Phrynobatrachus
Neo Member
to me it's about use and value. do you actively use some property to extract profit from workers? if not, then it's personal.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are you ready to consider that capitalism is the real problem?
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
to me it's about use and value. do you actively use some property to extract profit from workers? if not, then it's personal.
Kingsnake wants A Call of Duty game every year even if it means ~18,000 children die each day of completely treatable illness that they cannot afford to treat.
He's fine with it so long as he doesn't need to see the suffering required for his life of luxury.
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
And good luck convincing all the people to downgrade their living standard, I'm pretty sure your peaceful revolution will be successful.
CornBurrito
Member
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
And good luck convincing all the people to downgrade their living standard, I'm pretty sure your peaceful revolution will be successful.
You seem to think I believe revolution would be peaceful.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Ultimately though, what's not understood in these discussions is that the definition of what you can own is set by the state. The state could set a 100% tax rate at a certain threshold (creating a maximal wage), decide that no one can own land any more, or it can only charge what is necessary for the armed force capable of upholding property rights. What's missing in any discussion of the "inherent authoritarianism" needed to end private property is that the existence of private property already comes from power and force, and that people own things because the state will incarcerate or kill people for not acknowledging that.I mean we're capable of finding one set of infringements (taxation) acceptable and another (abolition of property ownership) not? The idea of "property rights" lacks ideological consistency for me to consider that hypocrisy, to me its literally a matter of "what will people accept", and "you can't own property anymore' seems like a bitter pill to swallow
You seem to think I believe revolution would be peaceful.
If it's not peaceful then it will end up in an authoritarian regime.
As someone who lived his childhood in an authoritarian regime, I can tell you that you can fuck right off.
Yes and we prefer that because in the absense of those protections you get a bunch of armed private gangs. (See: the drug trade)Ultimately though, what's not understood in these discussions is that the definition of what you can own is set by the state. The state could set a 100% tax rate at a certain threshold (creating a maximal wage), decide that no one can own land any more, or it can only charge what is necessary for the armed force capable of upholding property rights. What's missing in any discussion of the "inherent authoritarianism" needed to end private property is that the existence of private property already comes from power and force, and that people own things because the state will incarcerate or kill people for not acknowledging that.
CornBurrito
Member
If it's not peaceful then it will end up in an authoritarian regime.
.
Revolutions are always violent. Was the American Revolution violent? Yes. Did it end up with an authoritarian regime? No.
Revolutions are always violent. Was the American Revolution violent? Yes. Did it end up with an authoritarian regime? No.
We are talking about a socialist revolution here. American revolution was practically an independence war. Most of the people on that side of the ocean wanted it to happen.
Edit: you just said that you want to convince people to live worse through a revolution, that's practically a civil war. After your side wins you have to keep those people from revolting and accept your ideas. That's an authoritarian regime.
Because the US revolutionaries endorsed Private Property. (Unfortunately in part due to slavery)Revolutions are always violent. Was the American Revolution violent? Yes. Did it end up with an authoritarian regime? No.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I mean I'm still the guy who thinks that the distinction of "abolition of private property via ownership of the workers" and "abolition of private property via ownership by the public" is an important one to have. The idea can point in too many possibly contradictory directions otherwise
Skyball Paint
Member
how can anyone reasonably claim to own land in North America unless they're Native Americans?
If you're gonna go down that rabbit hole, you'll have to sort through a long history of tribal warfare before colonization to figure out who rightfully owns what.
CornBurrito
Member
Because the US revolutionaries endorsed Private Property. (Unfortunately in part due to slavery)
As a means to increase their own wealth.
After your side wins you have to keep those people from revolting and accept your ideas. That's an authoritarian regime.
I swear that the US has done this before overseas. Hmmm...
I swear that the US has done this before overseas. Hmmm...
And? What's the relevance of this to our discussion?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The socialist revolution has to broadly occur by consent of the population, I mean that much is obvious right? And not just like 51% of people are ready to go
CornBurrito
Member
And? What's the relevance of this to our discussion?
So is Capitalist America authoritarian or not based on the definition you just gave of an authoritarian regime?
Actually I can't think of a single country without law, and law is essentially the forcing of your ideals on others at the threat of prison/violence/death.
