6 ms·

The author assumes we have 'capitalism' to begin with. Even talks about big banks etc. Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'ca

The author assumes we have 'capitalism' to begin with. Even talks about big banks etc. Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic. Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). He mentions big companies using public data, most of that public data is generated, collected and shared openly by private companies to start with. I'm not even sure what his point was there... Then he talks about alternative currencies, something which bloomed in response to flailing, devaluing state currencies. Which is just about the most free-market response to state currencies... The next paragraph he references briefly the 'sharing economy', something pioneered and spearheaded by companies such as Airbnb and Lyft. Truly great success stories of consumer capitalism. "The solutions have been austerity plus monetary excess. But they are not working." - What? Our public spending has increases by £50bn, how is this 'austerity'? The cuts have slowed down our public spending and even that has made us one of the strongest economies in Europe. So I'm not sure where he's getting the 'not working' from. "Even now many people fail to grasp the true meaning of the word “austerity”. - Oh, the irony. Most of the fluffy scenarios he describes, whereby private individuals make voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements with each other, is almost the very definition of capitalism!

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- vegancap 11y ago
  Apology accepted? But I do know what I'm talking about. Monopolies in a market economy can only exist if they've had no competitors and have met all of their customers needs and defeated all competition. Google is a monopoly, because it's something we're all generally pretty happy with. Even the slightest downfalls in Google lead to competitors taking advantage of that. Say data privacy for example, Google were subpar there, so Duckduckgo gained major momentum. Market competition will almost always prevent monopolies. Monopolies occur within our current model because state regulation, state taxes (including corporate tax relief) create what's known as a 'barrier to market'. Meaning it's far, far more difficult for a competitor to actually compete on a product level. Most of our debt's occur because interest rates are so high, and why are interest rates so high? Because they're pegged above inflation, and why do we have inflation? Because governments bide time and bribe us with free things either funded by debts they've instigates, or by printing fiat currency. Which aren't market ideals, by any definition.
  - moopling 11y ago
    I think I might go so far as to say I don't really think either of you know what you are talking about. Monopolies are created by barriers to entry into a market, this can include things like state regulation, but also things like intellectual property, and capital. Monopolies distort the market, but are not always net negative. Perhaps a good example are silicon wafer manufactures (technically an oligopoly, but the same arguments apply). Because the startup cost for silicon manufacturing is so high, and the infrastructure takes time to build, supply does not have to, and regularly does not match demand (bad). That said, the scales of economy involved with allowing a single company to produce so much silicon in this case makes that trade off well worth it. I think it's silly when people use monopoly as a synonym for bad. Sometimes monopolies make sense.
    - joshuapants 11y ago
      > I think it's silly when people use monopoly as a synonym for bad. Sometimes monopolies make sense. Theodore Roosevelt's policy on monopolies was pretty much this. Monopolies that provided good service at reasonable prices were left alone, those that abused their power were attacked.
    - vegancap 11y ago
      I agree that sometimes monopolies makes sense, and that they're not all bad. So long as they're do through voluntary, customer means, then sure. I mentioned in another response further up that, sometimes a company will provide services so well that they create a 'market satisfaction' whereby there'd by no point competing because consumers aren't looking for an alternative so there'd be little point. I think Google (before the privacy concerns were raised) were an example of that.
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    Formally: monopoly power is controlling 25% of a market.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      No, monopoly, market, or pricing power (the the terms are equivalent in anti trust law) exists when there is a range in which an entity can increase prices without losing sales to competitors. There is no percentage of market threshold. This definition reflects the economic concept of a monopoly in that the presence of this pricing power indicates the absence of a competitive market with perfect substitutes for the goods sold.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- _red 11y ago
  Ma Bell? You are actually trying to use that as an example of a "free market created monopoly"?
api 11y ago
"Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic." That would be historically ironic, wouldn't it? So much so that it has a ring of truth about it. Nature loves a good paradox. By contrast, all the overtly socialistic authoritarian-Leninist states have evolved into slave states, mafia states, and totalitarian state-capitalism. Marx's original idea really wasn't that. Boiled down, Marx argued that capitalism would transcend and obsolete itself through its aggressive over-production and innovation. It wasn't something to be imposed from above. It would evolve out of capitalism itself.
asgard1024 11y ago
I think you're wrong with the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is not necessarily free market and vice versa. A historically accurate definition of capitalism (unlike communism for instance, capitalism was given name for the existing system and not for utopian ideal), I believe, would be that it is a system with two characteristics: 1. Most of means of production (capital) is privately owned. 2. Human labor is a market commodity. I don't agree with the article that death of these things (and so capitalism) is coming, although I can certainly (being a leftist) imagine a free market system where neither of these conditions is true. For example, a system where large majority of economic production happens in democratically controlled worker cooperatives.
