4 ms·

Any system that is in control and doesn't actually manage to stop progress can make this claim, monarchies and socialist systems included. Capitalism is very go

Any system that is in control and doesn't actually manage to stop progress can make this claim, monarchies and socialist systems included. Capitalism is very good at maximizing the amount of money available for investment, so it probably is uniquely qualified to make a claim to be the best system for encouraging progress, but just as clearly it aggressively funnels technology down paths that are tuned for maximum value extraction and that's not something I believe is good for society as a whole, or even progress on a long enough timescale.

alchemist1e9 3y ago
For what it’s worth, not much, but me personal believe that you believe that without evidence and primary due to the propaganda governments have fed you to scapegoat the evil “capitalists” and markets as a way to deflect blame for serious problems away from themselves. Governments need to regulate to prevent harm, we all agree. Yet they claim it’s the markets doing it! No, markets do what is most efficient and optimal given the rules they can operate within. Governments are the failure point for basically all the serious problems. Instead of making neutral evidence based rules as regulations, politicians tend to reach for redistribution to buy votes, which when combined with scapegoating markets, is a winning combination to remain in power. Unfortunately history shows, unambiguously, it’s a losing combination for the society.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Funny, I think that you believe what you do without evidence primarily due to the propaganda spread by the wealthy elite that own and control the system and want to deflect blame for serious problems away from themselves by blaming the government. The private sector is bigger than the public sector, both in terms of dollar expenditure and in terms of political power. Politicians have to be vetted by rich people (the campaign finance process) before they are even options for election. If you're wealthy enough to monetize policy changes, it's easy to lobby with positive net expected value, if not, it isn't. The whims of the wealthy are in the driver's seat, the will of the people is not. Quick exercise. Many people are confused about the social class they inhabit. Tax policy is the easiest way to demonstrate the actual reality, because whoever is in charge always decides that someone else should pay the taxes. Take out last year's 1040. I want you to look at 3 lines: Line 1, what you earn from working, Line 7, what you earn from owning assets, and Line 9+3/4, your unrealized capital gains. Line 1 has high tax, Line 7 has low tax, and Line 9+3/4 has no tax. Who do you think decided these tax levels? Populists? Do you feel in charge here? > markets do what is most efficient and optimal given the rules Markets don't maximize value in the colloquial sense, the value that they optimize is wealth-weighted. Feed a starving orphan? Zero market value because the orphan has no wealth to pay you. Merge up all the banks so they can load up on risk and arrange for bailouts when they go bust? Enormous market value because it makes rich investors richer, the single most weighted value in all the world. The market will ejaculate capital and connections all over this brilliant value-creating enterprise. Oh, and part of it will involve bribing public officials so you can even blame the government for allowing you to rob the plebs. Lol. Ok, so the markets don't do what people want, they do what wealth-weighted people want. What rich people want. Is that so bad? You and I still get enough weight in the process to live a decent life. Besides, Warren Buffet seems pretty humble and someone has to be diligent about the high level investment decisions, right? Well, here's the problem: financial assets are a moral hazard. Cynically, capitalism entitles rich people to get paid for being rich. Passive income is the ultimate luxury, the most valuable commodity, and rich people indulge exorbitantly. Even Warren Buffet. Especially Warren Buffet. When his passive income streams are threatened, the happy investment grandpa turns into a nasty selfish asshole out to bust the balls of the people doing the real work at the companies he owns (seriously, look into the terms of the BNSF negotiations) because on the opposite side of a passive stream is (arguably) a stream of unreciprocated labor. The counterargument is that Labor Theory of Value is clearly bunk because there's more to value than labor, but just as clearly there is moral hazard in letting someone who doesn't produce the surplus value decide what to do with the surplus value. Wouldn't they just stuff it in their pockets? Yes. That's literally what the stock market is. The entire private sector is organized explicitly for the purpose of stuffing pockets and everything else is merely an emergent consequence of that. Maybe that's ok. After all, every