I was a useful idiot for capitalism(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
I was a useful idiot for capitalism
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/i-was-useful-idiot-capitalism/615031/
112 comments
Care to elaborate for those unable to read between the lines?
When we realized the Soviet Union was about to collapse in on itself there was no more political (or moral, or whatever lens you want to look at it through) incentive to try to make our system any better than it was.
"We realized"
Haha. That's hilarious. The negligent hand waving of an enemy states collapse as a banal "realization" is the stuff of pure comedy.
Haha. That's hilarious. The negligent hand waving of an enemy states collapse as a banal "realization" is the stuff of pure comedy.
I await your treatise on the subject.
Remember from the perspective of someone in the 1950s, a managed scientific communist system could be more efficient in the same way scientifically managed assembly lines replaced craftsmen. So in a lot of capitalist countries there was a constant fear that the communist system might actually be better and thus should be compromised with. Once the info about actual state of affairs in communist systems was revealed, it was no longer seen as a threat.
btw, Yuval Noah Harari repeatedly warned that advances in informatics and AI might actually solve the problem of central planning. The Soviets tried to do central planning without the means to transfer and process information cheaply. They didn't even have Excel (or Lotus 1-2-3 for that matter). If they failed only because the tools weren't good enough, it might be due for a comeback especially when AI systems could now plausibly take over those roles...
>If they failed only because the tools weren't good enough
Anyone who claims that hasn't observed Soviet Union or Russia long enough. The failure was 99% due to "human element" not due to sophistication or not of some planning element.
Anyone who claims that hasn't observed Soviet Union or Russia long enough. The failure was 99% due to "human element" not due to sophistication or not of some planning element.
Why is it a warning, wouldn’t it be a good thing if we could more efficiently allocate resources than the current system? And aren’t most corporations centrally planned economies on the inside?
It's a warning if it isn't accompanied by great democratization, because the planned economy concentrates a lot of power in the hands of the planners.
Some proponents of planned economy (e.g. Cottrell) suggest that elected democracy should be replaced by sortition for just that reason. Or perhaps there are technical ways to make planning less centralized, say some kind of federated system with freely available real-time production data, where a new producer can decide what group of existing producers to join.
Some proponents of planned economy (e.g. Cottrell) suggest that elected democracy should be replaced by sortition for just that reason. Or perhaps there are technical ways to make planning less centralized, say some kind of federated system with freely available real-time production data, where a new producer can decide what group of existing producers to join.
Incidentally, Cybersyn[0] promised to achieve that goal of automating central planning. Of course we never found out if it would have worked out as the system was destroyed during as part of the heavily US-backed coup replacing socialist Allende with the fascist Pinochet[1].
There are legitimate concerns surrounding the level of surveillance and automation necessary for such a system but they seem hollow from the present sociopolitical context where surveillance and automated decision making is normalized as part of the capitalist system rather than an aspirationally socialist one.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
There are legitimate concerns surrounding the level of surveillance and automation necessary for such a system but they seem hollow from the present sociopolitical context where surveillance and automated decision making is normalized as part of the capitalist system rather than an aspirationally socialist one.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
Amazon is the new Cybersyn - and Walmart was it before Amazon. What do you think they're using all those hyperscale datacenters for? Central planning, that's what. (Except that if you don't like Amazon or Walmart's plans, you can just shop elsewhere. The plan for Cybersyn was that it would be your robot overlord - no alternatives allowed.)
With the growth of China, will the pre-1980 times come back?
I think one confounder is whether waging a war requires a lot of human beings.
If it does, then you need some kind of modern society to keep them relatively happy, or they'll fight for the other side. If you can deploy killer drone robots, then you don't need to worry about what the population thinks as much.
If it does, then you need some kind of modern society to keep them relatively happy, or they'll fight for the other side. If you can deploy killer drone robots, then you don't need to worry about what the population thinks as much.
In the 60's western economists were afraid that the authoritarian central planning of the Soviet Union was intrinsically more efficient than the slowly adapting free market to the extent where economists started to study ways of incorporating the sovietic dynamic in the west. [https://www.gsid.nagoya-u.ac.jp/sotsubo/Krugman.pdf]
Now China doesn't represent any kind of alternative model that risks replacing the one adopted by western countries, unlike the Soviet Union. Realistically nobody is afraid of being taken over by China. So I think that any kind of impact that China might have in this regard would be quite limited.
Now China doesn't represent any kind of alternative model that risks replacing the one adopted by western countries, unlike the Soviet Union. Realistically nobody is afraid of being taken over by China. So I think that any kind of impact that China might have in this regard would be quite limited.
There is quite a lot of fear of China being ahead or getting ahead, and it is being exploited by tech companies to secure funding from the department of defense:
https://t.co/7by2iroWWD
It's a different type of fear.
Competition from a completely alien culture can generate mobilization, i.e. different societal strata working together for a common purpose. This is what the US is doing with China today, or did with Japan in the '80s.
What the USSR generated was different: it was the fear that the lower classes could band together, overthrow the established order, and actually succeed in running the country. It wasn't an attack from an alien culture, that the establishment feared; it was successful subversion from within. There is no fear of that when it comes to China.
Competition from a completely alien culture can generate mobilization, i.e. different societal strata working together for a common purpose. This is what the US is doing with China today, or did with Japan in the '80s.
What the USSR generated was different: it was the fear that the lower classes could band together, overthrow the established order, and actually succeed in running the country. It wasn't an attack from an alien culture, that the establishment feared; it was successful subversion from within. There is no fear of that when it comes to China.
Yes, every external force that has influenced the US is unique in some dimension.
To me the biggest difference between China and Japan is that China is much more likely to challenge the US among all dimensions of power, whereas my understanding of Japan in the 80s is that they simply started to be slightly competitive in an economic dimension.
So I do think that there is a higher likelihood that China’s rise opens up more debates about certain deep assumptions we have in the US than Japan’s did. And some of these may be about the primacy of private property. Private property is not a law of physics but it is a very deeply set assumption we have. The idea that housing is an investment more than it is a human necessity is something that may be worth questioning more and more. If investor owned housing in the US keeps trending up (already around 20%) then at some point it will likely be helpful to have another successful system to point at and learn from for solutions.
To me the biggest difference between China and Japan is that China is much more likely to challenge the US among all dimensions of power, whereas my understanding of Japan in the 80s is that they simply started to be slightly competitive in an economic dimension.
So I do think that there is a higher likelihood that China’s rise opens up more debates about certain deep assumptions we have in the US than Japan’s did. And some of these may be about the primacy of private property. Private property is not a law of physics but it is a very deeply set assumption we have. The idea that housing is an investment more than it is a human necessity is something that may be worth questioning more and more. If investor owned housing in the US keeps trending up (already around 20%) then at some point it will likely be helpful to have another successful system to point at and learn from for solutions.