- vegancap 11y ago
  I guess we have slightly divergent definitions. My definition being voluntary exchange and private ownership of commodity and labor. I also have nothing against democratic cooperatives, just as long as I'm free to carry on working in a market economy elsewhere ;)
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    Except your definition is wrong. Why can't you and a democratic cooperative operate in the same free market?
    - vegancap 11y ago
      I didn't say we couldn't at all, I personally would like to work in a market economy. Not in a cooperative, but similarly I would want others to have the freedom to work in a cooperative should they wish to.
  - ende 11y ago
    Democratic cooperatives and market economies are not mutually exclusive at all.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    The important question is what you're trying to define. Are you trying to define existing system or some your ideal? If you're trying to define existing system, I would disagree that exchange is voluntary here, unless you play with words and say people are free to die of hunger. (Also it's not clear what "private ownership of labor" means.) If you're as capitalism designating some other ideal system (based on your values), for example anarchocapitalism, you should be aware that these always failed too, sometimes even more horribly than attempts for communism. But then anyway, why would you attempt to call this ideal "capitalism"? This is actually the basic contradiction in your thinking. You say "the system we have is not really a capitalism", so the problems (that many people see) are not problems of capitalism. But then why do you want to call it capitalism, if not as the reference to what we have today?
lbidircitkghd 11y ago
>anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism Corporatist despotism is the logical conclusion of any laissez-faire capitalist economy just as Stalinism is the logical conclusion of any Marxist economy. Businesses are sticky and over time will tend to clump together, for efficiency reasons, into larger businesses. Once these businesses reach critical mass, they start to have a significant amount of influence over politicians through lobbying and campaign contributions. They use this influence to do something called "regulatory hedging" whereby they can squeeze out competition and achieve monopoly through introducing complicated legal requirements that make it tough for the little guy to get ahead. The FDA and federal tax codes are good examples of this. This will continue to happen time and again until we put in place good checks against businesses consolidating too much power. Of course, it's too late for that since we've already let them control our political system.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  Some might suggest that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    Or vice versa. Imperialism is the goal, capitalism is the excuse.
    - SixSigma 11y ago
      Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
- Thriptic 11y ago
  > This will continue to happen time and again until we put in place good checks against businesses consolidating too much power. Wouldn't another fix be public financing of campaigns and a ban on contributing private money to elected officials in any capacity?
tstactplsignore 11y ago
>Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). Let's talk about this point as a whole. Firstly, I don't think it is well substantiated, and there are numerous examples to the contrary- Microsoft, Standard Oil, United Fruit, telecoms, airlines, railroads- almost anything which requires significant initial investment to grow. But, more importantly- why distinguish between capitalism and what you call "state corporatism"? The corporations who lobby the state, or coerce the state, or even cause the formation of an authoritarian state in ways that work in their favor are merely being good capitalists- they're simply better at competing than other capitalists! When United Fruit coerces the US government into supporting a foreign coup, or a corporation coerces the police or military to massacre striking workers, or big oil asks for huge subsidies- it's no different from a capitalist perspective then investing in advertising or aggressive expansion, and all are about increasing control and centralizing power. If there were no state corporatism, how long would it be before a capitalist caused it to come about? Campaign finance laws, monopoly regulations, and public opinion can be rolled back or simply ignored until power is consolidated; the inherent unequal distribution of power in capitalism means that a comparative few people will always be capable of doing this. In the words of Woodrow Wilson: "If there are men in this country big enough to own the US government, they are going to own it". State corporatism, monopology, and inevitably authoritarianism are the end game of capitalism, not a perversion. You can't put limits on the definition of capitalism so that the second anyone is any good at it, and the most obvious oppression that being good at capitalism causes is then apparent, that suddenly it's "not capitalism" anymore because they didn't play by your rules in a system where the actual rules are what those with money say they are. Hopefully, this should make you more critical of the inherent viability of capitalism.
- MCRed 11y ago
  Telecom-- a government granted tri-opoly. The FCC limits the number of organizations who can license spectrum in a given metro area. Airlines-- government regulated, airports are local government monopolies and they limit competition. Microsoft- Not a monopoly in any line of business I have been waiting for a long time for someone to come up with an example of an actual natural monopoly that exercises monopoly pricing power. In every case so far, either they had competition, or government is the one that was limiting competition in the first place, usually by regulation.
