Did you expect a new country wise economic model to be purposed in this article? I believe the author was trying to say, "Poor people are getting screwed, some jobs dont pay well, the environment is bad, lets do something and not forget it."
It is a solution? No. I don't think it is trying to be though. It's just trying to be a reminder that letting everything go back to the way it was is the easiest route forward and the quickly route to getting back on the shitty path the country has been on for the past 20 years.
Agreed. This article is pretty clear about its intent: don’t be lulled into a false sense of economic security after the pandemic and build this experience into our understanding of our system.
The first step of any solution is convincing people there is a problem. Not just the obvious “things are bad,” but an understanding that these issues are systemic in a way that challenges American ideology. These articles frustrate HN because they aren’t pitching some technocratic reformism, but instead are seeding ideas about the structure of our society that need to be absorbed before we can hope to change it.
I’m honestly surprised to see this pop up at all here, HN isn’t a crowd that is demographically primed to challenge the assumptions of capitalisms.
This doesn't challenge assumptions of capitalism in any meaningful way. In fact my impression reading it was how the author seemed to fundamentally misunderstand finance. I'd love to hear thoughts on how it would be done differently, but he doesn't get that far and rather just makes shallow statements.
It wasn't an insult, it was a critique. Any economy built on promises that can be thrown out at will is just a house of cards. Where do you even start with that? That's just one thing, the article is filled with half thought out premises that when taken to their conclusion fall apart. In reality it is the author making serious accusations that require evidence, not my critique.
I can't help you if you don't know where to start to support your own claims but rhetorical hand-waving probably isn't it. That you disagree with Graeber isn't really indicative that he fundamentally misunderstand finance though. He's kind of a well-received[1] expert on the subject, even according to the Financial Times[2].
My point was is the author didn't even provide any detail on where his claims (not mine) would lead or how they would work. Why does the burden keep being put on me to disprove his claims instead of him being required to prove that they do work?
I'm asking you why you think what you do. He communicated to me why he thinks the way he does and I have no questions about that. I think the essay was clear enough for what it was and didn't think it betrayed any fundamental misunderstanding of finance.
I think what he said is that things aren't working for many, this crisis showed that to everyone and we should therefore keep this in mind and do something about it. The part I liked in particular was the implication that we should keep in mind that the economy exists primarily to satisfy our needs and not the other way around.
I don't see anything there that suggests he misunderstands finance, especially with a reputation for the opposite, or that he doesn't get the philosophy of contract law (I think that's what you're hinting at), so that's why I asked.
It is one thing to say that you are not convinced by his arguments, but it’s pretty clear that he directly questions our conception of financial markets, markets more broadly, and our definition of “economy” that are key components of capitalism.
In fact, he challenges it so directly that you confuse his intentional materialist characterization of finance as a misunderstanding. Mostly, I think this is a result of our ideology being so pervasive under capitalism that we are accustomed to describing our artificial economic structures as borderline laws of physics. Graeber here is simply trying to insert a wedge into that line of thinking, not propose an entire alternative socioeconomic process.
Based on what gets up and downvoted, most of people on HN are ancap or fascists.
I guess it makes sense - startups are gold rush, VC's are the ones giving away shovels for portion of gold should there be any, and founders are people who either found gold or believe they will.
I wonder if most of people have political outlook like this. If they do, it is both sad and comforting, because then the humanity is doomed to kill ourselves via climate change, but we would deserve it.
This sort of generalization is notoriously unreliable and subject to cognitive bias. People are far more likely to notice what they dislike, and to weight it more heavily. This produces false feelings of generality:
That's why users with opposing views to yours make the opposite generalization [1]. It's not that HN is any different—they simply dislike different things. This is one of the most reliable phenomena I've seen on HN. It's so reliable that one can accurately predict people's politics (or other preferences) simply by flipping a bit on the generalizations they make.
Since we are here, Daniel, and also with reference to something I wrote nearby: I think the guidelines should be augmented, in terms of "downvoting without justification should be frowned upon". Otherwise, some would be tempted to just downvote something because they "feel differently": posts are not polls ("how many like strawberry, how many dislike it"). In general, downvoting should be accompanied by posting the underlying reasons - it should take posts evidently inconsistent with the purpose (cheap cheer, cheap joke etc.) to be exceptionally downvoted silently.
I understand HN is pretty conservative in terms of structure and rules, but I believe this should be a general norm that would be consistent with the spirit of the site (intellectuality and promotion of meaningful posts), and beneficial if made explicit.
It is a common suggestion but I think it would be a mistake to require people to post reasons for their downvotes. It would produce a ton of noise (because people would just make shit up) and dramatically increase meta-bickering about downvotes, which we already have too much of.
Edit: here's a partial list of past explanations about this, in case anyone is interested in seeing how it has come up over the years: https://news.ycombinator.com/downvote-reasons
There are probably quite a few ancaps, and I've seen a fair few communists, but I have yet to see a genuine fascist. That suggests to me your using the term more as a slur than as a word that actually means something.