The relevance is that your definition of authoritarian is pretty bad.
The socialist revolution has to broadly occur by consent of the population, I mean that much is obvious right? And not just like 51% of people are ready to go
Yup, Automation and mass unemployement are the best chances for socialism to catch on in the US. It is going to be a messy ride if it happens.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
So is Capitalist America authoritarian or not based on the definition you just gave of an authoritarian regime?
Actually I can't think of a single country without law, and law is essentially the forcing of your ideals on others at the threat of prison/violence/death.
The relevance is that your definition of authoritarian is pretty bad.
Rule of law is not the only reason why political parties that are out of power do not violently revolt. That's actually a pretty odd assertion? Like since when is "the only reason people aren't violent is because of law" a position we're considering?
CornBurrito
Member
Rule of law is not the only reason why political parties that are out of power do not violently revolt. That's actually a pretty odd assertion? Like since when is "the only reason people aren't violent is because of law" a position we're considering?
My assertion is that "After your side wins you have to keep those people from revolting and accept your ideas. That's an authoritarian regime." is a bad definition. It is too widely applicable.
Look at how many protests are (sometimes violently) shut down by the police in the US. Look at Occupy.
People should be more careful with their definitions.
So is Capitalist America authoritarian or not based on the definition you just gave of an authoritarian regime?
Actually I can't think of a single country without law, and law is essentially the forcing of your ideals on others at the threat of prison/violence/death.
The relevance is that your definition of authoritarian is pretty bad.
I don't even understand what are you arguing about anymore.
On this very page you are arguing that
"Was the American Revolution violent? Yes. Did it end up with an authoritarian regime? No."
and
"I swear that the US has done this before overseas. "
Which I guess try to suggest that US is authoritarian. So make up your mind.
Also, whatever US does outside US is interventionism, not authoritarianism. You are mixing concepts and internal politics with external politics in such a way that makes your argument very dubious.
Would be nice if you could stay on one topic without using whataboutism instead of arguments.
Edit: and just to be clear, I don't consider US an ideal of democracy. Or capitalism. Nor I agree with most of their external policies.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Lets back up: socialism is only stable if it exists by the broad consent of the population, yes? Is there any contention to that?
CornBurrito
Member
Lets back up: socialism is only stable if it exists by the broad consent of the population, yes?
Yeah.
Though the thing is that "broad consent of the population" doesn't often matter.
https://journalistsresource.org/stu...roups-and-average-voters-on-american-politics
That is why revolution would likely require some degree of violence. The elite do not relinquish power simply because the majority asks them nicely.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah.
Though the thing is that "broad consent of the population" doesn't often matter.
https://journalistsresource.org/stu...roups-and-average-voters-on-american-politics
That is why revolution would likely require some degree of violence. The elite do not relinquish power simply because the majority asks them nicely.
Sure, my point is more largely: if we want our socialism to be stable and also want to have a functional democracy people can't just want to vote it out the next election cycle
Consent in that sense is very weak, it exists as long as people don't dislike the situation enough to prefer it above chaos/uncertainty.Lets back up: socialism is only stable if it exists by the broad consent of the population, yes? Is there any contention to that?
So if the whole of society dislikes socialism but doesn't act to have it removed that is consent in the academic sense.
That is why revolution would likely require some degree of violence. The elite do not relinquish power simply because the majority asks them nicely.
So how do you envision this happening? Violence against whom? And then what? Elections? A new government? Decided by whom? What do you do with the parliament?
CornBurrito
Member
So how do you envision this happening? Violence against whom? And then what? Elections? A new government? Decided by whom? What do you do with the parliament?
We have elections. However we have politicians increasingly bought off by special interest groups and the economic elite.
How do you envision fixing America and making it a democracy instead of an oligarchy?
We have elections. However we have politicians increasingly bought off by special interest groups and the economic elite.
How do you envision fixing America and making it a democracy instead of an oligarchy?
This a non answer.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Something that occurred to me that might explain part of why it feels like we're talking past each other. In the hypothetical socialist revolution what fraction, roughly, of the population do you think is behind it, and what fraction stands against it?
CornBurrito
Member
Something that occurred to me that might explain part of why it feels like we're talking past each other. In the hypothetical socialist revolution what fraction, roughly, of the population do you think is behind it, and what fraction stands against it?