larsiusprime 11y ago
"capitalism" as casually used can be broken down into a bunch of discrete, sometimes contradictory concepts, here's just a few off the top of my head: ---------- 1. "CAPITAL"-ism with a capital "C": the policy that when labor and capital do something together, capital should get the bigger share of the return. 2. "Laissez-faire": a market that has as little regulation from the government as possible. 3. "Free market": a market that is generally untainted by what are considered "artificial" external manipulations, such as price-fixing, etc, that prevent it from reaching a natural equilibrium. ----------- These sometimes contradict. For instance, pure laissez-faire can easily lead to monopolies, which hinders the ability of the "free market" value. Also, it's not clear at all that "CAPITAL"-ism naturally follows from either 2 or 3. And even when you break it into these concepts there's still plenty of room for interpretation.
- vegancap 11y ago
  I guess what I was referring to by 'capitalism' was actually 'free-market' by that list. I should've been more concise. The author was attacking 'capitalism' as a whole, so I wanted to refute his general argument against market-oriented economies
  - larsiusprime 11y ago
    Yeah it's a huge mess when people don't define their terms.
serve_yay 11y ago
This is the fundamentalist reply - the same reply proponents of socialism give when confronted with the horrors committed by Stalin and others during the 20th century. It wasn't real socialism, you see.
WalterSear 11y ago
Capitalism might not look the way you would like it to look, but it's still Capitalism.
shkkmo 11y ago
> Most of the fluffy scenarios he describes, whereby private individuals make voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements with each other, is almost the very definition of capitalism! No, that is the definition of a free market. Capitalism is a framework of ownership that operates in markets of varying degrees of freedom. A barter economy is a free market, but not usually a capitalistic one. The author is pointing out ways that the free market is starting to outgrow it's reliance on the ownership framework of capitalism and how capitalism's framework of ownership has problems dealing with the valuation and ownership of information. I suspect we will increasingly see the old capitalistic structures use governments and force to hold the line against the free market.
- wycx 11y ago
  Indeed. Ultimately, I think most private enterprises would rather not be competitve contestants of a free and open market but would rather be monopolists, monopsonists and above all, rent seekers (ideally a monopolist rent seeker earning rents from a entity spending other peoples money). It is often much easier to compete by sabotaging competitors and potential competitors than by competing on the merits of the product/service that you provide. Neoliberals have been very effective at promoting confusion between free and open markets (which most definitely require some form of regulation to remain free and open) and captialist/private ownership framework, largely to further deregulation and the rent seeking opportunities it affords.
21echoes 11y ago
I think you're being overly defensive about his use of the word "capitalism", and in doing so have missed the entire point of the article. > Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic. He's not talking about the info-tech industry being capitalistic, but rather some of the contradictions inherent within a capitalistic info-tech industry. Relying on scarcity of a product that has effectively zero marginal cost is a very strange place to be in. > Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). And anyone who's gotten beyond econ 101 knows that these black-and-white conceptions of the econ 101 capitalism have little to do with modern economic discourse or policy. > He mentions big companies using public data, most of that public data is generated, collected and shared openly by private companies to start with. I'm not even sure what his point was there... His point was that trying to make a business around owning, hoarding, and making scarce the public and private interactions of the populace at large (e.g. Facebook) is a shaky foundation. > Then he talks about alternative currencies, something which bloomed in response to flailing, devaluing state currencies. Which is just about the most free-market response to state currencies... This is where I started to become really convinced you had missed the forest for the trees. Yes, non-state currencies are a pet project of free-market purists. Yes, they are also a huge pet project of post-capitalists and marxists. If you would stop labeling the author as one of "them" in your political world-view that you are sworn to defeat, I think you may start to see a lot of parallels between what he's describing and what you seem to think of as "free-market capitalism". > The next paragraph he references briefly the 'sharing economy', something pioneered and spearheaded by companies such as Airbnb and Lyft. Truly great success stories of consumer capitalism. Again, you're so obsessed with your definitions of these labels that you're missing the whole point. "AirBnB and Lyft are private companies, therefore they cannot have anything to do with a large-scale transition in market dynamics!" sounds rather silly, don't you think? Especially when the author speaks incessantly about how new models are emerging naturally within old systems rather than the traditionally marxist conception of workers using the state to effect change? > "The solutions have been austerity plus monetary excess. But they are not working." - What? Our public spending has increases by £50bn, how is this 'austerity'? The cuts have slowed down our public spending and even that has made us one of the strongest economies in Europe. So I'm not sure where he's getting the 'not working' from. I don't know what world you live in where you don't think we're in a period of "austerity" right now. That's literally all that finance ministers and politicians and bankers and economists are talking