Political breakups of friendships, relationships, and family ties

[billvon]

The current "Progressive movement" tends to be well-meaning but they don't seem to ask "what could go wrong" or "is this narrative actually a problem?" In other words, the problem is lack of critical thinking before forming their solutions.

Oh I think there's plenty of critical thinking coming out of the various progressive think tanks. But I also agree that they often get it wrong, even after thinking about it for some time.

A free market system is about as efficient as you can get. Competition drives prices toward zero and profit drives competition to be efficient. You can't do more than that.

In terms of pure profit - agreed. But an unregulated free market system gets you Donora, and slavery, and the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, and Love Canal, and the Cuyahoga river. And these are bad enough that we want to avoid them, even if they reduce the overall profit of a system.

Thus a balance between a completely free market and a regulated market is critical. Nowadays progressives are more on the side of regulation (hasn't always been true) and conservatives are more for deregulation. Both sides provide that balance.

The fundamental global problem is that people misunderstand how systems work. When they demand more than a system can produce, or demand incompatible outcomes, they unintentionally damage their own goals.

It everyone realized this, there would be little to no debt and fewer disagreements and everyone would be better off.

Debt is often used within a capitalist system to work for individuals and companies. Mortgages get people into houses, and for most people, end up giving them their most valuable investment. Leverage lets investors make more money. This isn't a "misunderstanding of how systems work" - it is understanding them and using them to one's advantage.

My arguments are about the economic system and not the political system. Have an efficient economics system and then have whatever political system the local people want.

Unfortunately, there is often a lot of overlap. Slavery, airline deregulation and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are some examples.

 

[Seattle]

Oh I think there's plenty of critical thinking coming out of the various progressive think tanks. But I also agree that they often get it wrong, even after thinking about it for some time.



In terms of pure profit - agreed. But an unregulated free market system gets you Donora, and slavery, and the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, and Love Canal, and the Cuyahoga river. And these are bad enough that we want to avoid them, even if they reduce the overall profit of a system.

Thus a balance between a completely free market and a regulated market is critical. Nowadays progressives are more on the side of regulation (hasn't always been true) and conservatives are more for deregulation. Both sides provide that balance.



Debt is often used within a capitalist system to work for individuals and companies. Mortgages get people into houses, and for most people, end up giving them their most valuable investment. Leverage lets investors make more money. This isn't a "misunderstanding of how systems work" - it is understanding them and using them to one's advantage.



Unfortunately, there is often a lot of overlap. Slavery, airline deregulation and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are some examples.

I obviously have a problem with slavery, I don't have a problem with airline deregulation.
Regarding debt, I'm not referring to the use of any debt. I'm referring to 100% of GDP levels of debt. It's not helpful to anyone, rich or poor.

I'm also not for no regulation. A healthy economy doesn't mean profit at any cost. Absolutes don't exit with any reasonable discussion. That's more or less implied.

 

[James R]

A free market system is about as efficient as you can get. Competition drives prices toward zero and profit drives competition to be efficient. You can't do more than that.

You're assuming that there's always competition in your free market.

In reality, the way free markets tend to work is that eventually you get one company that has a monopoly on sales of widget X and the company is so big that no new company can effectively challenge its market dominance. The monopolist can always buy out the new challenger or, at worst, wear a temporary loss in order to cut prices to the point where the startup is driven out of business.

I don't know what you mean by "efficient". Efficient for whom? Efficient for what?

If you want wealth equality you don't get innovation, productivity, etc.

Why not?

You need the incentives.

Is monetary wealth the only incentive you can think of that might motivate somebody to innovate or produce something? Sounds like a lack of imagination to me.

If you want more wealth overall, it's going to be unequal.

Why? What do you mean by "wealth", anyway?

The fundamental global problem is that people misunderstand how systems work. When they demand more than a system can produce, or demand incompatible outcomes, they unintentionally damage their own goals.

You're saying that the fundamental global problem is that people are stupid. Interesting perspective.

If an economy is more efficient, there is more money. The people can decide what to do with that money, have a welfare state or not, free healthcare, whatever but it comes with a cost. Just understand the costs rationally.

