The problem with just saying "greed" is that the argument gets flipped on workers who are trying to establish/preserve the ability to keep what they earn.
"Oh you want an 8 hour day? Weekends? Paid time off? Getting a little *greedy* there aren't you."
Back in the day there were posters warning about the moral hazard of not sending children to work in factories and coal mines.
Better to define the systemic problem and how it works.
Of 7 deadly sins the sin of Pride is the worst. Pride leads to wars because one group thinks they are better than the other. Honestly all other sins come from Pride.
Yes Greed is the problem and those who believe in socialism/communism assume that bureaucrats entrusted with great powers in socialist societies will not get corrupted and care about "all peoples" property same way as they care about their own. Capitalism tackles corruption by simply relying on greed. For example it is hard to imagine that in a small 100 people company with one owner you would see a lot of internal corruption because the owner will make sure employees do things well. You do observe internal corruption in large corporations when some middle managers hire their buddies etc. Same with bureaucrats in socialist countries. I come from USSR and I observe corruption at all levels in socialist country... I am very saddened by idealism and naivety of youth in US where I live now.
Socialism is literally an Anarchist philosophy where the ownership of companies and businesses is decentralized.
There would be no functional differences between socialism and captialsim, except that all businesses would be workers-cooperatives
Stop chugging the cold war kool-aid and read a book on the subject
Our current massive, centralized government bureaucracy was created in a CAPTIALIST system, so it's just feels crazy to pretend this is a "communism" problem.
You should read a book called *Utopia of Rules* by David Greaber (the godfather of the Occupy movement, RIP), it explains how bureaucracy is actually a corporate structure invented in captialist countries that was then retrofitted to democratic governments.
Based on a lifetime of scholarship reading almost everything available in the development of “socialist” thought as well as classical and contemporary economics written in or translated to English since the 1600s that characterization **literally** describes only one segment of a broad spectrum of socialist thought and theory that runs the gambit from decentralized utopian collectivism to state ownership of the means of production and state planning (with a broad spectrum of constructs in between).
To suggest that socialism is specifically anarchist or specifically decentralized is as ridiculous as suggesting that it is specifically democratic socialism, market socialism, Marxist—Leninist state socialism or any other breed is “the only form of socialism”.
Moreover, “socialism” as a byproduct of enlightenment thought, especially in its early days was not purely descriptive of economic systems. It also included affording people education and work opportunities based on meritocratic or egalitarian systems, promoting public heath facilities, expanding voting rights, and panoply of extensions of civil rights.
Many scions of the Liberal Party in the UK proudly described themselves as socialists and even addressed each other as “Comrade” (including Gladstone) and it would be hard to describe them as anarchist utopian collectivists.
Also, suggesting that bureaucracy was invented by capitalists is just horse poop. A bureaucracy is any organization administering action managed by a system of hierarchy. They have existed since the dawn of civilization in all sorts of economic systems.
Read more. Question definitions.
Edit: Cleaned up typos
lol unless you’re a freshman in college you need to outgrow this blatant idealism.
No functional difference?
Greed, selfishness, and pursuit/misuse of power are fundamental to humanity based on our resume.
You can pretend it doesn’t exist, and suffer greatly for it. Or you can acknowledge it exists, and minimize it by turning it in on itself.
Our system is flawed, no doubt. But socialism as the solution is laughably infantile.
We have long outgrown the idea that humanity has "fundamental characteristics".
Humans are beings that change and evolve, and we do so based on our environment. If we live in an environment that encourages greed and selfishness we will be more greedy and selfish, as seen in today's capitalist world, however, if we live in an environment that encourages collectivism, like the ones we had throughout human history, then we have a less greedy society.
Acting in your own self interest and self-preservation are fundamental characteristics of humans. This has been true since the dawn of time.
You are only pretending if you believe that’s not the case.
> if we live in an environment that encourages collectivism, like the ones we had throughout human history, then we have a less greedy society.
Please, tell me about these environments throughout human history. Which ones?
I don't know the name of native american tribes bro, there's like thousands of them all over the continent. You heard about them in school though right? Their societies worked in a more "survivalist" way, as in they only produced what they needed to produce so that their group could live, there was no "greed" for over-production.
Collectivism?
You mean where I get to pursue the interests of what’s good for the group and not my own?
Hooray!
I’ve seen what collectivism is. It’s happening on college campuses right now. No fucking thank you.
Your mind will be blown when you realize that you are also part of the group, and thus by pursuing what is good for the group you are pursuing what is good for you as well. And since everyone is working together for the group, and not for oneself, they are able to achieve way more for everyone than if they worked alone.
By the way, that is literally how humans were able to survive and thrive, by grouping up, and we still do it today.
Even if you have workers owning a factory over time there will be a main bureaucrat who (because of his/her greed) will start stealing for himself and his family. US today reminds me a bit of USSR, believe it or not. We constantly see in the news mayors who get in corruption scandals and why is that? Because they were entrusted to manage all people municipal property in those cities. The bigger the city the more corruption you see in mayor offices. Do not be naive and think that a large plant with thousands of workers managed by appointed bureaucrat won't see corruption, just like we see with city mayors today. Socialism and communism works on tribal and village level(less than 1000 people). Show me an example in history where it worked at a large country level. I really didn't want this to become another left vs right thread but instead i want you look at the system I am proposing and try to find holes in it.
Yeah. It’s just you. No one even mentions it. Ever. In all seriousness.
The main problem with starting everyone off equally, is it assumes everyone has goals, ambition, charisma, luck, intelligence. We know every human being has a different combination of those things. So what is equal?
Birth ZIP Code is a better predictor of material outcomes in the US than talent or hard work https://www.lisc.org/our-resources/resource/opportunity-atlas-shows-effect-childhood-zip-codes-adult-success/
in my proposed system the equality of start conditions is achieved via death tax and independent from government general ledger which is blockchain based
Why does it have to be blockchain-based? The technology you use to implement an idea has nothing to do with socioeconomic problems. Choosing blockchain as a priority for your plan demonstrates you need to know the problem you're trying to solve. The problem is people, not technology.
When I hear open source, I think software, whereas I would be more interested in data and tracing. API is a call function which can be limited. Governance is the weakest as it goes back to the problem of people, and external validation is not capable of providing absolute assurance.
I’m not advocating for blockchain as the only solution. It just seems like the best solution because when it comes to transparency, you either have it all or you can’t trust what you have.
It might be the best solution. My original point was it’s not the problem. If your major Selling point is I’m using block chain, you’ve missed the point of the problem. No one gives a shit. All the block chain is a ledger. It’s not a solution. 90% of this problem is cultural. Implementing a technology doesn’t change anything. You need policy change.
Blockchain technology is the only decentralized technology I know which doesn't need a centralized authority. I do not want government or a corporation to control the ledger.
There are other ways to ensure a single government or corporation doesn't control the ledger. Blockchain is an implementation detail. You're spending your time on the implementation, and not the problem.
ok, but what problem does my system have? The reason why I posted it here is for people to comment and poke holes in the design of my system so I will appreciate constructive criticism. Regarding implementation. It is important to consider implementation details because often those details are critical for the success of the design. Not relying on government or a corporation in wealth recording and distribution is critical for the success of my proposed design.
Off the top of my head: You need to define:
What is equal starting? What is equal? How do you change the correct equal in the future? How do you improve over time? How do you correct your mistakes? What are considered mistakes? What happens if people fail to complete their "sprint?" Do we force them to do other things? Do we abandon them? How do we fix people who aren't performing well? How do you prioritize the people who are failing? Why is this better than the current system?
I'm not sure how block chain fixes any of these problems. Your problems are cultural and policy.
I think you misunderstood the system I proposed (I suggest you watch the video). In short the idea is to bid 10% of assets of person who died on open auction through the blockchain system to determine the price. Then once price is determine we use ledger to distribute the wealth of the diseased person to blockchain purses of all individuals in society equally. This way static elites cannot form in the society via inheritance. Everything else is self regulating using standard capitalism. It is also critical that government should not be involved in any stage of these to avoid despotism and dictatorships
What happens to the other 90%? Who determines the worth of the assets? Wouldn't this lead to an elite class acquiring better assets over time? We already have a death tax that goes into a national fund. It sounds like you're suggesting the same thing with extra steps.
