Fully Automated Luxury Communism

[ponderingturtle]

Poverty is not increasing in the US
[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate%2C_1959_to_2017.png[/qimg]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pover...in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate,_1959_to_2017.png

Poverty was once a state that all of humanity existed in: no stored reserves of food or water or extra clothing or shelter. 100% of humanity lived in poverty and now it is declining nearly universally. Nearly all of us have electricity and indoor plumbing and are not food insecure. Poverty declines, even with the worst of governments and economic policies, for a variety of reasons.

Yea they are just getting rid of the middle class and moving most of them into lower class, where you lack housing security and are one major life event from poverty but not actually in poverty so it is all fine. No one expects our kids to be able to afford to BUY a house when they grow up after all, that is only for the rich now. They will have student loans instead of mortgages.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yea they are just getting rid of the middle class and moving most of them into lower class, where you lack housing security and are one major life event from poverty but not actually in poverty so it is all fine. No one expects our kids to be able to afford to BUY a house when they grow up after all, that is only for the rich now. They will have student loans instead of mortgages.

Buying houses is overrated

 

[lomiller]

Let's take a look at the countries with the highest poverty levels. Is the 'absence of an economic system' to blame, or is Capitalism a big part of it?

Can laissez faire capitalism be meaningfully differentiated from “absence of an economic system”? The basic concept states that if you strip away every rule governing economic activity except property ownership a highly efficient economic system will fill the void.

Historically, when there are no rules but personal ownership what’s emerged is feudalism, not anything resembling modern capitalism.

 

[lomiller]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
countries with the least economic freedom
North Korea 5.8
Venezuela 25.2
Cuba 31.9
Congo 38.9
Eritrea 41.7
Equatorial Guinea 42
Zimbabwe 44

countries with the most economic freedom:
Hong Kong 90.2
Singapore 88.8
New Zealand 84.2
Switzerland 81.7
Australia 80.9

you pick the Congo as your example of the failures of voluntary exchange of goods and services in the private sector (refer to that as an ism if you want) when it's closet neighbor in terms of economic freedom (if you have a better measurement that approximates "capitalism" I'm all ears) is Cuba on one side and Eritrea on the other?

I do not find it the least bit surprising that people enjoy the most economic freedom in countries where a (usually) democratically elected government selectively limits the economic it’s wealthiest most powerful citizens can wield over those around them.

 

[theprestige]

The way I figure, probably the minimum viable free market requires at least the following:

- Property ownership
- Contracts
- Independent and agreed-upon enforcement of contracts and property.

Which is to say, you and I can freely do business with each other, on whatever terms we choose to agree on, to our mutual benefit. As long as we both agree to rely on a third party to arbitrate questions of ownership and contract obligations, and enforce those decisions when necessary.

Truth in advertising laws are basically an extension of contract enforcement. You can try to sell me anything you want, as long as you are honest about it and I'm able to make an informed decision when I enter into an agreement with you.

But beyond that, I don't think there really needs to be much at all for a functioning free market. Just the confidence that rule of law applies to our private interactions. And the confidence that what is ours is ours.

 

[lomiller]

The way I figure, probably the minimum viable free market requires at least the following:

- Property ownership
- Contracts
- Independent and agreed-upon enforcement of contracts and property.

Feudal societies have all these. Serfdom itself is a contract and there is typically a religious or bureaucratic class that is ostensibly independent arbitrator. “Independent” arbitrators usually know which side the bread is buttered on and make their decisions accordingly. Contracts while important, must also be limited in what they can include and there must be provisions that allow even valid contracts to be set aside. (Bankruptcy law is one of most important economic innovations ever)

Even with truly independent arbitrators and contracts of sufficiently limited scope you won’t get an efficient economic system unless you address at least some market failures. FYI Adam Smith wrote far more about things we now know as market failures and the need to disallow them than he ever did about removing government restrictions.

