4 ms·

> This amount of scumminess is mind boggling. It is, unfortunately, the natural result of insufficiently regulated capitalism.

banannaise 1y ago
[nitpick] I think it's more the natural result of capitalism that is well-regulated only on the consumer side. There are very few poultry processors largely because it is difficult and expensive to comply with consumer regulations and maintain food safety standards. That, in itself, is fine. But once you have very few (or only one) processor(s), there needs to be regulation on how they pay and treat both their workers and their suppliers. For the most part, there is neither.
mystraline 1y ago
Even regulated capitalism exploits. Surplus labor theory easily shows that even in the best of intentions, businesses absolutely must exploit the worker. Even the local artisan bread-baker must pay workers less than their economic output. This isn't to say that the owner is exploitive and treating people with subsistence. But the pay/surplus split is still there as exploitation. Reforming capitalism also doesn't work either. Hell, people can't get past page 30 of Adam Smith's treatise that discusses all the 'reforms needed' to instill capitalism. Turns out monied interests has always wanted to strip controls from the get-go. No, its time to relegate capitalism to the dustbin of history. It was tried. As it lifted some up, more and more were ground into a gritty paste to feed the machine. I don't know what to replace it with either. But whatever it is has to not have weird effects of infinite or 0 cost breakdowns (like copying software and data), and also aware of how to handle algorimthic labor (LLMs), amongst other concerns.
- dml2135 1y ago
  I’m all for critiques of capitalism, but it’s extremely unconvincing to say capitalism must go, but at the same time, you don’t know what to replace it with. How are you so convinced that there is a better solution than capitalism if you can’t even articulate what that solution would be? How do you know that capitalism, for all it’s flaws, is not still the least-worst among an array of bad options?
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    This is usually the extent of online discussion. Everyone can agree that "just build more housing" is the answer to the homelessness epidemic, but nobody has anything to say about HOW to accomplish that. The person saying it can't build a house on their own, nor can the collective number of people who regularly eject that sentiment. So the question is "how do you get enough money in one place and apply it to building more housing". And that's the tricky part. Because as you keep asking "how" you eventually arrive at thorny problems like "how do you ensure that the politician you elect who promises to build more housing... actually does it?"
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      Lots of people are screaming at the top of their lungs about how to build more housing. Primarily through deregulation. Examples would be zoning codes, building codes, relaxed public comment and relaxed environmental impact assessments.
      - mystraline 1y ago
        Deregulation is how we got into the mess of housing! In fact, its the complete financial ideation of rentals and homes. That's what's even pushed 2 earner homes to even afford a house. But those who have, can get a house loan, rent it out for 150% of the total mortgage and paracitize off the public. And nobody is the better, except for the paracite class (landlords). Rent controls would also do a great deal. But we hear howls from the libertarian types over controls ala Adam Smith. And progressive heavy taxation on more than 3 houses would also help the situation of houses being bought for rental or AirBNB purposes. Again, those are parasites on all of us. Of course, all these mean housing number go down. And those who own a large stake will definitely complain. But these are steps that would help, alongside building more with a rent-controlled and reasonable cost. And reforming how banks are required to provide loans (proof of X rent = proof of covering x mortgage). But really? This country is going the opposite way of the common person, and has been for decades. Now, that strategy has been ramped up to extremes.
- nradov 1y ago
  Surplus labor theory doesn't show anything. It's unscientific bunk that people just made up for ideological reasons.

banannaise 1y ago

[nitpick] I think it's more the natural result of capitalism that is well-regulated only on the consumer side. There are very few poultry processors largely because it is difficult and expensive to comply with consumer regulations and maintain food safety standards. That, in itself, is fine. But once you have very few (or only one) processor(s), there needs to be regulation on how they pay and treat both their workers and their suppliers. For the most part, there is neither.

mystraline 1y ago

Even regulated capitalism exploits. Surplus labor theory easily shows that even in the best of intentions, businesses absolutely must exploit the worker. Even the local artisan bread-baker must pay workers less than their economic output. This isn't to say that the owner is exploitive and treating people with subsistence. But the pay/surplus split is still there as exploitation. Reforming capitalism also doesn't work either. Hell, people can't get past page 30 of Adam Smith's treatise that discusses all the 'reforms needed' to instill capitalism. Turns out monied interests has always wanted to strip controls from the get-go. No, its time to relegate capitalism to the dustbin of history. It was tried. As it lifted some up, more and more were ground into a gritty paste to feed the machine. I don't know what to replace it with either. But whatever it is has to not have weird effects of infinite or 0 cost breakdowns (like copying software and data), and also aware of how to handle algorimthic labor (LLMs), amongst other concerns.

dml2135 1y ago
I’m all for critiques of capitalism, but it’s extremely unconvincing to say capitalism must go, but at the same time, you don’t know what to replace it with. How are you so convinced that there is a better solution than capitalism if you can’t even articulate what that solution would be? How do you know that capitalism, for all it’s flaws, is not still the least-worst among an array of bad options?
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  This is usually the extent of online discussion. Everyone can agree that "just build more housing" is the answer to the homelessness epidemic, but nobody has anything to say about HOW to accomplish that. The person saying it can't build a house on their own, nor can the collective number of people who regularly eject that sentiment. So the question is "how do you get enough money in one place and apply it to building more housing". And that's the tricky part. Because as you keep asking "how" you eventually arrive at thorny problems like "how do you ensure that the politician you elect who promises to build more housing... actually does it?"
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    Lots of people are screaming at the top of their lungs about how to build more housing. Primarily through deregulation. Examples would be zoning codes, building codes, relaxed public comment and relaxed environmental impact assessments.
    - mystraline 1y ago
      Deregulation is how we got into the mess of housing! In fact, its the complete financial ideation of rentals and homes. That's what's even pushed 2 earner homes to even afford a house. But those who have, can get a house loan, rent it out for 150% of the total mortgage and paracitize off the public. And nobody is the better, except for the paracite class (landlords). Rent controls would also do a great deal. But we hear howls from the libertarian types over controls ala Adam Smith. And progressive heavy taxation on more than 3 houses would also help the situation of houses being bought for rental or AirBNB purposes. Again, those are parasites on all of us. Of course, all these mean housing number go down. And those who own a large stake will definitely complain. But these are steps that would help, alongside building more with a rent-controlled and reasonable cost. And reforming how banks are required to provide loans (proof of X rent = proof of covering x mortgage). But really? This country is going the opposite way of the common person, and has been for decades. Now, that strategy has been ramped up to extremes.
nradov 1y ago
Surplus labor theory doesn't show anything. It's unscientific bunk that people just made up for ideological reasons.