6 ms·

It's invisible because we like to talk about freedom and free market. But there are so many regulations and policies that essentially funnel money and power int

It's invisible because we like to talk about freedom and free market. But there are so many regulations and policies that essentially funnel money and power into the hands of a few. It makes the notion of freedom and free market somewhat farcical. However, any discussion of the above is considered unpatriotic, so it's always better to blame the individual.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
I'm not for unbridled capitalism, but if you have ever tried to start a business in even a slightly regulated field (medical, construction, chimney cleaning, a restaurant, general contracting, just being a handyman), the amount of regulation is incredible and overwhelming. Software development doesn't count - it's probably the least regulated field in the country. Even being a hairdresser requires licensing and venue requirements in most states - minorities have been sued for just trying to do hairdressing in their own homes for a few bucks. Is it fair to call the US a capitalist country? Honestly, I don't think so. It's a weird disastrous mishmash of socialism, capitalism, and English bureaucracy. It's just "more capitalist" than other countries who at least have the intellectual honesty to more fully commit to a system.
- ttoinou 3y ago
  It's the same all around the world. But rules are usually less applied
- sh34r 3y ago
  There is nothing socialist about the US. The workers do not own the means of production. Labor union membership is in the single digits. We have some very limited vestiges of social democracy, but social democracy is not socialism. Socialists and social democrats were not allies. Google the meme: “SocDems killed Rosa.” What you’re observing is what unregulated capitalism will always devolve into. It goes by many names: capitalism, crony capitalism, neoliberalism, corporatism, oligarchy, fascism. But the idea is the same. Labor is violently oppressed. The State only serves the interests of capitalists. The State and Capital are often indistinguishable. There is no competition. There are structural barriers that stifle small businesses and enrich rent seeking trusts. It’s a new Gilded Age, brought to life by a new Lochner era for the Supreme Court. I have good news and bad news: this system, whatever you call it, is extremely unstable. Its collapse is inevitable, well within the span of a single human lifetime.
  - anonym29 3y ago
    >There is nothing socialist about the US Except for the half of the entire federal budget that is spent strictly on wealth redistribution to enhance equity between the rich and the poor - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Seriously, these three programs are fully half of all federal spending. Not to mention all the state wealth redistribution programs, that cover housing (section 8), food (food stamps), education (public school system for k-12, pell grants above), utilities (utility vouchers), healthcare (ACA), telecom ("obamaphones", broadband vouchers), and more. I've seen estimates that in the most progressive states, welfare benefits can amount to as much as $42,000 a year for a small family. You can argue that on a PPP & CoL basis, that isn't much money in e.g. Bay Area (where that is well below poverty level), but that's also a global top 10% income. To say there is "nothing" socialist about the US is disingenuous, politicized, and pedantic at best. There is substantial social wealth redistribution and there exist substantial worker protections in the USA. You can find plenty of countries with a FAR less socialist nature. In fairness, it is likewise hyperbolic to describe the USA as a communist or even "fully" socialist country.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I would add that significant portion of the remaining budget is spent on defense, which is a classic economic public good utilized by every citizen.
      - anonym29 3y ago
        Defense spending accounts for only a little over a third of what remains, or a bit over a sixth of all spending. Grossly eclipsed by wealth redistribution. We also spend about a sixth on interest payments. Everything else the entire federal government does combined is only about one sixth the federal budget.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Indeed. There will be fascinating to see an analysis of how much of the federal budget goes towards programs that all citizens and or do utilize. I suspect the numbers would shock a lot of people
- pc86 3y ago
  I'm not sure you're fully connected to reality if you think medicine is "slightly regulated."
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    I apologize. I was under the misimpression (though I should have clarified) that it required a specialized license just to deliver medicine to, say, a retirement home from a pharmacy in some states; which appears to be incorrect.
    - pc86 3y ago
      What I mean is that just about every aspect of medicine - teaching it, studying it, practicing it, research - is all very highly regulated with a lot of oversight both internally from those already licensed, and the government. Outside of things like finance or defense you'd be hard pressed to find anything more regulated.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Our liberal (as in philosophy, not institutions) ideas about freedom are very often boneheaded and unsophisticated. We are often convinced that if we abolish authority, we remove (a source of) tyranny. On the contrary, we remove a major protection against it. Remove authority, and you expose yourself to rule by power and force. In the absence of authority, power is the only remaining basis for rule. It is what rules. You don't remedy shortcomings and failures of authority by abolishing it. Doing so only multiplies the problem.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  This is just the Thomas Hobbes argument. Centralized authority is just exercise of power, there's nothing mystical about it some sort of powerful "sovereign". In this particular case the rules have been built to the benefit of a narrow few property holders at the expense of broader society, they are precisely a curtailment of freedom and an exercise of raw power.
- scottLobster 3y ago
  So we shouldn't have abolished slavery, that only multiplied the problem? We should have reformed the institution of slavery instead? For talking about boneheaded and unsophisticated ideas, this post is severely lacking in nuance. No one is suggesting anarchy, and removing a generally malfunctioning authority can be quite productive.
throwawaymanbot 3y ago
[dead]
anonym29 3y ago
Freedom and a free market are virtues to be strived for, not a description of the current system in the USA. What we have is best described as a mixed economy (like China's, just with a different mix of market and state that leans more towards market than China does), with an unhealthy dose of corporate regulatory capture. Regardless of whether you're on team "big government" or team "free market", I'm pretty sure we're all quite dissatisfied with a big government that's largely captured and controlled via a revolving door between the powerful regulatory agencies and entrenched international corporations that have weaponized regulatory agencies as a business "moat" against competition. Again, regardless of whether you're team "big government" or team "free market", it seems a vast majority of politically conscientious people ought to be opposed to such revolving doors, corporate capture, and money in politics in general. It's deeply regrettable that even in a Democracy, positions of power have a tendency to attract people who are drawn to power, who seem to be some of those least inclined to wield it cautiously and responsibly. I haven't exactly figured out a solution, but I wouldn't be opposed in a strictly conceptual sense (e.g. not agreeing to a specific implementation without considerable discussion / peer review) to restricting voting to 1. People with a stake in the future stability and strength of the whole system (land owners? people who've had children? not sure what the right mechanism here is, but the litmus test is a provably vested interest in the success of the whole system on a long time horizon) and/or 2. People who are civically engaged enough to even be familiar with the process of government (civics test? I know in the past these have been abused to facilitate discrimination - I just have a hard time believing that our species is incapable of devising a knowledge-based litmus test that isn't being deliberately used to facilitate discrimination). and/or 3. More mature people: Raising the age of majority in general from 18 to [21-25], including voting age. We know the prefrontal cortex plays an important role in making good, responsible decisions by weighing long term consequences, and it's not done developing until mid-late 20s. That said, it would be a politicized act to change voting age but not lawful firearm ownership age based on this concept, or vice versa. The politically neutral and principal-based solution here is to just raise the age of majority across the board to more accurately reflect our improved understanding of the nature of human brain development.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  It's exactly because of your point 1 (those with a stake in the future of the system) that I'm somewhat in favour of lowering the voting age, and making voting non- compulsory (I'm in Australia) for those over retirement age. I haven't observed any evidence that people vote more sensibly at 21 vs 18 at any rate. But there's strong evidence that those over 50 or 60 vote to preserve the status quo even when it's clearly not working well for all sorts of rational and less-than-rational reasons. And yes you did mention stability too, which is important in the long run obviously, but not always best maintained just by avoiding intentional radical change at all costs.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

