Support NeoGAF

[patapuf]

The UK, which aside from the US is probably the country with the biggest history of classic liberal economic ideals, has the NHS.

There's plenty of other issues at present, but i don't think capitalism is a barrier to a propper healthcare system. Or to basic social security. Putting the failure of the US implementing such systems purely on capitalism seems a bit shortsighted to me. There's clearly issues specific to the US preventing such.

 

[CornBurrito]

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.

So we've established that subverting democracy is alright for a greater good? Glad we agree.

 

[tokkun]

So we've established that subverting democracy is alright for a greater good? Glad we agree.

Let's not try to distort my qualifier-laden statement about a specific charity into some sort of universal pronouncement.

 

[Boney]

In Requiem for a Dream, Chomsky details the 10 principles for the accumulation of wealth power - the first being "to reduce democracy". He argues that both the right through the Powell memorandum and the left via the trilateral comission's "excess of democracy" arrived to the same conclusion.

Chomsky then argues with Madison and Aristotles proposals how to solve the crisis of democracy that comes from the tensions between the rich and the poor. Madison calls for a reduction of democracy whereas Aristotles sees the solution in reducing inequality. Where I would naturally agree with Aristotles here.

 

[ken_matthews]

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.

My point was not about empathy in the stock market, nor am I interested in making a point about its utility. I've read Mr. Bloom's book; he uses a very narrow definition of a rather nebulous word and injecting his ideas about emotional empathy is not relevant to what I wrote. Although I do actually appreciate your points of contention because you are forcing me to acknowledge a lack of disciple in conversation. I think words matter; it is important to use precise language at all times to accurately convey thoughts and ideas. I believe that one of the main reasons dialog often fails to produce understanding or persuade is because people tend to talk past each other. And I think it is largely due to differences in language habits (the use of tone, wit, humor, confrontation), colloquialisms (imprecision in language, regional and social group differences), and biases towards familiarity (the tendency to stick to what you know and not get out of the comfort zone). My communication is affected by these influences also and I am trying to be more conscious of it.

So I am curious, when you point out that systems cannot be empathetic, what was your intention? When you read the sentence you highlighted, did you assume that I was personifying abstract constructs like institutions and that that did not make sense to you? Was the language too ambiguous; is it impossible to infer that the implicit subject was the people within a group/system? Did you think to ask for clarification? You may have missed my response to tukkon where I stated:

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).

 

[iamblades]

My point was not about empathy in the stock market, nor am I interested in making a point about its utility. I've read Mr. Bloom's book; he uses a very narrow definition of a rather nebulous word and injecting his ideas about emotional empathy is not relevant to what I wrote. Although I do actually appreciate your points of contention because you are forcing me to acknowledge a lack of disciple in conversation. I think words matter; it is important to use precise language at all times to accurately convey thoughts and ideas. I believe that one of the main reasons dialog often fails to produce understanding or persuade is because people tend to talk past each other. And I think it is largely due to differences in language habits (the use of tone, wit, humor, confrontation), colloquialisms (imprecision in language, regional and social group differences), and biases towards familiarity (the tendency to stick to what you know and not get out of the comfort zone). My communication is affected by these influences also and I am trying to be more conscious of it.

So I am curious, when you point out that systems cannot be empathetic, what was your intention? When you read the sentence you highlighted, did you assume that I was personifying abstract constructs like institutions and that that did not make sense to you? Was the language too ambiguous; is it impossible to infer that the implicit subject was the people within a group/system? Did you think to ask for clarification? You may have missed my response to tukkon where I stated:

I distinguished systems from people because a lot of people seem to think governments are somehow more empathic than markets, and I was going to go into more detail about how that usually goes wrong, but I didn't get around to it.

Whether you were referring to the people in the system instead of the system as a whole is not really relevant to my point, what matters in talking about the value of a system is the output/effect of said system. Individuals within a system can feel all kinds of empathy towards people and the system can still end up hurting the very people they were directing their empathy towards, which is why I brought up Bloom's book.

When you look at the actual effect of the stock market, it has been to make the greatest tool for wealth creation in the history of man available to the masses in a way that has never been possible in the past, which to me is immensely more important than how it makes people feel, or even what values/feelings it encourages in it's participants(if that is your argument).