3 ms·

It's weird how many people here will shout against any (assumed) critic of capitalism. "So you want to live in North Korea???". No, I don't. What I want is a s

It's weird how many people here will shout against any (assumed) critic of capitalism. "So you want to live in North Korea???". No, I don't. What I want is a system where we can get quality products that are not manufactured by slaves on the other side of the world, and that didn't require burning 3 bathtubs of gasoline. And our system definitely ain't it.

immibis 2y ago
There are two types of countries observable in the world today: ones that are shit like capitalism, and ones that are shit like North Korea.
- thrance 2y ago
  Good luck convincing the chinese worker that made your phone of the merits of capitalism.
  - tristor 2y ago
    It’s funny you say that, because the primary beneficiaries of capitalism have been exactly those workers over the past four decades. While not good for American workers, off-shoring and outsourcing have lifted over a billion people out of poverty since the 1980s. China had the fastest growing middle class in the world, so much so, that as a buying market they’re absorbing the entire stock of many categories of high quality or luxury goods that are preferred by the middle class. The Chinese worker making my phone may hate their job for similar or different reasons than the investment banker, both who famously have jumped from buildings due to work stress, both famously faces of capitalism. But, that Chinese worker is now able to provide for their family including their education and onward advancement in a way that wasn’t possible before. Since the 1980s China has been speed running the Industrial Revolution, with massive cities forming of people who were almost entirely in rural areas previously in abject poverty and doing subsistence agriculture, all of whom now work jobs that have elevated them out of that poverty. You can say a lot of truthful negative things about capitalism but pointing to manufacturing jobs in China is completely missing the thread.
    - thrance 2y ago
      Economic growth by itself means nothing for the working class. Without redistribution it amounts to exactly zero improvement of their living conditions. Below is a link to a news coverage of a study that claims to have shown that while poverty (as defined by the world bank) dropped spectacularly in 1980s China, the inability to afford essential commodities skyrocketed in the early 1990s, and didn't recover fully since. https://theconversation.com/chinas-capitalist-reforms-are-said-to-have-moved-800-million-out-of-extreme-poverty-new-data-suggests-the-opposite-216621 https://theconversation.com/chinas-capitalist-reforms-are-sa...
      - tristor 2y ago
        Thanks for the link. I don’t buy it. It does not match what I have directly observed, and seems to be mostly moving the goal posts. In purchasing power parity, the average Chinese person is massively better off today than in 1980, there’s simply no way around that.
        thrance 2y ago
        Ok. What I meant to convey, is that I (personally) don't believe the exploitation part was necessary in the (undeniable) uplifting of the average Chinese. And that a lot of Chinese workers are still alienated, putting upwards of 12 hours a day on soul-crushing jobs. I believe there are more effective ways of lifting populations out of poverty.
        tristor 2y ago
        > I believe there are more effective ways of lifting populations out of poverty. I think you may be right. Unfortunately, what I have observed is that every attempt otherwise so far has failed. I think any approach which requires strong social and philosophical alignment will fail within a few generations, because the intrinsic motivation of humans includes an element of greed that seems impossible to stamp out. Systems that acknowledges and harnesses this fact of humanity show significantly more progress, even as they too have downsides.
animaomnium 2y ago
3tubs × 40gal/tub × $3.50/gal = $420. Wow, you're spending $420 on shipping? How far away are they keeping those slaves?
- aboodman 2y ago
  Shipping doesn't use gasoline, it uses bunker fuel, which is currently about $700/ton. There are 4k gallons in a ton of such fuel, so approximately 18c/gallon. So the shipping cost in fuel should be about $20, which amusingly checks out. Of course the cost in greenhouse gasses is astronomical, which is a big part of the problem.
- thrance 2y ago
  Might I introduce you to a concept called "hyperbole"?
- eloisant 2y ago
  Shipping doesn't come by car, with gasoline bought at a US gas station.
buffalobuffalo 2y ago
I agree that such mockery isn't very charitable, but there is an underlying line logic to their thinking. We know that a system like North Korea's is possible. We know a system like ours is possible. We don't have any evidence that any other system is actually possible. Sure you could imagine something better. But such a system could very easily have fatal flaws you didn't imagine. In fact, North Korea started as just such a utopian ideal. You could also argue that we used to have a system that was better than this. But if that system ultimately became this one, than reverting to the previous state would likely at some point result in the current state occurring again. So in a sense "Do you want to live in North Korea?" is the only valid question.
- thrance 2y ago
  I think North Korea was always an authoritarian state from the get go, it was built by the soviets over the ruins of the Korean war. It's just coated in a socialist paintjob just like many other dictatorships. You're right in that reverting to a previous system will always be a temporary solution, but I don't believe there is any perfect system able to endure until the end of times. "Do you want to live in North Korea?" should never be used as an argument against any kind of reforms deemed "socialist" by the Right. As a start, would it be so bad to implement a carbon tax? Tighter control of human rights on foreign imports? Stronger social nets? The list goes on...
  - buffalobuffalo 2y ago
    Sure. I agree Many of those things would be a net benefit. So why don't we have them? It seems to me, the main reason is that representatives won't vote for them. Why not? Mainly because their financial and political incentives are structured in such a way that they can't. Why are these incentives like this? You can keep peeling back layers of the onion like this forever, but as some point you realize it's just due to structures of the system that will recreate themselves in any similar system. Like how wings evolved separately in different evolutionary branches but all conform to a similar structure. Any capitalist economic system will have methods for vested interests to inhibit many types of positive change.
frugalmail 2y ago
What are you talking about. You can commission making the furniture you want, heck you can even get an Amish craftsman to use non mechanical tools to build it. The reality is the folks in non capitalist countries often sit on the ground on pillows and sometimes don’t have couches because of the cost. Thanks to capitalism people can decide whether they want to spend mid 5 figures for a high quality couch or go with an affordable $1500-$800 couch. In raw time, the couch doesn’t cost mid five figures, if you want that, you need to know a family member willing to sacrifice opportunity cost to make you that couch. Otherwise you pay a luxury premium because they can make more, making the cheap stuff.