Dunno.
I'm confident saying a good fraction of the population is unhappy with the trend of an increasing % of the wealth ending up in the hands of the few at the top, and the top %'s increasing influence on politics. Look at net neutrality for example.
Whether they consider this a failure of Capitalism or simply "Crony Capitalism" I don't know. I happen to believe this is the natural progression of Capitalism. It seems the predictions Marx made have been fairly accurate.
And it also depends on whether people consider UBI to be socialism or not. If you consider UBI and universal health care to be forms of socialism, I think an ever growing amount will support the latter (and eventually the former).
SENPAIatLARGE
Banned
Bro, most people don't care. American apathy is a powerful thing, and if people can't bother to show up and vote in a presidential election, what makes you believe they will take up arms in revolution? Not all democrats support socialism and an even smaller group supports violence. You are delusional if you believe people will revolt anytime soon. Hell, people stop caring about important world events days after they happen.Dunno.
I'm confident saying a good fraction of the population is unhappy with the trend of an increasing % of the wealth ending up in the hands of the few at the top, and the top %'s increasing influence on politics. Look at net neutrality for example.
Whether they consider this a failure of Capitalism or simply "Crony Capitalism" I don't know. I happen to believe this is the natural progression of Capitalism. It seems the predictions Marx made have been fairly accurate.
And it also depends on whether people consider UBI to be socialism or not. If you consider UBI and universal health care to be forms of socialism, I think an ever growing amount will support the latter (and eventually the former).
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Dunno.
I'm confident saying a good fraction of the population is unhappy with the trend of an increasing % of the wealth ending up in the hands of the few at the top, and the top %'s increasing influence on politics. Look at net neutrality for example.
See I think part of the disconnect is that a good chunk of us, myself included, just can't see a proper socialist revolution (not just a growth of social democracy under capitalism but full blown seizure of the means of production, abolition of private property, nullification of the state if your an anarchist etc) as rallying more than, at most, 50-60% of the population, and that's a generous estimate to make a point. That's enough to win, but its probably not enough to then operate peacefully. I mean you can enforce socialism via the state against the wishes of 40% of your population and that may be effective but also aren't we...trying to be better than that?
We are talking about a socialist revolution here. American revolution was practically an independence war. Most of the people on that side of the ocean wanted it to happen.
Edit: you just said that you want to convince people to live worse through a revolution, that's practically a civil war. After your side wins you have to keep those people from revolting and accept your ideas. That's an authoritarian regime.
If the people who current live lavishly off the suffering of millions have to then they can go to a labor camp for the rest of their lives.
and the top %'s increasing influence on politics. Look at net neutrality for example.
What about it? Net neutrality was supported by America's largest corporations and wealthiest citizens. It is not suffering from a lack of wealthy backers.
A revolution that has as main purpose to take away the property from a good percentage of the population and that is supposed to fight against US government (and US army I suppose or at very least against national guard and police) and with the number of guns that are in the possession of Americans is a terrifying thought even as an exercise of imagination. The potential enemy of the revolution has all the resources to continue the fight even if the revolution temporarily succeeds. You will see a big number of casualties and a huge capital run.
This assuming that there are even enough people for such a risky enterprise.
Just look at the active reaction to Trumpcare, how big are the protests on the streets?
Before any revolutions you should first convince your fellow Americans to vote in the elections that matter. Get first a decent number of congressmen that would support actual decent healthcare, like in Canada or Europe before thinking about utopias.
The what now? Are you a fan of labor camps?
This assuming that there are even enough people for such a risky enterprise.
Just look at the active reaction to Trumpcare, how big are the protests on the streets?
Before any revolutions you should first convince your fellow Americans to vote in the elections that matter. Get first a decent number of congressmen that would support actual decent healthcare, like in Canada or Europe before thinking about utopias.
If the people who current live lavishly off the suffering of millions have to then they can go to a labor camp for the rest of their lives.
