You are utterly delusional and you have zero understanding of economics. There are no evil "capitalists". The US is a free market economy, not capitalist. And literally no one is running scared of automation, you are pulling boogie straw-men out of your ass to make yourself sound smart. Do some actual research, you snot-nosed undergrad.
i didn’t go to college dude, i dropped out of high school so i could work and pay bills
A thought I've had a few times: automation should be an exciting prospect, the possibility of freeing people from the necessity of labor (while still allowing people to labor when they feel so inclined). But instead, with how our system is set up, automation is a terrifying idea, because the machines will take our jobs and then I won't be able to feed myself or my family.
Incredibly valuable thoughts here. This is why groups such as the French Socialist Party and other left-wing parties in Europe have adopted policies of oversight over automation and its effects on the workforce. These are things where we can’t simply allow for capitalism and technological advancement to create “disruptive” innovations without intervention.
Dealing with this issue would involve things free-market capitalists don’t often like to hear; planning and management overseen by the greater populace through the state. In a social democratic society, these new innovations would be reviewed by an economic regulatory bureau to determine it’s potential for harm to workers before being applied universally and upending entire industries. Instead, if these automation ideas were put in place, they’d be carefully managed and phased in to allow the workforce time to retrain and seek new opportunities.
I have a slightly different outlook on this, while I believe that it would work, it seems like it would slow the rate of economic growth by literally slowing the pace of innovation.
So, what do we do instead?
We create a universal basic income and a maximum pay ratio coupled with a robust safety net and high taxes on unearned income (any income not coming from labor such as profit, investments, and dividends).
The Universal Basic Income should be based on the taxes from unearned income, divided evenly amongst the population. This way, any profit generated from technological innovation would only serve to increase the incomes of the whole populous. There will be people that lose jobs due to technological innovation, but the financial benefits of technology should be shared by them as well.
The Maximum Pay Ratio will ensure that the wealthy cannot just appoint themselves board positions with high salaries in order to steal profits. You require that no one person can be paid more than 25x the lowest paid person working for their company. If you noticed, I said lowest paid person, not lowest paid employee. This would include everyone in the supply chain, outside contractors, factory workers, everyone that contributes to their company through work in any way. If an executive can justifying paying someone three dollars a day in another country to work, they will only be able to make $75 a day themselves. if an executive wants to make $1 million a year, their lowest paid person would have to make $40,000 a year.
This will also ensure that any pay increases will spread to everyone, not just the executives.
A robust safety net would include things like universal healthcare, free college, and one year 100% unemployment insurance. This would mean anyone who loses a job due to technological advancements would be able to spend a year either looking for work, starting a business, or retraining for a new field. The retraining would be free since college tuition would be.
The high taxes on unearned income would serve two purposes, to fuel this proposed system and to motivate companies to reinvest profits into wages, research and development, and infrastructure. If they have spent the money on other purposes, it is no longer profits and is thereby, no longer taxable. This will prevent large extractions of wealth from the economy for personal enrichment.
With a system like this in place, we would not need a government body around to slow progress. The people would be cared for while getting economic gains from technological innovation shared with them. They would also have a robust safety net to help them into a new career.
Obviously, my answer is an ideal system while what @delendarius has proposed is a way to modify the existing system without massive changes. It is very likely that we will have to pass through this type of regulatory system before we could even dream of my idealized system.
First of all, hello. I came about your blog, and your political stance, and while I won't even try to change it, I take it as a personal insult to me, my family, my culture and the thounsands of deaths it suffered, and feel morally obliged, as a citicen of my country (Venezuela) to at least ask one question: Given that you are living in a thriving, non-socialist country (Sweeden, I recall), what are your views on how the ideas you advocate completely and absolutetly destroyed mine?
I won’t even try to change your political stance, but I take it as a personal insult to me, my family, my culture and the millions of deaths it has caused, and I feel morally obliged, as a citizen of my country (Sweden) to at least ask one question: Given that you are living in a non-capitalist country (Venezuela, I recall), what are your views on how the ideas you advocate completely and absolutely destroyed mine? Do you know how many homeless people there are in Sweden, even when we have empty homes available for all of them?
I joke, obviously. But what are your thoughts on the Bengal Famine of 1943, which cased over 2 million deaths in capitalist India, under the rule of the capitalist UK?