immibis 2y ago

There are two types of countries observable in the world today: ones that are shit like capitalism, and ones that are shit like North Korea.

thrance 2y ago
Good luck convincing the chinese worker that made your phone of the merits of capitalism.
- tristor 2y ago
  It’s funny you say that, because the primary beneficiaries of capitalism have been exactly those workers over the past four decades. While not good for American workers, off-shoring and outsourcing have lifted over a billion people out of poverty since the 1980s. China had the fastest growing middle class in the world, so much so, that as a buying market they’re absorbing the entire stock of many categories of high quality or luxury goods that are preferred by the middle class. The Chinese worker making my phone may hate their job for similar or different reasons than the investment banker, both who famously have jumped from buildings due to work stress, both famously faces of capitalism. But, that Chinese worker is now able to provide for their family including their education and onward advancement in a way that wasn’t possible before. Since the 1980s China has been speed running the Industrial Revolution, with massive cities forming of people who were almost entirely in rural areas previously in abject poverty and doing subsistence agriculture, all of whom now work jobs that have elevated them out of that poverty. You can say a lot of truthful negative things about capitalism but pointing to manufacturing jobs in China is completely missing the thread.
  - thrance 2y ago
    Economic growth by itself means nothing for the working class. Without redistribution it amounts to exactly zero improvement of their living conditions. Below is a link to a news coverage of a study that claims to have shown that while poverty (as defined by the world bank) dropped spectacularly in 1980s China, the inability to afford essential commodities skyrocketed in the early 1990s, and didn't recover fully since. https://theconversation.com/chinas-capitalist-reforms-are-said-to-have-moved-800-million-out-of-extreme-poverty-new-data-suggests-the-opposite-216621 https://theconversation.com/chinas-capitalist-reforms-are-sa...
    - tristor 2y ago
      Thanks for the link. I don’t buy it. It does not match what I have directly observed, and seems to be mostly moving the goal posts. In purchasing power parity, the average Chinese person is massively better off today than in 1980, there’s simply no way around that.
      - thrance 2y ago
        Ok. What I meant to convey, is that I (personally) don't believe the exploitation part was necessary in the (undeniable) uplifting of the average Chinese. And that a lot of Chinese workers are still alienated, putting upwards of 12 hours a day on soul-crushing jobs. I believe there are more effective ways of lifting populations out of poverty.
        tristor 2y ago
        > I believe there are more effective ways of lifting populations out of poverty. I think you may be right. Unfortunately, what I have observed is that every attempt otherwise so far has failed. I think any approach which requires strong social and philosophical alignment will fail within a few generations, because the intrinsic motivation of humans includes an element of greed that seems impossible to stamp out. Systems that acknowledges and harnesses this fact of humanity show significantly more progress, even as they too have downsides.

