Re-Framing Capitalism

[Loren Pechtel]

Post WWII the idea was that manufacturing technology was going to give us more free time.

The idea that the economy will rovide a high percentage of living wage jobs is unrealistic. Wages and housing are subject to supplyand demand.

Our 19th century idea of economic freedom now gives us the likes of Musk and Trump for which there are no group limits.

What has actually happened is that as production went up the expectations also went up. Instead of working less time we have better conditions.

 

[steve_bank]

Better conditions?

Hosing is subject to supply and demand. In major cities as available as land goes down and population goes up costs for housing goes up. Economics 101.

In the early 70s in Hartford Ct I was driving a cab. I had a nice apartment, a car, and enough money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Better conditions?

Hosing is subject to supply and demand. In major cities as available as land goes down and population goes up costs for housing goes up. Economics 101.

In the early 70s in Hartford Ct I was driving a cab. I had a nice apartment, a car, and enough money.

The problem is the changes aren't so obvious. Places now are bigger, more comfortable, safer. You can't buy a 70s car other than as used--because it's way too dangerous and polluting by modern standards. 70s healthcare is unavailable--unsafe. The air and water are cleaner.

 

[Swammerdami]

Better conditions?

Hosing is subject to supply and demand. In major cities as available as land goes down and population goes up costs for housing goes up. Economics 101.

It's even simpler than Econ 101. Land is fixed and finite; population grows; real estate (e.g. to build a house) WILL require more man-hours to buy.

Economic data in England over the past eight centuries can be viewed on-line. Between the early 1300's and the early 1400's one can see that the price of food etc. remained fairly constant while laborers' wages (whether real or nominal) more than doubled. Why? The Black Death made a huge dent in England's population. The sudden reduction of population helped trigger economic developments that increased productivity.

It's exasperating to see all the otherwise-intelligent people with a Pollyanna attitude unable to understand that high populations are responsible for many of societies' problems.

 

[Tigers!]

k Death made a huge dent in England's population. The sudden reduction of population helped trigger economic developments that increased productivity.

It's exasperating to see all the otherwise-intelligent people with a Pollyanna attitude unable to understand that high populations are responsible for many of societies' problems.

High stupidity rather than high population is responsible for many of societies' problems.

 

[steve_bank]

It is true that expectations are higher. Bigger houses and bigger cars. But the issue is the severe income disparity.

In the news on the auto chip shortage a high end luxury car can have several hundred distributed processors. Massaging seats.

The original Ford F-150pickup was cheap and popular. Radios used to be optional.


The housing problems in Seattle began with Microsoft. Also Californians selling their houses during a big relestate boom and buting in Seattle. Exacerbated by the rise of tech companies in the area.

At one point a few years ago rental owners were auctioning apartments to the highest bidder. A high end condo building went up a few blacks fromh ere. During construction as soon as they were offerd they bought up by investors mostly from Asia. An imediate bump in the price to final buyers. That is unrestricted free market capitalism.

The current problems come down to housing and health care. Housing is supply and demand. Health insurance gets more expebsive as more less common retirements and drugs are covered.

I would think conservative business owners would welcome national health care that gets them out of the medical benefit buren.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*apologize for this big of a snip*

The current problems come down to housing and health care. Housing is supply and demand.

Except there are large private equity firms buying up a lot of housing. I think it really got going in the Great Recession, when private capital bought a lot of a property on the cheap. Now days, private equity is buying things up, sometimes by the neighborhood. That isn't supply and demand, that is capitalism that is really going off the rails, as very rich people have pooled their money to pretty much buy everything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Post WWII the idea was that manufacturing technology was going to give us more free time.

The idea that the economy will rovide a high percentage of living wage jobs is unrealistic. Wages and housing are subject to supplyand demand.

Our 19th century idea of economic freedom now gives us the likes of Musk and Trump for which there are no group limits.

What has actually happened is that as production went up the expectations also went up. Instead of working less time some we have better conditions.

