8 ms·

> Unfortunately What’s the argument against capitalism/international trade in this context? Trade increases the cost of war, which is a good thing, right?

by ed 4y ago

amelius 4y ago
It's a one-sided view. Capitalism has many problems. The video only highlights a possible advantage.
squarefoot 4y ago
It's an insightful video, however it doesn't mention the possibility that workers can be exploited through unfair wages, work hours or conditions, so that the various parts of the pencil industry can cut higher margins. Choosing an economic system vs another isn't enough.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  You’re not wrong!
SequoiaHope 4y ago
It depends on what someone means by “capitalism”. Some people use a definition which is more specific than just “trade”. So for example we tend to see firms owned by individuals who are materially separate from most of the workers, and some people see this phenomenon as part of what we ultimately call “capitalism”. Control of firms by a small number of people can lead to choices which are good for the leadership but bad for most of the workers. If you have a larger economy made up of firms with this structure, then you can see a great number of choices made that benefit a small number of people to the detriment of a large number of people. Essentially, this arrangement has a tendency to enrich a minority, concentrating capital in a way that perpetuates this cycle. Eventually you end up with a whole lot of people living in desperation barely able to survive while a small number of people are unfathomably wealthy. One might ask if such an arrangement is good for society if most people are left struggling to survive. However this is all based on a rhetorical question: does “capitalism” the word include this arrangement of firms? Is unrestricted free trade likely to lead to this arrangement of firms? Would a different structure of firms, like cooperative ownership, alleviate some of those problems? You could still have “trade” in an economy of cooperatives. But would that still be “capitalism” or would this be considered something else? People are divided on whether it should be called something else. But a lot of people who think we should “move beyond capitalism” do not want to eliminate free trade, just the societal norm where most firms are controlled by a small number of people.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Is unrestricted free trade I have never met two people who can agree on how this would actually work. Just some basic questions: Is there still government controlled currency and interest rate? If not, how is the money supply in the economy managed? Am I allowed to print my own currency? Is there intellectual property? If there are no trademarks, there is no such thing as counterfeit goods, so I can produce a laptop and call it macbook. Does that mean Cartels are allowed? Is market manipulation allowed? Presumably unrestricted trade means I can run pyramid schemes and call them banks? What happens if the seller lied about the product? Is there adverse possession of property and planning permission? If not, can I dig down or build up as far as I want? What if I block sunlight to your solar panels on purpose? Can I sell my kidney? If yes, can I trade in someome else's kidneys? Can I give out loans with crazy interest rates? If yes, you just legalised debt bondage, a form of slavery. Is there bancrupsy? Are there air rights and rights over electromagnetic spectrum? Any conceivable set of anwers to these question amount to rules and regulation. You can't actually function in anarchy
  - SequoiaHope 4y ago
    Worth noting that I am not advocating for unrestricted free trade. But the person I was responding to seems to be pro-capitalism so when I make my arguments for a post-capitalist future (depending on your definition of capitalism, as I mention in my above comment), I use terms that a pro-capitalist can understand. That is, I couch my language in real world effects of the arrangement of capital, and advocate for a world where firms are managed by collectives. In familiar company I identify as a libertarian communist. For anyone spooked by this, I am referring to a voluntary society where people who agree that collective management is best work with others who feel the same way. And yes this can be accomplished in the current society. As such a plan would involve coordination with others, I necessarily must discuss it with others, so here I am. To the person I am responding to: I would suggest listening to some lectures from the Mises Institute on youtube. They aren't my people, but they have some nice theory if you want to know what they think. I do think that if you want to have a voluntary society, it is worth understanding Austrian economic theory.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Pollution - shipping basic goods around the globe 3 times to make the simples itema creates a lot of unnessesary pollition. Fragility - one byte from a bat, one lockdown in China and United Kingdom runs out of toilet paper.
- hedora 4y ago
  I'd like a source for the first. Given no other information, the best estimate of the energy footprint of the manufacturing process for an item is its shelf price. This works particularly well for cheap items, where raw material costs (which are mostly just the energy cost of mining and refining) and shipping costs dominate. Usually, things are shipped around so they can be processed in the most specialized/energy efficient facility available. For small items, the pollution associated with shipping via ocean freight is miniscule. As for the second point, the current system is fragile, but compared to what? If I had to pick a pandemic to live through at any point in time so far, covid would be my first choice.
  - SequoiaHope 4y ago
    > the best estimate of the energy footprint of the manufacturing process for an item is its shelf price. Not really? This depends on the relative price of the energy of delivery and the value of the other parts of the good. And energy is so cheap, we seem pretty comfortable wasting it. I've noticed where I live in California most markets sell this kind of jam made in France called Bonne Maman. Not even fancy markets, but the big local supermarket chains. What is weird about this is that California is a huge producer of fruits. I can buy jam made in a nearby town at one of the fancier markets near here, but the big supermarket chain buys jam from France. This seems like a senseless waste of energy. I refuse to buy the jam from France because it's so wasteful. There's a lot of perverse incentives in our economy, and price cannot optimize for every variable. Capitalism is not as resource efficient as some basic theories would purport it to be.
    - hedora 4y ago
      The transport of the French jam is likely rounding error. This BBC Future article goes into more detail: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220429-the-climate-benefits-of-veganism-and-vegetarianism https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220429-the-climate-bene... Search the page for "the climate impact of food miles" to jump to a graph that breaks down the source of CO2 emissions for various types of food. (The caption also references the source article from Science 2018.) Of the things there, the jam is probably closest to coffee or chocolate. I'd be more worried about Bonne Maman's packaging's CO2 footprint. However, our kitchen floor is concrete, and the kids break a glass every month or so. We stopped buying glasses for them and use the (extremely low quality glass) jam jars instead. When they get older, we'll look for jam that comes in larger containers.
MisterMower 4y ago
Ask Germany how trade with Russia is working out currently. It’s all comparative advantage and win-win scenarios until you find yourself dependent on despicable foes for your food, energy, and basic necessities. The vulnerability created in those situations may actually encourage bad actors to declare war opportunistically.
imtringued 4y ago
Capitalism is an obsession over capital at the expense of everything else. If going to war serves the interests of capital, then it will be done without any questions.