The what now? Are you a fan of labor camps?
ken_matthews
Member
My two cents: I do not think capitalism is the real problem; it is the necessary economic system to any free society. However, I do believe that most of our current socioeconomic problems can be mitigate by eliminating the stock market. I believe that the idea of perpetual growth is at the root of many of our global problems. Perpetual growth is a product of the stock market; remove that from the equation and things will probably get better. But who really knows, its not like we can run the experiment a hundred thousand times going forward and see what system produces the best outcomes, whatever that may be. Perhaps is time to consider that people and culture are the problem. No matter the system, good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. Maybe we need to better understand why the wrong type of people keep finding their way into power and influence.
My two cents: I do not think capitalism is the real problem; it is the necessary economic system to any free society. However, I do believe that most of our current socioeconomic problems can be mitigate by eliminating the stock market. I believe that the idea of perpetual growth is at the root of many of our global problems. Perpetual growth is a product of the stock market; remove that from the equation and things will probably get better. But who really knows, its not like we can run the experiment a hundred thousand times going forward and see what system produces the best outcomes, whatever that may be. Perhaps is time to consider that people and culture are the problem. No matter the system, good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. Maybe we need to better understand why the wrong type of people keep finding their way into power and influence.
The stockmarket is the organization of capital to invest in a company. It is literally the bedrock of capitalism. Even if you closed it, as long as you allow people to invest their money in companies, there would still be a fiduciary responsibility to those investors. If you don't allow people to invest their capital to start a company you killed capitalism.
ken_matthews
Member
The stockmarket is the organization of capital to invest in a company. It is literally the bedrock of capitalism. Even if you closed it, as long as you allow people to invest their money in companies, there would still be a fiduciary responsibility to those investors. If you don't allow people to invest their capital to start a company you killed capitalism.
I agree that investment is a necessary component of capitalism, but I probably wasn't clear in my statement. It think publicly traded stocks and the commodification of finance are the problem. Investment ventures should not be treated as transactional means to personal enrichment, as commodities to be packaged, gambled on, sold and resold as complex and arbitrary constructs, entirely divorced from the real money, company, and initial investment. I think the constant need to make more money (increase the profit margin) is what drives most of the problems.
EDIT for extra clarity: I think it is the public nature of stock trading that opens it up to corrupting forces. Granted, there will always be bad people trying to do bad things, but the public nature of our current investment system literally allows for anybody with malice or destructive self interest (and some initial money) to manipulate the game.
SyenceLabb
Member
Communism/Socialism: "Great Idea. Wrong Species." (E. O. Wilson)
Phrynobatrachus
Neo Member
Communism/Socialism: "Great Idea. Wrong Species." (E. O. Wilson)
of all the criticisms you can make about communism, this one is probably the most nonsensical. human nature is a spook, people are shaped by their material conditions.
I agree that investment is a necessary component of capitalism, but I probably wasn't clear in my statement. It think publicly traded stocks and the commodification of finance are the problem. Investment ventures should not be treated as transactional means to personal enrichment, as commodities to be packaged, gambled on, sold and resold as complex and arbitrary constructs, entirely divorced from the real money, company, and initial investment. I think the constant need to make more money is what drives most of the problems.
Wanting a return on an investment seems like a completely independent thing to public ownership of corporations. Prior to the East India Company, people still invested in shipping seeking a return on investment, but they had to do it by buying a ship and hiring a crew - something that was out of reach of the common man. The introduction of publicly owned companies has democratized investment, allowing people who are not super wealthy to participate and profit from it. It has also brought regulation and oversight with it that help protect people from being scammed.
I get the feeling that you are trying to express that there is a certain dehumanizing aspect to stock market. You don't meet the employees of the company you are investing in, so you are less likely to be empathetic towards them. Instead you solely focus on profiting from your investment. There is some truth to that, but I'm not sure what the practical alternative would be. Right now you have large numbers of people in the middle class who benefit from investment in public markets who do not have the means, ability, or desire for the large, high-risk investments associated with private equity. Locking the non-wealthy out of investment is only going to increase the gap between the wealthiest and the rest of us. There is already a certain amount of hand-wringing going on about how companies like Snap and Uber wait so long to go public that private equity firms controlled by billionaires are reaping all the profits before the public gets a chance.
Violence against whom?