animaomnium 2y ago

3tubs × 40gal/tub × $3.50/gal = $420. Wow, you're spending $420 on shipping? How far away are they keeping those slaves?

aboodman 2y ago
Shipping doesn't use gasoline, it uses bunker fuel, which is currently about $700/ton. There are 4k gallons in a ton of such fuel, so approximately 18c/gallon. So the shipping cost in fuel should be about $20, which amusingly checks out. Of course the cost in greenhouse gasses is astronomical, which is a big part of the problem.
thrance 2y ago
Might I introduce you to a concept called "hyperbole"?
eloisant 2y ago
Shipping doesn't come by car, with gasoline bought at a US gas station.

buffalobuffalo 2y ago

I agree that such mockery isn't very charitable, but there is an underlying line logic to their thinking. We know that a system like North Korea's is possible. We know a system like ours is possible. We don't have any evidence that any other system is actually possible. Sure you could imagine something better. But such a system could very easily have fatal flaws you didn't imagine. In fact, North Korea started as just such a utopian ideal. You could also argue that we used to have a system that was better than this. But if that system ultimately became this one, than reverting to the previous state would likely at some point result in the current state occurring again. So in a sense "Do you want to live in North Korea?" is the only valid question.

thrance 2y ago
I think North Korea was always an authoritarian state from the get go, it was built by the soviets over the ruins of the Korean war. It's just coated in a socialist paintjob just like many other dictatorships. You're right in that reverting to a previous system will always be a temporary solution, but I don't believe there is any perfect system able to endure until the end of times. "Do you want to live in North Korea?" should never be used as an argument against any kind of reforms deemed "socialist" by the Right. As a start, would it be so bad to implement a carbon tax? Tighter control of human rights on foreign imports? Stronger social nets? The list goes on...
- buffalobuffalo 2y ago
  Sure. I agree Many of those things would be a net benefit. So why don't we have them? It seems to me, the main reason is that representatives won't vote for them. Why not? Mainly because their financial and political incentives are structured in such a way that they can't. Why are these incentives like this? You can keep peeling back layers of the onion like this forever, but as some point you realize it's just due to structures of the system that will recreate themselves in any similar system. Like how wings evolved separately in different evolutionary branches but all conform to a similar structure. Any capitalist economic system will have methods for vested interests to inhibit many types of positive change.

frugalmail 2y ago

What are you talking about. You can commission making the furniture you want, heck you can even get an Amish craftsman to use non mechanical tools to build it. The reality is the folks in non capitalist countries often sit on the ground on pillows and sometimes don’t have couches because of the cost. Thanks to capitalism people can decide whether they want to spend mid 5 figures for a high quality couch or go with an affordable $1500-$800 couch. In raw time, the couch doesn’t cost mid five figures, if you want that, you need to know a family member willing to sacrifice opportunity cost to make you that couch. Otherwise you pay a luxury premium because they can make more, making the cheap stuff.