10 ms·

You say that like starting your own automotive company from the ground up is as easy as pouring a bowl of cereal for breakfast.

ericd 4y ago
Then try a less capital-intensive industry? If you don’t have capital, and you want to use a lot of it from other people, then maybe you don’t get to dictate how that capital is used?
- sangnoir 4y ago
  s/capital/labor/ No? Why is it capital can dictate what labor does, but the reverse isn't true? Is it some law of nature, or a cultural victory by capital.
  - ericd 4y ago
    Because in that industry, you need a lot of capital, which usually means you need to convince people to lend you theirs. If you’re in an industry that doesn’t, and labor is the limiting factor (tech is more in this vein), then labor tends to get its way. This has been a bit mixed up by super loose monetary policy, but that’s not historically the norm.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      I get your point: I was just making it clear that the opposite isn't true for labor-intensive industries where one has to gain the labor from a lot of people and still get to dictate how the labor is used. The obvious conclusion is that it's not about the quantity of capital/labor, but the current economic system where capital is king.
      - andsoitis 4y ago
        I wonder whether it isn’t more fundamental. I think the underlying principle is “leverage” and “scarcity”. The more leverage an input has and or the more scarce it is, the more it is prized, everything else being equal. That’s why some labor is more highly paid or has more power than other kinds of labor. Capital, likewise has inherent leverage and scarcity power.
        ericd 4y ago
        Yep, this. Most labor has much less leverage now that it’s more easily replaceable by equally talented people half a world away. It’s just in areas with shortages where it has strong negotiating leverage.
  - junofan 4y ago
    Property rights aren’t a law of nature, but we’ve all come together and decided that we want them. I’m sure there are ways for groups of people to try other models on their own.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > but we’ve all come together and decided that we want them We have not, in fact “all come together and decided that we want” the capitalist model of property rights, and indeed the long term evolution since the early 20th century has been away from that model, which was largely imposed top-down jointly by the rising capitalist class and the fading pre-capitalist aristocracy.
      - thegrimmest 4y ago
        This isn't true. All settled agrarian societies need property rights, and allow for the accumulation of capital. You need to be assured the grain you grow will be yours to eat. You also need to be assured that the grain you've stockpiled for the winter will not be redistributed to people who may be staving now, otherwise you'll starve in the winter. Everything else flows from here.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > all settled agrarian societies need property rights Perhaps, but the upthread discussion doesn’t hinge on merely the existence of property rights, but the very specific capitalist model of property rights, which obviously, not all settled agrarian societies have needed, since it is several millenia newer than settled agrarian societies are. Defenders of capitalism love to argue about the need for “property rights” and then just leap from there to “and, therefore, capitalism”.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        Property rights + individual liberty = capitalism. The right to accumulate capital, and the freedom to voluntarily transact with others without outside interference is all that's needed to accumulate enormous wealth. There is no dismantling of capitalism without compromising either property rights (ownership of land/stuff) or individual liberty (labour regulation).

ericd 4y ago

Then try a less capital-intensive industry? If you don’t have capital, and you want to use a lot of it from other people, then maybe you don’t get to dictate how that capital is used?

sangnoir 4y ago
s/capital/labor/ No? Why is it capital can dictate what labor does, but the reverse isn't true? Is it some law of nature, or a cultural victory by capital.
- ericd 4y ago
  Because in that industry, you need a lot of capital, which usually means you need to convince people to lend you theirs. If you’re in an industry that doesn’t, and labor is the limiting factor (tech is more in this vein), then labor tends to get its way. This has been a bit mixed up by super loose monetary policy, but that’s not historically the norm.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    I get your point: I was just making it clear that the opposite isn't true for labor-intensive industries where one has to gain the labor from a lot of people and still get to dictate how the labor is used. The obvious conclusion is that it's not about the quantity of capital/labor, but the current economic system where capital is king.
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      I wonder whether it isn’t more fundamental. I think the underlying principle is “leverage” and “scarcity”. The more leverage an input has and or the more scarce it is, the more it is prized, everything else being equal. That’s why some labor is more highly paid or has more power than other kinds of labor. Capital, likewise has inherent leverage and scarcity power.
      - ericd 4y ago
        Yep, this. Most labor has much less leverage now that it’s more easily replaceable by equally talented people half a world away. It’s just in areas with shortages where it has strong negotiating leverage.
- junofan 4y ago
  Property rights aren’t a law of nature, but we’ve all come together and decided that we want them. I’m sure there are ways for groups of people to try other models on their own.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > but we’ve all come together and decided that we want them We have not, in fact “all come together and decided that we want” the capitalist model of property rights, and indeed the long term evolution since the early 20th century has been away from that model, which was largely imposed top-down jointly by the rising capitalist class and the fading pre-capitalist aristocracy.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      This isn't true. All settled agrarian societies need property rights, and allow for the accumulation of capital. You need to be assured the grain you grow will be yours to eat. You also need to be assured that the grain you've stockpiled for the winter will not be redistributed to people who may be staving now, otherwise you'll starve in the winter. Everything else flows from here.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > all settled agrarian societies need property rights Perhaps, but the upthread discussion doesn’t hinge on merely the existence of property rights, but the very specific capitalist model of property rights, which obviously, not all settled agrarian societies have needed, since it is several millenia newer than settled agrarian societies are. Defenders of capitalism love to argue about the need for “property rights” and then just leap from there to “and, therefore, capitalism”.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        Property rights + individual liberty = capitalism. The right to accumulate capital, and the freedom to voluntarily transact with others without outside interference is all that's needed to accumulate enormous wealth. There is no dismantling of capitalism without compromising either property rights (ownership of land/stuff) or individual liberty (labour regulation).