I have many issues with the CCP but as long as large scale war is avoided, this will be the silver lining in its rise. Hopefully there are clearer successes of some socialist aspects our society can learn from.
There is nothing socialist about china. Its a cooperation state in its purest form.
China is a capitalist country.
It's a fascist country with a managed economy.
It isn't though. a capitalist country would have private ownership and control of companies. China has government companies and government control of private companies and works lock step all together to keep the average joe in line and the factories churning out product. They now even have a strong man in charge for life. Therefore, China is more accurately described as a communist country that saw communism didn't work so they spent half a century pivoting to fascism while keeping the commie colors and aesthetic motifs.
China is run by the Chinese communist party. You can’t own a house there (only a 99 year lease) and their notion of private property is very different. It’s not that simple.
None of that screams workers rights, nor welfare of the common people. Quite the contrary. If Marx was living in the XXI-st century, he’d be writing about Chinese instead of English factories. In fact the lack of workers rights makes it more reminiscent of theoretical capitalism than anything in the West.
All I am saying is that it's a vast oversimplification of an economic and political system composed of over 1 billion people to simply say "it's capitalist". The overarching point here is that as China rises hopefully we in the US can learn something from their system and integrate it into ours. The idea that we can't do so because "they are a capitalist country and so are we" is reductionist and I was trying to point out ways in which that was the case.
You want to integrate "the individual is nothing" and the birthplace caste system?
You are aware of the reality behind the shiny propaganda videos of skyscrapers?
The anti-meritocracy, were beeing born into party aristocracy gives you undeserved jobs, whose lack-of-skills underpaid underlings have to compensate for if you screw up? The reactionary politic changes, that always trigger if things are to late? The absence of any plan beyond keeping the status quo?
Look at the zero covid, were literally a revolution has to happen, for a unfeasable plan and the corresponding corruption to be undone? Literally all initiatives and plans result in this, a surface level placation, corruption cancer growth beneath and suffering by the citizens who made the economic miracle of china really happening - against the ccp resistance.
This is what you want to integrate into western societies? Why?
I understand the utopian, shangri-la projections of the failed western left, but please not on some labor camp..
You are aware of the reality behind the shiny propaganda videos of skyscrapers?
The anti-meritocracy, were beeing born into party aristocracy gives you undeserved jobs, whose lack-of-skills underpaid underlings have to compensate for if you screw up? The reactionary politic changes, that always trigger if things are to late? The absence of any plan beyond keeping the status quo?
Look at the zero covid, were literally a revolution has to happen, for a unfeasable plan and the corresponding corruption to be undone? Literally all initiatives and plans result in this, a surface level placation, corruption cancer growth beneath and suffering by the citizens who made the economic miracle of china really happening - against the ccp resistance.
This is what you want to integrate into western societies? Why?
I understand the utopian, shangri-la projections of the failed western left, but please not on some labor camp..
They certainly have their fair share of negative aspects that I wouldn’t want to integrate.
To be more concrete one specific thing I would like to see more of in the US is some sort of change to the political process that would allow more engineers to get into positions of power. Right now it’s all lawyers, and I think this is a big reason why the US is not good at large infrastructure projects anymore (California high speed rail, building more nuclear plants etc.)
To be more concrete one specific thing I would like to see more of in the US is some sort of change to the political process that would allow more engineers to get into positions of power. Right now it’s all lawyers, and I think this is a big reason why the US is not good at large infrastructure projects anymore (California high speed rail, building more nuclear plants etc.)
The neoliberal counter-reformation was planned long before then. The Chicago School and Hayek had already been planted and nurtured. The shift started in the late 70s with organised attacks on the concept of unionisation, socialised welfare, and government investment, combined with aggressive promotion of the private sector as a glorious, efficient, and generous engine of progress.
All of this was carefully seeded and very deliberately promoted and funded immediately after WWII. The most obvious example was the Mont Pelerin Society, which was given to Hayek to organise and wasn't just ideologically anti-Marxist, but aggressively anti-Keynesian.
The fall of the Soviet Union accelerated this process by finally removing much of the organised opposition to it. But it was already up and running long before Gorbachev became President.
All of this was carefully seeded and very deliberately promoted and funded immediately after WWII. The most obvious example was the Mont Pelerin Society, which was given to Hayek to organise and wasn't just ideologically anti-Marxist, but aggressively anti-Keynesian.
The fall of the Soviet Union accelerated this process by finally removing much of the organised opposition to it. But it was already up and running long before Gorbachev became President.
There were many movements planned in the 1970s, but the failure of the Soviet system seems like the key driving force in the rise of this one to me.
Yeah, that's my theory as well: as long as there was a "socialist block", the capitalist countries felt some kind of obligation to demonstrate that capitalism could also care for the not-so-well-off. After that, it was back to capitalism's essence of the rich (the exploiters, if you want to use socialist jargon) getting richer and the poor (the exploited) getting poorer.
They’ve been saying that the poor are getting poorer my entire life.
Yet in my country, we’re healthier; longer living; and yes the average person is wealthier than ever before.
It’s physically impossible for the poor to get poorer every year without a complete societal collapse. Yet people keep repeating this line.
Yet in my country, we’re healthier; longer living; and yes the average person is wealthier than ever before.
It’s physically impossible for the poor to get poorer every year without a complete societal collapse. Yet people keep repeating this line.
Reading this topic, I'm so glad there are people who can see this, there is some hope in this nonsense I see around.
You're talking about absolute poverty and they're talking about relative poverty.
In many culture war debates there's a consistent theme of ignoring and/or discounting absolute figures and monomaniacally focusing on relative figures.
‘The poor getting poorer’ refers to absolute poverty.
It has nothing to do with reality. It’s socialist jargon.
Having a strong "socialist block" could easily have the reverse effect whereby political discourse is scared away from socialist ideas as they are considered to be evil communism (c.f. McCarthyism). I would consider that a lot of mainstream media (owned by rich and powerful people) has attempted to keep alive the idea that socialism is the enemy and needs to be fought against.
Yet slightly left-leaning policies wouldn't look as "communist" when there's actually a communist state in existence.
Archive with full text of article: https://archive.ph/SNZK2
Also, this article is from 2020, but generated hardly any discussion when it was posted on HN back then.
Also, this article is from 2020, but generated hardly any discussion when it was posted on HN back then.
We're leaving in absolutely unprecedent times: automation starting to effectively displace workers, huge demographic changes taking effect and a turning point in capitalistic system that for the last 50 years worked undisputedly to supress wages and erode the standard of o living of the middle class that had the upperhand in the previous 50 years. And I'm not even talking about a certain pandemic nor about the nuclear revival with the ukranian war.