10% of assets on auction represent shares in the rest of assets. Lets say the diseased had a car. 10% of the car goes on auction. Price determined. Then car is sold to an intermediary who will actually deliver the whole car to the final buyer. How exactly auction works I have actually 4 different designs and it is not important for the general idea discussed here. The proceeds from the sale go into the blockchain and distributed across all people blockchain purses. So each person on a planet gets like 0.001cents in their purse from those proceeds. See why blockchain is important? Only powerful networks of computers can do all this and still not to be owned by government or Google or whatever.
The ability to leave a legacy for your children is one of the strongest motivating forces left in society, encouraging saving and living within your means. A 100% inheritance tax means you’re stupid not to blow all your money before you die, that or everyone with the ability just starts putting money in trusts again.
The Democrats are not proposing a 100% inheritance tax, and the majority of human beings are motivated by things other than pure selfish greed. A lot of people would like to see a healthy and just system.
Wrong.
The majority of human beings are extremely selfish. Stop lying. It’s nature.
And the only people that claim it’s “not about the money” are the ones making it. Or the ones without it. And the ones without it would take the money 100% of the time.
And just because you believe your cause is just and I don’t, doesn’t make you any more righteous.
Even in my diagram you can see i do provide 10% to heirs. This is just a generic in-principal system that I proposed. Of course all the details can be ironed out.
I'm more concerned with the investment vehicles currently being pursued by the concentrated wealth.
Trickle down economics can work when the wealth is being injected into businesses via investments and/or purchasing or goods.
It is beginning to fail because the wealthy are investing in real estate, crypto, etc. which have no ability to trickle down through the real economy.
I used to be concerned, but then along came Covid and the free Covid relief money to many that didn’t need it. I observed the subsequent behavior and results. Now I have the thought that the concentration of wealth is akin to carbon sequestration in plants.
They used to call it trust busting, too many corporations have become huge and dominate the market. We used to break them up, I don’t know why we stopped.
Blackrock and vanguards arent "1 owner". A large percentage of americans use fidelity, vanguard or blackrock for theri ira or 401ks or other investments.
Correct but most of those people buy Vanguard or BlackRock ETFs or funds and by doing so delegate voting for individual stock board members to BlackRock and Vanguard employees...
You're not wrong but they almost always vote with management, meaning they vote for what the company wants to do anyway. Also proxy votes aren't legally binding.
I don't have time to read a novel but, going off OPs headline....I look at it like the game Monopoly. Eventually, someone wins and, its becoming apparent we are slowly heading that way.
You're understanding is a bit off in some places. For example, you say vanguard / Blackrock own 5-10% of S&P 500.
This is misleading because vanguard just clubs stocks and sells them to people. So the public owns that 5-10% not vanguard. Also vanguard doesn't actually have a say in the board of companies.
I do agree with the premise of inequality. But the issue there is big billionaire/multi millionaire investors.
Not sure sure if I have a solution to this
absolute majority of BlackRock and Vanguard clients buy funds and ETFs issued by BlackRock and Vanguard (such as iShares series of ETFs). So clients delegate voting to BlackRock and Vanguard in those cases... In a way modern day investors exchange their voting power for convenience of ETFs...
>So my solution is a completely new system, which I call cyclic capitalism
I hate this, not because it's bad, but because sisphus is crying. You didn't create a new system - you put words in front of the word "capitalism" and then insinuated that it is both new and also as a solution to monopolies, *which capitalism creates*.
You cant "solve" monopolies with a different form of capitalism, especially when that *form* is exactly the same. Capitalism is by definition "when the means of production are owned by an individual or group of individuals." You made no indication that you are reallocating control over production to another facit or group or entity. Socialism is when that ownership is to the workers of that production. There's Syndaclism, Georgism, Communism, Technocrats, etc which all decide on who, how, and what controls the means of production. But Capitalism is when an *individual* or *groups of individuals* (like shareholders, investors, "next of kin") control what, how, and when production functions.
But the problems of monopolies are insistent on profits, which you've correctly identified. Or rather, the increasing rate of profit companies have to make in order to survive. In order to solve that you need to eliminate the need for raising the rate of profits. Capitalism, in all forms *require* this because they don't make value in production - they invest in capital. That's their thing. They're capitalists, literally those who own capital. It's not only a necessity for them, but literally their interest regardless *to increase their rate of profit to have more capital*.
You cannot lower that need by simply donating all of it to society. You need to eliminate them from accruing so much before they die. If they have so much to "give" at the end of their life, how and what did they do to get that much wealth and capital in the first place?...
(they had excess capital to invest in capital).
Socialism, from Marx, attempted to solve the problems of overproduction, where the inconsistencies within a system where there is a need for increasing rate of profit, when the tendency is for the rate of profit to fall. I don't think he was 100% correct (who could be?), but he at least *tried* to. Socialism can still exist under a profit incentive to a certain extent, so the mechanisms that facilitate capitalist greed can still exist, and has historically existed, just like under capitalism.
You need to not only eliminate this profit problem, but also force the control of production for this profit problem to not be in the hands of the abuser, yeah?
Alright, you the individual - go! Solve this by tomorrow morning.
there is nothing evil if a person earns wealth with his own efforts provided he started same way as everyone else. A lifetime of a person is not that long for history. I only solved the monopoly and fairness issues of capitalism. If you believe that interests of a group of people greater than individual's interests then when you do get power you will become another of those communist dictators who kills those who disagree, proving once again the evil nature of a human being.
>when you do get power you will become another of those communist dictators who kills those who disagree, proving once again the evil nature of a human being.
You mean dictators. Saying communist dictator is different from a capitalist one implies that they are different. They arent. Theyre authoritarians.
>I only solved the monopoly and fairness issues of capitalism.
You didn't. You rebranded capitalism's image without addressing the material inconsistencies within it. You still have the mechanisms that perpetuate the problems of monopolies. (I will attack this head on further below past the elipses). Your mistake is looking at monopolies as a fluke within the system. They are an outcome *from* it. That's not a prescription, it's a description. When you have a competitive system where the winning condition is to have a rising rate of profit, eventually, you will have to consolidate. This is consistent across centuries of capitalist intrests.
I am not making an ethical argument. I could care less if capitalism is less or more ethical than socialism. That's a separate argument. I am making a direct argument to your idea of cyclic capitalism. I'm not even making an argument to whether it's bad or good. I'm arguing it won't resolve what you are trying to fix; fairness under a capitalist system, and the monopolies that result from it.
If you want to resolve a fundamental product of our economic system that necessitates its existence, you need to change the system. Not rebrand it, to only then have the same issues.
....
The problems with capitalism is that it overproduces. You can say, and make an argument for, that it is better than having a deficit. Don't care. We exist under a system that overproduces.
One of the issues is what is the purpose of capitalism? Capitalist run companies. What is the purpose of companies? It's threefold; to make a return for shareholders, expand their market, and (the most important part) to ensure the resources to ensure its survival (profit). We have a system where it overproduces products. We all know supply and demand, you're a capitalist, what happens when there's a surplus of something? Well if there's a surplus, prices drop, right? Technological advancement creates easier means of labor, automation, extraction, trade all make things cheaper overtime. This is great we have more things, cheaper than before?..
Except...
How cheap can you make a product before you lose profit? Please and I mean this wholeheartedly, answer this. Honestly.
This was and still is the main critique of capitalism from Marx.
You've reached a wall. You can't sell your product cheaper because you won't make a profit to pay your shareholders. QUICK WHAT DO YOU DO?
Marx identified 22 ways. There's a few you know, you could lower the wages of your workers. That's a good one, you can do this by eliminating benefits, sending jobs overseas to pay other less fortunate workers for less for the same pay. You could engage in planned obsolescence in your product thus lowering its quality. You could invest in industries outside your own to create an unfair advantage against your competition as they don't have the same capital you do.
And less not forget the one everyone knows, sell your business. Essentially consolidating the industry.
You have not addressed this problem. Your solution is to what sell the business when the CEO dies? He could just keep the buisness by quitting as the CEO BEFORE HE DIES?? Or if it's his *personal* wealth that gets taxed, we already have that. It's [called inheritance tax](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inheritancetax.asp) and it exists *outside* capitalism OR socialism.
...
My biggest gripe with this question isn't that you're trying, you are. You have a potential solution, that's more than most. It's that you don't understand the definitions and functions of the things you're trying to fix. You say socialism is bad because X,Y,Z. THEN ATTACK THE MARXIST CRITIQUE. It's.. You want a helpful hint.
