7 ms·

It's a funny ideology that's like "We're going to end scarcity and implement UBI, but also, be scared of socialism."

mattnewton 1y ago
Two separate sets of people maybe; I think this article is using "silicon valley" to talk about a small (but very influential) group of very wealthy investor types, and "new york tech scene" to mostly talk about NYC founders.
next_xibalba 1y ago
A more honest way of writing this might be ”we’re going to test UBI because it’s untested, but Mamdani is scary bc rent control has been shown over and over again to be bad for cities.”
- code_for_monkey 1y ago
  rent control is a huge part of New York City, and has been around for ages. Hasn't been so bad for it, last I checked city is still doing pretty good.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    Finding an apartment in NYC is still terrible but we don't have a way to duplicate the Earth and remove rent control and re do the last 50 years. If there were no rent control, who's to say how things would look like today? $500/month studio apartments in mega highrises because we also deregulated zoning and housing regulations in this hypothetical.
- techpineapple 1y ago
  I don't think that Silicon Valley's / NY Tech's primary concern about Mamdani is rent control. You think NY Tech CEO's are pro rent control for a reason Silicon Valley CEO's aren't?
- the_gastropod 1y ago
  I think you're right that this is what people believe. But as far as I've been able to tell, Mamdani's platform does not include anything about rent control. The closest position he's advocating for is to freeze the rent stabilization rate for 5 years while massively ramping up the construction of new apartments to bring rental costs down. Much of the pushback about Mamdani seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference betwene "rent control" and "rent stabilization". I think it's extremely rare to see a politician understand the supply/demand aspect of housing costs so well. He really seems to understand these dynamics, certainly better than anyone he's running against.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Is that difference relevant here? I'm not familiar with the difference, but looking it up real quick, they seem to be extremely similar. They both act as price controls, which implies the same sorts of economic consequences.
    - the_gastropod 1y ago
      Yes. Rent control is what most people are familiar with (grandma living in a beautiful 3 bedroom apartment in Greenwich Village paying $200 / month, locked in since the 1970's). Rent stabilization is just a regulation that puts some type of reasonable cap on how much landlords can increase the rent every year, usually around 3-5% per year. This is especially relevant in this election, as Cuomo is attacking Mamdani for living in a rent stabilized apartment, suggesting it's hypocritical because he can afford a more expensive apartment. This is deliberately trying to muddy the distinction between "rent stabilized" and "rent controlled" (about half of NY apartments are rent stabilized, and there is absolutely no cultural expectation that people move out when they get a raise, or whatever nonsense Cuomo's suggesting).
      - wat10000 1y ago
        I'm still not sure what the important distinction is. Are you saying it's that rent control freezes the price entirely, while rent stabilization allows it to increase? That doesn't seem to be right from what I'm seeing; "rent control" includes systems where the rent can increase. NYC apparently has both and NYC rent control does allow for (capped) rent increases, according to the NYC government: https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/01/fact-sheet-01-01-2024_0.pdf https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/01/fact-sheet...
cbeach 1y ago
Ending scarcity and funding UBI is uniquely possible in a capitalist society, where there is excess wealth generation. In the UK we use our capitalist excess wealth to fund socialised healthcare. But don't mistake socialised service provision for socialism Socialism implies state control of the means of production. The results of socialism, we witnessed in Eastern Europe and elsewhere during the 20th century: scarcity of goods and services Eventually a socialist state runs out of private wealth to seize, and it becomes completely corrupt and totalitarian due to its monopoly over the means of production. And then the people rise up and demand a the restoration of a free society where people can own the fruits of their labour.
- wat10000 1y ago
  In all the actual examples I can think of, the totalitarianism came first. Eastern Europe mostly had socialism imposed by an occupying force, and that same force also imposed totalitarian governments. In other places, Communists took over, set up a totalitarian government, and then proceeded to implement whatever they thought socialism/communism entails.
- krapp 1y ago
  >Socialism implies state control of the means of production. Socialism literally implies the opposite. That's why it's called socialism. Under capitalism, capitalists own the means of production. Under fascism, the government and the state collaborate to own the means of production. Under socialism, the means of production are socially (collectively) owned. In the most extreme interpretation of socialism, communism, the goal is the elimination of the state entirely. Granted, historically, communist states tended to centralize power rather than work towards their own elimination because that's the inherent evil of governments, particularly revolutionary governments. But to claim that socialism presupposes authoritarianism is to expose the fact that everything you know about socialism comes from capitalist propaganda. >And then the people rise up and demand a the restoration of a free society where people can own the fruits of their labour. (╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ That's socialism!
  - cbeach 1y ago
    Since it’s unworkable, in practice, for “everyone” to own something, socialism inevitably means state ownership. There’s no getting around this. If everyone owns something, no one owns it.
lenerdenator 1y ago
> We're going to end scarcity and implement UBI, I don't think that I've ever heard anyone in SV, at least not anyone with any real power, honestly suggest that. They don't want to pay people more than they absolutely have to now, and that's with most labor being done by humans. When humans stop being the engine of economic growth, why would those people suddenly want to implement UBI and end scarcity? It's a fugazi meant to make you think that the people doing things have considered all of the angles, but they haven't.
- techpineapple 1y ago
  Sam Altman says it all the time. If Sam Altman "doesn't have any real power" than the phrase doesn't mean anything.
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    How close is a bill implementing UBI to being passed in Congress?
tj-teej 1y ago
It's actually very straight-forward. UBI still means that most people's money eventually flows to the rent-seekers (Billionaires). Socialism (and I know this is not the Socialism Mamdani is proposing), means that most people own the means of production and rent-seeking isn't possible.
codyb 1y ago
It seems like as soon as any particular set of ideas starts to attract a dedicated following said group abandons reason in favor of dogmatism, lack of consistency be damned.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  Compare and contrast the following and you might find that this human tendency isn't new and isn't likely to change, but it can be gamed and guided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect I was aware of that one, but this one, while being entirely obvious, is quite thought-provoking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snob_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snob_effect
jurking_hoff 1y ago
[dead]

