3 ms·

> Capitalism makes sense for producing widgets at low cost. For apportioning scarce luxury objects. Etc. But we don't win by trying to make everything profitabl

by bmelton 12y ago

> Capitalism makes sense for producing widgets at low cost. For apportioning scarce luxury objects. Etc. But we don't win by trying to make everything profitable. We just make everything more competitive, more stressful, less... human. But Capitalism also allows people a great degree more freedom to do the things they want. Are there constraints? Sure. Is it perfect? Clearly not. But there are many who justify themselves by the works they produce. I don't ordinarily think of myself as that, but when I was an electrician, I used to construct things, build things. I still get a sense of pride whenever I'm home and can look at the light poles that I jackhammered the foundations from, directed the concrete pouring of, wired to main, erected with a crane and bolted into place. There's an odd sense of pride that I have every time I see them. That's something I did. And yeah, it's pretty trivial, but I get value from it. In a capitalist system, not only can I prioritize how much I choose to work, but I also have the luxury of choosing what I do, where I can contribute the most value. I can't say that I've studied it very much, but compared to assigned work for whatever the normal amount of pay is, I very much prefer the freedom of working more for more money, or working less for less money, in a field of my choosing. I can then allocate that money to the items I prioritize most dearly to me. I never have as new a phone as my peers seem to, but in their stead, I have some very nice guitars that I gain great enjoyment from. I'm not yet convinced that there a non-capitalist system exists that affords me such choices. Without incentivizing at least some people to go out and get work done, it seems unlikely to me that there is wealth enough to sustain our collective frivolities. And sure, looking out the window doesn't cost a whole lot, but guitars do, and so do canvases and paints.

