capitalism
capitalism
Out of context: Reply #301
- Started
- Last post
- 1,535 Responses
- yuekit1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/b…
The average net worth of Americans 35 and younger is less than $8,000, down one third vs. 22 years ago.
During that time the cost of everything (food, education, healthcare, housing) has increased by as much as 65% while income has stayed the same.
- Yes well 35 year olds better realize their parents aren't dying anytime soon, as well, so they still have a nice place to crash for some years...robotron3k
- you know all about that, huh?monospaced
- America's future looks bright.utopian
- did 22 years ago they have access to what they do now? which is more important measure of success********
- planned 2% inflation does no favors to savings or costs.********
- but we do know todays wages seem to buy more than 22 years ago despite the inflation.********
- as far as healthcare and education those 2 are on gov made inflationary scales that will never work out********
- The life expectancy curve is dropping. So smartphones and the illusion of healthcare access does not a better people make.imbecile
- Dropping or peaking? Tech also is a cultural thing. Look at india. Healthcare access... well lets just say nothing clear there. Im not big on the dying homes********
- that cost a fortune and milk every cent pumping enough drugs into the walking dead that can curb averages. but also cultural********
- Wages today doNOT buy more than 22 years ago. Who told you this nonsense and why are you spreading the lie?monospaced
- Sure technology is better now, but does having access to Facebook and Tinder make up for not most people having enough saving to afford a single doctor's visit?yuekit
- What's the relationship between these things anyway? Most of these services and technologies were invented by small group of people, not having much to do withyuekit
- the overall economy.yuekit
- The idea that you the system couldn't possibly be tweaked to work better, and that $8k in average savings is the best you can hope for in the world's leadingyuekit
- economy seems slightly ridiculous.yuekit
- i think todays wages buy way more. even despite inflation do to technological advances. its a broad generalization********
- flat screen tvs are super cheap, clothes, tech, etc.. but if like what ukit looks at is healthcare costs those have risen a ton********
- a large part do to being regulated systems outside laissez faire capitalism. if we introduce 700 billion of funding into a market (medicare) + take consumers********
- out of the market through third parties, effectively undermining the mechanics that make capitalism work. the WHOLE mechanisms of price discovery********
- and stipulating and controlling medical economies through regulations and poor incentives, not surprising it doesnt work********
- but back to the point of ukit. a large part of savings is due to young people is YOLO. why fuckin save?********
- interest rates are at record levels low. savings is uncool, and consumerism is popular. i have friends who think if you can afford the monthly payment who cares********
- they dont look at interest payments or even calculate the amount paid over the loan duration. to them its only about a monthly inflow/outlfow********
- second i'd probably blame higher edu in the current age demographic. if they have 8K id be surprised. right now theyre being groomed to be debt slaves********
- where higher education really probably only matters for like 10-15%. Also with super low interest rates we have mal investment********
- or not mal since it pays but cheap money for the few to buy up assets and drive up costs for rent, where younger people with nothing get fucked.********
- and now even added healthcare costs (no fine anymore) obamacare for those that werent on paretns insurances********
- it was like a 1-1.5K cost per year for uninsured young people.********
- but i never read the link due to paywall, adblocker wall. but I am curious if the figure mentioned takes in inflation or even considers********
- todays bullshit inflationary measures where we haven't seen "much" inflation from so called QE and interest rates?********
- all of it though you should be able to admit has nothing to do with a failure of capitalism ukit. and more laissez faire systems could help a ton.********
- You can buy a better TV today than you could in the 90s, true...but you would almost certainly also be able to do so if wages had not stagnated. That was myyuekit
- point -- technological advancement was going happen regardless, it's not really an excuse or justification for shit wages.yuekit
- but more ppl can buy a lot better quality of life directly from capitalism right? what demographics feel about wage levels may differ and central control of********
- such thing might be dictated by a trump flunkie with "bright ideas" nut i stick with free markets in there are so many more objective (true democracy) opinions********