I think today we live in a time as revolutionary as the 60's in the XX century but without the optimistic atmosphere. I'm certain people don't notice this because we don't have the cultural effervescence of that time, for example, but I'm sure that in the future historians will write about how difficult and exceptional the 20's of the XXI century were.
I think today we live in a time as revolutionary as the 60's in the XX century but without the optimistic atmosphere. I'm certain people don't notice this because we don't have the cultural effervescence of that time, for example, but I'm sure that in the future historians will write about how difficult and exceptional the 20's of the XXI century were.
This just in: Boomer unsatisfied with the natural outcome of integrating the massive third world labor force into the first world combined with NIMBY politics at home, incorrectly attributes the outcome to "the right" and "evil corporations"
Sadly, he's not an exception, people truly believe that, people who have right to vote.
Who do you suppose offshored our jobs while protecting their backyards? I'm guessing that it was rich people running corporations.
Nimbyism is caused by the vast majority of property ownere, not just rich people. If you own already rampant price increases are a positive feature not a cost (atleast in most property owners minds). Outsourcing was just the likely correct thing to do in that context. It raised more people from abject poverty than all the foreign aide we funded by a large margin. The context now is more complicated and muddy because, while the ussr seemed to prove outsourcing creates a middle class that can topple bad regimes, china proves those regimes can maintain control by not losing their resolve for bloodshed.
It's interesting that the hippie-to-yuppie generation, of which the author is admittedly a member, seems currently busy publishing a lot of mea culpa pieces like this article. It's a good development, if anything because admitting fault is difficult for everyone. But:
- Hopefully this is not a desperate attempt at staying relevant. Taking the author at his own word, that whole generation is now unreliable: they messed up and are fundamentally corrupt. Unless they have a spotless, near-sainthood track record, anybody born before the mid-70s should probably be ignored when defining the strategic horizon.
- They never seem to suggest a way forward anyway, exactly like this author. That's probably because they have little knowledge of the now, they can only analyze what came before.
The real cultural breakthrough will happen when someone "clean" will manage to elaborate an actual way forward, a democratic socialism for the digital age that actually works (or promises to work) on a mass-scale. It probably shouldn't be called that, it will use new terms so it can eschew old labels; but it should promise redistribution, respect, and creative satisfaction, for all people.
Until that happens, we are simply in damage-limitation mode. Technology has enabled capitalist excesses in an unprecedented way, most of the cyberpunk-theorized digital feudalism is already reality. What can we do? That is the question.
- Hopefully this is not a desperate attempt at staying relevant. Taking the author at his own word, that whole generation is now unreliable: they messed up and are fundamentally corrupt. Unless they have a spotless, near-sainthood track record, anybody born before the mid-70s should probably be ignored when defining the strategic horizon.
- They never seem to suggest a way forward anyway, exactly like this author. That's probably because they have little knowledge of the now, they can only analyze what came before.
The real cultural breakthrough will happen when someone "clean" will manage to elaborate an actual way forward, a democratic socialism for the digital age that actually works (or promises to work) on a mass-scale. It probably shouldn't be called that, it will use new terms so it can eschew old labels; but it should promise redistribution, respect, and creative satisfaction, for all people.
Until that happens, we are simply in damage-limitation mode. Technology has enabled capitalist excesses in an unprecedented way, most of the cyberpunk-theorized digital feudalism is already reality. What can we do? That is the question.
> a democratic socialism for the digital age that actually works (or promises to work) on a mass-scale. It probably shouldn't be called that, it will use new terms so it can eschew old labels
You could call it socialism with Scandinavian characteristics. Mind you, Scandinavian countries are actually fairly high on rankings of economic freedom; they choose to levy redistributive taxes as opposed to trying to socialize the economy with heavy regulation and central planning, as has long been the model in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West. This is in accordance with Deng Xiaoping's famous quip: "white cat, black cat, if it catches mice it's a good cat."
You could call it socialism with Scandinavian characteristics. Mind you, Scandinavian countries are actually fairly high on rankings of economic freedom; they choose to levy redistributive taxes as opposed to trying to socialize the economy with heavy regulation and central planning, as has long been the model in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West. This is in accordance with Deng Xiaoping's famous quip: "white cat, black cat, if it catches mice it's a good cat."
The elephant in the room is globalization. The same resources have to be shared among many more people. Even if energy is no problem, there is e.g. a limited amount of fish protein that can be fed to life-stock.
>I’m betting that a jobless super-automated future will arrive even sooner than experts have been predicting.
We already live in that future. If there were only one type of car, one type of trousers and shirts, a limited selection of food and standardized housing, there would be hardly any work for anybody.
The end of the article is kind of funny. It could as well be a plea for Capitalism and startup culture:
>Drag dreams out into the light of day, show their sources, compare them with fact, transform them to possibilities … a dream … with a sense of the possible.”
>He also wrote that the urgent national inflection-point struggle a century ago was “between those who are willing to enter upon an effort for which there is no precedent, and those who aren’t. In a real sense it is an adventure.”
It comes down to taxes and investments. The masses can always vote for politics that shift spending power from corporations to politicians or to themselves. They can also pool their money and invest by themselves.
For some reasons, unprecedented efforts seem to require free capital. How else but with Capitalism can that be provided? More democratic investments like kickstarter.com look too much like etsy.com to be viable contenders.
>I’m betting that a jobless super-automated future will arrive even sooner than experts have been predicting.
We already live in that future. If there were only one type of car, one type of trousers and shirts, a limited selection of food and standardized housing, there would be hardly any work for anybody.
The end of the article is kind of funny. It could as well be a plea for Capitalism and startup culture:
>Drag dreams out into the light of day, show their sources, compare them with fact, transform them to possibilities … a dream … with a sense of the possible.”
>He also wrote that the urgent national inflection-point struggle a century ago was “between those who are willing to enter upon an effort for which there is no precedent, and those who aren’t. In a real sense it is an adventure.”
It comes down to taxes and investments. The masses can always vote for politics that shift spending power from corporations to politicians or to themselves. They can also pool their money and invest by themselves.
For some reasons, unprecedented efforts seem to require free capital. How else but with Capitalism can that be provided? More democratic investments like kickstarter.com look too much like etsy.com to be viable contenders.
> there is e.g. a limited amount of fish protein that can be fed to life-stock.
Or maybe the time has come to let people eat that fish instead? Sure, the Western middle class may not be able to eat as much meat then, but as a whole, wouldn’t humanity be better off?
Or maybe the time has come to let people eat that fish instead? Sure, the Western middle class may not be able to eat as much meat then, but as a whole, wouldn’t humanity be better off?