Upvote and downvote do not work that way at HN and should not be interpreted that way without analysis. Here it is not about how you feel: it is about whether you make sense. Experience mostly reflects the principle (some noise must be expected).
Your claim is fallacious. It is not rooted in any formal study of HN voters or voting outcomes. It is just a story HN members tell themselves to feel special. Reality is, HN is like every other social media platform, and feelings deeply influence voting around here. IMO it is obvious.
There is little need for formal studies. HN is very surely different from «other social media platform[s]»: you must have never been on Reddit or YT, to provide examples of diametrically opposite places. A quick look at information density and "where the uttering came from" (say, above the neck, below the hips or other guts) should clearly show a massive, radical difference. That feelings influence voting, in terms of "hear, hear" or "thank you", is not undesirable: it is still agreement on reasoning. Expression of disagreement through downvoting is limited already through a technical limitation, which also contributes to indicate the form. Some foolish snipers (hitting without leaving any justification) are around: bad apples are not curbed, also because it apparently is not a mission for HN to create an optimal system of moderation and debate.
In fact, there are several shortcomings to adopt HN as a model for moderation and debate - it was evidently not the objective. But civilization wise, there is no comparison with many other places.
By the way:
> a story HN members tell themselves to feel special
Please. Accusing others to have unclean grounds in their evaluations, gratuitously? And, when one is "special", it is not out of some free membership that confirmation comes.
Please don't be an asshole in HN comments, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. You've done this repeatedly (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28673020), and that's not cool.
Sorry to pile on the scolding I already posted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963043), but I don't think this description of HN users is either accurate or fair. You can find samples of anything in any large-enough sample, but the median HN user doesn't say that they're special, and we certainly would never claim such a thing.
Comments like this are one reason why we added this guideline: "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." I can appreciate the reasons for supercilious putdowns on the internet, but they make for lousy conversation.
Moistly, there was no claim of specialness in that idea, and there was no bait. You almost seem to defend a relativism in which all ideas are worth the same, if you make "making sense" akin to "specialness". If that were true, there would be no point to debate. Surely, feeling alone does not constitute any basis for rational exchange - only for communication in terms of "sharing". HN does not read like "There is a shortage if lithium" // "I feel your pain, bro": some of us are very glad it so is, because it would make a largely useless, noisy reading.
Disambiguation at re-reading: «Surely, feeling alone does not constitute any basis for rational exchange» is to be read as "A mediated (unfiltered) expression of feelings in a language which does not work for rational exchange, consistently is noise when attempting that (information exchange, insight and debate)".
Expressed in my unedited (too late), it «feeling alone» ("feeling" alone) could have been read as "when feeling lonely". Which is not what was intended, but seems almost a point: if somebody is here for the greatest laughters, enveloping warmth, or tickling, I am not sure it is the place. Some language and thinking is fit here, some elsewhere.
Thanks for the kind reply. I know that people sometimes say such things, but they're a tiny minority of HN users. I cringe inwardly when I hear them, and I'm probably oversensitive on the point.
Hi Daniel. Sorry but I do not quite understand your point. It seems like you are censoring my statement «Here it is not about how you feel: it is about whether you make sense», and you found it cringeful - it even seems like you state you are glad "my position represents a minority". I am also interested in your "sensitivity", also (not just in terms of sheer human relation) because I do not quite understand what "touches" you in that direction.
I have not yet managed to read (all) pg's interventions. I just read though that according to him "down arrows [can be used to] express agreement". As I tried to observe formerly, though, this contrasts with the direction of "reasoning". If one just "felt" disagreement, but cannot justify it (or will not out of laziness), there will be no progress, no discussion, no quality. The guidelines, I a pretty sure, specify to warn against cheapness, and there is very little cheaper than one's statement "I disagree [end of statement]". What are we debating for if disagreement is not rationalized? I was pretty sure we are meant to be reasoning here, not to do some expressive "performance art". (Note: which I do myself, as an aside luxury, always taking care though that the intellectual structure it accompanies appears solid. Never alone, never without the important bits attached.)
What I tried to express in fact to the user that seems obsessed about the idea that some "feel special", in my last intervention, is that "expression of "feeling" will be consistent with this apparent framework when it will be expressed within a rational framework, which will allow it to be managed within a discussion". Without that, it will not be "information exchange, insight and debate": it will be noise. The very fact that on average we restrain ourselves from joking, to try to keep density high, is indicative.
The quality of debates here are completely different from what you can find elsewhere: as mentioned, for example, YT and Reddit - where noise and low quality are abysmally huge. What is the filter that causes that increase, if not that using the "head" is promoted here instead of lower bits? (It was a rhetoric formula: I am sure it is that.) To quote Daniel G. (read somewhere else), "We are just trying to build a [cannot remember term] that does not suck". It is the direction of consistency with "intellectual curiosity" which is granting that.
Tireless moderation is what makes this place a bit better. It is the only thing that makes this place better. Remove the moderation and HN will immediately become a Reddit cesspool.
