6 ms·

It's almost like it's a systemic issue the system can't fix because it's the system that is broken

by lyu07282 2y ago

formerly_proven 2y ago
It's just late-stage capitalism at work.
- promiseofbeans 2y ago
  To quote the immortal words of every drama teacher and English teacher ever: "Capitalism bad."
  - dspillett 2y ago
    If capitalism wants to throw off that reputation, it perhaps should try doing more good. Or at least less bad.
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      Compared to who?
      - drawkward 2y ago
        Itself, obviously.
      - dspillett 2y ago
        The current reference point. “Do better” with no extra object specified means the implied subject should improve with respect to itself. Grammar only requires an extra subject in instances such as “Do better than …”. As a further example, someone talking to me might say “spend less time arguing with randoms on the Internet and performing other pointless pontification” and an listener/reader literate in the language being used would know not to need nor expect an extra subject to be specified.
        zmgsabst 2y ago
        I don’t understand. You’re claiming that capitalism is “bad” because there’s a hypothetical you imagined where there could be better outcomes? Everything is “bad” by that standard. Eg, “Airplanes are bad because they don’t operate based on anti-gravity warp drives! If airplanes want to shake that reputation, they need to do better!” …do you have any reason to believe better outcomes are actually possible?
        dspillett 2y ago
        > You’re claiming that capitalism is “bad” Can you show the court, on the dolly, where dspillett said it was absolutely bad? IIRC the closest I came to that was suggesting it had a reputation for doing some bad things. Saying something can improve is not the same as saying it is absolutely bad in all imaginable ways, unless you live in a fantasy world where there is no “meh” only perfection and anti-perfection. > do you have any reason to believe better outcomes are actually possible? Not much, beyond a small and rapidly diminishing supply of hope!
    - smegger001 2y ago
      Its not a capitalism thing its a.people under pressure from above thing. Look at the example of the Concord and the Tupolev TU144. The Concord was a great plane the Tupolev was a Soviet knockoff and deathtrap.
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        But capitalism is structured as a system where people above put lots of pressure on people below. There are other systems that are not so top heavy that may alleviate the people-under-pressure problem. Soviets were very top heavy too.
        randomdata 2y ago
        Perhaps you mean corporatism? Capitalism does not define a hierarchical system.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        And yet that’s exactly what happens under capitalism.
        randomdata 2y ago
        As do birthday parties.
        sobkas 2y ago
        > As do birthday parties. Capitalism is a birthday party and you're a present.
        randomdata 2y ago
        Yup, in theory, capitalism shouldn't even have hierarchies, but in practice people hate managing capital so hierarchies emerge anyway. We're reminded of that in another discussion that came up on HN[1]. Life is much, much, much easier and more enjoyable when capital is someone else's problem – when all you have to do is show up and give some time. You'll notice that the capitalism detractors never advocate for greater capital management abilities. It is always to take away such ability so that they can feel less guilty about their choice in not wanting to manage capital. Can't really blame them. Managing capital truly does suck. But it is interesting nevertheless. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40787255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40787255
  - InDubioProRubio 2y ago
    It is, and it was, it always decays down to a gilded age. The only golden phase, was when it- ironically was in systemic competition and feared for its life. You need facism/socialism behind a information curtain, to get great capitalism and golden generations. Standalone, its minimal effort and monopolies all the way, decaying to some "medieval aristocratic thats the natural order peasants" state.
- oersted 2y ago
  Not really, it's just bad management, they took unjustified risks for cost-cutting, and the system, both government and market, is punishing them for it at the first sign of something bad happening. You could argue that the punishment is not harsh enough for deterrence, or not fast enough, but that's an issue with the government, not the market. Furthermore, the main reason why they are not more afraid of market repercussions is because they know the government needs them, they created a monopoly. The system is mostly working as it should. The malicious players were found relatively quickly, through a mix of whistleblowing and the first relatively minor accidents getting a lot of attention (fourth estate and all). Don't get me wrong, we need to keep making things better, there's so much work to do. But if the system were not working we would just have not heard about any of this and accidents would keep happening routinely while robber barons get filthy rich (literal violent monopolists, not plain billionaires), like 100 - 150 years ago.
  - fransje26 2y ago
    > It's just late-stage capitalism at work. >> Not really, it's just bad management I believe the argument being made is that in "early-stage" capitalism a company could not afford that type of management, as it would immediately loose the market due to "true" competition and other "quality" options being available.
    - oersted 2y ago
      I agree. Perhaps I don't have a good understanding of "late-stage" capitalism. I think that the current version of capitalism is "working" (very relatively), exactly because there is substantial oversight from the government and the media, and there should be more. An open and fair marketplace generally seems to be good at improving lives at scale. But I don't understand why so many people have this idea that it is a fundamental law of nature, that if you remove government intervention it will naturally become a more open and a more fair market. An open and fair marketplace is quite artificial and needs so much enforcement to keep alive. Futhermore, even if it is good in general, there are a huge number of exceptional emergent behaviours that are bad and require intervention. We clearly see from history that without oversight, the economy does not become an efficient market. It consolidates into rent-seeking monopolies, often defended and expanded by violence, controlled by an elite with a self-reinforcing long-lasting hold on power. In other words, different flavours of Feudalism, not always focused on land assets.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

