Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 260 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
The argument would be that they made the right choice so as to efficiently allocate resources. The reward was for making that right choice.

This is getting into a fundamental argument over whether wealth is produced by those who actually do the work, or if it's down to those who make the right strategic choices as to what work should be done. (Which is really, I think, at the heart of the dispute between capitalism and socialism).

But the stock market is (supposedly) about 'investment'. i.e. allocating money to fund productive enterprises. The same does not really apply if it's a matter of rent-seeking, i.e. just buying something that already exists and waiting for its value to increase, most specifically land and housing. An awful lot of wealth - particularly of the infamous Boomers - comes from just that - sitting on an asset that isn't being used to produce anything else, and waiting for its value to increase. Land being the most glaring example (as Henry George - who was both a supporter and a critic of capitalism - and the game "Monopoly" pointed out).
It never made sense to me why building a hotel would make the rents go higher than just having a house. A hotel room is way cheaper than renting out an entire house, generally speaking!

Yes though, capitalism is vulnerable to monopoly power and regulatory capture, which is what we’ve seen in the housing market, cable companies, etc. You’re supposed to make money by providing services better than anyone else, not by having the government pass laws that makes it impossible for others to compete.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,221
18,687
146
The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it is fertile ground for extremist wealth disparity and greed. Our political system should ensure, by law, that excessive greed is punished, wealth disparity is kept in check and taxation is fair. What we would call well regulated capitalism. This was working just fine 70 years ago. Then those who benefited the most from our system realized in the 70s and 80s that they could by influence in congress, hire a bazillion lobbyists, buy commercial time and start 'expert' institutes to flood the zone (media) with FUD.

Unwinding this would probably required another Great Depression and a strong leader like FDR.
Noam Chomsky has a good video called requiem for the American dream regarding this topic.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,675
8,580
136
The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it is fertile ground for extremist wealth disparity and greed. Our political system should ensure, by law, that excessive greed is punished, wealth disparity is kept in check and taxation is fair. What we would call well regulated capitalism. This was working just fine 70 years ago. Then those who benefited the most from our system realized in the 70s and 80s that they could by influence in congress, hire a bazillion lobbyists, buy commercial time and start 'expert' institutes to flood the zone (media) with FUD.

Unwinding this would probably required another Great Depression and a strong leader like FDR.

Personally, as someone raised by lifelong true-believing far-leftists (and seeing how that didn't really work out, either globally or for those I knew personally), I find myself thinking both left and right are correct in their critique of the other.

The right seem to be correct that you need a market and hence price signals in order to efficiently allocate resources. The problem of running a modern economy is too complex to be handled by a central planner. That's why communism failed. It leads to economic sclerosis, because you can't correctly allocate resources without a market. (There's also a further problem of the concentration of political power, and the heinous concequences that can lead to, but personally I find it hard to work out to what extent that is an intrinsic problem with socialism and to what extent it's simply a consequence of the circumstances that are necessary for socialism to come about - the economic problems seem much more fundamental/intrinsic).

But the left seem to be correct that capitalism is unstable - it leads to increasing economic inequality and class stratification which in turn leads to unequal political power as politics is not distinct from economics, and to a form of economic failure of its own.

That's why The Economist (a pro-capitalist, right-wing journal) had an entire issue a few years ago (around the time of the financial crisis) where they desperately appealed for capitalists to altruistically put the interests of 'the market' and capitalism ahead of their own personal short-term interests.

Since communism collapsed capitalism has shown little sign of being able to 'up its game'. Seems to me that it continues to be as dysfunctional as ever.

People can point to 'social democracy' and some sort of 'middle path', as exemplified by Sweden - but Sweden (and most of Scandinavia) has seen a big growth in the far right, as the Social Democratic parties have been slowly dismantling social democracy and moving to the neo-liberal right, provoking a far-right backlash, just like everywhere else.

The conclusion I find myself left with is that 'nothing works'. Humans don't have any stable and non-destructive means of co-operating in large numbers. Human nature makes that impossible. Ants and bees have maybe hit on a way of doing that, but humans don't seem to be up to the job.