Smith wrote about government related issues as well, for example monopolies granted by The Crown. But even there, if all you have is individual contracts why shouldn’t someone be able to make a contract with the King/Queen granting them exclusive rights to some product or economic activity?

 

[portlandatheist]

Just to be clear, I'm a liberal and not a libertarian, I'm a strong believer in zoning laws, building codes, etc. I'm also an advocate for social spending which the left and the right love to conflate with Socialism. The notion that capitalism (the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the private sector) should be prohibited is a profoundly illiberal idea.
In the last century, roughly 80% of the people that died of starvation was as a direct result of forced collectivization of agriculture (I get that figure from Pinker's book Enlightenment Now) the other 20% where all other causes combined.
The poverty rate in Venezuela is nearly 90 percent.
It seems the Nordic model works out pretty well: a great deal of economic freedom and a thriving private sector economy, and a great deal of social spending along with it.

 

[dann]

The Nordic model and Venezuela are the same thing, according to Fox and the Trump Administration: Denmark = Venezuela?!

 

[dudalb]

Just to be clear, I'm a liberal and not a libertarian, I'm a strong believer in zoning laws, building codes, etc. I'm also an advocate for social spending which the left and the right love to conflate with Socialism. The notion that capitalism (the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the private sector) should be prohibited is a profoundly illiberal idea.
In the last century, roughly 80% of the people that died of starvation was as a direct result of forced collectivization of agriculture (I get that figure from Pinker's book Enlightenment Now) the other 20% where all other causes combined.
The poverty rate in Venezuela is nearly 90 percent.
It seems the Nordic model works out pretty well: a great deal of economic freedom and a thriving private sector economy, and a great deal of social spending along with it.

Pretty much this.
I see someone pulled out the old "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" slogan again.
It has been tried...did not work very well. Nice Idea, Wrong Species.
That's the problem with Utopias from Galt's Gulch to Mao's China, Human Nature keeps getting in the way.

 

[dudalb]

Well, it's communism too. In communism, the worker owns the means of production. In capitalism, a capitalist owns the means of production but buys labour from other people (employees) but here, the owner is also the worker. Therefore, Marxism, no?

I think it takes a minimum of 2 people to have capitalism. And probably more than that, practically speaking.

In reality in Communist Countries the Government ended up owning the means of production...and that was NOT the same as the Workers.

 

[dudalb]

I just got6 through playing Bioshock 1 and 2, and the whole point of the games is that extreme theories on both the left and right are equally bad. Not much to choose from between the Ayn Randian philosophy of Andrew Ryan, the big bad of the the first game and the creepy total collectivism preached by Sofia Lamb , the big bad in the second game. Both end up creating nightmares in pursuit of their Utopias

 

[Roger Ramjets]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
countries with the least economic freedom
North Korea 5.8
Venezuela 25.2
Cuba 31.9
Congo 38.9
Eritrea 41.7
Equatorial Guinea 42
Zimbabwe 44

Cuba

Before Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. Cuba's capital, Havana, was a "glittering and dynamic city"... However, income inequality was profound between city and countryside, especially between whites and blacks. Cubans lived in abysmal poverty in the countryside...

It has currently one of the world's only planned economies, and its economy is dominated by the exports of sugar, tobacco, coffee and skilled labor. According to the Human Development Index, Cuba has high human development and is ranked the eighth highest in North America, though 67th in the world. It also ranks highly in some metrics of national performance, including health care and education. It is the only country in the world to meet the conditions of sustainable development put forth by the WWF.

