SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by Gaaark
I have nothing against capitalism: what we seem to have nowadays is Corruptism.
Corruptism is the collecting of wealth no matter who or what.
Need another dollar? Bribe a politician to make the laws favour corporations over people.
Need ANOTHER dollar? Cut wages and hours.
Need ANOTHER dollar? Layoffs.
It use to be that employers made, what, 400X what their employees made? Now an employee has to work 2-3 jobs just to live while the 'boss' feeds the pork to make ONE MORE DOLLAR!
A little more kindness would see us in a better world.
I'd like to see politicians start thinking of the people who voted for them.
Lets get back to basic Capitalism: Corruptism is not working.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
innovate, v.:
To annoy people.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @01:31AM (19 children)
This is exactly what capitalism looks like. It starts as you suggest in the good old days, and the current situation is the logical progression.
Mutualism/anarchism (which I'm not sure is what Mr. Vim is preaching) and socialism are two alternatives that remove the means of production from private ownership. The means of production can be controlled by owner-operator-shareholders (where an individual is all three at once in relation to the means of production) from what it sounds like, or they can be controlled by the proletariat at large by democratic means.
Private ownership of the means of production (capitalism) simply cannot lead to a stable system. It experiences decay into fascism and neocolonial military aggression.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday December 13 2018, @01:51AM (10 children)
What we have is not capitalism.
Government enforced monopolies are not capitalism
Corporations being people are not capitalism
Government compulsion to buy products is not capitalism
Government subsidies are not capitalism
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 13 2018, @01:58AM (7 children)
Excellent, your eyes are open. *Now convince all the self-proclaimed free market types.* You woke up, only to realize the world is sleepwalking, and carrying you closer and closer to the edge of a cliff like Hell's mosh pit...horrifying, isn't it?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday December 13 2018, @06:45PM (6 children)
Not really. My answer isn't that "fake capitalism didn't work so lets become socialist" its "let actually try having a free market". The "not true communism" cry is just as accurate as "not true capitalism". What the west has done economically over the past hundred years is create an environment that was able to lift the most people possible out of poverty. The anti-competitive practices currently embraced by government and paid for my monopolistic powers will cause problems for that, the answer is to get rid of the MIC and the corruption, not to switch to a system that hasn't brought a substantial amount of people across the world out of poverty.
The power that came about from the success of the US economy allowed for outsourcing to Japan/Korea, enabling them to go through the growing pains of intense industrialization, formation of a middle class, and adoption of a more free form of government. This process is working in Vietnam, Thailand, etc as well with the addition of more advanced economies to the game. Between corruption in the US threatening the US middle class and socialist China having intense controls to hold down a formation of a middle class there growth is going to slow down globally. We can solve our problem by breaking up some trusts, imposing term limits, and limiting the political power of corporations. Those things can be done while still having a free market and still being capitalist.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 13 2018, @06:54PM (5 children)
You're still falling for the inevitable fatal flaw of libertarianism: the fewest rules up front does not translate into the most freedom for the most people. Furthermore, capitalism needs proper regulation to prevent the very snowballing effect I've mentioned elsewhere; without it, without redistribution mechanisms, all that happens is an increasingly-quick concentration of wealth, power, and resources into fewer and fewer hands. "The free market" is a chimaera.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 20 2018, @08:32AM (4 children)
We're not in that situation. Instead we're in the situation where rules are being created faster than they can be read with all sorts of weird interactions that won't be discovered until some AI mines them a few decades down the road.
Capitalism and free markets have those redistribution mechanisms. For example, ROI goes down as the amount of wealth goes up. That's because large amounts of wealth require a lot more distribution of wealth to the rest of the market in order to grow. There's also luxury goods, status signaling, and fraud to part the wealthy from their wealth. In particular, I don't buy that in a free market, there would be parties like say, Berkshire Hathaway that could consistently outperform the market for decades in a row.
Even worse, is that the wealth isn't worth what is claimed. I don't buy, for example, that many forms of wealth are all that valuable as their stated value would imply. Just because Trump says he's a billionaire doesn't mean he'd be one, if he had to sell everything he owned for cash. I think with a more sane valuation/accounting system, a lot of the wealth disparity would vanish. Rich people with competent inesting skills will remain vastly wealthier than the guy who can't hold down a job ever, but much of the alleged increase in wealth disparity would vanish.
Meanwhile, it turns out that the government which can redistribute wealth from rich to poor can also redistribute wealth from poor to rich with greater zeal (the kickbacks are more profitable).