Hence the future is likely to be an escalating cycle of capitalism leading to economic stratification and destroying the conditions necessary for its own existence, followed by social-collapse, war, and either socialism or fascism...which in turn will collapse due to economic failure, to be replaced by capitalism again. And each time round the violence and disorder will get worse.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Personally, as someone raised by lifelong true-believing far-leftists (and seeing how that didn't really work out, either globally or for those I knew personally), I find myself thinking both left and right are correct in their critique of the other.

The right seem to be correct that you need a market and hence price signals in order to efficiently allocate resources. The problem of running a modern economy is too complex to be handled by a central planner. That's why communism failed. It leads to economic sclerosis, because you can't correctly allocate resources without a market. (There's also a further problem of the concentration of political power, and the heinous concequences that can lead to, but personally I find it hard to work out to what extent that is an intrinsic problem with socialism and to what extent it's simply a consequence of the circumstances that are necessary for socialism to come about - the economic problems seem much more fundamental/intrinsic).

But the left seem to be correct that capitalism is unstable - it leads to increasing economic inequality and class stratification which in turn leads to unequal political power as politics is not distinct from economics, and to a form of economic failure of its own.

That's why The Economist (a pro-capitalist, right-wing journal) had an entire issue a few years ago (around the time of the financial crisis) where they desperately appealed for capitalists to altruistically put the interests of 'the market' and capitalism ahead of their own personal short-term interests.

Since communism collapsed capitalism has shown little sign of being able to 'up its game'. Seems to me that it continues to be as dysfunctional as ever.

People can point to 'social democracy' and some sort of 'middle path', as exemplified by Sweden - but Sweden (and most of Scandinavia) has seen a big growth in the far right, as the Social Democratic parties have been slowly dismantling social democracy and moving to the neo-liberal right, provoking a far-right backlash, just like everywhere else.

The conclusion I find myself left with is that 'nothing works'. Humans don't have any stable and non-destructive means of co-operating in large numbers. Human nature makes that impossible. Ants and bees have maybe hit on a way of doing that, but humans don't seem to be up to the job.

Hence the future is likely to be an escalating cycle of capitalism leading to economic stratification and destroying the conditions necessary for its own existence, followed by social-collapse, war, and either socialism or fascism...which in turn will collapse due to economic failure, to be replaced by capitalism again. And each time round the violence and disorder will get worse.
I feel like people default towards a perception of decay and collapse but I think that’s mostly not true. The average resident of the world is far better off today than at any point in human history. (Okay, give a little pandemic allowance) The cycle, if there is one, is that things keep getting better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,363
13,692
146
I feel like people default towards a perception of decay and collapse but I think that’s mostly not true. The average resident of the world is far better off today than at any point in human history. (Okay, give a little pandemic allowance) The cycle, if there is one, is that things keep getting better.
Is that the natural order, or is it from non-stop fighting to pull degenerates forward? Or is there even a difference?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Is that the natural order, or is it from non-stop fighting to pull degenerates forward? Or is there even a difference?
I don’t think it’s the natural order and I think progress must be fought for. I do think humanity has seen a mostly steady improvement in living standards in the last 150 years or so though.

People also fear change. I think nothing shows that better than the ACA. When it was new it was unpopular and Republicans vowed to repeal it at all costs. Then when they had a chance the public flipped out and Republicans changed their mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,156
21,282
136
One thing people don't seem to understand well is that while many parts of the population are averse to change in general, there is this thing called marketing/messaging strategy that sells things to people. Things that do require some change.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,675
8,580
136
I feel like people default towards a perception of decay and collapse but I think that’s mostly not true. The average resident of the world is far better off today than at any point in human history. (Okay, give a little pandemic allowance) The cycle, if there is one, is that things keep getting better.

That reminds me of Stephen Pinker's (aka 'the most annoying man in the world') argument for complacency. And it's "true" right up to the moment that it isn't. That is, people might have said something similar in the 1910s. Or the 1920s. The decades since have seen long periods of crisis and mass death.

Politically, our current era seems to have some disconcerting similarities with the 1930s. A lot of people, in many regions of the world, don't seem to feel they've 'never had it so good'.

And the positive global picture depends critically on the performance of China, and the CCP's poverty-reduction successes. Most of the reduction in 'global poverty' has happened in China. It's not at all clear that can be sustained indefinitely.