I just meant that when enthusiastic users make what seem to me to be excessive claims about HN, I feel embarrassed (a.k.a. cringe). Also, I brace myself because I know that other users are going to get triggered by it.
> Did you expect a new country wise economic model to be purposed in this article?
No, I didn't, but I'm frankly growing tired of cookie-cutter article like this one that just enumerate problems that have existed since the literal dawn of civilization.
The entire "economy bad" brigade is, as parent comment puts it, "r/im14andthisisdeep". They see problems everyone else sees, but they don't have any actual insight, just empty rethoric.
There are quite a number of solutions on offer - they just have a difficult time gaining traction in our media (and therefor in the public debate). Part of that has to do with the fact that a majority of those with economic and political power - those who have succeeded in the current system - still refuse to recognize that the problems are systematic. They refuse to recognize that the problems are intrinsically caused by our economic and political systems and necessitate systematic change to those systems. And since these people wield economic and political power, they have the ability to prevent the conversations about these problems and their solutions from being held in the halls of media and power. Thus, the solutions are only discussed among fairly niche political and academic communities who have a hard time broadcasting the ideas widely.
But if you go looking for it, there is a wide array of work that has been done divising ideas for the systematic change we need to solve these problems. I have a whole bookshelf of authors proposing alternatives. Projects like The Next System project, and the Democracy Collaborate, have been working on divising ways to grow alternative systems with in the confines of the current one.
The challenge of course, remains funding. Because those with the wealth got that wealth through the current system and continue to benefit from the current system.
So actually making change is going to take either a mass popular uprising (electoral or otherwise) or enough people with enough wealth recognizing the problems and being willing to give up their wealth and power to solve them. Knowing that the solutions will forever disempower them and their peers.
Edit:
To provide some clarity of the sort of solutions on offer, I'll provide my favorite. Stop prioritizing capital, start prioritizing labor. Right now, Capital basically gets to call the shots - because we allow for any kind of contract in business formation and you can't start a business with out capital and we don't restrict what capital can demand. This allows capital to take advantage of that power imbalance at the time of business formation to demand control. If instead, we restricted what capital could demand to say - a reasonable interest on a loan - and legally structured businesses as institutions democratically run by those working in them, this would have the effect of empowering labor and disempowering capital.
People would still have the ability to make money from their money, but it would vastly reduce the current multiplier effects on the growth of wealth, and thus the tendency for wealth to concentrate. It would tend to spread wealth out to a much wider proportion of the population - because the people doing the work would get to vote for the leaders of their businesses, and those leaders then have a much, much strong incentive to take care of the people doing the work. Likewise, the people doing the work would have a much stronger incentive to take care of the communities in which they operate, because they are much more likely to live in those communities than distant investors. It has the effect of reconnecting businesses with their neighbors and communities in a much more real way, and empowering those involved in the business who are most aware of the effects it has to change those effects.
Would this system be perfect? Nope. It's really a pretty gentle refactor of the current sytem (though one with wide ranging effects). Would it be better? Yeah, I really believe it would.
There are many other effects this change would have - I've wanted to write a book on it for years, but haven't been able to find the time or bandwidth. Someday. If I ever get to take a long leave of absence or get to cash out, someday.
Another alternative you could consider, one I've played with as a thought experiment many times, what would happen if we simply banned people from making money directly from their money in all forms? It's a challenging thought experiment, because where do you draw the line? Money is just a representation of property, so how do you define money made from money versus, say, renting a machine you own? But it's a worthwhile thought experiment - could we devise a system where you could only make money by working, and not by simply owning property or holding wealth?
There are many more alternatives out there, from gentle refactors to whole rewrites. Some fleshed out, some just thought experiments. And everything in between. They should really - all of them - be a much bigger part of our public dialog than they are.
Further edit: Many threads are on-going but I've been at this all morning so I'm going to call it a day and go make lunch. I've appreciated the dialogs, and maybe I'll write that book some day. If I do find the time to write that book, I know exactly where to come to harden it against criticism. If I can convince a forum full of capital investors and would be capital investors that making capital investment illegal is a good idea, then I'll be able to convince anyone!
Not one single line of what you wrote is a concrete and actionable thing you would do. It's frankly a whole bunch of rethoric. I'll pick the bits that seem like they mean something real:
> legally structured businesses as institutions democratically run by those working in them
This already exists, they are called cooperatives, many of them actually work pretty great. Try to guess what happens when they grow and they need to hire employees...
> what would happen if we simply banned people from making money directly from their money in all forms?
No banks, no loans, no credit cards. No way to protect against inflation with financial instruments as basic as a target-date fund.
Oh, and 0% public debt, of course.
> Money is just a representation of property
It's not and you know it's not, you're just playing with words.
> This already exists, they are called cooperatives, many of them actually work pretty great. Try to guess what happens when they grow and they need to hire employees...
They continue to operate. Mondragon has 80,000 worker owners. And yes, it has a challenge in recent years where the worker owners have created a class of non-owner employee. But it got pretty big before that started happening, and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't continue to function just fine if that wasn't an option.
