this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
1541 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59673 readers
3917 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They are more safe since people can feel the buttons without taking their eyes off of the road. I don't understand why they thought it was a good idea to use touchscreens.
Not just more to install, but also more to design. Physical controls have to be designed so they fit the aesthetic of the car and don't look out of place. On the other hand, a touch screen can just reuse a generic UI design across every vehicle made by a particular manufacturer, or even across different manufacturers if the same vendor supplies the same OS for all of them.
In my lurking time here, I have seen many comments on Lemmy that criticize capitalism, but I think it's not as bad as it is made out to be on here. I earn money by working, can spend my money on what I want, and can start a business if I wanted to. The best businesses are rewarded with more money while poor businesses fail. I don't see anything wrong with that. Admittedly, it is possible that I am wrong because I have never studied economy other than the short lessons from required college classes my first two years. Do you have any objective sources where I can start to learn? I tend to be liberal/Democrat, btw.
Free market economy != Capitalism.
Your freedom to do those things under capitalism is wholly bound by your existing wealth, and wealth begets wealth. When your parents are well off, you can get into good schools, get better education, and ultimately get a better job and, really, be a better worker bringing more wealth into the already existing pool of wealth your family had. Those who have been disenfranchised by way of things like eminent domain, redlining, or the straight up prosecution of them and their fellow men simply don't have that option to rise up. They don't even have the opportunity to try and fail, they've failed by their very existence. At a macro scale, once you've reached the top (e.x. Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc.) you have the resources to not only out-do any of the competition but to sell products at a loss to starve your competition and bully them into submission, which big companies do all the time instead of investing in better products. It's just good business.
Circumstance plays a lot into how much wealth you start out with and how much wealth you end up being able to accrue, so while it's nice being not even at the top but even just the middle, it's important to have the mindfulness to know that there are those below you who don't have the same freedoms, and they're not there because their businesses did poorly. Some of them are, but most are simply victims of greater powers stealing their capital.
Absolutely 100% false.
But do you earn enough? Does the working class earn enough? The general consensus for most people is no. The vast majority of wealth that the working class produces every year does not make it into the hands of the people who produced it, but rather the oligarchs who already possess most of the wealth already.
These are not exclusive to only capitalism. People were trading money for goods and starting businesses for thousands of years before capitalism was around.
This is how it's supposed to work in a merit driven free market economy, but that's not how late stage capitalism plays out.
Many corporations are run by imbeciles and hemorrhage money, pursue short term profits at the expense of long term sustainability, treat their workers horribly, and rely on their monopolistic position in the market to survive rather than merit, competence, ethics, or quality. When they finally make an error that would normally bankrupt a company out of existence, they simply cry to the government for bailout money, and they get it every time because our politicians are bought and owned by billionaires and their lobbyists. This is the core principle of an oligarchy, which we are, and which capitalism always evolves into given enough time.
The rich get bailouts, the workers do not. This is a direct product of wealth inequality and regulatory capture that capitalism inherently generates.
The main argument against capitalism is that it leads to only a privileged few getting all the wealth, opportunities and freedom while the rest become wage slaves and debt slaves. It is the ultimate capitulation to artificial scarcity as if that's somehow the best we can do as a species.
All the homelessness, overpriced healthcare and education, unaffordable housing, etc exists because of capitalism and it's supporters look at this and say "good. fuck the poor." or "this is the best we can do."
I stopped being a libertarian because I was tired of the cynical capitulation.
The funniest thing is that the final stage of unbound capitalism means no estate and then, when they need help there will be nobody to save them.
Wouldn't your comment equally apply to being a small business owner (let's say blacksmith) under feudalism? As a good blacksmith, you will earn more clients and prestige, while poor blacksmiths won't get repeat business. You might be able to expand your forge and hire more people to do the tedious work of making chainmail or whatever.
I don't know that anyone can ever provide an "objective" source on capitalism. Anyone who writes on the topic has inherent biases. Here are a few: https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/1608462471
https://www.amazon.com/Slow-Down-Manifesto-KOHEI-SAITO/dp/1662602723
https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/doughnut-economics-paperback/
https://www.amazon.com/What-Wrong-Capitalism-Ruchir-Sharma/dp/1668008262
https://www.amazon.com/There-Are-No-Accidents-Disaster_Who/dp/1982129689
https://www.amazon.com/Deaths-Despair-Future-Capitalism-Anne/dp/0691217076
Yup. "Capitalism" has become a punching bag for people who are frustrated about some form of government protectionism or lack of interventionism. If you ask someone to define it, you'll get wildly different answers based on whatever they're frustrated by. The real problem is cronyism, where the "haves" get special treatment from those in power so both sides benefit.
