracy isn't perfect but it is an improvement over just letting people die.

nickpp 5y ago
It’s not about caring, it’s about results. Capitalism is the only system that pulled both countries and people out of poverty, because it’s the best system at motivating people to create value. Redistributing systems are naturally demotivating. The balance is being tried indeed but it’s a slippery slope in a democracy where people just learn that they can vote more money in their pockets.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Social democracy is still capitalism, it just redirects some taxes into a welfare program. If eliminating poverty is the end goal then we need a safety net for those who fail.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Social democracy is still capitalism It's still capitalism in much the same way that capitalism is still feudalism.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      Given that capitalism describes a mode of production, it literally is still capitalism. Capitalism is not feudalism in that serfdom is not the primary working relationship between classes in capitalism - though Yanis Varoufakis seems to think that we're headed that way.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Given that capitalism describes a mode of production, it literally is still capitalism Given that redistributive taxation and benefit systems labelled “social democracy” designed specifically to mitigate the adversity that provides the whip behind the capitalist mode of production modify both the property system and the mode of production that together are labelled “capitalism”, social democracy literally is not capitalism. It retains substantial elements of the property system of, and it's mode of production has important similarities to that of, the system for which the term “capitalism” was coined (as does that system with pre-capitalist aristocratic systems), but it's not the same system. It's not Marxist socialism, either, and I know Marxists like to deny that any system that isn't pre-capitalist that fails to be Marxist socialism can be anything other than capitalism-under-a-different-name, but that's a giant false dichotomy.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        A mixed economy still has private property and the capitalist-worker class dynamic, still experiences the crisis cycle - so it's still capitalist, it's just a better form of it. If your qualifying rules for "capitalism" require no welfare system whatsoever, then capitalism hasn't existed in the West for at least 100 years. Bearing in mind that I'm using "capitalism" as a descriptor, not a snarl word. The snarl one is "neoliberalism" ;)
  - nickpp 5y ago
    And being a democracy, the welfare beneficiaries will then repeatedly decide to increase those "some taxes" thus demotivating the taxed to work. We’ve seen countless state welfare programs growing out of control and eating more and more funds and we are nowhere near eliminating poverty. You’d think that if it was just a matter of throwing money at the problem, we would have solved it by now.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I'd love to know where this has actually happened. It seems to me that this idea is often trotted out as a conservative scare tactic. I'd also like to know how you think we should maximise people's happiness and wellbeing. Because that's my primary interest, and economic productivity is valuable insofar as it enables that utility maximisation.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        Taxes are rising around the globe in developed countries. Also red tape and regulations which are a different type of "tax" with the same result: demotivating value creators. You can't maximise happiness by definition. Happiness is fleeting, a peak, it exists only through comparison to our regular state. Evolution made sure of that, or we'd've stopped evolving. The only way to cheat it is with drugs. I want to maximise humankind's potential instead. Gain infinite knowledge, spread through the stars. I think that is a much more worthwhile goal than happily dying out on a small planet at the edge of the galaxy.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        I don't mean happiness like the temporary pleasure state. I mean the minimisation of undesired suffering and maximisation of freedom for all people to pursue their preferences. I don't think "potential" is worth anything if it isn't used to benefit people and make their lives better. The imperium from 40k has much greater technology and planet span than us but it's deeply dystopic - I'd rather live here than there.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  It is entirely possible that a system that has worked well in the past finds itself in need of replacement or significant modification due to circumstances it has created. Monarchy was useful for pulling disparate tribes into larger nations via conquest. Government private land granting incentivized rapid expansion of a colonial people across lightly-defended foreign territory, which was then conquered and parceled up. But when there is no more land to grant, what happens? When there are no more tribes to conquer, what happens? When there is massive abundance and most of it is owned by 1% of the population... What happens? > Redistributing systems are naturally demotivating ... to the people who end up with less. They seem to be motivating to the people who end up with more. [https://singularityhub.com/2020/05/18/here-are-the-results-of-the-biggest-universal-basic-income-trial-yet/ https://singularityhub.com/2020/05/18/here-are-the-results-o...] In a country where 1 in 100 people own a total of 40% of the nation's total wealth, a back-of-the-napkin guess strongly suggests the net motivation of spreading that wealth around would be positive.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    No other system we tried was better at reducing global poverty and advancing the society. The reason capitalism works so well is that it works with human nature, not against it: it incentivizes value creators by allowing them to keep a large share of the value they create. The majority of that value though, goes to the society, rising it. > demotivating... to the people who end up with less No, demotivating to the people creating value. > spreading that wealth around would be positive That is exactly what communists did when taking power: stole the wealth and spread it around. It lasted some good 10-20 years, then they started starving, because why would anyone create any more wealth if it was gonna be confiscated anyway?!
