Support NeoGAF

[Ogrekiller]

Right. That's what I'm saying. You're afraid of the Republicans, so you can't think beyond the status quo - you can't think beyond 'your side' winning, even though the status quo has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be utterly unable to address the major issues facing us as a species. It cannot face environmental catastrophe. It cannot address the clash between bronze age religion and modern technological firepower. It cannot address the psychic wound of allowing so many human beings to die of starvation and thirst, or die due to preventable or treatable illness.

Imagine if the Founding Fathers had not been daring. They should have lost. They almost did several times.

But if they'd have lost, it would have happened somewhere else. It was an idea whose time had come.

But what are you afraid of then?

The establishment?
Hillary?
The "moderates" winning?

Populism is inherently based on fear- and a blind belief in a solution that may or may not be unrealistic.

You do not fear the Republicans too?

Then why fear if Sanders loses?

It's a very fine line from faith to delusion.

 

[disastermouse]

The problem is no-one running or even talking about engaging in the political system is revolutionary to the degree that we require. The changes we need go far beyond anything even Sanders is espousing

Yes. But I'll take Sanders if it gets us looking in the right direction or buys us enough time to truly change what needs changing. Sanders is a time-out, not a reversal of fortune, but at this point, I'll take a time-out if it gives us time to reconsider what we're doing.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yes. But I'll take Sanders if it gets us looking in the right direction or buys us enough time to truly change what needs changing. Sanders is a time-out, not a reversal of fortune, but at this point, I'll take a time-out if it gives us time to reconsider what we're doing.

It doesn't. Revolutionary thought is dead in the West. We have reached the natural endpoint of the Debordian Spectacle where the concept of a different reality is almost literally unthinkable

At this point I think only an exterior calamity has any chance of truly disrupting the current system

 

[Iolo]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/how-iowa-hijacked-our-democracy-213557#ixzz3yDf6sAJQ

NYT (I think) had an article today talking about Sanders' effort to bus college students back to their hometowns for the caucuses. Will be interesting to see if it makes a difference.

 

[disastermouse]

But what are you afraid of then?

The establishment?
Hillary?
The "moderates" winning?

Populism is inherently based on fear- and a blind belief in a solution that may or may not be unrealistic.

You do not fear the Republicans too?

Then why fear if Sanders loses?

It's a very fine line from faith to delusion.

I really don't fear either Sanders losing or the Republicans winning. I fear that, facing the challenges we face, that we'll be stuck with a mutilating barbarism instead of getting all minds in the game and coming up with innovative solutions that look beyond capitalism and the use of resource allocation to keep social score.

Capitalism, when pushed to breaking, turns on people. It turns destructive because it must replenish itself. It's the moving process of capital that tries to keep itself going, not the achievements of capitalism. It would reduce us to the stone-age if it allowed us to continue to attach score to resource allocation and a relative but limited meritocratic scheme of advancement based on the traits that capitalism favors.

Capitalism, for all its faults, is a vast improvement over 'Strong Leader' methods of resource allocation. It provides technological dynamism and a limited meritocratic method of allocating resources and status. It provides real and obvious incentives to advancement. Nonetheless, it also has inherent contradictions that will not allow itself to continue working once it runs out of space to grow. The environment is pushing back. Cultural clashes are pushing back. Our ability to annihilate ourselves with warfare is pushing back.

So, we will either fall back to a fundamentally less elegant solution (unlikely), advance to a system that solves the inherent contradictions of capitalism (while providing it's own, most likely), or we will cease to exist as a species.

 

[User 463088]

NYT (I think) had an article today talking about Sanders' effort to bus college students back to their hometowns for the caucuses. Will be interesting to see if it makes a difference.

That seems like a logistical nightmare, and I would think there would be a better use of GOTV money and effort. I guess it makes sense, really. While he's having to ship people across the state, though, Hillary's people can just get people to show up where they've always caucused.

 

[campfireweekend]

Except you can't. The inherent contradictions of Capitalism and the way that Capital works means that, even with the vast adaptations and extensions that Capitalism has come up with to keep itself going, it cannot both allow capital to accrue ever upwards and still provide the consumer base necessary for its propagation. Capitalism will bow to reform when absolutely required to keep it alive, but then, when it regains its power, it rolls those reforms back. The two world wars were one way for Capitalism to propagate itself, leveling vast quantities of people and resources and allowing the naturally meritocratic (at least meritocratic along the lines and biases of capitalism) process to start again at ground zero. The problem is that, due to incremental technological dynamism, we've simply become too powerful to not destroy ourselves with war. We gave it everything we had in WWI and WWII, but if we give it all we've got again, we'll simply cease to exist as a species.

No that's what I'm saying. If you can properly entrench the institutions that institute these reforms, then they will not be rolled back. If we can make sure that money is not present in politics, then the vices of capitalism can be curtailed.

If the social democracies of Europe have taught us anything, it is that.

I mean, a large part of the apparent decline for the lower and middle classes since the 70s is down to globalization, or neoliberalism in your parlance.

I however don't think that this is an inherently bad thing. The vices of globalization can be curtailed, but we are never getting those higher paying manufacturing jobs back. That is something that politicians need to stop telling us is possible. Our nation has a comparative advantage in engineering, and many other fields that require more specialization and more education.

The failure of capitalism since the 70s is a policy failure. That our government hasn't elected to provide free education that equips the American worker to work the new American jobs is a tragedy, and one of the primary reasons for inequality when paired with a progressive taxation system that has been sabotaged as a redistributive scheme. State schools should be free.

And if that is too far, provide free education for jobs that are currently in surplus, such as nursing, medical professionals, or engineers. We could even use financial incentive to push people towards those fields by providing free tuition. Idk

 

[Holmes]

Right. That's what I'm saying. You're afraid of the Republicans, so you can't think beyond the status quo - you can't think beyond 'your side' winning, even though the status quo has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be utterly unable to address the major issues facing us as a species. It cannot face environmental catastrophe. It cannot address the clash between bronze age religion and modern technological firepower. It cannot address the psychic wound of allowing so many human beings to die of starvation and thirst, or die due to preventable or treatable illness.