Example w/ Musk and Trump
As an example, look at Elon Musk buddying up to Trump. There are two explanations (probably more) here:This all happens under "capitalism" because Musk is motivated to get more capital, but it's happening through government, which ends up essentially as a government subsidy of Tesla (and other domestic EVs) using taxpayer dollars (in this case tariffs). It's not a direct handover of cash, but when your foreign competition needs to charge twice as much as they normally would, there's less motivation for your company to drop prices.
Capitalism is intended to be a system where the market is largely separate from the government, but everything is co-mingled and people point to the knotted mess as "capitalism," when really it's a mess of different political ideologies all messing with market forces. What we actually need is for more capitalism, as in less government interference w/ the market, so market forces can actually fix things.
Potential solutions to better use market forces
This means:There's certainly more we could do, but the above should significantly help correct the major problems we see today. Right now, it takes a massive scandal for a wealthy person or very large business to fail, and the above would dramatically reduce the scandal needed to cause one to fail.
"More capitalism" doesn't mean screwing over the poor either. In fact, if you look at the Nordic countries, they're actually more capitalist than the US ins many ways, and they have solid social programs. The difference is that there are clearer boundaries between government and the market, so you don't end up with as much weird "collaboration" between companies and the government.
I personally believe in UBI/NIT (Universal Basic Income/Negative Income Tax) instead of most welfare programs (perhaps keep Medicare/Medicaid, but replace Social Security, food/housing assistance, etc) to minimize the disruption of natural market forces. That would be a very capitalist-friendly solution where the government and the market stay in their own lanes.
First time hearing negative income tax but sounds like an idea i had after a nice walk after the edible kicked in lol
It's basically UBI, but with income caps. So if you make above a certain threshold, your benefits reduce and completely disappear by a second threshold.
Milton Friedman was a pretty notable supporter.
You seem to be a bit confused about what exactly capitalism is. Capitalism is the ideology of private ownership, specifically with regards to the means of production. It is contrasted with socialism, which is the ideology of public ownership of the means of production.
Capitalism is the ideology that allows for someone to own a factory, for example. It allows for them to possess it, in some nebulous way, and to therefore be entitled to the fruits of labor produced there. Even if they themselves did not work to produce those products. Capitalism is the ideology of private wealth accumulation and the ideology of class. It is the ideology of wealth inequality (as opposed to wealth equality where capital is shared equally among all). It is the ideology that creates markets out of supply and demand, specifically designed to collect as much capital as possible from people seeking products. Capitalism is protected by the state, which creates justifications for its existence and prevents the working class from uprising against capitalists. The state colludes with capitalists. They exchange political power for capitalists' labor power. In this way, any party that is not explicitly anti-capitalist is necessarily pro-capitalist. To allow capitalism to exist is to protect it. In this way, capitalism is not just private ownership itself, but it is also the politics that protects such ownership and the states that choose to allow it.
Contrasted with socialism, the ideology of public ownership. Socialism is the classless ideology. Socialism is social welfare, including ideas like social assistance or UBI. Socialism allows for means of production, like factories, to be publicly and equally owned by all. It allows the fruits of labor produced in those factories to be shared by all. Like capitalism, socialism produces its own political ideologies. Socialism as a state of being requires some form of protection (much of the debate on the left can essentially be seen as "how should we protect an established state of socialism?"). As socialism is classless, and as its production is communal, it is open to encroachment by capitalists who will seek to establish private ownership and markets there. Most agree, some state or state-like entity must be established to protect the socialist society. In this way, any politics that are explicitly anti-capitalist must be socialist.
That's how it often ends up, sure, but that's not its defining feature. If you strip away all government (i.e. leave a bunch of people on a desert island), you'd end up with a capitalist system. It's just the natural way of things. It starts with a market economy, and eventually market participants find they can pay others to grow their goods faster than trading/earning it directly, and some people would prefer to take the steady income of working for someone else over starting their own venture. If a venture fails, the owner loses everything, whereas the workers just move on to someone else's venture.
When a government gets involved, it takes a monopoly on force in order to protect market participants from each other. Since it has that monopoly on force, there's a lot of potential upside for market participants to get the government on their side. That's why we see so much cronyism, because it's a lot more profitable to get the guy with the gun on your side than compete in a fair market. But once you allow that to happen, capitalism becomes corrupted because you introduce ways to eliminate the inherent risk of market participation. It's a lot harder to fail when you can get the government to make rules to prevent competition, letting you keep charging high prices for lower quality products and services.