    - dahart 5y ago
      > No other system we tried was better a reducing global poverty and advancing the society. What systems have we tried, and who and when are you talking about? What are you comparing to? Some of the best examples we have today are the ones that aren’t exactly pure capitalism, like Norway and Finland. If capitalism is so great, why are countries that hold capitalism back and provide more social services raking better than the US on nearly all economic, development, and social measures? > it incentivizes value creators by allowing them to keep a large share of the value they create. Do you recognize this spin, or is it unintentional? It’s motivating to lose some of the value you create by working to someone else?? Wouldn’t it be a lot more motivating to keep all the value you create? Wouldn’t it be even more motivating to not work, and get to keep some of the value other people create? Yeah, I think it probably is. > That is exactly what communists did when taking power: stole the wealth and spread it around. It lasted some good 10-20 years, then they started starving, because why would anyone create any more wealth if it was gonna be confiscated anyway?! This feels like the McCarthy school of economics. Russia’s problems didn’t stem from lack of proletariat motivation, it came from authoritarian abuses of power. You seem to be forgetting about China entirely.
- dahart 5y ago
  Its interesting you keep using the word ‘redistribution’ for social services, when capitalism is by definition a redistribution from the poor to the rich. It’s also demotivating for people to be trapped in poverty while their employers’ relative slice of the pie is growing year by year. Capitalism may well have slightly democratized the wealth generation process compared to some authoritarian regimes, and some economies have increased average standard of living while doing well under Capitalism, it’s not all bad, but there is certainly lots and lots and lots of room to improve. It’s also interesting to put the onus on the poor to be motivated, in a system designed by the rich that begins to fail, and we take corrective action, if our unemployment goes too low.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    > capitalism is by definition a redistribution There is nothing to redistribute when we all have nothing - and that is our initial state. Then through capitalism value is created. Part of said value is retained by its creator - thus providing the motivation to create it in the first place. But the most value is distributed in the society (through regular consuming of goods and services), raising its level and thus pulling more people out of poverty. Just check out how dramatically poverty was reduced when Eastern European states switched from communism to capitalism.
    - nec4b 5y ago
      I though the poor were living from social security checks. Working people trade labor for money. Are you claiming that you cannot make surplus from a salary? It seem you're claiming agreed upon salary is preventing you accumulating capital and the rich are to be blamed somehow.
      - nec4b 5y ago
        Sorry, I have replied to the wrong person. The above comment should be under beaconstudios's comment.
    - dahart 5y ago
      > There is nothing to redistribute when we all have nothing - and that is our initial state. If the initial state is nothing, where, exactly, does the “capital” in capitalism come from? > Then through capitalism value is created. That is an amazing magical sentence. Capitalism creates value? How does it do that?

nickpp 5y ago

It’s not about caring, it’s about results. Capitalism is the only system that pulled both countries and people out of poverty, because it’s the best system at motivating people to create value. Redistributing systems are naturally demotivating. The balance is being tried indeed but it’s a slippery slope in a democracy where people just learn that they can vote more money in their pockets.

beaconstudios 5y ago
Social democracy is still capitalism, it just redirects some taxes into a welfare program. If eliminating poverty is the end goal then we need a safety net for those who fail.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Social democracy is still capitalism It's still capitalism in much the same way that capitalism is still feudalism.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Given that capitalism describes a mode of production, it literally is still capitalism. Capitalism is not feudalism in that serfdom is not the primary working relationship between classes in capitalism - though Yanis Varoufakis seems to think that we're headed that way.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Given that capitalism describes a mode of production, it literally is still capitalism Given that redistributive taxation and benefit systems labelled “social democracy” designed specifically to mitigate the adversity that provides the whip behind the capitalist mode of production modify both the property system and the mode of production that together are labelled “capitalism”, social democracy literally is not capitalism. It retains substantial elements of the property system of, and it's mode of production has important similarities to that of, the system for which the term “capitalism” was coined (as does that system with pre-capitalist aristocratic systems), but it's not the same system. It's not Marxist socialism, either, and I know Marxists like to deny that any system that isn't pre-capitalist that fails to be Marxist socialism can be anything other than capitalism-under-a-different-name, but that's a giant false dichotomy.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        A mixed economy still has private property and the capitalist-worker class dynamic, still experiences the crisis cycle - so it's still capitalist, it's just a better form of it. If your qualifying rules for "capitalism" require no welfare system whatsoever, then capitalism hasn't existed in the West for at least 100 years. Bearing in mind that I'm using "capitalism" as a descriptor, not a snarl word. The snarl one is "neoliberalism" ;)
- nickpp 5y ago
  And being a democracy, the welfare beneficiaries will then repeatedly decide to increase those "some taxes" thus demotivating the taxed to work. We’ve seen countless state welfare programs growing out of control and eating more and more funds and we are nowhere near eliminating poverty. You’d think that if it was just a matter of throwing money at the problem, we would have solved it by now.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I'd love to know where this has actually happened. It seems to me that this idea is often trotted out as a conservative scare tactic. I'd also like to know how you think we should maximise people's happiness and wellbeing. Because that's my primary interest, and economic productivity is valuable insofar as it enables that utility maximisation.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      Taxes are rising around the globe in developed countries. Also red tape and regulations which are a different type of "tax" with the same result: demotivating value creators. You can't maximise happiness by definition. Happiness is fleeting, a peak, it exists only through comparison to our regular state. Evolution made sure of that, or we'd've stopped evolving. The only way to cheat it is with drugs. I want to maximise humankind's potential instead. Gain infinite knowledge, spread through the stars. I think that is a much more worthwhile goal than happily dying out on a small planet at the edge of the galaxy.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        I don't mean happiness like the temporary pleasure state. I mean the minimisation of undesired suffering and maximisation of freedom for all people to pursue their preferences. I don't think "potential" is worth anything if it isn't used to benefit people and make their lives better. The imperium from 40k has much greater technology and planet span than us but it's deeply dystopic - I'd rather live here than there.
