Post-Capitalism: Rise of the Collaborative Commons(medium.com)
medium.com
Post-Capitalism: Rise of the Collaborative Commons
https://medium.com/@cjdew/post-capitalism-rise-of-the-collaborative-commons-62b0160a7048
8 comments
"If rent-seeking accounts for an increasing fraction of economic activity (a big IF)"
Is this really a big IF? Software revenue is technically rent (since the cost of production is 0), and that's definitely growing as a fraction of economic activity.
Is this really a big IF? Software revenue is technically rent (since the cost of production is 0), and that's definitely growing as a fraction of economic activity.
In what world is the cost of software production zero?
You are aware software developers are paid, you know, money for services, right?
To be honest, your argument, here, is exactly the trouble economists have trying to understand economic rent. Rent is to economists what pornography is to a supreme court justice: they know it when they see it.
There simply is no concrete theory to define rent, and so it's extremely difficult to provide any kind of proof of increased rent seeking in modern economies without relying on personal judgment, and therefore bringing to bear personal bias.
Which is, of course, why you think software is rent while someone else might not: it's in the eye of the beholder.
You are aware software developers are paid, you know, money for services, right?
To be honest, your argument, here, is exactly the trouble economists have trying to understand economic rent. Rent is to economists what pornography is to a supreme court justice: they know it when they see it.
There simply is no concrete theory to define rent, and so it's extremely difficult to provide any kind of proof of increased rent seeking in modern economies without relying on personal judgment, and therefore bringing to bear personal bias.
Which is, of course, why you think software is rent while someone else might not: it's in the eye of the beholder.
> Is this really a big IF? Software revenue is technically rent (since the cost of production is 0), and that's definitely growing as a fraction of economic activity.
The cost of production [software engineers] is not 0.
The labor of maintaining software products [sysadmins] on the internet to perform the distribution is not 0
The cost of distribution [bandwidth] requires extensive infrastructure that the owners charge for. The power, hardware, etc. for the machine is non-0 as well.
> rent-seeking is expending resources on political activity to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating wealth.
That is the definition I'm used to.
So I'm not sure if you can really classify that as a "rent".
The cost of production [software engineers] is not 0.
The labor of maintaining software products [sysadmins] on the internet to perform the distribution is not 0
The cost of distribution [bandwidth] requires extensive infrastructure that the owners charge for. The power, hardware, etc. for the machine is non-0 as well.
> rent-seeking is expending resources on political activity to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating wealth.
That is the definition I'm used to.
So I'm not sure if you can really classify that as a "rent".
I tend to agree, but I've been waffling between sides and it was tangential to the argument I was interested in, so I hedged.
Actually, it should be rent seeking + costs of competition. Some things are marginally important not because they serve a consumer need but because they still provide an advantage in the eternal tug-of-war. Advertising is the typical example. A DIY economy would save on some of those costs too.
Actually, it should be rent seeking + costs of competition. Some things are marginally important not because they serve a consumer need but because they still provide an advantage in the eternal tug-of-war. Advertising is the typical example. A DIY economy would save on some of those costs too.
Software engineers are one of the highest paid professions. How does software production cost 0? Do you mean distribution?
Maybe these communes can be run like social networks, so you don't even have to worry about how people smell, as long as they contribute and don't screw up big time.
They could even compete against one another to offer better "benefits" for less work. It's a much sunnier proposition than forcing the billions of people who need to eat to compete for an ever-shrinking pool of un-automatable work, wouldn't you say?
Food production and food science are advancing and it will only accelerate. Currently, technologies like aquaponics allow for high volumes of nutrient rich foods to be produced with much less water and fuel inputs. In the future we may be able to print food. At that point, you don't really need to be employed to survive. An unlimited supply of food for a person will be as cheap as a stocking stuffer.
I question the post-scarcity assumption. If you described how people live now to someone who lived 5000 years ago they would think we live in a post-scarcity world now. We have such abundance now, yet we still have "poor" people and humans still want to consume and control more. It's human nature to want more. Maybe in the far future people will want their own planets and anyone who doesn't have one will be considered living in "poverty". I don't think it will ever end unless the biology of human nature and the animal brain changes.