Exactly, and if that form of protection gets corrupted, the entire system is screwed. Look at what happened to pretty much every socialist state, the elites find they can get a ton of gain through treating their people unequally, and resort to heavy-handed measures to keep them in line.
The most successful "socialist" states (e.g. Nordic countries) aren't socialist at all, they're capitalist societies (and in many ways have a more free market than the US) with a hefty social safety net. Sweden has a high number of billionaires relative to their population. Why? Because they're capitalist, not socialist. They do have a high tax rate, but they abolished their wealth and inheritance taxes in the 2000s, probably because they tend to scare away wealthy people and therefore local investment.
And I really don't think socialism is actually classless, at least not when there's a strong governing body. It just exchanges the capitalist "owner vs worker" class for "ruling vs worker" class, because there's no way those in control will settle for the same living conditions as the workers. So it basically just trades someone who gained ownership through investment for someone who gained control (essentially ownership) through moving up in the party. To me, that means the owner is likely better equipped to run things than someone who "inherited" it through political maneuvering. Why would a socialist leader want to actually improve the living conditions of the people if they could just maintain power by killing off rivals?
So no, I largely reject socialism as a governing system because it's way too easy to corrupt, and instead seek to borrow socialist ideas for how to operate an economy. Instead of governments owning the means of production, let's instead look at co-ops. Instead of production and consumption quotas, let's do cash redistribution from the wealthy to the poor so everyone can participate in the market economy (and a worker w/ a steady base income can take more risks and try to become an owner, or at least leave awful employers). A system like that can better weather bad leadership than one where the leadership has significant control over the economy.
Your reforms sound good, but aren't pragmatic. Today's system requires you to have lobbyists to push an agenda through. Who is going to fund the lobbyists to make these reforms happen.
Also, even in an ideal capitalism, there is still an injustice at the heart of the system. The employer-employee contract violates the tenet of legal and de facto responsibility matching. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for production, but employer is held solely legally responsible.
@technology
My issue with this line of reasoning is that it largely ignores risk. The risk an employee takes is the risk of missing future wages if the venture fails, but they have no risk of losing past wages. The risk an employer takes is loss of invested capital and thus loss of past wages and the ability to continue the venture.
The problem, IMO, is that we've overly protected the employer so their risk is mitigated, but we have done little to protect the employee. Likewise, wages can become uncompetitive because our legal system tends to benefit larger companies over smaller companies, so it becomes incredibly difficult to unseat a dominant company, even if your product is better (large company can waste smaller companies' capital with frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary red tape).
That said, if employees want to take on the risk an employer takes on, they can either become an employer themselves (i.e. start a business) or form a co-op with other workers. However, many are uncomfortable with taking on that risk, so they apply for jobs instead of creating their own.
If we go with a socialist system, we'll still have employers and employees, but we'll just socialize the risk and dilute the profit motive, which I think will stifle productivity. Why work hard if the potential upside to you for outperformance is small? Let's say you're in a co-op with 9 other people with equal split of profits and you're twice as productive, you'll only see 1/10 of that come back to you. Why do that when you could be the employer and see a much larger share of the profits?
The issue here isn't with capitalism as an idea, but that we've allowed such a disparity between productive work and profits, and I think the reason for that is government protectionism, not capitalism.
Exactly, the problem isn't capitalism, but government. If we swap capitalism for socialism but leave the government structure in place, we'll have the same problem. If you think shareholders are bad, you won't want to see what happens when politicians run businesses...
5/5
Creating or joining a worker coop is a much more actionable political step that someone could take then completely transforming the government. If the worker coop movement grows big enough, it could acquire the economic power to purchase it own lobbyists to influence the political process to hopefully pass those reforms
1/5
Worker coops can have managers. Managers' interests can be aligned with the long term interests of the firm by giving them non-voting preferred shares as part of their compensation. Managers will make sure workers they are managing perform. The difference is that these managers are ultimately accountable to the entire body of workers and are thus their delegates.
Profits/wages don't have to be divided equally among workers.
I'm going to use multiple toots since I'm on Mastodon
It really depends on the specific form of socialism. If we look at the most influential forms (say, USSR or China), the decision makers are politicians, so they're more motivated by power and influence than the good of the whole.
IMO, socialism can work if it's practiced by smaller orgs and not as a government structure. So unions and co-ops, not planned economies.
I'm not a socialist because I think markets are useful and haven't seen a planned economy proposal that seemed plausible. Worker co-ops and unions aren't socialism in 20th century sense because they are technically compatible with markets and private property.
