So the outcome from a customer’s perspective is that the price fixers have dropped their prices way lower? That’s good, no?
And then once the 3rd party goes out of business and they resume their high price… they’re encouraging a new 3rd party to try again. So the prices lower again.
Meaning there’s pressure on prices to be lower, which is what we want. Therefore, good system.
Of course, I’m not saying it’s ideal. But is there a better system?
Capitalism is defined as a set of rules/regulations that allows people to own the capital that they produce. Regulatory capture is when an organization gains control of the regulations to subvert other people’s ability to own their capital. This is why I say that the more regulatory capture that happens, the less capitalist the system.
And yes! Capitalist systems heavily incentivize caring about money and nothing else. But the system also makes it so that when people act purely selfishly for money, that it results in good outcomes for everyone. That’s why I think it’s a good system.
For example, if organizations price-fix, it heavily encourages a third party to undercut them. If they try to prevent the third party by legal means, then that’s not capitalism.
That’s an interesting perspective! Care to share some data?
Personally, I think the fact that the median person in capitalist nations has enough food to eat is a pretty big plus! I don’t think that’s been the case throughout most of history.
Thanks for engaging with me so politely!
“Capitalism” is a huge umbrella term so means many different things to many different people. And as an extension of this, a lot of the things that are underneath that umbrella are inarguably … extremely bad. Environmental devastation, the oppression and wage slavery of the third world, the existence of multi-million-dollar worthless baubles when people still die from lack of affordable health care… Even if you’re very pro-capitalist it would be tough to argue that all aspects of capitalism are great for humans and humanity. Capitalism optimizes for economic performance, not human happiness.
You’re right! But I don’t see how the bad things are the fault of capitalism. Capitalism is a tool intended to fix these very problems!
Environmental devastation is an externality because the rules haven’t been defined properly-- if the rules of capital ownership around environmental concerns were clarified (through some system of carbon emission limitations and carbon credits), then I’m sure capitalism could optimize for a good environmental outcome. A bad thing, to be sure, but not the fault of capitalism.
Oppression/wage-slavery in the third world happens mostly in nations that are the least capitalist. Also, the capitalist system works for the benefit of the country that establishes it. I believe this is how it should be. Other nations can simply block all trade if they want to remain unaffected, but shouldn’t be surprised if the capitalist nation simply takes advantage of their non-optimal economic choices. Again, a huge problem, but not the fault of capitalism.
Mis-allocation of resources is the very problem that capitalism is best at solving. I’d argue that systems like public healthcare are hampering the ability of capitalism to solve these problems.
Also a lot of people’s only experience with oppression is through capitalism. Here, I am talking about the alienation of workers from their labor (or, put more plainly, “shitty jobs”). It’s pretty bad for the soul to work as a wage slave in Amazon Fulfillment Warehouse #143249 earning $14/hour while bosses so removed from you they may as well be on another planet earn roughly $14,000,000/minute for doing nothing more than sitting in an office for 2 hours a day and sexually harassing their hot secretaries. Obviously there’s more to it than this for those of us who are more pro-capitalism, but I think it’s easy to see how some people get very angry about these conditions very rapidly.
Agreed-- I’ve been in that situation, and understand that it doesn’t seem fair. But were any other systems better? It was worse to be a farmer owned by your local feudal lord, no?
Personally, despite these problems, I am more pro-capitalist than not, but it is because I experience (and have experienced) a fair amount of non-capitalism-related-oppression.
Ah I see I may have been preaching to the choir here, I apologize. Your perspective is appreciated, regardless! Thanks for your input!
Quoting my reply to a similar sentiment: (link here: https://programming.dev/comment/1167202)
I’m really not trying to be a dick, but uhh… Look around? The world is literally on fire and efforts to put it out or even to stop pouring more gas on it are put down at every turn by capitalists in the never ending pursuit of more money for it’s own sake.
Well I mean it’s unclear to me that we’re much worse than previous points in history. I’d rather have the climate crisis over the nuclear one, or either of the world wars, or live under a feudal system where I’m owned by the local lord in his castle.
I sympathize (and agree) with the belief that the current system isn’t serving everyone, much less serving everyone equally. But the world is a complicated thing and we’ve got >7 billion people to feed! I think we should be very careful before deciding “yeah it’s time to tear down the existing systems and hope that there are better systems out there”. It’s easier to make things worse than to make things better.