It's human nature to want more.
> hunter-gatherers are/were satisfied with what they could get.
If that were true, hunter-gatherers wouldn't have developed agriculture and/or husbandry as ways to get more, leading to civilization, leading to a state where, for the vast majority of the planet, knowing about hunter-gatherer society was something that came through anthropological studies rather than life experience.
If that were true, hunter-gatherers wouldn't have developed agriculture and/or husbandry as ways to get more, leading to civilization, leading to a state where, for the vast majority of the planet, knowing about hunter-gatherer society was something that came through anthropological studies rather than life experience.
Same irrational presumption as the other guy, see my response.
I would also like to point out that studies show early agricultural societies had notably worse health than hunter-gatherers. This would make it unlikely that a successful, happy tribe would adopt agriculture just so they could "get more".
I would also like to point out that studies show early agricultural societies had notably worse health than hunter-gatherers. This would make it unlikely that a successful, happy tribe would adopt agriculture just so they could "get more".
> I would also like to point out that studies show early agricultural societies had notably worse health than hunter-gatherers. This would make it unlikely that a successful, happy tribe would adopt agriculture just so they could "get more".
So did early industrial societies compared to previous societies. In both cases, however, there were individuals who benefited immensely and got more; its the individual desire to get more, that is relevant in this discussion.
(Anyhow, the negative health impacts of the change would not have been obvious in advance, so would not have played a role in whether the motive to get more would have advocated in favor of driving adoption of the techniques.)
So did early industrial societies compared to previous societies. In both cases, however, there were individuals who benefited immensely and got more; its the individual desire to get more, that is relevant in this discussion.
(Anyhow, the negative health impacts of the change would not have been obvious in advance, so would not have played a role in whether the motive to get more would have advocated in favor of driving adoption of the techniques.)
We all came from hunter-gatherers. If hunter-gatherers didn't want more then logically they would have stayed hunter-gatherers. So, why do we have the current civilization? I suspect because being cold, not having medicine, refrigeration, running water, plumbing, transportation, etc sucks.
I'm not making any assumptions. I'm just pointing out that people had the opportunity to remain hunter-gathers and they didn't. They were human thus the evidence of human nature doesn't support your argument.
I don't see a whole lot of people wanted to go from their current lives to hunter-gathers.
You're also talking to someone who has a large library of homesteading books and is interested in permaculture and sustainable living. I love technology and would never want to sacrifice my standard of living.
I don't see a whole lot of people wanted to go from their current lives to hunter-gathers.
You're also talking to someone who has a large library of homesteading books and is interested in permaculture and sustainable living. I love technology and would never want to sacrifice my standard of living.
Just because someone changed their means of obtaining food doesn't mean they did it out of an unquenchable thirst for more. It's that simple.
You're making the presumption that people adopted agriculture because it "gave them more", when there could be a vast number of other reasons for adopting it.
More than likely, the first tribes that started becoming farmers did so because the area they lived in become bad for obtaining food (whether due to the extinction of big game events, or moving to a naturally inhospitable area). Because of the nature of agriculture, this gave them a lot more power, and they started conquering tribes.
When your choice is between "get slaughtered by the farmers", "have your food supply diminished by the farmers", or "become a farmer", guess which choice you pick?
This is all speculation, though. I'm merely trying to get you to realize that there are many reasons for technological progress (esp. the adoption of agriculture), the least of all being that "it's human nature to want more".
More than likely, the first tribes that started becoming farmers did so because the area they lived in become bad for obtaining food (whether due to the extinction of big game events, or moving to a naturally inhospitable area). Because of the nature of agriculture, this gave them a lot more power, and they started conquering tribes.
When your choice is between "get slaughtered by the farmers", "have your food supply diminished by the farmers", or "become a farmer", guess which choice you pick?
This is all speculation, though. I'm merely trying to get you to realize that there are many reasons for technological progress (esp. the adoption of agriculture), the least of all being that "it's human nature to want more".