My own observations of this 'blame capitalism' trend in collective social murmuring gained amplitude perhaps a decade ago, becoming really strong in the past 5 years. I am profoundly puzzled at the 'ad-hocness' and superficiality of the oft presented argument (which this articles is just an sample of). It is not because 'capitalism' is some sacred cow, or that the social maladies affecting communities are irrelevant or unimportant. It is the lack of understanding the very assumptions one makes about the alternatives (as well as 'capitalism' as a concept).
Just as any non-material concept, such as democracy, love, courage, and etc, so capitalism is a model, an abstraction of reality, which is context dependent.
So my contribution to the argument is to bring to attention that just as social-democracy can be de-facto a dictatorship, or 'love' can be a prison, or dictatorship can bring religious freedom and the end of slavery (e.g. early Persian empire) and contrast it with early America colonization governments, similarly capitalism as a concept can be approached.
Fundamentally, it is the mixture of government (power) with private enterprise (wealth) that historically is known to generate the greatest human corruption. Just like there people recognized that religion and state should be separated to avoid corruption of both, it should be followed by a divorce of private enterprise and state. [if one should summarize it in one sentence]. It has nothing to do with capitalism, socialism, nationalism, communism... the principle lies elsewhere.
Just as any non-material concept, such as democracy, love, courage, and etc, so capitalism is a model, an abstraction of reality, which is context dependent.
So my contribution to the argument is to bring to attention that just as social-democracy can be de-facto a dictatorship, or 'love' can be a prison, or dictatorship can bring religious freedom and the end of slavery (e.g. early Persian empire) and contrast it with early America colonization governments, similarly capitalism as a concept can be approached.
Fundamentally, it is the mixture of government (power) with private enterprise (wealth) that historically is known to generate the greatest human corruption. Just like there people recognized that religion and state should be separated to avoid corruption of both, it should be followed by a divorce of private enterprise and state. [if one should summarize it in one sentence]. It has nothing to do with capitalism, socialism, nationalism, communism... the principle lies elsewhere.
I cannot agree on your last point: capitalism is a system where those two (government and private enterprise) are separated by design, simply because first one has little power over second (free market) and second has little power over first (no interest in corrupting officials if there is nothing or little to gain).
> no interest in corrupting officials if there is nothing or little to gain
Except there's a lot to gain! Don't you remember when banks were saved in 2008? Don't you remember that copyrights used to be 28 years? Don't you remember the times when you could build your own vehicle, pass an inspection and then legaly drive it on public roads?
Except there's a lot to gain! Don't you remember when banks were saved in 2008? Don't you remember that copyrights used to be 28 years? Don't you remember the times when you could build your own vehicle, pass an inspection and then legaly drive it on public roads?
That's my point - there would be never a discussion about saving bankers in 2008 if there was capitalism, capitalism rejects ANY intervention into free market (except maybe anti monopoly laws). That only proofs that it is not capitalism here to blame - it is corrupted politicians that gained too much power through socialism in the name of "social justice" (which has so much in common with "justice" as "electric chair" has with "chair").
This capitalism you're talking about is an imaginary construction. It never existed, never will. Why are you being a demagogue and defending an ideal? You know very well what people refer to as capitalism, the one that exist in reality. Not some lofty idea you want to defend.
> but you (of course) play big intellectual and pretend it is OK to ignore facts.
Grow up.
> but you (of course) play big intellectual and pretend it is OK to ignore facts.
Grow up.
> This capitalism you're talking about is an imaginary construction. It never existed, never will.
I hope you understand that we are referring to models there, right? Your point that you can't discuss ideas because model is not reality is ridiculous - with that philosophy we would never had any engineering done. It's like arguing with someone who said "I have wooden house" with an argument "No mate, your door handles are metal".
> You know very well what people refer to as capitalism, the one that exist in reality.
And that is exactly what I'm fighting against - total confusion, calling capitalism system where Tax Freedom Day is in August (talking about some European countries) - you want to blame capitalism where there system is far from the idea of capitalism. Like I explained before: you disassemble wheels from a car and wonder why it is not working - here, you are removing the very reason why capitalism works (by restraining economic freedom, expanding welfare) and you are surprised that it isn't working.
> Grow up.
I was just referring to your comment about things being obvious where you have clearly some problems explaining your thoughts.
I hope you understand that we are referring to models there, right? Your point that you can't discuss ideas because model is not reality is ridiculous - with that philosophy we would never had any engineering done. It's like arguing with someone who said "I have wooden house" with an argument "No mate, your door handles are metal".
> You know very well what people refer to as capitalism, the one that exist in reality.
And that is exactly what I'm fighting against - total confusion, calling capitalism system where Tax Freedom Day is in August (talking about some European countries) - you want to blame capitalism where there system is far from the idea of capitalism. Like I explained before: you disassemble wheels from a car and wonder why it is not working - here, you are removing the very reason why capitalism works (by restraining economic freedom, expanding welfare) and you are surprised that it isn't working.
> Grow up.
I was just referring to your comment about things being obvious where you have clearly some problems explaining your thoughts.
> corrupted politicians that gained too much power through socialism
Please explain how that works.
Please explain how that works.
More taxes = more power to people who decide how tax system is designed (there are many, many examples where big companies get away with literally not paying taxes)
More money to redistribute = more power to people who decide who will get money and who won't, all those "government investments" are filled with corruption.
Not to mention smaller things like ordering friend's company to create report on how spend tax payer's money, of course the report costs millions of dollars and says nothing.
How come the people of Silicon Valley, always so desperately concerned about issues of social justice, never talk about wage inequality?
IMO this is an issue for which the scale and impact is far greater than what seems to be the issues of concern for most of the people working in big tech.
IMO this is an issue for which the scale and impact is far greater than what seems to be the issues of concern for most of the people working in big tech.
Some are: "And what do I see in our future now? I see pitchforks. "
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfor...
I meant coming from a position of concern for injustice rather than risk and self-protection.
Very few people get rich off wages, and those that do pay 40-50 percent tax for the privilege. It's ownership of assets, largely tax free, and propped up by government policy, that drives inequality.
The 40-50% tax is to prevent people earning wages from breaking out and competing with the truly wealthy.
I don't think so. Taxes exist in order for the government to reserve some of the wealth of society so it can direct resources at communal aims such as defence, welfare, science, justice, etc.
Higher taxes on higher earners are there because of pragmatism and a sense of fairness: higher earners have more disposable income to be taxed on.
These kind of statements always confuse me: does anyone think anyone is motivated in this way? Do people think Buffett and Soros are sitting down in a room with Trump and Biden plotting how to keep the club of "truly wealthy" exclusive?
Higher taxes on higher earners are there because of pragmatism and a sense of fairness: higher earners have more disposable income to be taxed on.
These kind of statements always confuse me: does anyone think anyone is motivated in this way? Do people think Buffett and Soros are sitting down in a room with Trump and Biden plotting how to keep the club of "truly wealthy" exclusive?