Or was this not capitalism’s fault? Then how is the poverty of Venezuela socialism’s fault? Why are supporters of capitalism allowed to say “Socialism is a nice thought, but it doesn’t work as proven by the poverty in Venezuela,” but I’m not allowed to say “Capitalism is a nice thought, but it just doesn’t work as proven by the reign of terror of Napoleon.”?
Or the Atlantic Slave Trade and the genocide of Native Americans.
Or colonialism and the devastation of the global south.
Or Hitler and Mussolini, who whilst saying they were anti-capitalist in order to garner support from the working class, still implemented capitalistic free-market economies, even supplying private capitalists with slave labour.
Or the Lebanon Crisis.
Or the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba.
Or the Vietnam War.
Or the Invasion of Grenada.
CIA’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected socialist (Mohammad Mosaddegh) in favour of an authoritarian dictator (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi).
CIA’s 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected social democrat (Jacobo Árbenz) in favour of an authoritarian dictator (Carlos Castillo Armas).
CIA’s 1973 Chilean coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected socialist (Salvador Allende) in favour of a totalitarian fascist dictator (Augusto Pinochet who went on to kill over 3000 people, torture 30,000 people, and put 80,000 people in concentration camps).
Or the CIA’s 1991 Haitian coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected social democrat (Jean-Bertrand Aristide), who is widely believed to have been the winner of the first honest election in Haiti, in favour of an authoritarian dictator (Raoul Cédras).
Or the fact that the 10 poorest countries in the world are all capitalist (Malawi, Burundi, Central African Republic, Niger, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Liberia, the Gambia, Guinea, Somalia). If you don’t like socialist Venezuela, perhaps you’d prefer capitalist Malawi? No? It’s almost as if not all capitalist counties are rich, and not all socialist countries are poor.
I think you get my point. Socialism and capitalism are both economic systems. You can’t blame Venezuela’s poverty on socialism any more than you can blame the Holocaust on capitalism.
By the way, have you been to Uruguay recently?
Uruguay is ranked first in Latin America in democracy, peace, lack of corruption, and is first in South America when it comes to press freedom, size of the middle class and prosperity. It ranks second in the region on income equality, per-capita income and inflows of FDI. Uruguay is the third-best country on the continent in terms of HDI, GDP growth, innovation and infrastructure. It is regarded as a high-income country (top group) by the UN. Nearly 95% of Uruguay’s electricity comes from renewable energy. Same-sex marriage and abortion are legal, leading Uruguay to be regarded as one of the most progressive nations in the world, and one of the most socially developed, outstanding regionally, and ranking highly on global measures of personal rights, tolerance, and inclusion issues.
And they are… GASP! SOCIALIST! Like… Like VENEZUELA?
In fact, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Guyana, Nicaragua, and Suriname are also socialist. But the only one people who advocate for capitalism ever talk about is Venezuela. I wonder why? 🤔
In all seriousness, I don’t want to come across as rude. It’s just that I hear this argument a lot. If you still live in Venezuela, I genuinely hope that either the situation there gets better, or that you get out of the country. Regardless of what you may think, I don’t want anyone living in poverty. Not in Venezuela, and not in Sweden, and not in the US. Take care of yourself.
The capitalistic social order, therefore, is an economic democracy in the strictest sense of the word. In the last analysis, all decisions are dependent on the will of the people as consumers. Thus, whenever there is a conflict between the consumers’ views and those of the business managers, market pressures assure that the views of the consumers win out eventually.
ok sorry for asking such a dumb question but what exactly is neoliberalism? i googled it and i can't really get a clear answer about what it is. thanks for your help
Neoliberalism is the resurgence of free-market capitalist fundamentalism. The usage of the term really took off in the 1970′s and 1980′s. So basically, neoliberalism is centered around actions and policies that favor the primacy of the market. Globalization works tandem with neoliberalism. For example, western multinational corporations set up raw goods processing and manufacturing industries in postcolonial/nonwestern countries like Bangladesh and Cambodia. They pay the workers subpar wages and make profit off the resources and labor of these nonwestern laborers while simultaneously reshaping and manipulating the political and economic structures of these countries to benefit their own assets. By stripping workers in these countries of their autonomy, taking advantage of lax labor laws, destroying local businesses, and propagating globalization to boost the free market, corporations in the west (not just in the west but primarily in the west) gain while both domestic and foreign workers lose.