Imagine if the Founding Fathers had not been daring. They should have lost. They almost did several times.

But if they'd have lost, it would have happened somewhere else. It was an idea whose time had come.

I think you're exaggerating quite a lot in this sentence. Just because you don't like how something is doesn't mean it's failing the human race.

In my home country of Canada, I'm a New Democrat. They're the democratic socialist party. I support them and I voted for them in the election last October. I supported them because their positions on the issues were the most left-wing out of every other major party, and the Canadian Parliamentary system allows for democratic socialist policies to be a reality in the event of a democratic socialist government coming into power. There's no denying that Thomas Mulcair would have enacted very left-wing policies had Canada been fortunate enough to elect an NDP government. But it didn't happen. But the reason I support the New Democratic Party is because Canada is a country where the word "socialist" isn't as bad a word as it is here in the United States (but don't get me wrong, it's still a dirty word up there), and like I said, had they formed government, they would have been able to enact their policies.

The United States is different. You say I'm fear-based, but I call it being realistic. I say you're being idealistic and naive. There is no way any type of socialist policies can pass two legislative chambers (let alone when they're both run by one of the most right-wing parties in North America). There's no way enacting these policies wouldn't cause severe backlash against those who pushed for it and passed it. We saw this in 2010, and the policies enacted in 2009-2010 were nowhere near socialist. You can lie to yourself all you want and pretend that Americans don't care about the "socialist" label anymore, that they've heard enough, but you're really only fooling yourself. If it really was the case, why aren't socialist groups like Socialist Alternative gaining traction? Deep down, you know the truth.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

I think that everyone realizes that neoliberal capitalism, even if they don't know what that is upon seeing the term, is a total and complete failure.

It's hard to call Marxism or Socialism a fairy tale after living through the last 35 years. I don't think the knee-jerk reaction will work because, quite frankly, Capitalism isn't bringing the goods it did post-WWII. Everyone knows the system is broken and/or rigged. It's funny to see people think that millennials will grow up and become rational capitalists after so many of them have been fucked so royally by the system. Yeah, a lot are trying to become 'multiple-stream-of-income' proto-entrepreneurs, but I think they sense that they're scrambling a fuck of a lot harder than their parents did at their age.

I said it in another thread and I'll say it here: the USA will be capitalist for a long time. Republicans have been working hard to sabotage the public school system and decrease rates of higher education. Socialism is a dirty word in America today. While it may be slightly more acceptable than it was 10 years ago, it still has a LONG way to go before it's mainstream. It doesn't matter if Medicare, Social Security, Public Education, National Highways, etc are technically "socialistic" because noone sees it that way. A LOT of people would rather pay tolls than taxes for highways because they're conditioned to think that government = inefficiency. Not only that, but capitalism has a charm kinda like the lottery. Everyone wants to be rich, even at the expense of others. It's the "got mine" attitude that will keep pushing for policies that screw over other people. People equate capitalism with "the American Dream."

Oh and the big corporations won't take this lying down either. If the gas companies can trick the public into believing that global warming is a farce and the NRA can convince people that the answer to gun violence is MORE GUNS, then I think they can swing the public opinion towards capitalism.

 

[campfireweekend]

The problem is no-one running or even talking about engaging in the political system is revolutionary to the degree that we require. The changes we need go far beyond anything even Sanders is espousing

This is an extreme claim, and as such, necessitates extreme evidence.

 

[Ogrekiller]

I really don't fear either Sanders losing or the Republicans winning.

Hmm.

So you wouldn't really care if the Republicans control the majority of the government then. It wouldn't make so much of a difference, since Obama was pretty much the same thing either way?

 

[NeoXChaos]

Yet Mr. Sanders risks easy caricature from Republicans as a tax-and-spend liberal who would turn the United States into a Scandinavian-style welfare state. And that could also hurt him with moderate Democrats.

“Sanders’s ideas are deeply felt, but at the same time he has really overreached,” said Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University and a message consultant for congressional Democrats. “The average American is not going to buy into a vision of the federal government running one big health care program. Many people are actually afraid of that idea.”

Mrs. Clinton, by embracing many of the policies of Mr. Obama and her husband, is aiming to rebuild the same coalitions that elected them, and hoping that the prospect of the first female president will draw even more women to the Democratic side this time. While Mr. Sanders would have to defend his far-left plans, Mrs. Clinton believes the Republican nominee, whoever that may be, will face the challenge of defending radically conservative ideas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/u...ders-democratic-party-iowa-new-hampshire.html

 

[The Technomancer]

This is an extreme claim, and as such, necessitates extreme evidence.

What is there to say? All of Sander's biggest policy proposals basically get us up to par with Europe, which is all good stuff don't get me wrong, but I agree with diasastermouse that the problems we currently face as a species are inherent to consumer capitalism, and he certainly isn't running on a platform that would actually transform the relationship between capital and labor.
That's not me slamming him either, other then perhaps in the way that he's helped frame himself as being radical when he's not, but that is what I mean when I say that revolutionary thought in the West is dead: alternate economic systems are rejected reflexively as inconceivable

 

[disastermouse]

No that's what I'm saying. If you can properly entrench the institutions that institute these reforms, then they will not be rolled back. If we can make sure that money is not present in politics, then the vices of capitalism can be curtailed.

If the social democracies of Europe have taught us anything, it is that.

I mean, a large part of the apparent decline for the lower and middle classes since the 70s is down to globalization, or neoliberalism in your parlance.

I however don't think that this is an inherently bad thing. The vices of globalization can be curtailed, but we are never getting those higher paying manufacturing jobs back. That is something that politicians need to stop telling us is possible. Our nation has a comparative advantage in engineering, and many other fields that require more specialization and more education.

The failure of capitalism since the 70s is a policy failure. That our government hasn't elected to provide free education that equips the American worker to work the new American jobs is a tragedy, and one of the primary reasons for inequality when paired when a progressive taxation system that has been sabotaged as a redistributive scheme. State schools should be free.

