4 ms·

> ...So now a lot of us that were in that position are getting drawn in and being like, no actually the impoverishment that has always been the underbelly of ca

by roenxi 1y ago

> ...So now a lot of us that were in that position are getting drawn in and being like, no actually the impoverishment that has always been the underbelly of capitalism... What, because we have this alternate system where the underbelly of society is happy, hale and having a really good time? The global south have been doing great under capitalism, the reason they are poor is they don't have a history of industrial success. The Chinese in particular are where they are right now because they embraced capitalism rather than throwing more bodies into the maw of communism and I think most of the world would prefer to follow their lead. Getting wealthier at that rate looks like a lot of fun. Impoverished underbellys are in every system, they have nothing to do with capitalism. The problem is we treat low status people like garbage. Capitalism is just not a cause or consequence of human status hierarchies. But the lot of low status people is probably only going to improve with more AI because they of all people will benefit from cheap access to a system that makes high-intelligence decisions with more knowledge than can fit in a human mind.

tartuffe78 1y ago
> But the lot of low status people is probably only going to improve with more AI I've got a bridge to sell you...
- Enginerrrd 1y ago
  I mean historically, with essentially every other incrrease in technology and GDP this has been true, at least broadly speaking. The quality of life of the poorest in the world has been improving over time. It is absolutely worth considering "would things really be different this time?" But it's also a mistake to think automatically that it WILL be different this time.
  - palmfacehn 1y ago
    It isn't necessarily a mistake if you can scare people into clicking, or perhaps granting you special regulatory privileges. It may be unethical.
  - mcv 1y ago
    > The quality of life of the poorest in the world has been improving over time. Because those technological improvements were accompanied by social changes and regulation to adjust for the technological changes.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    >I mean historically, Past performance is not indicative of future results. The problem is we have to think about the actions we are taking and what those results will be. Just saying "oh, all of history before now needed human labor, but don't worry we're replacing that and nothing is going to change" is a nonsensical statement. In previous times when massive technology changes occurred we typically see very large wars break out. This was terrible and all, but war was a regional thing with regional effects. During the 20th century war became a global thing with global consequences all the way up to biosphere altering weapons of mass destruction. The threat of MAD set up a time of relative global peace coupled with fast transportation and an explosion in the human population has set up a very fragile state of humanity. Products must keep moving and energy must keep being produces or billions and billions of people will die because they need things from the other side of the world to show up.
CodingJeebus 1y ago
Capitalism is not a panacea and its history is steeped in blood. The Dutch VOC, considered one of the first capitalist enterprises, carried out genocide in its pursuit to control spices in the Indies. Capitalist interests in the US interfered in South American politics for decades, overthrowing democratically elected leaders and funding militias aligned with corporate interests. One of my closest friends is Guatemalan and most of his family was killed during the United Fruit Company conflict. The Russians experienced one of the largest declines in quality of life in human history after the Soviet Union fell and the country became privatized.
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  Steeped in blood compared to what? History as a whole is full of unsavory things, but we have to decide between things that can happen — and many atrocities have been committed trying to build Utopia. For example, the massive casualties of the USSR. Or those killed in South America — eg, by the FARC.
  - MSFT_Edging 1y ago
    You should also include casualties of the coup in Indonesia, the Casualties of the Korean, Vietnamese, and secret war in Laos. Perhaps also the massacres performed by the Contras in Nicaragua,
  - mcv 1y ago
    > Steeped in blood compared to what? Compared to social democracy and probably some other systems that protect the rights and interests of the poorest in society.
    - tartarus4o 1y ago
      [dead]
    - roenxi 1y ago
      If we look at a map of places where Socialist Democratic parties are active [0, 1] it actually looks like a map of people who generally have pretty terrible living conditions for the poorest in society. Mainly because it covers most of the known world so it'd reflect the normal living conditions for poor people. And is an ideology that is well integrated with capitalism, I happen to note. It is pretty hard to say that the social democracy is free from a bloody history vs capitalism when people like the US Dems claim to be part of the social democrats. They're pretty blood-spattered. They're part of the governing system of the largest and most aggressive military in the world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Alliance
matthewdgreen 1y ago
I’m a fan of managed capitalism, which is the only capitalism we’ve ever known. I’m very nervous about what happens when unrestricted capital is allowed to consume all its guardrails and re-write all the rules to advantage itself. I imagine it leads to something extremely not-like the kind of capitalism that brought all those benefits you’re citing. I guess we might get to find out for ourselves!
impossiblefork 1y ago
Capitalism is a word invented by Louis Blanc for the bad thing "What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others". You don't actually call yourself a capitalist, because if you say that you actually say "I believe in a hard class system with a difficult to overcome divide between workers and capital owners and that the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others is right". If you believe in a system that you feel is uncomfortably similar to Louis Blanc's bad thing, you say "This won't actually happen, this system is totally dynamic, with no permanent class division or any appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others" and you'd say things "I support free markets".
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  Capitalism is just a term for the concepts that predated Louis Blanc and were discussed by Adam Smith et al. Your definition is nonsense: capitalism is a system in which the invested capital is also rewarded and not collectively owned. But it’s not a hard class system — as you’re given capital in reward for your labor. Capitalism is substantially more malleable as a class system than traditional feudalism (what came before in Europe) or modern communism (its main rival), which trades feudalistic class for status within the party.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    But then it isn't Blanc's Capitalism-- or at least you claim that it isn't, so why use the word?
  - gchamonlive 1y ago
    > it’s not a hard class system — as you’re given capital in reward for your labor The latter doesn't justify the former. If you are rewarded for your work, but it would require you many lifetimes of labor to reach the next class, that's for all intents and purposes a hard class system. The argument for class mobility based on initiative doesn't make it a soft class system. > Capitalism is substantially more malleable as a class system than traditional feudalism (what came before in Europe) or modern communism (its main rival), which trades feudalistic class for status within the party. Doesn't make it malleable, just comparatively more malleable. The problem is with the later stages of capitalism where everything is big and rigid, but you still need growth for the system to work. What we need is a different system that improves on capitalism, but has at its heart a welfare state, doesn't reduce each individual to an economic actor and have incentives set so that each actor (or machine which seeks connections) can converge to the mean, instead of each one trying to reach the top.
palmfacehn 1y ago
It isn't enough to observe empirically how laissez-faire has increased living standards to the extent that it is permitted. It is also necessary to describe the impossibility of central planning due to the Economic Calculation Problem. We must also observe that opponents to laissez-faire liberalizations are by definition proponents of illiberal central planning. Yes, vaguely liberalized economies have had problems. It doesn't follow that the problems of these vaguely liberalized economies are exclusively the result of liberalization. HN will harp on cherry picked citations. A common theme will be judging events in the distant past by the standards of the present. The alternative is not a utopia, it is a relatively less free and more centrally planned economy. The failure mode of these centralized systems is more catastrophic, results in less opportunity and less productivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy AI is a technology to be used to improve the human condition. The laissez-faire system, to the extent that we allow it, is the decentralized way to allocate resources to serve humanity.
- mcv 1y ago
  It's not laissez-faire that has increased living standards, it's the combination of the free market, union organizing, and resulting from that, regulation and the social safety net. Before that, there was still massive poverty. And many countries still experiencing poverty are lacking the latter half of that list. Note that free market economics and laissez-faire economics are not the same thing. A free market requires a transparent market that's equally accessible to everyone, that's not dominated by cartels and monopolies, and that requires some regulation. Laissez-faire opposes that regulation and wants to give free reign to cartels and monopolies. Adam Smith explicitly warned against those, and pointed out the necessity of workers organizing to avoid being taken advantage of. And that, workers having negotiating power, that is what increased their living standards. > We must also observe that opponents to laissez-faire liberalizations are by definition proponents of illiberal central planning. This is bullshit. There's the entire free market economy in between those two extremes.
  - culll_kuprey 1y ago