> More than likely, the first tribes that started becoming farmers did so because the area they lived in become bad for obtaining food
We know where early agriculture and husbandry developed, and it wasn't in "naturally inhospitable areas" in either case. Even if so, making an area with poor food into one with better food is quite obviously an example of acting based on a desire to get more than you can as a hunter-gatherer, so accepting your own argument here disproves your claim that hunter-gatherers were content with what they got and didn't seek to get more.
> I'm merely trying to get you to realize that there are many reasons for technological progress (esp. the adoption of agriculture), the least of all being that "it's human nature to want more".
But your own defense of that position has been to present an argument that boils down to the motivation being exactly to get more.
We know where early agriculture and husbandry developed, and it wasn't in "naturally inhospitable areas" in either case. Even if so, making an area with poor food into one with better food is quite obviously an example of acting based on a desire to get more than you can as a hunter-gatherer, so accepting your own argument here disproves your claim that hunter-gatherers were content with what they got and didn't seek to get more.
> I'm merely trying to get you to realize that there are many reasons for technological progress (esp. the adoption of agriculture), the least of all being that "it's human nature to want more".
But your own defense of that position has been to present an argument that boils down to the motivation being exactly to get more.
They had no game and thus no food. So they switched to agriculture because they wanted food.
(food > no food) == more
(food > no food) == more
"Wanting enough food" is not the same as "always wanting more".
This post is basically a copy/paste of the latest book of Rifkin:
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Marginal-Cost-Society-Collaborati...
Book, which is by the way very good.
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Marginal-Cost-Society-Collaborati...
Book, which is by the way very good.
The premise of this piece is that we are close to satisfying the demands of society and that we'll be living in a post-scarcity world. But everyone I know wants to vacation on the moon (i.e. we have an unlimited capacity to consume new things). At current prices, just my 30 closest friends going to the moon for two week every year is about the same level of consumption as the total global economy.
We only live in a post scarcity world if you believe that humans have a limited capacity for consumption. Everyone who has bet on that thus far in history has been proved wrong, so capitalism or no, we need to deal with scarcity.
We only live in a post scarcity world if you believe that humans have a limited capacity for consumption. Everyone who has bet on that thus far in history has been proved wrong, so capitalism or no, we need to deal with scarcity.
We only live in a post scarcity world if you believe that humans have a limited capacity for consumption.
I think that depends on how you define "satisfying the demands of society".
If that means everyone is essentially comfortable (ie, all essential needs are met, including things like basic recreation... I consider "play" a basic human need), I'd say that qualifies.
Will there always be people with ambitions that outstrip their resources? I'd certainly think so. But there's an awful lot of people out there who don't share your ambitions for space travel.
I think that depends on how you define "satisfying the demands of society".
If that means everyone is essentially comfortable (ie, all essential needs are met, including things like basic recreation... I consider "play" a basic human need), I'd say that qualifies.
Will there always be people with ambitions that outstrip their resources? I'd certainly think so. But there's an awful lot of people out there who don't share your ambitions for space travel.
> If that means everyone is essentially comfortable (ie, all essential needs are met, including things like basic recreation... I consider "play" a basic human need), I'd say that qualifies.
There's considerable evidence that "comfort" is driven largely by perceived relative economic conditions, not absolute conditions, so as long as most people aren't doing above average compared to what they perceive around them, we won't achieve that.
> Will there always be people with ambitions that outstrip their resources? I'd certainly think so. But there's an awful lot of people out there who don't share your ambitions for space travel.
Even if only some people had unmet needs, the society would still fail to be post-scarcity, since post-scarcity means rationing is not necessary because there isn't contention for resources. Even if there are only a few people who will always want more (though there is no reason grounded in the reality of actual human behavior to believe that there will only be a few, no matter the objective conditions), they will eventually place other people into a deprived position without a social system for allocating scarce resources, hence, no post-scarcity.
There's considerable evidence that "comfort" is driven largely by perceived relative economic conditions, not absolute conditions, so as long as most people aren't doing above average compared to what they perceive around them, we won't achieve that.