contract is individually agreed to, right? Problem: one side gets much more control over the rules of the game than the other, so consent is dubious. On the first day of business school they teach the prisoner's dilemma, where freedom to control the rules of a game trumps freedom to choose inside of a game. In theory, competition keeps businesses is check, but in practice businesses do everything they can to avoid competition, some successfully, so does it really? In any case, every system needs investment and investment is all about reducing consumption today (which rich people are in a unique position to do) in order to spend the money instead on a factory or a risky venture or something that is expected to make the world better tomorrow, returning a cut to the investor, rewarding success and punishing failure. This is good for everyone, right? Well, yes... when it plays out that way. But markets are amoral. They don't really know if you created value or extracted value and they don't care. The money in your pocket doesn't care if you are a highway robber or robber baron or someone who worked hard for that money. As far as markets are concerned, "create problem, sell solution" is just as legitimate an enterprise as solving an actual preexisting problem. Better, even, because fundamental value creation is hard and you have to compete, while monopolization is all about not competing. What do the best performing market sectors over the last few decades have in common (health care, housing, and education)? Monopolized scarcity. Is this really best for society? You notice how business school tends to focus less on building a better product and more on building a better moat? They know what they are doing, and while it's the best strategy for them, is this really the best way to run society? By maximizing free money for the rich and observing that a somewhat functional society springs up as a side effect? Capitalism is great at growth and terrible at stewardship. It wins a land grab but it leaves behind a nasty class structure. Is it worth it? I have no idea. I just try to win. I'm a lot less certain than I used to be, though.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > Capitalism is great at growth and terrible at stewardship. It wins a land grab but it leaves behind a nasty class structure. Is it worth it? I have no idea. I just try to win. I'm a lot less certain than I used to be, though. I think we're roughly on the same page. The interesting part about capitalism is that it scales fantastically, for a while and as long as the bills aren't due you can improve your standard of living and those around you considerably. But some day those bills will be presented, it can be during your generation, your kids or two or three down the line. And that's when you find out about the stewardship component. But by then it is too late. It's a study in how local optimization can cause global catastrophe.
    - hgomersall 3y ago
      I really like this discussion because it's a rare example of things being discussed in real terms, where the financial considerations are secondary; actual power over real resources being wielded by the wealthy.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        If you think about it in terms of resource consumption per capita over a lifetime then it gets a lot more difficult because now you have to divide all those resources across all of the humans that have lived and that will every live taking into account any kind of improvement on recycling. This is a really hard problem, the estimate is that right now about 7% of all that people that have every lived are alive, and that the total number of people have have ever lived is 117 billion people. But because historically people would consume less than we do today there is a 'surplus' that we started to eat into at the beginnings of the industrial revolution. Now we're in debt to the future and those 'wealthy' people in your comment are over represented in terms of resource consumption but we're not that far behind when compared to say the people from 400 years ago. Extrapolating into the future then is probably going to show an even larger percentage of consumption per capita compared to the budget, and that at some point in time will result in a shortage. The people that will live through that will look back at us as the incredibly wasteful denizens of the 20th and 21st century that wasted resources on a scale that at that point in time probably will be criminal. Sustainability is more than just a nice slogan, it is sooner or later going to be our end-game and the earlier we start doing this for real the longer the species will exist and the more comfortable the members of the species will be.
someplaceguy 3y ago
> it aggressively funnels technology down paths that are tuned for maximum value extraction In this context, if you start using the words "creation", "production" or even "availability" rather than "extraction", I think your perspective will change drastically.