An economic democracy is a market economy where all firms are worker co-ops, so I was speaking about managers in a worker co-op
@technology
4/5
It is irrelevant that some workers don't want to be held responsible for the positive and negative results of their actions (the whole result of production). Responsibility can't be transferred even with consent. If an employer-employee cooperate to commit a crime, both are responsible. This argument is establishes an inalienable right i.e. a right that can't be given up or transferred even with consent like political voting rights today
Sure, if they're both aware of and complicit in committing the crime. But in most cases, the employee is unaware of the crime, or commits it under duress. If the employer orders the employee to commit the crime as part of their job, the employer should take the larger (if not total) share of the consequences due to the power dynamic.
A huge part of prosecuting a crime is establishing motive, and duress should move most, if not all, of the guilt onto the employer.
2/2
If a worker voluntarily commits a crime for their employer, that is still inalienably their decision. Yes, the employer told them to do it, and that gave them a reason to do it, but having a reason doesn't absolve them of guilt or responsibility for their actions
@technology
1/2
A group of people is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their intentional joint actions. The pure application of the norm that legal and de facto responsibility match is to deliberate actions. The workers joint actions that use up inputs to produce outputs are planned and deliberate. They meet the criteria for being premeditated. The workers are not under duress in normal work, and consent to the employer-employee contract.
@technology
2/5
The empirical evidence I have seen on worker coops and employee-owned companies seems to suggest that worker-run companies are slightly more productive.
I oppose socialism as I think markets are useful. I advocate economic democracy
In an economic democracy, the employer-employee contract is abolished, so workers automatically legally get voting rights over management upon joining a firm.
My understanding is that companies run by their founders are the most productive. Once that's handed off, motives change.
I'd like to see the research you've found though.
I'll also have to read more about economic democracy, because I'm not familiar with it.
Thats a pretty thorough reply which gives some further insight into the issues we’re facing. While the ideas certainly makes sense in a vacuum (especially with governments and markets staying in their lane), there is a major issue in that the very politicians managing the government would have a pretty big conflict of interest which would prevent the sort of reforms necessary, as most politicians would fall under one or more of the following:
It’s really difficult to see how the government can be separated from the free market if the politicians are closely involved with the businesses, which can later be deemed as “too big to fail”.
Yeah, we need a lot of reforms to fix underlying problems that get in the way of progress. Some things that I think can help:
These are large shifts in how governments are organized, and potentially could be passed through large-scale public protests, like the Civil Rights Movement in the US. The public is incredibly hard to motivate, so organizers need to be really careful about which causes they push for. My preference is the second, because I think it has the best chance of creating positive, long-term change, and it's something that's pretty hard for politicians to competently argue against.
citation needed
You're talking about free and open competition in a perfect competition marketplace. This is an ideal (similarly far-fetched as communism/socialism*) where there are low barriers to entry, and consumers have good information to make well informed choices. In this world competition bid's down excess profits in the long run - essentially to consumers benefit. not the benefit of producers. wages are low but it doesnt so much matter becauases competition keeps prices low.
Capitalism wants to increase the return to capital , so it works against competition to create market power (by many means including legal system power and regulatory capture as well tacit or explicit corruption) both over consumers and over their own supply chain (e.g. employees). It inherits its legacy from rentierism and landowners who also like to monopolize land, ration it and have tenants bid up rents.
'objective sources', on economics? Good luck. economists are so bi-assed that most of them can spew shit out of two holes simultaneously.
That's true.
With a T9 phone, I used to be able to send a complete text message without ever taking my eyes off the road.
Now that I've got a touchscreen I'm swerving all over the place every time I try to text. It's way less safe.
Don't text while you are driving. What the fuck?
Woosh, hopefully?
Stop fucking texting and driving.
Yes, please just text and drive, fucking is too distracting.
"Babe, hold on, I need to send a text,"
I prefer reading an erotic book. And well...you know where the other hand goes that isn't holding the book.
Jesus took the wheel
One word. Tesla.
It became the Apple of automobiles and everyone was rushing to copy them. Then came the fall of Elon and everyone is realizing how full of shit the company is.
Cheap tech that looks expensive, that is why we have touch screens. Also harder to repair for the customer to do. A physcial button is easy to replace and quick.
There's a kind of people who think they don't need to know an industry to know where it's heading and where the progress is.
Mobile computers being thinner and replacing buttons with touchscreens are from that kind of delusions.
Now built-in chatbots with voice recognition and synthesis are all the rage. If you remember that "elevator in Scotland" sketch.
Ullluvunn!