When the republicans passed their 2017 tax bill they very carefully made sure that corps like mine didn't get any benefit.
So yeah they totally do.
So yeah they totally do.
In Sweden the top tier income tax was officially named “the protection tax” (“värnskatt”). It’s openly stated purpose was to protect society from earned wealth.
At the same time we have some of the wealthiest people in the world here, real oligarch style.
At the same time we have some of the wealthiest people in the world here, real oligarch style.
This reminds me of the old political cartoon of the fat cat factory owner sitting on the table with the white worker and the immigrant, hoarding a huge pile of cash and telling the white worker "careful, I think he wants to take your money".
Wage inequality is a problem, but the entire economic system is built on underpaying workers, i.e. extracting "surplus value" aka "profit" and paying it out to the owners for merely owning the company. Likewise rent-seeking extracts rent from individuals for using something the rentier merely owns, on top of any cost of maintenance, improvement, or loans, which themselves pay interest on top of the actual value of the money provided.
The foundation of the system is to make money from nothing by enforcing and thus manifesting the fiction of "property rights" and withholding the hoarded dead weight of "stuff" (or in intellectual property even just "ideas") from the society that could benefit from it unless allowed to leech on its actual productive effort in the form of rent, wage or interest. Societal progress in the past hundreds of years (especially in Europe) has been primarily defined by expanding this fiction (even the concept of land as such property is fairly new, see Enclosure). In essence even modern states live off this fiction except the property is the ability to exist within their sphere of influence and the rent is taxes, though the state's function is more of a tool to enable this system by providing a framework of violence to enforce it than as a beneficiary (although its higher officials often benefit immensely from it, they function more like the highly-paid C-level executives than the owners of a firm).
So yes, wage inequality is an issue but the problem is less that some tech workers get paid too much but rather that most of the surplus value workers generate doesn't end up on their paychecks and this problem is essentially unsolvable under the economic system, at least within a traditional corporate structure (less so in a co-operative).
Also your claim is actually wrong. Wage transparency (i.e. the right to talk to coworkers about each other's salary to help them better negotiate) is a big topic, although mostly framed as a solution to discrimination. And unionization is the easiest way to tackle wage inequality because it gives power to those unable to bargain for better wages on their own.
Wage inequality is a problem, but the entire economic system is built on underpaying workers, i.e. extracting "surplus value" aka "profit" and paying it out to the owners for merely owning the company. Likewise rent-seeking extracts rent from individuals for using something the rentier merely owns, on top of any cost of maintenance, improvement, or loans, which themselves pay interest on top of the actual value of the money provided.
The foundation of the system is to make money from nothing by enforcing and thus manifesting the fiction of "property rights" and withholding the hoarded dead weight of "stuff" (or in intellectual property even just "ideas") from the society that could benefit from it unless allowed to leech on its actual productive effort in the form of rent, wage or interest. Societal progress in the past hundreds of years (especially in Europe) has been primarily defined by expanding this fiction (even the concept of land as such property is fairly new, see Enclosure). In essence even modern states live off this fiction except the property is the ability to exist within their sphere of influence and the rent is taxes, though the state's function is more of a tool to enable this system by providing a framework of violence to enforce it than as a beneficiary (although its higher officials often benefit immensely from it, they function more like the highly-paid C-level executives than the owners of a firm).
So yes, wage inequality is an issue but the problem is less that some tech workers get paid too much but rather that most of the surplus value workers generate doesn't end up on their paychecks and this problem is essentially unsolvable under the economic system, at least within a traditional corporate structure (less so in a co-operative).
Also your claim is actually wrong. Wage transparency (i.e. the right to talk to coworkers about each other's salary to help them better negotiate) is a big topic, although mostly framed as a solution to discrimination. And unionization is the easiest way to tackle wage inequality because it gives power to those unable to bargain for better wages on their own.
> This reminds me of the old political cartoon of the fat cat factory owner sitting on the table with the white worker and the immigrant, hoarding a huge pile of cash and telling the white worker "careful, I think he wants to take your money".
Then that cartoon should be reversed, because most of national income (GDP) is wages - profits and rents are a much smaller fraction. Wage inequality driven by skill differentials and technical change explains the bulk of income inequality since the 1980s. The literature is fairly unambiguous on that point.
In fact, those market sectors where labor costs are pushed uniformly higher by distortionary policies without compensating gains in efficiency (such as education, healthcare and general administration) are the ones that exert the highest burden on the rest of the economy, leading to inflation and pushing real incomes down; this is what Baumol's cost disease is all about.
Then that cartoon should be reversed, because most of national income (GDP) is wages - profits and rents are a much smaller fraction. Wage inequality driven by skill differentials and technical change explains the bulk of income inequality since the 1980s. The literature is fairly unambiguous on that point.
In fact, those market sectors where labor costs are pushed uniformly higher by distortionary policies without compensating gains in efficiency (such as education, healthcare and general administration) are the ones that exert the highest burden on the rest of the economy, leading to inflation and pushing real incomes down; this is what Baumol's cost disease is all about.
>>Then that cartoon should be reversed, because most of national income (GDP) is wages
You are arguing a different point AND entirely wrong.
"The top 0.01% richest individuals now hold 11% of the world's wealth." https://fortune.com/2021/12/07/worlds-richest-inequality-ric... "the bottom 80% owning 7%"
Can you provide sources for your belief?
You are arguing a different point AND entirely wrong.
"The top 0.01% richest individuals now hold 11% of the world's wealth." https://fortune.com/2021/12/07/worlds-richest-inequality-ric... "the bottom 80% owning 7%"
Can you provide sources for your belief?
Wealth is not income - wealth is a stock, income is a flow. This is a really basic point, people really should educate themselves when thinking about this stuff. You don't need obscure sources, any textbook will do. Then you can learn about the shares of GNI.
"The labor share of income in 35 advanced economies fell from around 54 percent in 1980 to 50.5 percent in 2014." - Ownership is overtaking working.
and within that, income to the top 0.1% is rising faster than the bottom half. The rich are getting richer, faster and faster. See also Pikketys capital in the 21st Century. (https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006)
The original cartoon emphasised the fat cat factory own "hoarding a huge pile of cash". As I referenced: "the bottom 80% owning 7%" in the US.
and within that, income to the top 0.1% is rising faster than the bottom half. The rich are getting richer, faster and faster. See also Pikketys capital in the 21st Century. (https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006)
The original cartoon emphasised the fat cat factory own "hoarding a huge pile of cash". As I referenced: "the bottom 80% owning 7%" in the US.
That is wealth, he is talking about the derivative of wealth or income. Most companies pays out way more in salaries than they pay out in profits, so more money goes to workers than to owners. Giving all profits to workers would increase their income by maybe 10-20% in most cases, modern capitalism don't exploit workers that hard.