FIFY

Stock market between 1980 and 2000, up 500% / 2000 to 2020, 50%.
Cost of college... 1980 to 2000 could be paid off in several years / 2000 to 2020, in several lifetimes
Interest Rates... High (for loans and savings) / 2000 to 2020 Non-existent for savings
Housing... Loans were expensive, but housing was around and housing values increased quite a bit / Housing is being bought up by private equity firms, low interest rates have made housing boom in value and acting to make homes unaffordable for those starting out.
TV... Well that has improved... not content but access and price.

 

[steve_bank]

That is another issue. I think the stock market and GDP as a political metric goes back to FDR.

They are not measures of how the average worker is doing. A good metric is percnrtage of income used for housing for the average wage.

Housing prices will rise until there is no longer a market willing and able to pay the price. In the end supply and demand rules. The housing boom and bust was in large part due to subsidizing home loans for people who could barely make payments.

I had an Italian uncle who married into the family, son of immgrants. I don't think he graduuatd high school. He tsraed out as a laborter becomming a carpenter ad then fireman for benefits and retirement.

He built a house by himself. and lived in it. I stayed with them for a while. He sold it an built another one and lved in it while his kids grew.

H managed to get one of the last properties in Shpan Point in Stamford Ct an exclusive are, and built a wavefront house.

He bought a property and built two houses, one for sale and one for one of his kids.

I don't know how much he was worth when he sold is wtaerfront house. That would be very difficult to do today.

When I was in Portalnd in the 80s Californians buying up porperty was called 'getting Californicated'.

 

[Swammerdami]

. . . Housing is being bought up by private equity firms, low interest rates have made housing boom in value and acting to make homes unaffordable for those starting out.

It is shameful the way millions of homeowners were foreclosed on and often evicted in the 2009 crisis, while well-connected speculators were buying up homes on the cheap, and making untold billions in profit. One can try to give Obama a share of the blame, but politicians are mesmerized by talk of trillion-dollar shortfalls and tend to do as they're instructed by the banking "experts."

A common right-wing attitude seems to be "Capitalism is good. If multi-millionaires are doing something it must be good. If multi-billionaires, then very good." Rational thinkers, OTOH, understand that capitalism can be good without angels crying whenever a billionaire has to pay his taxes or behave morally.

The vulturous KKR has purchased a large number of group homes, and plan to drive up profits.

. . . The staffing shortage was compounded by inadequate training and pressure to keep beds full. At least three people died following alarming lapses in their care. One of them died after state authorities warned the company — twice — that she was in danger.

Group homes like these, which mainly rely on Medicaid funding, were designed as a humane alternative to vast state institutions, a way for people with profound needs to get intensive, personalized support. But on a single day at one eight-person BrightSpring home, a resident who had expressed suicidal thoughts swallowed a battery that was supposed to be kept out of her reach. Another resident was left alone in a hot car until his temperature reached 104 degrees. A third nearly died after drinking antifreeze and did not receive medical care for at least nine hours.

At another cluster of homes, inspectors found, staff “failed to administer over 1,000 medication doses,” in part because the KKR-owned pharmacy ran out and the company “failed to obtain these medications from a back-up.”

State health inspectors discovered serious injuries that were concealed from families or authorities, and others that went untreated — as in the case of a Texas man whose nose had been broken so many times that a staff member decided it was “beyond repair” and therefore not worth a trip to the hospital.

. . . the KKR-controlled board approved a plan for BrightSpring to take on more than a billion dollars in debt, secured by the company’s assets, to buy more companies. It now operates in 50 states serving over 350,000 people daily across its different healthcare divisions.

But BrightSpring was left to pay more than $135 million a year in interest on the loans, and millions more to KKR itself for “transaction” and “advisory” fees, money that might otherwise have helped improve conditions in the homes.

But it's all good, right? As long as the KKR billionaires are getting richer.

 

[rousseau]

But it's all good, right? As long as the KKR billionaires are getting richer.

One of the aspects of the capitalism conversation I find interesting, is that the critical are slow to apply their logic to themselves. Rich people and corporations are an easy target, and we can all diss them and high-five, but the internal logic is the same for most of us, just on a smaller scale.

Selfish people are always someone else, somewhere else, someone richer with more money, never me.