> Will there always be people with ambitions that outstrip their resources? I'd certainly think so. But there's an awful lot of people out there who don't share your ambitions for space travel.
Even if only some people had unmet needs, the society would still fail to be post-scarcity, since post-scarcity means rationing is not necessary because there isn't contention for resources. Even if there are only a few people who will always want more (though there is no reason grounded in the reality of actual human behavior to believe that there will only be a few, no matter the objective conditions), they will eventually place other people into a deprived position without a social system for allocating scarce resources, hence, no post-scarcity.
I just dont see it happening, that those with great capital resources would allow themselves to be undermined in such a way. The innate human power structure is such that those with the most resources make the rules. (Feudal, mercantile, and democratic)
I would suggest reading the second half of "road to wigan pier" which will both provide history and an excellent critique of this style of thinking.
I would suggest reading the second half of "road to wigan pier" which will both provide history and an excellent critique of this style of thinking.
I have a feeling that anything other than "free market capitalism" is going to be shunned around these parts. :)
Great read. And the predecessor as well. https://medium.com/@cjdew/the-obsolescence-of-capitalism-340...
Great read. And the predecessor as well. https://medium.com/@cjdew/the-obsolescence-of-capitalism-340...
In all my travels (on the interwebs) I have seen two articles arguing against capitalism that were worth reading. Easily twenty times that failed.
So yeah, my bayesian filter is going to shun anything but free market capitalism. Especially because for many it has become a political stop-word, even though we sit in the greatest luxury in history. For me, any article that wants to replace capitalism first has to explain how it rolf-stomp every system that came before it, and how their new proposed system will augment capitalism.
So yeah, my bayesian filter is going to shun anything but free market capitalism. Especially because for many it has become a political stop-word, even though we sit in the greatest luxury in history. For me, any article that wants to replace capitalism first has to explain how it rolf-stomp every system that came before it, and how their new proposed system will augment capitalism.
"even though we sit in the greatest luxury in history"
We also sit in the greatest state incarceration of individuals in the history of the world, thanks largely to the privatization of prisons (ie, Capitalist incentives turned onto a societal function where they don't belong)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-unit...
We also sit in the greatest state incarceration of individuals in the history of the world, thanks largely to the privatization of prisons (ie, Capitalist incentives turned onto a societal function where they don't belong)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-unit...
I'm presenting your answers Sunday morning at the Texas Bitcoin Conference. I've been very careful to make sure that I leave the positives of free market capitalism in place while fixing some of the problems like economic rent and r > g.
https://vimeo.com/user17783424/review/122784294/439ab072b5
https://vimeo.com/user17783424/review/122784294/439ab072b5
Yep, in addition, I would like to see an article that effectively answers the arguments in Why Not Capitalism? by Jason Brennan. The book itself is a rebuttal and quite good.
http://smile.amazon.com/Why-Not-Capitalism-Jason-Brennan/dp/...
http://smile.amazon.com/Why-Not-Capitalism-Jason-Brennan/dp/...
FWIW, capitalism isn't the same thing as "free market capitalism." There are plenty of good reasons to favor some forms of regulation (preventing monopolies, collusion, managing externalities like pollution, etc.). We have the wealth we have today due to a regulated capitalist system.
What were the two good ones?
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/
Is one of them. It made a totally convincing argument for why socialism should rofl-stomp capitalism for production efficiency (which is quite something in that capitalism strength is rofl-stomping every other system in production efficiency).
The other I have forgotten, but it basically proved that poor peoples minds worked differently (as a function of their environment) and so they really couldn't pull themselves up.
Is one of them. It made a totally convincing argument for why socialism should rofl-stomp capitalism for production efficiency (which is quite something in that capitalism strength is rofl-stomping every other system in production efficiency).
The other I have forgotten, but it basically proved that poor peoples minds worked differently (as a function of their environment) and so they really couldn't pull themselves up.
>I have a feeling that anything other than "free market capitalism" is going to be shunned around these parts.
As it should. If it weren't for capitalism we would not enjoy any of the abundance we have become accustomed to having in the past century. Capitalism, as limited as it is in the current world, has provided such that royalty of past centuries would envy certain aspects of a poor person's life today (I'm talking first world country poor).
