9 ms·

We Should Own the Economy

27 points by tndl 2y ago

SoftMachine 2y ago
[dead]
mouse_ 2y ago
Capital (as in "money", not the means of production) is, boiled down, a means of social compulsion. I can compel a person to make me a sandwich with $10, and should they refuse very many times, they will be put into a position of jeopardy, with less access to food, shelter, medical services, hygiene, etc. In our culture, capital is like a whip to a horse and buggy. Putting more capital into more people's pockets is like putting more whips into more people's hands. It does not address the root cause of the problem.
- helicalmix 2y ago
  this is not intuitive to me. In your description, it feels like capital more closely resembles carrots then whips? also, the person's only source of wages isn't going to be specifically making sandwiches for just you, no?
  - datadrivenangel 2y ago
    Many obligations are dominated in local currency, as such, we must acquire local currency to discharge those obligations. To a certain extent, being able to rent a flat that someone else has built is a carrot -- a luxury -- but to a certain extent, anti-vagrancy laws mean that there are whips -- consequences -- that I may incur but not having a flat. Social norms are constructed, but they are still real.
  - Muromec 2y ago
    Whip is a means of signaling and carrot has utility of it's own. That's an important distinction.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - mouse_ 2y ago
    I should hope the average Joe is not viewed as a work mule to be compelled to action with whips and carrots.
- panic 2y ago
  Can civilization work without social compulsion? I think our fear that it can’t, or our belief that the only way to compel people is the threat of punishment, is what keeps these dynamics alive.
  - datadrivenangel 2y ago
    Compulsion is mandatory, but it can be majority structured as positive suasion and emphasizing the benefits of collaboration.
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      Plus "If we don’t do something about it we could lose democracy. We already are. " I assume she is referring to the attempts to remove Donald Trump from various State ballots in 2024, making it harder for people who would have wanted to vote for him to do so. Not quite as far as happened in Romania of course. There are very few MAGA communists, if any.
    - lo_zamoyski 2y ago
      I reject the phrasing of the OP. It's not compulsion. As a human being, I need food, shelter, etc. to live. To acquire these things, I must labor. Where's the compulsion in that? This is a category mistake.
      - Muromec 2y ago
        Compulsion is in the amount of labor you need to perform, because you have to provide for food, shelter, etc for yourself and also make sure the rich have the riches, military has fancy toys and billionaries can play in colonization of mars.
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  So, able-bodied people are entitled to freeload? What a childish and ignorant comment.
- louthy 2y ago
  It’s an incentive to make a sandwich, not a compulsion. Get the level of the incentive right and you’ll get a sandwich.
datadrivenangel 2y ago
A very cool project. Incentive alignment is hard to do well, and doing it both equitably and equally is even harder.
Muromec 2y ago
Oh, the actual communism is cool again? What is happening in US, for real?
- diggan 2y ago
  I don't want to be the one, but did you actually read the article? Author is talking about "vision for the future of capitalism", "create an elevated vision for capitalism", and "project about creating more owners", so if anything it's like neo-capitalism or something, nowhere near communism if you have proper understanding of the concept.
  - Muromec 2y ago
    You can make another step forward to reduce overheard and put all the shares of those owners into a holding company, vote for the managing person of it and you will pretty much get soviet union. The rest of the soviet union you will have to grow in process of such transformations to deal with marginal ill effects of it.
    - diggan 2y ago
      If you're somehow under the belief that the Soviet Union was an implementation of communism, I'm sad to inform you it wasn't. The Soviet Union was run by the state, not the workers, there was a strict class structure in place, instead of a classless society and it was controlled in a top-down authoritarian manner, not by empowering the workers. Having a manager as you describe is quite explicitly the opposite than what communism argues for.
      - Muromec 2y ago
        You don't have to tell me, I have this place stamped on my id card in a birth place field. I know the lore and I've seen the ugly stuff too. It's not the point what soviet union was -- the point is it's one of the practical things you get to when trying to achieve the idea.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
scarface_74 2y ago
Just for reference, if you include home equity, to be in the top 10%, you have to have wealth of $2.25 million. Without home equity it’s about 1.5 million. Source: https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator/