Quoting my reply to a similar sentiment: (link here: https://programming.dev/comment/1167202)
I’m really not trying to be a dick, but uhh… Look around? The world is literally on fire and efforts to put it out or even to stop pouring more gas on it are put down at every turn by capitalists in the never ending pursuit of more money for it’s own sake.
Well I mean it’s unclear to me that we’re much worse than previous points in history. I’d rather have the climate crisis over the nuclear one, or either of the world wars, or live under a feudal system where I’m owned by the local lord in his castle.
I sympathize (and agree) with the belief that the current system isn’t serving everyone, much less serving everyone equally. But the world is a complicated thing and we’ve got >7 billion people to feed! I think we should be very careful before deciding “yeah it’s time to tear down the existing systems and hope that there are better systems out there”. It’s easier to make things worse than to make things better.
Yeah, and if they serve the needs of customers better, then they’ll be given encouragement (money). If they don’t, they’ll be given discouragement (they lose their investments). Seems like a good system, no?
Of course, corruption and regulatory capture subvert this system and are bad for everyone, but those are subversions of capitalism.
I’m really not trying to be a dick, but uhh… Look around? The world is literally on fire and efforts to put it out or even to stop pouring more gas on it are put down at every turn by capitalists in the never ending pursuit of more money for it’s own sake.
Well I mean it’s unclear to me that we’re much worse than previous points in history. I’d rather have the climate crisis over the nuclear one, or either of the world wars, or live under a feudal system where I’m owned by the local lord in his castle.
I sympathize (and agree) with the belief that the current system isn’t serving everyone, much less serving everyone equally. But the world is a complicated thing and we’ve got >7 billion people to feed! I think we should be very careful before deciding “yeah it’s time to tear down the existing systems and hope that there are better systems out there”. It’s easier to make things worse than to make things better.
Let’s start here: are you a capitalist? Do you own any actual capital? I don’t mean your own house or car, that is personal property not private property or anything resembling the means of production.
I guess? I’ve wanted to start my own business a couple of times. I’m a programmer, so I’ve toyed with the idea and done some research into creating a few apps which I believe people would find useful, and might pay my bills. I don’t own a house or a car-- I live in an apartment in a mid-size US city.
I ask because many people consider themselves capitalist when really they are just workers who happen to own a bit of personal property, and they make themselves essentially useful pawns for actual capitalists. And, if you’re not an actual capitalist, why are you so pro capitalism?
I’m guessing you’d consider me a pawn, but I don’t. I fit your description of owning a bit of personal property, and being a worker. I’ve worked for some large companies in the past which are supposedly the “actual capitalists”. But I promise they don’t give two shits about social good (or social bad). They are just desperately trying to make products that people want to buy. In my view, it’s a pretty good system which constrains huge organizations like Apple to making devices, when the alternative is that they could be setting up their own governments.
I do the same! It works quite well.
My point is that any meaningful capital is directly tied to resource usage. Our ability to produce energy directly depends on our ability to mine resources to build power plants and maintain them. Saying that we can increase energy production infinitely is reductive beyond any meaning, it’s like a physics problem about a perfectly spherical cow.
Not at all! To use real examples to avoid spherical cows:
Used to be that you needed wood to generate energy. Then coal (which is an order of magnitude better). Then oil (another order of magnitude). Then solar. Then fission. Then (hopefully) fusion. Then who knows what. At each step, we’ve taken something which previously wasn’t considered a resource at all and used it to generate exponentially more and more energy. There’s no limit to how often we can do this-- things which were previously not resources become resources once we know how to use them.
Another example is food production. I saw a graph recently-- if I find it I’ll edit this message to include it, but it showed how it used to be that we needed 100% of our population dedicated to food production. Now it’s less than 1%. Meaning that 1 person is producing enough food for 100 people. Incredible.
These examples (and many more) show that our ability to produce things are not subject to limitations of natural resources, because natural resources aren’t limited. There’s enough energy coming out of the sun to be infinite, for all intents and purposes.
Yes, natural resources are limited, but that doesn’t mean that capital is limited. What I mean is that: yes, we’re using more energy as a civilization, but thanks to the investment of capital, we’re also expanding our ability to produce more energy at the same time. And “how much energy our civilization is capable of producing” can increase infinitely.