And if that is too far, provide free education for jobs that are currently in surplus, such as nursing, medical professionals, or engineers. We could even use financial incentive to push people towards those fields by providing free tuition. Idk

You can't properly entrench those institutions in Capitalism. Education isn't the answer. If we all had PhDs, someone would still have to wait tables. Capitalism requires losers on a resource allocation basis, and education doesn't eradicate that fundamental action.

You can't entrench within Capitalism a set of institutions that hinders it. Because it allocates power and resources to the meritocratic (generally, this declines as inherited wealth comes into play) needs of Capitalism. Like an organism that requires a certain environment in which to thrive, it creates the biases, social mores, and general environment that it requires in order to continue thriving. Alas, like yeast in an alcoholic brew, it eventually is capable of destroying itself in its own effluvia. It can survive momentary setbacks that hinder its full growth, but it will reverse them as soon as it is feasible, because it and its biases set the restrictions to 'acceptable thought' regarding all solutions. Capital itself (and not capitalists, they are merely selected based on their merits according to the biases of capital) sets the limits of the game and how it can be played.

None of this is new thought, btw. It can all be gleaned from Marx, if you have an adequate guide. The biggest problem with Marx is that, although he diagnosed the basic problem with Capitalism, he could only speculate on possible solutions. He set his solution on the working class primarily because it provided adequate organization and mass that was denied the benefits of capitalism. That is, it provided a class that could be motivated to change the system purely due to numbers and the requirement of industrial capitalism to organize otherwise non-integrated groups of people, all equally disenfranchised from the benefits of capitalism.

Modern consumerism alleviated some of that pressure within national societies by out-sourcing the misery to the third world, but it could only do that for so long. To be fair, it has been able to do it for far longer than Marx ever envisioned.

I feel dumb for presuming to explain an economic theory to an economist, so I apologize if I'm being pedantic.

 

[disastermouse]

Accidental double-post.

 

[campfireweekend]

What is there to say? All of Sander's biggest policy proposals basically get us up to par with Europe, which is all good stuff don't get me wrong, but I agree with dangermouse that the problems we currently face as a species are inherent to consumer capitalism, and he certainly isn't running on a platform that would actually transform the relationship between capital and labor.
That's not me slamming him either, other then perhaps in the way that he's helped frame himself as being radical when he's not, but that is what I mean when I say that revolutionary thought in the West is dead: alternate economic systems are rejected reflexively as inconceivable

Alternate [insert literally any field] systems are also rejected reflexively as inconceivable. This is because claims that attempt to upend all consensus require a lot of evidence.

Cite papers, provide graphs. Why is the relationship between capital and labor fundamentally unworkable. Is this an automation argument? Are you attempting to draw parallels between horses at the onset of the car and the human laborer in a capitalist system? If all workers are replaced by robots, then who are the manufacturers selling their goods to? If they are no longer selling goods, then how do those at the top retain their positions of wealth? Why couldn't a universal basic income curtail any mass disemployment caused technological progress? That is not a fundamental redefining of the relationship between capital and labor.

The burden of proof rests on those attempting to upend consensus.

 

[ugaboga232]

Alternate [insert literally any field] systems are also rejected reflexively as inconceivable. This is because claims that attempt to upend all consensus require a lot of evidence.

Cite papers, provide graphs. Why is the relationship between capital and labor fundamentally unworkable. Is this an automation argument? Are you attempting to draw parallels between horses at the onset of the car and the human laborer in a capitalist system? If all workers are replaced by robots, then who are the manufacturers selling their goods to? If they are no longer selling goods, then how do those at the top retain their positions of wealth? Why couldn't a universal basic income curtail any mass disemployment caused technological progress? That is not a fundamental redefining of the relationship between capital and labor.

The burden of proof rests on those attempting to upend consensus.

The slight difference in my wholly untrained eye is that in STEM fields, you can test your hypotheses pretty rigorously for most subjects. Econ is harder (on another note, the few tests for basic income I've seen make it seem like the foundation for a much more equitable system going forward) to test out the theories (though our 50 states should have in theory let us run a lot of interesting experiments but instead we are running far sillier experiments).

 

[campfireweekend]

You can't properly entrench those institutions in Capitalism. Education isn't the answer. If we all had PhDs, someone would still have to wait tables. Capitalism requires losers on a resource allocation basis, and education doesn't eradicate that fundamental action.

You can't entrench within Capitalism a set of institutions that hinders it. Because it allocates power and resources to the meritocratic (generally, this declines as inherited wealth comes into play) needs of Capitalism. Like an organism that requires a certain environment in which to thrive, it creates the biases, social mores, and general environment that it requires in order to continue thriving. Alas, like yeast in an alcoholic brew, it eventually is capable of destroying itself in its own effluvia. It can survive momentary setbacks that hinder its full growth, but it will reverse them as soon as it is feasible, because it and its biases set the restrictions to 'acceptable thought' regarding all solutions. Capital itself (and not capitalists, they are merely selected based on their merits according to the biases of capital) sets the limits of the game and how it can be played.

None of this is new thought, btw. It can all be gleaned from Marx, if you have an adequate guide. The biggest problem with Marx is that, although he diagnosed the basic problem with Capitalism, he could only speculate on possible solutions. He set his solution on the working class primarily because it provided adequate organization and mass that was denied the benefits of capitalism. That is, it provided a class that could be motivated to change the system purely due to numbers and the requirement of industrial capitalism to organize otherwise non-integrated groups of people, all equally disenfranchised from the benefits of capitalism.

Modern consumerism alleviated some of that pressure within national societies by out-sourcing the misery to the third world, but it could only do that for so long. To be fair, it has been able to do it for far longer than Marx ever envisioned.

I feel dumb for presuming to explain an economic theory to an economist, so I apologize if I'm being pedantic.

The thing is, we aren't currently facing a shortage of people to wait tables, and to strawman my argument to "everyone should have PhDs!" is incredibly reductive. People that desire PhDs should have the financial security to pursue them. In fact, waiting tables is a dying industry in the face of automation. Hmm, we're probably gonna need a lot more engineers and other scientists to ensure the rollout of automation goes smoothly.

Alas! If only we provided the tools to allow people to painlessly change their profession based on the effects of globalization.

