free market capitalists

A major conceptual problem about states in right pseudo-libertarianism is that even their most revered theorists cannot figure out how to untangle the reality that 

property is the state writ small. 

They try. They have all sorts of excuses for monopolies, for monarchies, and for wage labor, all focused on excusing the problems property presents the notion that a capitalist free market can exist without a state. 

Property is the state writ small is a wonderfully concise subject and predicate. And it’s not that difficult to unpack, to understand, and to support. All we need to do is remember that 1) while somebody owns property, somebody else cannot (the ability for one to own insists the others cannot) and 2) all people cannot own the same property, not even the same kind or amount of properties (finite resources). Ownership is always immediately problematic because it forms an authoritarian structure in society that permits the governing of the many by the few because society must be organized primarily to cultivate and protect the rights of property owners.

I’m arguing with a guy on Facebook because he said that universal basic income is Free Market Capitalist, when, like it literally is socialism. That’s what it is.

Which continues to fuel my theory that people only resist socialism when you call it socialism, they love all the concepts if you break them into pieces and call them “free market”

anonymous asked:

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. 

- @delendarius


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. 

- @theliberaltony

anonymous asked:

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

anonymous asked:

You are anti-capitalist/free-market, rich/corporate, wealthy, but think that it is bad to stop trading with china. You are contradicting yourself, buddy...Lmao The United States would benefit greatly if we stop trading with China, why? Because the poor Chinese people won't be exploited for cheap labor. The companies can bring back the jobs to the US, we won't be owing anything to China, their economy will collapse or is hurt by the American policies. We never needed China anyway. Good thing!

I know I’m wasting my time, but I have some time to waste, so here goes:

I’m not responding to your first rant, since I don’t have any idea what it means, and it’s not my job to figure your ravings out.

As to your other comments:

–how, exactly, does the UNITED STATES benefit from the non-exploitation of cheap Chinese labor? 

–It’s all fine and good to imagine that what is today assembled in China will, after trade with China is banned, be built in the US, but you have to think through some stuff to see if that is likely:

    1. Does the US have the factory capacity to replace all the electronic production, consumer goods production, appliance production, child toy production, clothing production, and other production China provides to the US?

  2. If it doesn’t – and it doesn’t – there will be a lag time between cutting off trade with China and the scaling up of US replacement capacity. Good luck buying a new laptop in that time.

   3. Does the US have the labor capacity to fill all those factory jobs? (Current employment figures, however imperfect they are, suggest the answer is no.)

   4. US labor, environmental, safety and other regulations are – properly – much more extensive than Chinese regulations. Do you imagine meeting Chinese standards to meet Chinese labor costs in the US, or do you imagine US factories working under current American standards. Costs for  most goods will go up if US standards are met in these newly-built factories. 

–Given that we will still be importing resources to build all these products, paying other countries for the primary materials out of which we build stuff, but will apparently be consuming them all ourselves, it appears we’ll have to run balance of trade deficits with other countries, just not as big a one with China, specifically, as we do today. That is, if my understanding of international political economy and balance of trade is correct. So I don’t think we “won’t be owing anything to China” (at least that we don’t already owe); we’ll just owe them less in the  future. Assuming we pay off what we owe now. Right?

–Buick’s major market is China. McDonald’s and other fast food franchises are taking off there. A Chinese market collapse will hurt those companies and many others. Just fyi.

I’m sure there are simple answers to all of these questions since, you know, there aren’t trillions of dollars and global networks of communication, supply and transportation involved….

anonymous asked:

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.

Or the 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).

Or the 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).

Or the 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.

Sometimes the terms “free enterprise” and “capitalism” are used to mean “free market”. Capitalism means capitalist or capitalist ideology, before Marx arrived, the purely self-employed Thomas Hodgskin had already used the term capitalism as a pejorative, capitalists were trying to use coercion - the state - to restrict the market. Capitalism, then, does not describe a free market but a form of statism.
—  Samuel Edward Konkin lll or SEK3 in An Agorsit Primer

Augusto Pinochet: Overthrows Socialist dictatorship and institutes free market Capitalist policies, kills Communists, bans Socialist/Communist parties from obtaining power.

Result: 300% increase in GDP over the course of his rule, Chile becomes (and remains today) the most prosperous and competitive economy in Latin America.

Hugo Chavez: Wins Venezuelan election in 1998, consolidates state power into his own hands and starts a Socialist revolution, nationalizing thousands of private Venezuelan companies.

Result: Poverty skyrockets. Despite Venezuela’s abundance of natural resources people are starving and poor. The price of a barrel of oil being exported from Venezuela drops from $100 to only $40, and there is no merchandise for Venezuelan’s to buy. The Venezuelan currency is currently worth less than virtual currency for a video game.

Retards: “THE FREE MARKET DOESN’T WORK! WE NEED SOCIALISM TO END POVERTY!”

Eclipse Phase Campaign Intro

OKAY SO, HERE WE HAVE THE EARTH. 

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. 

Cortical Stacks 

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. 

Muses 

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. 

Morphs 

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. 

youtube

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. 

anonymous asked:

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.