George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama were all neoliberals. Sounds surprising? It isn’t. Neoliberalism is an economic ideology. Both the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama were all willing to exploit foreign and domestic workers to boost the primacy of the American free market. Whether by taking over local businesses and governments, destabilizing countries, or waging war, all four of them epitomize the cancerous nature of neoliberalism.
So obviously I blog about it from time to time on here as well, not just because i’m a Marxist, but also because this obviously is something that affects nonwhite gay women both in the west and in nonwestern countries. I blog about every form of social hierarchy and marginalization that impacts wlwoc, especially because neoliberalism makes life far more difficult for working-class wlwoc. You can check my neoliberalism tag for more information!
And you might be thinking to yourself “That’s a pretty sweet earth!” WRONG.
It’s somewhere around the 22nd century and things have really gone to shit. Massive climate change and pollution, erosion of civil rights, increased wealth disparity and a planet that is positively overflowing with violence.
This violence comes to a head in a span of complete global conflict. Insurgencies, rebellions, corporate wars and and national wars are turning Earth into an even-more-unstable bloodbath.
Once humanity was good and softened, the TITANS launched their attack. Incredible Self-Improving AIs developed as a definitely-not-skynet tactical network, they promptly engaged in a horrific campaign of bizarre violence against humanity.
Self-replicating, self-improving nanoswarms, horrendous mutations, plagues, memetic pathogens, hijacked WMD strikes and all sorts of other unsavory shit made an appearance. We responded to this rising threat in a calm and level manner.
Just kidding, we nuked the FUCK out of them! and eachother for good measure! Unfortuntely, the TITANS had evolved so far past us that trying to ineffectually nuke them was probably part of their game plan.
Earth was proper hosed, with similar but smaller scale attacks on Mars and Luna also occurring. The TITANS killed a massive amount of the population and abducted untold thousands, either by ripping their Egos right out of their cortical stacks by various means, or employing flying buzz-saw robots that literally just lopped your head off and flew away with it.
Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the TITANS decided to fuck off through recently discovered devices called the Pandora Gates, vanishing elsewhere into the galaxy with their collection of shattered lives and severed heads.
After the Fall, transhumanity is split up into a couple of broad categories.
From the Sun to Mars (except the Earth, which practically nobody wants to touch with a ten parsec pole BEFORE you take the autonomous murder satellites into consideration) you have the Planetary Consortium. This is basically a conglomeration of ruthless 80′s cyberpunk hypercorporate douche-hammers. There are dissidents and anarchists on every planet, but the the inner system is pretty solidly ruled by the hypercorps.
Past Mars, you have the Jovian Republic, which is basically the last bastion of Red Blooded Conservatism™, Catholicism, and general screaming about how fire is scary and Thomas Edison was a witch. While having some pretty solid points about how reckless technological advancement put the human race in a major stranglehold, they also largely refuse to use technologies such as resleeving, body modification and nanofabrication, which makes life a lot shittier for them. They make up for this disadvantage with a very large standing military and the general willingness to use it to extort taxes and protection money from people using Jupiter’s gravity well or nearby resources.
Starting in the Jupiter Trojans and out further rimwards, you have the anarchists. These come in just about every flavor of anarchists you can think of, and they live with varying levels of success. They are remarkably organized and more than willing to posse up and paste both the Jovian Republic and the Planetary consortium right in the chops if sufficiently provoked. This has has happened more than once in the ten years since the fall.
Among them you will find scientists, activists, experimental governments and 100% free market capitalists. They mostly get along okay, but there is a predictable amount of infighting.
Hanging around in this region but also bouncing around the inner system are the Scum, massive anarchist party barges living a nomadic, hedonistic lifestyle drifting among the the planets. Scum barges are where you score the good drugs and the REALLY interesting sex workers.
Lastly, you have the brinkers, which vary from whack-job space cults, deep-cover military operations, experimental-governance habs, asteroid miners, and bonafide crazy assholes. There is literally a habitat made of frozen bacon out there, that’s how nutty these dipshits can get.
Nuances of the World
There’s a lot of goddamn setting lore, so we’ll just cover some of the more unique stuff for now.
Little computers that store the Ego, i.e. what people consider to be the actual person, lodged in your brain stem. These guys are tougher than expired gas-station jerky and can be recovered in the (highly probable) event that somebody kills your ass. There are billions of people floating around as infomorphs, digital consciousnesses, after the Fall.
Very limited AI helper programs that basic function as an extremely proactive version of Google Now. Can have their own distinct personalities, and some are fancier than others.