Two separate sets of people maybe; I think this article is using "silicon valley" to talk about a small (but very influential) group of very wealthy investor types, and "new york tech scene" to mostly talk about NYC founders.

next_xibalba 1y ago

A more honest way of writing this might be ”we’re going to test UBI because it’s untested, but Mamdani is scary bc rent control has been shown over and over again to be bad for cities.”

code_for_monkey 1y ago
rent control is a huge part of New York City, and has been around for ages. Hasn't been so bad for it, last I checked city is still doing pretty good.
- fragmede 1y ago
  Finding an apartment in NYC is still terrible but we don't have a way to duplicate the Earth and remove rent control and re do the last 50 years. If there were no rent control, who's to say how things would look like today? $500/month studio apartments in mega highrises because we also deregulated zoning and housing regulations in this hypothetical.
techpineapple 1y ago
I don't think that Silicon Valley's / NY Tech's primary concern about Mamdani is rent control. You think NY Tech CEO's are pro rent control for a reason Silicon Valley CEO's aren't?
the_gastropod 1y ago
I think you're right that this is what people believe. But as far as I've been able to tell, Mamdani's platform does not include anything about rent control. The closest position he's advocating for is to freeze the rent stabilization rate for 5 years while massively ramping up the construction of new apartments to bring rental costs down. Much of the pushback about Mamdani seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference betwene "rent control" and "rent stabilization". I think it's extremely rare to see a politician understand the supply/demand aspect of housing costs so well. He really seems to understand these dynamics, certainly better than anyone he's running against.
- wat10000 1y ago
  Is that difference relevant here? I'm not familiar with the difference, but looking it up real quick, they seem to be extremely similar. They both act as price controls, which implies the same sorts of economic consequences.
  - the_gastropod 1y ago
    Yes. Rent control is what most people are familiar with (grandma living in a beautiful 3 bedroom apartment in Greenwich Village paying $200 / month, locked in since the 1970's). Rent stabilization is just a regulation that puts some type of reasonable cap on how much landlords can increase the rent every year, usually around 3-5% per year. This is especially relevant in this election, as Cuomo is attacking Mamdani for living in a rent stabilized apartment, suggesting it's hypocritical because he can afford a more expensive apartment. This is deliberately trying to muddy the distinction between "rent stabilized" and "rent controlled" (about half of NY apartments are rent stabilized, and there is absolutely no cultural expectation that people move out when they get a raise, or whatever nonsense Cuomo's suggesting).
    - wat10000 1y ago
      I'm still not sure what the important distinction is. Are you saying it's that rent control freezes the price entirely, while rent stabilization allows it to increase? That doesn't seem to be right from what I'm seeing; "rent control" includes systems where the rent can increase. NYC apparently has both and NYC rent control does allow for (capped) rent increases, according to the NYC government: https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/01/fact-sheet-01-01-2024_0.pdf https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/01/fact-sheet...