slibhb 2y ago
The chunk of the economy you own should be proportionate to the amount you contributed to growing the economy. In modern, functioning economies, this is more or less the case. The idea that inequality will lead to lopsided political power hasn't yet been proven. If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump. People who focus so much on inequality should rethink their priorities. Actually, living in a highly unequal economy is fine as long as: 1. Wealth is highly correlated to productivity 2. The poor have access to the necessities
- mugwumprk 2y ago
  "If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump." That's an interesting question. I haven't seen a poll of the richest US citizens. Which is odd, considering our general obsession with wealth. I suspect that, between Harris and Trump, the 100 richest would go for Trump.
  - slibhb 2y ago
    I probably shouldn't have chosen 100. But, say, the top 1%, 5%, or 10% -- I think would go for a moderate liberal over someone like Trump. Of course, Harris outspent Trump considerably which is another piece of evidence against the whole "money owns politics" story.
    - altruios 2y ago
      You've not interacted the kool-aid drinkers. C.Yarvin is doing some sith lord 'mind to pudding' on these folk. Reason is out the window when 'rationality' walks in the door.
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      > which is another piece of evidence N=1, and ignoring the fact that the only people who can run for president in the first place are those with billions in backing.
    - 2y ago
ActorNightly 2y ago
>If we don’t do something about it we could lose democracy. I love how people are still pretending like this didn't happen already. If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken. But as an aside, the issue isn't necessarily the wealth inequality, its the fact that the average person in US enjoys a relatively good life. This is why most of US didn't show up to vote in 2024. This creates a catch 22 situation, because people enjoy this level of life, and are going to elect leaders that will let them continue to live this way, not realizing that this is not sustainable. Which automatically makes them reject any leaders that are attempting to fix the problems that are slowly created, because those solutions means either less freedoms or less money in the short term (even if it means more money or more freedoms in the long term). I dunno what the solution to this is really, and nobody does. You can argue that strong authoritarian control by the right coalition could fix this, but then the question becomes "how do make enough people believe that they don't deserve the freedoms that they had in order to put trust in that coalition"
- slibhb 2y ago
  > If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken. Care to make it interesting?
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Of course there's going to be an election in 2028. They have elections in Russia. That doesn't make Russia a democracy, though.
  - ActorNightly 2y ago
    I mean, if I knew you in person, Id probably take 70:30 odds on a bet that there wouldn't be a fair election in 2028. Online its pretty pointless, as I can fake any evidence of me betting one way or another, and so can you. Even then, if I win, the money is going to be pointless as US dollar will tank hard.
    - nh23423fefe 2y ago
somethoughts 2y ago
Been listening to All-In podcast and they've been talking like this - its really amusing to see them (and this author) get excited by what are essentially taxes with a different narrative (i.e. US sovereign wealth fund, give cash to US citizens to invest in S&P, NASDAQ, crypto to give them skin in the game). The infrastructure for this is already there, it just needs to be rebranded and given a new narrative to make it acceptable for both the billionaire class. Instead of calling it taxes and social security, redistributive policies should be rebranded as patriotic profit sharing with the US government. The US government's job would still be to pool resources to provide educated employees for companies to hire, well functioning transportation systems for companies to use, rule of law for companies to benefit from and pensions systems/basic healthcare for company employees/retirees. In exchange for access to this US infrastructure, US and foreign corporations operating in the US would contribute to the US Freedom Dividend which will be shared across Americans to provide a baseline standard of living and allow them to invest to have skin in the game. To get companies and wealthy individuals to willing participate in redistributive policies it seems we just need to avoid messaging it as punitive and/or as retribution for being successful (i.e. the Elizabeth Warren/AOC approach). We need to reframe it in language they speak - patriotism and profit sharing - and reframe them as the heroes for funding all the infrastructure and not the enemies. I think there would be mind shift among the populace if they actually had more of a clear map as well from S&P500 companies winning and their own pocketbooks benefitting.