People that wish to have a secure job immediately after graduation should be financially incentivized by the government to adopt majors that are in short supply. Becoming a nurse should not place any cost on the person that wishes to pursue it. Same with teachers.

And idk man. The LTV that kinda underpins all of Marx's writing kinda makes it all unworkable for me.

The slight difference in my wholly untrained eye is that in STEM fields, you can test your hypotheses pretty rigorously for most subjects. Econ is harder (on another note, the few tests for basic income I've seen make it seem like the foundation for a much more equitable system going forward) to test out the theories (though our 50 states should have in theory let us run a lot of interesting experiments but instead we are running far sillier experiments).

If you wanted to study the field further that deals with why there often plenty of counterfactuals and ways to conducts studies that do allow you to test your hypotheses, you should read up on econometrics. This isn't the 70s and 80s anymore. Economists and economics have plenty of tools that allows its theories to be tested and testable. To say that it doesn't is an attack by Austrian economists, and should really be ignored and absolutely not co-opted by those on the left.

 

[pigeon]

The slight difference in my wholly untrained eye is that in STEM fields, you can test your hypotheses pretty rigorously for most subjects. Econ is harder (on another note, the few tests for basic income I've seen make it seem like the foundation for a much more equitable system going forward) to test out the theories (though our 50 states should have in theory let us run a lot of interesting experiments but instead we are running far sillier experiments).

The problem is that running economic experiments on real populations is usually considered unethical, since people need functioning economies to live.

 

[disastermouse]

Alternate [insert literally any field] systems are also rejected reflexively as inconceivable. This is because claims that attempt to upend all consensus require a lot of evidence.

Cite papers, provide graphs. Why is the relationship between capital and labor fundamentally unworkable. Is this an automation argument? Are you attempting to draw parallels between horses at the onset of the car and the human laborer in a capitalist system? If all workers are replaced by robots, then who are the manufacturers selling their goods to? If they are no longer selling goods, then how do those at the top retain their positions of wealth? Why couldn't a universal basic income curtail any mass disemployment caused technological progress? That is not a fundamental redefining of the relationship between capital and labor.

The burden of proof rests on those attempting to upend consensus.

What?! Universal basic income does fundamentally change the relationship between capital and labor, and significantly! Capital dominates labor primarily because there is no alternative to the terms dictated by Capital, and a universal basic income provides exactly that - an alternative. The problem with universal basic income in a capitalist system is that it is fundamentally unworkable according to the basic laws of Capitalism in that countries without a universal basic income will be at a competitive advantage over Capitalist enterprises forced to operate within those constraints. One way it could be workable is via import levies (tariffs) on countries that don't adopt similar universal basic income constraints. It would require significant mass and both economic and probably physical coercive force to enforce, and that force could always be weakened from within or without by the fundamental laws of Capitalism.

 

[Wilsongt]

Jeblol says something stupid. More news at all.

On ABC’s This Week, co-host Martha Raddatz asked Bush who is to blame for the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan, and the fact that the city of more than 100,000 Americans had been “drinking, eating, brushing their teeth in lead-contaminated water, while the government was telling them repeatedly ‘it’s safe to use.'”

“We’ve created this complex, no responsibility regulatory system, where the federal government, the state government, a regional government, local and county governments are all pointing fingers at one another.” He proposed simply having a “21st century system of rules: Whenever you see a problem, it should become public, there should be transparency instead of trying to cover it up.”

He then praised Synder for having “taken responsibility” and for “rolling up his sleeves and trying to deal with it.” Bush said he should not resign, as he “needs to do what he’s doing, which is to accept responsibility and began to solve the problem,” adding that Snyder has “been a great governor for Michigan.”

Finally, Bush said that instead of “blaming people,” we should be doing what Snyder is doing, creating a strategy to fix it — praise that would seem to contradict his claim moments earlier that the state government was among those “pointing fingers.”

Snyder has come under fire — including a class-action lawsuit — from Flint residents for his slow response to the crisis. Far from being fully transparent, Snyder has released a heavily redacted and apparently incomplete set of emails relating to the contamination problem.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/24/3742264/jeb-bush-flint-caused-by-too-much-regulation/

 

[ugaboga232]

If you wanted to study the field further that deals with why there often plenty of counterfactuals and ways to conducts studies that do allow you to test your hypotheses, you should read up on econometrics. This isn't the 70s and 80s anymore. Economists and economics have plenty of tools that allows its theories to be tested and testable. To say that it doesn't is an attack by Austrian economists, and should really be ignored and absolutely not co-opted by those on the left.

Awkward my gf took econometrics last semester... Sorry for assuming, its just the stereotype I held about the field coming from biology/neuroscience. I guess the problem is more psychological/sociological/philosophical about the untenability of capitalism. I think everyone will agree it extracts value (perhaps at the expense of everything else the marxist would argue) very well, but does it help everyone or just a few? I would argue basic income and automation are the start of changing labor and capital as eventually very little human labor would required to live. I support the basic income regardless, and I am an optimist in the sense that if we can get to basic income and see its lacking, we can think of another solution too.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Marcia Fudge is my rep and I'll thank you to keep your grimy mitts off her, thank you very much. >:|

god damn it, would you people stop being from my home district for FIVE SECONDS

Spoiler

yeah, Fudge is a fantastic rep and I'm glad we've had two in a row at this level during my lifetime

 

[disastermouse]

The thing is, we aren't currently facing a shortage of people to wait tables, and to strawman my argument to "everyone should have PhDs!" is incredibly reductive. People that desire PhDs should have the financial security to pursue them. In fact, waiting tables is a dying industry in the face of automation. Hmm, we're probably gonna need a lot more engineers and other scientists to ensure the rollout of automation goes smoothly.

Alas! If only we provided the tools to allow people to painlessly change their profession based on the effects of globalization.

People that wish to have a secure job immediately after graduation should be financially incentivized by the government to adopt majors that are in short supply. Becoming a nurse should not place any cost on the person that wishes to pursue it. Same with teachers.

And idk man. The LTV that kinda underpins all of Marx's writing kinda makes it all unworkable for me.

LTV?