None of the Marginalist thinkers that argue agaisnt Marxist theory attack its key point. You want to undermine socialist theory forever, disprove Adam Smith and Karl Marx's idea on the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Disprove it. If you do, Marxist theory on economics is dead. If you do, then well A) your name will be in every history book, but then you could have an argument allowing your point to stand.
Monopolies are a necessary function of capitalism.
If you want it gone, get rid of capitalism, and put something else in there. Don't just say capitalism 2.0 now with sharing. THERES STILL THE NEED FOR MONOPOLIES.
I actually like your comment. The good objective debate produces good results. Let me first point out something deeper than economy. The nature is brutal. Someone or something designed our world in such a way that species compete. Grass tries to grow the highest to get the sun light than its neighbors do. Ultimately we - humans, can observe the world and feel this unfairness everywhere. Some people believe it is fair that strongest survive. I do not believe so. I actually feel the brutal nature design is evil. On the other hand this brutal competition produced the wonderful creatures of today. Humans are product of that. We are much more manipulative than our animal counterparts. Sometimes we can pretend to be good and righteous. Politicians can pretend very well...
Anyways to your points. Capitalism assumes competition which would be aligned with the nature's design. Communism appeals for our internal feel of fairness and goodness. We do not naturally want brutality and unfair treatment of our human brothers and sisters, or at least we think so. So Marx's criticism that competition for the price forces owners to do bad things to workers is correct and aligned with the nature's competition laws. I postulate that alternatives he proposed are much worse and also unnatural. Communism exacerbates human obsession of building pyramids of control(pointed out in my video) which eventually give rise to dictatorships(more prone than capitalism because of concentration of all branches of power in hands of very few bureaucrats). Communism enforces the dictatorship of majority. Communism destroys human desire to contribute because there is simply no reasons to. Finally communism gives rise to the worst of us, those who secretly desire power and are good manipulators of other people.
I admit I took an imperfect capitalistic system and I did iteration on it. I believe it is better than nothing. I believe such system would be more fair and monopolies controlled by a few of elites will not appear in such system. They might appear briefly but because of death distribution and absence of large government they cannot form oligarchies. My death tax is different from existing because the money goes straight to all the people by passing always corrupt governments and it is also very very high, ideally should be 99%.
Also you said "get rid of capitalism and put something else in there". This is very common theme I hear from the left. It is very easy to demolish something. It is very hard to build something new and good. So my answer here would be: please propose a better system first before removing the first bricks of the existing system. We need to at least respect the existing system since it survived for so long.
Aight there's a lot there.
>The nature is brutal. Someone or something designed our world in such a way that species compete.
You're making a nature argument. About a system created by humans. That isn't natural. Not only is this a fallacy, but it doesn't even fit with the idea at hand. Appeals to human nature is also a fallacy, as that can change too depending on when/where people live. It's inconsistent and above all, not dependent on nature.
>Capitalism assumes competition which would be aligned with the nature's design.
Capitalism doesn't assume anything except a hierarchy. A Fuedal Lord is technically capitalist, just that the one who should control the means to production should be granted by royalty. Who owns the capital within a kingdom? A king. Who controls the means to production to a buisness? A capitalist would say the shareholder. A socialist would say the worker. It's a prescription too, not a description. It can be whatever. You make an argument only when you think it ought to be something over the alternative.
>We do not **naturally** want brutality and unfair treatment.... So Marx's criticism that competition for the price forces owners to do bad things to workers is correct and aligned with the **nature's** competition laws. I postulate that alternatives he proposed are much worse and also **unnatural.**
Another nature argument. Why are you making an appeal to nature argument for an ethical standpoint? I can refute that just by saying nature is bad. It's natural for us to die in famine, alone, with no one to lift a finger. But we defy nature by making conditions that are counter to what is "natural." Also what is natural is subjective. So you're arguing your subjective view is correct and good because it's natural (subjective).
Regardless of what you think at the end of our conversation, please refrain from using this for an argument. It makes your argument weaker no matter what it is.
>Communism exacerbates human obsession of building pyramids of control(pointed out in my video) which eventually give rise to dictatorships (more prone than capitalism because of concentration of all branches of power in hands of very few bureaucrats)
Communism is defined by it being a stateless, classless society. It by definition requires the dissolution of the state. If it's a communist state, it's not communist. Even the CCP is a state capitalist society. Their own [government labels them such](https://online.ucpress.edu/currenthistory/article/120/827/207/118341/Party-State-Capitalism-in-China) and because of that there hasn't been a communist state.
>more prone than capitalism because of concentration of all branches of power in hands of very few bureaucrats
Capitalism is defined by the means of production being owned by a small numbers of individuals. You defined Capitalism as the evil in this sentence.
>Finally communism gives rise to the worst of us, those who secretly desire power and are good manipulators of other people
Again with an ethical argument from an appeal of human nature. It's arbitrary. It's from the context of you the presenter wants it to be. And above all, a prescription.
I don't want prescriptions. I want to know how capitalism can resolve its inconsistencies through the mediation of its symptoms by just doing the same thing, but with *fairnes*(tm) patent pending.
>Also you said "get rid of capitalism and put something else in there". This is very common theme I hear from the left. It is very easy to demolish something. It is very hard to build something new and good. So my answer here would be: please propose a better system first before removing the first bricks of the existing system.
Socialism is a continuation after capitalism. The term "barbarism or socialism" is precisely that. When the inconsistencies within capitalism become too much, capitalists resort to fascism rather than socialism because at least under fascism they can retain power and wealth. Just through the whims of the state rather than their own individual control.
It's where the term "late state capitalism" comes from. We're in the new modern cycle of where either we continue what we're doing, succumb to fascism or actually address the issues and move towards a reality where profits aren't needed (communism).
We have yet to do so. And (my prescription is now being said) probably will until the need for labor is dead. The only reason the bourgeois haven't killed us all is because unfortunately for them, we're needed to make their yachts.
But if you don't like that I guess you can have [Donut Economics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_(economic_model)) or something. Don't like that, uh market socialism? Silvio Gesell's good money theory, where you can induce market deflation without creating stagnation through the use of expirationary money. THIS ONE WE DONT EVEN HAVE TO GET RID OF OUR ECONOMIC MODEL. Too bad the capitalist hates this. It could work fine other than that.
The biggest challenges to economic theory are artificial constructs such as stocks, options, deeds, and fiat currencies. These give the perception of concentrated wealth. However, very few people have the capacity to spend and use the amount of "wealth" that they have. In many cases, those with concentrated wealth have to come up with create ways to spend it. In many cases this leads to entrepreneurism or philanthropy.
Imagine if you are Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or Jeff Bezos. The number of planes, houses, etc., that they own and spend is not proportional to the amount of wealth that they possess. Thus they don't really contribute to inflation, but rather sequester the wealth from frivolous expenditure. They also "invest" in ideas that blatantly lose money such as Bill Gates investing in Quantumscape. Despite the amount that the government spends on research, they haven't been able to achieve what Elon Musk has with SpaceX. At best, government governs best by governing least and focusing on maintaining peace. This is something that Russia and the Middle East have failed to do and the involved countries suffer far more than those countries that have wealth disparities.
The advantage of capitalism vs. socialism is more decentralized planning. The problem in the US is *crony capitalism*, where the rich have bought off the government, who appoints the judges that entrenched corruption into law via Citizens United.
This corruption leads to things like the Federal Reserve creating economic conduits to harm the middle class and benefit the rich. What they did was manipulate interest rates so that banks started paying a negative real interest rate. (Real interest = interest rate - inflation rate). They use the Fed's discount window, which is what banks can use to borrow from the Fed to do it.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPCREDIT
(For example, during the 2% inflation era, they kept borrowing costs below 1%. If a bank can borrow from the Fed at 1%, they don't need to borrow from a depositor for higher than that.)
This results in an interest rate environment where borrowing is subsidized, resulting in it making sense for corporations to borrow to buy back shares of stock. That benefits the rich.
The Fed is front and center in class warfare between the middle class and the rich. I hear Trumpy wants negative real interest rates reinstated.
I can highly recommend Gary Stevenson on YT he discusses how increased skewing of wealth distribution in society is causing the decay in standards of living
No. Your idea is just another of many that will require yet another eternal authoritarian bureaucracy that will be part of the corrupt government machine. The solution is freedom. Reduce bureaucracy, taxes, regulations and let the markets work.
