While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses
- Thread starter Nylan
- Start date
- Status
Daftpanzer
canonically ambiguous
BTW I ultimately agree with you here Erez.
Socially/environmentally responsible, open and competitive capitalism (as opposed to manipulative cronyism/lobbyism), with subsidies towards technologies and industries that give most long-term benefit, empowerment of local communities to fix local problems, streamlined tax/criminal code to cut bureaucracy and add more workers to private sector, adequate social welfare and a cultural focus on personal responsibility and awareness of global issues = profit.
Moderator Action: Alright guys, time to dial back on the gifs. It was funny at first, but now is getting spammy.
Symphony D.
Deity
You realize literally every single thing in this list is contradictory, right?
Symphony D.
Deity
Somewhat less glibly: you realize everything you just said means that if you've actually been serious this whole time about supporting Ron Paul and Libertarianism then you're woefully mistaken about what he's all about, right?
Even less glibly: Free market shareholder ("open and competitive") capitalism is inherently neither socially nor environmentally responsible, because it's not regulated and is beholden only to its shareholders and marginally public opinion—public opinion which it will deliberately subvert and manipulate through ever more complicated marketing and control of industry (e.g., media) if given a chance. It will only ever be either if it's forced to be by government regulation. (Or if the public were perfectly informed, perfectly economically/politically active and conscientious, and always placed those priorities above their bottom line, but that's a joke. Or in some totally hypothetical reputation-based economy but that wouldn't really be capitalism anymore.)
Cronyism and lobbyism have nothing to do per se with the economic structure, but the political and legal structure (and the inevitable reliance of capitalist states upon corporations to provide certain products), meaning neither is opposed to free market shareholder capitalism in the slightest (or indeed, any other kind of capitalism) and casting them as opposites makes no sense. What is opposed to shareholder capitalism is stakeholder capitalism, and what's opposed to free market capitalism is regulated or socialist capitalism. Comparing the Anglo-American market structures to those of Germany and Japan is instructive on both points.
To that end, if you want to reduce lobbying power, the primary legal way of doing it is doing away with notions that things like free speech and personhood apply to corporations, and solidly placing their aspirations beneath those of the state and the people it serves. That said, even places that do this more tend to still be heavily influenced by and supportive of their companies, so. (Also notable: a free and unregulated market will more or less inevitably produce monopolies, which will likely have even more political pull.)
Subsidizing key strategic industries is yet another example of placing government above the market and would usually go hand in hand with industrial policy, i.e., de facto protectionism when necessary, again in opposition of the free market.
"Empowerment of local communities to fix local problems" is a cute idea but there are plenty of local problems that can't be solved on a local level using local resources, so it's kind of weird sentiment unless you're effectively referring to devolution of political power, which has its own problems, usually involving duplicated effort, bureaucratic inefficiency (in direct opposition to the idea of cutting bureaucracy), and preservation of weird/stupid local idiosyncrasies.
How does streamlining the tax code add workers? And more to the point, how does streamlining the criminal code? Usually the people in the prison (even for things like drug possession) are poor and poorly educated, and barely qualify for even intro-level service or industrial work. They don't constitute skilled human capital. They would mostly just raise the unemployment rate if left to their own devices without additional widespread reform.
Even less glibly: Free market shareholder ("open and competitive") capitalism is inherently neither socially nor environmentally responsible, because it's not regulated and is beholden only to its shareholders and marginally public opinion—public opinion which it will deliberately subvert and manipulate through ever more complicated marketing and control of industry (e.g., media) if given a chance. It will only ever be either if it's forced to be by government regulation. (Or if the public were perfectly informed, perfectly economically/politically active and conscientious, and always placed those priorities above their bottom line, but that's a joke. Or in some totally hypothetical reputation-based economy but that wouldn't really be capitalism anymore.)
Cronyism and lobbyism have nothing to do per se with the economic structure, but the political and legal structure (and the inevitable reliance of capitalist states upon corporations to provide certain products), meaning neither is opposed to free market shareholder capitalism in the slightest (or indeed, any other kind of capitalism) and casting them as opposites makes no sense. What is opposed to shareholder capitalism is stakeholder capitalism, and what's opposed to free market capitalism is regulated or socialist capitalism. Comparing the Anglo-American market structures to those of Germany and Japan is instructive on both points.
To that end, if you want to reduce lobbying power, the primary legal way of doing it is doing away with notions that things like free speech and personhood apply to corporations, and solidly placing their aspirations beneath those of the state and the people it serves. That said, even places that do this more tend to still be heavily influenced by and supportive of their companies, so. (Also notable: a free and unregulated market will more or less inevitably produce monopolies, which will likely have even more political pull.)