I'm not for unbridled capitalism, but if you have ever tried to start a business in even a slightly regulated field (medical, construction, chimney cleaning, a restaurant, general contracting, just being a handyman), the amount of regulation is incredible and overwhelming. Software development doesn't count - it's probably the least regulated field in the country. Even being a hairdresser requires licensing and venue requirements in most states - minorities have been sued for just trying to do hairdressing in their own homes for a few bucks. Is it fair to call the US a capitalist country? Honestly, I don't think so. It's a weird disastrous mishmash of socialism, capitalism, and English bureaucracy. It's just "more capitalist" than other countries who at least have the intellectual honesty to more fully commit to a system.

ttoinou 3y ago
It's the same all around the world. But rules are usually less applied
sh34r 3y ago
There is nothing socialist about the US. The workers do not own the means of production. Labor union membership is in the single digits. We have some very limited vestiges of social democracy, but social democracy is not socialism. Socialists and social democrats were not allies. Google the meme: “SocDems killed Rosa.” What you’re observing is what unregulated capitalism will always devolve into. It goes by many names: capitalism, crony capitalism, neoliberalism, corporatism, oligarchy, fascism. But the idea is the same. Labor is violently oppressed. The State only serves the interests of capitalists. The State and Capital are often indistinguishable. There is no competition. There are structural barriers that stifle small businesses and enrich rent seeking trusts. It’s a new Gilded Age, brought to life by a new Lochner era for the Supreme Court. I have good news and bad news: this system, whatever you call it, is extremely unstable. Its collapse is inevitable, well within the span of a single human lifetime.
- anonym29 3y ago
  >There is nothing socialist about the US Except for the half of the entire federal budget that is spent strictly on wealth redistribution to enhance equity between the rich and the poor - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Seriously, these three programs are fully half of all federal spending. Not to mention all the state wealth redistribution programs, that cover housing (section 8), food (food stamps), education (public school system for k-12, pell grants above), utilities (utility vouchers), healthcare (ACA), telecom ("obamaphones", broadband vouchers), and more. I've seen estimates that in the most progressive states, welfare benefits can amount to as much as $42,000 a year for a small family. You can argue that on a PPP & CoL basis, that isn't much money in e.g. Bay Area (where that is well below poverty level), but that's also a global top 10% income. To say there is "nothing" socialist about the US is disingenuous, politicized, and pedantic at best. There is substantial social wealth redistribution and there exist substantial worker protections in the USA. You can find plenty of countries with a FAR less socialist nature. In fairness, it is likewise hyperbolic to describe the USA as a communist or even "fully" socialist country.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I would add that significant portion of the remaining budget is spent on defense, which is a classic economic public good utilized by every citizen.
    - anonym29 3y ago
      Defense spending accounts for only a little over a third of what remains, or a bit over a sixth of all spending. Grossly eclipsed by wealth redistribution. We also spend about a sixth on interest payments. Everything else the entire federal government does combined is only about one sixth the federal budget.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Indeed. There will be fascinating to see an analysis of how much of the federal budget goes towards programs that all citizens and or do utilize. I suspect the numbers would shock a lot of people
pc86 3y ago
I'm not sure you're fully connected to reality if you think medicine is "slightly regulated."
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  I apologize. I was under the misimpression (though I should have clarified) that it required a specialized license just to deliver medicine to, say, a retirement home from a pharmacy in some states; which appears to be incorrect.
  - pc86 3y ago
    What I mean is that just about every aspect of medicine - teaching it, studying it, practicing it, research - is all very highly regulated with a lot of oversight both internally from those already licensed, and the government. Outside of things like finance or defense you'd be hard pressed to find anything more regulated.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

