5 ms·

Then finally the 99% screwed people realize that this is where (crony) capitalism is supposed to end up in the long run. Time for a forceful redistribution and

Then finally the 99% screwed people realize that this is where (crony) capitalism is supposed to end up in the long run. Time for a forceful redistribution and system change. Can’t happen soon enough.

bhawks 4y ago
> Time for a forceful redistribution and system change. Can’t happen soon enough. Sadly revolutions have a really bad track record for the 99%. It may feel good in the short term but the people who end up assuming power are usually much worse. OTOH fractional reserve banking and cronyism are really past their expiration dates. It'd be nice to stop kicking the can down the road - we have technological solutions now.
- anonyfox 4y ago
  My point is that people should not have to serve or suffer for the system, but the system has to work for them. There is more than enough wealth for everyone, it’s only a distribution problem. For that, modern tech surely can help
  - bhawks 4y ago
    The people created the system though - indirectly thru flawed / corrupt leaders but you get what you get. I'd like to understand now why we'd get a better set of leaders if we tear it all down now. I personally don't have any observations indicating why that would be true. Similarly if you redistribute wealth - what's going to prevent it from becoming unequally distributed again? I'd imagine that a small subset of people would quickly game whatever system is devised and we're back at square one again.
    - anonyfox 4y ago
      Just for demonstration purposes: imagine we get rid of voting alltogether. Instead, a random representative sample of 1000 people is chosen from the population, for some congress, for a year. They rule during that time. Some rules cannot be overruled, like the 1 year limit, no way to game that. Additionally, all communication of the chosen ones must be recorded and public, without exceptions. This basically eliminates corruption or the rise of a „ruling class“, and lobbyism has a much harder task. I would also argue that this will result in much better overall decisions - they might lack some initial knowledge but that is more than offset by missing corruption and cronyism
      - bhawks 4y ago
        Instinctively I love term limits - however they are already in place in many states and there are many studies indicating mixed results at best - see: https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/political-science-term-limits https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/political-science-te... A randomly assigned legislature sounds like a recipe to create an unaccountable bureaucracy of staffers and advisors 'guiding' the forced citizen through what must be done / can't be done legislatively. This is where the real power would lie - and frankly we are kind of there today. Most congresscritters spend 45% of their time campaigning, 45% of their time fundraising and 10% of their time looking damn cute. Staffers, lobbyists and think-tanks do most of the legislative work.
        worrycue 4y ago
        > unaccountable bureaucracy of staffers and advisors 'guiding' the forced citizen through what must be done / can't be done legislatively Sounds like the UK civil service in Yes, Minister / Yes, Prime Minister. https://youtu.be/FLm2X6sFa48 https://youtu.be/FLm2X6sFa48 https://youtu.be/7hsNfNM0SvE https://youtu.be/7hsNfNM0SvE
        avidphantasm 4y ago
        Term limits won’t do anything unless we ban the legal bribery that is unlimited campaign contributions through dark money groups and super PACs.
      - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
        You can't parachute people into government without explaining to them how government works. Representatives don't just vote on legislation, they have to propose it and draft it. Someone has to understand and explain how all of that functions. The people doing the drafting, suggesting, and explaining won't have term limits and will have the real power. They'll also be the ones targeted by lobbyists. You'll end up with is a floor show with the real decisions being made behind the scenes by people who are mostly not directly accountable. Not unlike what we have now. Different, possibly better in some ways, and possibly worse in others.
      - 4y ago
    - atq2119 4y ago
      > Similarly if you redistribute wealth - what's going to prevent it from becoming unequally distributed again? The redistribution shouldn't be a one-time event, but rather a persistently different approach to taxation, labor rights (unions!), welfare, etc. We can see this working in a number of countries, especially the Nordics. Of course, there will always be attacks on such a system, but such is life. Some battles need to be refought every two generations or so, that's just how humans work.