There are many other worker cooperatives functioning very well at scale with zero non-owner employees. My proposal is essentially that we make this the requirement. That any business formed must be formed as a democratically run worker cooperative. This is perfectly actionable. Governments define the legal structures under which businesses may form today, and continue to regulate those structures. Right now, those structure enable the investor ownership relationship, and most worker cooperatives have to use those structures and bend them to allow the worker ownership relationship. It's a relatively straight forward legal matter (with wide ranging consequences) to change that structure.
> No banks, no loans, no credit cards. No way to protect against inflation with financial instruments as basic as a target-date fund.
Like I said, this is a thought experiment. Not fleshed out. And it's not the same as the proposal I outlined above for a worker cooperative based democratic socialism. I don't think you actually read my post, I suspect you just skimmed it and then reacted to certain sentences.
> My proposal is essentially that we make this the requirement
So basically we are abolishing the ability for any business to hire employees? This would be terrible, especially for the poor. Owner and employee are different risk profiles, it's neither useful nor beneficial to impose by law that nobody can be an employee any longer, especially for those who can't afford the risk.
It's also very easy to route around that obstacle if it were made law: just fire everyone and hire them back as contractors, oh, no, sorry, democratically run worker cooperative employing one worker.
You are completely throwing away many layers of protections that are afforded to workers in a system of regulated employment relations.
> Like I said, this is a thought experiment.
It's a thought experiment predicated on paying an enormous social cost that nobody is willing to pay, to get to a point where nobody wants to be. If the first step of your plan directly implies getting rid of all credit, then I frankly don't think it's really a good plan.
> Owner and employee are different risk profiles, it's neither useful nor beneficial to impose by law that nobody can be an employee any longer, especially for those who can't afford the risk.
The owner doesn't carry the risk - the business does. That's the whole point of a limited liability corporation. And there's no reason those liability protections couldn't be strengthened further.
Plus, this is seriously underestimating the risk a poor employee takes. Someone living pay to pay check who has no information about the state of the business and stands to lose everything if they get fired risks a lot more than a business owner who has all the information about the state of the business and can keep a comfortable cushion for themselves to fall back on should the business fail (and can choose the moment at which to end the business to be sure they don't eat into that cushion).
Who's taking more risk here? The employee, not the business owner.
> It's also very easy to route around that obstacle if it were made law: just fire everyone and hire them back as contractors, oh, no, sorry, democratically run worker cooperative employing one worker.
You could pretty easily tweak contract law to get rid of this workaround. Even so, this isn't an easy workaround. No business of reasonable size can afford to fire all of its employees. And if those employees are co-owners of the business no single employee has the power to fire all the others.
> You are completely throwing away many layers of protections that are afforded to workers in a system of regulated employment relations.
And replacing them with power. They don't need those protections when they are in control. They can devise their own rules.
> It's a thought experiment predicated on paying an enormous social cost that nobody is willing to pay, to get to a point where nobody wants to be. If the first step of your plan directly implies getting rid of all credit, then I frankly don't think it's really a good plan.
My proposal is a separate thing from the thought experiment. The thought experiment is an example of the sort of innovative thinking we should be engaging in to come up with new alternatives, but for the most part - aren't on a large scale.
My proposal is a fleshed out proposal that I could work. Sure there are pieces of it that still need to be further fleshed out - like exactly how the transition would work. But I you can I must hang out with different crowds if you don't think anybody wants to get to a place with less inequality and where the average person has a hell of a lot more control over their day to day life.
Someone living pay to paycheck can not afford to be an owner in the first place. The structure being LLC or whatever makes no difference: the vast majority of business enterprises just fail.
You are effectively forcing everyone to be a business owner even when they might have no will, interest or ability to be one, something that disproportionately damages those who would putatively be helped by this system.
> You could pretty easily tweak contract law to get rid of this workaround.
Yes you can. You can do that in my world, where regulated employment, you know, exists, and you can easily show how an operation like that is fraudolent.
> And replacing them with power. They don't need those protections when they are in control. They can devise their own rules.
How would they be in control? Magic? The invisible hand? How would a law mandating that everyone be an owner, assuming for the sake of argument something like that is possible and enforceable, make a minimum wage worker in control of his own destiny?
It doesn't work, it's a pipe dream, and it's ironically the same argument used by hyper libertarian right-wing types.
> if you don't think anybody wants to get to a place with less inequality
Pointless rethoric. Literally everyone wants that, like everyone wants an extra million in their bank account.
I'm disagreeing that what you're proposing will get us there.
Yeah this same thing you’re saying has been tried. Just newer words for the same thing.
Unless you mean it should be an entirely voluntary system? More likely you’re thinking like the Bolsheviks and you’ll cause 20 million people to stave with your ideas.
No, that was centralized state socialism - it was authoritarian and centralized.
What I'm proposing is more akin to distributed democratic socialism. Our government is still democratically run. You still have independent banks (formed as credit unions) or crowdfunding to start businesses. The only difference is that once a business hires that first worker, then decisions start getting made democratically. And they continue from there. The state isn't running any of the businesses and there's no central planning arm.