The rich.
ken_matthews
Member
Wanting a return on an investment seems like a completely independent thing to public ownership of corporations. Prior to the East India Company, people still invested in shipping seeking a return on investment, but they had to do it by buying a ship and hiring a crew - something that was out of reach of the common man. The introduction of publicly owned companies has democratized investment, allowing people who are not super wealthy to participate and profit from it. It has also brought regulation and oversight with it that help protect people from being scammed.
I get the feeling that you are trying to express that there is a certain dehumanizing aspect to stock market. You don't meet the employees of the company you are investing in, so you are less likely to be empathetic towards them. Instead you solely focus on profiting from your investment. There is some truth to that, but I'm not sure what the practical alternative would be. Right now you have large numbers of people in the middle class who benefit from investment in public markets who do not have the means, ability, or desire for the large, high-risk investments associated with private equity. Locking the non-wealthy out of investment is only going to increase the gap between the wealthiest and the rest of us. There is already a certain amount of hand-wringing going on about how companies like Snap and Uber wait so long to go public that private equity firms controlled by billionaires are reaping all the profits before the public gets a chance.
Of course wanting a return on investment is different than public ownership of companies; I do not think I conflated the two. But I think the point needs to be made that there is a substantive difference between the idea of public ownership and publicly traded. Public ownership implies some sort of equality or distribution regarding the bar for entry and the payout (ie nationalized industry, and I am not advocating for that). Our financial system is not about public ownership; the money invested by the middle class is commodified and packaged as these complex transactions that require position and wealth to access and benefit from. The middle class is priced out and ignorant of the game financial traders play with their money. The real benefits go to the people whose income prominently consist of dividends taxed at 15%. If most middle class people made a living off of dividends, than I would be more inclined to agree with you.
I know my sentiments may be off base, but I am not sure oversight and protection from scammers is a compelling point. We clearly have a lack of oversight and plenty of scammers in our system right now. There certainly is a dehumanizing aspect to the stock market, but that is not a unique effect. All large and complex institutions create distance between people and reduce empathy, and that may even be a necessary element to their function (and its not really the point I was getting at). I think the problem has to do with this concept of perpetual growth. I do not see the same sort of pressure to maximize profits, grow margins, and commodify finance with out public trading. Of course there will always be greedy people who do not care about anything except for making more money, but there is only so much efficiency and innovation before that pressure begins to incentivize people to do the wrong things. Private companies are not beholden to shareholders and do not have fiduciary responsibilities to maximize profits or face lawsuits and management changes.
I do not profess to know an alternate more effective system, even if there is one (pointing out problems is easy, solutions are difficult). But I am also not convinced that any benefits (perceived or real) from publicly traded stocks are only achieved through this one system. Nor am I certain that the wealth gap will increase without it. Like I mentioned before, there is no way to run the experiment enough times going forward to discern any real causation.
The rich.
Like ... Bill Gates?
It think publicly traded stocks and the commodification of finance are the problem.
this is the real cancer.
CornBurrito
Member
What about it? Net neutrality was supported by America's largest corporations and wealthiest citizens. It is not suffering from a lack of wealthy backers.
If you ignore that a lot of the companies "supporting" net neutrality actually are attempting to get rid of it.
But lets pretend that isnt the case. Net neutrality was a bad example.
How do you respond to this: https://journalistsresource.org/stu...roups-and-average-voters-on-american-politics
Compared to economic elites, average voters have a low to nonexistent influence on public policies. ”Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions, they have little or no independent influence on policy at all," the authors conclude.
In cases where citizens obtained their desired policy outcome, it was in fact due to the influence of elites rather than the citizens themselves: ”Ordinary citizens might often be observed to ‘win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."
Influence of U.S. citizens and elites (Gilens, Page)
Regardless of whether a small minority or a large majority of American citizens support a policy, the probability of policy change is nearly the same — approximately 30%.
A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans is adopted only about 18% of the time, while a proposed change with high support is adopted about 45% of the time.
Interest groups have a substantial impact on public policy. When mass-based and business-oriented interest groups oppose a policy, the probability of its being enacted is only 16%, rising to 47% when they're strongly favorable. ”On the 1,357 proposed policy changes for which at least one interest group was coded as favoring or opposing change, in only 36% of the cases did most groups favor change, while in 55% of the cases most groups opposed change."
Overall, business-oriented groups have almost twice the influence of mass-based groups.
