Rich People are Evil

[Antiboyscout]

I'm a fan of Geopolitical explanations for predicting a nation's success/failure. Ironically, outliers to this theory tend to have fall into the extremes of ether Free or Controlled market capitalism.

Examples:
Two tiny islands with no natural resources of there own are two of the wealthiest places in East Asia.

Chile, a country of mostly mountains, is an economic success, and Argentina, with its mineral wealth to rival Chile, oil, and abundant farmland is an economic failure.

[Darth Wedgius]

My main requirement for socialism is that it has to work somewhere else for several decades first. It worked fine in Russia and Venezuela, after a fashion until it didn't, though for different reasons. Russia went on for decades with an economy where goods were affordable, for the good of the people... If you could actually find the goods. Venezuela displayed the benefits and shortcomings of a command economy -- they shifted an economy toward oil and helped the poor there a lot, then oil prices tanked and the Venezuelan economy with it.

Don't bring Saru to Venezuela, by the way. It won't end well.

On the other hand, China and Cuba both have brought capitalism in, and don't seem to be regretting it.

[Karha of Honor]

My main requirement for socialism is that it has to work somewhere else for several decades first. It worked fine in Russia and Venezuela, after a fashion until it didn't, though for different reasons. Russia went on for decades with an economy where goods were affordable, for the good of the people... If you could actually find the goods. Venezuela displayed the benefits and shortcomings of a command economy -- they shifted an economy toward oil and helped the poor there a lot, then oil prices tanked and the Venezuelan economy with it.

Don't bring Saru to Venezuela, by the way. It won't end well.

On the other hand, China and Cuba both have brought capitalism in, and don't seem to be regretting it.

Sorrry i want freedom of scpeech with acrioss the board. In the government within reason and the culture in general before looking at it.

[CharlesPhipps]

But I would argue that this hyper-concentration is a natural byproduct of capitalism and its value system. You must spend money to make money, so the rich keep getting richer and use their leverage to keep money out of the hands of the poor.

Eh, capitalism as an ideology is a different beast from capitalism as a process. To make an analogy, coca production in Bolivia is a 8000 year old tradition where people actually consider it a sacred lifestyle while it's also a thing that makes everything from toothpaste to that thing people snort. The idea of capitalism as an ideology is a rise of the middle class to replace the hereditary aristocracy circa the 1800s or so to the present. Capitalism as a process stretches back to the stone age because its predecessor (simply called "trade") is a basic fundamental survival tool.

Most of human history has not had capitalists or merchants as the people on top of the hill. Warriors, Aristocrats, and Priests have all generally had a position above them in the pecking order. Notably during these times, massive piles of wealth accumulated to the point of diminishing the ENTIRETY OF CIVILIZATION has not only not happened but been IMPOSSIBLE. Indeed, a rather nasty history of how it would go would be that any group which grew too wealthy would often find themselves relieved of said wealth.

I'd also argue that corporations becoming the things they are and micro-nations with their own laws and living outside of individual countries is a relatively new phenomenon. We had it begin with the East Indies Company of Britain where they were laws unto themselves but nowadays we have the fact corporations can move their money around to be untaxable that really is a major problem. Concentrated in individual hands, ironically, rather than corporations actually often at least reaps some benefits.

Bill Gates has, according to one analysis, saved 1.6 million lives due to the donations of his fortune. George Lucas donated the 20 billion dollars he sold Star Wars to Disney for education. Art Carnegie (I shit you not, the inspiration for Scrooge McDuck) underwrote the United States economy and spent the majority of his fortune in the later part of his life building public works as well art houses. They are rich men who have very big camel-sized needles. Individually, charity and philanthropy minded rich people exist all over the place as legacies become very important to personal fortune possessing people.

Corporations by contrast have been noted to create their own cultures that reinforce toxic behaviors. Protecting the corporation leading to environmental devastation, corruption of government officials, pillaging the stockholders as well as workers, and generally doing anything to keep the stock prices high as well as personal perks flowing. It's an interesting note the rich seem to be less awful the more removed they are from corporate culture. Mind you, sometimes it's a spade is just a spade as Plutarch said and we have con men who take advantage of loopholes to enjoy the lifestyle of the rich at the expense of everyone around them.

[CharlesPhipps]

My main requirement for socialism is that it has to work somewhere else for several decades first. It worked fine in Russia and Venezuela, after a fashion until it didn't, though for different reasons. Russia went on for decades with an economy where goods were affordable, for the good of the people... If you could actually find the goods.

I'd argue the Soviet Union is an example of a region which was fully capable of being the world's second superpower due to resources, technology, size, and work force but only managed to become so in spite of everything else rather than because. Famously, Lenin equalized the economy only to order the mass murder of merchants who took advantage of traveling between villages trading surpluses to become rich.

Venezuela displayed the benefits and shortcomings of a command economy -- they shifted an economy toward oil and helped the poor there a lot, then oil prices tanked and the Venezuelan economy with it.

A great irony being because the United States found shale oil able to dramatically reduce it's oil dependency that played a great role in its pre-Obama politics.

On the other hand, China and Cuba both have brought capitalism in, and don't seem to be regretting it.