Subsidizing key strategic industries is yet another example of placing government above the market and would usually go hand in hand with industrial policy, i.e., de facto protectionism when necessary, again in opposition of the free market.
"Empowerment of local communities to fix local problems" is a cute idea but there are plenty of local problems that can't be solved on a local level using local resources, so it's kind of weird sentiment unless you're effectively referring to devolution of political power, which has its own problems, usually involving duplicated effort, bureaucratic inefficiency (in direct opposition to the idea of cutting bureaucracy), and preservation of weird/stupid local idiosyncrasies.
How does streamlining the tax code add workers? And more to the point, how does streamlining the criminal code? Usually the people in the prison (even for things like drug possession) are poor and poorly educated, and barely qualify for even intro-level service or industrial work. They don't constitute skilled human capital. They would mostly just raise the unemployment rate if left to their own devices without additional widespread reform.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
did you not
see
the happening bunker
see
the happening bunker
Ah, the old canard that the unregulated market was competitive. Incidentally, economic theory actually tells us that competitive markets are unlikely across a whole bunch of industries. Car manufacturing for example has absolutely insane returns to scale, insane costs to entry because of the required scale and huge technical hurdles to climb. Consequently, new entrants are just not a thing. So the market is always going to be an oligopoly. Same for banks, telecommunications, media, ISPs, oil and gas and airline manufacture to name a few obvious cases. Some of those might be more or less competitive than the car market (airline manufacturers are less, banks are somewhat more) but anyone with a basic understanding of economics ought to understand that competitive market structures are not a hardwired feature of unregulated markets.
Lord_Herobrine
Back in the Saddle
Symphony D.
Deity
I was distracted by the laser light show.
erez87
Lord of Random
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Messages
- 13,500
Actually, Sym and Masada answered you pretty well so I don't need to actually go study economics etc to answer
Well that was enriching. A few more answers to the libertarians in my life is always good.
Good to know as well. Not everyone have a basic understanding of economics thought, so no need to assume we all do. Not all of us, actually, most of us, didn't even go through the most basic economic education.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
It is unfortunate that so many (for the most part) otherwise intelligent people believe absolute nonsense vis a vis the "free market"
it is a pervasive mental illness which we must do all in our power to combat
it is a pervasive mental illness which we must do all in our power to combat
Shadowbound
Incorrugible
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2007
- Messages
- 4,079
It's almost like people use heuristic shortcuts in order to simplify complex issues into easily actionable data.
Symphony D.
Deity
天高皇帝远
Shadowbound
Incorrugible
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2007
- Messages
- 4,079
My Chinese never got past the literal, so I'm afraid I don't understand that metaphor in this context.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
It is unfortunate that so many (for the most part) otherwise intelligent people believe absolute nonsense vis a vis "God"
it is a pervasive mental illness which we must do all in our power to combat
fixed *tee-hee*
Symphony D.
Deity
I figured it was essentially the ultimate political status quo heuristic. "It's God's plan," probably doesn't quite have the numbers to beat it and I don't know any Hindi aphorisms.
Daftpanzer
canonically ambiguous
I'm sorry. I have no valid observations to make. Emotions and feelings are unnecessary hang-overs from our mammalian evolution. All hail the culture of machinery and exploitation.
erez87
Lord of Random
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Messages
- 13,500
Better machines than greedy humans, don't you think?
I understand, but I've never been to ECO101... Probably never will be. Most people would never even know the most basic economic ideas. It's like evolution, most people are totally lacking on the subject, even those that claim to believe it works. Now we can choose to call them all stupid and ignore the majority, or try to get some sense into them to help ourselves on the long run.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Stephen, how do we know what the ultimate good of Humanity will entail? We havent at our disposal the infinite factors that the Machine has at its! Perhaps, to give you a not unfamiliar example, our entire technical civilization has created more unhappiness and misery than it has removed. Perhaps an agrarian or pastoral civilization, with less culture and less people would be better. If so, the Machines must move in that direction, preferably without telling us, since in our ignorant prejudices we only know that what we are used to, is good and we would then fight change. Or perhaps a complete urbanization, or a completely caste-ridden society, or complete anarchy, is the answer. We dont know. Only the Machines know, and they are going there and taking us with them.
But you are telling me, Susan, that the Society for Humanity is right; and that Mankind has lost its own say in its future.
It never had any, really. It was always at the mercy of economic and sociological forces it did not understand at the whims of climate, and the fortunes of war. Now the Machines understand them; and no one can stop them, since the Machines will deal with them as they are dealing with the Society, having, as they do, the greatest of weapons at their disposal, the absolute control of our economy.
How horrible!
Perhaps how wonderful! Think, that for all time, all conflicts are finally evitable. Only the Machines, from now on, are inevitable!
And the fire behind the quartz went out and only a curl of smoke was left to indicate its place.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