Average workers are worse off today since more and more money is going to relatively small (in terms of employment) high value companies like hospitals, tech companies etc. So it isn't that low skill workers are giving up more and more to capitalists, it is that more and more money is going to other parts in the economy and never even going to the company the low skill worker is working for.
Average workers are worse off today since more and more money is going to relatively small (in terms of employment) high value companies like hospitals, tech companies etc. So it isn't that low skill workers are giving up more and more to capitalists, it is that more and more money is going to other parts in the economy and never even going to the company the low skill worker is working for.
To add to this, in the US at least, a lot of that income is paid in the form of various benefits such as health insurance and retirement contributions that aren't immediate liquid cash, so it feels like less on the receiving end.
If you say so comrade Lenin. ;)
But have you tried investing in shares? If you have then maybe you’ve realized the fact that they don’t always go up.
But have you tried investing in shares? If you have then maybe you’ve realized the fact that they don’t always go up.
I don't entirely agree with the Marxist analysis of surplus value. What happens in practice is that some people have unusual talents for inventiveness, imagination, and social organisation. They can invent and innovate and that's broadly a social good.
It becomes exploitative when their talents are owned by rentier investors, whose sole contribution to a project is financial.
Of course the money doesn't exist physically. The investment is really a political endorsement of the project and the individuals. This unlocks resources and creates social credibility. Sometimes this comes with an explicit personal message from the investor, sometimes it's just numbers.
The problem is that stock markets support casual rent-seeking which disconnects investors from the projects they throw money at. Casual investors have zero interest in the long-term health of a company. All they want is the highest possible short-term return. And this culture is what forces corporations to aggressively devalue wages and worker comp, right from the initial seed round all the way through to the other side of IPO.
The typical HN reader is somewhat insulated from this, because their skills are needed to make projects happen. But casual labour is considered a fungible expense that needs to be minimised.
Politically this leaves most of the population disenfranchised. Some token electoral democracy doesn't change the fact that most people have almost no political power in their work environment, and have to accept top-down orders that undermine their own prosperity and welfare.
It becomes exploitative when their talents are owned by rentier investors, whose sole contribution to a project is financial.
Of course the money doesn't exist physically. The investment is really a political endorsement of the project and the individuals. This unlocks resources and creates social credibility. Sometimes this comes with an explicit personal message from the investor, sometimes it's just numbers.
The problem is that stock markets support casual rent-seeking which disconnects investors from the projects they throw money at. Casual investors have zero interest in the long-term health of a company. All they want is the highest possible short-term return. And this culture is what forces corporations to aggressively devalue wages and worker comp, right from the initial seed round all the way through to the other side of IPO.
The typical HN reader is somewhat insulated from this, because their skills are needed to make projects happen. But casual labour is considered a fungible expense that needs to be minimised.
Politically this leaves most of the population disenfranchised. Some token electoral democracy doesn't change the fact that most people have almost no political power in their work environment, and have to accept top-down orders that undermine their own prosperity and welfare.
Oh, sure, I'm not saying founders or C-level executives don't contribute anything. A lot of entrepreneurs are extremely talented (although in practice finances are a much more important factor for success than exceptional talent). The problem is that because the system is set up on the principle of generating money from mere ownership, employees will always be exploited (i.e. be paid less than they produce, even after accounting for business expenses and operating costs). This ownership model inevitably poisons everything.
A founder may be an active contributor to the company but they fulfill a dual role of owner and worker that is unique to them and alienates them from other workers in their company. This is most evident as companies grow and founders retreat into C-level roles isolating them from the day-to-day work via multiple layers of management or eventually phase out entirely, either retaining a seat on the board, transitioning to fully passive ownership of their shares or selling their stake entirely to cash out, at which point they will likely want to reinvest most of their money in ways that generate "passive income" (i.e. rent-seeking).
I'm not a big fan of Marxist theory, especially in its Marxist-Leninist interpretations, but even from a capitalist lens I think what I said holds true even if one may disagree with the framing or the moral implications (capitalist theorists famously prefer framing the system is natural, innate and thus amoral and inevitable, despite the recency of its more recognizable modern iterations).
But if you want to go into the political implications, the ability to generate income from property (whether it is a stake in a company, housing or just literal heaps of money) necessarily enables the unequal accumulation of wealth and in a capitalist system that wealth beyond a certain point directly translates into political power as this wealth represents an exclusive claim on resources (production, housing, finance) that can be withheld from society with state violence if necessary. This directly contradicts the abstract idea of a democracy by amending "every vote is equal" with "but you vote with your wallet" (and some wallets are bigger than others).
I'm not proposing a solution. I think cooperatives are an interesting model though they are hard to bootstrap in this system as even without institutional biases (e.g. cooperatives allegedly find it harder to take out loans because banks prefer having a central individual representing the debtor) the incentives align against them: if you have the capital to start your own company, why pick a structure giving you less power by empowering those who can only bring in their labor? But cooperatives can't change this system and thus have to operate within the same system, feeding into and benefiting from the same exploitative system.
A founder may be an active contributor to the company but they fulfill a dual role of owner and worker that is unique to them and alienates them from other workers in their company. This is most evident as companies grow and founders retreat into C-level roles isolating them from the day-to-day work via multiple layers of management or eventually phase out entirely, either retaining a seat on the board, transitioning to fully passive ownership of their shares or selling their stake entirely to cash out, at which point they will likely want to reinvest most of their money in ways that generate "passive income" (i.e. rent-seeking).
I'm not a big fan of Marxist theory, especially in its Marxist-Leninist interpretations, but even from a capitalist lens I think what I said holds true even if one may disagree with the framing or the moral implications (capitalist theorists famously prefer framing the system is natural, innate and thus amoral and inevitable, despite the recency of its more recognizable modern iterations).
But if you want to go into the political implications, the ability to generate income from property (whether it is a stake in a company, housing or just literal heaps of money) necessarily enables the unequal accumulation of wealth and in a capitalist system that wealth beyond a certain point directly translates into political power as this wealth represents an exclusive claim on resources (production, housing, finance) that can be withheld from society with state violence if necessary. This directly contradicts the abstract idea of a democracy by amending "every vote is equal" with "but you vote with your wallet" (and some wallets are bigger than others).
I'm not proposing a solution. I think cooperatives are an interesting model though they are hard to bootstrap in this system as even without institutional biases (e.g. cooperatives allegedly find it harder to take out loans because banks prefer having a central individual representing the debtor) the incentives align against them: if you have the capital to start your own company, why pick a structure giving you less power by empowering those who can only bring in their labor? But cooperatives can't change this system and thus have to operate within the same system, feeding into and benefiting from the same exploitative system.
