It's ok to be angry about capitalism

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
"Why leftists can't enjoy anything"
Is it because there is a gay in it ? Or because a woman has a not secondary, not naked enough role and it ruins their childhood ? I am so curious to know that I will surely probably certainly add a view to that video.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
1,903
1,691
118
I am so curious to know that I will surely probably certainly add a view to that video.
I won't, because I don't want the algorithms flooding my feeds for the next 3 months with right wing bullshit. It took long enough to get free of that after watching some crank hate on Star Wars ep. 8.

Starve these pricks by not adding to their views.
 

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
832
1,126
98
Country
Wales
Is it because there is a gay in it ? Or because a woman has a not secondary, not naked enough role and it ruins their childhood ? I am so curious to know that I will surely probably certainly add a view to that video.
Sorry, should've prefaced the post better. It's certainly got a clickbait wrapping am not sure helps, and if I'd seen that first instead of catching it 2 minutes in, I would've ignored it too, but is not the reactionary RW noise it may appear to be: more self-reflective than anything else. Would for sure prefer a different wrapping tactic, though can't really do anything about that, plus no summary provided in the description to aid with context either. Am too terrible with words to fill that void myself. To be clear, it is an eastern European leftie creator, with mildly amusing snippets perhaps like;

Screenshot_20230411-113807.png
 
Last edited:

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,926
2,781
118
Country
United States of America
The wealth of a nation is really in its people - their skills, outlooks, education, institutions. Human development is what counts, and the legal and political systems to support them and help them thrive.
A convenient and perhaps even comforting outlook for one who lives in a nation whose wealth was built on military dominance and theft.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
1,903
1,691
118
A convenient and perhaps even comforting outlook for one who lives in a nation whose wealth was built on military dominance and theft.
This appears strangely and pointlessly pissy.

European countries (Western and Scandinavian, at least) share broadly similar patterns of development, despite many of them barely colonising anything at all (Norway, Switzerland, even Germany and Italy given how late in the day they got in on overseas imperialism, if not spending much of the period being dominated and exploited themselves). One can argue that even the ones without overseas possessions benefitted from the general rising tide due to trade and transmission of ideas, I guess. And then also some one-time first class colonisers also did substantially worse at developing their nations (e.g. Spain, Portugal), leaving them substantially behind their peers even to this day.

More to the point, it simply fails to address the fact that these have been the core elements of successful countries. What exactly is wrong with it?

Imperialism was destructive in many cases precisely because it disrupted - and its legacy still disrupts - the ability of many countries to achieve this development, as few imperial powers bothered to offer their colonies any meaningful development, often shattered their societal and governmental systems, and left much of the wealth of them open to exploitation by their old masters.

Nevertheless, some countries have got it together effectively, and some have not - so was it for many European nations back in the day and arguably still is. My own country is perhaps an example of one undergoing slow decline due to persistent underinvestment in its people, even if the headline GDP is held up by the massive profits of the City of London.
 
Last edited:

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,926
2,781
118
Country
United States of America
Imperialism was destructive in many cases precisely because it disrupted - and its legacy still disrupts - the ability of many countries to achieve this development, as few imperial powers bothered to offer their colonies any meaningful development, often shattered their societal and governmental systems, and left much of the wealth of them open to exploitation by their old masters.
Or to put it another way, human development is in many cases not what counts. The secret ingredient is crime.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,266
741
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I won't, because I don't want the algorithms flooding my feeds for the next 3 months with right wing bullshit. It took long enough to get free of that after watching some crank hate on Star Wars ep. 8.

Starve these pricks by not adding to their views.
That's how echo chambers form. Most "right wing" stuff you guys claim as bullshit usually isn't nearly as right-wing as you think and usually has some valid points to it. Same thing goes for left-wing bullshit too. I have Last Week Tonight vids show up in my feed when that's a pretty horrible show if the topic is anything that's political. I just usually click on "don't recommend this channel" if I find it to not have any valid points in the videos or something so skewed I can't really trust them to make good arguments like say the "Second Thought" channel.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
1,903
1,691
118
That's how echo chambers form.
Only if you're relying on YouTube and other social media for your information, which I do not because they are overpopulated by people who are vastly more style than substance. I find it remarkable how much interesting right-wing media I can consume in written form (Telegraph, WSJ, sites like EconLib and blogs by relevant experts) without the algorithms deciding every second video recommendation should be some frothing, anti-woke moron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian and Kwak

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
357
48
33
The wealth of a nation is really in its people - their skills, outlooks, education, institutions. Human development is what counts, and the legal and political systems to support them and help them thrive.