by roenxi 1y ago

tartuffe78 1y ago

> But the lot of low status people is probably only going to improve with more AI I've got a bridge to sell you...

Enginerrrd 1y ago
I mean historically, with essentially every other incrrease in technology and GDP this has been true, at least broadly speaking. The quality of life of the poorest in the world has been improving over time. It is absolutely worth considering "would things really be different this time?" But it's also a mistake to think automatically that it WILL be different this time.
- palmfacehn 1y ago
  It isn't necessarily a mistake if you can scare people into clicking, or perhaps granting you special regulatory privileges. It may be unethical.
- mcv 1y ago
  > The quality of life of the poorest in the world has been improving over time. Because those technological improvements were accompanied by social changes and regulation to adjust for the technological changes.
- pixl97 1y ago
  >I mean historically, Past performance is not indicative of future results. The problem is we have to think about the actions we are taking and what those results will be. Just saying "oh, all of history before now needed human labor, but don't worry we're replacing that and nothing is going to change" is a nonsensical statement. In previous times when massive technology changes occurred we typically see very large wars break out. This was terrible and all, but war was a regional thing with regional effects. During the 20th century war became a global thing with global consequences all the way up to biosphere altering weapons of mass destruction. The threat of MAD set up a time of relative global peace coupled with fast transportation and an explosion in the human population has set up a very fragile state of humanity. Products must keep moving and energy must keep being produces or billions and billions of people will die because they need things from the other side of the world to show up.