The main problem with this article, and many like it, is it identifies problems existing in today's world, and then completely misattributes them. For example, the problem with food distribution has very little to do with businesses, or individuals, desiring profit. Neither does inequality (if we can even call that a problem) stem from capitalism.
As it should. If it weren't for capitalism we would not enjoy any of the abundance we have become accustomed to having in the past century. Capitalism, as limited as it is in the current world, has provided such that royalty of past centuries would envy certain aspects of a poor person's life today (I'm talking first world country poor).
The main problem with this article, and many like it, is it identifies problems existing in today's world, and then completely misattributes them. For example, the problem with food distribution has very little to do with businesses, or individuals, desiring profit. Neither does inequality (if we can even call that a problem) stem from capitalism.
The problem with America incarcerating a larger percentage of its population than any nation in the history of the world can be directly attributed to the privatization of prisons, and the capitalist incentives they impose.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-unit...
The problem with inequality is that the 20th century middle class was specifically what made America great, by providing a consumer base to buy all the wonderful things people wanted to make. You can only sell so many jeans to the richest one percent.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-unit...
The problem with inequality is that the 20th century middle class was specifically what made America great, by providing a consumer base to buy all the wonderful things people wanted to make. You can only sell so many jeans to the richest one percent.
"privatization of prisons, and the capitalist incentives they impose."
No, it isn't the "capitalist" incentives, it the the damn foolish politicians setting incentives that are not generating a proper outcome. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
You can bet if the private prisons were paid on capacity instead of occupancy and incentivized a bonus for non-returning prisoners after 5 years, you would get totally different results.
Crappy incentives will destroy any economic system by generating bad actors. Look at the actions of the prison guards union in California and see the same behavior from a public perspective.
No, it isn't the "capitalist" incentives, it the the damn foolish politicians setting incentives that are not generating a proper outcome. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
You can bet if the private prisons were paid on capacity instead of occupancy and incentivized a bonus for non-returning prisoners after 5 years, you would get totally different results.
Crappy incentives will destroy any economic system by generating bad actors. Look at the actions of the prison guards union in California and see the same behavior from a public perspective.
What makes you think that "privatization of prisons" has anything to do with capitalism? Is it because it is "private" and private must = capitalism? It sounds like you don't know what capitalism is.
You don't think the war on drugs has anything to do with the higher incarceration rates?
You don't think the war on drugs has anything to do with the higher incarceration rates?
And you can only sell so many yachts to the 99%. Does that mean the economy is doomed?
There are other things rich people buy besides jeans. Buying yachts requires much more fabric and seamstresses than jeans do. It also employs more people and a greater diversity of people than making jeans do; lumber workers, software engineers, nautical engineers, construction workers, seamstresses, welders, interior designers, architects, plumbers, and the list goes on.
Buying a $30mil yacht results in a much greater economic stimulus than buying a million jeans ever would. There are a greater diversity of jobs required for luxury goods. This means people can work on what they want rather than all doing low skilled labor.
There are other things rich people buy besides jeans. Buying yachts requires much more fabric and seamstresses than jeans do. It also employs more people and a greater diversity of people than making jeans do; lumber workers, software engineers, nautical engineers, construction workers, seamstresses, welders, interior designers, architects, plumbers, and the list goes on.
Buying a $30mil yacht results in a much greater economic stimulus than buying a million jeans ever would. There are a greater diversity of jobs required for luxury goods. This means people can work on what they want rather than all doing low skilled labor.
Capitalism is more strongly correlated with freedom than inequality and prison. Think about what it was like before capitalism was around. Monarchs dictated everything. You did what you were assigned to do, which was pretty much what your parents and grandparents did. Capitalism allowed people to take risks and change their professions. The requirement to succeed was to provide something of value to others that they would buy from you. Those that provided more value were rewarded more. Sometimes capitalism can create incentives for a zero-sum game, but the vast majority of transactions are win/win with synergistic value creation.
(a) How is it possible to say "if we can even call that a problem" re inequality?