Corruption is harmful, but will not derail a country unless rampant. Autocracy is okay, as long as it keeps a firm eye on the wider good of the populace. Malaysia is successful because it created effective legal and political infrastructure and drove the development, education and wealth of its population. The Philippines much less so, because its elites stuffed their own pockets with massive loans from the international community and left their masses to languish (similar to much of Latin America).

A country can build this foundation for success off pretty much any economic system: capitalism, mercantilism, socialism, communism. Some economic systems may end up a drag and need reform, but the key is getting the foundations right. After that, a country will build itself.
Unfortunately, that's not easy to measure or even decide upon in terms of what to value. In which case, we look at economic data.

Capitalism, mercantilism, socialism, and communism are not the same. The first refers to the process of manufacturing from the means of production, the second to the idea of saving and selling, the third to a arange of regulations, and the fourth to abolition of private property or the formation of communes.

In general, though, building an economy involves mercantilism.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
1,903
1,691
118
Unfortunately, that's not easy to measure or even decide upon in terms of what to value.
There are loads of ways of measuring human development. Literacy, educational attainment, life expectancy, etc. Measuring the effectiveness of laws and institutions to promote development and wellbeing is harder (and often would need to be indirect via outcomes as proxies). Deciding what to value isn't necessarily easy, sure, at least in detail and taking into account specific circumstance. Nevertheless, all manner of principles of good development will remain consistent.

Capitalism, mercantilism, socialism, and communism are not the same. The first refers to the process of manufacturing from the means of production, the second to the idea of saving and selling, the third to a arange of regulations, and the fourth to abolition of private property or the formation of communes.
[/QUOTE]

Well, that's not really true. But they are certainly different ways of organising economic production, trade, etc.

In general, though, building an economy involves mercantilism.
Why?

I mean, arguably, mercantilism doesn't exist any more - economics has long since overtaken it. You might argue it sort of exists in the sense of comparable forms of government intervention in the economy. Intervention is within the boundaries of conventional classical economics and capitalism, for both left-leaning (social democracy / social liberalism) and right-leaning (paternalistic conservative) governance.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,926
2,781
118
Country
United States of America
Weird, pointless, sloganeering.
I live in a place that is just one result of your country's inclination to theft; it happens to be the wealthiest of those former (formalized) colonies because it rebelled and replicated that theft, fairy stories about American entrepreneurialism notwithstanding. If you want to explain which countries are rich you will have the most success by examining historical crimes.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
1,903
1,691
118
I live in a place that is just one result of your country's inclination to theft; it happens to be the wealthiest of those former (formalized) colonies because it rebelled and replicated that theft, fairy stories about American entrepreneurialism notwithstanding. If you want to explain which countries are rich you will have the most success by examining historical crimes.
Theft, of course, was the standard practice of the day, as it had been for many centuries previously. The British stole land in competition with their European rivals who stole land, and they all stole land from less technologically advanced nations and cultures that also stole land from each other. There was not one, single outpost of the British Empire that was a haven of peace and harmony before the British arrived except those that were uninhabited. The entire world was every bit as much a bunch of squabbling, warlike thieves as Europe. The big difference about Britain is that it was supremely successful compared to every other nation that was trying to do the exact same thing.

The question we might then ask is why were the Europeans, particularly British, so successful compared to everywhere else? I would suggest because they had more human development and stronger national institutions that empowered them in the first place. Not because they were exceptionally immoral.

The next question we might ask is what any of this really means coming from a guy who is enthuasiastically endorsing one of the world's most successful and bloodiest thieves of yesteryear in its modern attempts at bloody, brutal theft.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,557
1,211
118
Country
United States
This appears strangely and pointlessly pissy...
Far be it for me to point out, but there's a shocking correlation in the list of countries you pointed out and the Axis powers...
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,850
1,714
118
Country
United Kingdom
So, I got bored and dropped out of this thread for a bit but..

No, but they clearly seem to do better.
When?

Wiping out a statistically significant percentage of the global economy in order to intentionally manipulate the largest national housing market knowing you will get bailed out by a government that can not afford to allow you to fail doesn't strike me as doing better. The Soviet economy was extremely poorly managed and I have never attempted to hide my feelings on it or my ideological opposition to central economic planning, but come on.

Second it was bad because it cost not just money like a regular subsidy, it bled foreign money without any benefit. Which was scarce and needed for many other things as well.
So, the annual trade deficit of the US is around a trillion dollars. That means the value of imports into the US is worth about a trillion dollars more than the value of exports. If we restricted ourselves to the trade in physical commodities, it would be even worse as a significant proportion of US exports take the form of intangible services. Most developed capitalist economies have massive annual trade deficits. That's why they have such a high standard of living.