CodingJeebus 1y ago

Capitalism is not a panacea and its history is steeped in blood. The Dutch VOC, considered one of the first capitalist enterprises, carried out genocide in its pursuit to control spices in the Indies. Capitalist interests in the US interfered in South American politics for decades, overthrowing democratically elected leaders and funding militias aligned with corporate interests. One of my closest friends is Guatemalan and most of his family was killed during the United Fruit Company conflict. The Russians experienced one of the largest declines in quality of life in human history after the Soviet Union fell and the country became privatized.

zmgsabst 1y ago
Steeped in blood compared to what? History as a whole is full of unsavory things, but we have to decide between things that can happen — and many atrocities have been committed trying to build Utopia. For example, the massive casualties of the USSR. Or those killed in South America — eg, by the FARC.
- MSFT_Edging 1y ago
  You should also include casualties of the coup in Indonesia, the Casualties of the Korean, Vietnamese, and secret war in Laos. Perhaps also the massacres performed by the Contras in Nicaragua,
- mcv 1y ago
  > Steeped in blood compared to what? Compared to social democracy and probably some other systems that protect the rights and interests of the poorest in society.
  - tartarus4o 1y ago
    [dead]
  - roenxi 1y ago
    If we look at a map of places where Socialist Democratic parties are active [0, 1] it actually looks like a map of people who generally have pretty terrible living conditions for the poorest in society. Mainly because it covers most of the known world so it'd reflect the normal living conditions for poor people. And is an ideology that is well integrated with capitalism, I happen to note. It is pretty hard to say that the social democracy is free from a bloody history vs capitalism when people like the US Dems claim to be part of the social democrats. They're pretty blood-spattered. They're part of the governing system of the largest and most aggressive military in the world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Alliance

matthewdgreen 1y ago

I’m a fan of managed capitalism, which is the only capitalism we’ve ever known. I’m very nervous about what happens when unrestricted capital is allowed to consume all its guardrails and re-write all the rules to advantage itself. I imagine it leads to something extremely not-like the kind of capitalism that brought all those benefits you’re citing. I guess we might get to find out for ourselves!

impossiblefork 1y ago

Capitalism is a word invented by Louis Blanc for the bad thing "What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others". You don't actually call yourself a capitalist, because if you say that you actually say "I believe in a hard class system with a difficult to overcome divide between workers and capital owners and that the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others is right". If you believe in a system that you feel is uncomfortably similar to Louis Blanc's bad thing, you say "This won't actually happen, this system is totally dynamic, with no permanent class division or any appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others" and you'd say things "I support free markets".

zmgsabst 1y ago
Capitalism is just a term for the concepts that predated Louis Blanc and were discussed by Adam Smith et al. Your definition is nonsense: capitalism is a system in which the invested capital is also rewarded and not collectively owned. But it’s not a hard class system — as you’re given capital in reward for your labor. Capitalism is substantially more malleable as a class system than traditional feudalism (what came before in Europe) or modern communism (its main rival), which trades feudalistic class for status within the party.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  But then it isn't Blanc's Capitalism-- or at least you claim that it isn't, so why use the word?
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  > it’s not a hard class system — as you’re given capital in reward for your labor The latter doesn't justify the former. If you are rewarded for your work, but it would require you many lifetimes of labor to reach the next class, that's for all intents and purposes a hard class system. The argument for class mobility based on initiative doesn't make it a soft class system. > Capitalism is substantially more malleable as a class system than traditional feudalism (what came before in Europe) or modern communism (its main rival), which trades feudalistic class for status within the party. Doesn't make it malleable, just comparatively more malleable. The problem is with the later stages of capitalism where everything is big and rigid, but you still need growth for the system to work. What we need is a different system that improves on capitalism, but has at its heart a welfare state, doesn't reduce each individual to an economic actor and have incentives set so that each actor (or machine which seeks connections) can converge to the mean, instead of each one trying to reach the top.

palmfacehn 1y ago

It isn't enough to observe empirically how laissez-faire has increased living standards to the extent that it is permitted. It is also necessary to describe the impossibility of central planning due to the Economic Calculation Problem. We must also observe that opponents to laissez-faire liberalizations are by definition proponents of illiberal central planning. Yes, vaguely liberalized economies have had problems. It doesn't follow that the problems of these vaguely liberalized economies are exclusively the result of liberalization. HN will harp on cherry picked citations. A common theme will be judging events in the distant past by the standards of the present. The alternative is not a utopia, it is a relatively less free and more centrally planned economy. The failure mode of these centralized systems is more catastrophic, results in less opportunity and less productivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy AI is a technology to be used to improve the human condition. The laissez-faire system, to the extent that we allow it, is the decentralized way to allocate resources to serve humanity.

mcv 1y ago
It's not laissez-faire that has increased living standards, it's the combination of the free market, union organizing, and resulting from that, regulation and the social safety net. Before that, there was still massive poverty. And many countries still experiencing poverty are lacking the latter half of that list. Note that free market economics and laissez-faire economics are not the same thing. A free market requires a transparent market that's equally accessible to everyone, that's not dominated by cartels and monopolies, and that requires some regulation. Laissez-faire opposes that regulation and wants to give free reign to cartels and monopolies. Adam Smith explicitly warned against those, and pointed out the necessity of workers organizing to avoid being taken advantage of. And that, workers having negotiating power, that is what increased their living standards. > We must also observe that opponents to laissez-faire liberalizations are by definition proponents of illiberal central planning. This is bullshit. There's the entire free market economy in between those two extremes.
- culll_kuprey 1y ago