To my knowledge, this has never been tried as a whole economic system. But worker cooperatives exist and are functioning just fine in the current system. Ever bought Equal Exchange chocolate? That's a worker cooperative. Heard of Mondragon? 80,000 member worker cooperative that's functioned successfully for decades across multiple verticals in Spain.
What I am proposing is that we do away with the traditional investor relationship and mandate that all businesses must be formed as democratic worker cooperatives funded either by regulated loans or some form of crowd funding.
This is all bog-standard bolshevik/communist propaganda dressed up in modern lingo. Your "co-ops" are just "soviets" (literal definition "council"). These "worker councils" were officially democratic as laid out in various USSR constitutions, and even the names of some communist bloc countries such as East Germany (German Democratic Republic) and North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea).
In practice of course, none of the freedoms of decision making we typically ascribe to western democratic nations existed despite these labels. The reason, as always, is that significant coercion and force is required to get people to give up control of their property and wealth. This inevitably leads to not only authoritarianism, but also wealth being transferred to the state instead of the people.
No the co-ops I'm talking about are businesses democratically run by their workers and they exist in the current economy with out coersion. Ever heard of Mondragon? 80,000 worker owner cooperative operating out of Spain for decades. Had an Equal Exchange chocolate bar? King Arthur Flour?
There's no reason you couldn't write the laws of business structure in such a way that all businesses have to be run democratically by their workers. Essentially you do away with the partnership, LLC, and Corporation and replace it with the worker cooperative. What you get is an economy of democratically run worker cooperatives competing with each other in a free market economy. No central planning. No government control. And this is different from the worker councils you're talking about which are, essentially, an effort at democratic, distributed economic planning.
If you and your hippie friends wanna band together and start a commune somewhere and commit mass suicide (or something), I got no problem with that. Just don't force everyone else to join you by gun point (the logical endpoint of enforcing laws).
Many states already have usury laws which limit interest rates but in practice that doesn't give labor any more power relative to capital. Lowering limits on interest rates would just result in capitalists ceasing lending to risky businesses.
A better solution would be to increase taxes on income from interest and capital, and use that funding for education and social services.
It would have to be linked to a requirement that all businesses be formed as worker cooperatives, democratically run by their workers. That's what would give labor the power.
The usery laws are just about preventing banks from exercising undo power over those worker cooperatives at the formation stage.
Why would anyone ever try a high risk innovation play to propel society forward if there was no reward? Most businesses fail. This would encourage people to just work at BigCo instead of trying to start new things.
I feel like innovative companies such as SpaceX or Moderna would never happen under that economic model for example.
Yikes. You... uh... must have a social circle that looks very different from mine.
I know any number of people who would eagerly start a high risk innovation play as a worker cooperative, because the money reward isn't what they care about. They care about making change in society or seeing a technical advancement become wide spread.
For most of them, they just need the chance - a floor under their feet so they can't fall too far if they fail and enough funding to get going. And, given how much crowdfunding has succeeded in todays world of concentrated wealth - I believe crowdfunding could provide that in this system where wealth is much, much more distributed.
The other piece of if is, with worker cooperatives every single employee of the company is fully bought into that innovation play. And stands to see the rewards created by it. Not just the investors and company founders. If anything, it increases the effectiveness of these companies, because everyone involved in them is incentivized to give it their all. Everyone involved stands to see the rewards of success.
So all of that is possible in today's economic model. You don't need to make capital investment illegal for that to happen. Looking forward to the next crowdfunded carbon capture worker cooperative. Heck the SEC just raised the crowdfunding limit for startups to $5M so time will tell.
I do find it interesting that your social circle is willing to bet their entire net worth on a risky startup where the reward is a salary cut in the worker cooperative + some savings account level interest. The "funding" bit is the key. You waived over it with crowdfunding, but now it's like buying lottery tickets with low payout. Pay $20 for a 20% chance at $40 in 10 years! You'll make the world a better place!
Even in the example you provided a labor-led, democratically funded entity can only receive 5M while capital-led, private investor funded entity has no real limit.
Investing in startups is hard, as I am sure Y-Combinator would attest. The layperson is not prepared to invest in them. To vet the companies, their leadership, the feasibility of their ideas, etc... Especially with a low payout. I can understand the SEC's hesitation as this could easily lead to scams. Just look at kickstarter and all the things that have gone down there.
Really what the parent is proposing is something like -
Here is a savings account. You can throw chunks of money in it at startups that have a high chance of failing. But if they succeed you'll only earn bank level interest since it's not capital investment. So you have a small chance at earning bank level interest.
"I can understand the SEC's hesitation as this could easily lead to scams."
It's not "could", it's will. With 100% certainty. The only question is how many and hard they will be to control. We know this because it has happened before.
> still refuse to recognize that the problems are systematic
I think you're reading into other's worldviews too much. Most people likely agree it's systemic. Many would not be convinced by the proposed solutions, because they do not think they would improve the situation. Moreover, large numbers of people do not think the situation can be improved, that this is just the natural state of the world (for which they have thousands of years of evidence to point to).