about. Whether or not this fits your pet definition of what "austerity" should mean, the rest of us are going to continue using that word in the way that we have been using it and all seem to understand just fine. > Most of the fluffy scenarios he describes, whereby private individuals make voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements with each other, is almost the very definition of capitalism! Again -- you're focusing on proving the author wrong ("Haha! Contracts made without threats of violence are capitalism, but you said capitalism was ending!") rather than even beginning to listen to what he was saying in a holistic manner. If you're fanatically obsessed with defending a econ 101 definition of capitalism: sure, you got him. There will still be voluntary mutually beneficial agreements; capitalism will survive. For the rest of us: this article was not about the word "capitalism", it was about what arrangement of "voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements" can be expected to exist, writ large, in a system where marginal cost of production quickly approaches zero.
sebastianz 11y ago
> anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you Sorry for veering slightly off topic but since you mentioned this, may I ask if you have a recommendation of a few important books that would make a core of a "economics 101"?
- omnibrain 11y ago
  Samuelson Nordhaus - Economics, though nowadays some prefer Mankiw - Principles of Economics. There is - obviously - a lot of criticism from several sides against both. In the end there are several schools of economics. So it depends what Economics 101 text someone read. ;)
bcg1 11y ago
You're correct but I think he is more on your side than not. Where you want to lay claim to 'capitalism' as meaning 'free markets' I believe he chooses to relegate the term 'capitalism' to the sort of crony-stroking global corporate fascism that has evolved instead of free markets. I've often thought that free market advocates should just give up on claiming the "real" meaning of the term capitalism and just invent a new word that can't be conflated as easily. That said, I'm not sure what to think about this gentleman's article and conclusions. It seems he is able to identify things that actually ARE real problems... however my initial reaction to what he describes as 'postcapitalism' is to be skeptical and to suspect that he may have an agenda. His rhetoric is notably light on actual details, however it has a subtle yet distinct flavor of forced redistribution that leaves an unpleasant taste.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vegancap 11y ago
Apology accepted? But I do know what I'm talking about. Monopolies in a market economy can only exist if they've had no competitors and have met all of their customers needs and defeated all competition. Google is a monopoly, because it's something we're all generally pretty happy with. Even the slightest downfalls in Google lead to competitors taking advantage of that. Say data privacy for example, Google were subpar there, so Duckduckgo gained major momentum. Market competition will almost always prevent monopolies. Monopolies occur within our current model because state regulation, state taxes (including corporate tax relief) create what's known as a 'barrier to market'. Meaning it's far, far more difficult for a competitor to actually compete on a product level. Most of our debt's occur because interest rates are so high, and why are interest rates so high? Because they're pegged above inflation, and why do we have inflation? Because governments bide time and bribe us with free things either funded by debts they've instigates, or by printing fiat currency. Which aren't market ideals, by any definition.
- moopling 11y ago
  I think I might go so far as to say I don't really think either of you know what you are talking about. Monopolies are created by barriers to entry into a market, this can include things like state regulation, but also things like intellectual property, and capital. Monopolies distort the market, but are not always net negative. Perhaps a good example are silicon wafer manufactures (technically an oligopoly, but the same arguments apply). Because the startup cost for silicon manufacturing is so high, and the infrastructure takes time to build, supply does not have to, and regularly does not match demand (bad). That said, the scales of economy involved with allowing a single company to produce so much silicon in this case makes that trade off well worth it. I think it's silly when people use monopoly as a synonym for bad. Sometimes monopolies make sense.
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    > I think it's silly when people use monopoly as a synonym for bad. Sometimes monopolies make sense. Theodore Roosevelt's policy on monopolies was pretty much this. Monopolies that provided good service at reasonable prices were left alone, those that abused their power were attacked.
  - vegancap 11y ago
    I agree that sometimes monopolies makes sense, and that they're not all bad. So long as they're do through voluntary, customer means, then sure. I mentioned in another response further up that, sometimes a company will provide services so well that they create a 'market satisfaction' whereby there'd by no point competing because consumers aren't looking for an alternative so there'd be little point. I think Google (before the privacy concerns were raised) were an example of that.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  Formally: monopoly power is controlling 25% of a market.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    No, monopoly, market, or pricing power (the the terms are equivalent in anti trust law) exists when there is a range in which an entity can increase prices without losing sales to competitors. There is no percentage of market threshold. This definition reflects the economic concept of a monopoly in that the presence of this pricing power indicates the absence of a competitive market with perfect substitutes for the goods sold.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
_red 11y ago
Ma Bell? You are actually trying to use that as an example of a "free market created monopoly"?