- than i can quantify or try to think i can. however your wealth point and idea of stagnation is not capitalism fault. and id say we havent seen stagnation********
- where i beleive it was coined in the 70s. we have central contrl. the bernie sanders promised type of economies********
- and technology is justification for shit wages. when automated systems cost less and function better than human. humans can only gain a wage********
- relative to ability and long term employability. technology is going to make the lower "class" far more useless********
- this is where a cashless society and full on money manipulation can come in handy for controlling the people, full blown socialism in modern form********
- being in a capitalism thread you seem to suggest these thing are a failure of capitalism. can you really say that is true and back it up?********
- Yeah I don't have much patience for people who blame "capitalism" as a general abstract thing for all the world's problems.yuekit
- You have to look at the specific economic system and flavor of capitalism in order to say anything meaningful. And it doesn't always fall neatly into theseyuekit
- "muh free market" vs. "big government" categories that people seem to want to argue over. Look at China for instance, they have a heavily state-controlledyuekit
- economy but on the local level, probably less protections for workers and the environment than the U.S.yuekit
- Now most people would agree -- you might try to argue against it, but it seems kind of obvious -- that the U.S. over the past 30 years has been moving in theyuekit
- direction of weakening the power of labor, greater privatization, and basically handing corporations more control over the economy.yuekit
- And it's against that backdrop that the stagnating wages and increased costs have occurred. Now at the same time, did government also grow in power? I'm sureyuekit
- in some ways it did, but I think it's fair to say that the overall dynamics have been in favor of empowering the capitalist class vs. the working class.yuekit
- i think you are correct except in the last part of the captialistic class v working class. htere is no capitalistic class. and in our hope of westernizing chin********
- a we have actually gone more chinese in trying to control. than pushing the western traditions.********
- but the largest part is on control of capital. shadow banking, devaluation, interest rates are foundational econimical things********
- the structures of power are without a doubt gov controlled. In china in us. again not capitalism but ppl pursuing inherent self interests as lies********
- I think what you are trying to say is you havent foudn the right god/pres/controller of things yet, but woudl very much like someone to figure it out********
- ... and of course the outcome preferably be in your favor right? would you support any state control tha chose rules that didnt benefit you?********
- Agree and disagree...I think one of the differences between the U.S. and Chinese model is that in China, businesses are subservient to the government/ Communistyuekit
- Party whereas in the U.S., corporations very much are their own power centers and sometimes more powerful than the government itself. There are stories aboutyuekit
- how when the CCP didn't like the performance of a business leader in China they simply replaced him with CEO of another company. Meanwhile in the U.S.,yuekit
- when was the last time Congress passed a single law that went against the interests of major corporations? Now ironically the U.S. may be moving towards theyuekit
- Chinese model and state capitalism more recently under Trump, out of desperation to compete with the Chinese. But the idea that a capitalist class doesn't existyuekit
- in the U.S. seems wrong and very easy to disprove -- there absolutely is an ultra- wealthy elite that has a lot more power and influence than everyone else, andyuekit
- which acts as the gatekeepers of what is possible in society. Even liberal politicians like Obama feel the need to get the ultra-wealthy and big corporationsyuekit
- on their side in order to achieve anything in politics. So yeah capitalist class is very real and has benefited greatly over the past decades, there are manyyuekit
- numbers you can point to which back this up. You might even say this is the logical endgame of neoliberal system advocated by the likes of Milton Friedman etc.yuekit
- haha i would never think milton friedman so small of confidence to need such an end game to make him feel good********
- i get this impression you hate corporation control but applaud gov control? even your outlook of obama pedaling to globalization corps as an altruisitic thing********
- i think you show an irrational bias in thinking a omnipotent dictator may make things work well/ especially under the guiese of equality********
- i cant dunk a basketball... should all peopel be outlawed t dunk a basketball in the name of equality********
- a thign in life in knowing capable differences. some ppl may even suck a good dick to get ahead********