Inequality is a good thing! The more inequality you have the more jobs capitalist create. Pretty soon most of us will be working 3 or 4
Blaming capitalism for corruption while giving government more and more power, solution: let's give the government more power in the name of social justice and expect that no one in the system is corrupted - wow, that's just perfect reasoning...
Socialism never worked in the past, because it simply ignores the fact that people have no reason to work hard when they see someone who's chilling gets the same outcome.
> Blaming capitalism for corruption while giving government more and more power
Do you think governments have had "more and more power" in the last fifty years? What is your reasoning?
To me, it seems like capital has far more power compared to fifty years ago.
> let's give the government more power in the name of social justice and expect that no one in the system is corrupted
Spoken like a true ideologue. Does this argument not work in reverse? Money == power. If you concentrate more and more wealth in fewer hands, then you can also expect corruption.
> it simply ignores the fact that people have no reason to work hard when they see someone who's chilling gets the same outcome
The thing about capitalism is that capital generates capital. Someone who is already wealthy can "chill" and get a better outcome than someone who works much harder.
Do you think governments have had "more and more power" in the last fifty years? What is your reasoning?
To me, it seems like capital has far more power compared to fifty years ago.
> let's give the government more power in the name of social justice and expect that no one in the system is corrupted
Spoken like a true ideologue. Does this argument not work in reverse? Money == power. If you concentrate more and more wealth in fewer hands, then you can also expect corruption.
> it simply ignores the fact that people have no reason to work hard when they see someone who's chilling gets the same outcome
The thing about capitalism is that capital generates capital. Someone who is already wealthy can "chill" and get a better outcome than someone who works much harder.
> Do you think governments have had "more and more power" in the last fifty years? What is your reasoning?
If opposite was true then there would be never debate about helping bankers after crisis few years back, government shouldn't have power to "help" private investors with taxpayers' money.
> If you concentrate more and more wealth in fewer hands, then you can also expect corruption.
Why should I care about corruption inside companies? Corrupted companies are less effective, they will eventually die. What I care about is corruption inside government - you have no solution for corrupted officials - I have: just don't give them too much power, then even if they are corrupted they won't make much damage.
> The thing about capitalism is that capital generates capital. Someone who is already wealthy can "chill" and get a better outcome than someone who works much harder.
That's not the feature of capitalism, that's feature of corrupted government with too much power - in free market, if you have capital and don't create any goods, but only spend it eventually you have less capital - it's simple math.
If opposite was true then there would be never debate about helping bankers after crisis few years back, government shouldn't have power to "help" private investors with taxpayers' money.
> If you concentrate more and more wealth in fewer hands, then you can also expect corruption.
Why should I care about corruption inside companies? Corrupted companies are less effective, they will eventually die. What I care about is corruption inside government - you have no solution for corrupted officials - I have: just don't give them too much power, then even if they are corrupted they won't make much damage.
> The thing about capitalism is that capital generates capital. Someone who is already wealthy can "chill" and get a better outcome than someone who works much harder.
That's not the feature of capitalism, that's feature of corrupted government with too much power - in free market, if you have capital and don't create any goods, but only spend it eventually you have less capital - it's simple math.
> Why should I care about corruption inside companies? Corrupted companies are less effective, they will eventually die.
Assuming that's true, "eventually die" doesn't sound great for the vulnerable workers of the company, who have lost out on wages due to said corruption and are now unemployed.
> you have no solution for corrupted officials
Sure I do. There's the media, the judicial system, and the ballot box.
> in free market, if you have capital and don't create any goods, but only spend it eventually you have less capital
That's not a rebuttal of what I said, and it's not necessarily correct either. You can, for example, buy land and rent it out.
Assuming that's true, "eventually die" doesn't sound great for the vulnerable workers of the company, who have lost out on wages due to said corruption and are now unemployed.
> you have no solution for corrupted officials
Sure I do. There's the media, the judicial system, and the ballot box.
> in free market, if you have capital and don't create any goods, but only spend it eventually you have less capital
That's not a rebuttal of what I said, and it's not necessarily correct either. You can, for example, buy land and rent it out.
> doesn't sound great for the vulnerable workers of the company, who have lost out on wages due to said corruption and are now unemployed.
Why would they be unemployed? Why wouldn't they work for someone else or even start their own business? You assume people are helpless, I hope it's not the projection of your own experience.
> Sure I do. There's the media, the judicial system, and the ballot box.
How they (except the last one) are doing so far?
> You can, for example, buy land and rent it out.
That's already investment, that's already doing something with a risk involved. You can buy a land that no one would rent out.
Besides the things above: you still don't propose any explanation why socialism will work this time, when it happened to lead to tragedy so many times before (I assume you agree with my proof of why the system USA lean towards socialism since you haven't argued with that proof).
Why would they be unemployed? Why wouldn't they work for someone else or even start their own business? You assume people are helpless, I hope it's not the projection of your own experience.
> Sure I do. There's the media, the judicial system, and the ballot box.
How they (except the last one) are doing so far?
> You can, for example, buy land and rent it out.
That's already investment, that's already doing something with a risk involved. You can buy a land that no one would rent out.
Besides the things above: you still don't propose any explanation why socialism will work this time, when it happened to lead to tragedy so many times before (I assume you agree with my proof of why the system USA lean towards socialism since you haven't argued with that proof).
> If opposite was true then there would be never debate about helping bankers after crisis few years back, government shouldn't have power to "help" private investors with taxpayers' money.
Maybe it's not that the government doesn't have power, but more like the government's power has become a tool for the rich and their corporations due to their larger influence.
> Corrupted companies are less effective, they will eventually die.
Why is this true? Anyone could state the opposite without proof: that corrupted companies are more effective and thrive.
> in free market, if you have capital and don't create any goods, but only spend it eventually you have less capital - it's simple math.
It's not like capitalists just sit on their cash and burn it; their capital is in wealth-producing assets. They don't need to create any goods themselves. Their outsized wealth owns things that does that for them.
Maybe it's not that the government doesn't have power, but more like the government's power has become a tool for the rich and their corporations due to their larger influence.
> Corrupted companies are less effective, they will eventually die.
Why is this true? Anyone could state the opposite without proof: that corrupted companies are more effective and thrive.
> in free market, if you have capital and don't create any goods, but only spend it eventually you have less capital - it's simple math.
It's not like capitalists just sit on their cash and burn it; their capital is in wealth-producing assets. They don't need to create any goods themselves. Their outsized wealth owns things that does that for them.
> Maybe it's not that the government doesn't have power, but more like the government's power has become a tool for the rich and their corporations due to their larger influence.
That's why you need to reduce government power. Socialism do the opposite.
> Why is this true? Anyone could state the opposite without proof: that corrupted companies are more effective and thrive.