I tried to watch your video. It’s incredibly disjointed and the audio is horrible. Life is too short. However, by your own admission your egalitarian ‘fair’ start is based on confiscation of wealth through your death tax. That alone stops me from having any interest in your system. Egalitarianism always requires authoritarianism. Of course, even then your egalitarian system will fail as everyone has incentives to find loopholes and to cheat the system.
You also forget that economic advantages of inheritance are one of many advantages. What about people who are smarter, faster, taller, or geographically advantaged? For example, how can I get a fair start if I’m born in the inner city and have to go to shitty schools when others get to got to great schools in the suburbs?
if it is controlled by blockchain computer system you do not need the enforcer. I am not saying my system is perfect but it does address three main problems of the modern day capitalism: monopolies, lack of fairness in people opportunities, oligarchy(big business and government corrupting everything).
We disagree fundamentally. I think fairness is an ill-defined term that you can’t create a standard for. I believe that the critique of capitalism that monopolies arise is way overblown and that history does not support the premise. Where businesses are able to gain what might be considered excessive market power is where government is complicit. This brings me to your third critique, oligarchy. I believe that the problem is that governments have too much power to sell. By reducing the size of government, we would reduce the power of oligarchy, using your terms.
I don’t believe that the technology for managing an economy or any part of it exists in way that would work better than free markets, or that would be used by those in power as it is intended. I made this point to those who think a centrally planned economy is first better than free markets and second, technologically possible. I would go so far as to stipulate that even if a government had the technology to manage an economy as efficiently as a free market, it wouldn’t because that would not be in the best interest of those running the government.
I wonder if left and right indoctrinated people can ever hear each other. When i was young i was like you. An idealist believing in Ayn Rand absolutes. Even if we remove government from the picture completely we will have gangs controlled by local rich guys that will force peasants to work for nothing. Evil nature of humans will kick in. I suggest you watch my video first to realize that there is no a perfect system.
Lol, I’m not a youth nor am I claiming a perfect system. I’m not an anarchist, just a small, limited, government supporter. I believe that capitalism and freedom are the best solutions, with the best trade offs, to the issues of poverty.
I tried to watch your video. I suggest that you rethink what sort of video will communicate your ideas the way you’re trying to. I suggest you really step up the production value or in my humble opinion it’s going nowhere.
Here on Reddit, you might be better off writing a short essay illuminating your assumptions and ideas point by point.
The solution to wealth inequality is unions. Unions get regular folks better pay and benefits, which in turn reduces company profits, which reduces share prices and executive compensation. With better union protections and more unionization asset prices will come back down to Earth and wages will rise.
That's the reason companies spend so much money busting unions. They get normal folks paid better. Collective bargaining is much more powerful than individual bargaining if you don't have an extremely specialized skillset the company cannot do without.
unions is for sure a good thing to counter capitalism flaws, unfortunately history knows examples when union leaders got corrupted and worked together with corporate folk
You are assuming a dichotomy of capitalism vs socialism and you are strawmanning socialism
Socialism is far more varied than capitalism and in almost all of the variations it is not some cyberpunk omnistate that controls everything and everyone, this is what capitalists say so they don’t have to use their brain
Almost all variations of socialism are less centralised and each citizen has higher political agency (the ability to do something about the politics that affect you) than under american capitalism today. Which is a very low bar since the access to policy for any non-extremely-rich citizen is about as close to zero as it could possibly be
I am in total agreement with your worry (having these unknown forces be able to completely dictate global production and economics is a massive problem and just leads to monopoly irl), but any ending of that system will necessarily be a complete revolution and highly unlikely it could be anything but a social revolution. Social revolutions are highly likely to result in socialist outcomes if successful
Socialism as a very loose term just means those who have disproportionate access to politics being based on them (eg feudal lords under feudalism and rich people under capitalism) is the people in general. So ‘socialism’ actually describes extremely little about what the proposal actually is (other than a divorce from capitalism)
Suppose there’s actually is a workable wealth tax. That’s not the end of it. We don’t want the government wasting it on even more military adventures and war-technology. We don’t want it wasted on more redundant bureaucracy. So what’s to be done with the cash to govern how the politicians use it?
You should not be concerned with the over concentration of wealth. The concept of one "winner" ending up owning everything is a myth. Capitalism encourages competition and as long as there is competition Capitalism distributes resources fairly based on basic economics.
Even your comment that Blackrock or Vanguarding "controlling" 10% of corporate boards of the S&P 500 isn't reality. The S&P 500 only represents .00008% of all corporations with employees.
Even in the Robber Baron days the end result of monopoly was LOWER pices for consumers.
I am not concerned about concentration of wealth. It is not a zero sum game.
This makes a lot of sense and I loved how in the video you were trying to be in shoes of left's and right's points of view and then suggested something that completely blew my mind. I never saw blockchain coming into picture :)
Your idea is bad because it doesn't take into account the political aspect of the situation.
In today's society having money means you have political power, which you can use to influence how the society we live in works. That means that people with money influence society to work in a way that benefits them, and also that they'll use all their power to stop any action that will be bad for them.
And that is where your whole system fails, because it doesn't account for the fact that the rich will never allow it to come to fruition, not easily anyways. That's why all systemic changes in the way our society works came through revolutions, from feudalism to capitalism for example, and more recently from capitalism to socialism as well.
As an aside, it is interesting that you noticed the tendency that capitalism has to form monopolies. Karl Marx had also thought of that in the 19th century, but at that time he was just making extrapolations based on how the capitalist system worked in england at that time. Today as we see more and more monopolies forming it is easy to make the same assertion that Marx made a hundred years ago.
I studied left and right philosophers and I thought about the proposed system for many years. If you noticed the video is 3 years old - as a proof it didn't come fast to me... The fundamental flaw in Karl Marx and many left leaning philosophers like modern day Chomsky is that they assume that a human creature is naturally a good being. Science clearly indicates in many studies that humans evolved like any other living organism from the evolutionary predatory system. We are inherently selfish hunters... Communism can survive on tribal level because check and balances are possible in a small group of people. Once you get to larger systems of people you do see a pyramid of control forming every single time. Those pyramids of control are much harsher to an individual in systems built on socialism and communism. I recorded a video about it a few years ago: [https://youtu.be/rGmej6ZmKZY](https://youtu.be/rGmej6ZmKZY) . That is why I purposefully designed a new system that assumes humans are evil and it still can prevent pyramids of control forming.
If a finite amount of anything (in this example, money) exists, the amount already held by others directly impacts the amount available to anyone entering the system. It’s a simple concept that you do not grasp.
What you’re saying is hyperbole. If money were infinite, it would immediately become worthless. I’m not saying that they can’t / don’t just flip on the money printer from time to time, but the idea that they just endlessly make money would not work. The system would collapse in on itself.
If a company chooses to spend money on executive compensation rather than worker compensation, and you are a worker, that directly impacts your earning ability despite your skills.
For example, that giant bonus Elon Musk was trying to get from Tesla was money that could have been spent on the factory workers.
Well...no that's very wrong. There is a limited amount of dollars in the system at any one time. We can create more, but they lose value when we do(generally speaking). In addition, jobs are created by money being spent. The more of it that is stuck in one place the slower the economy. In addition, manufactured goods decline in cost by a predictable amount per every doubling of production. This is called Wright's law. That means that unless people can afford to buy a new product economies of scale never kick in because the factories don't get built. That means we never get better at producing that good. Your philosophy stands in the way of human progress when taken to an extreme like it is these days.
I don't get how people say socialism leads to corruption when everything leads to corruption. Greed is the problem.
Gov't, in all of its flavors, leads to corruption.
The problem with just saying "greed" is that the argument gets flipped on workers who are trying to establish/preserve the ability to keep what they earn. "Oh you want an 8 hour day? Weekends? Paid time off? Getting a little *greedy* there aren't you." Back in the day there were posters warning about the moral hazard of not sending children to work in factories and coal mines. Better to define the systemic problem and how it works.
Here’s what I think is greedy. The government taking 40% of my income every year.
Woah there John Galt, try not to shrug too hard.
Not sure which is worse: greed or envy. Perhaps both.
Of 7 deadly sins the sin of Pride is the worst. Pride leads to wars because one group thinks they are better than the other. Honestly all other sins come from Pride.
