[RD] Capitalism, Prosperity and Social equity

[Hygro]

Yeah, but if you think it has intrinsic value on it generates on its own rather than by being a tool or accord, when something bad(or god) happens, you can think of it as the weather. Scream at the sky all you want, blame God, whatever - your neighbor didn't screw you with the drought(though we're revamping the blame game on that one, check in as data develops). Once you recognize money as it stands is nothing more than a policy decision - everything is a screw job and a sweetheart deal. There is only, ultimately, caprice when it comes to winners and losers. I mean, if you're old enough - economic warfare used to just get called "acts of war" and we've been doing those to Iran for a long time now. But somehow, we've built up a definitional wall between economic measures that slowly kill people and the terms for killing people straight up honestly - like with kinetics instead of expulsion or impoverishment from the, say, global medical and medicinal order. We've let them build that wall.

It was great. We had inno’s democratic, well armed society of soldier unionist citizens putting scientists in charge of everything and endorsing civil rights one concentrating push after another.

Then the whole caboodle of economists both the Resistance and the Spies cast out the dinosaurs and signed shared papers and declarations asking to end the gold standard and giving the Fed more control (before the late 60s and 70s the popular view was to use taxation and wage controls to stop inflation, aka Congress). And right as the Democracy delegated to the Technocracy the Oligarchy (corrupt Republic) took back its power only now unconstrained by gold has been 1 for me, 2 for you and 1 and 2 for me, 3 for you and 1, 2 , and 3 for me and so on.

It was a perfect deal. Before, the plutocrats wanted gold for their privilege favoring economy. But had to contend with system shocks big enough to usher in a 30 year era of completely anti-them. Now they could just print themselves ownership and keep the little guy from losing it all and turning on them. 40 years of that.

 

[Hygro]

With a fund, the fund managers control/move around/change the investments under the guidance of the owners or owners rep. The fund managers charge fees for what they do. All the money belongs to the group (Union). Gains and losses accumulate in the fund over time. If done well the fund grows faster than inflation or other possible choices.

Fund manager fees vary greatly. In an index fund they can be as low as .2%. In a billion dollar hedge fund, they might take 25% of the profits. The more money at stake, the greater the opportunity to negotiate a custom deal.

Ah but those dirty owners making 80k a year plus the retirement benefits are dirty capitalists. Workers of the world unite. Hedge fund managers deserve 100% of their gains and while we’re are it they should seize the funds!

 

[Birdjaguar]

How about United States, 1930s? FDR's new deal was done within such conditions.

It shows how ingrained the idea of TINA around the neoliberal Washington Consensus of the 1990s became, that people associate even New Deal era legislation with the Cultural Revolution or the Russian Revolution.

Neolibralism is a confused mess and pretty irrelevant. FDR's New Deal was a result of a multitude of issues active at the time. Labor union clashes with management was part of it, but by no means the only issue. "...that people associate" which people and how do they "associate" the New Deal with either of those?

Now I'll be the one asking for specifics. You think this is a problem, so cite a specific case. Apple is not the best of examples because only one aspect of its business is a big problem. Mostly Apple's business in is not a natural monopoly, just very good at propaganda/advertising/public relations.

Where it gained lock-in over a platform made necessary to others (the apple store and google play were managed towards becoming a monopoly, and became essentially a duopoly), those aspects of its business must be taken off them.
In this specific example, the apple store should be taken from Apple, without any compensation whatever, because you do not what to reward bad behavior. So should google play, and android as it is funded by its fees. These platforms could have been made and profitably marketed as open, collaborative industry efforts, if they hadn't been managed with a views towards building monopolies. The should be made open forcefully, a non-for-profit exclusively for running them. Make it a government agency, a foundation or a business group according to your political preferences.

Interesting. So Apple should not be able to sell its proprietary products in it's own retail stores. How about WalMart? They sell hundreds of WalMart branded products in their stores. Millions of people buy them every day.

There are hundreds of examples of solid brands nurtured and built by original owners into profitable enterprises that employed thousands of people. They did so because they had a vision and plan. So many of those companies failed when the ownership changed and the vision lost. Profit at any cost usually rules and magic lost. Changes in ownership, especially when the company is successful, is risky and easily leads to decline. Talent leaves, old motivations go away.