- and chasing equality is like chasing death. those few who offer a product that benefits all who use it.. how do you try to control value of it?********
- and back to capitalist class... do you define that as merely successful people? If you do you see the obvious mis grouping right? hell obama was a successful ca********
- pitalist playing the game. the funds he has secured for his library. the guy is a chump change jayz********
- Seems like you are still thinking in very simplistic black and white terms. Need to embrace the contradictions...som... like Milton Friedman might think he wasyuekit
- advocating one thing, in fact the end game of his policies (which were largely the foundation of U.S. economic policy over the past 30 years) ended up beingyuekit
- completely different and in fact contradictory to his own philosophical principles in many ways.yuekit
- I dont think milton friedman per se choice of economic policy was that of the last 30 years.. knowing what he valued being primarily focused on decentivizing********
- central control and giving choice to individuals. hard to state any policy has gone that way... now how his political intentions for stuff have been warped.********
- look at negative income tax, being sold as base living. to think that policy relates to friedman, well is silly.********
- without a doubt his end game was about powering the individual through freemarkets, letting them be the democratic rule vs king on high tower.********
- im actually curious as to how you come to your conclusion. am i blind did i miss something?********
- as far as last 30-50 years i think keynes policy was has and still is applauded over milton who was more a hayek man.********
- i also think friedman was smart like bruce lee. jeet kune do economics. He knew hayek best but real life doesn't portray pure fundamentals. and why he actually********
- supported central banking action here and their and some reaganomics but not all. however without a doubt his philosophy was non statist.********
- I don't see how you can seriously try to claim Milton Friedman wasn't hugely influential on today's economic system.yuekit
- Friedman was one of the people advocating for lower taxes and deregulation during the 1970s. Reagan was elected based largely on those same policies, Friedmanyuekit
- was an advisor to his campaign. And same with Thatcher in the UK. The GOP has followed the same course ever since, and even the Democrats have been influencedyuekit
- by it to a large degree. This is the economic system we've been living under for the past half century -- "neoliberalism."yuekit
- https://en.wikipedia…
"Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of Mont Pelerin Society economists Friedrich Hayek, Miltonyuekit - Friedman, and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan."yuekit
- You try to make it sound like this is some radical untried idea, when it's actually the current economic system :) Gotta own the successes as well as failures.yuekit
- haha. really? Wow well enlighten me on such policies and the failures and how they are rooted th friedman and keynes thinking********
- but I do believe friedman and hayek are influential, just not popular because they are right which really hurts the sell for politcians.********
- again man jsut read the book. hell for soemone talkign about things as coined neoliberlaism liberalism in the book has a absolutely differetn meaning********
- than today. which is why i kind of laugh at the wikipedia backlink. i wouldnt worry too much about the names more the substance********
- There's plenty of substance in the link I posted, explaining how the ideas originated and were incorporated into government policy. I'm not going to repeat allyuekit
- of it in these notes, just read the link :) Main point I was making (and this is hardly controversial, pretty basic history) is that Keynes was more influentialyuekit
- mid 20th century, while Friedman and other neoliberal or Chicago school economists seen as influencing the direction of the past 30-40 years.yuekit
- your link is about origin and definition nothing about the economic philosophy of anything. unless a ton of backlinks...********
- id like to know what policy you see today is more keynes than hayek or freidman? oh and the wikipedia link is liek what 3 pages where road to serfdom is a********
- a bit longer but much more worth it as things are which usually take a bit more time to digest and take in.********
- do you actually believe that wikipedia link is wroth a damn?********
- You're trying to compare two completely different things. One guy's book vs. an overview of how economic ideas were incorporated into the real world.yuekit
- how are those not related when the entire book is based about real world examples of those econimic ideas and he results? With very sound reasoning that has********
- only improved with time and shown how much more important it is.********
- you haven't read it, but I'd suggest you do. It is boring but worth it if you are really looking interested in monetary policy and social systems********