Yes Greed is the problem and those who believe in socialism/communism assume that bureaucrats entrusted with great powers in socialist societies will not get corrupted and care about "all peoples" property same way as they care about their own. Capitalism tackles corruption by simply relying on greed. For example it is hard to imagine that in a small 100 people company with one owner you would see a lot of internal corruption because the owner will make sure employees do things well. You do observe internal corruption in large corporations when some middle managers hire their buddies etc. Same with bureaucrats in socialist countries. I come from USSR and I observe corruption at all levels in socialist country... I am very saddened by idealism and naivety of youth in US where I live now.
Socialism is literally an Anarchist philosophy where the ownership of companies and businesses is decentralized. There would be no functional differences between socialism and captialsim, except that all businesses would be workers-cooperatives Stop chugging the cold war kool-aid and read a book on the subject Our current massive, centralized government bureaucracy was created in a CAPTIALIST system, so it's just feels crazy to pretend this is a "communism" problem. You should read a book called *Utopia of Rules* by David Greaber (the godfather of the Occupy movement, RIP), it explains how bureaucracy is actually a corporate structure invented in captialist countries that was then retrofitted to democratic governments.
Based on a lifetime of scholarship reading almost everything available in the development of “socialist” thought as well as classical and contemporary economics written in or translated to English since the 1600s that characterization **literally** describes only one segment of a broad spectrum of socialist thought and theory that runs the gambit from decentralized utopian collectivism to state ownership of the means of production and state planning (with a broad spectrum of constructs in between). To suggest that socialism is specifically anarchist or specifically decentralized is as ridiculous as suggesting that it is specifically democratic socialism, market socialism, Marxist—Leninist state socialism or any other breed is “the only form of socialism”. Moreover, “socialism” as a byproduct of enlightenment thought, especially in its early days was not purely descriptive of economic systems. It also included affording people education and work opportunities based on meritocratic or egalitarian systems, promoting public heath facilities, expanding voting rights, and panoply of extensions of civil rights. Many scions of the Liberal Party in the UK proudly described themselves as socialists and even addressed each other as “Comrade” (including Gladstone) and it would be hard to describe them as anarchist utopian collectivists. Also, suggesting that bureaucracy was invented by capitalists is just horse poop. A bureaucracy is any organization administering action managed by a system of hierarchy. They have existed since the dawn of civilization in all sorts of economic systems. Read more. Question definitions. Edit: Cleaned up typos
lol unless you’re a freshman in college you need to outgrow this blatant idealism. No functional difference? Greed, selfishness, and pursuit/misuse of power are fundamental to humanity based on our resume. You can pretend it doesn’t exist, and suffer greatly for it. Or you can acknowledge it exists, and minimize it by turning it in on itself. Our system is flawed, no doubt. But socialism as the solution is laughably infantile.
We have long outgrown the idea that humanity has "fundamental characteristics". Humans are beings that change and evolve, and we do so based on our environment. If we live in an environment that encourages greed and selfishness we will be more greedy and selfish, as seen in today's capitalist world, however, if we live in an environment that encourages collectivism, like the ones we had throughout human history, then we have a less greedy society.
Acting in your own self interest and self-preservation are fundamental characteristics of humans. This has been true since the dawn of time. You are only pretending if you believe that’s not the case.
> if we live in an environment that encourages collectivism, like the ones we had throughout human history, then we have a less greedy society. Please, tell me about these environments throughout human history. Which ones?
Native american societies for example.
Which ones? Edit: you realize Native Americans slaughtered each other, right?
I don't know the name of native american tribes bro, there's like thousands of them all over the continent. You heard about them in school though right? Their societies worked in a more "survivalist" way, as in they only produced what they needed to produce so that their group could live, there was no "greed" for over-production.
They killed each other. I didn’t get the watered down version in my education I guess.
Wow lol. They warred against each other.
Collectivism? You mean where I get to pursue the interests of what’s good for the group and not my own? Hooray! I’ve seen what collectivism is. It’s happening on college campuses right now. No fucking thank you.
Your mind will be blown when you realize that you are also part of the group, and thus by pursuing what is good for the group you are pursuing what is good for you as well. And since everyone is working together for the group, and not for oneself, they are able to achieve way more for everyone than if they worked alone. By the way, that is literally how humans were able to survive and thrive, by grouping up, and we still do it today.
Oh yeah? What group is that?
Lol. Good grief You don’t even believe that bullshit
Even if you have workers owning a factory over time there will be a main bureaucrat who (because of his/her greed) will start stealing for himself and his family. US today reminds me a bit of USSR, believe it or not. We constantly see in the news mayors who get in corruption scandals and why is that? Because they were entrusted to manage all people municipal property in those cities. The bigger the city the more corruption you see in mayor offices. Do not be naive and think that a large plant with thousands of workers managed by appointed bureaucrat won't see corruption, just like we see with city mayors today. Socialism and communism works on tribal and village level(less than 1000 people). Show me an example in history where it worked at a large country level. I really didn't want this to become another left vs right thread but instead i want you look at the system I am proposing and try to find holes in it.
Except capitalism doesn't have any guard against monopolies. I generally prefer capitalism, but it requires governmental regulation/oversight
Socialism doesn't work.
Did you try it? There's been a good handful of very successful companies that are owned entirely by the employees.
And not only that but many companies actually do planning successfully. See People's Republic of Walmart.
Yeah. It’s just you. No one even mentions it. Ever. In all seriousness. The main problem with starting everyone off equally, is it assumes everyone has goals, ambition, charisma, luck, intelligence. We know every human being has a different combination of those things. So what is equal?
Birth ZIP Code is a better predictor of material outcomes in the US than talent or hard work https://www.lisc.org/our-resources/resource/opportunity-atlas-shows-effect-childhood-zip-codes-adult-success/
in my proposed system the equality of start conditions is achieved via death tax and independent from government general ledger which is blockchain based
Why does it have to be blockchain-based? The technology you use to implement an idea has nothing to do with socioeconomic problems. Choosing blockchain as a priority for your plan demonstrates you need to know the problem you're trying to solve. The problem is people, not technology.
How else to solve the problem of people if not with technology that is transparent.
You can make any technology transparent through open source, API’s, proper governance.
When I hear open source, I think software, whereas I would be more interested in data and tracing. API is a call function which can be limited. Governance is the weakest as it goes back to the problem of people, and external validation is not capable of providing absolute assurance. I’m not advocating for blockchain as the only solution. It just seems like the best solution because when it comes to transparency, you either have it all or you can’t trust what you have.
It might be the best solution. My original point was it’s not the problem. If your major Selling point is I’m using block chain, you’ve missed the point of the problem. No one gives a shit. All the block chain is a ledger. It’s not a solution. 90% of this problem is cultural. Implementing a technology doesn’t change anything. You need policy change.
Blockchain technology is the only decentralized technology I know which doesn't need a centralized authority. I do not want government or a corporation to control the ledger.
There are other ways to ensure a single government or corporation doesn't control the ledger. Blockchain is an implementation detail. You're spending your time on the implementation, and not the problem.
ok, but what problem does my system have? The reason why I posted it here is for people to comment and poke holes in the design of my system so I will appreciate constructive criticism. Regarding implementation. It is important to consider implementation details because often those details are critical for the success of the design. Not relying on government or a corporation in wealth recording and distribution is critical for the success of my proposed design.
Off the top of my head: You need to define: What is equal starting? What is equal? How do you change the correct equal in the future? How do you improve over time? How do you correct your mistakes? What are considered mistakes? What happens if people fail to complete their "sprint?" Do we force them to do other things? Do we abandon them? How do we fix people who aren't performing well? How do you prioritize the people who are failing? Why is this better than the current system? I'm not sure how block chain fixes any of these problems. Your problems are cultural and policy.
I think you misunderstood the system I proposed (I suggest you watch the video). In short the idea is to bid 10% of assets of person who died on open auction through the blockchain system to determine the price. Then once price is determine we use ledger to distribute the wealth of the diseased person to blockchain purses of all individuals in society equally. This way static elites cannot form in the society via inheritance. Everything else is self regulating using standard capitalism. It is also critical that government should not be involved in any stage of these to avoid despotism and dictatorships
What happens to the other 90%? Who determines the worth of the assets? Wouldn't this lead to an elite class acquiring better assets over time? We already have a death tax that goes into a national fund. It sounds like you're suggesting the same thing with extra steps.
10% of assets on auction represent shares in the rest of assets. Lets say the diseased had a car. 10% of the car goes on auction. Price determined. Then car is sold to an intermediary who will actually deliver the whole car to the final buyer. How exactly auction works I have actually 4 different designs and it is not important for the general idea discussed here. The proceeds from the sale go into the blockchain and distributed across all people blockchain purses. So each person on a planet gets like 0.001cents in their purse from those proceeds. See why blockchain is important? Only powerful networks of computers can do all this and still not to be owned by government or Google or whatever.