Our liberal (as in philosophy, not institutions) ideas about freedom are very often boneheaded and unsophisticated. We are often convinced that if we abolish authority, we remove (a source of) tyranny. On the contrary, we remove a major protection against it. Remove authority, and you expose yourself to rule by power and force. In the absence of authority, power is the only remaining basis for rule. It is what rules. You don't remedy shortcomings and failures of authority by abolishing it. Doing so only multiplies the problem.

ch4s3 3y ago
This is just the Thomas Hobbes argument. Centralized authority is just exercise of power, there's nothing mystical about it some sort of powerful "sovereign". In this particular case the rules have been built to the benefit of a narrow few property holders at the expense of broader society, they are precisely a curtailment of freedom and an exercise of raw power.
scottLobster 3y ago
So we shouldn't have abolished slavery, that only multiplied the problem? We should have reformed the institution of slavery instead? For talking about boneheaded and unsophisticated ideas, this post is severely lacking in nuance. No one is suggesting anarchy, and removing a generally malfunctioning authority can be quite productive.

throwawaymanbot 3y ago

[dead]

anonym29 3y ago

Freedom and a free market are virtues to be strived for, not a description of the current system in the USA. What we have is best described as a mixed economy (like China's, just with a different mix of market and state that leans more towards market than China does), with an unhealthy dose of corporate regulatory capture. Regardless of whether you're on team "big government" or team "free market", I'm pretty sure we're all quite dissatisfied with a big government that's largely captured and controlled via a revolving door between the powerful regulatory agencies and entrenched international corporations that have weaponized regulatory agencies as a business "moat" against competition. Again, regardless of whether you're team "big government" or team "free market", it seems a vast majority of politically conscientious people ought to be opposed to such revolving doors, corporate capture, and money in politics in general. It's deeply regrettable that even in a Democracy, positions of power have a tendency to attract people who are drawn to power, who seem to be some of those least inclined to wield it cautiously and responsibly. I haven't exactly figured out a solution, but I wouldn't be opposed in a strictly conceptual sense (e.g. not agreeing to a specific implementation without considerable discussion / peer review) to restricting voting to 1. People with a stake in the future stability and strength of the whole system (land owners? people who've had children? not sure what the right mechanism here is, but the litmus test is a provably vested interest in the success of the whole system on a long time horizon) and/or 2. People who are civically engaged enough to even be familiar with the process of government (civics test? I know in the past these have been abused to facilitate discrimination - I just have a hard time believing that our species is incapable of devising a knowledge-based litmus test that isn't being deliberately used to facilitate discrimination). and/or 3. More mature people: Raising the age of majority in general from 18 to [21-25], including voting age. We know the prefrontal cortex plays an important role in making good, responsible decisions by weighing long term consequences, and it's not done developing until mid-late 20s. That said, it would be a politicized act to change voting age but not lawful firearm ownership age based on this concept, or vice versa. The politically neutral and principal-based solution here is to just raise the age of majority across the board to more accurately reflect our improved understanding of the nature of human brain development.

wizofaus 3y ago
It's exactly because of your point 1 (those with a stake in the future of the system) that I'm somewhat in favour of lowering the voting age, and making voting non- compulsory (I'm in Australia) for those over retirement age. I haven't observed any evidence that people vote more sensibly at 21 vs 18 at any rate. But there's strong evidence that those over 50 or 60 vote to preserve the status quo even when it's clearly not working well for all sorts of rational and less-than-rational reasons. And yes you did mention stability too, which is important in the long run obviously, but not always best maintained just by avoiding intentional radical change at all costs.