SapphireSun 12y ago
Hmm, I don't think anyone seriously believes that a system where you can't choose your job would be superior to capitalism (after all, it wouldn't be very free). I think a more serious competitor is one where the underpinnings of capitalism remain in place, but some form of wealth distribution prevents all the gains from accumulating at the top (our current and probably dire within a few decades situation). For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. This decimated the concentrations of wealth at the upper reaches of society and excessive luxury spending plummeted (for instance, once basic needs are satisfied, rich people start trading around excessively expensive pieces of art or excessively large houses). It, amongst other policies, also broke the intergenerational passage of wealth. However, it didn't remove the temptation to still create wealth. Think of it like playing a game on hard mode, you only get 1/10th the points a n00b gets, but you can still increase your relative position compared to others (which is what I assume rich people really care about when it comes to personal finances). I'm not advocating a particular course of action, but it seems the current course is unsustainable and similar things have been done successfully before. The political rhetoric is out of control these days though. Also, for what it's worth, guitars and canvases don't really cost that much. ;) EDIT: Thinking about this, what if we explicitly posed tax rates as validations of people's success and allowed them to get "achievements" past a certain point? Then playing the game at a harder difficulty would be a badge of prestige. This sounds a little crazy here, but in, e.g. the netherlands has entirely public tax returns and it's been debated and enacted here at various times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14disclose.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14discl...
- bmelton 12y ago
  > For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. No, but it also wasn't nearly as easy then to emigrate to another country. Considering that the rich can file a few forms and gain citizenship in a tax-friendlier haven, and that is all that is required to recoup some 50% of their earnings, it seems unlikely that wealth would continue to be concentrated in America. Though expatriation numbers are relatively low overall, the rate of expatriation is currently at record highs. So long as there are countries not charging 90% tax rates, it seems unlikely that tax revenues would climb significantly, especially considering that the effective tax revenues stays relatively constant, it seems unlikely to change all that much. As far as all that goes, if you're not talking about supplanting capitalism, then it seems like we can agree that capitalism isn't actually Satan incarnate. If the "fix" for Capitalism is more of what we have (since we do already have redistribution, in spades), then we aren't talking about changing the game at all, but perhaps just some of the rules. As for the unsustainability of the current course, what, in particular, indicates that the current course is doing so horribly? We had a giant bust, and a slowly recovering recession, but that doesn't necessarily put capitalism as the culprit. I look at Twitter, and I see #resistcapitalism trending, and it seems everybody's trying to blame capitalism for police brutality. Maybe I'm just missing the bigger picture, but I can't figure out how the two are linked, even just a little bit.
  - SapphireSun 12y ago
    For what it's worth, I agree, I think capitalism + some rule tweaks is fine. The culprit is really the beauty of capitalism: accelerating returns on investment. If you get to the head of the race you tend to start to accrue more and more wealth. The problem is that it's sucking the pond dry as there is a relatively stable money supply and much of it is circulating in the stratosphere (often as corporate stock buybacks). Hence the need for rule tweaks to enhance recirculation. This is a cool video I saw a while back that shows the current issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM I also agree that movement between countries is a modern problem that probably invalidates the old solution (unless multiple countries coordinate - unlikely). So, we have a problem that wealth will continue to concentrate absent controls on the distribution. The US has a lot of political problems right now, and the major commonality is that people at the bottom get the shaft every time. I think it's too much to try to solve every problem facing civilization in one conversation though, so I'll stick to distributions. ;) For what it's worth, believe me, I'm not a hippie. I want to start a company and get rich one day like all of you. I just think it's important to pay attention to the steady state of the system we are participating in.
stegosaurus 12y ago
Your guitar and canvas are luxuries. A roof and basic food are not. That's really the issue I have with our version of capitalism - that we use the same token for two drastically different classes of goods. That it infects everything. I think you're arguing against a strawman here really. I don't take issue with the idea of some people earning fantastically more than others. I have a problem when the bottom level is in squalor.
- bmelton 12y ago
  I'm not arguing against anything. I'm wide open to suggestions, but I've yet to see any alternatives to capitalism that prevented squalor. To my understanding, history has shown that bringing the top down doesn't necessarily take the bottom up along with it. If my understanding is flawed, then by all means, feel free to illustrate how.
  - stegosaurus 12y ago
    Why jump to 'alternative to capitalism'? You can have capitalism without everything being a free market. We already do. As I said, the issue is with our implementation. It doesn't make sense for land to be fully subjected to a free market because the endgame is fairly obviously lords and serfs. The same doesn't happen elsewhere really. If the state built homes until there were enough for everyone and then we played capitalism with food and cars and trains and skateboards and yachts and TVs and the Internet and all of those other things higher up the hierarchy of needs, would you not consider that capitalism? You'd still have returns on capital, you'd still have people owning more or less land. You'd still have bigger and smaller homes. But you might not be able to force (or heavily nudge towards) people into wage slavery. :)
    - bmelton 12y ago
      "Why jump to 'alternative to capitalism'?" Because this whole thread started with the assertion that "The capitalist economy is broken for youth today", so the assumption is that fixes are to move away from capitalism. "If the state built homes until there were enough for everyone" You can probably skip that step, and just rewrite the rules for adverse possession. America currently has more vacant homes than there are homeless people. In fact, if we wanted, we could give six vacant homes to each homeless person, let them pick the one they like the best, and give back the other five. It absolves the taxpayer obligation to maintain the homes (which isn't really being met anyway), puts the homeless in homes, and doesn't really have too much in the way of perverse incentives, but for the invariability that we might temporarily grow the homeless population for those looking for free homes. I don't know how that fixes wage slavery in any meaningful way though, as having a home doesn't positively correlate to having a job. The problem of poverty right now is lack of full time employment. There's not really any fix for wage slavery that is predicated on capitalism, if capitalism is to have any actual meaning, anyway. I mean, there's minimum wage, but while it's easy to acknowledge that there's no direct correlation between minimum wage and unemployment, OECD companies with the highest minimum wages tend to have the highest rates of unemployment. Unemployment very positively correlates with poverty, house or not. There's an argument to be made that if housing were free, that the minimum wage could be abolished, but that doesn't sound like something you'd support.

by bmelton 12y ago

SapphireSun 12y ago

Hmm, I don't think anyone seriously believes that a system where you can't choose your job would be superior to capitalism (after all, it wouldn't be very free). I think a more serious competitor is one where the underpinnings of capitalism remain in place, but some form of wealth distribution prevents all the gains from accumulating at the top (our current and probably dire within a few decades situation). For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. This decimated the concentrations of wealth at the upper reaches of society and excessive luxury spending plummeted (for instance, once basic needs are satisfied, rich people start trading around excessively expensive pieces of art or excessively large houses). It, amongst other policies, also broke the intergenerational passage of wealth. However, it didn't remove the temptation to still create wealth. Think of it like playing a game on hard mode, you only get 1/10th the points a n00b gets, but you can still increase your relative position compared to others (which is what I assume rich people really care about when it comes to personal finances). I'm not advocating a particular course of action, but it seems the current course is unsustainable and similar things have been done successfully before. The political rhetoric is out of control these days though. Also, for what it's worth, guitars and canvases don't really cost that much. ;) EDIT: Thinking about this, what if we explicitly posed tax rates as validations of people's success and allowed them to get "achievements" past a certain point? Then playing the game at a harder difficulty would be a badge of prestige. This sounds a little crazy here, but in, e.g. the netherlands has entirely public tax returns and it's been debated and enacted here at various times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14disclose.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14discl...

