5 ms·

The reason/pretext/excuse for governments to benefit companies is also the society - like providing jobs, trickle down, all that, of course with various degrees

by soco 3y ago

The reason/pretext/excuse for governments to benefit companies is also the society - like providing jobs, trickle down, all that, of course with various degrees of efficiency and believability.

mjburgess 3y ago
I don't find believability difficult. Leftwing marxist analysis seems to live in a pre-20th c. non-empirical environment where we havent learnt anything about markets, and should just engage in speculation. We know that the system of collectivisation called "businesses" produces incredible levels of cooperation between people at massive scales; we know that making businesses in the same market compete on a level playing field reduces the power of owners, increases the power of labour, and delivers what customers want. We know that when the playing field isnt level, ie., competitive, then all those benefits disappear. What's remarkable about much far-left analysis of markets is their arguments are usually to make markets less competitive, and the markets they choose to demonstrate problems (eg., of wage-setting, of unfair practices, etc.) are always those with a massive lack of compeition. One great irony of what the left most decry (monopoly, wage-setting, wage-deprivation, top-down control, etc. etc.) is that these are found most extremely in the state. As ever, the far left project all the problems with the state on to the market; and the far right, all the problems of the market on to the state. The most useful approach is profoundly empirical: you actually have to spend years of study and research on a case-by-case basis to know what the answer is. Of course, no ideologue wants to hear that.
- soco 3y ago
  "far left", "marxism"... I think I know where you live.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    I think "center-left" would be defined by the belief that there are solutions to problems outside of far left ideologues; likewise center-right. So i'd expect center-left, center, center-right to all be people who'd deny both anarcho-cap and marxism, for example. If you subscribe to marxism, you're on the far left. Many intellectuals who are left wing are far-left. Being center-left (or center-right) is a sign of some contact with actual power and responsibility wherein ideological fairy stories fall apart (unless they end in mass murder; another option). Much of far-left and far-right propaganda is passed around by people who have never studied any serious empirical works of modern science, nor ever imagined that they need to in order to understand anything. Talking about "trickle down" effects strongly indicates this. Just as much as a far-right racist talking about "replacement theory". None of this appears in any serious research of anything. It's just ideological slurs passed around on blogs and newspapers. It turns out if you haven't spent a long time studying economics, politics, statistics, policy, etc. -- then you're unlikely to have any accurate opinions in these matters. This applies to everyone, including the right. Everything passed around by newspapers is agitprop for their side; and the journalists repeating it are dumber than their readers.
    - partitioned 3y ago
      People should not have strong opinions on things they know nothing about. Extra scrutiny on people who insist they know a lot, and everyone else knows little. I’m sure you’re the exception here
      - mjburgess 3y ago
        I'm no exception. The only thing i've claimed knowledge of is that knowing the benefits or harms of the state, market, etc. is circumstantial, empirical and requires a lot of study. Insofar as it sounds arrogant its because it's a knowledge claim against the ideologue who regards their own ideology as prima facie obvious, knowledge-conferring, and reliving them of any duties to serious study. In other-words my arrogance, such as it is, is skin deep and explicitly stated. But its in reply to the deep-seated lack of humility and profound ideological arrogance of those who think you can use soundbites to describe perhaps the most complex object anywhere in the universe (ie., a modern political economy). Maybe it should sometimes be said that when a person is replacing thinking with soundbites, that they arent thinking at all. Maybe this is a less-bad form of arrogance than the alternative.
        soco 3y ago
        If we're at presenting our backgrounds, I cannot speak for what goes in the US under the name of "capitalism" but being raised behind the iron curtain I had to study marxism in school. Also as European I think I can pretty well see what labels itself as left or far left (because we do have all of that). So please understand my smirk when I see those labels used by people with only ideological motivation but little to none demonstrated knowledge about the meanings. Smirk, because in this age of ChatGPT when the knowledge is even more right there under our noses, some still prefer to align instead of learn.
        mjburgess 3y ago
        The words mean all what they ought
- rightbyte 3y ago
  > As ever, the far left project all the problems with the state on to the market Dunno. The argument is usually that capitalists and the ruling class cooperate to the detriment of the other classes.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    Capitalism is anti-capitalist, so any cooperation here is against a backdrop in which capitalists are being vs. feudalism (etc.) screwed. The competition mechanism at the heart of capitalism is a requirement that capitalists compete until their profit margins are very limited. This is why apple etc. are so ugly in their replies to the EU. So insofar as we regard the capitalist class as co-opting the ruling class its so they can stop capitalism, not so they can promote it.
    - rightbyte 3y ago
      You've got an interesting point I haven't thought too much about. A threat to capitalists could also be that there could become too many of them. That would increase competition. I wonder how public traded companies should be regarded in this manner. Do capitalists have enough of an edge in voting power to not be threatened by pleb owners? Or maybe is it easier to make us hold the bag with better access to gossip and insider knowledge?
      - mjburgess 3y ago
        There are two forces i can think of here: 1) public traded is good because it broadens the ownership base of a company; 2) public traded is bad because it compromises the interests of labour to align with capitalists. We should also add that public trading of companies leads boards to ever more aggressive and socially destructive forms of competition which might not be permitted if not be for their shareholders. On balance I'd say we'd be better of getting rid of public ownership in this sense, and i'd also be inclined for very high marginal taxes on high profit margins and much more radical competition regulation. This would bring capital's power more in line with labour's. But on this i've really no idea; and the analysis here is too thin

by soco 3y ago

The reason/pretext/excuse for governments to benefit companies is also the society - like providing jobs, trickle down, all that, of course with various degrees of efficiency and believability.

