4 ms·

Apologies if I'm interpreting/extrapolating incorrectly, but: We let capital do this [...] we elected political representatives who allowed the

Apologies if I'm interpreting/extrapolating incorrectly, but: We let capital do this [...] we elected political representatives who allowed the capital class to fuck us over Are you framing this as some kind of localized "we did capitalism wrong" mistake as opposed to like... an elemental, fundamental, inexorable aspect of free-marketish capitalism? Short-term, "fuck the future" profit making is what capitalism encourages. Executives are judged quarterly and yearly, not rewarded for long-term thinking. Same with our system of government. Relatively short terms for elected officials and the "endless campaign" have some benefits but essentially rule out any sort of coherent future-focused long-term thinking. This is what our system was designed to do. Any other kind of behavior is anomalous. Again, I apologize if I'm interpreting you unfairly. I'm ranting at the system, really.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
I don't like capitalism much at all, but yeah, I don't think that this particular aspect of it was inevitable. Judging based on quarterly results is a peculiarly American version of capitalism, and one that has a lot to do with publicly traded companies rather than private ones (which are still capitalist entities in a capitalist system, but subject to quite different incentives and pressures). I don't think it's accurate to say our "system was designed" to do this sort of thing, if only because 50-90 years, it didn't do this sort of thing. It has mutated and/or the wiggle room within it has been discovered. Now, capitalism can still be totally wrong or even almost entirely wrong, quite independently of whether "we allowed free capital flow, profit repatriation, no labor movement, etc." is also a terrible long term plan given capitalism.
- robomartin 3y ago
  > I don't like capitalism much at all Say people who: - Are typing on computers that would not exist without capitalism - Using an an internet that would not exist without capitalism - Using phones that would not exist without capitalism - Wearing clothes that would not exist without capitalism - Living in homes that would not exist without capitalism - Using furniture that would not exist without capitalism - Enjoying entertainment that would not exist without capitalism - Buying food that would not exist without capitalism - Benefiting from medicine that would not exist without capitalism - Living lives that would not exist without capitalism - etc. It's always interesting that those who despise capitalism never pull-up anchor and move to where they might be able to enjoy something in the range between socialist utopia and flat-out communism. Weird how that NEVER happens and how the vast majority of people actually yearn to live in places where capitalism has managed to --yes, imperfectly so-- raise more people out of poverty than any other system in the history of humanity. No? Well, then, be an example and get rid of all the things you benefit from that came as a result of dirty-filthy capitalism. Be a role model for others. There's a huge difference between talking about virtue and having it. It's easy to not like capitalism while using your laptop while sipping a latte at Starbucks.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    This is just total bullshit. You seem to believe that innovation, and perhaps even production, requires a system in which the investment of capital in a limited liability enterprise is disproportionately the beneficiary of profit compared to the investment of labor or IP (that's all the capitalism consists of). The things you list above are the product of science, art, curiosity, imagination, ambition, empathy, and hope. All of which can exist (and flourish) without or without capitalism. Perhaps you make the mistake of thinking that capitalism somehow means "free markets" or "entrepeneurial culture". It does not. Those ideas are orthogonal to it, and can exist with it or without it. They can exist with or without worked-owned co-operatives. They can exist with or without state owned enterprises. They can exist with or without publicly traded shared-based ownership.
    - robomartin 3y ago
      Painting fantasies does not magically make them reality. Be careful, your indoctrination is showing.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        The fantasies are your conflation of all human progress with "capitalism".
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    Quiet a few fallacies on display here. I don't even know where to start. - You can dislike capitalism but currently have insurmountable obstacles preventing you from moving somewhere else - You can dislike capitalism but accept that it is currently something like the least-bad economic system - You can like capitalism in general but criticize it and recognize its inherent flaws - You can like capitalism in general and criticize a particular implementation of it Well, then, be an example and get rid of all the things you benefit from that came as a result of dirty-filthy capitalism Oh my god.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  one that has a lot to do with publicly traded companies rather than private ones Are there a lot of private companies doing big things (ie, $90M wrench factories?) out of their own war chests? I can think of a few examples but my perception is that this is rare enough to essentially disregard... but, I could well be wrong. Even if a private company does such a thing, it would almost always be via some kind of financing, right? Which creates its own sort of short-term pressure even if it's not as psychotically ADHD as the pressure exerted by Wall Street. I don't think it's accurate to say our "system was designed" to do this sort of thing, I mean, of course it wasn't intentionally designed for this outcome. But it was designed for rapid and almost entirely unfettered economic growth. Given that, what other outcome was possible? if only because 50-90 years [ago] it didn't do this sort of thing. It wasn't possible 50-90 years ago. There were world wars, the seas were not safe, communication was glacially slow or impossible, etc. Also the U.S. was not yet so rich that it couldn't afford to pay its own people to make its own stuff.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > Are there a lot of private companies doing big things (ie, $90M wrench factories?) out of their own war chests? Ask the Germans :) Anyway, you issue bonds, instead of stocks. You control the term, the "market" tells you the cost. And its a fixed cost. Or you take out a loan, again with fixed interest. You control the parameters as much as anyone else. Or you issue restricted shares, to convince capital owners willing to make a longer term bet to play with you. They have to be in it for the long haul, since they can't sell the shares based on some 1st, 2nd or 3rd order belief about the company value.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > But it was designed for rapid and almost entirely unfettered economic growth I don't think it was "designed" at all. It evolves subject to various pressures and interests. And since Reagan or slightly before, most of the pressures from citizens (as opposed to customers) have been lifted/ameliorated. Same with pressures from employees. True, we did somewhat increase the pressure from environmental concerns. But at some point, people noticed that extracting value, instead of creating value, was a pathway to riches, and that's where a lot of the big bucks are made these days.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