Are you suggesting that the accumulation of money is a good in its own right? Why?

My arguments are about the economic system and not the political system. Have an efficient economics system and then have whatever political system the local people want.

Are you aware that capitalism is not the only possible economic system?

 

[Pinball1970]

n reality, the way free markets tend to work is that eventually you get one company that has a monopoly on sales of widget X and the company is so big that no new company can effectively challenge its market dominance

You are bringing out the capitalist in me.
That certainly happened in my industry but I am not sure that applies across the board. Not everyone wants the same tech or price point and not every supplier/ company can provide it.
Look at car manufacturers or supermarkets in the UK? The student who is just concerned with price goes to Aldi but the family can't shop at Aldi because they need crap for the kids, so shop at Tesco.
The affluent couple go to Sainsbury's because want "something different" and well old codgers go to M&S.
Sainsbury's bought Argos which was a shocker and BHS, HOF, Debenhams folded or were bought out, but all these niches exist and it is pretty much impossible to imagine one superstore, look what happened to Tesco in the states?
If price points do not do it then culture does.
In my Industry (Dyes & Chems) we all fought each other for market share till the industry moved overseas, so we had nothing left to fight over.
The companies went from about 7 or 8 to one but as I said that was not one company beating everyone else down, the changing market did.

 

[exchemist]

You are bringing out the capitalist in me.
That certainly happened in my industry but I am not sure that applies across the board. Not everyone wants the same tech or price point and not every supplier/ company can provide it.
Look at car manufacturers or supermarkets in the UK? The student who is just concerned with price goes to Aldi but the family can't shop at Aldi because they need crap for the kids, so shop at Tesco.
The affluent couple go to Sainsbury's because want "something different" and well old codgers go to M&S.
Sainsbury's bought Argos which was a shocker and BHS, HOF, Debenhams folded or were bought out, but all these niches exist and it is pretty much impossible to imagine one superstore, look what happened to Tesco in the states?
If price points do not do it then culture does.
In my Industry (Dyes & Chems) we all fought each other for market share till the industry moved overseas, so we had nothing left to fight over.
The companies went from about 7 or 8 to one but as I said that was not one company beating everyone else down, the changing market did.

That works if the customers have sufficient market power. But if not you get situations like the US healthcare system.

 

[parmalee]

Is monetary wealth the only incentive you can think of that might motivate somebody to innovate or produce something? Sounds like a lack of imagination to me.

Yeah, the idea that "greed incentivizes innovation" (as it was framed elsewhere) is rather silly. Capitalism stifles innovation and imagination by always prioritizing that which has the most profit potential: Why make an actually good movie, for instance, when you can just make a mediocre piece of crap which neatly ties in with merchandising, has potential for franchising, etc.?

No one denies that capital may be necessary for R+D, etc., but those motivated primarily by profit potential tend not to be the best and the brightest, nor the most imaginative and innovative.

 

[billvon]

Yeah, the idea that "greed incentivizes innovation" (as it was framed elsewhere) is rather silly. Capitalism stifles innovation and imagination by always prioritizing that which has the most profit potential: Why make an actually good movie, for instance, when you can just make a mediocre piece of crap which neatly ties in with merchandising, has potential for franchising, etc.?

Indeed, under capitalism, the crappy movie is considered superior since it makes more profit.

Another drawback of capitalism is that it sets investment horizons of about ten years. Beyond that, you will not see investment. So you need to have ways of funding longer term projects. Think cancer cures, spacecraft engines and solar power technology.

 

[billvon]

I obviously have a problem with slavery, I don't have a problem with airline deregulation.

I agree. Thus the need for enough regulation to prevent things like slavery - even if it interferes with the capitalist dictate of maximizing profit.

Regarding debt, I'm not referring to the use of any debt.

OK. I will agree that excessive debt is generally bad.

 

[parmalee]

Indeed, under capitalism, the crappy movie is considered superior since it makes more profit.

Another drawback of capitalism is that it sets investment horizons of about ten years. Beyond that, you will not see investment. So you need to have ways of funding longer term projects. Think cancer cures, spacecraft engines and solar power technology.

