HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

The best talks and videos of Hacker News.

Hacker News Comments on
RSA ANIMATE: Crises of Capitalism

The RSA · Youtube · 20 HN points · 8 HN comments
HN Theater has aggregated all Hacker News stories and comments that mention The RSA's video "RSA ANIMATE: Crises of Capitalism".
Youtube Summary
In this RSA Animate, celebrated academic David Harvey looks beyond capitalism towards a new social order. Can we find a more responsible, just, and humane economic system?

The RSA is a 258 year-old charity devoted to creating social progress and spreading world-changing ideas. For more information about our research, RSA Animates, free events programme and 27,000 strong fellowship.

Follow the RSA on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RSAEvents
Like the RSA on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rsaeventsofficial/
Listen to RSA podcasts: https://soundcloud.com/the_rsa
See RSA Events behind the scenes: https://instagram.com/rsa_events/

------
Produced and edited by Abi Stephenson, RSA.

Animation by Cognitive Media. Andrew Park, the mastermind behind the Animate series and everyone's favourite hairy hand, discusses their appeal and success in his blog post, 'Talk to the hand': http://www.thersa.org/talk-to-the-hand/
HN Theater Rankings

Hacker News Stories and Comments

All the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this video.
Reminds me of this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

I personally believe it is all the automation and outsourcing that is changing the fundamentals and causing a drop in the demand for human labor - thus undermining our trusty wage-based mechanisms to get money to the masses, who then spend it back on necessities. The drop in demand means less investment and lending. So the money supply shrinks.

The "Great Depression" was coined as a term by Hoover because it sounded calmer than the term commonly used at the time: FINANCIAL PANIC.

A lot of it was caused by automation leading to overproduction by farmers while simultaneously laying off their workers. It took years to build up a manufacturing economy, and it helped that after WW2 the USA had no competitors. So we became #1.

Okay here is some background: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

Show me the data you've seen. The 1970s were the height of wages and unionization, and then globalization (thanks to technology) led to outsourcing. Early physical automation was ok because people all started to sit in front of computers. But now, the mental tasks are being automated away, and that leads to jobs coming back... to robots.

Also read this: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2012/01/stiglitz-depression-2...

Automation is also what led to the Great Depression as we lost primary sector jobs and it took a decade to migrate to the cities and build up the secondary sector, factories, workforce.

The main explanation is not considered here: Automation and Outsourcing.

Both reduce the demand for local human labor, and thus depress wages. They cause wealth redistribution upwards by providing a power imbalance between the capitalist and the worker.

David Harvey did a nice talk about this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

Love it! This article is the best I've seen so far on a topic I've been writing about for years, ever since Obama said this:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yIBhg1v4bMo

All those politicians promising the middle class jobs to come back ... they are selling you a bill of goods. Automation and outsourcing has caused wages to fall. David Harvey argues this started in the 70s but was masked by the consumer credit boom and the internet boom:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

WE WILL NEED expanded safety nets, preferably in the form of a universal basic income, so laid off people can re educate themselves. This money can come from taxing the gains that corporations make from automation, not enougu to disincentivize R&D but enough to redistribute some of that value to offset the DEMAND SHOCKS to local human labor. Without this we are heading for trouble. We do not have an elastic system right now that responds to increasing automation!

"He who does not work does not eat" - we need to decouple these in our economic system.

And contrary to what anarcho capitalists believe, it will enable more efficient allocation of resources: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=185=1

laotzu
Buckminster Fuller also argued we crossed the line in the 70's:

>In technology's "invisible" world, inventors continually increase the quantity and quality of performed work per each volume or pound of material, erg of energy, and unit of worker and "overhead" time invested in each given increment of attained functional performance. This complex process we call progressive ephemeralization. In 1970, the sum total of increases in overall technological know-how and their comprehensive integration took humanity across the epochal but invisible threshold into a state of technically realizable and economically feasible universal success for all humanity

-Grunch of Giants

Simply put, we've got too many cooks in the kitchen trying to work while our kitchenware can do nearly everything for us already. The reason we consider unemployment a problem is because our economy is not based on practicality but hollow morality -- i.e. "the devil finds work for idle hands to do" so we MUST keep everyone working.

UBI or some sort of "ephemeralization price adjustment system" is necessary fundamentally if we want to keep automation going. Otherwise the unemployed workers will not have the purchasing power to buy the goods produced by automation and so the machine owner will have invested in this automation and gain nothing. People must be reimbursed for the work done by the machine on their behalf or else the machine works for nothing.

s73v3r
Unfortunately I cannot see any kind of political support for any of that in the current political climate.
crdoconnor
>Automation and outsourcing has caused wages to fall

Outsourcing, austerity and union busting have caused vastly more damage to wages than automation ever has or ever will.

Automation is simply given most of the credit for it because it's a fantastic scapegoat. That's the real reason it appears at the the top of lists like these.