api 11y ago

"Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic." That would be historically ironic, wouldn't it? So much so that it has a ring of truth about it. Nature loves a good paradox. By contrast, all the overtly socialistic authoritarian-Leninist states have evolved into slave states, mafia states, and totalitarian state-capitalism. Marx's original idea really wasn't that. Boiled down, Marx argued that capitalism would transcend and obsolete itself through its aggressive over-production and innovation. It wasn't something to be imposed from above. It would evolve out of capitalism itself.

asgard1024 11y ago

I think you're wrong with the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is not necessarily free market and vice versa. A historically accurate definition of capitalism (unlike communism for instance, capitalism was given name for the existing system and not for utopian ideal), I believe, would be that it is a system with two characteristics: 1. Most of means of production (capital) is privately owned. 2. Human labor is a market commodity. I don't agree with the article that death of these things (and so capitalism) is coming, although I can certainly (being a leftist) imagine a free market system where neither of these conditions is true. For example, a system where large majority of economic production happens in democratically controlled worker cooperatives.

vegancap 11y ago
I guess we have slightly divergent definitions. My definition being voluntary exchange and private ownership of commodity and labor. I also have nothing against democratic cooperatives, just as long as I'm free to carry on working in a market economy elsewhere ;)
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Except your definition is wrong. Why can't you and a democratic cooperative operate in the same free market?
  - vegancap 11y ago
    I didn't say we couldn't at all, I personally would like to work in a market economy. Not in a cooperative, but similarly I would want others to have the freedom to work in a cooperative should they wish to.
- ende 11y ago
  Democratic cooperatives and market economies are not mutually exclusive at all.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  The important question is what you're trying to define. Are you trying to define existing system or some your ideal? If you're trying to define existing system, I would disagree that exchange is voluntary here, unless you play with words and say people are free to die of hunger. (Also it's not clear what "private ownership of labor" means.) If you're as capitalism designating some other ideal system (based on your values), for example anarchocapitalism, you should be aware that these always failed too, sometimes even more horribly than attempts for communism. But then anyway, why would you attempt to call this ideal "capitalism"? This is actually the basic contradiction in your thinking. You say "the system we have is not really a capitalism", so the problems (that many people see) are not problems of capitalism. But then why do you want to call it capitalism, if not as the reference to what we have today?

lbidircitkghd 11y ago

>anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism Corporatist despotism is the logical conclusion of any laissez-faire capitalist economy just as Stalinism is the logical conclusion of any Marxist economy. Businesses are sticky and over time will tend to clump together, for efficiency reasons, into larger businesses. Once these businesses reach critical mass, they start to have a significant amount of influence over politicians through lobbying and campaign contributions. They use this influence to do something called "regulatory hedging" whereby they can squeeze out competition and achieve monopoly through introducing complicated legal requirements that make it tough for the little guy to get ahead. The FDA and federal tax codes are good examples of this. This will continue to happen time and again until we put in place good checks against businesses consolidating too much power. Of course, it's too late for that since we've already let them control our political system.