In Eclipse Phase, your body is basically equipment that you can mod the shit of. It’s feasible to be a genetically enhanced human, a robot, an uplifted octopus (or wide variety of other animals) or a motherfucking space whale. Yes, Space Whales are a thing, just like the Bacon Habitat.
Reputation and Economies
There are, broadly, three economic states. The Old, Transitional, and New Economies. Old economies purely use money, while transitional ones use both money AND rep scores. New Economies are based entirely around rep.
Reputation is kind of like a reddit karma score, if people could leave tags on you such as “Asshole driver,” “always smells like patchouli” and “was a polite houseguest but wound up killing and eating my grandmother.”
Rep is not an alternate currency, Rep is an alternative TO currency. It’s based on your actions and also your ability to do favors for people. it does not mean you get shit for free. Saving kittens from a TITAN-inflicted grease fire is all well and good, but it’s not going to automatically get you access to your neighbor’s space-porsche, particularly if you have a lot of dings on your rep for randomly crashing into shit while driving.
This can be a useful tool for GM’s as it provides a much more concrete incentive PC’s not to be a bunch of antisocial murderous dickbags… because people everywhere will stop selling them guns if they do.
There are several different flavors of Rep to be had. Anarchists, Firewall, Scientists, Corporations, Criminal Networks, Media personalities and more are all viable circles to invest in.
Depending on the culture you are in, you will need to be able to provide compensation through goods, services or information, be in a position to do an equal favor for that person later, demonstrate sufficient need and responsibility with the things in question, or be sufficiently pitiful and sad in order to get favors done for you.
In New and a decent amount of Transitional economies, most basic necessities are freely and easily available, such as food, clothing and basic weaponry.
Living space for your meat sack, however, can be another matter.
I find it ironic that the same people who claim a patriotic love for a capitalist free market and a disdain for government interference or socialism are the ones who voted in a president they hoped could get them a job when the markets they worked in started dying.
If you have lived in any major city in the U.S. in the past 10 years you know there have been several new booming markets which is why your coffee is 7 dollars and your rent is the same as a semester at Berkley.
The truth is these people were sadly made obsolete by the same free market they claim to love, got sold racism and xenophobia and Obama blaming as the reason, and have now voted in a lunatic who is currently trying to repeal all environmental protection policies in order to relegate jobs to markets that have already been put in the rearview mirror. Hypocrites.
Farmers' Market Manager looking to implement planned economy. Need Advice
I am a site manager at one of the most successful farmers’ markets in the country. The attitude of our board of directors, farmers, and staff is mostly that of a capitalist, free market mindset. And I believe that this hurts us. For example, our market has no limit on how many farmers can vend at our market, so that we have this over supply of certain things like lettuce and eggs and so we are shooting our own foot. It would make sense to me if we all collectively kept track of what we are selling out of and what we have a surplus of so that we know what kind of demand we have, and therefore not allow other vendors into our market until we can see that demand is growing and that there is room for them. However this attitude has been bashed my our board president as “protectionist”. Keep in mind, the entire board is made up of farmers in our market, they are not rich fat cats, they are also farmers just scraping by. I don’t understand why they want to make life hard for themselves.
My questions is, what are some steps that I could take towards learning how to better track our demand and come up with a presentation that shows how a planned economy could help our market? I assume this has been tried before, what examples of this exist and what can I learn from them?
Lastly, where else can I post this question? I want as much feedback as possible.
Today we wrap up our discussion of the media by talking about how the government interacts with and influences the content we see. Now it may be easy to assume that because we live in a free-market capitalist society, the only real regulation of the media is determined by the consumers, but this isn’t necessarily true. The government controls a number of factors including the potential for lawsuits, spectrum licensing, FCC fines, and has even tried to pass a bit of legislation. So we’ll talk about how all of these factors influence the media and end with a discussion of a pretty hotly debated topic these days - net neutrality.