As for what I bolded, the balance doesn't work in a world with consistently rising population. I will accept that there are jobs for which no suitable automated solution will be accepted (juries, judges, caretaking, storytelling). Incentivizing nurses is a very bad idea, as it is a difficult job and no one except those that are naturally drawn to it should do it. I'm an obvious example of someone who should not even be in nursing, except that it was incentivized and I needed an adult-worthy income. I have to work very hard to be an even adequate nurse (I do excel at some nursing requirements, thank God, but they are not universally appreciated, LOL).

A non-coerced workforce would be infinitely more productive than a coerced one, as has been shown by the difference between even the moderately less-coerced productivity of paid labor compared to the completely coerced labor of slavery.

Some of that can be achieved by propaganda, but the cognitive dissonance of the ideology manifests in increased rates of crime and mental illness.

What's necessary is a system that provides basic dignity and opportunity to everyone while also providing reasonable paths for personal excellence that are recognized and rewarded. Capitalism can't do it and it will never be able to do it. It's the wrong tool for the job - but it does deserve praise for getting us to the point, as a species, where its own limitations have been encountered.

I don't hate Capitalism. Marx didn't hate Capitalism. He appreciated it. I appreciate it. Nonetheless, its fundamental limitations must be acknowledged, IMHO.

 

[campfireweekend]

The slight difference in my wholly untrained eye is that in STEM fields, you can test your hypotheses pretty rigorously for most subjects. Econ is harder (on another note, the few tests for basic income I've seen make it seem like the foundation for a much more equitable system going forward) to test out the theories (though our 50 states should have in theory let us run a lot of interesting experiments but instead we are running far sillier experiments).

The problem is that running economic experiments on real populations is usually considered unethical, since people need functioning economies to live.

It is however awfully easy to implement experiments using states as counterfactuals, as David Card has in his minimum wage papers that compare New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Or the mincome experiments in Canada, that provided those in a certain community with mincome, and others with nothing.

This is no more unethical than drug trials that give certain people placebos.

Links:http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/min-wage-ff-nj.pdf
http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea (2).pdf

What?! Universal basic income does fundamentally change the relationship between capital and labor, and significantly! Capital dominates labor primarily because there is no alternative to the terms dictated by Capital, and a universal basic income provides exactly that - an alternative. The problem with universal basic income in a capitalist system is that it is fundamentally unworkable according to the basic laws of Capitalism in that countries without a universal basic income will be at a competitive advantage over Capitalist enterprises forced to operate within those constraints. One way it could be workable is via import levies (tariffs) on countries that don't adopt similar universal basic income constraints. It would require significant mass and both economic and probably physical coercive force to enforce, and that force could always be weakened from within or without by the fundamental laws of Capitalism.

Nah, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of comparative advantage. The only reason that a country would institute UBI is if there were mass disemployment. That other countries did not have such a system would not matter at all, as the only jobs left in such a country would be highly skilled jobs, and with UBI anyone can attempt or not attempt to go after those jobs without the opportunity cost of being unable to feed their families.

Plus, one of the papers I linked above, showed that there really wasn't a reduction in people working once the received UBI. They'd also have more bargaining power, as their reservation wage, or the wage below which they will not work, would be set higher due to the UBI.

This doesn't redefine capitalism. It just gives workers more bargaining power. Unless you want to argue that unions also redefine capitalism, in which case, wow that's apparently easy to do then.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

*Shrug*

It's easy to say we need to be Star Trek or whatever and complain about incremental change because it's not the complete 180 transformation that we need. Well, wake me up when we come up with a plan to skip all the steps in between and I'll get in line. Until then I'll stick with the folks who understand you can't just flip a switch.

ED: This is too sassy and misleading but I don't like to completely remove posts.

 

[ugaboga232]

It is however awfully easy to implement experiments using states as counterfactuals, as David Card has in his minimum wage papers that compare New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Or the mincome experiments in Canada, that provided those in a certain community with mincome, and others with nothing.

This is no more unethical than drug trials that give certain people placebos.

Links:http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/min-wage-ff-nj.pdf
http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea (2).pdf

Yea I knew of the mincome experiment in Canda which is why I think it could really work and be popular if publicized. Small note, we do not give placebos in drug trials, we give the currently accepted treatment and if there is none then we give placebo. Still, no one is willing to do a full socialist experiment so that is one of the limitations of econ instead of say biology.

 

[disastermouse]

It is however awfully easy to implement experiments using states as counterfactuals, as David Card has in his minimum wage papers that compare New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Or the mincome experiments in Canada, that provided those in a certain community with mincome, and others with nothing.

This is no more unethical than drug trials that give certain people placebos.

Links:http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/min-wage-ff-nj.pdf
http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea (2).pdf



Nah, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of comparative advantage. The only reason that a country would institute UBI is if there were mass disemployment. That other countries did not have such a system would not matter at all, as the only jobs left in such a country would be highly skilled jobs, and with UBI anyone can attempt or not attempt to go after those jobs without the opportunity cost of being unable to feed their families.

Plus, one of the papers I linked above, showed that there really wasn't a reduction in people working once the received UBI. They'd also have more bargaining power, as their reservation wage, or the wage below which they will not work, would be set higher due to the UBI.

This doesn't redefine capitalism. It just gives workers more bargaining power. Unless you want to argue that unions also redefine capitalism, in which case, wow that's apparently easy to do then.

Oh no, don't misunderstand me, I think Universal Basic Income is a splendid idea! I just think that the basic laws of Capitalism, given enough time, would erode their significance. I specifically do not think that a UBI would dis-incentivize labor, since, as a species, we are all individually striving for ways to distinguish ourselves via personal excellence.

What I do think is that capitalist enterprises would situate themselves to take maximum advantage of labor in nation states that didn't have UBI and sell to nation states that did, thereby moving meaningful labor away from nation states with UBI.

Also, raw capitalism has no incentives to discourage unemployment - that is a socially derived value imposed on capitalism. Unemployment works to drive wages down. The basic problem is that Capitalism seeks to drive wages so low that they are insufficient to provide even the basic requirements for labor to reproduce itself. It's an inherent contradiction of Capitalism.