SixSigma 11y ago
Some might suggest that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Or vice versa. Imperialism is the goal, capitalism is the excuse.
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
Thriptic 11y ago
> This will continue to happen time and again until we put in place good checks against businesses consolidating too much power. Wouldn't another fix be public financing of campaigns and a ban on contributing private money to elected officials in any capacity?

tstactplsignore 11y ago

>Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). Let's talk about this point as a whole. Firstly, I don't think it is well substantiated, and there are numerous examples to the contrary- Microsoft, Standard Oil, United Fruit, telecoms, airlines, railroads- almost anything which requires significant initial investment to grow. But, more importantly- why distinguish between capitalism and what you call "state corporatism"? The corporations who lobby the state, or coerce the state, or even cause the formation of an authoritarian state in ways that work in their favor are merely being good capitalists- they're simply better at competing than other capitalists! When United Fruit coerces the US government into supporting a foreign coup, or a corporation coerces the police or military to massacre striking workers, or big oil asks for huge subsidies- it's no different from a capitalist perspective then investing in advertising or aggressive expansion, and all are about increasing control and centralizing power. If there were no state corporatism, how long would it be before a capitalist caused it to come about? Campaign finance laws, monopoly regulations, and public opinion can be rolled back or simply ignored until power is consolidated; the inherent unequal distribution of power in capitalism means that a comparative few people will always be capable of doing this. In the words of Woodrow Wilson: "If there are men in this country big enough to own the US government, they are going to own it". State corporatism, monopology, and inevitably authoritarianism are the end game of capitalism, not a perversion. You can't put limits on the definition of capitalism so that the second anyone is any good at it, and the most obvious oppression that being good at capitalism causes is then apparent, that suddenly it's "not capitalism" anymore because they didn't play by your rules in a system where the actual rules are what those with money say they are. Hopefully, this should make you more critical of the inherent viability of capitalism.

MCRed 11y ago
Telecom-- a government granted tri-opoly. The FCC limits the number of organizations who can license spectrum in a given metro area. Airlines-- government regulated, airports are local government monopolies and they limit competition. Microsoft- Not a monopoly in any line of business I have been waiting for a long time for someone to come up with an example of an actual natural monopoly that exercises monopoly pricing power. In every case so far, either they had competition, or government is the one that was limiting competition in the first place, usually by regulation.

larsiusprime 11y ago

"capitalism" as casually used can be broken down into a bunch of discrete, sometimes contradictory concepts, here's just a few off the top of my head: ---------- 1. "CAPITAL"-ism with a capital "C": the policy that when labor and capital do something together, capital should get the bigger share of the return. 2. "Laissez-faire": a market that has as little regulation from the government as possible. 3. "Free market": a market that is generally untainted by what are considered "artificial" external manipulations, such as price-fixing, etc, that prevent it from reaching a natural equilibrium. ----------- These sometimes contradict. For instance, pure laissez-faire can easily lead to monopolies, which hinders the ability of the "free market" value. Also, it's not clear at all that "CAPITAL"-ism naturally follows from either 2 or 3. And even when you break it into these concepts there's still plenty of room for interpretation.

vegancap 11y ago
I guess what I was referring to by 'capitalism' was actually 'free-market' by that list. I should've been more concise. The author was attacking 'capitalism' as a whole, so I wanted to refute his general argument against market-oriented economies
- larsiusprime 11y ago
  Yeah it's a huge mess when people don't define their terms.

serve_yay 11y ago

This is the fundamentalist reply - the same reply proponents of socialism give when confronted with the horrors committed by Stalin and others during the 20th century. It wasn't real socialism, you see.

WalterSear 11y ago

Capitalism might not look the way you would like it to look, but it's still Capitalism.

shkkmo 11y ago

> Most of the fluffy scenarios he describes, whereby private individuals make voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements with each other, is almost the very definition of capitalism! No, that is the definition of a free market. Capitalism is a framework of ownership that operates in markets of varying degrees of freedom. A barter economy is a free market, but not usually a capitalistic one. The author is pointing out ways that the free market is starting to outgrow it's reliance on the ownership framework of capitalism and how capitalism's framework of ownership has problems dealing with the valuation and ownership of information. I suspect we will increasingly see the old capitalistic structures use governments and force to hold the line against the free market.

wycx 11y ago
Indeed. Ultimately, I think most private enterprises would rather not be competitve contestants of a free and open market but would rather be monopolists, monopsonists and above all, rent seekers (ideally a monopolist rent seeker earning rents from a entity spending other peoples money). It is often much easier to compete by sabotaging competitors and potential competitors than by competing on the merits of the product/service that you provide. Neoliberals have been very effective at promoting confusion between free and open markets (which most definitely require some form of regulation to remain free and open) and captialist/private ownership framework, largely to further deregulation and the rent seeking opportunities it affords.