27 points by tndl 2y ago

[dead]

Capital (as in "money", not the means of production) is, boiled down, a means of social compulsion. I can compel a person to make me a sandwich with $10, and should they refuse very many times, they will be put into a position of jeopardy, with less access to food, shelter, medical services, hygiene, etc. In our culture, capital is like a whip to a horse and buggy. Putting more capital into more people's pockets is like putting more whips into more people's hands. It does not address the root cause of the problem.

helicalmix 2y ago
this is not intuitive to me. In your description, it feels like capital more closely resembles carrots then whips? also, the person's only source of wages isn't going to be specifically making sandwiches for just you, no?
- datadrivenangel 2y ago
  Many obligations are dominated in local currency, as such, we must acquire local currency to discharge those obligations. To a certain extent, being able to rent a flat that someone else has built is a carrot -- a luxury -- but to a certain extent, anti-vagrancy laws mean that there are whips -- consequences -- that I may incur but not having a flat. Social norms are constructed, but they are still real.
- Muromec 2y ago
  Whip is a means of signaling and carrot has utility of it's own. That's an important distinction.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- mouse_ 2y ago
  I should hope the average Joe is not viewed as a work mule to be compelled to action with whips and carrots.
panic 2y ago
Can civilization work without social compulsion? I think our fear that it can’t, or our belief that the only way to compel people is the threat of punishment, is what keeps these dynamics alive.
- datadrivenangel 2y ago
  Compulsion is mandatory, but it can be majority structured as positive suasion and emphasizing the benefits of collaboration.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    Plus "If we don’t do something about it we could lose democracy. We already are. " I assume she is referring to the attempts to remove Donald Trump from various State ballots in 2024, making it harder for people who would have wanted to vote for him to do so. Not quite as far as happened in Romania of course. There are very few MAGA communists, if any.
  - lo_zamoyski 2y ago
    I reject the phrasing of the OP. It's not compulsion. As a human being, I need food, shelter, etc. to live. To acquire these things, I must labor. Where's the compulsion in that? This is a category mistake.
    - Muromec 2y ago
      Compulsion is in the amount of labor you need to perform, because you have to provide for food, shelter, etc for yourself and also make sure the rich have the riches, military has fancy toys and billionaries can play in colonization of mars.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
So, able-bodied people are entitled to freeload? What a childish and ignorant comment.
louthy 2y ago
It’s an incentive to make a sandwich, not a compulsion. Get the level of the incentive right and you’ll get a sandwich.

datadrivenangel 2y ago

A very cool project. Incentive alignment is hard to do well, and doing it both equitably and equally is even harder.

Muromec 2y ago

Oh, the actual communism is cool again? What is happening in US, for real?

diggan 2y ago
I don't want to be the one, but did you actually read the article? Author is talking about "vision for the future of capitalism", "create an elevated vision for capitalism", and "project about creating more owners", so if anything it's like neo-capitalism or something, nowhere near communism if you have proper understanding of the concept.
- Muromec 2y ago
  You can make another step forward to reduce overheard and put all the shares of those owners into a holding company, vote for the managing person of it and you will pretty much get soviet union. The rest of the soviet union you will have to grow in process of such transformations to deal with marginal ill effects of it.
  - diggan 2y ago
    If you're somehow under the belief that the Soviet Union was an implementation of communism, I'm sad to inform you it wasn't. The Soviet Union was run by the state, not the workers, there was a strict class structure in place, instead of a classless society and it was controlled in a top-down authoritarian manner, not by empowering the workers. Having a manager as you describe is quite explicitly the opposite than what communism argues for.
    - Muromec 2y ago
      You don't have to tell me, I have this place stamped on my id card in a birth place field. I know the lore and I've seen the ugly stuff too. It's not the point what soviet union was -- the point is it's one of the practical things you get to when trying to achieve the idea.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

scarface_74 2y ago

Just for reference, if you include home equity, to be in the top 10%, you have to have wealth of $2.25 million. Without home equity it’s about 1.5 million. Source: https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator/