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 20 2018, @11:24PM (3 children)
All your rebuttals, obvious or not, hinge on humans being the very angels you insist they are not in the first place.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 21 2018, @12:53AM (2 children)
And your rebuttal begs the question.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 21 2018, @01:04AM (1 child)
No it bloody well does not. We have over a century of data to prove it. Hallow, look, I get it. Okay? I *get* it: you're like this because you've never been on the other side of it. I truly hope you end up homeless, broke, and hungry; we'll see how long this bootlicking bullshit of yours lasts.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 21 2018, @02:53AM
Then you shouldn't have to strain to prove your point.
Why would that happen? Is it that karma thing again? Funny how this karma only takes you down and never brings you up.
You know, I agree I am fortunate. I live in a part of the world where having a home is a pretty reliable thing. Why is it wrong for me to want others to have this? To not have to worry about such things? Well, you need something like capitalism to make that happen. And capitalism happens to have a very impressive track record.
We have the power to make our lives vastly better. Let's use it.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday December 17 2018, @01:48AM (1 child)
Of course it is. Capitalism at its heart is using capital to create more capital. Buying government to create rules that benefit the capitalist and allows the capitalist to acquire more capital is capitalism at its finest. Capitalism by its nature rewards the most efficient and buying laws to advance is more efficient then innovating.
Perhaps you're confusing the free market with capitalism?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 20 2018, @08:33AM
Capitalism at its heart is private ownership of capital.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:36AM (6 children)
The entire history of the world begs to differ.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:32AM
I'm sure somebody said something similar prior to the bourgeois revolutions such as the one in North America in the late 18th century. I think the loyalists to Britain were called Tories.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @09:25PM (4 children)
It sure is fun watching you get schooled by people with actual real educations.
"It experiences decay into fascism and neocolonial military aggression."
That is where we are currently at, we've finished most of our neocolonial aggression except for the Middle East. The US is objectively quite fascist but we maintain the veneer of democracy for now.
Git smarter son!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 14 2018, @12:39PM (2 children)
There's just no talking to some people. If you're that self-delusional, you're not going to be convinced by logic and reason.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14 2018, @07:12PM
lolololol
You know you could make more money running an IMAX theater with that projection right?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 21 2018, @01:05AM
"Disagrees with Uzzard" != delusional. You're such a whiny little bitch. And you're wrong, too, which is where your real sin lies...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 21 2018, @02:56AM
we've finished most of our neocolonial aggression except for the Middle East
So apparently we're already a good portion around the bend on this matter with greatly reduced neocolonial aggression. So maybe we ought to continue to reduce that rather than make things worse, hmmm?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 21 2018, @02:34AM
There's a certain sort of person who just says shit. How did we ever get to a relatively uncorrupt system in the first place, if such corruption is the "logical progression" (where is your "logic" BTW)?
What's missing here is that various governments in the US handle a far larger portion of the economy than they did when corruption wasn't such a big deal. It's this enormous captive flow of tax money that has resulted in the present state of corruption.
Notice that capitalism already provides the necessary infrastructure for these other systems to exist. But here, you imply that these other systems aren't competitive with capitalism. That's a huge warning sign. If you can only win by knee-capping the opposition, then just maybe you shouldn't be winning.
Why is a "stable system" supposed to be valuable? You're doing it wrong. A stable system is a fragile system. The world isn't staying put for us in terms of disasters, those mean, ole capitalists, technology development, and other competing cultures and beliefs, therefore any systems that ignore this reality are going to fail hard precisely when they're most needed - in times of great change when the society is under great stress. Given that an AC starts blathering about "bourgeois revolutions" (which has long been a feature of these wish fulfillment fantasies in the past), it's not clear you and your ilk actually want a stable system anyway.
For example, a common place where stability is advocated is in stock markets and the like. A couple years back there was a lot of hate here for high frequency trading (HFT). I'm sure if people could roust themselves, they would be back at it. But the whole thing lost gas because it turns out that HFT is not a big deal, contrary to the narrative. There has been no major disruptions of our world from the practice and all the loony proposals (that would have the side effect of crippling the value of these markets) turned out unnecessary. In the meantime we now have markets that can respond to changing conditions in milliseconds. How cool is that?! With instability comes the ability to quickly respond to change.
Finally, why are these alternatives supposed to be more immune to corruption? It hasn't worked that way in practice. Labor unions in particular are a notorious hive of corruption and I can think of several examples from completely different backgrounds to show that (for example, the union ties to organized crime in the US, the servile labor unions of Japan which are merely extensions of the corporate bodies, or the labor unions of North Korea which are tools of the state and yet another way to control everyone).