It lets American oligarchs and the politicians and elite economists who follow in their wake redirect blame for outsourcing, austerity and union busting and cast their opponents as luddites who are "against progress".

I think basic income is performing a similar, although slightly different function. Almost every person who advocates for it realizes that it's a political non-starter. This is, of course, glossed over every time that it is brought up.

The great thing about it being a political non-starter is that, as an oligarch you can advocate for it maintaining your progressive and 'forward thinking' credentials and your notional opposition to income/wealth inequality while safe in the knowledge that you will never have to actually suffer its effects (higher inflation & a less pliant workforce).

You can continue to enjoy the great benefits income an wealth inequality has to offer you and still remain "one of the good guys" in the public eye.

yummyfajitas
Outsourcing and globalization has caused wages to increase and inequality to decrease. Immigration has similar effects.

http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/

Oops, ruined the narrative.

crdoconnor
Your graph is not even measuring globalization or outsourcing or immigration.

Let alone demonstrating any causal relationship.

A lot happened between 1820 and 2000 to change the shape of those graphs - the fall of the British empire, labor movements (both national and international) & two world wars as well as industrialization and the rise of American hegemony.

yummyfajitas
No, it's measuring wages and inequality.

Are you claiming that global wages would have increased even further without globalization? It would be fun to see some sort of argument in that direction.

To observe the result of immigration, you basically just need to compute immigrant wages - wages of whoever is left back at home. Those wage gaps are so huge that they dwarf anything which happens domestically.

EGreg
Global wages have increased, US wages have fallen in mean reversion t to the global average.

Immigration makes workers participate in paying for your society's taxes and paying for its social expenditures. Outsourcing is a vote against your own standard of living. But it helps more people than it hurts, if you ignore national interests!

yummyfajitas
US wages have remained flat only because employers have increased non-wage benefits rather than wages. Worker compensation has done nothing but go up.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECICOM

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RCPHBS

In short, everyone has become richer.

Also, outsourcing increases your own standard of living. Foreigners work while locals consume. What next, hiring a maid reduces my standard of living?

ageek123
What austerity are you talking about? There was no austerity in the US. The US government has spent more money every year throughout the financial crisis.

Also I assume by "outsourcing" you actually meant "offshoring." But this was covered in the article -- it's part of globalization.

crdoconnor
>What austerity are you talking about?

SNAP cuts were one example of a deliberately inflicted austerian reform. The overall cost was actually pretty low, but the ripple effect is magnified.

With less SNAP, low income families are far more reliant on their jobs for sustenance, which turns them into more pliant workers and who accept lower wages/worse hours.

>The US government has spent more money every year throughout the financial crisis.

Yes, well, funneling ever more money into too big to fail banks and bloated military contractors while cutting food stamps is still austerity as far as 99% of the nation is concerned.

adventured
The SNAP budget has doubled during Obama's presidency. It hasn't been cut.

Here's a chart showing its extreme increase:

http://i.imgur.com/tGgtpmL.jpg

And as a share of GDP:

http://i.imgur.com/4JbxWiT.png

The primary problem in the SNAP program, was the flood of people participating. The per capita sum didn't quite keep up with the large influx of people wanting to be on the program. However, that has been partially offset by increases at the State level as well.

The US has never spent more per capita on food programs overall, between the local + state + national level, than it does today.

There has hardly been a drop of austerity in anything in the US.

crdoconnor
"The per capita sum didn't quite keep up with the large influx of people wanting to be on the program."

Which is just a euphemistic way of saying that SNAP benefits have been cut.

It may not look like austerity from your oblique perspective, but then again, you're definitely not claiming food stamps.

s73v3r
There definitely was austerity from the federal government. There was an across the board 10% cut to all spending.

And even if you don't consider that austerity, several states severely trimmed their budgets for public assistance, despite it being a time when it was needed more than before.

jellicle
> What austerity are you talking about? There was no austerity in the US.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/austere-indeed/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/more-about-us-au...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/american-austeri...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/unprecedented-au...

In this particular case it may also have something to do with the LTOV's association with Marxist economics. The only thing Americans are expected to know about anything even vaguely associated with Marxism is that it's bad (mmmkay?), so U.S. educational institutions tend to avoid teaching things in that category to students who aren't specializing in economics. Which leads to Americans coming up with their own labels and descriptions for things that Marx observed and labeled long ago.

All of which is too bad, because Marx had a lot of interesting and valuable things to say about the problems of industrial economies (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 for a good introduction), even if the solutions that were tried in his name didn't work out. It just wastes people's time and energy having them spin their wheels re-discovering things he discovered 150 years ago.

May 01, 2012 · thwest on The Pink Collar Future
On Mayday of all days such a characterization of Marxism as the extreme on a 1D number line of political responses to urbanization feels simplistic.