In any case the crude metrics of whether people _on average_ are better off now, i.e that we've muddled-through, surviving repeated bouts of war and destruction, doesn't address that theoretical problem of whether there's any stable political order possible in the long run, and the fact that if those bouts are repeated indefinitely they will probably be much more destructive next time round.

Maybe it's just because I grew up with the Millennialist vision of socialism - the idea there would come the 'great day' when we finally 'fixed' society to establish a system that was both just and sustainable, where the horrors of the 1930s and 40s would never be repeated. That turned out to be a chimera. But I don't see anything to replace it, beyond the notion of 'muddling through', while lots of groups of people suffer along the way, and with recurrent crises breaking out as the whole system wobbles again.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
The conclusion I find myself left with is that 'nothing works'. Humans don't have any stable and non-destructive means of co-operating in large numbers. Human nature makes that impossible. Ants and bees have maybe hit on a way of doing that, but humans don't seem to be up to the job.

Hence the future is likely to be an escalating cycle of capitalism leading to economic stratification and destroying the conditions necessary for its own existence, followed by social-collapse, war, and either socialism or fascism...which in turn will collapse due to economic failure, to be replaced by capitalism again. And each time round the violence and disorder will get worse.
Well, I think under more tragic economic events (like the great depression), change is possible. So, the spiral towards more and more destructive socioeconomic can, ultimately, lead to change. At least for a while.

I think the same will be true with climate change. Once millions are dying do to the effects of climate change (flooding, food shortages, etc) - we will finally wake up.
 

kt

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2000
6,018
1,324
136
I don’t think it’s the natural order and I think progress must be fought for. I do think humanity has seen a mostly steady improvement in living standards in the last 150 years or so though.

People also fear change. I think nothing shows that better than the ACA. When it was new it was unpopular and Republicans vowed to repeal it at all costs. Then when they had a chance the public flipped out and Republicans changed their mind.
The improvement in living standards you see is an illusion afforded to us by the advancement in technology. I don't think our living standards have changed much despite us living in homes we built instead of caves.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,303
13,917
136
Well, I think under more tragic economic events (like the great depression), change is possible. So, the spiral towards more and more destructive socioeconomic can, ultimately, lead to change. At least for a while.

I think the same will be true with climate change. Once millions are dying do to the effects of climate change (flooding, food shortages, etc) - we will finally wake up.
At which point it may be too late, as my understanding is the projections are that even if we stopped dumping carbon in the atmosphere as of today, the temperature would keep rising for decades.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,703
3,731
136
Advancements in human living standards also have come at the cost of destruction of the majority of ecosystems on the planet and a mass extinction event that’s far from over.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
The improvement in living standards you see is an illusion afforded to us by the advancement in technology. I don't think our living standards have changed much despite us living in homes we built instead of caves.
It's not an illusion - it's very, very real.

In 1950 global life expectancy was in the 40's somewhere. Now it's 73. Just in the last 20 years we added 6 years to it! I know some people well say 'well that's just China and India improving their living standards' and to a large extent that's true, but they are people and they count too.


As far as living standards go, this reminds me of one of the most enraging passages in the book version of Jurassic Park where Malcolm says that the average person spends about as much time clothing and feeding their family as cavemen did so we haven't really advanced any. While life expectancy isn't the be all and end all I think it broadly stands as a proxy for human conditions and life expectancy has gone up A LOT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,675
8,580
136
It's not an illusion - it's very, very real.

Oh, I wouldn't deny that it's real. Just that I don't see a reason to assume it will be sustained indefinitely. Given that we don't seem to have a solution to the fundamental problem of how to organise ourselves politically and economically (so as not to do collectively crazy things, like bring about uncontrolled climate change, fascism, or nuclear war).

I just don't think one can extrapolate from simple isolated numerical trends like 'life expectancy', without considering the politics. Such trends can reverse very quickly. One nuclear war can ruin your whole day.

In 1950 global life expectancy was in the 40's somewhere. Now it's 73. Just in the last 20 years we added 6 years to it! I know some people well say 'well that's just China and India improving their living standards' and to a large extent that's true, but they are people and they count too.

China seems to be facing massive problems, now that it's run out out of excess rural population to provide cheap labour. And politically neither India nor China seem to be heading in an encouraging direction.