(b) How is it possible to say inequality does not stem from capitalism? Where else could it stem from.
I am not advocating the abolition of capitalism, I advocate a mixed economy.
(b) How is it possible to say inequality does not stem from capitalism? Where else could it stem from.
I am not advocating the abolition of capitalism, I advocate a mixed economy.
(b) inequality is the natural course of matters, but it's hard to argue that free markets don't even out inequality by allowing people to trade down their comparative advantages for goods that others provide.
There is a disconnect between the colloquial form of capitalism which is conflated with 'free markets' and a generous reading of marx's concept of capitalism: as in "capital -ism", or the idea that accruing capital is a social good in and of itself. Note that capital-ism in the most general sense does include the concept of 'crony capitalism' whereas free-market-ism shuns 'crony capitalism'.
Crony capitalism aside, it is unclear if capitalism necessarily creates (more) inequality, although it does underpin a philosophical motive to drive individuals to extract the most from their competitive advantage, that doesn't mean they will be successful at it.
'Mixed economies', while they sound nice and centrist, I think, tend to be the worst. Ultimately, it creates a vehicle by which political comparative advantage, which is zero-sum, and coercive (if you don't follow the law you can be thrown in jail) to economic advantage, which more easily compounds.
There is a disconnect between the colloquial form of capitalism which is conflated with 'free markets' and a generous reading of marx's concept of capitalism: as in "capital -ism", or the idea that accruing capital is a social good in and of itself. Note that capital-ism in the most general sense does include the concept of 'crony capitalism' whereas free-market-ism shuns 'crony capitalism'.
Crony capitalism aside, it is unclear if capitalism necessarily creates (more) inequality, although it does underpin a philosophical motive to drive individuals to extract the most from their competitive advantage, that doesn't mean they will be successful at it.
'Mixed economies', while they sound nice and centrist, I think, tend to be the worst. Ultimately, it creates a vehicle by which political comparative advantage, which is zero-sum, and coercive (if you don't follow the law you can be thrown in jail) to economic advantage, which more easily compounds.
(a) -
Person A is an upper class CEO living in the U.S. in the 1930s. He has a large mansion, a paid cook and other staff which care for the "menial stuff." It's likely his bank account will never drop below seven digits. Martian A is an explorer who travels the universe in the year 2430. When he's hungry he commands his computer to make him some food. Other of his needs are met with similar ease. Is Person A inequal from Martian A? Yes. Is one of their lifestyle's more desirable than the other? Perhaps, that's for the individual to say. Is it a problem? No.
(b) -
>Where else could it stem from
How about the fascist system of government which partners with businesses to provide them special perks? How about the Federal Reserve which creates new money which becomes first available to connected businesses and in turn they benefit the most? How about any number of regulations, including minimum wage which makes it unprofitable to hire low-skilled workers?
>How is it possible to say inequality does not stem from capitalism?
Prove that it does.
Person A is an upper class CEO living in the U.S. in the 1930s. He has a large mansion, a paid cook and other staff which care for the "menial stuff." It's likely his bank account will never drop below seven digits. Martian A is an explorer who travels the universe in the year 2430. When he's hungry he commands his computer to make him some food. Other of his needs are met with similar ease. Is Person A inequal from Martian A? Yes. Is one of their lifestyle's more desirable than the other? Perhaps, that's for the individual to say. Is it a problem? No.
(b) -
>Where else could it stem from
How about the fascist system of government which partners with businesses to provide them special perks? How about the Federal Reserve which creates new money which becomes first available to connected businesses and in turn they benefit the most? How about any number of regulations, including minimum wage which makes it unprofitable to hire low-skilled workers?
>How is it possible to say inequality does not stem from capitalism?
Prove that it does.
I really liked your point B. I think it is very well put and shines light in real problems, instead of just saying "Damn capitalism!".
I didn't liked your point A. Your comparison doesn't make any sense.
I didn't liked your point A. Your comparison doesn't make any sense.
I gave an example of two individuals who were unequal--"Person A" and "Martian A". As best as I can tell, there is no problem with there being inequality between these two individuals.
