3 ms·

> Again, if change is a sin, so is evolution No. That's putting words in my mouth, I was agreeing to Paul in him saying that Capitalism's weakest point is that

> Again, if change is a sin, so is evolution No. That's putting words in my mouth, I was agreeing to Paul in him saying that Capitalism's weakest point is that it can't account for the future. You're probably trying to be a wordsmith to win an argument, but your post is entirely meaningless.

PaulHoule 10mo ago
It can but it makes mistakes. In the US we have that whole ‘circular economy’ with NVIDIA, OpenAI, etc. The the EU you have to convince some niggardly German bankers to make a loan that will certainly be repaid. So of course they will be left out of the AI future. Here when Solyndra failed many politicians acted like it was a crime, in China they have had many solar ventures fail but others succeeded and thanks to that they won. On the other hand they’ve built whole cities nobody wants to live in. In America nobody wants to be DJI, rather they want to cherry pick profitable opportunities. The truth in the low altitude sky over Ukraine is that DJI beats Lockheed Martin, so the F-35 vs DJI is like horses va tanks. You gotta do the mass market things if you want to defend the high end, see The Innovators Dilemma
bigbadfeline 10mo ago
> Capitalism's weakest point is that it can't account for the future. That's different from "change as the original sin" and I'd address it differently, but first allow me to remove the poetry from your statement because it doesn't really contribute to clarity. Basically you're saying "Capitalism allows unpredictable changes that can break things" as opposed to "Another system (e.g. socialism) plans the future and allows only planned changes". Both of these may be true for some ideal models but aren't true in reality. Macro changes under real capitalism can and are entirely predictable although you may not know how to predict them - that's a different issue. They can also be tightly controlled by methods different from socialism. On the other hand, socialism allows only planned changes... until it doesn't, because of unintended consequences. However, I don't claim that the failure of the USSR's socialist model wasn't foreseen or planned at some level of their leadership, which brings the conversation into the realm of fundamental politics where real capitalism and socialism have a lot more in common than is assumed by their usual treatment as opposites. > but your post is entirely meaningless To you. Let's steer clear of wild generalizations, the devil is still in the details. I'd appreciate if you use a clear language instead of me trying to guess the details necessary for a meaningful conversation.
- taylodl 10mo ago
  I wouldn't say that Democratic Socialism as practiced today plans the future and allows only planned changes. It does appear (I'm an American so my view on this matter could definitely be skewed) to be more risk averse - though I think that's an unintended consequence and not a feature. Since my original assertion was that markets aren't actually real, it makes sense that fundamental politics plays a far greater role than many people suspect. I would say that Americans should be learning this lesson at this very moment.
  - bigbadfeline 10mo ago
    > I wouldn't say that Democratic Socialism as practiced today plans the future and allows only planned changes. In other words, Democratic Socialism can't account for the future either, maybe it can mitigate some risks a bit better but it's still capitalism with similar risks of disruption-inducing changes. If we exclude planned socialism from consideration, there would be no reason to single out capitalism for its unpredictability because the rest aren't materially better and arguing about it wouldn't add any insights. > fundamental politics plays a far greater role than many people suspect. It does indeed. > I would say that Americans should be learning this lesson at this very moment. Popular understanding cannot increase itself, it can only follow education, media and academia but it's lacking there either.
    - taylodl 10mo ago
      Is Democratic Socialism better at handling or responding to disruption-inducing changes? Or is that what you meant by your statement that maybe it can mitigate some risks better?

PaulHoule 10mo ago

It can but it makes mistakes. In the US we have that whole ‘circular economy’ with NVIDIA, OpenAI, etc. The the EU you have to convince some niggardly German bankers to make a loan that will certainly be repaid. So of course they will be left out of the AI future. Here when Solyndra failed many politicians acted like it was a crime, in China they have had many solar ventures fail but others succeeded and thanks to that they won. On the other hand they’ve built whole cities nobody wants to live in. In America nobody wants to be DJI, rather they want to cherry pick profitable opportunities. The truth in the low altitude sky over Ukraine is that DJI beats Lockheed Martin, so the F-35 vs DJI is like horses va tanks. You gotta do the mass market things if you want to defend the high end, see The Innovators Dilemma

bigbadfeline 10mo ago

> Capitalism's weakest point is that it can't account for the future. That's different from "change as the original sin" and I'd address it differently, but first allow me to remove the poetry from your statement because it doesn't really contribute to clarity. Basically you're saying "Capitalism allows unpredictable changes that can break things" as opposed to "Another system (e.g. socialism) plans the future and allows only planned changes". Both of these may be true for some ideal models but aren't true in reality. Macro changes under real capitalism can and are entirely predictable although you may not know how to predict them - that's a different issue. They can also be tightly controlled by methods different from socialism. On the other hand, socialism allows only planned changes... until it doesn't, because of unintended consequences. However, I don't claim that the failure of the USSR's socialist model wasn't foreseen or planned at some level of their leadership, which brings the conversation into the realm of fundamental politics where real capitalism and socialism have a lot more in common than is assumed by their usual treatment as opposites. > but your post is entirely meaningless To you. Let's steer clear of wild generalizations, the devil is still in the details. I'd appreciate if you use a clear language instead of me trying to guess the details necessary for a meaningful conversation.

taylodl 10mo ago
I wouldn't say that Democratic Socialism as practiced today plans the future and allows only planned changes. It does appear (I'm an American so my view on this matter could definitely be skewed) to be more risk averse - though I think that's an unintended consequence and not a feature. Since my original assertion was that markets aren't actually real, it makes sense that fundamental politics plays a far greater role than many people suspect. I would say that Americans should be learning this lesson at this very moment.
- bigbadfeline 10mo ago
  > I wouldn't say that Democratic Socialism as practiced today plans the future and allows only planned changes. In other words, Democratic Socialism can't account for the future either, maybe it can mitigate some risks a bit better but it's still capitalism with similar risks of disruption-inducing changes. If we exclude planned socialism from consideration, there would be no reason to single out capitalism for its unpredictability because the rest aren't materially better and arguing about it wouldn't add any insights. > fundamental politics plays a far greater role than many people suspect. It does indeed. > I would say that Americans should be learning this lesson at this very moment. Popular understanding cannot increase itself, it can only follow education, media and academia but it's lacking there either.
  - taylodl 10mo ago
    Is Democratic Socialism better at handling or responding to disruption-inducing changes? Or is that what you meant by your statement that maybe it can mitigate some risks better?