mjburgess 3y ago

I don't find believability difficult. Leftwing marxist analysis seems to live in a pre-20th c. non-empirical environment where we havent learnt anything about markets, and should just engage in speculation. We know that the system of collectivisation called "businesses" produces incredible levels of cooperation between people at massive scales; we know that making businesses in the same market compete on a level playing field reduces the power of owners, increases the power of labour, and delivers what customers want. We know that when the playing field isnt level, ie., competitive, then all those benefits disappear. What's remarkable about much far-left analysis of markets is their arguments are usually to make markets less competitive, and the markets they choose to demonstrate problems (eg., of wage-setting, of unfair practices, etc.) are always those with a massive lack of compeition. One great irony of what the left most decry (monopoly, wage-setting, wage-deprivation, top-down control, etc. etc.) is that these are found most extremely in the state. As ever, the far left project all the problems with the state on to the market; and the far right, all the problems of the market on to the state. The most useful approach is profoundly empirical: you actually have to spend years of study and research on a case-by-case basis to know what the answer is. Of course, no ideologue wants to hear that.

soco 3y ago
"far left", "marxism"... I think I know where you live.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  I think "center-left" would be defined by the belief that there are solutions to problems outside of far left ideologues; likewise center-right. So i'd expect center-left, center, center-right to all be people who'd deny both anarcho-cap and marxism, for example. If you subscribe to marxism, you're on the far left. Many intellectuals who are left wing are far-left. Being center-left (or center-right) is a sign of some contact with actual power and responsibility wherein ideological fairy stories fall apart (unless they end in mass murder; another option). Much of far-left and far-right propaganda is passed around by people who have never studied any serious empirical works of modern science, nor ever imagined that they need to in order to understand anything. Talking about "trickle down" effects strongly indicates this. Just as much as a far-right racist talking about "replacement theory". None of this appears in any serious research of anything. It's just ideological slurs passed around on blogs and newspapers. It turns out if you haven't spent a long time studying economics, politics, statistics, policy, etc. -- then you're unlikely to have any accurate opinions in these matters. This applies to everyone, including the right. Everything passed around by newspapers is agitprop for their side; and the journalists repeating it are dumber than their readers.
  - partitioned 3y ago
    People should not have strong opinions on things they know nothing about. Extra scrutiny on people who insist they know a lot, and everyone else knows little. I’m sure you’re the exception here
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      I'm no exception. The only thing i've claimed knowledge of is that knowing the benefits or harms of the state, market, etc. is circumstantial, empirical and requires a lot of study. Insofar as it sounds arrogant its because it's a knowledge claim against the ideologue who regards their own ideology as prima facie obvious, knowledge-conferring, and reliving them of any duties to serious study. In other-words my arrogance, such as it is, is skin deep and explicitly stated. But its in reply to the deep-seated lack of humility and profound ideological arrogance of those who think you can use soundbites to describe perhaps the most complex object anywhere in the universe (ie., a modern political economy). Maybe it should sometimes be said that when a person is replacing thinking with soundbites, that they arent thinking at all. Maybe this is a less-bad form of arrogance than the alternative.
      - soco 3y ago
        If we're at presenting our backgrounds, I cannot speak for what goes in the US under the name of "capitalism" but being raised behind the iron curtain I had to study marxism in school. Also as European I think I can pretty well see what labels itself as left or far left (because we do have all of that). So please understand my smirk when I see those labels used by people with only ideological motivation but little to none demonstrated knowledge about the meanings. Smirk, because in this age of ChatGPT when the knowledge is even more right there under our noses, some still prefer to align instead of learn.
        mjburgess 3y ago
        The words mean all what they ought
rightbyte 3y ago
> As ever, the far left project all the problems with the state on to the market Dunno. The argument is usually that capitalists and the ruling class cooperate to the detriment of the other classes.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  Capitalism is anti-capitalist, so any cooperation here is against a backdrop in which capitalists are being vs. feudalism (etc.) screwed. The competition mechanism at the heart of capitalism is a requirement that capitalists compete until their profit margins are very limited. This is why apple etc. are so ugly in their replies to the EU. So insofar as we regard the capitalist class as co-opting the ruling class its so they can stop capitalism, not so they can promote it.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    You've got an interesting point I haven't thought too much about. A threat to capitalists could also be that there could become too many of them. That would increase competition. I wonder how public traded companies should be regarded in this manner. Do capitalists have enough of an edge in voting power to not be threatened by pleb owners? Or maybe is it easier to make us hold the bag with better access to gossip and insider knowledge?
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      There are two forces i can think of here: 1) public traded is good because it broadens the ownership base of a company; 2) public traded is bad because it compromises the interests of labour to align with capitalists. We should also add that public trading of companies leads boards to ever more aggressive and socially destructive forms of competition which might not be permitted if not be for their shareholders. On balance I'd say we'd be better of getting rid of public ownership in this sense, and i'd also be inclined for very high marginal taxes on high profit margins and much more radical competition regulation. This would bring capital's power more in line with labour's. But on this i've really no idea; and the analysis here is too thin