      - chongli 4y ago
        We can see this working in a number of countries, especially the Nordics. Norway doesn’t count because of its sovereign wealth fund. How is it working in Sweden though? That country still has billionaires (IKEA founder, Minecraft’s notch). I think it just doesn’t work in general. If you try to set up a new system to redistribute the wealth, the winners will be those in charge of the system.
        smmn88 4y ago
        What exactly is the issue with having billionaires, as long as there is a decent standard of living for everyone and people are taken care of? You need incentives to work hard and it is a good idea to have strong differences in outcome, as long as you have mostly equal opportunity. Otherwise you end up where all socialist experiments end up: in economical, social and humanitarian hell.
        chongli 4y ago
        I'm not saying there's an issue with it. I'm just saying that if you have billionaires then you haven't actually redistributed all of the wealth.
      - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        What makes you think the entrenched interests befitting from the status quo won't co-opt that process and funnel the wealth into themselves? I mean hell, the whole BLM shindig petered out the nanosecond that it looked like the people with BLM signs in their yard might not get tackled by the first cop that see em'. Now imagine how something with serious dollar signs attached would go(!!).
bsaul 4y ago
everytime i hear someone talk about redistribution i wonder if they're asking to have more money, or if they'd be happy if the redistribution made them poorer.
- anonyfox 4y ago
  Neither. More like: if you are sick, you can go to a doc for free, he is paid for by the public. Want to become a doc? Get that education for free, including some monthly money to live during studying. Those teachers? Same thing, paid for by the public. Or you can travel with great public transport, for free. It’s not that I want more money, taken away from the rich, but the realization that everyone including me is much better off of everyone around also is taken care of. Strong public services are key. Ontop of that, even more radical, companies should be run by the people working in it instead of shareholders siphoning out profits. Workers would never fire each other for more profits, or evade taxes that fund their neighborhood, or offshore their own jobs. Currently that might not be legal, that’s why it would need forceful redistribution. Even on the simplest level: if you have free access to education/healthcare/… imagine how many brilliant people can try to become entrepreneurs or researchers instead of having to suffer two service jobs to provide their family. It’s statistics, that 60%+ of the population might include the next Einsteins, but are unnoticed and their potential wasted.
  - ricardobayes 4y ago
    Interestingly, becoming an enterpreneur is really uncommon in Europe, where all you said was free. I think it actually has an inverse effect.
    - anonyfox 4y ago
      There several reasons for that, but one key thing is that people do not, in general, desperatly dream of the „get rich quick“ to escape their life situation. A big share is simply well off, taken care of if there are problems, and live their live in good conditions. I am fine with not every useless thing to exist and waste resources on that.
IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
I dont think we have a very strong culture of leaders and an informed populace currently to definitely state that whatever comes after is better The current system was forget in the furncace of extreme bravery and duty . A fledging nation was taking on the superpower of the time (UK). Every single founding father was taking direct personal risk to themselves and their families by declaring indeoendence. The level of bravery needed for this is astonishing. The people doing this literally had no self-interest in doing so. What leaders can you find today with the same sense of duty that are able to negotiate this country into a better deal? The answer is there arent any and anything new we put in place today will look like a disaster vs what we have now. Its insane to discard a 250yr old system that has outlived 2 world wars and most competing systems, because some of its features have been gamed. Instead, you make mods. (Term limits being one).
zpeti 4y ago
So the solution to crony capitalism that has been taken over by big corporations and lobbyists manipulating the government is… More government. Please explain the logic behind this. Surely the solution is smaller government, no lobbying or money in government at all?