I'm presently re-reading Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism, which seems even more relevant now than it was when it was first published in 2009. Fisher (RIP) expands upon Fredric Jameson's and Slavoj Zizek's notions that we have reached a stage in late capitalism wherein we can no longer even conceive alternate economic systems, and with the recent reemergence of overt fascism and blatant imperialist endeavors, the inherent myopia of capitalist thinking is glaringly apparent.

A few weeks back I saw a clip of Marco Rubio--yes, Marco Rubio--from several years back extolling the virtues of USAID--specifically, he was remarking upon bonus side-effects to providing aid to desperate populations as opposed to, say, bombing them or fucking them over in some way, wherein we make friends/allies as opposed to producing future terrorists, climate or crisis refugees, etc. With the exploits of our present administration, it's clear that we're not even thinking a few weeks or months ahead, let alone ten years.

 

[Seattle]

You're assuming that there's always competition in your free market.

In reality, the way free markets tend to work is that eventually you get one company that has a monopoly on sales of widget X and the company is so big that no new company can effectively challenge its market dominance. The monopolist can always buy out the new challenger or, at worst, wear a temporary loss in order to cut prices to the point where the startup is driven out of business.

By definition, "free" means not controlled.

You get monopolies if there is no regulating. Capitalism doesn't imply no regulations, anarchy does, communism implies centralized control.

We have natural monopolies (or near monopolies) like Windows or in many places Amazon. These are simply good ideas, as long as they are not abused, they just need regulating.

There are regulated monopolies, such as utilities.

There are illegal monopolies due to corrections, force, whatever. The law deals with those.

I don't know what you mean by "efficient". Efficient for whom? Efficient for what?

Meaning get the most output out of the system. You get the most wealth out and then you can keep it, redistribute it, tax it, whatever the political system decides.

Why not?

Is monetary wealth the only incentive you can think of that might motivate somebody to innovate or produce something? Sounds like a lack of imagination to me.

There are a lot of incentives but money seems to be the most scalable. Passion projects aren't as scalable as money.

Why? What do you mean by "wealth", anyway?

Productive capacity. Money is just what is used to buy the things wealth produces.

You're saying that the fundamental global problem is that people are stupid. Interesting perspective.

That's an interesting interpretation. Since IQ is distributed in a normal distribution most people aren't stupid, by definition. Many people are ignorant in certain subject matters. Many people also aren't critical thinkers, are emotional, like to signal to their tribe etc.

That is generally demonstrated by a Pareto Distribution and that's anything but equal.

Are you suggesting that the accumulation of money is a good in its own right? Why?

Money isn't the goal. Productivity is the goal and money is how we measure. On an individual level it's also about control and choice. You can control money and not let it control you. That way you have less stress and more options.

Are you aware that capitalism is not the only possible economic system?

Yes, I'm aware of that. Are you aware that it's the only one that scales? Without price signals you have no real-time information, no coordination, shortages, stagnation. History bears that out.
Capitalism isn't perfect. It's just the only one that's scalable enough to work well.

 

[Seattle]

I agree. Thus the need for enough regulation to prevent things like slavery - even if it interferes with the capitalist dictate of maximizing profit.

Of course. It's regulated and it isn't the political system.

OK. I will agree that excessive debt is generally bad.

 

[Roosters for ever]

Capitalism isn't perfect. It's just the only one that's scalable enough to work well.

You think so?
The Nordic countries are considered to have the world's most stable and transparent political systems. They frequently top global rankings for democracy, low corruption, and quality of life. There democracy is a robust, universal welfare state, with high taxation, and a free-market economy.
There generally "cradle-to-grave" social safety net, with high taxes, and a tripartite, corporatist system where unions and employers negotiate wages and policies with government mediation, seems to work well.

Most sensible, reasonable people would not mind a "high tax regime" if from that tax, genuine empathetic care for all citizens is the goal.

 

[Seattle]

You think so?
The Nordic countries are considered to have the world's most stable and transparent political systems. They frequently top global rankings for democracy, low corruption, and quality of life. There democracy is a robust, universal welfare state, with high taxation, and a free-market economy.
There generally "cradle-to-grave" social safety net, with high taxes, and a tripartite, corporatist system where unions and employers negotiate wages and policies with government mediation, seems to work well.