But hell, if you can get UBI up and running, you have my support. Heck, if Hillary Clinton can get it working, I'll support her.

 

[Holmes]

https://vine.co/v/iiqBbTHBKOq

 

[campfireweekend]

LTV?

As for what I bolded, the balance doesn't work in a world with consistently rising population. I will accept that there are jobs for which no suitable automated solution will be accepted (juries, judges, caretaking, storytelling). Incentivizing nurses is a very bad idea, as it is a difficult job and no one except those that are naturally drawn to it should do it. I'm an obvious example of someone who should not even be in nursing, except that it was incentivized and I needed an adult-worthy income. I have to work very hard to be an even adequate nurse (I do excel at some nursing requirements, thank God, but they are not universally appreciated, LOL).

A non-coerced workforce would be infinitely more productive than a coerced one, as has been shown by the difference between even the moderately less-coerced productivity of paid labor compared to the completely coerced labor of slavery.

Some of that can be achieved by propaganda, but the cognitive dissonance of the ideology manifests in increased rates of crime and mental illness.

What's necessary is a system that provides basic dignity and opportunity to everyone while also providing reasonable paths for personal excellence that are recognized and rewarded. Capitalism can't do it and it will never be able to do it. It's the wrong tool for the job - but it does deserve praise for getting us to the point, as a species, where its own limitations have been encountered.

I don't hate Capitalism. Marx didn't hate Capitalism. He appreciated it. I appreciate it. Nonetheless, its fundamental limitations must be acknowledged, IMHO.

Labor theory of value. It makes the rest of his theory unworkable as that is the underpinning, and we can quantitatively prove that the amount of labor that goes into a product is not what prices the product, even in perfect competition.

Also, I think you sell yourself short. Most people in their careers would describe themselves as adequate or below par. Its called the imposter syndrome. And I don't believe that there aren't currently low wage workers that fit the paradigm which you wish to ascribe to nurses better than they do their current job. Education and the removal of the opportunity cost barrier would allow these people to find these jobs.

Yea I knew of the mincome experiment in Canda which is why I think it could really work and be popular if publicized. Small note, we do not give placebos in drug trials, we give the currently accepted treatment and if there is none then we give placebo. Still, no one is willing to do a full socialist experiment so that is one of the limitations of econ instead of say biology.

This is only really true if we're willing to no true scotsman every available historic case. By that same token, there has never been completely unfettered capitalism, so why don't listen to the Anarcho-capitalists?

Actually, that would be an amazing experiment. Dissolve the United States and provide every state with an adequate counterfactual state, and impose through force which political and economic system is implemented.

Oh no, don't misunderstand me, I think Universal Basic Income is a splendid idea! I just think that the basic laws of Capitalism, given enough time, would erode their significance. I specifically do not think that a UBI would dis-incentivize labor, since, as a species, we are all individually striving for ways to distinguish ourselves via personal excellence.

What I do think is that capitalist enterprises would situate themselves to take maximum advantage of labor in nation states that didn't have UBI and sell to nation states that did, thereby moving meaningful labor away from nation states with UBI.

Also, raw capitalism has no incentives to discourage unemployment - that is a socially derived value imposed on capitalism. Unemployment works to drive wages down. The basic problem is that Capitalism seeks to drive wages so low that they are insufficient to provide even the basic requirements for labor to reproduce itself. It's an inherent contradiction of Capitalism.

But hell, if you can get UBI up and running, you have my support. Heck, if Hillary Clinton can get it working, I'll support her.

I'm glad that you don't think that it would disencentivize labor and the econometrics agree with you! If only the results convinced you, rather than validated you, because that is a really counter intuitive result.

And their is a limit to the jobs that can be meaningfully outsourced. Heck, we're arguing about a society that needs a UBI, which is one where most low wage jobs have been replaced by machines. You can't outsource lawyers. And a UBI wouldn't meaningfully impact the people that possess those jobs anyway, so those lawyers in foreign countries with no UBI wouldn't be at much of an advantage.

 

[ugaboga232]

https://vine.co/v/iiqBbTHBKOq

What about wacky Pataki?

 

[disastermouse]

Labor theory of value. It makes the rest of his theory unworkable as that is the underpinning, and we can quantitatively prove that the amount of labor that goes into a product is not what prices the product, even in perfect competition.

Also, I think you sell yourself short. Most people in their careers would describe themselves as adequate or below par. Its called the imposter syndrome. And I don't believe that there aren't currently low wage workers that fit the paradigm which you wish to ascribe to nurses better than they do their current job. Education and the removal of the opportunity cost barrier would allow these people to find these jobs.



This is only really true if we're willing to no true scotsman every available historic case. By that same token, there has never been completely unfettered capitalism, so why don't listen to the Anarcho-capitalists?

Actually, that would be an amazing experiment. Dissolve the United States and provide every state with an adequate counterfactual state, and impose through force which political and economic system is implemented.

I've never heard an adequate explanation for why the labor theory of value was wrong, honestly. My understanding is that post-Marxist theorists had to move beyond LTV because his critique was so damning.

Can you explain its insufficiency in layman's terms (please, no math!)?

Also, it's the significant importance that I ascribe to nursing as a profession that allows me to label myself as moderately inadequate. My biggest problem with nursing is that the current Capitalist drives of health care do not allow me (or anyone, really) to do nursing very well. When I'm actually afforded the ability to treat patients like people, I excel because I have a great deal of empathy. Unfortunately, that's not what drives health care in 'Murica.

Re: Bolded: Because Anarcho-Capitalists live in fairy-land or their parents' basements. I say this, fully aware that I am a Marxist and many people find us equally suspect and for similar reasons.

Re: Second Bolded: Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I think you just described the Hunger Games.

 

[ugaboga232]

Labor theory of value. It makes the rest of his theory unworkable as that is the underpinning, and we can quantitatively prove that the amount of labor that goes into a product is not what prices the product, even in perfect competition.

Also, I think you sell yourself short. Most people in their careers would describe themselves as adequate or below par. Its called the imposter syndrome. And I don't believe that there aren't currently low wage workers that fit the paradigm which you wish to ascribe to nurses better than they do their current job. Education and the removal of the opportunity cost barrier would allow these people to find these jobs.