I don't like capitalism much at all, but yeah, I don't think that this particular aspect of it was inevitable. Judging based on quarterly results is a peculiarly American version of capitalism, and one that has a lot to do with publicly traded companies rather than private ones (which are still capitalist entities in a capitalist system, but subject to quite different incentives and pressures). I don't think it's accurate to say our "system was designed" to do this sort of thing, if only because 50-90 years, it didn't do this sort of thing. It has mutated and/or the wiggle room within it has been discovered. Now, capitalism can still be totally wrong or even almost entirely wrong, quite independently of whether "we allowed free capital flow, profit repatriation, no labor movement, etc." is also a terrible long term plan given capitalism.

robomartin 3y ago
> I don't like capitalism much at all Say people who: - Are typing on computers that would not exist without capitalism - Using an an internet that would not exist without capitalism - Using phones that would not exist without capitalism - Wearing clothes that would not exist without capitalism - Living in homes that would not exist without capitalism - Using furniture that would not exist without capitalism - Enjoying entertainment that would not exist without capitalism - Buying food that would not exist without capitalism - Benefiting from medicine that would not exist without capitalism - Living lives that would not exist without capitalism - etc. It's always interesting that those who despise capitalism never pull-up anchor and move to where they might be able to enjoy something in the range between socialist utopia and flat-out communism. Weird how that NEVER happens and how the vast majority of people actually yearn to live in places where capitalism has managed to --yes, imperfectly so-- raise more people out of poverty than any other system in the history of humanity. No? Well, then, be an example and get rid of all the things you benefit from that came as a result of dirty-filthy capitalism. Be a role model for others. There's a huge difference between talking about virtue and having it. It's easy to not like capitalism while using your laptop while sipping a latte at Starbucks.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  This is just total bullshit. You seem to believe that innovation, and perhaps even production, requires a system in which the investment of capital in a limited liability enterprise is disproportionately the beneficiary of profit compared to the investment of labor or IP (that's all the capitalism consists of). The things you list above are the product of science, art, curiosity, imagination, ambition, empathy, and hope. All of which can exist (and flourish) without or without capitalism. Perhaps you make the mistake of thinking that capitalism somehow means "free markets" or "entrepeneurial culture". It does not. Those ideas are orthogonal to it, and can exist with it or without it. They can exist with or without worked-owned co-operatives. They can exist with or without state owned enterprises. They can exist with or without publicly traded shared-based ownership.
  - robomartin 3y ago
    Painting fantasies does not magically make them reality. Be careful, your indoctrination is showing.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      The fantasies are your conflation of all human progress with "capitalism".
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  Quiet a few fallacies on display here. I don't even know where to start. - You can dislike capitalism but currently have insurmountable obstacles preventing you from moving somewhere else - You can dislike capitalism but accept that it is currently something like the least-bad economic system - You can like capitalism in general but criticize it and recognize its inherent flaws - You can like capitalism in general and criticize a particular implementation of it Well, then, be an example and get rid of all the things you benefit from that came as a result of dirty-filthy capitalism Oh my god.
JohnBooty 3y ago
one that has a lot to do with publicly traded companies rather than private ones Are there a lot of private companies doing big things (ie, $90M wrench factories?) out of their own war chests? I can think of a few examples but my perception is that this is rare enough to essentially disregard... but, I could well be wrong. Even if a private company does such a thing, it would almost always be via some kind of financing, right? Which creates its own sort of short-term pressure even if it's not as psychotically ADHD as the pressure exerted by Wall Street. I don't think it's accurate to say our "system was designed" to do this sort of thing, I mean, of course it wasn't intentionally designed for this outcome. But it was designed for rapid and almost entirely unfettered economic growth. Given that, what other outcome was possible? if only because 50-90 years [ago] it didn't do this sort of thing. It wasn't possible 50-90 years ago. There were world wars, the seas were not safe, communication was glacially slow or impossible, etc. Also the U.S. was not yet so rich that it couldn't afford to pay its own people to make its own stuff.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > Are there a lot of private companies doing big things (ie, $90M wrench factories?) out of their own war chests? Ask the Germans :) Anyway, you issue bonds, instead of stocks. You control the term, the "market" tells you the cost. And its a fixed cost. Or you take out a loan, again with fixed interest. You control the parameters as much as anyone else. Or you issue restricted shares, to convince capital owners willing to make a longer term bet to play with you. They have to be in it for the long haul, since they can't sell the shares based on some 1st, 2nd or 3rd order belief about the company value.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > But it was designed for rapid and almost entirely unfettered economic growth I don't think it was "designed" at all. It evolves subject to various pressures and interests. And since Reagan or slightly before, most of the pressures from citizens (as opposed to customers) have been lifted/ameliorated. Same with pressures from employees. True, we did somewhat increase the pressure from environmental concerns. But at some point, people noticed that extracting value, instead of creating value, was a pathway to riches, and that's where a lot of the big bucks are made these days.