Maybe inequality stems from the fact that people aren't equal in their strengths and weaknesses? If you could construct an ideal merit-based system you'd see quit a bit of inequality.
The problem with inequality in modern western "democracies" is not that people are not equal. The problem is that the inequalities are so stark and wide.
Campaigners against inequality (who are xampaigners for economic and social justice by and large) do not campaign to make every one "equal", but to make the spread smaller and the lives of those with the least less bleak.
I live in New Zealand which is a modern industrialised democracy and is quite wealthy. We have large sections of our population that are malnourished, inadequately housed, poorly educated and cut off from main stream society. The proportion of our population suffering so was much less in the years between the depression and the 1980s, during which a conscious effort was made by the state to maintain a high wage full employment economy.
The policies that worked then will not work now, but what we have is not working and is generating large costs and inefficiencies.
So it is irrelevant that "inequality stems from the fact that people aren't equal in their strengths and weaknesses". The conditions of the weakest and the degree to which the strongest can corral the resources is what counts
W
Campaigners against inequality (who are xampaigners for economic and social justice by and large) do not campaign to make every one "equal", but to make the spread smaller and the lives of those with the least less bleak.
I live in New Zealand which is a modern industrialised democracy and is quite wealthy. We have large sections of our population that are malnourished, inadequately housed, poorly educated and cut off from main stream society. The proportion of our population suffering so was much less in the years between the depression and the 1980s, during which a conscious effort was made by the state to maintain a high wage full employment economy.
The policies that worked then will not work now, but what we have is not working and is generating large costs and inefficiencies.
So it is irrelevant that "inequality stems from the fact that people aren't equal in their strengths and weaknesses". The conditions of the weakest and the degree to which the strongest can corral the resources is what counts
W
>The policies that worked then will not work now, but what we have is not working and is generating large costs and inefficiencies.
I see no evidence this is true.
For me economic inequality isn't a problem as long as people are equal under the law.
I see no evidence this is true.
For me economic inequality isn't a problem as long as people are equal under the law.
[deleted]
> As it should. If it weren't for capitalism we would not enjoy any of the abundance we have become accustomed to having in the past century.
That argument can't be directly applied to the future. Just because a system worked in the past, doesn't mean that it will work in a future world with different constraints. Hence why many think that today's capitalism is not a good political model for the envisioned future of mass automation.
And of course we can't hold on to an idea out of reverence and respect, i.e. "be grateful for what it has done for you, you privileged first-world dweller, you".
That argument can't be directly applied to the future. Just because a system worked in the past, doesn't mean that it will work in a future world with different constraints. Hence why many think that today's capitalism is not a good political model for the envisioned future of mass automation.
And of course we can't hold on to an idea out of reverence and respect, i.e. "be grateful for what it has done for you, you privileged first-world dweller, you".
I certainly sympathize with the meat of your arguments, but I take issue with the use of the word "capitalism". That capitalism is being used at all to describe our current system, is a misnomer.
> That capitalism is being used at all to describe our current system, is a misnomer.
Well then I'm confused, since I was just going by what you seemed to refer to. And I assumed that you were talking about a contemporary (now, + recent history) capitalistic system. What kind of capitalism were you talking about? Something that existed before but doesn't anymore?
Well then I'm confused, since I was just going by what you seemed to refer to. And I assumed that you were talking about a contemporary (now, + recent history) capitalistic system. What kind of capitalism were you talking about? Something that existed before but doesn't anymore?
Capitalism - that word again. I don't think it means what you think it means.
PS: Post-capitalism implies capitalism was or is present and unless the author wrote this piece in Hong Kong or Singapore he should not even remotely apply that word any present or past "economic system"
PPS: Much like democracy.
PS: Post-capitalism implies capitalism was or is present and unless the author wrote this piece in Hong Kong or Singapore he should not even remotely apply that word any present or past "economic system"
PPS: Much like democracy.
The term "capitalism" was created to refer to and defined by the early industrial economic system of the more developed countries of Europe in the 19th Century. It is quite odd to claim that it never existed anywhere other than Hong Kong or Singapore.