Of the infinitude of academic distinctions of Marx's writing to be raised here, the distinction between "political Marxism" and "analytical Marxism" seems fruitful. For the purposes of this distinction, political Marxism would be the set of writings embedded in the political climate of Marx's age, The Manifesto, etc. The politics that resulted from these writings bloomed initially, but as the mantle was passed through Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky the politics became increasingly fraught with problems (being gentle here.)

Analytical Marxism for me is limited to _Capital_. Marx proceeds analytically, taking the rich tradition of political economy to heart. Ricardo and Adam Smith are addressed directly. Marx attempts no emotional arguments here, no appeals for solidarity or revolution. Instead, the ideals of capitalism (e.g. exchanges between individuals are mutually beneficial) are taken as true, and Marx attempts to create a framework for analyzing the structural forces that result from this economic mode.

_Capital_ provides a set of analytical tools that are timeless and non-dogmatic. A great example is the exploration of how the relative prices of various commodities are set (Marx suggests it is emergent behavior). _Capital_ also takes on such problems such as the contradiction between exchange value and use value, and how the investor's and producer's perspective on exchanging commodities and money differs. These are problems many writers wave away as non-problems by maintaining a myopic focus on individual exchanges.

_Capital Vol.1_ Text http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ A crash course youtube of Marxist analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 All of David Harvey's supplemental materials to _Capital_ are highly recommended: http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

Another text you might be particularly interested in is _The Making of the English Working Class_ by E.P. Thompson, which expounds a humanist perspective on the migration from farm to factory in England.

_delirium
Oh that part I don't really disagree with. I was meaning to point to revolutionary uprisings as a fairly extreme reaction, which I associated with Marxism, but I suppose I meant the revolutionary left in general. Perhaps I should've used a less loaded word than "extreme"; I was just looking for a way to characterize the strength of the backlash that was stronger than the milder backlash that produced the reformist social-democratic parties. I do think that the urban discontent and associated political ferment from the mid-19th through early 20th centuries was at least largely in response to industrialization (if I recall, even Marx says something like that, which is why he didn't think a communist revolution in a pre-industrial country like Russia was likely or sensible).

In a certain methodological sense a lot of people are Marxist, I suppose, even who don't use the term, so I agree he's been very influential. For example, Jared Diamond is sometimes called a neo-Marxist in the non-political sense, because that materialist way of looking at history (as the product of broad structural forces) is traced back to Marx.

Oh Graeber's book is out! Lovely! I have been passing around his essay by the same name for some time now. Should be a good intro to the book http://blog.longnow.org/2010/04/22/debt-the-first-five-thous...

I would also recommend anything by David Harvey. Start out with this animated version of one of his talks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 Then move on to his Capital vol. 1 lecture series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBazR59SZXk There is also a book format of his reading guide

Disasters like this are, in theory, actually beneficial to economies--especially stagnant ones like Japan's. The capacity for immediate bonafide economic growth has been diminished but that doesn't mean that economic production will decline. There is now ample room to deploy all that surplus capital (humans, machinery, money) that was previously unproductive. The upper echelones of the financial sector will make a killing shorting and re-buying.

Advanced reading on a parallel concept: http://www.irows.ucr.edu/conferences/globgis/papers/Arrighi.... The quoted and cited David Harvey piece (2007, albeit the condensed article veresion and not the full-length book) would have been a better reference however is apparently no longer online. This, though, is amazing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

I believe Naomi Klein made a good buck on dumbing down and re-orienting the above hypothesis.

orangecat
Disasters like this are, in theory, actually beneficial to economies

In very bad theories, yes.

pero
Or very poorly architected economies?
carsongross
Only an economist can consider a theory like that for more than a few seconds and not laugh hysterically. As Tom Woods has said, following this logic, the best thing we could do for our economy is build a huge armada of amazing battle ships, have Japan do likewise, then float them to the middle of the pacific and, after evacuating them (surely, the loss of human life is not a necessary component in this economic model, is it?) blow them all up.

Rinse, wash, repeat. We're all rich!

brown9-2
I actually believe this is a bit of an insult to economists. I don't believe most mainstream economists would consider anything involving loss of life on a large scale "a good thing", just those that dabble in economic theory.
pero
Perhaps (definitely) I could have worded that better, but no one is considering it a good thing--just a method of 'accumulation'.
pero
Empiricism is not on your side. The richest country in the world spends more than its fair share on 'a huge armada of amazing battle ships', actually, as much as everyone else on the planet put together, and also actively seeks out remote spots of the planet to blow stuff up in.

Rinse, repeat, very rich.

Yrlec
Correlation != causation
pero
Do tell what caused it then.
None
None
jeffb
When you talk about the richest country in the world, are you referring to Qatar or Luxembourg?