cbeach 1y ago

Ending scarcity and funding UBI is uniquely possible in a capitalist society, where there is excess wealth generation. In the UK we use our capitalist excess wealth to fund socialised healthcare. But don't mistake socialised service provision for socialism Socialism implies state control of the means of production. The results of socialism, we witnessed in Eastern Europe and elsewhere during the 20th century: scarcity of goods and services Eventually a socialist state runs out of private wealth to seize, and it becomes completely corrupt and totalitarian due to its monopoly over the means of production. And then the people rise up and demand a the restoration of a free society where people can own the fruits of their labour.

wat10000 1y ago
In all the actual examples I can think of, the totalitarianism came first. Eastern Europe mostly had socialism imposed by an occupying force, and that same force also imposed totalitarian governments. In other places, Communists took over, set up a totalitarian government, and then proceeded to implement whatever they thought socialism/communism entails.
krapp 1y ago
>Socialism implies state control of the means of production. Socialism literally implies the opposite. That's why it's called socialism. Under capitalism, capitalists own the means of production. Under fascism, the government and the state collaborate to own the means of production. Under socialism, the means of production are socially (collectively) owned. In the most extreme interpretation of socialism, communism, the goal is the elimination of the state entirely. Granted, historically, communist states tended to centralize power rather than work towards their own elimination because that's the inherent evil of governments, particularly revolutionary governments. But to claim that socialism presupposes authoritarianism is to expose the fact that everything you know about socialism comes from capitalist propaganda. >And then the people rise up and demand a the restoration of a free society where people can own the fruits of their labour. (╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ That's socialism!
- cbeach 1y ago
  Since it’s unworkable, in practice, for “everyone” to own something, socialism inevitably means state ownership. There’s no getting around this. If everyone owns something, no one owns it.

lenerdenator 1y ago

> We're going to end scarcity and implement UBI, I don't think that I've ever heard anyone in SV, at least not anyone with any real power, honestly suggest that. They don't want to pay people more than they absolutely have to now, and that's with most labor being done by humans. When humans stop being the engine of economic growth, why would those people suddenly want to implement UBI and end scarcity? It's a fugazi meant to make you think that the people doing things have considered all of the angles, but they haven't.

techpineapple 1y ago
Sam Altman says it all the time. If Sam Altman "doesn't have any real power" than the phrase doesn't mean anything.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  How close is a bill implementing UBI to being passed in Congress?

tj-teej 1y ago

It's actually very straight-forward. UBI still means that most people's money eventually flows to the rent-seekers (Billionaires). Socialism (and I know this is not the Socialism Mamdani is proposing), means that most people own the means of production and rent-seeking isn't possible.

codyb 1y ago

It seems like as soon as any particular set of ideas starts to attract a dedicated following said group abandons reason in favor of dogmatism, lack of consistency be damned.

aspenmayer 1y ago
Compare and contrast the following and you might find that this human tendency isn't new and isn't likely to change, but it can be gamed and guided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect I was aware of that one, but this one, while being entirely obvious, is quite thought-provoking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snob_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snob_effect

jurking_hoff 1y ago

[dead]