They don't have thousands of years of evidence. The modern economic system has only existed about 200 years. It's precursor was around a couple hundred years before that. Prior to that, the economic system looked very different. And there was a wide range of economic systems prior to that.
> that this is just the natural state of the world (for which they have thousands of years of evidence to point to).
You write:
> And there was a wide range of economic systems prior to that.
That is my point. every single one of those 'wide range of economic systems' (including the ones directly intended to produce equality) produced inequality.
That didn't seem like the point you were making, what you seemed to imply is that some form of the current system has existed forever.
But lets work with your new point. Saying "all the economic systems we've tried produced inequality" with the implication being there's no point in attempting to devise new ones is rather like saying "all materials we've devised produced some amount of friction". Sure. But some produce a hell of a lot more than others. And it's still worth searching for new materials that produce less friction so that they can be used in applications where friction is a detriment.
Some economic systems produce a lot more inequality and environmental degredation than others. Our current system has produced a lot more than most. And a lot of the proposals on the table would almost certainly produce less than our current system does.
Which other systems are you referring to? Feudalism, fascism, and communism all produced more inequality than free-market capitalism. Note that equality or inequality involves more than just income and assets.
Environmental degradation is more a function of overpopulation and technology than the economic system. With free-market capitalism we at least have the potential to price in the environmental degredation externality in a fair and consistent way through taxes. That approach has been underutilized so far, but with most other economic systems it's not even an option.
There are many more options than feudalism, fascism, or communism. And my point is that the lack of awareness of them is part of the problem.
For example, there's the form of Democratic Socialism I propose above: where we replace the current business structure with worker cooperatives funded by regulated loans or crowd sourcing that compete with each other in a free market. We know worker cooperatives work, because there are many successful worker cooperatives operating well in the current capitalist economy. There's no reason to believe they would stop functioning well in a free market economy where all businesses are worker run.
And like I said, I have a whole bookshelf full of alternative proposals. Some of which don't make a whole lot of sense. Some of which are very plausible. And some of which are already working in micro, just waiting to be tried in macro.
There's nothing stopping workers from creating worker cooperatives today and getting business loans today. We don't need a new economic system for that. But lenders won't lend without a high expected ROI.
Yes, worker cooperatives have formed and functioned in the existing economy. Which is part of how we know using them as the foundation of our economy, rather than a niche aspect of it, could work.
> But lenders won't lend without a high expected ROI.
Exactly, that's what's stopping them. Worker cooperatives don't provide the return on investment that investor ownership grants. They don't allow those with capital (wealth) to demand a large portion of the returns from the business. That's what requires the new economy - removing the option for capital to demand ownership and control so that it has to make do with a reasonable, regulated return on its loans.
This is an unrealistic fantasy. Capital owners don't lend money to businesses just for fun. You haven't proposed a viable way to encourage lending. If they can't achieve a high expected ROI on business lending then they'll use their capital for other purposes.
> Which is part of how we know using them as the foundation of our economy, rather than a niche aspect of it, could work.
We don't use worker cooperatives in the same way we don't use corporations. There is no overarching entity that uses any of these things.
If worker cooperatives are so great, they should be outpacing corporations. Some do. For example, companies like Winco and Mondragon exceed productivity of their corporate counterparts. That's fine. More power to them. Their story should encourage others to start worker cooperatives.
> That didn't seem like the point you were making, what you wrong seemed to imply some form of the current system has existed forever.
My meaning was very plain. I said many people would be unconvinced that anything could be done to achieve equality. I then stated they could point to thousands of years of human life (which, as you correctly stated, contained many economic systems). If you put both points together, you'd see that I was saying essentially that 'no human system tried has achieved equality', so many people would believe that there are few changes we can make to ours to achieve this goal.
I'm going to expound on this idea more. Please consider everything I say before jumping to conclusions this time.
> Sure. But some produce a hell of a lot more than others. And it's still worth searching for new materials that produce less friction so that they can be used in applications where friction is a detriment.
Correct. But there's more than one knob. Some systems produce little inequality, but lots of destitution. Others produce lots of inequality but little destitution. By all objective metrics, ours produces little destitution, and while it produces inequality, it is a different form of inequality than many other systems. For example, marxism and communism in the forms tried produce more equality, but utter destitution for large swaths of the population (it's a race to the bottom). Our system of free markets, even in its heavily corrupt form, produces inequality, certainly, but little destitution, by all objective metrics. Moreover, of the inequality we create, it is a shifting inequality. Studies show that family fortunes in the United States do not form dynasties as they do in other economic systems (like monarchist mercantilism, for example). Most family wealth dissipates by the third or fourth generation.
If some inequality that ends up being redistributed is the price we pay for less destitution, then I don't see why equality ought to be prized.
> Some economic systems produce a lot more inequality and environmental degredation than others. Our current system has produced a lot more than most. And a lot of the proposals on the table would almost certainly produce less than our current system does.