I don't have a problem with companies making better products and selling them. Apple clearly does that. My issue with Tech companies that they buy up all the smaller tech companies as a growth strategy and to control technology they perceive as competition or as a way to contain other large tech companies. The typical business model for start ups today is to get big enough to attract the attention of a bigger tech company and get bought. Such a strategy is not new, but the fervor and cash available now is pretty staggering.

BTW, Apple stores are a huge boon to local retailing. They have been the new anchors for malls and shopping centers that draw the crowds that spend money at the other stores. Apple stores are like Apple products: quality places that sell great products and serve their customers well. Giving them over to anyone else to own and run will only destroy them. It would be like turning over the management of a Ritz Carlson hotel to the owner of a local Red Roof Inn. What is the point of that?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ah but those dirty owners making 80k a year plus the retirement benefits are dirty capitalists. Workers of the world unite. Hedge fund managers deserve 100% of their gains and while we’re are it they should seize the funds!

Hedge Fund managers exist because rich people don't know what to do with their riches and they will pay well for dubious help. Markets at work.

 

[Birdjaguar]

All those 401k tips articles say watch your fees make sure you're not paying too much. My year summary says I paid about $10 in fees. It seems like kind of a ridiculous thing to be warning about in a top tips article when the type of funds available in a 401k are almost always some sort of index or blended fund with super low fees.

There are lots of funds that charge over 1% so one needs to be careful. Fees come off the top of any earnings so keeping them low is the easiest way to improve your return. What may be obvious to you is not always obvious to everyone.

 

[Traitorfish]

yes, the anti capitalists often have no understanding of how the business world works and when faced with a pretty simple real world problem of how to distribute wealth, they are unwilling to answer. The wealth problem can only be answered at the company decision making level, because that is where the wealth comes from. A "tax the rich" approach is an attempt to change the corporate decision making process, but it only encourages workarounds.

Complaining that anti-capitalists do not understand the business world seems like complaining that Jacobins had no understanding of Versailles court etiquette.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Complaining that anti-capitalists do not understand the business world seems like complaining that Jacobins had no understanding of Versailles court etiquette.

I like your comparison. Capitalism as we know it today is the result of an ongoing history of business practices and evolving law that has favored risk taking and investment. In order to dismantle it in a meaningful way one has to understand how it is put together at the company and transaction level.

BTW, court etiquette as established by Louis XIV had a deliberate purpose even if over the years it became a parody of itself by 1789.

 

[Hygro]

Hedge Fund managers exist because rich people don't know what to do with their riches and they will pay well for dubious help. Markets at work.

I’m assuming with your similar thought experiment you weren’t looking for a “factories are places to mass produce an item”.

Complaining that anti-capitalists do not understand the business world seems like complaining that Jacobins had no understanding of Versailles court etiquette.

It’s not like that at all for reasons too obvious to state.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I’m assuming with your similar thought experiment you weren’t looking for a “factories are places to mass produce an item”.

I don't understand his.

 

[Lexicus]

Neolibralism is a confused mess and pretty irrelevant.

"Pretty irrelevant?" Can you explain what you understand by the term "neoliberalism"??

Apple stores are like Apple products: quality places that sell great products and serve their customers well.

This is an interesting way to spell "overpriced hardware put in a shiny package with slick branding"

 

[civvver]

This is an interesting way to spell "overpriced hardware put in a shiny package with slick branding"

You must be an Android user.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is an interesting way to spell "overpriced hardware put in a shiny package with slick branding"

You must be an android user. Over priced for whom? Estimates put Apple's customer base at about 1 billion people (900 million phones in use plus other devices). Slick branding and high prices didn't do that. Fundamentally, they create great products that people like to use. They tend to be more expensive than their competitors, but folks buy them anyway. I guess you don't. I like having a choice.

Successful brands (of any product or service) are the result of a positive customer experiences. The best ones create a moment of of "Wow! This is way better than I thought it would be." Apple does that very well. The Ritz Carlton does it well; Toyota/Lexus does it well. McDonald's was successful because it did it so well. Disney does it well. Some folks don't care and are quite happy with more run of the mill experiences or just cannot afford a better experience. I'm getting ready to trade up my iPhone 6 (from 2016) and the only decision is whether to buy the new iPhone SE now or wait for the new 2020 models in the fall. Given how I use my phone, I'll probably opt for the SE now. Android isn't even an option I would think about.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You must be an Android user.

