5 ms·

Does it? Or does it have more to do with the massive industry capture of politics? Not to mention the right-wing ideology of, effectively, if you can make money

Does it? Or does it have more to do with the massive industry capture of politics? Not to mention the right-wing ideology of, effectively, if you can make money doing it, and hide the negative effects from the public at least a little, you're a Real American Hero.

zeruch 4y ago
"Massive industry" is the applicable term. The scale of both the capture, and the middle man loss to a more parochial/regional model is terrifying to 'captains of industry' and their political minions.
jmeister 4y ago
There are many progressives who've come around to favouring mega businesses over "mom-and-pop" for: higher wages, stabler jobs, easier enforcement of regulations.. For example: Matt Yglesias
- danaris 4y ago
  There are many people who have been steeped in our hypercapitalist society for decades and have simply accepted its premises as valid, regardless of their stated politics as a whole. It doesn't mean that the source of this ultimately deeply destructive ideology isn't the political right.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > our hypercapitalist society for decades The US has been turning away from free markets for at least a century now.
    - corrral 4y ago
      It is perhaps a relevant observation that "free market" and "capitalism" don't share a Wikipedia page.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    You must not have heard of "Walmart socialism" or have worked for a small-business tyrant. Scale and logistics are good. I think they should be managed by federation (and through regulation), but I'm sick of having bosses who see my salary (rationally) as something directly coming out of their bank account. I prefer a little indirection and mediation in the relationship. Efficiency is good for everyone. The more time and effort you save, the more time and effort you have to waste. There are scales that are ideal for particular businesses, and that scale doesn't always coincidentally coincide with the scale a small-business owner can handle. Business should be as big as real (not paper or regulatory) efficiencies can be found at, and against those efficiencies we should maximize the flexibility and ability to innovate of individual businesses and workers. Instead we just subsidize the biggest businesses most, and through legislation create false efficiencies to subsidize them even more (and guard them from any externalities.)
    - danaris 4y ago
      Efficiency is good. Maximizing for efficiency is not. It leads to a variety of problems, including (but not limited to) a strong tendency toward consolidation of power in too few hands (thus leading to abuses), and fragile systems that break down when a shock comes (like we saw with the supply chain issues during the height of COVID lockdowns).
- specialist 4y ago
  Then it becomes unclear where the state begins and the (mega) corporation(s) begins. I'm neither for or against this strategy. I only wish, quixotically, the misc belligerents in policy debates would be intellectually honest. It's ridiculous to use liberation theology terms, eg "freedom markets", when referring to Fortune 500 corporations.
- turns0ut 4y ago
  Especially in the NFT era of rug pulls. Globalization cannot run on fly by night grifters. Anarcho-syndicalists that argue for workers councils run by experts basically got that but it comes coupled to outdated story of ownership. In real terms the logistics and infrastructure are determined by experts but with the extra steps of getting validation from financiers who have no experience with the engineering methods, but their name is on some paperwork somewhere saying “they own that”. I am cool with centralization effort to minimize duplication of effort. Not the kowtowing to some financier who lucked into money in the past in unrelated business, picking and choosing what I work on today as an engineer with nearly 30 years experience ranging from hardware design to kernel hacking, onto web app stacks with everyone else. The ownership story is political double speak and corrupt expropriation of agency; replacing pols has improved economic gains for public and flushed corruption: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29766 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29766
- fleddr 4y ago
  True, the most progressive people (largely just optical) work for the largest neoliberal monopolists.
  - danaris 4y ago
    I guarantee you, there are plenty of totally real (not just optical), actually-progressive progressives who do not work for neoliberal monopolists. If the people you have seen spouting what seems like the most progressive rhetoric do work at such places, that doesn't mean they're representative of all people who believe in progressive ideology.
WalterBright 4y ago
> and hide the negative effects from the public at least a little, you're a Real American Hero. Has there ever been a socialist operation (or any other operation) that didn't also do this? Like, say, Chernobyl?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Chernobyl wasn't hiding the negative effects of making money. edit: I think Communism, or at least Soviet communism, is as bad or worse for the environment as capitalism. The difference is that the benefits of Soviet environmental disasters flowed to the nation in general. The benefits under capitalism generally go to fewer people than I could fit in my bathroom.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Chernobyl hid the fact that the reactor was highly unsafe, because it was too expensive to fix it. So yeah, it was about money. Socialism is not immune to having things require a positive return on investment, and is hardly immune from forces that cause them to hide costs and risks. As for the benefits of capitalism, it's the only system that has managed to lift millions of poor people into the middle class and beyond.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > Chernobyl hid the fact that the reactor was highly unsafe, because it was too expensive to fix it. And that is bad. But it is different. > As for the benefits of capitalism, it's the only system that has managed to lift millions of poor people into the middle class and beyond. That's because capitalists take credit for China. Take China out of it, and capitalism is a no-op.
      - jcranmer 4y ago
        So who was responsible for poverty reduction in the nineteenth century?
      - 4y ago

zeruch 4y ago

"Massive industry" is the applicable term. The scale of both the capture, and the middle man loss to a more parochial/regional model is terrifying to 'captains of industry' and their political minions.