shadowgovt 5y ago
It is entirely possible that a system that has worked well in the past finds itself in need of replacement or significant modification due to circumstances it has created. Monarchy was useful for pulling disparate tribes into larger nations via conquest. Government private land granting incentivized rapid expansion of a colonial people across lightly-defended foreign territory, which was then conquered and parceled up. But when there is no more land to grant, what happens? When there are no more tribes to conquer, what happens? When there is massive abundance and most of it is owned by 1% of the population... What happens? > Redistributing systems are naturally demotivating ... to the people who end up with less. They seem to be motivating to the people who end up with more. [https://singularityhub.com/2020/05/18/here-are-the-results-of-the-biggest-universal-basic-income-trial-yet/ https://singularityhub.com/2020/05/18/here-are-the-results-o...] In a country where 1 in 100 people own a total of 40% of the nation's total wealth, a back-of-the-napkin guess strongly suggests the net motivation of spreading that wealth around would be positive.
- nickpp 5y ago
  No other system we tried was better at reducing global poverty and advancing the society. The reason capitalism works so well is that it works with human nature, not against it: it incentivizes value creators by allowing them to keep a large share of the value they create. The majority of that value though, goes to the society, rising it. > demotivating... to the people who end up with less No, demotivating to the people creating value. > spreading that wealth around would be positive That is exactly what communists did when taking power: stole the wealth and spread it around. It lasted some good 10-20 years, then they started starving, because why would anyone create any more wealth if it was gonna be confiscated anyway?!
  - dahart 5y ago
    > No other system we tried was better a reducing global poverty and advancing the society. What systems have we tried, and who and when are you talking about? What are you comparing to? Some of the best examples we have today are the ones that aren’t exactly pure capitalism, like Norway and Finland. If capitalism is so great, why are countries that hold capitalism back and provide more social services raking better than the US on nearly all economic, development, and social measures? > it incentivizes value creators by allowing them to keep a large share of the value they create. Do you recognize this spin, or is it unintentional? It’s motivating to lose some of the value you create by working to someone else?? Wouldn’t it be a lot more motivating to keep all the value you create? Wouldn’t it be even more motivating to not work, and get to keep some of the value other people create? Yeah, I think it probably is. > That is exactly what communists did when taking power: stole the wealth and spread it around. It lasted some good 10-20 years, then they started starving, because why would anyone create any more wealth if it was gonna be confiscated anyway?! This feels like the McCarthy school of economics. Russia’s problems didn’t stem from lack of proletariat motivation, it came from authoritarian abuses of power. You seem to be forgetting about China entirely.
dahart 5y ago
Its interesting you keep using the word ‘redistribution’ for social services, when capitalism is by definition a redistribution from the poor to the rich. It’s also demotivating for people to be trapped in poverty while their employers’ relative slice of the pie is growing year by year. Capitalism may well have slightly democratized the wealth generation process compared to some authoritarian regimes, and some economies have increased average standard of living while doing well under Capitalism, it’s not all bad, but there is certainly lots and lots and lots of room to improve. It’s also interesting to put the onus on the poor to be motivated, in a system designed by the rich that begins to fail, and we take corrective action, if our unemployment goes too low.
- nickpp 5y ago
  > capitalism is by definition a redistribution There is nothing to redistribute when we all have nothing - and that is our initial state. Then through capitalism value is created. Part of said value is retained by its creator - thus providing the motivation to create it in the first place. But the most value is distributed in the society (through regular consuming of goods and services), raising its level and thus pulling more people out of poverty. Just check out how dramatically poverty was reduced when Eastern European states switched from communism to capitalism.
  - nec4b 5y ago
    I though the poor were living from social security checks. Working people trade labor for money. Are you claiming that you cannot make surplus from a salary? It seem you're claiming agreed upon salary is preventing you accumulating capital and the rich are to be blamed somehow.
    - nec4b 5y ago
      Sorry, I have replied to the wrong person. The above comment should be under beaconstudios's comment.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > There is nothing to redistribute when we all have nothing - and that is our initial state. If the initial state is nothing, where, exactly, does the “capital” in capitalism come from? > Then through capitalism value is created. That is an amazing magical sentence. Capitalism creates value? How does it do that?