According to the IMF and CIA World Factbook, Qatar has the highest GDP (PPP) per capita. According to the World Bank, it's Luxembourg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...

pero
Nah, neither, I was using raw GDP. Those countries don't have politico-economic systems which funnel large chunks of their populations into either incarceration or the military. Forbes list also seems appropriate for the discussion given the 'very rich' theme going on.

Care to dig up those rates/expenditures per capita?

Jun 30, 2010 · 20 points, 49 comments · submitted by alecco
gibsonf1
The great irony is that the crisis is one of Statism, not Capitalism. And to "solve" the crisis with more Statism will only make life radically worse. But it looks like that's where things are headed. It's always hard to watch governments repeating the same mistakes from the last century - sigh.
exit
have you given up on the idea of convincing people who disagree with you?
tomlin
Yes, yes!

That we should look at other methodologies of our economic structure. An excellent viewpoint and debate starter.

The Anti-Capitalism ideology isn't Socialism or Marxism or Communism. Capitalism isn't working the way society sees it.

Capitalism is beneath us as a society.

tkahn6
I'd be interested to hear what other economic structures you think are better.

I haven't heard a better argument than capitalism.

Also, you should note that in America we don't have a capitalist economy - we have a mixed economy.

tomlin
> I'd be interested to hear what other economic structures you think are better.

I never indicated I knew if there were better economic structures; perhaps it is yet to be invented, instead of impossible to fathom. An open-mind which considers a new approach is a first step.

I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology (as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct to something more mature and more stable.

Isn't that a fair thing to say?

tkahn6
I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology (as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct to something more mature and more stable.

At what point did I 'protect' capitalism?

You said it's beneath us as a society and I said that what we have isn't capitalism.

The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance.

tomlin
> At what point did I 'protect' capitalism?

You didn't make a sign or wave a $ symbol flag. When you say you "haven't heard a better argument", I read "won't hear a better argument". Perhaps you don't mean it that way, in which case, apologies first.

Perhaps your studies and intellectual investment would be of less worth if someone were to dare point out any alternative possibilities.

When there is talk about a resource-based economy or singularity government, would-be opposers jump in quickly to shoot an idea down rather than see value.

> The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance.

You are right. I have not studied Capitalism or any other type of economic framework. But would it matter? If you've committed to the idea of our "finest form" of economy, than like any religious person, your opinions are hopeless to evolve.

We see millions suffer across the world as our "best" economical structure fuels its fire on the backs of the uncountable. If everyone were to embrace Capitalism as most modern nations have, Capitalism would have no "grease bin", so to speak.

I am sure the people of developing countries share a different opinion than you. Are they wrong?

tkahn6
I read "won't hear a better argument"

You are right. I have not studied Capitalism or any other type of economic framework. But would it matter? If you've committed to the idea of our "finest form" of economy, than like any religious person, your opinions are hopeless to evolve.

I clearly said I haven't heard a better argument; not that I won't accept any. I used to think a mixed economy was the best economic system (the best of socialism and capitalism). Then I read Wealth of Nations and a bunch of essays from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. As I said, since reading those I haven't heard a better argument.

Maybe I should point out that at this point, I think your an asshole. But I digress...

I am sure the people of developing countries share a different opinion than you. Are they wrong?

Again, you have failed to do any research. Just Google "free market africa"

This is the first hit: http://www.unu.edu/africa/papers/development/Stambuli3.pdf You should read it.

I fail to see how you can bring yourself to argue an opinion that is not grounded in any research. Even if you argued Marxism after reading Das Kapital, at least you would be informed.

tomlin
> Maybe I should point out that at this point, I think your an asshole. But I digress...

Sigh.

You've come here to fight me, yet there is a well-authored video which highlights the points I am making.

They aren't mine, but I understand the logic and outcomes in which the author is illustrating. It is with this my eyes open a little more, I learn a bit more and offer my open-mind to ideas not yet in bloom.

The results you want me to find on Google reinforce your point, finds the best practice, but not any alternative.

I will take your advice about the quality publications you have recommended; Wealth of Nations, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, etc.

Yet, still, I will be an asshole simply because I wish to see your research as only that.

tkahn6
You've come here to fight me

Man, what are you talking about? Are you just trolling? I can't tell if you're being serious.

Yet there is a well-authored video which highlights the points I am making.

You're not making any points as far as I can tell. Please explain to me what points you are making.

I will take your advice about the quality publications you have recommended; Wealth of Nations, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, etc.

Are you serious? Wealth of Nations is by Adam Smith.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal contains essays by Alan Greenspan.

I would appreciate it if you would let me know if we are indeed having a serious discussion.

tomlin
You're looking for me to bring a wealth of academia and research to the table to match your high knowledge of economics. That isn't going to happen.

I've never insisted that I know more or less than the average person.

I continue to explain that I am encouraged to see those who wish to seek out more evolved ways of thinking are doing just that -- thinking.