OK, I see your point :)
Here's what I mean:
Capitalism is (as democracy) not a yes/no thing. Instead, it is one extreme of a scale and every state has a value on that scale and can can be more or less capitalistic (democratic). Less capitalistic in this context means more centrally planned, typically by an actor of the state (government, council for economic planning, ...).
The problem I see in the typical use of the word "capitalism" is that many flaws of the current system are blamed on the "too capitalistic" side while I'm convinced the reason lies on the "too centrally planned side", i.e., we have too little capitalism.
Hence my reaction to the word "post-capitalism" which sounds to me as if someone against torture wrote an article about "post-humanism" as a follow-up to "the obsolescence of human dignity" (where clearly humanism and dignity aren't the problem, rather it is the lack thereof).
So, yes, we had and have capitalism to some extent everywhere (including Soviet Russia) but plain capitalism is very hard to find and even more so in the last 50 years. In fact, even Singapore has a central bank and I bet HK has one, too.
Here's what I mean:
Capitalism is (as democracy) not a yes/no thing. Instead, it is one extreme of a scale and every state has a value on that scale and can can be more or less capitalistic (democratic). Less capitalistic in this context means more centrally planned, typically by an actor of the state (government, council for economic planning, ...).
The problem I see in the typical use of the word "capitalism" is that many flaws of the current system are blamed on the "too capitalistic" side while I'm convinced the reason lies on the "too centrally planned side", i.e., we have too little capitalism.
Hence my reaction to the word "post-capitalism" which sounds to me as if someone against torture wrote an article about "post-humanism" as a follow-up to "the obsolescence of human dignity" (where clearly humanism and dignity aren't the problem, rather it is the lack thereof).
So, yes, we had and have capitalism to some extent everywhere (including Soviet Russia) but plain capitalism is very hard to find and even more so in the last 50 years. In fact, even Singapore has a central bank and I bet HK has one, too.
Sure, even approximately pure capitalism has been dead in the West for more than 50 years (closer, I think, to 80) because capitalism was because of many of the problems it caused for the vast majority of society that were identified by the critics who named the system in the 19th century (though the replacement wasn't generally what those critics advocated though it incorporated some elements of it to form the modern mixed economy).
But, while that has in some cases mitigated or showed the growth rate of the problems that caused poor capitalism to be rejected, it hasn't chef them, and those same problems are often the things that provoke criticism of the current system.
I don't think that the problems that were mitigated by a retreat from pure capitalism will be further mitigated by a return to it.
But, while that has in some cases mitigated or showed the growth rate of the problems that caused poor capitalism to be rejected, it hasn't chef them, and those same problems are often the things that provoke criticism of the current system.
I don't think that the problems that were mitigated by a retreat from pure capitalism will be further mitigated by a return to it.
[deleted]
If rent-seeking accounts for an increasing fraction of economic activity (a big IF, but let's assume it's true for the sake of figuring out consequences) then it will eventually surpass the inefficiencies of small-scale generalist production and we'll break into "communes." Scare quotes because there's no reason they have to be anti-technology, anti-capitalism, anti-trade, anti-government, or any of the other scary associations that follow the word around.
Especially for "unskilled" (or otherwise marginalized) labor, this sort of a model would seem to make sense. Employers would be forced to beat the value proposition of "work x days a month, do whatever you want with the remainder, your ability to secure food and shelter is guaranteed unless you screw up big time."
There's a ton of work to be done before it's a viable alternative. Hell, I bet it's even going to get VC funding someday (better to sell the shovels, right?). Neat stuff, but right now I'll just watch from the sidelines. Robotic farming (GVCS), DIY circuit board / chip manufacture, DIY chemical industry (stock up on popcorn when they get to Haber or Frank-Caro), 3D printing of structures... am I missing anything? Is there a mailing list I should be on (FBI forgive me)?
EDIT: We should talk about the big sticking point, which will be "how would one replace or compensate specialists that haven't been marginalized by capitalism yet and don't contain bunches of 'hippies,' for lack of a better word"? In other words: doctors. This is why I'm on the sidelines for now ;)