Yeah, the problem of pollution is certainly an existential threat. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that the type of threat is “we’re running out of resources”. We’re not running out of anything, we’re just producing too much atmospheric carbon!
This is essentially the argument that Thomas Malthus (economist) made in the 1800’s. And he had a point!
In his time, history had shown that the entire output of a country/state was people’s productivity times some function of land and labour. Meaning you could increase the output of a country by making people more productive (limited), or increasing the land available (limited), or by increasing the labour available (also limited). Therefore, there was a hard limit on how much output a country could have. And therefore we were fucked because population increases exponentially but output only increases linearly and has limits.
I think this is similar to your lego analogy: the pieces (land, labour) are limited, therefore the output is also limited.
Then the capitalist revolution happened and once the capitalist-style legal framework was in place which allowed the ownership of capital, countries’ outputs broke from the historical trend. We realized that a different function better described the output of a country. Rather than land, the correct thing to look at was capital. So the new function was people’s productivity times some function of land and capital (hence, capitalism).
And unlike land, capital is, in fact, unlimited. Someone might build a factory on the land, and owning the factory, he/she has incentive to improve the factory. “How much you can improve the factory” is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited. Therefore the output is also unlimited. This equation better described the growth in output that people were seeing in reality (GDP is an attempt to measure this), which has been growing exponentially ever since.
So… we’re not fucked? Well, it remains to be seen! We’ve certainly avoided being fucked so far! The standard of living of the average person on Earth has increased by a lot since Malthus.
Of course, this has come with negative externalities (pollution). We’re still seeing infinite growth riiiiiight up until we go extinct. The trick is to keep the infinite growth without going extinct!
EDIT: spelling correction
Good to know, thank you!
Personally I think we should add a differentiation between the storage policies of content which is owned by your own instance and content that federates from other instances.
The former should be kept for a long time (forever?), while the latter can be cleared more regularly.
Good point. I guess my vision differs somewhat from that quote there. Dang.
Welp, good find! I still think my idea for federation would be more resilient, but either way, we’re all wishing the best for this instance, and I really appreciate these discussions we’re having. Cheers to that!
You’re positing we not try to convince people who hold wrong worldviews?
Absolutely fair enough. Am happy to agree to disagree. I enjoyed the debate haha!
And yes, you have a good point: Meta would indeed get value through federation, and perhaps you don’t want to support Meta’s goals, so you don’t want to allow them to proceed. Perhaps we could enhance our user/community level moderation tools to achieve these goals? Maybe you as a user could say something like “never shall any of my posts be sent to Meta’s instance”. Or maybe community mods could say “Meta users can’t join/post/see our community”. I’m even happy if instances enable such filters by default! I just don’t think defederation is the right tool for the job, because it defeats the vision of a connected universe.
I don’t feel like the example with email is fair, because it’s comparing a private messaging service between two users, and a social network where you provide content for other users
Yeah, but I believe the principle holds.
Again, thanks for the opposing viewpoint. Glad we had the debate. Cheers!
I’ve read that XMPP article before, but it doesn’t convince me.
Yes, Meta may “kill” the fediverse. That’s a risk. But either we take that risk, or we “kill” the fediverse ourselves by defederating. That’s my opinion.
EDIT: Besides, defederating just hands them more users. Wouldn’t you rather keep the users, and allow them to see Meta content? Maybe even attract some Meta users here by inviting them? The launch of a Meta competitor is what’s causing the risk to the fediverse. Federating with them is how we can mitigate that risk.
Risks/rewards for whom?
For programming.dev? If all we care about is the survival of this website, then yeah maybe Meta poses a risk and we should defederate.
But (with respect to the admins), no one cares about programming.dev. We care about the vision of a “fediverse”, where all instances’ users can talk to one another if they choose. If that’s what we care about, there’s no choice here: federate, or you’ve already broken the vision.
Look, no one is saying that programming.dev should promote Meta’s content on their home page. Let’s beef up our moderation/content filtering tools:
But defederation is worse than that. What defederation really means is: “Even if programming.dev users want to see Meta content or post there, we won’t allow it. Go create an account there instead.”. As soon as you do that, it’s not a fediverse anymore.
Nah that guy gives me bad vibes-- don’t like him.
I like Milton Friedman, though.