Likewise, I do not know a lot about the human body. Yet, I would be extremely happy to hear about a process that would eventually conquer cancer.

It seems you want clarification to my personal conclusion that "Capitalism is beneath us as a society.".

I say this because in the framework of Capitalism, there must always be an element of misfortune; which isn't just a byproduct, but a prerequisite to it's success.

tkahn6
You're looking for me to bring a wealth of academia and research to the table to match your high knowledge of economics. That isn't going to happen.

I do not have a high knowledge of economics. I just graduated high school. I'm not asking you to bring any superior academic knowledge to this discussion. I simply want you to do some bare minimum research. You are remaining willfully ignorant in your understanding of economic systems. You have admitted that you have not studied any of this in any detail (whether rigorously or in passing).

Likewise, I do not know a lot about the human body. Yet, I would be extremely happy to hear about a process that would eventually conquer cancer.

As would I, but I wouldn't get into an argument with someone about cancer research because I have never studied cancer in any depth.

I say this because in the framework of Capitalism, there must always be an element of misfortune; which isn't just a byproduct, but a prerequisite to it's success.

That is simply not true. The core principal of capitalism is that people engage in mutually beneficial transactions without the threat of physical harm. This is the core idea of the free market.

Please go read some literature on this. And I don't mean that in a negative way. You seem genuinely open to new ideas but you seemingly are not willing to seek those new ideas.

And whoever is downmodding every reply I post, please explain why. We are engaging in a discussion. The downmod does not exist to express your disagreement with me. You do that in your replies.

tomlin
As would I, but I wouldn't get into an argument with someone about cancer research because I have never studied cancer in any depth.

Except I'm not arguing. You've created an argument out of a thought, which is, to strive for stability and equality. All I've stated thus far is that Capitalism is a stepping stone to something better. No matter how many times I repeat this, you are asserting an argument.

That is simply not true. The core principal of capitalism is that people engage in mutually beneficial transactions without the threat of physical harm. This is the core idea of the free market.

Now, here comes the argument.

The core idea of the free market is religion.

I've read a lot about, and at one time considered myself a Libertarian. I've heard about the "promise land" of free markets for some time. For a while I was hypnotized by that ideal, but we humans operate on incentives. Some people call it greed, but I don't want to demonize a population.

Capitalism isn't evil, it's a cloak.

The promise of success keeps us all herding towards the door of opportunity, but only a few pass almost regardless of intelligence, morals, motivations or intentions.

When your insurance refuses coverage, it isn't because there's an evil asshole lurking to ensure you don't get what you deserve.

Company A announces incentives for employers for saving the company money. Those who aren't on-board get reviews, get fired. The workers who respond to incentives deny your claim. You're now fucked, to put it lightly. Company A is now full of incentive-driven bias.

This is just 1 course of Capitalism. You don't need me to dig up research or some book about societal structure and how it applies to Capitalism. You see it everyday.

Please go read some literature on this. And I don't mean that in a negative way. You seem genuinely open to new ideas but you seemingly are not willing to seek those new ideas.

I plan to. And yes, I am very open and very willing to seek new ideas and support those with more knowledge and more ability to drive these efforts. However, I am not willing to listen to steadfast, obstinate reasoning for future consideration.

I appreciate that there are those (like yourself) that don't put up with the hearsay and nonsensical banter, but I'm not your target. I'm just voting for innovation.

tkahn6
All I've stated thus far is that Capitalism is a stepping stone to something better.

That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion.

The core idea of the free market is religion.

What does this mean? And you don't even back up this claim.

but we humans operate on incentives.

Yes. The entire point of the free market is that people act in their own self interest.

I can't semantically parse the rest of your text. Can you try restating it?

Capitalism isn't evil, it's a cloak. The promise of success keeps us all herding towards the door of opportunity, but only a few pass almost regardless of intelligence, morals, motivations or intentions. When your insurance refuses coverage, it isn't because there's an evil asshole lurking to ensure you don't get what you deserve. Company A announces incentives for employers for saving the company money. Those who aren't on-board get reviews, get fired. The workers who respond to incentives deny your claim. You're now fucked, to put it lightly. Company A is now full of incentive-driven bias. This is just 1 course of Capitalism. You don't need me to dig up research or some book about societal structure and how it applies to Capitalism. You see it everyday.

I don't understand any of this.

loewenskind
>That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion.

I'm not sure he was asserting as much as hoping or maybe suggesting. You sound like you're getting close to asserting that it is an ideal system though. Care to back that up?

Neither claim could be backed up without trying different systems, but surely you have more optimism than to think what we have now is the best we can ever do.

tkahn6
Ahhh

What we have now is not the best we can do, but what we have isn't capitalism. So to claim that capitalism is the "beneath us as a society" means nothing because it's never been tried here.