It's the definition of corruption: you gain personal benefits in cost of organization you work in. Why would I prove the definition?
> Their outsized wealth owns things that does that for them.
Yeah... everything just happens on its own. Surely no one ever bankrupted by investing in stocks.
That's why you need to reduce government power. Socialism do the opposite.
> Why is this true? Anyone could state the opposite without proof: that corrupted companies are more effective and thrive.
It's the definition of corruption: you gain personal benefits in cost of organization you work in. Why would I prove the definition?
> Their outsized wealth owns things that does that for them.
Yeah... everything just happens on its own. Surely no one ever bankrupted by investing in stocks.
"... Socialism never worked in the past"
It did. It does. Just not in the United States. In the Netherlands socialism worked just fine and provided many great benefits to all, except the super wealthy.
It did. It does. Just not in the United States. In the Netherlands socialism worked just fine and provided many great benefits to all, except the super wealthy.
Are you talking the country that gained its wealth from years of capitalism and centuries of colonialism? Yep, it will fail soon, like it always do.
Absolutely. And stole that wealth through extreme capitalistic liberal methods.
is there anything tech types won't blame on capitalism? Did we suddenly introduce capitalism in the 80s?
No, but in the 80s the rules of capitalism changed. The issue isn't capitalism per se but how the distribution of wealth generated by labour changed.
In the 80s we got a whole new set of capitalism: financial capitalism and neoliberalism. The breakdown of collective action, breakdown of solidarity between workers and a more hyper individualistic world.
This is exposed in the article, even though it focus on USA's changes, those changes have rippled through the globe.
Neoliberalism and hyper-financial capitalism begins in the 80s, that's what was introduced.
Did you read the article?
In the 80s we got a whole new set of capitalism: financial capitalism and neoliberalism. The breakdown of collective action, breakdown of solidarity between workers and a more hyper individualistic world.
This is exposed in the article, even though it focus on USA's changes, those changes have rippled through the globe.
Neoliberalism and hyper-financial capitalism begins in the 80s, that's what was introduced.
Did you read the article?
If the OP read the article they would have realized the author wasn't a "tech type"....
I think the share of the economy going towards the financial sector went from 4% to 17% between 1970 and 2010.
How could one change "rules of capitalism"? Capitalism is an idea, if anything's changed it was the system, so the system might have adopted some other ideas - that would be a change.
It's like having a car, disassemble wheels and call all cars useless.
It seems like USA is surprised that concentrating more and more power in few hands leads to corruption and as a cure they want to concentrate more power into hands of few (government) in the name of social justice expecting different outcome than before.
It's like having a car, disassemble wheels and call all cars useless.
It seems like USA is surprised that concentrating more and more power in few hands leads to corruption and as a cure they want to concentrate more power into hands of few (government) in the name of social justice expecting different outcome than before.
> How could one change "rules of capitalism"? Capitalism is an idea, if anything's changed it was the system, so the system might have adopted some other ideas - that would be a change.
I thought it was clear I meant the system has changed by using "the rules of capitalism" as a literary device. I don't know if it really was unclear but that's exactly what I meant...
I thought it was clear I meant the system has changed by using "the rules of capitalism" as a literary device. I don't know if it really was unclear but that's exactly what I meant...
You forgot to mention how rules changed - if you are right that is the only way to undo what happened. Instead, you argue "it changed for the worse, let's change it even more in some random direction" - this completely illogical, it looks like you don't know what you are doing, but you (of course) play big intellectual and pretend it is OK to ignore facts.
> A union? Sure, fine. But I was talent. I was creative. I was an individual.
Seriously, this is the right attitude. We need to find a regulatory framework for capitalism that works with this mindset.
The OP seems to advocate a more “Swedish system” where (almost) everybody is unionized and that mental framework is applied to all work (except e.g. sports and literature where everybody understands it’s impossible). As a Swede I’d like to caution against this in the strongest possible way. It is the road to serfdom for every talented and ambitious individual, regardless of background. It just perpetuates the class society.
Seriously, this is the right attitude. We need to find a regulatory framework for capitalism that works with this mindset.
The OP seems to advocate a more “Swedish system” where (almost) everybody is unionized and that mental framework is applied to all work (except e.g. sports and literature where everybody understands it’s impossible). As a Swede I’d like to caution against this in the strongest possible way. It is the road to serfdom for every talented and ambitious individual, regardless of background. It just perpetuates the class society.
> It is the road to serfdom for every talented and ambitious individual, regardless of background. It just perpetuates the class society.
The same can be said about a non-unionised workforce, so what's the solution?
The same can be said about a non-unionised workforce, so what's the solution?
I think the “Swedish model” is actually pretty good for the “collectively employed”, i.e. in roles where you can easily be replaced. The logic should be “if the employer treats you like a collective, then you should bargain as a collective.”
For more creative work where talent is very unevenly distributed my impression is that the US doing pretty well actually. A Swedish engineer can only dream of the opportunities for being “exploited” that are available to their American colleagues.
Also, if you feel exploited by capitalism you should consider what it feels like to be exploited by capitalism, the unions and the state working together. That’s essentially the situation you’ll end up in if you walk the Swedish path. Some people don’t mind trading their freedom for “safety”, but for those who do it feels terrible.
To improve on the US model for creative work I think regulation should focus on strengthening the creative destruction side of capitalism. This might seem counterintuitive, since people like stability. But I think the fairness of a capitalist system depends on it. I don’t mind if rich people have more power in society, as long as they have to risk that power in order to exercise it. What’s unfair to me is that a class of people get to call the shots and reap all the rewards, but get bailed out in various ways when things go sour.
For more creative work where talent is very unevenly distributed my impression is that the US doing pretty well actually. A Swedish engineer can only dream of the opportunities for being “exploited” that are available to their American colleagues.
Also, if you feel exploited by capitalism you should consider what it feels like to be exploited by capitalism, the unions and the state working together. That’s essentially the situation you’ll end up in if you walk the Swedish path. Some people don’t mind trading their freedom for “safety”, but for those who do it feels terrible.
To improve on the US model for creative work I think regulation should focus on strengthening the creative destruction side of capitalism. This might seem counterintuitive, since people like stability. But I think the fairness of a capitalist system depends on it. I don’t mind if rich people have more power in society, as long as they have to risk that power in order to exercise it. What’s unfair to me is that a class of people get to call the shots and reap all the rewards, but get bailed out in various ways when things go sour.
Conveniently the moment, large scale spyplanes confirmed the sovjet union was a messy paper tiger, not the industrial science powerhouse it propaganda made it out to be. Ever after that, it was crisis management and containement towards collapse. Before that it was panic and better-this-then-that-negotations with unions. It was a watershed moment back to the gilded age.