21echoes 11y ago

I think you're being overly defensive about his use of the word "capitalism", and in doing so have missed the entire point of the article. > Secondly, he's citing 'information technology' as being the death of 'capitalism'. An industry, arguably the most aggressively capitalistic. He's not talking about the info-tech industry being capitalistic, but rather some of the contradictions inherent within a capitalistic info-tech industry. Relying on scarcity of a product that has effectively zero marginal cost is a very strange place to be in. > Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism). And anyone who's gotten beyond econ 101 knows that these black-and-white conceptions of the econ 101 capitalism have little to do with modern economic discourse or policy. > He mentions big companies using public data, most of that public data is generated, collected and shared openly by private companies to start with. I'm not even sure what his point was there... His point was that trying to make a business around owning, hoarding, and making scarce the public and private interactions of the populace at large (e.g. Facebook) is a shaky foundation. > Then he talks about alternative currencies, something which bloomed in response to flailing, devaluing state currencies. Which is just about the most free-market response to state currencies... This is where I started to become really convinced you had missed the forest for the trees. Yes, non-state currencies are a pet project of free-market purists. Yes, they are also a huge pet project of post-capitalists and marxists. If you would stop labeling the author as one of "them" in your political world-view that you are sworn to defeat, I think you may start to see a lot of parallels between what he's describing and what you seem to think of as "free-market capitalism". > The next paragraph he references briefly the 'sharing economy', something pioneered and spearheaded by companies such as Airbnb and Lyft. Truly great success stories of consumer capitalism. Again, you're so obsessed with your definitions of these labels that you're missing the whole point. "AirBnB and Lyft are private companies, therefore they cannot have anything to do with a large-scale transition in market dynamics!" sounds rather silly, don't you think? Especially when the author speaks incessantly about how new models are emerging naturally within old systems rather than the traditionally marxist conception of workers using the state to effect change? > "The solutions have been austerity plus monetary excess. But they are not working." - What? Our public spending has increases by £50bn, how is this 'austerity'? The cuts have slowed down our public spending and even that has made us one of the strongest economies in Europe. So I'm not sure where he's getting the 'not working' from. I don't know what world you live in where you don't think we're in a period of "austerity" right now. That's literally all that finance ministers and politicians and bankers and economists are talking about. Whether or not this fits your pet definition of what "austerity" should mean, the rest of us are going to continue using that word in the way that we have been using it and all seem to understand just fine. > Most of the fluffy scenarios he describes, whereby private individuals make voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements with each other, is almost the very definition of capitalism! Again -- you're focusing on proving the author wrong ("Haha! Contracts made without threats of violence are capitalism, but you said capitalism was ending!") rather than even beginning to listen to what he was saying in a holistic manner. If you're fanatically obsessed with defending a econ 101 definition of capitalism: sure, you got him. There will still be voluntary mutually beneficial agreements; capitalism will survive. For the rest of us: this article was not about the word "capitalism", it was about what arrangement of "voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements" can be expected to exist, writ large, in a system where marginal cost of production quickly approaches zero.

sebastianz 11y ago

> anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you Sorry for veering slightly off topic but since you mentioned this, may I ask if you have a recommendation of a few important books that would make a core of a "economics 101"?

omnibrain 11y ago
Samuelson Nordhaus - Economics, though nowadays some prefer Mankiw - Principles of Economics. There is - obviously - a lot of criticism from several sides against both. In the end there are several schools of economics. So it depends what Economics 101 text someone read. ;)

bcg1 11y ago

You're correct but I think he is more on your side than not. Where you want to lay claim to 'capitalism' as meaning 'free markets' I believe he chooses to relegate the term 'capitalism' to the sort of crony-stroking global corporate fascism that has evolved instead of free markets. I've often thought that free market advocates should just give up on claiming the "real" meaning of the term capitalism and just invent a new word that can't be conflated as easily. That said, I'm not sure what to think about this gentleman's article and conclusions. It seems he is able to identify things that actually ARE real problems... however my initial reaction to what he describes as 'postcapitalism' is to be skeptical and to suspect that he may have an agenda. His rhetoric is notably light on actual details, however it has a subtle yet distinct flavor of forced redistribution that leaves an unpleasant taste.