Atlas Mugged: How a Libertarian Paradise in Chile Fell Apart
It was a good idea, in theory anyway. The plan was to form a sustainable community made up of people who believed in capitalism, limited government, and self-reliance. The site was already picked out: 11,000 acres of fertile land nestled in the valleys of the Chilean Andes, just an hour’s drive away from the capital of Santiago, to the east, and the Pacific Ocean, to the west. Residents could make money growing and exporting organic produce while enjoying Chile’s low taxes and temperate climate. This was no crackpot scheme to establish a micronation on a platform floating in the middle of the ocean (a common libertarian dream)—this was a serious attempt to build a refuge where free marketers and anarcho-capitalists could hole up and wait for the world’s fiat currencies to collapse. They called it “Galt’s Gulch Chile” (GGC), naming it for the fictional place where the world’s competent capitalists flee to in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
The project was conceived in 2012 by four men: John Cobin, an American expat living in Chile who once ran unsuccessfully for Congress in South Carolina; Jeff Berwick, the globe-trotting founder of the Dollar Vigilante, a financial newsletter that preaches the coming end of the current monetary system; Cobin’s Chilean partner; and Ken Johnson, a roving entrepreneur whose previous investment projects included real estate, wind turbines, and “water ionizers,” pseudoscientific gizmos that are advertised as being able to slow aging.
That initial group quickly fell apart, though today the principals disagree on why. Now, two years after its founding, the would-be paradise is ensnared in a set of personal conflicts, mainly centered on Johnson. Instead of living in a picturesque valley selling Galt’s Gulch–branded juice, the libertarian founders are accusing one another of being drunks, liars, and sociopaths. GGC’s would-be inhabitants have called Johnson a “weirdo,” a “pathological liar,” “insane,” a “scammer,” and other, similar things. Some shareholders are pursuing legal action in an effort to remove him from the project, a drastic measure for antigovernment types to take. Johnson, who remains the manager of the trust that controls the land, claims all the allegations against him are false. So what happened?
is it just me or are conservatives obsessed with "working hard" because they use it in like every single argument
They have to keep repeating that line. As free market capitalists they can’t blame problems with the economy or economic systems.
So, of course it just becomes a comparison of who’s working hard/trying enough/etc. When in reality the system is geared for inequality. Not everyone can be rich. Not everyone is going to get these high paying jobs. Not everyone will get a job, period.
So on the name “The Fine Young Capitalists,” it was chosen for three reasons.
The number one reason was it describes exactly what we are doing. TFYC is not making the game. TFYC is paying another company, in this case a company that’s owned by a woman and has many talented women working in the company, to make a game. You are backing the game, to get a percentage of the profits. Those profits are going to charity. This is the definition of capitalism. And we really think as someone that actually builds businesses, that EVERYONE trying to make art should understand this.
Just because you are a small piece in a much larger picture doesn’t mean that you don’t deserve a part of the profits that the production creates. Too often artists are roped into doing things because “It will look good in their portfolio,” or “For experience,” or “It helps this group,” when there is a person on the top of the pyramid making major cash. Not everyone’s contribution is equal in a production but everyones matters.
People keep saying “Why does the woman only get 8%”, it’s not because we don’t think she could get more (She get’s 30%+ of the profits that don’t go to charity which is more than any other single individual), it’s that the people that back us deserve to get something for supporting her. Because if they understand that relation, they’re more likely to invest in women in the future.
The number two reason was to make it clear, that it was a business first, and a social movement second. We find too often that when people engage with woman, people think it’s enough to just create the thing, even if no one is buying. This makes it harder for other women to get into business. If the industry is only talking about woman who’s game aren’t fun, or selling, you are subtly telling the world that woman can’t make games.
The number three reason (Or the one you’ve been wait for) was that we wanted to make it clear, that we are not going to tone down our language. And that if you weren’t fine with that, Fuck Off. I know people think that if you speak about things a certain way it will help the cause because then people will feel more comfortable and support you. Our experience in Social Justice has been that the people that are the best to work with care the least about language, and most about results.
Snless is a Manga project because people know what a Manga looks like, in Canada publishers producing similar sized books and call it a Manga, and the correct name would be Tankōbon and no one knows what the hell that is. We consulted the publishing community they said call it a Manga.
We are a capitalists group because we are capitalists group. We aren’t a free market capitalists group as we gladly use Tax Credits, and other things that go against the free market. We still believe that businesses like ours should be run for a profit and that investors should receive something for their contribution.
And we are calling them Social Justice Warriors because the definition is
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation.
If you are actually doing something, if you are creating new argument, if you are actively working in the community by definition you are not a social justice warrior. And we are not talking about you. You’re amazing.
But if your main critique about our project, like so many others is “All you need to know about The Fine Young Capitalists is in the name.” You have to understand, we don’t mind not working with you. And we aren’t going to change our policies just for you.