> Unfortunately What’s the argument against capitalism/international trade in this context? Trade increases the cost of war, which is a good thing, right?

by ed 4y ago

> Unfortunately What’s the argument against capitalism/international trade in this context? Trade increases the cost of war, which is a good thing, right?

amelius 4y ago

It's a one-sided view. Capitalism has many problems. The video only highlights a possible advantage.

squarefoot 4y ago

It's an insightful video, however it doesn't mention the possibility that workers can be exploited through unfair wages, work hours or conditions, so that the various parts of the pencil industry can cut higher margins. Choosing an economic system vs another isn't enough.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
You’re not wrong!

SequoiaHope 4y ago

It depends on what someone means by “capitalism”. Some people use a definition which is more specific than just “trade”. So for example we tend to see firms owned by individuals who are materially separate from most of the workers, and some people see this phenomenon as part of what we ultimately call “capitalism”. Control of firms by a small number of people can lead to choices which are good for the leadership but bad for most of the workers. If you have a larger economy made up of firms with this structure, then you can see a great number of choices made that benefit a small number of people to the detriment of a large number of people. Essentially, this arrangement has a tendency to enrich a minority, concentrating capital in a way that perpetuates this cycle. Eventually you end up with a whole lot of people living in desperation barely able to survive while a small number of people are unfathomably wealthy. One might ask if such an arrangement is good for society if most people are left struggling to survive. However this is all based on a rhetorical question: does “capitalism” the word include this arrangement of firms? Is unrestricted free trade likely to lead to this arrangement of firms? Would a different structure of firms, like cooperative ownership, alleviate some of those problems? You could still have “trade” in an economy of cooperatives. But would that still be “capitalism” or would this be considered something else? People are divided on whether it should be called something else. But a lot of people who think we should “move beyond capitalism” do not want to eliminate free trade, just the societal norm where most firms are controlled by a small number of people.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Is unrestricted free trade I have never met two people who can agree on how this would actually work. Just some basic questions: Is there still government controlled currency and interest rate? If not, how is the money supply in the economy managed? Am I allowed to print my own currency? Is there intellectual property? If there are no trademarks, there is no such thing as counterfeit goods, so I can produce a laptop and call it macbook. Does that mean Cartels are allowed? Is market manipulation allowed? Presumably unrestricted trade means I can run pyramid schemes and call them banks? What happens if the seller lied about the product? Is there adverse possession of property and planning permission? If not, can I dig down or build up as far as I want? What if I block sunlight to your solar panels on purpose? Can I sell my kidney? If yes, can I trade in someome else's kidneys? Can I give out loans with crazy interest rates? If yes, you just legalised debt bondage, a form of slavery. Is there bancrupsy? Are there air rights and rights over electromagnetic spectrum? Any conceivable set of anwers to these question amount to rules and regulation. You can't actually function in anarchy
- SequoiaHope 4y ago