China is kind of a cheater in this as it's a state run economy that theoretically represents what I think should be a more appropriate model for an economy BUT....most of its business is in the pocket of the communist party as an oligarchy and a lot of China's success is based around incredibly shady crap including the mass exploitation of Tibetan resources British Empire style.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

But I would argue that this hyper-concentration is a natural byproduct of capitalism and its value system. You must spend money to make money, so the rich keep getting richer and use their leverage to keep money out of the hands of the poor.

Eh, capitalism as an ideology is a different beast from capitalism as a process. To make an analogy, coca production in Bolivia is a 8000 year old tradition where people actually consider it a sacred lifestyle while it's also a thing that makes everything from toothpaste to that thing people snort. The idea of capitalism as an ideology is a rise of the middle class to replace the hereditary aristocracy circa the 1800s or so to the present. Capitalism as a process stretches back to the stone age because its predecessor (simply called "trade") is a basic fundamental survival tool.

Most of human history has not had capitalists or merchants as the people on top of the hill. Warriors, Aristocrats, and Priests have all generally had a position above them in the pecking order. Notably during these times, massive piles of wealth accumulated to the point of diminishing the ENTIRETY OF CIVILIZATION has not only not happened but been IMPOSSIBLE. Indeed, a rather nasty history of how it would go would be that any group which grew too wealthy would often find themselves relieved of said wealth.

I'd also argue that corporations becoming the things they are and micro-nations with their own laws and living outside of individual countries is a relatively new phenomenon. We had it begin with the East Indies Company of Britain where they were laws unto themselves but nowadays we have the fact corporations can move their money around to be untaxable that really is a major problem. Concentrated in individual hands, ironically, rather than corporations actually often at least reaps some benefits.

Bill Gates has, according to one analysis, saved 1.6 million lives due to the donations of his fortune. George Lucas donated the 20 billion dollars he sold Star Wars to Disney for education. Art Carnegie (I shit you not, the inspiration for Scrooge McDuck) underwrote the United States economy and spent the majority of his fortune in the later part of his life building public works as well art houses. They are rich men who have very big camel-sized needles. Individually, charity and philanthropy minded rich people exist all over the place as legacies become very important to personal fortune possessing people.

Corporations by contrast have been noted to create their own cultures that reinforce toxic behaviors. Protecting the corporation leading to environmental devastation, corruption of government officials, pillaging the stockholders as well as workers, and generally doing anything to keep the stock prices high as well as personal perks flowing. It's an interesting note the rich seem to be less awful the more removed they are from corporate culture. Mind you, sometimes it's a spade is just a spade as Plutarch said and we have con men who take advantage of loopholes to enjoy the lifestyle of the rich at the expense of everyone around them.

See, I would argue that the first trade is not the same as the beginning of capitalism. Any Anarcho Capitalist who says that "capitalism is just voluntary exchanges" is itching for a fight.

[Darth Wedgius]

My main requirement for socialism is that it has to work somewhere else for several decades first. It worked fine in Russia and Venezuela, after a fashion until it didn't, though for different reasons. Russia went on for decades with an economy where goods were affordable, for the good of the people... If you could actually find the goods. Venezuela displayed the benefits and shortcomings of a command economy -- they shifted an economy toward oil and helped the poor there a lot, then oil prices tanked and the Venezuelan economy with it.

Don't bring Saru to Venezuela, by the way. It won't end well.

On the other hand, China and Cuba both have brought capitalism in, and don't seem to be regretting it.

Sorrry i want freedom of scpeech with acrioss the board. In the government within reason and the culture in general before looking at it.

I want freedom of speech as well. And a command economy concentrates power in a way I don't trust. Hell, Disney made me uneasy when it got Marvel, Star Wars, and Fox. It's one of the reasons I support separation of church and state. Though I think many on the pro-socialism side are more willing to restrict free speech, I think that, in principle, it is possible to have both socialism and free speech.

[CharlesPhipps]

Freedom of speech is a right which should be absolute....and that ironically means laws to allow people to avoid being attacked as well as harassed to intimidate them into silence.

[Karha of Honor]

Freedom of speech is a right which should be absolute....and that ironically means laws to allow people to avoid being attacked as well as harassed to intimidate them into silence.

But people will flop.

[CharlesPhipps]

See, I would argue that the first trade is not the same as the beginning of capitalism. Any Anarcho Capitalist who says that "capitalism is just voluntary exchanges" is itching for a fight.

Anarcho capitalism fails, of course, because when the state does not exist in capitalism then the corporate rises to fill the void. I grew up in Appalachia as I've mentioned and the local culture is informed by the fact the corporations formerly having godlike power over the average citizen in coal country. It's the only time the US government has also bombed its own citizens when they rioted/rose up against the companies.

The government can and should support economic growth but to also reign in the excesses of the super rich. You'd think that would make people overtly hostile to the rich with such a local culture but the opposite is true as Appallachia's local history is also informed by the immense poverty in the states that only got alleviated by the corporations due to government abandonment until the 40s and a brief surge due to the New Deal. Which of course is from a very very rich dude creating a economic promotion platform that has since scared off people for a century.

It's kind of funny that megacorporations ruling like in cyberpunk happened in our land before the cities. It also leads to a weird ambivalent relationship.

Here's a good article on the failed point of hands off capitalism in the current American administration: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... ew-it.html