This is only really true if we're willing to no true scotsman every available historic case. By that same token, there has never been completely unfettered capitalism, so why don't listen to the Anarcho-capitalists?

Actually, that would be an amazing experiment. Dissolve the United States and provide every state with an adequate counterfactual state, and impose through force which political and economic system is implemented.

Not trying to be obstinate but I and most marxists (whom I am not really part of it all) would argue that the type of changes/system that socialists are looking for has never been implemented without significant perversion. If only we had supercomputers or dimensional portals that would let us do that

I would argue we have been infinitely closer to the Ancap dream than to the socialist dream (not that we were ever that close to Ancap but certainly closer than socialism).

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's hard to call Marxism or Socialism a fairy tale after living through the last 35 years.

You are really, really out of touch with what people think. Nobody thinks Marxism is anything but a ticket to totalitarianism. And half the people still equate socialism with Marxism.

Where's the model Marxist nation to point to? Most Americans think that Europe is a lousy place to live for the mere presence of socialism.

I get the ideological fight you are trying to win, but that doesn't get won in the Presidential race, it gets won in smaller places first.

 

[Holmes]

What about wacky Pataki?

He's a loser!

 

[disastermouse]

You are really, really out of touch with what people think. Nobody thinks Marxism is anything but a ticket to totalitarianism. And half the people still equate socialism with Marxism.

Where's the model Marxist nation to point to? Most Americans think that Europe is a lousy place to live for the mere presence of socialism.

I get the ideological fight you are trying to win, but that doesn't get won in the Presidential race, it gets won in smaller places first.

It does get won in smaller places first. As for totalitarianism, try, try again. Modern Democracy had a shaky start for a while too.

Hell, how many centuries between crazypants original Democracy and Modern Democracy?

 

[Makai]

It does get won in smaller places first. As for totalitarianism, try, try again. Modern Democracy had a shaky start for a while too.

Hell, how many centuries between crazypants original Democracy and Modern Democracy?

Like 20 I think. Doesn't counter his point, though.

 

[disastermouse]

Not trying to be obstinate but I and most marxists (whom I am not really part of it all) would argue that the type of changes/system that socialists are looking for has never been implemented without significant perversion. If only we had supercomputers or dimensional portals that would let us do that

I would argue we have been infinitely closer to the Ancap dream than to the socialist dream (not that we were ever that close to Ancap but certainly closer than socialism).

National isolation and the struggles with getting peasant farmers and industrial workers on the same pages has damned every attempt at Socialism. The virus (fungus) creates the poison that makes it unworkable in small batches within Capitalism.

Honestly, it'll take nearly catastrophic systemic shock to allow Socialism a chance. But hey, that meteor did destroy the dinosaurs and allow mammals to rule, so I'm not a complete pessimist.

 

[disastermouse]

Like 20 I think. Doesn't counter his point, though.

It doesn't? Why not? I don't think it's been 20 centuries since Marx. Or the October Revolution. Or since Trotsky. Or Gramsci. Heck, David Harvey is still alive and well (Isn't he? Please tell me he's still alive.).

 

[Ogrekiller]

Like 20 I think. Doesn't counter his point, though.

Sounds like someone wants a democratic dictatorship

 

[disastermouse]

Sounds like someone wants a democratic dictatorship

Dude, no. Why would I want to emulate a failed system? Still, the failures show us what doesn't work.

My vision is to plant the democratization of the economy within the Capitalist system of personal property rights via worker ownership wedded to a Marxist political party active in local and increasingly regional and then national politics.

Marxism doesn't need to own the government to apply adequate pressure on Capitalism to reform itself or die.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It does get won in smaller places first. As for totalitarianism, try, try again. Modern Democracy had a shaky start for a while too.

Hell, how many centuries between crazypants original Democracy and Modern Democracy?

I said that's what most people think. I didn't say it was truth. Your belief that people have had enough of neoliberalism and are ready for Marxism fundamentally misreads popular opinion.

 

[Makai]

I like buying and owning stuff, though. And I don't want to work for a nationalized software firm.

 

[campfireweekend]

I've never heard an adequate explanation for why the labor theory of value was wrong, honestly. My understanding is that post-Marxist theorists had to move beyond LTV because his critique was so damning.

Can you explain its insufficiency in layman's terms (please, no math!)?

Also, it's the significant importance that I ascribe to nursing as a profession that allows me to label myself as moderately inadequate. My biggest problem with nursing is that the current Capitalist drives of health care do not allow me (or anyone, really) to do nursing very well. When I'm actually afforded the ability to treat patients like people, I excel because I have a great deal of empathy. Unfortunately, that's not what drives health care in 'Murica.

Re: Bolded: Because Anarcho-Capitalists live in fairy-land or their parents' basements. I say this, fully aware that I am a Marxist and many people find us equally suspect and for similar reasons.

Re: Second Bolded: Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I think you just described the Hunger Games.

Its wrong for a very technical reason. Value!=Price. Sure, labor is a factor when pricing a product, but even then, its not the only factor. There's also capital, and regulatory overhead, among others things.

But labor is not even close to the reason why products are valued, as Marx had suggested. We value products either low or high based on how much marginal utility, or happiness per product consumed, is gained by obtaining or consuming them.

Just like in your earlier example. We wouldn't value the titles because it took some labor to get them. We would value them because they would make us admirable in the eyes of our peers.

Not trying to be obstinate but I and most marxists (whom I am not really part of it all) would argue that the type of changes/system that socialists are looking for has never been implemented without significant perversion. If only we had supercomputers or dimensional portals that would let us do that

I would argue we have been infinitely closer to the Ancap dream than to the socialist dream (not that we were ever that close to Ancap but certainly closer than socialism).

I mean, they both end in stateless societies that rely on human nature which they wish to be true but clearly isn't to make them workable.

So yeah, we've never been close to either. We've had command economies and we've had capitalist economies. Most are mixed.

There. No one can no true scotsmen that statement.

 

[ugaboga232]

Its wrong for a very technical reason. Value!=Price. Sure, labor is a factor when pricing a product, but even then, its not the only factor. There's also capital, and regulatory overhead, among others things.