It's almost like it's a systemic issue the system can't fix because it's the system that is broken

formerly_proven 2y ago

It's just late-stage capitalism at work.

promiseofbeans 2y ago
To quote the immortal words of every drama teacher and English teacher ever: "Capitalism bad."
- dspillett 2y ago
  If capitalism wants to throw off that reputation, it perhaps should try doing more good. Or at least less bad.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    Compared to who?
    - drawkward 2y ago
      Itself, obviously.
    - dspillett 2y ago
      The current reference point. “Do better” with no extra object specified means the implied subject should improve with respect to itself. Grammar only requires an extra subject in instances such as “Do better than …”. As a further example, someone talking to me might say “spend less time arguing with randoms on the Internet and performing other pointless pontification” and an listener/reader literate in the language being used would know not to need nor expect an extra subject to be specified.
      - zmgsabst 2y ago
        I don’t understand. You’re claiming that capitalism is “bad” because there’s a hypothetical you imagined where there could be better outcomes? Everything is “bad” by that standard. Eg, “Airplanes are bad because they don’t operate based on anti-gravity warp drives! If airplanes want to shake that reputation, they need to do better!” …do you have any reason to believe better outcomes are actually possible?
        dspillett 2y ago
        > You’re claiming that capitalism is “bad” Can you show the court, on the dolly, where dspillett said it was absolutely bad? IIRC the closest I came to that was suggesting it had a reputation for doing some bad things. Saying something can improve is not the same as saying it is absolutely bad in all imaginable ways, unless you live in a fantasy world where there is no “meh” only perfection and anti-perfection. > do you have any reason to believe better outcomes are actually possible? Not much, beyond a small and rapidly diminishing supply of hope!
  - smegger001 2y ago
    Its not a capitalism thing its a.people under pressure from above thing. Look at the example of the Concord and the Tupolev TU144. The Concord was a great plane the Tupolev was a Soviet knockoff and deathtrap.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      But capitalism is structured as a system where people above put lots of pressure on people below. There are other systems that are not so top heavy that may alleviate the people-under-pressure problem. Soviets were very top heavy too.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        Perhaps you mean corporatism? Capitalism does not define a hierarchical system.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        And yet that’s exactly what happens under capitalism.
        randomdata 2y ago
        As do birthday parties.
        sobkas 2y ago
        > As do birthday parties. Capitalism is a birthday party and you're a present.
        randomdata 2y ago
        Yup, in theory, capitalism shouldn't even have hierarchies, but in practice people hate managing capital so hierarchies emerge anyway. We're reminded of that in another discussion that came up on HN[1]. Life is much, much, much easier and more enjoyable when capital is someone else's problem – when all you have to do is show up and give some time. You'll notice that the capitalism detractors never advocate for greater capital management abilities. It is always to take away such ability so that they can feel less guilty about their choice in not wanting to manage capital. Can't really blame them. Managing capital truly does suck. But it is interesting nevertheless. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40787255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40787255
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  It is, and it was, it always decays down to a gilded age. The only golden phase, was when it- ironically was in systemic competition and feared for its life. You need facism/socialism behind a information curtain, to get great capitalism and golden generations. Standalone, its minimal effort and monopolies all the way, decaying to some "medieval aristocratic thats the natural order peasants" state.
oersted 2y ago
Not really, it's just bad management, they took unjustified risks for cost-cutting, and the system, both government and market, is punishing them for it at the first sign of something bad happening. You could argue that the punishment is not harsh enough for deterrence, or not fast enough, but that's an issue with the government, not the market. Furthermore, the main reason why they are not more afraid of market repercussions is because they know the government needs them, they created a monopoly. The system is mostly working as it should. The malicious players were found relatively quickly, through a mix of whistleblowing and the first relatively minor accidents getting a lot of attention (fourth estate and all). Don't get me wrong, we need to keep making things better, there's so much work to do. But if the system were not working we would just have not heard about any of this and accidents would keep happening routinely while robber barons get filthy rich (literal violent monopolists, not plain billionaires), like 100 - 150 years ago.
- fransje26 2y ago
  > It's just late-stage capitalism at work. >> Not really, it's just bad management I believe the argument being made is that in "early-stage" capitalism a company could not afford that type of management, as it would immediately loose the market due to "true" competition and other "quality" options being available.
  - oersted 2y ago
    I agree. Perhaps I don't have a good understanding of "late-stage" capitalism. I think that the current version of capitalism is "working" (very relatively), exactly because there is substantial oversight from the government and the media, and there should be more. An open and fair marketplace generally seems to be good at improving lives at scale. But I don't understand why so many people have this idea that it is a fundamental law of nature, that if you remove government intervention it will naturally become a more open and a more fair market. An open and fair marketplace is quite artificial and needs so much enforcement to keep alive. Futhermore, even if it is good in general, there are a huge number of exceptional emergent behaviours that are bad and require intervention. We clearly see from history that without oversight, the economy does not become an efficient market. It consolidates into rent-seeking monopolies, often defended and expanded by violence, controlled by an elite with a self-reinforcing long-lasting hold on power. In other words, different flavours of Feudalism, not always focused on land assets.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]