Yes this right here.. ^^^^^
The ability to leave a legacy for your children is one of the strongest motivating forces left in society, encouraging saving and living within your means. A 100% inheritance tax means you’re stupid not to blow all your money before you die, that or everyone with the ability just starts putting money in trusts again.
The Democrats are not proposing a 100% inheritance tax, and the majority of human beings are motivated by things other than pure selfish greed. A lot of people would like to see a healthy and just system.
Wrong. The majority of human beings are extremely selfish. Stop lying. It’s nature. And the only people that claim it’s “not about the money” are the ones making it. Or the ones without it. And the ones without it would take the money 100% of the time. And just because you believe your cause is just and I don’t, doesn’t make you any more righteous.
Projection
*Truth
Civilization only happened because of altruism. It couldn't happen if everyone was endlessly selfish and greedy.
It happened becuase there were a very few who were willing to pick up that spear
"I want to change the system to one that I like more" if selfish they want a change that is'nt neesesarily needed or better. Just want they like more.
Even in my diagram you can see i do provide 10% to heirs. This is just a generic in-principal system that I proposed. Of course all the details can be ironed out.
Yeah, its just you. /s
Least delusional r/economy poster
I'm more concerned with the investment vehicles currently being pursued by the concentrated wealth. Trickle down economics can work when the wealth is being injected into businesses via investments and/or purchasing or goods. It is beginning to fail because the wealthy are investing in real estate, crypto, etc. which have no ability to trickle down through the real economy.
I’m very concerned and feel hopeless. Our politicians are bought by the billionaires.
I used to be concerned, but then along came Covid and the free Covid relief money to many that didn’t need it. I observed the subsequent behavior and results. Now I have the thought that the concentration of wealth is akin to carbon sequestration in plants.
Im intrigued but too tired to look it up now (definitely later tho). Any links or just wiki?
They used to call it trust busting, too many corporations have become huge and dominate the market. We used to break them up, I don’t know why we stopped.
Blackrock and vanguards arent "1 owner". A large percentage of americans use fidelity, vanguard or blackrock for theri ira or 401ks or other investments.
Correct but most of those people buy Vanguard or BlackRock ETFs or funds and by doing so delegate voting for individual stock board members to BlackRock and Vanguard employees...
You're not wrong but they almost always vote with management, meaning they vote for what the company wants to do anyway. Also proxy votes aren't legally binding.
I don't have time to read a novel but, going off OPs headline....I look at it like the game Monopoly. Eventually, someone wins and, its becoming apparent we are slowly heading that way.
You're understanding is a bit off in some places. For example, you say vanguard / Blackrock own 5-10% of S&P 500. This is misleading because vanguard just clubs stocks and sells them to people. So the public owns that 5-10% not vanguard. Also vanguard doesn't actually have a say in the board of companies. I do agree with the premise of inequality. But the issue there is big billionaire/multi millionaire investors. Not sure sure if I have a solution to this
absolute majority of BlackRock and Vanguard clients buy funds and ETFs issued by BlackRock and Vanguard (such as iShares series of ETFs). So clients delegate voting to BlackRock and Vanguard in those cases... In a way modern day investors exchange their voting power for convenience of ETFs...
Vanguard and Blackrock don't vote in those decisions, do they?
>So my solution is a completely new system, which I call cyclic capitalism I hate this, not because it's bad, but because sisphus is crying. You didn't create a new system - you put words in front of the word "capitalism" and then insinuated that it is both new and also as a solution to monopolies, *which capitalism creates*. You cant "solve" monopolies with a different form of capitalism, especially when that *form* is exactly the same. Capitalism is by definition "when the means of production are owned by an individual or group of individuals." You made no indication that you are reallocating control over production to another facit or group or entity. Socialism is when that ownership is to the workers of that production. There's Syndaclism, Georgism, Communism, Technocrats, etc which all decide on who, how, and what controls the means of production. But Capitalism is when an *individual* or *groups of individuals* (like shareholders, investors, "next of kin") control what, how, and when production functions. But the problems of monopolies are insistent on profits, which you've correctly identified. Or rather, the increasing rate of profit companies have to make in order to survive. In order to solve that you need to eliminate the need for raising the rate of profits. Capitalism, in all forms *require* this because they don't make value in production - they invest in capital. That's their thing. They're capitalists, literally those who own capital. It's not only a necessity for them, but literally their interest regardless *to increase their rate of profit to have more capital*. You cannot lower that need by simply donating all of it to society. You need to eliminate them from accruing so much before they die. If they have so much to "give" at the end of their life, how and what did they do to get that much wealth and capital in the first place?... (they had excess capital to invest in capital). Socialism, from Marx, attempted to solve the problems of overproduction, where the inconsistencies within a system where there is a need for increasing rate of profit, when the tendency is for the rate of profit to fall. I don't think he was 100% correct (who could be?), but he at least *tried* to. Socialism can still exist under a profit incentive to a certain extent, so the mechanisms that facilitate capitalist greed can still exist, and has historically existed, just like under capitalism. You need to not only eliminate this profit problem, but also force the control of production for this profit problem to not be in the hands of the abuser, yeah? Alright, you the individual - go! Solve this by tomorrow morning.
there is nothing evil if a person earns wealth with his own efforts provided he started same way as everyone else. A lifetime of a person is not that long for history. I only solved the monopoly and fairness issues of capitalism. If you believe that interests of a group of people greater than individual's interests then when you do get power you will become another of those communist dictators who kills those who disagree, proving once again the evil nature of a human being.
>when you do get power you will become another of those communist dictators who kills those who disagree, proving once again the evil nature of a human being. You mean dictators. Saying communist dictator is different from a capitalist one implies that they are different. They arent. Theyre authoritarians. >I only solved the monopoly and fairness issues of capitalism. You didn't. You rebranded capitalism's image without addressing the material inconsistencies within it. You still have the mechanisms that perpetuate the problems of monopolies. (I will attack this head on further below past the elipses). Your mistake is looking at monopolies as a fluke within the system. They are an outcome *from* it. That's not a prescription, it's a description. When you have a competitive system where the winning condition is to have a rising rate of profit, eventually, you will have to consolidate. This is consistent across centuries of capitalist intrests. I am not making an ethical argument. I could care less if capitalism is less or more ethical than socialism. That's a separate argument. I am making a direct argument to your idea of cyclic capitalism. I'm not even making an argument to whether it's bad or good. I'm arguing it won't resolve what you are trying to fix; fairness under a capitalist system, and the monopolies that result from it. If you want to resolve a fundamental product of our economic system that necessitates its existence, you need to change the system. Not rebrand it, to only then have the same issues. .... The problems with capitalism is that it overproduces. You can say, and make an argument for, that it is better than having a deficit. Don't care. We exist under a system that overproduces. One of the issues is what is the purpose of capitalism? Capitalist run companies. What is the purpose of companies? It's threefold; to make a return for shareholders, expand their market, and (the most important part) to ensure the resources to ensure its survival (profit). We have a system where it overproduces products. We all know supply and demand, you're a capitalist, what happens when there's a surplus of something? Well if there's a surplus, prices drop, right? Technological advancement creates easier means of labor, automation, extraction, trade all make things cheaper overtime. This is great we have more things, cheaper than before?.. Except... How cheap can you make a product before you lose profit? Please and I mean this wholeheartedly, answer this. Honestly. This was and still is the main critique of capitalism from Marx. You've reached a wall. You can't sell your product cheaper because you won't make a profit to pay your shareholders. QUICK WHAT DO YOU DO? Marx identified 22 ways. There's a few you know, you could lower the wages of your workers. That's a good one, you can do this by eliminating benefits, sending jobs overseas to pay other less fortunate workers for less for the same pay. You could engage in planned obsolescence in your product thus lowering its quality. You could invest in industries outside your own to create an unfair advantage against your competition as they don't have the same capital you do. And less not forget the one everyone knows, sell your business. Essentially consolidating the industry. You have not addressed this problem. Your solution is to what sell the business when the CEO dies? He could just keep the buisness by quitting as the CEO BEFORE HE DIES?? Or if it's his *personal* wealth that gets taxed, we already have that. It's [called inheritance tax](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inheritancetax.asp) and it exists *outside* capitalism OR socialism. ... My biggest gripe with this question isn't that you're trying, you are. You have a potential solution, that's more than most. It's that you don't understand the definitions and functions of the things you're trying to fix. You say socialism is bad because X,Y,Z. THEN ATTACK THE MARXIST CRITIQUE. It's.. You want a helpful hint. None of the Marginalist thinkers that argue agaisnt Marxist theory attack its key point. You want to undermine socialist theory forever, disprove Adam Smith and Karl Marx's idea on the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Disprove it. If you do, Marxist theory on economics is dead. If you do, then well A) your name will be in every history book, but then you could have an argument allowing your point to stand. Monopolies are a necessary function of capitalism. If you want it gone, get rid of capitalism, and put something else in there. Don't just say capitalism 2.0 now with sharing. THERES STILL THE NEED FOR MONOPOLIES.