So how do you build a sustainable world that works for the collective when human nature is basically such that individuals always prioritize themselves over the collective? How do you build a world with minimal inequality, when there is natural inequality in how well people are able to exploit the environment, and inherent power disparities?

We can keep pointing our fingers at the other selfish people, but this just looks like an infinite loop to me where we're in a constant, thoughtless power struggle. Is there an answer beyond this type of thinking?

I may have to check out Giddens' Third Way at some point, maybe it has actual answers? I respect him as a Sociologist, and to date haven't seen anything else actually address this question.

 

[Swammerdami]

But it's all good, right? As long as the KKR billionaires are getting richer.

One of the aspects of the capitalism conversation I find interesting, is that the critical are slow to apply their logic to themselves. Rich people and corporations are an easy target, and we can all diss them and high-five, but the internal logic is the same for most of us, just on a smaller scale.

Selfish people are always someone else, somewhere else, someone richer with more money, never me.

So how do you build a sustainable world that works for the collective when human nature is basically such that individuals always prioritize themselves over the collective? How do you build a world with minimal inequality, when there is natural inequality in how well people are able to exploit the environment, and inherent power disparities?

You are preaching to the choir if you think you're rebutting my sentiments.

Many million of people are greedy. I do not want to change human nature, even if that were possible. (I think there are also millions of people with some charity and altruism and who are greedy but not excessively so. However these are generally not the sort of people that become billionaires.)

The way to reduce the excesses of capitalism is through government coercion. That is, taxes, subsidies and regulations.

During the Rational Era, there were laws preventing one billionaire or one corporation from owning an over-concentration of media. Now? In GOP-dominated Amerika, monopolies are not regarded as a problem. "If a billionaire wants to buy Twitter or one of the top newspapers then Why Not? It's his money to spend."

During the Rational Era, billionaires were taxed at a higher rate than the common people. Now? In GOP-dominated Amerika, Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. And Ayn Randists like Rand Paul think Buffett's tax rate is still too high.

During the Rational Era, we wanted healthy citizens. Now sick people are useful pawns to enrich the stockholders of Pfizer, etc.

During the Rational Era, education was a priority. Now the QOPAnon leader "loves the uneducated people." Educated people tend to vote against QOPAnon.

We don't need the masses to become more good-spiritied and charitable: Most of them already are. We need them to vote more rationally.

 

[rousseau]

But it's all good, right? As long as the KKR billionaires are getting richer.

One of the aspects of the capitalism conversation I find interesting, is that the critical are slow to apply their logic to themselves. Rich people and corporations are an easy target, and we can all diss them and high-five, but the internal logic is the same for most of us, just on a smaller scale.

Selfish people are always someone else, somewhere else, someone richer with more money, never me.

So how do you build a sustainable world that works for the collective when human nature is basically such that individuals always prioritize themselves over the collective? How do you build a world with minimal inequality, when there is natural inequality in how well people are able to exploit the environment, and inherent power disparities?

You are preaching to the choir if you think you're rebutting my sentiments.

Many million of people are greedy. I do not want to change human nature, even if that were possible. (I think there are also millions of people with some charity and altruism and who are greedy but not excessively so. However these are generally not the sort of people that become billionaires.)

The way to reduce the excesses of capitalism is through government coercion. That is, taxes, subsidies and regulations.

During the Rational Era, there were laws preventing one billionaire or one corporation from owning an over-concentration of media. Now? In GOP-dominated Amerika, monopolies are not regarded as a problem. "If a billionaire wants to buy Twitter or one of the top newspapers then Why Not? It's his money to spend."

During the Rational Era, billionaires were taxed at a higher rate than the common people. Now? In GOP-dominated Amerika, Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. And Ayn Randists like Rand Paul think Buffett's tax rate is still too high.

During the Rational Era, we wanted healthy citizens. Now sick people are useful pawns to enrich the stockholders of Pfizer, etc.

During the Rational Era, education was a priority. Now the QOPAnon leader "loves the uneducated people." Educated people tend to vote against QOPAnon.