alchemist1e9 3y ago

For what it’s worth, not much, but me personal believe that you believe that without evidence and primary due to the propaganda governments have fed you to scapegoat the evil “capitalists” and markets as a way to deflect blame for serious problems away from themselves. Governments need to regulate to prevent harm, we all agree. Yet they claim it’s the markets doing it! No, markets do what is most efficient and optimal given the rules they can operate within. Governments are the failure point for basically all the serious problems. Instead of making neutral evidence based rules as regulations, politicians tend to reach for redistribution to buy votes, which when combined with scapegoating markets, is a winning combination to remain in power. Unfortunately history shows, unambiguously, it’s a losing combination for the society.

jjoonathan 3y ago
Funny, I think that you believe what you do without evidence primarily due to the propaganda spread by the wealthy elite that own and control the system and want to deflect blame for serious problems away from themselves by blaming the government. The private sector is bigger than the public sector, both in terms of dollar expenditure and in terms of political power. Politicians have to be vetted by rich people (the campaign finance process) before they are even options for election. If you're wealthy enough to monetize policy changes, it's easy to lobby with positive net expected value, if not, it isn't. The whims of the wealthy are in the driver's seat, the will of the people is not. Quick exercise. Many people are confused about the social class they inhabit. Tax policy is the easiest way to demonstrate the actual reality, because whoever is in charge always decides that someone else should pay the taxes. Take out last year's 1040. I want you to look at 3 lines: Line 1, what you earn from working, Line 7, what you earn from owning assets, and Line 9+3/4, your unrealized capital gains. Line 1 has high tax, Line 7 has low tax, and Line 9+3/4 has no tax. Who do you think decided these tax levels? Populists? Do you feel in charge here? > markets do what is most efficient and optimal given the rules Markets don't maximize value in the colloquial sense, the value that they optimize is wealth-weighted. Feed a starving orphan? Zero market value because the orphan has no wealth to pay you. Merge up all the banks so they can load up on risk and arrange for bailouts when they go bust? Enormous market value because it makes rich investors richer, the single most weighted value in all the world. The market will ejaculate capital and connections all over this brilliant value-creating enterprise. Oh, and part of it will involve bribing public officials so you can even blame the government for allowing you to rob the plebs. Lol. Ok, so the markets don't do what people want, they do what wealth-weighted people want. What rich people want. Is that so bad? You and I still get enough weight in the process to live a decent life. Besides, Warren Buffet seems pretty humble and someone has to be diligent about the high level investment decisions, right? Well, here's the problem: financial assets are a moral hazard. Cynically, capitalism entitles rich people to get paid for being rich. Passive income is the ultimate luxury, the most valuable commodity, and rich people indulge exorbitantly. Even Warren Buffet. Especially Warren Buffet. When his passive income streams are threatened, the happy investment grandpa turns into a nasty selfish asshole out to bust the balls of the people doing the real work at the companies he owns (seriously, look into the terms of the BNSF negotiations) because on the opposite side of a passive stream is (arguably) a stream of unreciprocated labor. The counterargument is that Labor Theory of Value is clearly bunk because there's more to value than labor, but just as clearly there is moral hazard in letting someone who doesn't produce the surplus value decide what to do with the surplus value. Wouldn't they just stuff it in their pockets? Yes. That's literally what the stock market is. The entire private sector is organized explicitly for the purpose of stuffing pockets and everything else is merely an emergent consequence of that. Maybe that's ok. After all, every contract is individually agreed to, right? Problem: one side gets much more control over the rules of the game than the other, so consent is dubious. On the first day of business school they teach the prisoner's dilemma, where freedom to control the rules of a game trumps freedom to choose inside of a game. In theory, competition keeps businesses is check, but in practice businesses do everything they can to avoid competition, some successfully, so does it really? In any case, every system needs investment and investment is all about reducing consumption today (which rich people are in a unique position to do) in order to spend the money instead on a factory or a risky venture or something that is expected to make the world better tomorrow, returning a cut to the investor, rewarding success and punishing failure. This is good for everyone, right? Well, yes... when it plays out that way. But markets are amoral. They don't really know if you created value or extracted value and they don't care. The money in your pocket doesn't care if you are a highway robber or robber baron or someone who worked hard for that money. As far as markets are concerned, "create problem, sell solution" is just as legitimate an enterprise as solving an actual preexisting problem. Better, even, because fundamental value creation is hard and you have to compete, while monopolization is all about not competing. What do the best performing market sectors over the last few decades have in common (health care, housing, and education)? Monopolized scarcity. Is this really best for society? You notice how business school tends to focus less on building a better product and more on building a better moat? They know what they are doing, and while it's the best strategy for them, is this really the best way to run society? By maximizing free money for the rich and observing that a somewhat functional society springs up as a side effect? Capitalism is great at growth and terrible at stewardship. It wins a land grab but it leaves behind a nasty class structure. Is it worth it? I have no idea. I just try to win. I'm a lot less certain than I used to be, though.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > Capitalism is great at growth and terrible at stewardship. It wins a land grab but it leaves behind a nasty class structure. Is it worth it? I have no idea. I just try to win. I'm a lot less certain than I used to be, though. I think we're roughly on the same page. The interesting part about capitalism is that it scales fantastically, for a while and as long as the bills aren't due you can improve your standard of living and those around you considerably. But some day those bills will be presented, it can be during your generation, your kids or two or three down the line. And that's when you find out about the stewardship component. But by then it is too late. It's a study in how local optimization can cause global catastrophe.
  - hgomersall 3y ago
    I really like this discussion because it's a rare example of things being discussed in real terms, where the financial considerations are secondary; actual power over real resources being wielded by the wealthy.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      If you think about it in terms of resource consumption per capita over a lifetime then it gets a lot more difficult because now you have to divide all those resources across all of the humans that have lived and that will every live taking into account any kind of improvement on recycling. This is a really hard problem, the estimate is that right now about 7% of all that people that have every lived are alive, and that the total number of people have have ever lived is 117 billion people. But because historically people would consume less than we do today there is a 'surplus' that we started to eat into at the beginnings of the industrial revolution. Now we're in debt to the future and those 'wealthy' people in your comment are over represented in terms of resource consumption but we're not that far behind when compared to say the people from 400 years ago. Extrapolating into the future then is probably going to show an even larger percentage of consumption per capita compared to the budget, and that at some point in time will result in a shortage. The people that will live through that will look back at us as the incredibly wasteful denizens of the 20th and 21st century that wasted resources on a scale that at that point in time probably will be criminal. Sustainability is more than just a nice slogan, it is sooner or later going to be our end-game and the earlier we start doing this for real the longer the species will exist and the more comfortable the members of the species will be.

someplaceguy 3y ago

> it aggressively funnels technology down paths that are tuned for maximum value extraction In this context, if you start using the words "creation", "production" or even "availability" rather than "extraction", I think your perspective will change drastically.