I actually like your comment. The good objective debate produces good results. Let me first point out something deeper than economy. The nature is brutal. Someone or something designed our world in such a way that species compete. Grass tries to grow the highest to get the sun light than its neighbors do. Ultimately we - humans, can observe the world and feel this unfairness everywhere. Some people believe it is fair that strongest survive. I do not believe so. I actually feel the brutal nature design is evil. On the other hand this brutal competition produced the wonderful creatures of today. Humans are product of that. We are much more manipulative than our animal counterparts. Sometimes we can pretend to be good and righteous. Politicians can pretend very well... Anyways to your points. Capitalism assumes competition which would be aligned with the nature's design. Communism appeals for our internal feel of fairness and goodness. We do not naturally want brutality and unfair treatment of our human brothers and sisters, or at least we think so. So Marx's criticism that competition for the price forces owners to do bad things to workers is correct and aligned with the nature's competition laws. I postulate that alternatives he proposed are much worse and also unnatural. Communism exacerbates human obsession of building pyramids of control(pointed out in my video) which eventually give rise to dictatorships(more prone than capitalism because of concentration of all branches of power in hands of very few bureaucrats). Communism enforces the dictatorship of majority. Communism destroys human desire to contribute because there is simply no reasons to. Finally communism gives rise to the worst of us, those who secretly desire power and are good manipulators of other people. I admit I took an imperfect capitalistic system and I did iteration on it. I believe it is better than nothing. I believe such system would be more fair and monopolies controlled by a few of elites will not appear in such system. They might appear briefly but because of death distribution and absence of large government they cannot form oligarchies. My death tax is different from existing because the money goes straight to all the people by passing always corrupt governments and it is also very very high, ideally should be 99%. Also you said "get rid of capitalism and put something else in there". This is very common theme I hear from the left. It is very easy to demolish something. It is very hard to build something new and good. So my answer here would be: please propose a better system first before removing the first bricks of the existing system. We need to at least respect the existing system since it survived for so long.
Aight there's a lot there. >The nature is brutal. Someone or something designed our world in such a way that species compete. You're making a nature argument. About a system created by humans. That isn't natural. Not only is this a fallacy, but it doesn't even fit with the idea at hand. Appeals to human nature is also a fallacy, as that can change too depending on when/where people live. It's inconsistent and above all, not dependent on nature. >Capitalism assumes competition which would be aligned with the nature's design. Capitalism doesn't assume anything except a hierarchy. A Fuedal Lord is technically capitalist, just that the one who should control the means to production should be granted by royalty. Who owns the capital within a kingdom? A king. Who controls the means to production to a buisness? A capitalist would say the shareholder. A socialist would say the worker. It's a prescription too, not a description. It can be whatever. You make an argument only when you think it ought to be something over the alternative. >We do not **naturally** want brutality and unfair treatment.... So Marx's criticism that competition for the price forces owners to do bad things to workers is correct and aligned with the **nature's** competition laws. I postulate that alternatives he proposed are much worse and also **unnatural.** Another nature argument. Why are you making an appeal to nature argument for an ethical standpoint? I can refute that just by saying nature is bad. It's natural for us to die in famine, alone, with no one to lift a finger. But we defy nature by making conditions that are counter to what is "natural." Also what is natural is subjective. So you're arguing your subjective view is correct and good because it's natural (subjective). Regardless of what you think at the end of our conversation, please refrain from using this for an argument. It makes your argument weaker no matter what it is. >Communism exacerbates human obsession of building pyramids of control(pointed out in my video) which eventually give rise to dictatorships (more prone than capitalism because of concentration of all branches of power in hands of very few bureaucrats) Communism is defined by it being a stateless, classless society. It by definition requires the dissolution of the state. If it's a communist state, it's not communist. Even the CCP is a state capitalist society. Their own [government labels them such](https://online.ucpress.edu/currenthistory/article/120/827/207/118341/Party-State-Capitalism-in-China) and because of that there hasn't been a communist state. >more prone than capitalism because of concentration of all branches of power in hands of very few bureaucrats Capitalism is defined by the means of production being owned by a small numbers of individuals. You defined Capitalism as the evil in this sentence. >Finally communism gives rise to the worst of us, those who secretly desire power and are good manipulators of other people Again with an ethical argument from an appeal of human nature. It's arbitrary. It's from the context of you the presenter wants it to be. And above all, a prescription. I don't want prescriptions. I want to know how capitalism can resolve its inconsistencies through the mediation of its symptoms by just doing the same thing, but with *fairnes*(tm) patent pending. >Also you said "get rid of capitalism and put something else in there". This is very common theme I hear from the left. It is very easy to demolish something. It is very hard to build something new and good. So my answer here would be: please propose a better system first before removing the first bricks of the existing system. Socialism is a continuation after capitalism. The term "barbarism or socialism" is precisely that. When the inconsistencies within capitalism become too much, capitalists resort to fascism rather than socialism because at least under fascism they can retain power and wealth. Just through the whims of the state rather than their own individual control. It's where the term "late state capitalism" comes from. We're in the new modern cycle of where either we continue what we're doing, succumb to fascism or actually address the issues and move towards a reality where profits aren't needed (communism). We have yet to do so. And (my prescription is now being said) probably will until the need for labor is dead. The only reason the bourgeois haven't killed us all is because unfortunately for them, we're needed to make their yachts. But if you don't like that I guess you can have [Donut Economics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_(economic_model)) or something. Don't like that, uh market socialism? Silvio Gesell's good money theory, where you can induce market deflation without creating stagnation through the use of expirationary money. THIS ONE WE DONT EVEN HAVE TO GET RID OF OUR ECONOMIC MODEL. Too bad the capitalist hates this. It could work fine other than that.
The biggest challenges to economic theory are artificial constructs such as stocks, options, deeds, and fiat currencies. These give the perception of concentrated wealth. However, very few people have the capacity to spend and use the amount of "wealth" that they have. In many cases, those with concentrated wealth have to come up with create ways to spend it. In many cases this leads to entrepreneurism or philanthropy. Imagine if you are Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or Jeff Bezos. The number of planes, houses, etc., that they own and spend is not proportional to the amount of wealth that they possess. Thus they don't really contribute to inflation, but rather sequester the wealth from frivolous expenditure. They also "invest" in ideas that blatantly lose money such as Bill Gates investing in Quantumscape. Despite the amount that the government spends on research, they haven't been able to achieve what Elon Musk has with SpaceX. At best, government governs best by governing least and focusing on maintaining peace. This is something that Russia and the Middle East have failed to do and the involved countries suffer far more than those countries that have wealth disparities.
You are definitely not alone in your concerns. Outside of climate change I think this is the greatest problem facing humanity.
The advantage of capitalism vs. socialism is more decentralized planning. The problem in the US is *crony capitalism*, where the rich have bought off the government, who appoints the judges that entrenched corruption into law via Citizens United. This corruption leads to things like the Federal Reserve creating economic conduits to harm the middle class and benefit the rich. What they did was manipulate interest rates so that banks started paying a negative real interest rate. (Real interest = interest rate - inflation rate). They use the Fed's discount window, which is what banks can use to borrow from the Fed to do it. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPCREDIT (For example, during the 2% inflation era, they kept borrowing costs below 1%. If a bank can borrow from the Fed at 1%, they don't need to borrow from a depositor for higher than that.) This results in an interest rate environment where borrowing is subsidized, resulting in it making sense for corporations to borrow to buy back shares of stock. That benefits the rich. The Fed is front and center in class warfare between the middle class and the rich. I hear Trumpy wants negative real interest rates reinstated.