While the popular belief is that professional associations and interest groups serve to aggregate and organize average citizens' interests, the data do not support this. The preferences of average citizens are positively and highly correlated with the preferences of economic elites but not with those of interest groups. Except for labor unions and the AARP, interest groups do not tend to favor the same policies as average citizens. In fact, some groups' positions are negatively correlated with the opinion of the average American, as in the case of gun owners.
Or any of the other hundreds of studies out there that strongly show America is an Oligarchy and not a Democracy?
CornBurrito
Member
Like ... Bill Gates?
Bill Gates does a lot of charitable work but lets not pretend he's a saint.
Bill Gates was a ruthless, cutthroat businessman who made his vast wealth by using every dirty trick in the book (and inventing a few new dirty tricks along the way) and then using Microsoft's success to effectively hold the computer industry hostage for 20 years.
He viewed any successful non-Microsoft software as a threat, even if that software was for Windows. And if that software was cross-platform he viewed it as an existential threat, since it lessened people's dependence on Microsoft.
Internet Explorer? Microsoft didn't make it. They completely missed the boat on the World Wide Web, and with the popularity of the Netscape Navigator web browser (which was available on almost every computer, from $20k SGI workstations to Macs to Windows PCs), Bill Gates & co saw a threat to Microsoft's dominance, so they rushed to get their own web browser by buying one from a company called Spyglass Software. Now, since Netscape Navigator cost money, everyone assumed Microsoft would charge for Internet Explorer, and Microsoft's contract with Spyglass Software promised to give Spyglass a cut of whatever money they made from Internet Explorer sales. So what did Microsoft do? They released Internet Explorer for free, which was something none of their competitors could do since Microsoft had such deep pockets. Spyglass Software was ruined, and so was Netscape eventually. Once Internet Explorer was available, Microsoft threatened not to sell Windows to any PC manufacturer that bundled Netscape Navigator, which would later get them in trouble with the Department of Justice and the EU.
DirectX? Began life as an OpenGL knock-off that would (Microsoft hoped) lock-in developers to Windows. Hell, Microsoft was so afraid of OpenGL (since it was cross platform and the industry standard at the time) that they offered to partner with SGI (creator of OpenGL) on a new, cross platform graphics library called FireGL. Except that Microsoft had no intention of actually releasing FireGL. They hoped working on FireGL would distract SGI from advancing OpenGL long enough to let DirectX (then called Direct3D) catch up to it, and when their plan worked Microsoft just up and abandoned FireGL.
When 3D accelerators were new (which are now called GPUs), there was a much larger number of companies developing desktop GPUs than the nVidia/AMD/Intel tri-opoly we have today, and many of them were too small to afford to create their own full OpenGL implementations. Since most PC GPUs at the time only implemented a small subset of OpenGL in hardware, Microsoft wrote a full software OpenGL implementation and then offered it to GPU companies, so those companies could just replace the parts that their GPU implemented in hardware and still have a full OpenGL driver. Once they had all spent a good deal of time doing this, Microsoft actually refused to license any of their OpenGL code for release, effectively guaranteeing that smaller GPU companies would only have support for DirectX.
Video For Windows? VFW (now called Windows Media or whatever) only came into being because Microsoft literally stole the source code to QuickTime For Windows. Both Microsoft and Intel were having a hard time getting video to play smoothly on PCs, when Apple surprised them both by releasing QuickTime For Windows, a port of their QuickTime video framework for Macintosh. QuickTime For Windows could to smooth video playback on ordinary PCs with no special hardware, and Microsoft and Intel were caught completely off guard by it. Apple had contracted out to a 3rd party company to do the Windows port of QuickTime, so what did MS do? They went to the same company and gave them a ton of money to develop Video For Windows, but an insanely short schedule, knowing full well that the company would essentially have to re-use a lot of the QuickTime For Windows source code to get the project done on time.
When Apple found out (their contract with the other company stated that Apple owned all the QuickTime For Windows source code), they went ballistic and sued Microsoft. Microsoft had been caught red-handed and knew that Apple had them by the balls. So MS settled. Remember when Microsoft "bailed out" Apple in the 90s by buying $150 million in Apple stock? Despite what the tech press reported, that's not what actually happened. The $150 million in non-voting Apple stock that Microsoft bought was part of their settlement (Apple was no longer on the verge of bankruptcy by that point, and didn't need to be bailed out). The settlement also had Microsoft agreeing to port MS Office and Internet Explorer to Macintosh.