EDIT: And, if you've read the comments above, it's clear that, by his own admission, tomlin has never studied any economic system.

loewenskind
I'd be interested to know what would need to happen for us to have a system that meets your definition of "capitalism". As far as I know the purest for that was ever attempted was in Chile under Pinochet. The "Chicago Boys" were given pretty much free reign, they tried to make the system just as Milton Friedman taught them and it was failing pretty spectacularly until they "slid the scale a little more toward socialism", if you will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

tkahn6
Well first of all, it's not my definition of capitalism. It's Adam Smith's.

When people think of 'capitalism' they usually think of anarchy and large mega-corporations that destroy the environment and do whatever the hell they want. There is regulation under capitalism. The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud.

The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans.

I guess a first step we could take would be to 1) stop teaching kids that home ownership is necessary to be 'American', 2) stop giving out government-financed loans to first-time homeowners (through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) and 3) to shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud.

I'm not an economist but I think it's clear that the fact that the government (under Reagan ironically), made it its mission to put American's in homes. Great. But of course what happened was that many of these people that were initially given loans through this program defaulted on them.

loewenskind
>The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans.

Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view. The government-financed loans were an enabler, but people were using over-the-counter CDS' to short those loans (i.e. more than one "insurance policy" could exist per loan and it would be hard to even know who all had them unless the loan defaulted), rating agencies get paid by those they rate so they gave artificially good ratings, etc., etc. It was a perfect storm but to put the blame on those "darn irresponsible poor people" is so simplistic as to be absurd.

>shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud.

There are many reason for the regulation on banks and mutual funds. It's not to make the country more socialist, it's to prevent short term focused bankers/fund managers from accidentally destroying the whole economy or pissing away thousands of people's retirement.

>The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud.

What about dealing with monopolies? If you believe in free market capitalism then you must know about elasticity of markets. Monopolies artificially destroy elasticity in whatever space they're in.

In my opinion what the US government needs to do before anything else is start breaking down monopolies. "Too big to fail" is a big red flag that someone didn't do their job.

tkahn6
Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view.

Yeah I know. But it seems like we're on the same page about what happened.

Where do you see monopolies?

tomlin
My point exactly. It seems foolish that all matters of life and systems in general evolve and yet our economic structure must remain the way it is.
tomlin
I'm done here.

At the heart of it all, you want me to prove that Capitalism isn't the best economic model because you fancy this extremely primitive means of sharing resources. That's fine.

You seem rigid and embarrassingly religious when it comes to the idea of market innovation. When you say, You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion., you're essentially saying that evolution in markets/systems doesn't exist. You want me to prove that evolution exists.

Research and opinion is almost always temporary; as our world changes everyday, so does the research. Have ideas, not beliefs and allow them to evolve.

tkahn6
At the heart of it all, you want me to prove that Capitalism isn't the best economic model because you fancy this extremely primitive means of sharing resources. That's fine.

My god. Are you aware that you are the one with a near-religious anti-capitalist opinion? Just read the statement above. You're already convinced of the inviability of capitalism and so no argument will convince you otherwise.

You're an idiot. Not because we disagree about whether capitalism is a viable economic system or not, but because you continue to argue with me over it and by your own admission you are ignorant and continue to remain ignorant about these matters. Your opinions about economics are purely emotional and based on hearsay.

I have never said whether or not I think pure capitalism is the ideal economic system. My point all along has been that for you to say it is "beneath us as a society" is an empty statement because you haven't studied this at all.

"We need something better." How can you say that when you don't even understand a single economic school of thought?

I'm done too. This is really frustrating. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me about the viability of pure capitalism, but I can't even have an intelligent discussion with you.

kiba
Most ideas won't make it past the "economic calculation" litmus test. If a system cannot do economic calculation, than it's impossible to implement or only get by imitating the price structure of existing free market systems.

You could dismiss capitalism by merely saying it's an ideology. Yet, capitalism's strength is not so much that its supporter exists, but that it works and exists. It's a natural and a spontaneous formation in society.

In North Korea, people make by with black markets. The problem there is that the government wiped out people saving by inflating the currency in an effort to revive their failing state factories.

All the other system I ever heard of requires central planning, and some kind of authority. It doesn't relies on some kind of spontaneous cooperation that happen in western society. It relies on iron fists and lot of policing.

What are you merely doing is blaming distinct structures of society together as "capitalism", as if western nations adopt a pure version. It is not. It is a cacophonous mixture of all kind. Street gangs, the institution of statism, regulatory frameworks, and the system of laws and rules all works to create an emergent society. All of these system and institution are all moving parts, each creating its own disincentives and incentives, some perverse, and some positive. Organizations itself doesn't stay the same, it grows, and dies, based on the incentive system placed within that organizations. For example, gangs become more violent to increase its power and earn more money. The public got tired and told the police to curb it or lose their jobs. The gangs eventually become more discreet dues to its leadership and memberships getting decimated. The police evolve special gangs unit to catch them now that it is expected of them to stop gangsters.