jmeister 4y ago

There are many progressives who've come around to favouring mega businesses over "mom-and-pop" for: higher wages, stabler jobs, easier enforcement of regulations.. For example: Matt Yglesias

danaris 4y ago
There are many people who have been steeped in our hypercapitalist society for decades and have simply accepted its premises as valid, regardless of their stated politics as a whole. It doesn't mean that the source of this ultimately deeply destructive ideology isn't the political right.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > our hypercapitalist society for decades The US has been turning away from free markets for at least a century now.
  - corrral 4y ago
    It is perhaps a relevant observation that "free market" and "capitalism" don't share a Wikipedia page.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  You must not have heard of "Walmart socialism" or have worked for a small-business tyrant. Scale and logistics are good. I think they should be managed by federation (and through regulation), but I'm sick of having bosses who see my salary (rationally) as something directly coming out of their bank account. I prefer a little indirection and mediation in the relationship. Efficiency is good for everyone. The more time and effort you save, the more time and effort you have to waste. There are scales that are ideal for particular businesses, and that scale doesn't always coincidentally coincide with the scale a small-business owner can handle. Business should be as big as real (not paper or regulatory) efficiencies can be found at, and against those efficiencies we should maximize the flexibility and ability to innovate of individual businesses and workers. Instead we just subsidize the biggest businesses most, and through legislation create false efficiencies to subsidize them even more (and guard them from any externalities.)
  - danaris 4y ago
    Efficiency is good. Maximizing for efficiency is not. It leads to a variety of problems, including (but not limited to) a strong tendency toward consolidation of power in too few hands (thus leading to abuses), and fragile systems that break down when a shock comes (like we saw with the supply chain issues during the height of COVID lockdowns).
specialist 4y ago
Then it becomes unclear where the state begins and the (mega) corporation(s) begins. I'm neither for or against this strategy. I only wish, quixotically, the misc belligerents in policy debates would be intellectually honest. It's ridiculous to use liberation theology terms, eg "freedom markets", when referring to Fortune 500 corporations.
turns0ut 4y ago
Especially in the NFT era of rug pulls. Globalization cannot run on fly by night grifters. Anarcho-syndicalists that argue for workers councils run by experts basically got that but it comes coupled to outdated story of ownership. In real terms the logistics and infrastructure are determined by experts but with the extra steps of getting validation from financiers who have no experience with the engineering methods, but their name is on some paperwork somewhere saying “they own that”. I am cool with centralization effort to minimize duplication of effort. Not the kowtowing to some financier who lucked into money in the past in unrelated business, picking and choosing what I work on today as an engineer with nearly 30 years experience ranging from hardware design to kernel hacking, onto web app stacks with everyone else. The ownership story is political double speak and corrupt expropriation of agency; replacing pols has improved economic gains for public and flushed corruption: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29766 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29766
fleddr 4y ago
True, the most progressive people (largely just optical) work for the largest neoliberal monopolists.
- danaris 4y ago
  I guarantee you, there are plenty of totally real (not just optical), actually-progressive progressives who do not work for neoliberal monopolists. If the people you have seen spouting what seems like the most progressive rhetoric do work at such places, that doesn't mean they're representative of all people who believe in progressive ideology.

WalterBright 4y ago

> and hide the negative effects from the public at least a little, you're a Real American Hero. Has there ever been a socialist operation (or any other operation) that didn't also do this? Like, say, Chernobyl?

pessimizer 4y ago
Chernobyl wasn't hiding the negative effects of making money. edit: I think Communism, or at least Soviet communism, is as bad or worse for the environment as capitalism. The difference is that the benefits of Soviet environmental disasters flowed to the nation in general. The benefits under capitalism generally go to fewer people than I could fit in my bathroom.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Chernobyl hid the fact that the reactor was highly unsafe, because it was too expensive to fix it. So yeah, it was about money. Socialism is not immune to having things require a positive return on investment, and is hardly immune from forces that cause them to hide costs and risks. As for the benefits of capitalism, it's the only system that has managed to lift millions of poor people into the middle class and beyond.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > Chernobyl hid the fact that the reactor was highly unsafe, because it was too expensive to fix it. And that is bad. But it is different. > As for the benefits of capitalism, it's the only system that has managed to lift millions of poor people into the middle class and beyond. That's because capitalists take credit for China. Take China out of it, and capitalism is a no-op.
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      So who was responsible for poverty reduction in the nineteenth century?
    - 4y ago