Most sensible, reasonable people would not mind a "high tax regime" if from that tax, genuine empathetic care for all citizens is the goal.

Those countries are capitalist. Apparently, you just don't understand capitalism and use that term pejoratively for whatever you don't like.

 

[Roosters for ever]

Those countries are capitalist. Apparently, you just don't understand capitalism and use that term pejoratively for whatever you don't like.

Yet they have a strong robust, high taxation welfare state, including of course health care system, as opposed to the non existent one in the USA. Perhaps your ability to understand is at fault. My criticism of course is of the US capitalism policies.
You see what you hide from is the fact that Nordic countries are considered center-left by world standards, with as I said with strong welfare states, high taxes, and high union density. However, they also have capitalist tendencies such as free-market capitalism, and private investment.
It's called taking the best of both systems.
As others have mentioned, your tiresome views are more pretentiously inclined to protect your dear old USA and Trump.

 

[billvon]

Of course. It's regulated and it isn't the political system.

"No slavery" not only came from "the political system" - that politicial decision resulted in a civil war that radically changed US politics forever.

In the US, the economy is regulated by laws created by our political system.

 

[Seattle]

Yet they have a strong robust, high taxation welfare state, including of course health care system, as opposed to the non existent one in the USA. Perhaps your ability to understand is at fault. My criticism of course is of the US capitalism policies.
You see what you hide from is the fact that Nordic countries are considered center-left by world standards, with as I said with strong welfare states, high taxes, and high union density. However, they also have capitalist tendencies such as free-market capitalism, and private investment.
It's called taking the best of both systems.
As others have mentioned, your tiresome views are more pretentiously inclined to protect your dear old USA and Trump.

You are the only one who keeps bring up Trump and misinformation regarding capitalism. "non-existent"" health care in the US just reflects your bias. Maybe just stop talking when you have nothing to say?

 

[Seattle]

"No slavery" not only came from "the political system" - that politicial decision resulted in a civil war that radically changed US politics forever.

In the US, the economy is regulated by laws created by our political system.

All obvious points but no one has argued otherwise.

 

[Roosters for ever]

Apparently, you just don't understand capitalism and use that term pejoratively for whatever you don't like.

Apparently, once again, what you claim I say is invalid. (This is the third, maybe fourth time?)
Perhaps your problem besides being so bloody pretentious, is that you are ignoring the possibilities of democratic countries like Australia, also using the Capitalist system in part, as do the Nordic countries that I have shown you. You know, using the best of both systems.
My criticism, along with the majority of the world's criticism, is of the USA under the dictator Trump, and his authoritarian-style, neo-isolationist, challenging long-standing alliances and engaging directly with adversaries. Couple that with the lies, dishonesty, and criminal charges he has against his person, and it becomes obvious that mine, and the world's disapproval, criticism, and disrespect, of Trump is warranted and even appropriate.
You, are obviously trying to protect and deny that criticism.

 

[Roosters for ever]

You are the only one who keeps bring up Trump and misinformation regarding capitalism. "non-existent"" health care in the US just reflects your bias. Maybe just stop talking when you have nothing to say?

No bias, just fact. Ask many USA citizens who have had the misfortune to fall seriously ill and in some cases, needing to sell their homes to compensate.

 

[Seattle]

Apparently, once again, what you claim I say is invalid. (This is the third, maybe fourth time?)
Perhaps your problem besides being so bloody pretentious, is that you are ignoring the possibilities of democratic countries like Australia, also using the Capitalist system in part, as do the Nordic countries that I have shown you. You know, using the best of both systems.
My criticism, along with the majority of the world's criticism, is of the USA under the dictator Trump, and his authoritarian-style, neo-isolationist, challenging long-standing alliances and engaging directly with adversaries. Couple that with the lies, dishonesty, and criminal charges he has against his person, and it becomes obvious that mine, and the world's disapproval, criticism, and disrespect, of Trump is warranted and even appropriate.
You, are obviously trying to protect and deny that criticism.

No, I'm not. You are the only one ranting about Trump, regardless of the subject. I could care less about Trump.