bmelton 12y ago
> For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. No, but it also wasn't nearly as easy then to emigrate to another country. Considering that the rich can file a few forms and gain citizenship in a tax-friendlier haven, and that is all that is required to recoup some 50% of their earnings, it seems unlikely that wealth would continue to be concentrated in America. Though expatriation numbers are relatively low overall, the rate of expatriation is currently at record highs. So long as there are countries not charging 90% tax rates, it seems unlikely that tax revenues would climb significantly, especially considering that the effective tax revenues stays relatively constant, it seems unlikely to change all that much. As far as all that goes, if you're not talking about supplanting capitalism, then it seems like we can agree that capitalism isn't actually Satan incarnate. If the "fix" for Capitalism is more of what we have (since we do already have redistribution, in spades), then we aren't talking about changing the game at all, but perhaps just some of the rules. As for the unsustainability of the current course, what, in particular, indicates that the current course is doing so horribly? We had a giant bust, and a slowly recovering recession, but that doesn't necessarily put capitalism as the culprit. I look at Twitter, and I see #resistcapitalism trending, and it seems everybody's trying to blame capitalism for police brutality. Maybe I'm just missing the bigger picture, but I can't figure out how the two are linked, even just a little bit.
- SapphireSun 12y ago
  For what it's worth, I agree, I think capitalism + some rule tweaks is fine. The culprit is really the beauty of capitalism: accelerating returns on investment. If you get to the head of the race you tend to start to accrue more and more wealth. The problem is that it's sucking the pond dry as there is a relatively stable money supply and much of it is circulating in the stratosphere (often as corporate stock buybacks). Hence the need for rule tweaks to enhance recirculation. This is a cool video I saw a while back that shows the current issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM I also agree that movement between countries is a modern problem that probably invalidates the old solution (unless multiple countries coordinate - unlikely). So, we have a problem that wealth will continue to concentrate absent controls on the distribution. The US has a lot of political problems right now, and the major commonality is that people at the bottom get the shaft every time. I think it's too much to try to solve every problem facing civilization in one conversation though, so I'll stick to distributions. ;) For what it's worth, believe me, I'm not a hippie. I want to start a company and get rich one day like all of you. I just think it's important to pay attention to the steady state of the system we are participating in.

stegosaurus 12y ago

Your guitar and canvas are luxuries. A roof and basic food are not. That's really the issue I have with our version of capitalism - that we use the same token for two drastically different classes of goods. That it infects everything. I think you're arguing against a strawman here really. I don't take issue with the idea of some people earning fantastically more than others. I have a problem when the bottom level is in squalor.

bmelton 12y ago
I'm not arguing against anything. I'm wide open to suggestions, but I've yet to see any alternatives to capitalism that prevented squalor. To my understanding, history has shown that bringing the top down doesn't necessarily take the bottom up along with it. If my understanding is flawed, then by all means, feel free to illustrate how.
- stegosaurus 12y ago
  Why jump to 'alternative to capitalism'? You can have capitalism without everything being a free market. We already do. As I said, the issue is with our implementation. It doesn't make sense for land to be fully subjected to a free market because the endgame is fairly obviously lords and serfs. The same doesn't happen elsewhere really. If the state built homes until there were enough for everyone and then we played capitalism with food and cars and trains and skateboards and yachts and TVs and the Internet and all of those other things higher up the hierarchy of needs, would you not consider that capitalism? You'd still have returns on capital, you'd still have people owning more or less land. You'd still have bigger and smaller homes. But you might not be able to force (or heavily nudge towards) people into wage slavery. :)
  - bmelton 12y ago
    "Why jump to 'alternative to capitalism'?" Because this whole thread started with the assertion that "The capitalist economy is broken for youth today", so the assumption is that fixes are to move away from capitalism. "If the state built homes until there were enough for everyone" You can probably skip that step, and just rewrite the rules for adverse possession. America currently has more vacant homes than there are homeless people. In fact, if we wanted, we could give six vacant homes to each homeless person, let them pick the one they like the best, and give back the other five. It absolves the taxpayer obligation to maintain the homes (which isn't really being met anyway), puts the homeless in homes, and doesn't really have too much in the way of perverse incentives, but for the invariability that we might temporarily grow the homeless population for those looking for free homes. I don't know how that fixes wage slavery in any meaningful way though, as having a home doesn't positively correlate to having a job. The problem of poverty right now is lack of full time employment. There's not really any fix for wage slavery that is predicated on capitalism, if capitalism is to have any actual meaning, anyway. I mean, there's minimum wage, but while it's easy to acknowledge that there's no direct correlation between minimum wage and unemployment, OECD companies with the highest minimum wages tend to have the highest rates of unemployment. Unemployment very positively correlates with poverty, house or not. There's an argument to be made that if housing were free, that the minimum wage could be abolished, but that doesn't sound like something you'd support.