But labor is not even close to the reason why products are valued, as Marx had suggested. We value products either low or high based on how much marginal utility, or happiness per product consumed, is gained by obtaining or consuming them.

Just like in your earlier example. We wouldn't value the titles because it took some labor to get them. We would value them because they would make us admirable in the eyes of our peers.



I mean, they both end in stateless societies that rely on human nature which they wish to be true but clearly isn't to make them workable.

So yeah, we've never been close to either. We've had command economies and we've had capitalist economies. Most are mixed.

There. No one can no true scotsmen that statement.

What, socialism is not necessarily command based nor stateless. Communism may be but thats true pipe dream stuff as opposed to socialism which is pipe dream lite

Random question, if you could rig one economic experiment with complete control and no worry of pain/suffering/happiness (aka running on a super super computer), what would it be? I have enjoyed these discussions and hope I am not coming off as rude.

 

[campfireweekend]

What, socialism is not necessarily command based nor stateless. Communism may be but thats true pipe dream stuff as opposed to socialism which is pipe dream lite

Random question, if you could rig one economic experiment with complete control and no worry of pain/suffering/happiness (aka running on a super super computer), what would it be? I have enjoyed these discussions and hope I am not coming off as rude.

Yeah, sorry. Arguing with a Marxist got me mixed up on my terminology.

Hmm, that's tough. Am I literally the god of this simulation? MMT would be really fun to see. I'm like really sure that indefinitely financing deficits with money not backed by bonds would be bad, but it'd be interesting to finally know at what percent of GDP the US would experience a sovereign debt crisis.

In the realm of development economics, I'd probably take all the domesticable beasts of burden found in Europe and transfer them to Africa or South America, due to those continents extreme dearth of candidates for domestication being a causal factor in their negligible development compared to Europe. It'd be fun to run that counterfactual to see how the world developed.

Also the economically tinged hunger games pointed out by disastermouse above.

 

[ugaboga232]

Yeah, sorry. Arguing with a Marxist got me mixed up on my terminology.

Hmm, that's tough. Am I literally the god of this simulation? MMT would be really fun to see. I'm like really sure that indefinitely financing deficits with money not backed by bonds would be bad, but it'd be interesting to finally know at what percent of GDP the US would experience a sovereign debt crisis.

In the realm of development economics, I'd probably take all the domesticable beasts of burden found in Europe and transfer them to Africa or South America, due to those continents extreme dearth of candidates for domestication being a causal factor in their negligible development compared to Europe. It'd be fun to run that counterfactual to see how the world developed.

Also the economically tinged hunger games pointed out by disastermouse above.

Yea the terminology in pretty much every specialized field leaves much to be desired. Your two scenarios are very interesting (developmental econ is not what i was even thinking about but changing the initial human conditions like what if Baghdad was never sacked are very interesting). This discussion is quite informative. The reparations topics are a minefield however.

 

[disastermouse]

Its wrong for a very technical reason. Value!=Price. Sure, labor is a factor when pricing a product, but even then, its not the only factor. There's also capital, and regulatory overhead, among others things.

But labor is not even close to the reason why products are valued, as Marx had suggested. We value products either low or high based on how much marginal utility, or happiness per product consumed, is gained by obtaining or consuming them.

Just like in your earlier example. We wouldn't value the titles because it took some labor to get them. We would value them because they would make us admirable in the eyes of our peers.



I mean, they both end in stateless societies that rely on human nature which they wish to be true but clearly isn't to make them workable.

So yeah, we've never been close to either. We've had command economies and we've had capitalist economies. Most are mixed.

There. No one can no true scotsmen that statement.

Guy, you're being disingenuous. Marx wasn't stating that price was related to labor, he stated that use value was related to labor. I mean, he went into all that shit about fetishes and everything to distinguish the difference. He acknowledged that there are a fuck-ton of things that affect prices that have nothing to do with use value (I don't think he used the term 'fuck-ton' - I don't want that guy with the Jindal heart avatar to accuse me of saying that it's a direct quote).

Did you actually read Marx or did you just read a summary and take it for granted that you were getting the full story?

 

[disastermouse]

What, socialism is not necessarily command based nor stateless. Communism may be but thats true pipe dream stuff as opposed to socialism which is pipe dream lite

Random question, if you could rig one economic experiment with complete control and no worry of pain/suffering/happiness (aka running on a super super computer), what would it be? I have enjoyed these discussions and hope I am not coming off as rude.

I don't know, honestly. I think that for Socialism to exist and for Kropotnik-style mutual aid to take effect that there has to be a basic sense of security. The problem is that Capitalism, due to accumulated resources by way of the meritocratic (in the terms that Capitalism deems meritocratic) accumulation that rewards excellence, it creates an artificial scarcity that makes cooperative action very difficult.

And this is why, in an environment that Capitalism has made favorable to itself and that takes advantage of the psychological negative bias (our response to threats or perceived threats is far greater than our response to opportunities because, evolutionarily, threats can kill us and destroy our genetic payload), it is very hard to transcend basic security issues, even though they are artificially created.

Maybe A.I. will lend a hand at some point in the future. I certainly plan to write a novel under that assumption.

 

[campfireweekend]

Guy, you're being disingenuous. Marx wasn't stating that price was related to labor, he stated that use value was related to labor. I mean, he went into all that shit about fetishes and everything to distinguish the difference. He acknowledged that there are a fuck-ton of things that affect prices that have nothing to do with use value (I don't think he used the term 'fuck-ton' - I don't want that guy with the Jindal heart avatar to accuse me of saying that it's a direct quote).

Did you actually read Marx or did you just read a summary and take it for granted that you were getting the full story?

I understand that. What I stated in that post was that if he wanted to be correct about anything, he would have stated that price is related to labor. That's the only reason I brought up price. Man, you think I don't know the difference, when value is literally in the name of the theory?

That's why my second sentence responded to that. Because on its face, use value it derived from marginal utility, not labor inputs.

I read the manifesto, which is like a pamphlet really, not very substantive. I'll read capital if you read Why Nations Fail.