bhawks 4y ago

> Time for a forceful redistribution and system change. Can’t happen soon enough. Sadly revolutions have a really bad track record for the 99%. It may feel good in the short term but the people who end up assuming power are usually much worse. OTOH fractional reserve banking and cronyism are really past their expiration dates. It'd be nice to stop kicking the can down the road - we have technological solutions now.

anonyfox 4y ago
My point is that people should not have to serve or suffer for the system, but the system has to work for them. There is more than enough wealth for everyone, it’s only a distribution problem. For that, modern tech surely can help
- bhawks 4y ago
  The people created the system though - indirectly thru flawed / corrupt leaders but you get what you get. I'd like to understand now why we'd get a better set of leaders if we tear it all down now. I personally don't have any observations indicating why that would be true. Similarly if you redistribute wealth - what's going to prevent it from becoming unequally distributed again? I'd imagine that a small subset of people would quickly game whatever system is devised and we're back at square one again.
  - anonyfox 4y ago
    Just for demonstration purposes: imagine we get rid of voting alltogether. Instead, a random representative sample of 1000 people is chosen from the population, for some congress, for a year. They rule during that time. Some rules cannot be overruled, like the 1 year limit, no way to game that. Additionally, all communication of the chosen ones must be recorded and public, without exceptions. This basically eliminates corruption or the rise of a „ruling class“, and lobbyism has a much harder task. I would also argue that this will result in much better overall decisions - they might lack some initial knowledge but that is more than offset by missing corruption and cronyism
    - bhawks 4y ago
      Instinctively I love term limits - however they are already in place in many states and there are many studies indicating mixed results at best - see: https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/political-science-term-limits https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/political-science-te... A randomly assigned legislature sounds like a recipe to create an unaccountable bureaucracy of staffers and advisors 'guiding' the forced citizen through what must be done / can't be done legislatively. This is where the real power would lie - and frankly we are kind of there today. Most congresscritters spend 45% of their time campaigning, 45% of their time fundraising and 10% of their time looking damn cute. Staffers, lobbyists and think-tanks do most of the legislative work.
      - worrycue 4y ago
        > unaccountable bureaucracy of staffers and advisors 'guiding' the forced citizen through what must be done / can't be done legislatively Sounds like the UK civil service in Yes, Minister / Yes, Prime Minister. https://youtu.be/FLm2X6sFa48 https://youtu.be/FLm2X6sFa48 https://youtu.be/7hsNfNM0SvE https://youtu.be/7hsNfNM0SvE
      - avidphantasm 4y ago
        Term limits won’t do anything unless we ban the legal bribery that is unlimited campaign contributions through dark money groups and super PACs.
    - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
      You can't parachute people into government without explaining to them how government works. Representatives don't just vote on legislation, they have to propose it and draft it. Someone has to understand and explain how all of that functions. The people doing the drafting, suggesting, and explaining won't have term limits and will have the real power. They'll also be the ones targeted by lobbyists. You'll end up with is a floor show with the real decisions being made behind the scenes by people who are mostly not directly accountable. Not unlike what we have now. Different, possibly better in some ways, and possibly worse in others.
    - 4y ago
  - atq2119 4y ago
    > Similarly if you redistribute wealth - what's going to prevent it from becoming unequally distributed again? The redistribution shouldn't be a one-time event, but rather a persistently different approach to taxation, labor rights (unions!), welfare, etc. We can see this working in a number of countries, especially the Nordics. Of course, there will always be attacks on such a system, but such is life. Some battles need to be refought every two generations or so, that's just how humans work.
    - chongli 4y ago
      We can see this working in a number of countries, especially the Nordics. Norway doesn’t count because of its sovereign wealth fund. How is it working in Sweden though? That country still has billionaires (IKEA founder, Minecraft’s notch). I think it just doesn’t work in general. If you try to set up a new system to redistribute the wealth, the winners will be those in charge of the system.
      - smmn88 4y ago
        What exactly is the issue with having billionaires, as long as there is a decent standard of living for everyone and people are taken care of? You need incentives to work hard and it is a good idea to have strong differences in outcome, as long as you have mostly equal opportunity. Otherwise you end up where all socialist experiments end up: in economical, social and humanitarian hell.
        chongli 4y ago
        I'm not saying there's an issue with it. I'm just saying that if you have billionaires then you haven't actually redistributed all of the wealth.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      What makes you think the entrenched interests befitting from the status quo won't co-opt that process and funnel the wealth into themselves? I mean hell, the whole BLM shindig petered out the nanosecond that it looked like the people with BLM signs in their yard might not get tackled by the first cop that see em'. Now imagine how something with serious dollar signs attached would go(!!).

bsaul 4y ago

everytime i hear someone talk about redistribution i wonder if they're asking to have more money, or if they'd be happy if the redistribution made them poorer.

anonyfox 4y ago
Neither. More like: if you are sick, you can go to a doc for free, he is paid for by the public. Want to become a doc? Get that education for free, including some monthly money to live during studying. Those teachers? Same thing, paid for by the public. Or you can travel with great public transport, for free. It’s not that I want more money, taken away from the rich, but the realization that everyone including me is much better off of everyone around also is taken care of. Strong public services are key. Ontop of that, even more radical, companies should be run by the people working in it instead of shareholders siphoning out profits. Workers would never fire each other for more profits, or evade taxes that fund their neighborhood, or offshore their own jobs. Currently that might not be legal, that’s why it would need forceful redistribution. Even on the simplest level: if you have free access to education/healthcare/… imagine how many brilliant people can try to become entrepreneurs or researchers instead of having to suffer two service jobs to provide their family. It’s statistics, that 60%+ of the population might include the next Einsteins, but are unnoticed and their potential wasted.
- ricardobayes 4y ago
  Interestingly, becoming an enterpreneur is really uncommon in Europe, where all you said was free. I think it actually has an inverse effect.
  - anonyfox 4y ago
    There several reasons for that, but one key thing is that people do not, in general, desperatly dream of the „get rich quick“ to escape their life situation. A big share is simply well off, taken care of if there are problems, and live their live in good conditions. I am fine with not every useless thing to exist and waste resources on that.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago

I dont think we have a very strong culture of leaders and an informed populace currently to definitely state that whatever comes after is better The current system was forget in the furncace of extreme bravery and duty . A fledging nation was taking on the superpower of the time (UK). Every single founding father was taking direct personal risk to themselves and their families by declaring indeoendence. The level of bravery needed for this is astonishing. The people doing this literally had no self-interest in doing so. What leaders can you find today with the same sense of duty that are able to negotiate this country into a better deal? The answer is there arent any and anything new we put in place today will look like a disaster vs what we have now. Its insane to discard a 250yr old system that has outlived 2 world wars and most competing systems, because some of its features have been gamed. Instead, you make mods. (Term limits being one).

zpeti 4y ago

So the solution to crony capitalism that has been taken over by big corporations and lobbyists manipulating the government is… More government. Please explain the logic behind this. Surely the solution is smaller government, no lobbying or money in government at all?