And also lets consider that billionaire charity isn't clear cut 100% good. Especially when a lot of that money comes from tax avoidance. It subverts democracy quite a bit. It is the Libertarian fantasy of "we dont need taxes for services, charity will cover it all".
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ways-a-good-thing-mark-zuckerberg-baby-letter
And also lets consider that billionaire charity isn't clear cut 100% good. Especially when a lot of that money comes from tax avoidance. It subverts democracy quite a bit. It is the Libertarian fantasy of "we dont need taxes for services, charity will cover it all".
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ways-a-good-thing-mark-zuckerberg-baby-letter
I'm not sure that subverting democracy is such a bad thing in this specific case. The Gates Foundation does quite a bit for developing countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Global_development_division
Meanwhile, the one thing that Americans of all political persuasions support cutting funding for is foreign aid. And it is largely based on ignorance.
http://www.politifact.com/global-ne...most-people-clueless-us-foreign-aid-spending/
Not that discretionary spending mirrors public opinion anyway. If the money was given to Congress as taxes, they would spend the majority of it on the military.
Of course wanting a return on investment is different than public ownership of companies; I do not think I conflated the two. But I think the point needs to be made that there is a substantive difference between the idea of public ownership and publicly traded. Public ownership implies some sort of equality or distribution regarding the bar for entry and the payout (ie nationalized industry, and I am not advocating for that). Our financial system is not about public ownership; the money invested by the middle class is commodified and packaged as these complex transactions that require position and wealth to access and benefit from. The middle class is priced out and ignorant of the game financial traders play with their money. The real benefits go to the people whose income prominently consist of dividends taxed at 15%. If most middle class people made a living off of dividends, than I would be more inclined to agree with you.
I know my sentiments may be off base, but I am not sure oversight and protection from scammers is a compelling point. We clearly have a lack of oversight and plenty of scammers in our system right now. There certainly is a dehumanizing aspect to the stock market, but that is not a unique effect. All large and complex institutions create distance between people and reduce empathy, and that may even be a necessary element to their function (and its not really the point I was getting at). I think the problem has to do with this concept of perpetual growth. I do not see the same sort of pressure to maximize profits, grow margins, and commodify finance with out public trading. Of course there will always be greedy people who do not care about anything except for making more money, but there is only so much efficiency and innovation before that pressure begins to incentivize people to do the wrong things. Private companies are not beholden to shareholders and do not have fiduciary responsibilities to maximize profits or face lawsuits and management changes.
I do not profess to know an alternate more effective system, even if there is one (pointing out problems is easy, solutions are difficult). But I am also not convinced that any benefits (perceived or real) from publicly traded stocks are only achieved through this one system. Nor am I certain that the wealth gap will increase without it. Like I mentioned before, there is no way to run the experiment enough times going forward to discern any real causation.
This is not true and doesn't even make sense. Dividends are taxed at the normal income rate. You mean capital gains, but even that would not make that a true statement, though I do support switching the capital gains discount for the double tax on dividends to encourage better corporate governance, but that has really little to do with who benefits from owning stock.
There is only a dehumanizing aspect to the stock market because people don't understand how it works because we teach people literally nothing about finance until college, and even then only if you major in finance or economics or are in an MBA program.
if we don't teach people how the stock market works, it just looks like pure gambling at best and a rigged game at worst, but it's really not.
The dirty little secret about the stock market is that it is stupidly simple to outperform most rich people in the stock market, especially the ones that are rich because they own a particular corporation. Most really wealthy people are going to be super hedged, which is going to drop their average rate of return. Just buy index funds and you will outperform the vast majority of even the super rich.
Also most of the super wealthy don't really make their money on the stock market, they make their money by starting a business. As far as the super rich who have made most or all of their money by investing, there is Warren Buffett and that's about it.
ken_matthews
Member
This is not true and doesn't even make sense. Dividends are taxed at the normal income rate. You mean capital gains, but even that would not make that a true statement, though I do support switching the capital gains discount for the double tax on dividends to encourage better corporate governance, but that has really little to do with who benefits from owning stock.
