3 ms·

Don't fully disagree, but feel a counterpoint needs to be said. > created so many insanely big problems through greed, and unbridled technological progress in

by ethbr0 3y ago

Don't fully disagree, but feel a counterpoint needs to be said. > created so many insanely big problems through greed, and unbridled technological progress in the name of profits Capitalism is an allocation algorithm that scales. We haven't just created insanely big problems, we've delivered insane boosts to productivity. Capitalism's outputs in that name of progress (the things that greed and unbridled technological progress have enabled) are now necessary to deliver the current living standard we have for the number of people we're supporting on this planet. - Fertilizer-boosted and genetically-modified factory agriculture - Mass manufacturing with global supply chains - Global energy markets with worldwide distribution - International capital flows If we're talking about toppling the current system, then we have to admit that means losing its positives as well as its negatives. Reengineering isn't complete when only looking at the negatives we'd avoid and the positives we'd gain. It needs to also include the positives we'd lose and the negatives we'd incur by shifting to an alternate system. The alternatives to capitalism aren't just 'avoiding capitalism's problems' -- they've historically also been 'rampant inefficiency to the extent that it decreases standard of living.' One reason I'm bullish on carbon taxes et. al. Adjust the incentives, and then let the best allocation model we've found run to optimization under the altered constraints.

atmavatar 3y ago
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ChatGTP 3y ago
I under most of what you’re saying there but if capitalism can’t provide the solution for the climate crisis it needs to go as it’s reached it’s usefulness. There is no point in maintaining a system which will destroy itself like cancer. In my opinion, it’s had its chance but it’s too slow to deal with this. This is urgent. I’d say this much. It got us to a decent place, now maybe we need to have something else replace it. Personally I think it actually is time to move into a post scarcity type world, eliminate poverty and favour open source style collaboration, sharing and communication in every possible. At least until we get the climate under control. This is giving Africa and India the renewables they need, for example.
- selestify 3y ago
  I agree with much of what you say. But how are we supposed to get there from here? It seems hard, if not impossible, to convince entrenched interests to give up the game. It seems even harder to get “the people” united enough to overthrow entrenched interests, given what we’ve seen of the increasing dysfunctionality of public political discourse.
imtringued 3y ago
>If we're talking about toppling the current system, then we have to admit that means losing its positives as well as its negatives. Except you could have a free (as in freedom) market instead of a free (as in free of costs) market. The former doesn't even look that different to "capitalism" except die hard capitalists would accuse you of artificial redistribution or some other nonsense. >The alternatives to capitalism aren't just 'avoiding capitalism's problems' -- they've historically also been 'rampant inefficiency to the extent that it decreases standard of living.' Historically, the best alternative to capitalism has worked pretty well. In fact it worked so well, the capitalists shut it down because they were concerned that unlike the communists, someone actually came up with a competitive and superior system. In fact, the capitalist system at the time generated such a rampant inefficiency and unemployment that a man named Adolf Hitler has risen to power who had to channel that unused output in a war to maintain full employment, because capitalism is a demand starved system and therefore warmongering is a popular remedy. Meanwhile some dinky little town in Austria "printed" 10000 shilling (about 3 shilling per resident) worth of "labor confirmation vouchers" and solved their problems without war. The trick? The money forces participants to maintain an equilibrium economy that follows Says Law. Suddenly all the research neoclassical economists made about equilibrium economies becomes applicable. Meanwhile in Capitalism? Capitalism is a disequilibrium economy so why would you expect any of the outcomes that neoclassical economists predict? It's like expecting a car to fly.

by ethbr0 3y ago

atmavatar 3y ago

"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ChatGTP 3y ago

I under most of what you’re saying there but if capitalism can’t provide the solution for the climate crisis it needs to go as it’s reached it’s usefulness. There is no point in maintaining a system which will destroy itself like cancer. In my opinion, it’s had its chance but it’s too slow to deal with this. This is urgent. I’d say this much. It got us to a decent place, now maybe we need to have something else replace it. Personally I think it actually is time to move into a post scarcity type world, eliminate poverty and favour open source style collaboration, sharing and communication in every possible. At least until we get the climate under control. This is giving Africa and India the renewables they need, for example.

selestify 3y ago
I agree with much of what you say. But how are we supposed to get there from here? It seems hard, if not impossible, to convince entrenched interests to give up the game. It seems even harder to get “the people” united enough to overthrow entrenched interests, given what we’ve seen of the increasing dysfunctionality of public political discourse.

imtringued 3y ago

>If we're talking about toppling the current system, then we have to admit that means losing its positives as well as its negatives. Except you could have a free (as in freedom) market instead of a free (as in free of costs) market. The former doesn't even look that different to "capitalism" except die hard capitalists would accuse you of artificial redistribution or some other nonsense. >The alternatives to capitalism aren't just 'avoiding capitalism's problems' -- they've historically also been 'rampant inefficiency to the extent that it decreases standard of living.' Historically, the best alternative to capitalism has worked pretty well. In fact it worked so well, the capitalists shut it down because they were concerned that unlike the communists, someone actually came up with a competitive and superior system. In fact, the capitalist system at the time generated such a rampant inefficiency and unemployment that a man named Adolf Hitler has risen to power who had to channel that unused output in a war to maintain full employment, because capitalism is a demand starved system and therefore warmongering is a popular remedy. Meanwhile some dinky little town in Austria "printed" 10000 shilling (about 3 shilling per resident) worth of "labor confirmation vouchers" and solved their problems without war. The trick? The money forces participants to maintain an equilibrium economy that follows Says Law. Suddenly all the research neoclassical economists made about equilibrium economies becomes applicable. Meanwhile in Capitalism? Capitalism is a disequilibrium economy so why would you expect any of the outcomes that neoclassical economists predict? It's like expecting a car to fly.