We don't need the masses to become more good-spiritied and charitable: Most of them already are. We need them to vote more rationally.

It wasn't so much a rebuttal, more a continuation of your thoughts.

Some of your comments highlight the issue I'm addressing, that the internal logic of human nature is such that, over time, it naturally wears down the cohesion of our communities. Entropy. People would vote more rationally if they actually had an interest in the collective, but they don't, so what do we do beyond wishful thinking?

In Canada we at least have the benefit of a centre-left majority.

 

[DBT]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

 

[DBT]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

It's not a matter of take, but to reframe conditions that enable suppression of wages, tax breaks for the very rich, etc. It's a matter of the balance of power, which naturally tends to be skewed in favour of the upper echelons of society.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

It's not a matter of take, but to reframe conditions that enable suppression of wages, tax breaks for the very rich, etc. It's a matter of the balance of power, which naturally tends to be skewed in favour of the upper echelons of society.

Well, I'm against special tax breaks for the very rich. Could you give me an example? I'm for a progressive tax system. How are wages being suppressed? Are you talking about companies fighting unions?

 

[bilby]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

That rather depends on how they came by it.

There's a spectrum of 'fair' involved; A person who outright stole their wealth doesn't get to keep it; If they got it by means of the labour of slaves then they possibly do get to keep it, but that's not generally regarded as very fair; If they defrauded people to get it, then there's a whole range from "told granny her driveway needed resurfacing and absconded with her deposit money" through "Insider trading" to "promised to build a wall on the border to win votes to obtain a job, but then got the job, but didn't build a wall" and on to "the large print giveth, but the small print taketh away" contracts; If they got it from ancestors who stole it then generally it remains theirs; If you earned it through hard work, you get to keep a fraction of it, with the remainder taken by the government in exchange for the provision of infrastructure that you needed in order to work in the first place...

It's far more complicated than "You get to keep what you have, because taking it from you ain't fair".

A major complication is that while many things are property, money isn't - but everyone behaves as though it is.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

That rather depends on how they came by it.

There's a spectrum of 'fair' involved; A person who outright stole their wealth doesn't get to keep it; If they got it by means of the labour of slaves then they possibly do get to keep it, but that's not generally regarded as very fair; If they defrauded people to get it, then there's a whole range from "told granny her driveway needed resurfacing and absconded with her deposit money" through "Insider trading" to "promised to build a wall on the border to win votes to obtain a job, but then got the job, but didn't build a wall" and on to "the large print giveth, but the small print taketh away" contracts; If they got it from ancestors who stole it then generally it remains theirs; If you earned it through hard work, you get to keep a fraction of it, with the remainder taken by the government in exchange for the provision of infrastructure that you needed in order to work in the first place...

It's far more complicated than "You get to keep what you have, because taking it from you ain't fair".

A major complication is that while many things are property, money isn't - but everyone behaves as though it is.

Well, I was speaking in general terms; to match DBT's speaking in general terms. I don't disagree with what you say above.

 

[DBT]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

That rather depends on how they came by it.

There's a spectrum of 'fair' involved; A person who outright stole their wealth doesn't get to keep it; If they got it by means of the labour of slaves then they possibly do get to keep it, but that's not generally regarded as very fair; If they defrauded people to get it, then there's a whole range from "told granny her driveway needed resurfacing and absconded with her deposit money" through "Insider trading" to "promised to build a wall on the border to win votes to obtain a job, but then got the job, but didn't build a wall" and on to "the large print giveth, but the small print taketh away" contracts; If they got it from ancestors who stole it then generally it remains theirs; If you earned it through hard work, you get to keep a fraction of it, with the remainder taken by the government in exchange for the provision of infrastructure that you needed in order to work in the first place...

It's far more complicated than "You get to keep what you have, because taking it from you ain't fair".

A major complication is that while many things are property, money isn't - but everyone behaves as though it is.

Well, I was speaking in general terms; to match DBT's speaking in general terms. I don't disagree with what you say above.

Your 'general terms' remark was skewed in favour of the upper echelons of society. My remark was related to reframing capitalism in ways that enable a fairer more equitable economic system and society to emerge.