Some are feudal-like, some are socialist, some are anarchist/voluntary, and some are statist/coercive.

So some part of western society have some capitalism. It doesn't tell us that capitalism itself is a failure just because of recent economic crisis that pervades western nations. You didn't consider the democratic system of government, the nature of our regulatory system, and the kind of incentive structure it imparts on human actors.

kiba
Oh greed! The inhumanity! More regulations. Less free markets! Markets are inefficient!

Oh please, every inefficient market is an entrepreneur dream. That what HN entrepreneur types want to exploit. Get the damn monopolies out of the way and let entrepreneurs eliminate the inefficiency. Or rather, don't expect efficient market everywhere. There will alway be some inefficiency. For example, the browser market was stagnant for a while. However, it didn't take a government to remedy it. It took a non-profit enterprise, who against all odd, brought firefox to the masses.

Anybody who believes in the efficient market hypothesis did not realize the functions of entrepreneurship and the uncertainty inherent in market. In other words, it's a strawman designed to make free marketeers look like naive believer in the magic of capitalism.

Regulations? Heard of regulatory capture, much? There are good regulations and then there are bad regulations. It's not about regulators being asleep at the wheel, it's about regulators sleeping with bankers. When that happens, the regulations will be modified to fit what the bankers like, not whether it is healthy for the economy.

Don't give me the bollocks about how the world should be more humane, responsible, and just. Everybody wants the world to be more humane, responsible, and just.

Discuss or debate with the strongest supporters of capitalism and come back, then wow me with your socialist insight instead of attacking the weakest version of capitalism.

As it stand, the youtube video is pathetically weak. Free marketeers will pick apart the video like no tomorrow.

chwahoo
While parts of his story resonate and it fun to to hear people explain phenomena based on different ideologies, I've never heard an alternative to capitalism that sounded credible at a large scale. (Most any system could work at a small scale.)
forkandwait
All the successful large scale nations (the US, the UK, China, Germany, Japan, etc) are some mix of socialist and capitalist organization, and probably pretty close to 60%/40% in one direction or the other. In a socialist nation, there are usually at least small local produce markets etc; in a "capitalist" nation like the US there are a huge amount of services and regulations that are socialist (the cops, some welfare, etc, etc). In a middle country like Japan or Germany, the government works very closely with the firms to try to effect non-market driven policy and outcomes that have society-wide benefits as their rationale.

And... every society is an immensely complex machine, and probably can't be boiled down to an ideology (something Marx never understood, hence his inability to actually propose an alternative besides a utopian vision, and his inability to be a very effective political actor.)

tkahn6
And notice that that the US, UK, Germany, and Japan are all in dire economic straits right now.

Also, the police force not a socialist institution. To sustain a free market requires the state-sanctioned protection of life and property. The police force is a very 'capitalist' institution.

chwahoo
Regarding the police, I know that there is a least a subset of libertarian capitalists that would disagree with you. They seem to dislike the police and strongly prefer gun rights for protection of self and property.
ovi256
>They seem to dislike the police and strongly prefer gun rights for protection of self and property.

The Wild West huh? Well, we know how that turns out: professional pistoleros rob at will, and honest citizens flee to towns that have a police force. Back to square one.

kiba
The Wild West huh?

These same libertarians would use examples of the wild west as "not so wild west". Their historical interpretation is a bit different than yours.

Sumason
"The police force is a very 'capitalist' institution."

Seriously? Are you are claiming that socialism has very little or no need for police?

This whole statement seems a little... shoddy.

yummyfajitas
Your statement is a non-sequitur. The fact that socialism requires a police force does not negate the fact that capitalism also requires one.

Similarly, in a socialist nation, people eat hamburgers. This does not imply that hamburgers eat people in a capitalist nation.

forkandwait
Well, China is doing pretty OK and they are to the socialist side of the continuum.

And, as long as we are trading isolated examples to prove general theories, what country is on the capitalist side of the spectrum and doing notably well? For bonus points, find me a nation that bet the farm on innovative securities and is doing especially well.

Don't get me wrong, I love markets and entrepeneurship (sp?); I just tend toward the Rockefeller Republican / Conservative Democrat zone, in which we believe that (1) the important thing is the details of governance (tax policy details, not debates about whether taxes are good) and (2) that "society" is more fundamental than "the market."

tkahn6
Well, Brazil is doing pretty well.

My point was not to prove a general theory by isolated example - simply to provide a counterpoint.

I think it's more fruitful to compare the economic/moral philosophies of these systems than to compare examples of them. Primarily because no isolated example is a paragon of its stated parent philosophy and (more practically) because a Marxist country doesn't exist and a capitalist country doesn't exist to compare.