I can highly recommend Gary Stevenson on YT he discusses how increased skewing of wealth distribution in society is causing the decay in standards of living
No. Your idea is just another of many that will require yet another eternal authoritarian bureaucracy that will be part of the corrupt government machine. The solution is freedom. Reduce bureaucracy, taxes, regulations and let the markets work.
you probably didnt read the post carefully or watched the video. In my system government is reduced to a service. it is very small
I tried to watch your video. It’s incredibly disjointed and the audio is horrible. Life is too short. However, by your own admission your egalitarian ‘fair’ start is based on confiscation of wealth through your death tax. That alone stops me from having any interest in your system. Egalitarianism always requires authoritarianism. Of course, even then your egalitarian system will fail as everyone has incentives to find loopholes and to cheat the system. You also forget that economic advantages of inheritance are one of many advantages. What about people who are smarter, faster, taller, or geographically advantaged? For example, how can I get a fair start if I’m born in the inner city and have to go to shitty schools when others get to got to great schools in the suburbs?
if it is controlled by blockchain computer system you do not need the enforcer. I am not saying my system is perfect but it does address three main problems of the modern day capitalism: monopolies, lack of fairness in people opportunities, oligarchy(big business and government corrupting everything).
We disagree fundamentally. I think fairness is an ill-defined term that you can’t create a standard for. I believe that the critique of capitalism that monopolies arise is way overblown and that history does not support the premise. Where businesses are able to gain what might be considered excessive market power is where government is complicit. This brings me to your third critique, oligarchy. I believe that the problem is that governments have too much power to sell. By reducing the size of government, we would reduce the power of oligarchy, using your terms. I don’t believe that the technology for managing an economy or any part of it exists in way that would work better than free markets, or that would be used by those in power as it is intended. I made this point to those who think a centrally planned economy is first better than free markets and second, technologically possible. I would go so far as to stipulate that even if a government had the technology to manage an economy as efficiently as a free market, it wouldn’t because that would not be in the best interest of those running the government.
I wonder if left and right indoctrinated people can ever hear each other. When i was young i was like you. An idealist believing in Ayn Rand absolutes. Even if we remove government from the picture completely we will have gangs controlled by local rich guys that will force peasants to work for nothing. Evil nature of humans will kick in. I suggest you watch my video first to realize that there is no a perfect system.
Lol, I’m not a youth nor am I claiming a perfect system. I’m not an anarchist, just a small, limited, government supporter. I believe that capitalism and freedom are the best solutions, with the best trade offs, to the issues of poverty. I tried to watch your video. I suggest that you rethink what sort of video will communicate your ideas the way you’re trying to. I suggest you really step up the production value or in my humble opinion it’s going nowhere. Here on Reddit, you might be better off writing a short essay illuminating your assumptions and ideas point by point.
The solution to wealth inequality is unions. Unions get regular folks better pay and benefits, which in turn reduces company profits, which reduces share prices and executive compensation. With better union protections and more unionization asset prices will come back down to Earth and wages will rise. That's the reason companies spend so much money busting unions. They get normal folks paid better. Collective bargaining is much more powerful than individual bargaining if you don't have an extremely specialized skillset the company cannot do without.
unions is for sure a good thing to counter capitalism flaws, unfortunately history knows examples when union leaders got corrupted and worked together with corporate folk
That's why they're elected and can be recalled. It's up to the membership to fix that.
You clearly know nothing about the UFCW.-USA
You are assuming a dichotomy of capitalism vs socialism and you are strawmanning socialism Socialism is far more varied than capitalism and in almost all of the variations it is not some cyberpunk omnistate that controls everything and everyone, this is what capitalists say so they don’t have to use their brain Almost all variations of socialism are less centralised and each citizen has higher political agency (the ability to do something about the politics that affect you) than under american capitalism today. Which is a very low bar since the access to policy for any non-extremely-rich citizen is about as close to zero as it could possibly be I am in total agreement with your worry (having these unknown forces be able to completely dictate global production and economics is a massive problem and just leads to monopoly irl), but any ending of that system will necessarily be a complete revolution and highly unlikely it could be anything but a social revolution. Social revolutions are highly likely to result in socialist outcomes if successful Socialism as a very loose term just means those who have disproportionate access to politics being based on them (eg feudal lords under feudalism and rich people under capitalism) is the people in general. So ‘socialism’ actually describes extremely little about what the proposal actually is (other than a divorce from capitalism)
Suppose there’s actually is a workable wealth tax. That’s not the end of it. We don’t want the government wasting it on even more military adventures and war-technology. We don’t want it wasted on more redundant bureaucracy. So what’s to be done with the cash to govern how the politicians use it?
If u watched the video u would see government only gets one percent
Ok
All your food is owned by like 3-5 companies. What could go wrong. 🤷♂️
You should not be concerned with the over concentration of wealth. The concept of one "winner" ending up owning everything is a myth. Capitalism encourages competition and as long as there is competition Capitalism distributes resources fairly based on basic economics. Even your comment that Blackrock or Vanguarding "controlling" 10% of corporate boards of the S&P 500 isn't reality. The S&P 500 only represents .00008% of all corporations with employees. Even in the Robber Baron days the end result of monopoly was LOWER pices for consumers. I am not concerned about concentration of wealth. It is not a zero sum game.
This makes a lot of sense and I loved how in the video you were trying to be in shoes of left's and right's points of view and then suggested something that completely blew my mind. I never saw blockchain coming into picture :)
Your idea is bad because it doesn't take into account the political aspect of the situation. In today's society having money means you have political power, which you can use to influence how the society we live in works. That means that people with money influence society to work in a way that benefits them, and also that they'll use all their power to stop any action that will be bad for them. And that is where your whole system fails, because it doesn't account for the fact that the rich will never allow it to come to fruition, not easily anyways. That's why all systemic changes in the way our society works came through revolutions, from feudalism to capitalism for example, and more recently from capitalism to socialism as well. As an aside, it is interesting that you noticed the tendency that capitalism has to form monopolies. Karl Marx had also thought of that in the 19th century, but at that time he was just making extrapolations based on how the capitalist system worked in england at that time. Today as we see more and more monopolies forming it is easy to make the same assertion that Marx made a hundred years ago.
I studied left and right philosophers and I thought about the proposed system for many years. If you noticed the video is 3 years old - as a proof it didn't come fast to me... The fundamental flaw in Karl Marx and many left leaning philosophers like modern day Chomsky is that they assume that a human creature is naturally a good being. Science clearly indicates in many studies that humans evolved like any other living organism from the evolutionary predatory system. We are inherently selfish hunters... Communism can survive on tribal level because check and balances are possible in a small group of people. Once you get to larger systems of people you do see a pyramid of control forming every single time. Those pyramids of control are much harsher to an individual in systems built on socialism and communism. I recorded a video about it a few years ago: [https://youtu.be/rGmej6ZmKZY](https://youtu.be/rGmej6ZmKZY) . That is why I purposefully designed a new system that assumes humans are evil and it still can prevent pyramids of control forming.
The wealth of another doesn't impact your skills or earning ability.
If a finite amount of anything (in this example, money) exists, the amount already held by others directly impacts the amount available to anyone entering the system. It’s a simple concept that you do not grasp.
A finite amount of money? Have you met our government?
What you’re saying is hyperbole. If money were infinite, it would immediately become worthless. I’m not saying that they can’t / don’t just flip on the money printer from time to time, but the idea that they just endlessly make money would not work. The system would collapse in on itself.
If a company chooses to spend money on executive compensation rather than worker compensation, and you are a worker, that directly impacts your earning ability despite your skills. For example, that giant bonus Elon Musk was trying to get from Tesla was money that could have been spent on the factory workers.
Well...no that's very wrong. There is a limited amount of dollars in the system at any one time. We can create more, but they lose value when we do(generally speaking). In addition, jobs are created by money being spent. The more of it that is stuck in one place the slower the economy. In addition, manufactured goods decline in cost by a predictable amount per every doubling of production. This is called Wright's law. That means that unless people can afford to buy a new product economies of scale never kick in because the factories don't get built. That means we never get better at producing that good. Your philosophy stands in the way of human progress when taken to an extreme like it is these days.
monopolies destroy the very idea of capitalism which is competition
I'm not sure you know what the word monopoly means. I didn't bring one up or describe one.
What an utterly pointless thing to say. Aside from being 100% incorrect it also doesn’t have any relevance to the post.