There is only a dehumanizing aspect to the stock market because people don't understand how it works because we teach people literally nothing about finance until college, and even then only if you major in finance or economics or are in an MBA program.
if we don't teach people how the stock market works, it just looks like pure gambling at best and a rigged game at worst, but it's really not.
The dirty little secret about the stock market is that it is stupidly simple to outperform most rich people in the stock market, especially the ones that are rich because they own a particular corporation. Most really wealthy people are going to be super hedged, which is going to drop their average rate of return. Just buy index funds and you will outperform the vast majority of even the super rich.
Also most of the super wealthy don't really make their money on the stock market, they make their money by starting a business. As far as the super rich who have made most or all of their money by investing, there is Warren Buffett and that's about it.
I'll acknowledge that what I wrote is imprecise (and slightly incorrect, the top bracket is 20% not 15%). More precise language would have used the phrase "capital gains and qualified dividends", and "15 - 20% with an effective rate of ~18%". I apologize for the bad habit of using imprecise language on a message board (I am being sincere about that), but I am not sure (nor did you explain) how what I wrote failed to make sense. I do not think the imprecision and minor correction detract from or confuse my larger point, although I am interesting in hearing a cogent, more thoroughly expanded counter perspective.
Again, I do not think lack of empathy is unique to the stock market; it appears to have an inverse relationship to the size of any group/system. But do you really think that the lack of empathy in the stock market is only due to ignorance of how it works? Are you sure there are no sociobiological and neurological dynamics at play? I am not attempting to patronize or be flippant, but do you really think your stated reason is the single most significant reason? In your view, how does the stock market work? And I am aware of the historical performance rates of index funds verses managed investment accounts, but unless you explain that point further, I do not see how it is germane to the conversation.
Additionally, I recommend this article that includes statistics on income sources for the rich..
I'll acknowledge that what I wrote was imprecise (and slightly incorrect, the top bracket is 20% not 15%). More precise language would have used the phrase "capital gains and qualified dividends", and "15 - 20% with an effective rate of ~18%". I apologize for the bad habit of using imprecise language on a message board (I am being sincere about that), but I am not sure (nor did you explain) how what I wrote failed to make sense. I do not think the imprecision and minor correction detract from or confuse my larger point, although I am interesting in hearing a cogent, more thoroughly expanded counter perspective.
Again, I do not think lack of empathy is unique to the stock market; it appears to have an inverse relationship to the size of any group/system. But do you really think that the lack of empathy in the stock market is only due to ignorance of how it works? Are you sure there are no sociobiological and neurological dynamics at play? I am not attempting to patronize or be flippant, but do you really think your stated reason is the single most significant reason? In your view, how does the stock market work? And I am aware of the historical performance rates of index funds verses managed investment accounts, but unless you explain that point further, I do not see how it is germane to the conversation.
Additionally, I recommend this article that includes statistics on income sources for the rich..
Systems by definition can't have empathy, but that's not really the point. The point of a market is to allow the efficient allocation of resources via price signals. The market is a tool for making rational (or more rational, at least) economic decisions. That's it, it is not some all powerful force that makes decisions for people, it just gives the information needed to make said decision.
The returns of index funds are relevant because it shows that the stock market is not a rigged game to benefit the elite. You can quite easily beat the most elite exclusive hedge funds and super rich investors over the long term.
The alternative to a public stock market would be that only the rich and well connected would have access to the greatest tool for creating wealth the world has ever known, which does not seem particularly egalitarian to me. That is without even considering how you can create a world where it's legal to own something but not to publicly offer it for sale..
I would also argue that empathy is not a particularly valuable tool for making the world a better place:
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2...hics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom
But that's a whole other topic.
Capitalism has run it's course. Full blown communism didn't work either. I'm not sure what the world needs to work properly and fairly but that's the next thing we'll all have to work towards .. or our great great grandchildren will anyway.. if they haven't been drowned by rising seas or cooked by a hotter sun or starved by a lack of food , etc etc.
In the near term I think the US in particular could stand to have just a bit more socialism - proper healthcare and education for all of it's people would be a start.
In the near term I think the US in particular could stand to have just a bit more socialism - proper healthcare and education for all of it's people would be a start.