Okay, and as I said, simply optimizing for 'equality' and 'environment degradation' would not lead to a good economic system. There are other goals you're completely ignoring. WE can create a system that's perfectly equal and great for the environment, but leaves everyone destitute.
For me, there's a hierarchy of needs here. First, destitution must end, then we can talk about equality. But ultimately, if the world is extremely unequal, but no one is destitute, then that economic system is good. And we're very close to that by continuing with current trends
> But ultimately, if the world is extremely unequal, but no one is destitute, then that economic system is good. And we're very close to that by continuing with current trends
Yes. If everyone is actually better off compared to the equal society, then the only problem is jealousy really. So why not attack that instead, people will never be equal anyway since nature is unfair, and some will always be much more beautiful, talented etc, even in a perfectly "equal" society. Capitalism just amplifies the human condition, raises everyone, and raises the best even more.
It seems to me that our consumeristic culture makes people extremely jealous. As I've stated countless times here, I don't like Mark Zuckerberg, or Jeff Bezos. I want to make sure that their wealth cannot buy them the ability to affect my life (and I've called openly for their prosecution for when they've done those things based on existing criminal law).
That being said... I don't begrudge them their wealth. I don't begrudge them their private jets. I have nothing to complain about. I have a home, a wonderful family, a lovely spiritual life, a fantastic community, etc. I have things that their money would never buy. Half the time I feel sorry for them.
It seems to me many of my fellow citizens are simply jealous of their material goods and want their private jets and all that nonsense for themselves. No thanks. We should discourage this kind of materialism.
> For me, there's a hierarchy of needs here. First, destitution must end, then we can talk about equality. But ultimately, if the world is extremely unequal, but no one is destitute, then that economic system is good. And we're very close to that by continuing with current trends
This strikes me as an excellent way to put it, and is really at the core of why I look upon “alternative solutions” with a cynical eye.
Every proposal I’ve seen results in limiting overall wealth of our society. That just doesn’t pass the smell test for me.
To put it another way - it’s far easier for a wealthy society to achieve equality than it is for an equal system to achieve wealth.
Ironically, this seems to more closely mirror the writings of Marx than the goals of the self-described Marxists I’ve encountered.
> The free market and worker cooperatives are completely compatible.
I agree.
But there is something that needs to change in order for worker cooperatives become the dominant business form. So long as capital can demand ownership, worker cooperatives will remain a relative niche. What needs to change in markets is we need to remove the ability for capital to demand ownership. That's essentially the core of my proposal for a new system.
Replace the LLC and Stock Corporation with the worker cooperative. Remove the investor stock owner relationship from the economy. Legally mandate that all businesses be formed as worker owned cooperatives. And then regulate the amount of interest that banks and financiers can charge on their loans to limit their power over those worker cooperatives.
What you get is a free market economy where all businesses are democratically run by their workers and the relationship between capital and labor is flipped. It would vastly increase equality, with out increasing destitution. And would likely have some small decrease on environmental degradation.
In some ways it's a very gentle refactor of our existing economy. In other ways, it's far reaching and drastic (stock markets go away entirely and traditional banks become a primary mechanism of savings).
The idea that replacing ownership with loans will lead to good outcomes is frankly shocking to me.
There's a reason all major religions historically prohibit usury (the charging of any interest, as well as enforce debt jubilees), while encouraging ownership.
Frankly, this sounds like a great idea, but it vastly understates the role of the markets (esp the stock market) in lifting others out of poverty.
Humans are not machines. We cannot always work. Stock ownership provides the ability for the disabled, the elderly, etc to earn income based off of work they'd already put in. It's like buying a stake in society. Without it, each person would be measured based off their economic output. I know you claim that's how the current system works, but imagine how much worse it would be if there were no other way to earn money other than by working.
> It would vastly increase equality, with out increasing destitution.
Your meaning was not plain, you wrote a few very broad sentences and in your clarifications it seems you were talking about a single problem - equality. The original post was outlining many problems, inequality being one of them and the systems being proposed potentially address many problems.
But that's fine, such is the nature of dialog over text.
> Studies show that family fortunes in the United States do not form dynasties as they do in other economic systems (like monarchist mercantilism, for example). Most family wealth dissipates by the third or fourth generation
This is likely to be an outdated statistic at best. If you go back three or four genenerations, you will find yourself passing through a time when the US had very high inheritance taxes and a 90% top marginal tax rate. That period of time did likely prevent the formation of dynasties across it. However, those policies have since been repealed and current studies show very low social mobility and a significant increase in dynastic formation. [1, 2]
> Some systems produce little inequality, but lots of destitution. Others produce lots of inequality but little destitution.
If you're just measuring destitution and inequality, then you're getting a very narrow picture. You can't leave out things like environmental degradation from your calculation. The environmental degradation - in climate change - threatens to upend what gains there have been made in destitution and the current system is completely failing to respond appropriately to the threat. So the great likelihood is that if we stay with the same system on the same trendline, there's a cliff coming in our near future.