slibhb 2y ago

The chunk of the economy you own should be proportionate to the amount you contributed to growing the economy. In modern, functioning economies, this is more or less the case. The idea that inequality will lead to lopsided political power hasn't yet been proven. If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump. People who focus so much on inequality should rethink their priorities. Actually, living in a highly unequal economy is fine as long as: 1. Wealth is highly correlated to productivity 2. The poor have access to the necessities

mugwumprk 2y ago
"If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump." That's an interesting question. I haven't seen a poll of the richest US citizens. Which is odd, considering our general obsession with wealth. I suspect that, between Harris and Trump, the 100 richest would go for Trump.
- slibhb 2y ago
  I probably shouldn't have chosen 100. But, say, the top 1%, 5%, or 10% -- I think would go for a moderate liberal over someone like Trump. Of course, Harris outspent Trump considerably which is another piece of evidence against the whole "money owns politics" story.
  - altruios 2y ago
    You've not interacted the kool-aid drinkers. C.Yarvin is doing some sith lord 'mind to pudding' on these folk. Reason is out the window when 'rationality' walks in the door.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    > which is another piece of evidence N=1, and ignoring the fact that the only people who can run for president in the first place are those with billions in backing.
  - 2y ago

ActorNightly 2y ago

>If we don’t do something about it we could lose democracy. I love how people are still pretending like this didn't happen already. If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken. But as an aside, the issue isn't necessarily the wealth inequality, its the fact that the average person in US enjoys a relatively good life. This is why most of US didn't show up to vote in 2024. This creates a catch 22 situation, because people enjoy this level of life, and are going to elect leaders that will let them continue to live this way, not realizing that this is not sustainable. Which automatically makes them reject any leaders that are attempting to fix the problems that are slowly created, because those solutions means either less freedoms or less money in the short term (even if it means more money or more freedoms in the long term). I dunno what the solution to this is really, and nobody does. You can argue that strong authoritarian control by the right coalition could fix this, but then the question becomes "how do make enough people believe that they don't deserve the freedoms that they had in order to put trust in that coalition"

slibhb 2y ago
> If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken. Care to make it interesting?
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Of course there's going to be an election in 2028. They have elections in Russia. That doesn't make Russia a democracy, though.
- ActorNightly 2y ago
  I mean, if I knew you in person, Id probably take 70:30 odds on a bet that there wouldn't be a fair election in 2028. Online its pretty pointless, as I can fake any evidence of me betting one way or another, and so can you. Even then, if I win, the money is going to be pointless as US dollar will tank hard.
  - nh23423fefe 2y ago

somethoughts 2y ago

Been listening to All-In podcast and they've been talking like this - its really amusing to see them (and this author) get excited by what are essentially taxes with a different narrative (i.e. US sovereign wealth fund, give cash to US citizens to invest in S&P, NASDAQ, crypto to give them skin in the game). The infrastructure for this is already there, it just needs to be rebranded and given a new narrative to make it acceptable for both the billionaire class. Instead of calling it taxes and social security, redistributive policies should be rebranded as patriotic profit sharing with the US government. The US government's job would still be to pool resources to provide educated employees for companies to hire, well functioning transportation systems for companies to use, rule of law for companies to benefit from and pensions systems/basic healthcare for company employees/retirees. In exchange for access to this US infrastructure, US and foreign corporations operating in the US would contribute to the US Freedom Dividend which will be shared across Americans to provide a baseline standard of living and allow them to invest to have skin in the game. To get companies and wealthy individuals to willing participate in redistributive policies it seems we just need to avoid messaging it as punitive and/or as retribution for being successful (i.e. the Elizabeth Warren/AOC approach). We need to reframe it in language they speak - patriotism and profit sharing - and reframe them as the heroes for funding all the infrastructure and not the enemies. I think there would be mind shift among the populace if they actually had more of a clear map as well from S&P500 companies winning and their own pocketbooks benefitting.