The lack of availability of foreign currency and lack of access to foreign trade within the Soviet and eastern bloc economies wasn't due to the trade balance. It was due to two things. Firstly, again, the ideological features of the state. The Soviet economy was run in an extremely protectionist fashion. The goal was very much to to avoid any percieved economic dependence on the West by maintaining a positive trade balance even if it meant the population had to endure a lower standard of living. The second reason is that the Soviet Union and its satellite states were under economic sanctions. If the US has a deficit of foreign currency, it can just buy more. The eastern bloc countries didn't have that option.

I realize this is a tangent and the actual point you're trying to make is that this one factory was apparently badly run, and maybe it was. I don't have the specific evidence. But I'm not really seeing any evidence either that mismanagement should be intrinsically more common in planned economies unless we take the position that individual profit motive is intrinsically beneficial to the economy, which it demonstrably isn't. Again, it is remarkably common for the interests of an individual or company to be indifferent or even contrary to those of efficiency or wider societal prosperity.
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
357
48
33
There are loads of ways of measuring human development. Literacy, educational attainment, life expectancy, etc. Measuring the effectiveness of laws and institutions to promote development and wellbeing is harder (and often would need to be indirect via outcomes as proxies). Deciding what to value isn't necessarily easy, sure, at least in detail and taking into account specific circumstance. Nevertheless, all manner of principles of good development will remain consistent.

Capitalism, mercantilism, socialism, and communism are not the same. The first refers to the process of manufacturing from the means of production, the second to the idea of saving and selling, the third to a arange of regulations, and the fourth to abolition of private property or the formation of communes.

...

Well, that's not really true. But they are certainly different ways of organising economic production, trade, etc.

...

Why?

I mean, arguably, mercantilism doesn't exist any more - economics has long since overtaken it. You might argue it sort of exists in the sense of comparable forms of government intervention in the economy. Intervention is within the boundaries of conventional classical economics and capitalism, for both left-leaning (social democracy / social liberalism) and right-leaning (paternalistic conservative) governance.
Yes, and it's part of HDI, but it mirrors economic data.

Mercantilism isn't separate from economics. Rather, it's an economic policy.

Also, your last paragraph contradicts itself: that is, the second and third sentences go against the first.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,553
574
118
I am talking mostly about the soviet sattelites, as you call them. Each had its own planned economy and those were not directly controlled by Moscow. There were some constraints regarding foreign relation and trade and who gets to have power, but the economy planning was something the sattelites were allowed to do themself. And each one sucked nontheless. Even those heavily subsidized by the USSR to prevent them from switching sides.
And after the end of the Cold War nearly each one had a surprising economic recovery with capitalism, even if it generally took around a decade to properly settle in.

I realize this is a tangent and the actual point you're trying to make is that this one factory was apparently badly run, and maybe it was. I don't have the specific evidence. But I'm not really seeing any evidence either that mismanagement should be intrinsically more common in planned economies unless we take the position that individual profit motive is intrinsically beneficial to the economy, which it demonstrably isn't. Again, it is remarkably common for the interests of an individual or company to be indifferent or even contrary to those of efficiency or wider societal prosperity.
I guess the main point is that in planned economies the decision makers tend to be more removed from the economic situation they are making decisions for. That usually comes from centralising all the decision making to make a proper nation wide plan for everything. While that does allow theoretically to fit all the parts better together, that ends up too complex to handle and there is a lot of information lost on the way.
Additionally market economies do have a couple of feedback loops that planned economies don't replicate or replace. That is not automatically a disaster, but it does make it far more likely that things that don't work don't get fixed/adjusted and persist or even spiral out of control.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,553
574
118
I live in a place that is just one result of your country's inclination to theft; it happens to be the wealthiest of those former (formalized) colonies because it rebelled and replicated that theft, fairy stories about American entrepreneurialism notwithstanding. If you want to explain which countries are rich you will have the most success by examining historical crimes.
To add to this completely different strand of dicussion :

Only the powerful can plunder their neighbours. And while many of the rich nations today did behave horribly, they tend to have been rich and powerful already before they tried to dominate the world. They couldn't have done it otherwise.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
1,903
1,691
118
Also, your last paragraph contradicts itself: that is, the second and third sentences go against the first.
No. In the world of complex theory, we accept that there are not necessarily black and white answers and it attempts to reflect that. Let's see if I can rephrase it to get the message through.

Mercantilism as practiced was based on an older understanding of economics that was basically wrong, so it doesn't really exist any more. However, there are concepts that were prevalent in mercantilism (because of how economics was then understood) of state intervention and protectionism. These concepts of state intervention and protectionism are still used today, however, it is very questionable whether they can usefully described be as "mercantilism".