And I'm genuinely curious how you separate tax policy debate from whether taxes are good. I don't think any socioeconomic system says all taxes are bad, but they do differ on what it is moral to tax for.

loewenskind
A pure capitalist country was tried in Chile though. They had to back out the "purity" pretty quickly.
chwahoo
That most countries employ various mixes of policies generally fits with my thinking about how things should work. Bugs in the systems should be addressed through incremental changes.

While I think countries shouldn't be run by strict adherence to the rules of an -ism, people who subscribe to an -ism are useful because they help frame and suggest solutions to the bugs in the current organization of society. The problem with the -ism folks is that they are hard to disprove because society will never reflect a pure enough implementation of their ideas. Where things get dicey is when politicians buy too strongly into a particular -ism and aren't able to employ other tools when necessary.

tkahn6
I think you have some good points but whose to say an -ism isn't the correct philosophy?

You assume that -isms are inherently wrong. Why?

chwahoo
That's a fair question. I think most -isms simplify complex systemic issues by applying a particular framing. Since this abstracts away aspects of the issue that don't fit frame but might still be important, -isms may fail to address the critical problems (or even acknowledge problems that some people care about).

This isn't a very specific argument, but it's hard to argue against -isms as a general idea.

tkahn6
I can see what you are talking about. But I think your opinions on -isms preclude the idea that there truly is an objectively best way to view the world (which optimizes fairness without making exceptions for specific cases). I'm not convinced that one doesn't exist but I definitely agree with what you are saying.
kiba
That most countries employ various mixes of policies generally fits with my thinking about how things should work. Bugs in the systems should be addressed through incremental changes

Why not radical changes?

Where things get dicey is when politicians buy too strongly into a particular -ism and aren't able to employ other tools when necessary.

How do we know what kind of idealism that politicians are employing? Why not think that they're just a bunch of self-interested politicians who wants the vote?

How do you know which tools are suited to which problems? How do you know if they're suited to any problems at all?

chwahoo
> Why not radical changes?

I think the motivation for radical changes is based on the idea that we are stuck in a "local maxima" (of some "goodness of society" function) that gradual change can only optimize to some limited degree and that large change is required to put us on a different part of the curve that can be maximized to a greater degree.

But I've never seen a proposed (or implemented) radical reorganization that I believed would put us on a path some global maxima (or better local maxima). Taken a step further, I don't believe that we are stuck in a local maxima and think we can make significant positive change using gradual reform.

MarkPNeyer
Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astrologers.
exit
> Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astronomers.

what about people who confuse astrology and astronomy?

MarkPNeyer
nice catch
loewenskind
That's a pretty bold statement. How do you know for certain that the labor theory of value is flawed? Has it every actually been seriously tried?

Further, you're implicitly saying that the "free market" view is the correct one. How can you possibly know this? Because it manages to work? Of course it does! Any programmer should know that when you're livelihood depends on it you can make any old garbage hang together long enough to get your next meal. I'm not saying "free market" hypothesis are "any old garbage", but rather that something simply not catastrophically failing doesn't mean it's the best answer or even a good one.

You hold pretty strong beliefs for something that can't possibly be proven one way or the other.

forkandwait
"Marx was completely wrong" is quite a statement -- you must have read all 2000 or so pages to be able to say this?

The labor theory of value is, indeed, rather silly. Marx did say a lot of other stuff, however. He was a crappy economist, but a great (IMHO) sociologist and philosopher.

One of his many points was that (market and non market) economies are socially embedded and created, generally to support power grabs by certain classes. Market economies have the extra advantage that they allow class structure (the relation between groups of people who are powerful and groups who are screwed-over) to appear scientifically necessary, as inevitable as the orbit of the planets once we know the differential equations and the initial conditions. But really, the economies mask a power struggle that was out in the open during feudal times (e.g. when the Norman lord showed up and said you will farm for us and give up your weapons, or we will kill you now).

When a person can't see this social context for markets, Marx would say such a person was blinded by "commodity fetishism" and a misguided belief in powers of commodity relations (and that such a belief is no more rational than the belief that a blessed doll can inflict misery on your enemies.)

MaysonL
Peter Drucker thought Marx was important, not for his answers, but because he was asking the right important questions.
johnohara
In 2007, before the financial crisis and before becoming Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel investigating the Troubled Assets Relief Program, Dr. Elizabeth Warren gave a very interesting talk at UC Berkeley titled "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

At the time I thought it was a little alarmist, but in view of recent developments I recommend watching it (58 minutes, sorry). It speaks directly to the point about wages and how middle class households employ revolving credit to make up the the difference. The graphs and data are interesting.

HN Theater is an independent project and is not operated by Y Combinator or any of the video hosting platforms linked to on this site.
~ yaj@
;laksdfhjdhksalkfj more things
yahnd.com ~ Privacy Policy ~
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.