  Worth noting that I am not advocating for unrestricted free trade. But the person I was responding to seems to be pro-capitalism so when I make my arguments for a post-capitalist future (depending on your definition of capitalism, as I mention in my above comment), I use terms that a pro-capitalist can understand. That is, I couch my language in real world effects of the arrangement of capital, and advocate for a world where firms are managed by collectives. In familiar company I identify as a libertarian communist. For anyone spooked by this, I am referring to a voluntary society where people who agree that collective management is best work with others who feel the same way. And yes this can be accomplished in the current society. As such a plan would involve coordination with others, I necessarily must discuss it with others, so here I am. To the person I am responding to: I would suggest listening to some lectures from the Mises Institute on youtube. They aren't my people, but they have some nice theory if you want to know what they think. I do think that if you want to have a voluntary society, it is worth understanding Austrian economic theory.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

Pollution - shipping basic goods around the globe 3 times to make the simples itema creates a lot of unnessesary pollition. Fragility - one byte from a bat, one lockdown in China and United Kingdom runs out of toilet paper.

hedora 4y ago
I'd like a source for the first. Given no other information, the best estimate of the energy footprint of the manufacturing process for an item is its shelf price. This works particularly well for cheap items, where raw material costs (which are mostly just the energy cost of mining and refining) and shipping costs dominate. Usually, things are shipped around so they can be processed in the most specialized/energy efficient facility available. For small items, the pollution associated with shipping via ocean freight is miniscule. As for the second point, the current system is fragile, but compared to what? If I had to pick a pandemic to live through at any point in time so far, covid would be my first choice.
- SequoiaHope 4y ago
  > the best estimate of the energy footprint of the manufacturing process for an item is its shelf price. Not really? This depends on the relative price of the energy of delivery and the value of the other parts of the good. And energy is so cheap, we seem pretty comfortable wasting it. I've noticed where I live in California most markets sell this kind of jam made in France called Bonne Maman. Not even fancy markets, but the big local supermarket chains. What is weird about this is that California is a huge producer of fruits. I can buy jam made in a nearby town at one of the fancier markets near here, but the big supermarket chain buys jam from France. This seems like a senseless waste of energy. I refuse to buy the jam from France because it's so wasteful. There's a lot of perverse incentives in our economy, and price cannot optimize for every variable. Capitalism is not as resource efficient as some basic theories would purport it to be.
  - hedora 4y ago
    The transport of the French jam is likely rounding error. This BBC Future article goes into more detail: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220429-the-climate-benefits-of-veganism-and-vegetarianism https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220429-the-climate-bene... Search the page for "the climate impact of food miles" to jump to a graph that breaks down the source of CO2 emissions for various types of food. (The caption also references the source article from Science 2018.) Of the things there, the jam is probably closest to coffee or chocolate. I'd be more worried about Bonne Maman's packaging's CO2 footprint. However, our kitchen floor is concrete, and the kids break a glass every month or so. We stopped buying glasses for them and use the (extremely low quality glass) jam jars instead. When they get older, we'll look for jam that comes in larger containers.

MisterMower 4y ago

Ask Germany how trade with Russia is working out currently. It’s all comparative advantage and win-win scenarios until you find yourself dependent on despicable foes for your food, energy, and basic necessities. The vulnerability created in those situations may actually encourage bad actors to declare war opportunistically.

imtringued 4y ago

Capitalism is an obsession over capital at the expense of everything else. If going to war serves the interests of capital, then it will be done without any questions.