You must be an android user.

Maybe he wishes he had an iPhone!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I have said time and time again that the biggest obstacle to fundamental change is not that it is not possible or feasible or a good idea as such but that markets are international and politics national. And that is the knot you can not get out of any time soon, and as long as you can't, capital will have its way in the end and what you are left with is to try to bargain with it the best deal you can get away with. You can bargain in various ways. Labor laws, union laws, workers rights, taxes, welfare, insurance mandates, an unconditional basic income etcetera. And don't get me wrong, those options still allow for some meaningful area of differentiation, for some meaningful ways to improve people's live. But in the end, it can't and won't mean a fundamental, systematic, change, because any fundamental change will be punished, in the end won't be allowed by the powers that be. Because a fundamental change, by necessity, means that those that are winning now the most will win relevantly less, it means less money and power will go their way, and that means war. And it can not be won.
Not least because the international fragmentation of political power also helps the most powerful nations to stay on top. And the weakest and poorest nations would have the most incentive for more international political power. So what holds true for international capital also holds true for nation states. The powers that be won't allow for it - because they would significantly loose power and money coming their way.

Now, what do I even mean by fundamental change? Well, I'd hope obviously, not some command economy BS. That is a terrible idea, so much we can take as crystallized, methinks. Freedom is an essential ingredient for any economy. As is entrepreneurship, is being allowed to enjoy the fruit of your personal drive and accomplishments, as is wealth and success inequality, as are investment and risk rewards etcetera,
No, the overarching goal can not be to "control" the economy as such, to stamp out its also cruel wilderness. Rather, it would have to be to change or at least meaningfully divert its raw power into channels more conductive to the common good. It means to take a good objective look at what really makes people's experience as human beings the richest and most fulfilled, and to try to amend this with the demands of a modern economy. Rather than to just make money the king and call it a day and see what you can get away with, after having already surrendered your sovereignty to it. Because, while hugely beneficial in a myriad of ways, that this doesn't exactly lead to the best human experience possible, a blind man should be able to see. It is so bleedingly obvious and also logical, that I can not even be bothered to explain it, to be honest. And since it is so obvious, that a better system must be possible is IMO a foregone conclusion. Common sense, really. The economy should serve us, and not we the economy, in the end, it is simple as that.
Ways to make this happen, or make this happen at least more, are virtually boundless. Anything that prioritizes human experience over raw monetary output has some potential to do so. And the task then would be to slowly, step-by-step, figure out the best balance between the two.
But we can't do that. Since for that there would have be a negotiation between equals. And for that to happen, the people would have to be the sovereign capital has to surrender to, making it a negotiation between equals. Capital won't do that, because capital doesn't care. Only humans do.

 

[Gorbles]

You must be an android user. Over priced for whom? Estimates put Apple's customer base at about 1 billion people (900 million phones in use plus other devices). Slick branding and high prices didn't do that. Fundamentally, they create great products that people like to use. They tend to be more expensive than their competitors, but folks buy them anyway. I guess you don't. I like having a choice.

You apparently can't stop the cheap shots, so I'm biting on this one This is a bit of a bugbear of mine, working in the mobile space and having had to use a variety of Android and iOS devices (and development environments) for quite a few years.

"this is good because it is popular" is not an argument. It's post-hoc rationalisation. It's also used a lot to make Steam (by Valve) look good despite the simple fact that if any other major company in video games pulled the same kind of stuff Valve did, they'd get (probably rightfully) slammed for it.

There was a lot of good design thought in the early days of Apple. There was also a lot to criticise! Xcode is still a rightly-maligned mess that nearly everybody hates to use. Objective C is, put politely, an acquired taste (Swift seems a lot better, at least). Apple built an ecosystem that you had to buy into, and capitalised on that by monetising (and walling) that ecosystem. Apple hasn't maintained its economic success (and public visage) by just making good phones (or arguably, making good phones at all). They used iTunes to lock people into one of the most infuriating media players in the known universe, because you had to use it with an iPod (and then iPhones). There was convenience in doing so, but part of the user experience was also the frustration that came from trying literally anything else. Even getting screenshots from an iDevice is still a massive pain, assuming you're not using a Mac or some other compatible propietary system.