> For me, there's a hierarchy of needs here. First, destitution must end, then we can talk about equality. But ultimately, if the world is extremely unequal, but no one is destitute, then that economic system is good. And we're very close to that by continuing with current trends.
Saying "first destitution" must end before we consider any refactors of the current system makes very little sense. There are other options on the table than state socialism or returning to mercantalism. Systems that have the potential to increase equality, decrease environemntal degredation, and decrease destitution. All at the same time. Systems that haven't been tried in macro yet, but are working just fine in micro - for example the move to universal worker cooperatives funded by credit unions and crowd sourcing that I propose. And that's just one of many proposed possibilities. Those doing the work of proposing alternatives are absolutely including things like destitution in their calculations.
Throwing your hands up and saying "we can't do better than this" frankly runs counter to the very mindset that this website is supposed to represent. We can always do better.
> This is likely to be an outdated statistic at best. If you go back three or four genenerations, you will find yourself passing through a time when the US had very high inheritance taxes and a 90% top marginal tax rate. That period of time did likely prevent the formation of dynasties across it. However, those policies have since been repealed and current studies show very low social mobility and a significant increase in dynastic formation. [1, 2]
How is it possible that you can dismiss my claims for being too long ago, and then cite claims on dynastic formation made today? Surely, in order to make the latter claim, you would need to wait equally long into the future as my claims were into the past? Would you look at my family, which has risen exponentially from poverty and claim we're forming a dynasty? How could you possible know it's a dynasty until I'm dead and my children inherit?
I don't believe the tax policy argument is satisfying. The studies show that the wealth dissipates due to squandering, not taxation. Even with a 90% income tax, these heirs still get millions and millions (likely billions in todays dollars), and yet still lose it all.
> The environmental degradation - in climate change - threatens to upend what gains there have been made in destitution and the current system is completely failing to respond appropriately to the threat. So the great likelihood is that if we stay with the same system on the same trendline, there's a cliff coming in our near future.
Even the worst models of climate change do not predict the catastrophic ends you are attempting to paint. You're just distracting from the issue at this point. In general, I find doomsday predictions unvaluable. Nevertheless, i'm not going to fall for this change in goalposts.
> Systems that haven't been tried in macro yet, but are working just fine in micro - for example the move to universal worker cooperatives funded by credit unions and crowd sourcing that I propose
So... a free market? There is nothing incompatible with the system we have and worker's cooperatives.
Although I will say credit unions have proven just as dangerous and capable of malfeasance as banks (Savings and Loans Crisis of the 80s, which everyone seems to forget for some reason).
> We can always do better.
Sure, we can improve some things in my hierarchy of needs by following down our current path, which, unlike your changes, is empirically shown to improve material conditions. This idea that because the current system hasn't made everyone's life better overnight, it must be replaced, is foolish. Some people have this constant drive to change things. Doing nothing is also a choice. And often a good one.
> Even the worst models of climate change do not predict the catastrophic ends you are attempting to paint. You're just distracting from the issue at this point. In general, I find doomsday predictions unvaluable. Nevertheless, i'm not going to fall for this change in goalposts.
Yes. Yes they do. [1] That, and climate reality has so far been worse than our worst case models in many respects. [2]
Anyway, we could keep going, but we've been at this all morning so it's probably best to let it lie. I feel comfortable I've made my point well enough, and I think you've made yours. I think we're unlikely to make further progress in a low bandwidth media.
I dunno, maybe if/when I write the book I dream of I'll be able to address more of your points in more detail and with more data and you'll find that more convincing than I can be reactively writing forum posts. Until then, I've appreciated the dialog.
Nothing would fundamentally change about human nature and society if the scenario in [1] comes to pass. Humans will still likely thrive and be happy, as we have for many years.
Yeah but it gets tiresome when leftists never bother themselves with any form of practical solutions of even a path forward, always just point out that things are not perfect, and then hint at some vague ideal. What's the point of instigating and persuading people on such grounds, I don't understand
While it is not completely without value, just confirming to readers that a problem they are well aware of already exists is probably the least value you can provide to them. You'd hope for more than just criticism.
> Did you expect a new country wise economic model to be purposed in this article?
Coming from a publication like theanarchistlibrary.org, purporting a new system is implicit. And the following quote: "to create an “economy” that lets us actually take care of the people who are taking care of us. " - with economy in quotes removes ambiguity on that question.
Yeah it kind of reminds me of why I thought Bernie Sanders was once a useful voice. He was willing to point out realities that most political elites wanted to keep hidden.
His solutions though are crap, and he has profited greatly off the misfortune of the poor.
Because he exploits their situation to promise them free stuff by taking from the wealthy. That wealth taken might give some poor a token gift, but mostly it ends up in the pockets of bureaucrats.
Maybe not, maybe he only has one modest home which is still more than the people he appeals to, but not utterly hypocritical.
It is a solution? No. I don't think it is trying to be though. It's just trying to be a reminder that letting everything go back to the way it was is the easiest route forward and the quickly route to getting back on the shitty path the country has been on for the past 20 years.