As far as living standards go, this reminds me of one of the most enraging passages in the book version of Jurassic Park where Malcolm says that the average person spends about as much time clothing and feeding their family as cavemen did so we haven't really advanced any. While life expectancy isn't the be all and end all I think it broadly stands as a proxy for human conditions and life expectancy has gone up A LOT.



Several independent analyses, by both epidemiologists and actuaries, have concluded that the previous rate of improvement of life expectancy in England and Wales has now slowed markedly, and at older ages may even be reversing. However, although these findings have led the pension industry to reduce estimates of future liabilities, they have failed to elicit any significant concern in the Department of Health and Social Care. In this essay, we review the evidence on changing life expectancy, noting that the problems are greatest among older women. We then estimate the gap between what life expectancy is now and what it might have been had previous trends continued. At age 85, the gap is 0.34 years for women and 0.23 for men. We argue that recent changes cannot be dismissed as a temporary aberration. While the causes of this phenomenon are contested, there is growing evidence to point to the austerity policies implemented in recent years as at least a partial explanation. We conclude by calling for a fully independent enquiry to ascertain what is happening to life expectancy in England and Wales and what should be done about it.

 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,688
1,962
136
What happened to the $3 million you wrote about? That $3 million came from someone else's labor, not the investor's.

The investor used money they produced from their labor to purchase a share of equity in a company. Do you not own any equities?
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,030
13,539
136
At which point it may be too late, as my understanding is the projections are that even if we stopped dumping carbon in the atmosphere as of today, the temperature would keep rising for decades.
We are gonna have to actively pull it from the atmosphere.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,303
13,917
136
We are gonna have to actively pull it from the atmosphere.
And of course, the issue here is "well then we might as well just keep putting it into the atmosphere until we can figure that out, science will save us and I have shareholder value to think about".
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Oh, I wouldn't deny that it's real. Just that I don't see a reason to assume it will be sustained indefinitely. Given that we don't seem to have a solution to the fundamental problem of how to organise ourselves politically and economically (so as not to do collectively crazy things, like bring about uncontrolled climate change, fascism, or nuclear war).

I just don't think one can extrapolate from simple isolated numerical trends like 'life expectancy', without considering the politics. Such trends can reverse very quickly. One nuclear war can ruin your whole day.

What should we use instead?

China seems to be facing massive problems, now that it's run out out of excess rural population to provide cheap labour. And politically neither India nor China seem to be heading in an encouraging direction.








I agree China has massive problems, specifically related to the foolish 'one child' policy, but it is undeniable that the standard of living in China is vastly higher than it was.

Like I said it's not a straight line but the trend is overall overwhelmingly clear. The 'good old days' were often not nearly as good as what we have now.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,175
126
People can point to 'social democracy' and some sort of 'middle path', as exemplified by Sweden - but Sweden (and most of Scandinavia) has seen a big growth in the far right, as the Social Democratic parties have been slowly dismantling social democracy and moving to the neo-liberal right, provoking a far-right backlash, just like everywhere else.
In the case of Sweden (and other nordic/European countries) I thought that was more to do with and influx of refugees...causing the "nationalist" aka right wing parties to gain ground...? So not an effect of the economic system.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,030
13,539
136
In the case of Sweden (and other nordic/European countries) I thought that was more to do with and influx of refugees...causing the "nationalist" aka right wing parties to gain ground...? So not an effect of the economic system.
Correct. And it's not "a big growth" to the extent of electing a "Trump" or pulling a "Brexit". So. There is that.

edit: Also, I dont know what fortune cookie he got that from, but no-one is dismantling social democracy anything. Quite the opposite, it seems to have settled on solid ground where the right has accepted the welfare state and the left have accepted capitalism and free markets. There is no huge swings depending on which side wins elections.
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,268
29,013
136
The investor used money they produced from their labor to purchase a share of equity in a company. Do you not own any equities?
Again, what utility to society did the investor provide that is worth $3 million. The $20k bought stock already on the market; it didn't fund the company's growth. At most, the investor provided a signal to the company. Was that signal worth the $3 million?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WelshBloke

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,688
1,962
136
Again, what utility to society did the investor provide that is worth $3 million. The $20k bought stock already on the market; it didn't fund the company's growth. At most, the investor provided a signal to the company. Was that signal worth the $3 million?
Yes. Again, do you own any equities?