Apple tried to have a go at Samsung for having phones with rounded corners. Not that this is a defense of Samsung, I'm sure they're tried all sorts of fun things. But the point I'm making here is people do not apply the same standards to Apple that they do any other comparable company (Google, Microsoft). Apple in 2020 sells itself to customers locked into its comprehensive ecosystem far better than it does people with a disparate range of hardware. They also have some of the most expensive hardware to boot, especially when comparing like for like. Gone are the days when flagship Google and Samsung phones were half the cost of an iPhone, for sure, but the iPhone still manages to lead in cost and trail in end user customisations (and adherence to consumer standards - see the headphone jack).

You like using an Apple device. That's cool. I don't judge people simply for using a technological device. That's asinine. But you need to separate out your like for the phone and some kind of endorsement of the company and their business model. Especially in a thread like this!

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Gorbles I would say that Apple is popular because it is good. I am not an Apple fanboy at all. I do not use iOS for my computer and have no interest in trying it. With Windows (which I use) people really don't have a choice in OS and have to buy overpriced crap. I'm sorry you don't like Apple as a company. I happen to.

All my music in on my PC and I do use iTunes to listen to it, but I rarely buy any anymore. I'm sorry you are unhappy with iTunes. Who does a better job? If using non Apple devices is frustrating and difficult, does that mean that Apple is the best generally available?

One of Apple's goals is to set new standards that eventually everyone adopts. No disk drives, no headphone jacks! They are pretty successful at being the standard everyone tries to copy. What's the matter with that? Being a market leader is a smart business model. It is difficult to maintain and usually doesn't last forever.

So you don't like their programming code or the fact that they have walled off their OS from everyone else (unlike Microsoft)? As a customer, why should I care how they program? I bought into their walled garden for phones with open eyes. No one made me. It is a very nice place to be.

 

[innonimatu]

Neolibralism is a confused mess and pretty irrelevant.

Irrelevant? You do not really want to discuss anything.

Interesting. So Apple should not be able to sell its proprietary products in it's own retail stores.

Not the retail store. Apple store as in the app store that is the sole gatekeeper for any business selling software that works on iphones, and (should apple get its way) the gatekeeper and fee collector on software used on all Apple devices. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm not a customer closely acquainted with apple's terms.

 

[Zardnaar]

Apple phones are good enough. Main reason to have one seems to be to say you have one. Using a Huawei as it was a gift. It's great but next phones gonna be a Samsung.

Best features vs price point.

iPhones overpriced for what they are, you're paying for the branding. Not a bad phone as such all 3 brands will do most thing the average user will want to do.

Samsung=, Toyota
Apple=BMW
Huawei= Hyundai.

Something like that. The Huawei has been the best one I've had, gift price=free. Slight preference for Samsung UI.

Main use for an iPhone.

"I've got an iPhone".

 

[innonimatu]

I have said time and time again that the biggest obstacle to fundamental change is not that it is not possible or feasible or a good idea as such but that markets are international and politics national.

Indeed. And there is no amount of quality of laws and rules you can make nationally that can stick, or meaningfully work for any time at all, so long as the national continues to be secondary to the international. That has been the trick to undermine democracy around the world. TINA is based on bad "science", meaning economics phony theories, but above all on "international constraints". Real and imagined: the imagined become real because people believe in them.

The solution is simple: cut the gordian knot. Nationalize politics again. Cease believing in international constraints. But making people believe that there are alternatives, it is only up to them to force a change of rules, has been hard. The pen is mighty, and it is massively bribed.

Read this story of widespread corruption. One among many, How is this consented? Why does the world operate under rules where this is possible? Why does your country - and I'm inviting everyone to think about it - operate within this rules, instead of just leaving this international fellowship of thieves?
The swamp exist because it is tolerated by all those who think there is no alternative, by all those who thing that false choices are the only choices available.

 

[Hygro]

This is an interesting way to spell "overpriced hardware put in a shiny package with slick branding"

$1200 laptop plus 2 new charges, upgraded the ram, and twice, the harddrives, for almost 11 years. Went all out on the last hardrive, so I think I spent under $2000 for everything. Also the music production software made by apple was $200, its competitors being like $500.
$100 for a barely used iphone that's lasted me 1.5 years, and would be 2.5 had I not dropped it in a river and bought a replacement. And only because I tripping on concrete holding my 5s (no cases on any, mind you), that I got in 2015 as a gift.

I don't think I'm losing money on Apple. Their quality endures.