Zimbabwe

In the 1880s, European colonists arrived with Cecil Rhodes's British South Africa Company (BSAC). In 1888, Rhodes obtained a concession for mining rights from King Lobengula of the Ndebele peoples... Rhodes used this document in 1890 to justify sending the Pioneer Column, a group of Europeans protected by well-armed British South Africa Police (BSAP) through Matabeleland and into Shona territory to establish Fort Salisbury (now Harare), and thereby establish company rule over the area... In accordance with the terms of aforementioned concessions and treaties, mass settlement was encouraged, with the British maintaining control over labour as well as precious metals and other mineral resources...
Land redistribution re-emerged as the main issue for the ZANU-PF government around 1997. Despite the existence of a "willing-buyer-willing-seller" land reform programme since the 1980s, the minority white Zimbabwean population of around 0.6% continued to hold 70% of the country's most fertile agricultural land.

The mining sector remains very lucrative, with some of the world's largest platinum reserves being mined by Anglo American plc and Impala Platinum.

countries with the most economic freedom:
Hong Kong 90.2
Singapore 88.8
New Zealand 84.2
Switzerland 81.7
Australia 80.9

Hong Kong

Although Hong Kong's economy has ranked at the top of the Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index since 1995, the territory has a relatively high level of income disparity...

late colonial governments introduced interventionist policies. Post-handover administrations continued and expanded these programmes, including export-credit guarantees, a compulsory pension scheme, a minimum wage, anti-discrimination laws, and a state mortgage backer.

Economy of Hong Kong

Hong Kong's economic policy has often been cited by economists such as Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute as an example of laissez-faire capitalism, attributing the city's success to the policy. However, others have argued that the economic strategy is not adequately characterised by the term laissez-faire... For example, the government is involved in public works projects, healthcare, education, and social welfare spending... unlike most other countries Hong Kong's government raises a significant portion of its revenues from land leases and land taxation. All land in Hong Kong is owned by the government.

New Zealand

The New Zealand economy has been ranked first in the world for Social Progression, which covers such areas as Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing, and the level of Opportunity available to its citizens...

Since 1984, successive governments engaged in major macroeconomic restructuring (known first as Rogernomics and then Ruthanasia), rapidly transforming New Zealand from a protected and highly regulated economy to a liberalised free-trade economy...

However, the outlook includes some challenges. New Zealand income levels, which used to be above those of many other countries in Western Europe prior to the crisis of the 1970s, have dropped in relative terms and never recovered. As a result, the number of New Zealanders living in poverty has grown and income inequality has increased dramatically.

The economies of many poor countries have been shaped by complex histories that involved exploitation and subjugation of the population by capitalists seeking profit. It puts a lie to the simplistic idea that Capilitalism = prosperity for all, but Socialism = poverty for all. If anything it proves the opposite - it's Capitalism that turns countries into hellholes, and socialism is just a response to it.

And the countries which are held up as shining examples of capitalism? Not so capitalist after all. In Hong Kong, the government owns all the land. New Zealand has a comprehensive social welfare system with free healthcare, a (relatively) high minimum wage etc. and government owned railways, electricity generation, airline, radio and television, accident insurance etc. Compared to the US it's a hotbed of socialism!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The way I figure, probably the minimum viable free market requires at least the following:

- Property ownership
- Contracts
- Independent and agreed-upon enforcement of contracts and property.

Which is to say, you and I can freely do business with each other, on whatever terms we choose to agree on, to our mutual benefit. As long as we both agree to rely on a third party to arbitrate questions of ownership and contract obligations, and enforce those decisions when necessary.

And what's to stop this 'third party' from being in the pockets of the rich and powerful? The problem with Capitalism is that capital naturally concentrates in the hands of a few, and concentrated wealth is power. 'Free' markets never stay free for long. Remember the Golden rule? He who has the gold makes the rules!

 

[dann]

Wonderful, Roger Ramjets!
It's amazing what kind of information you can find on the internet if you aren't simply trying to cater to your information bias!

It's no wonder that Trump and Bolton are doing their utmost to destroy Cuba's economy with the full implementation of the Helms-Burton Act:
Spanish Chain Melia Sued under Helms Burton over Cuba Hotels (Havana Times, June 16, 2019)

 

[lomiller]

And what's to stop this 'third party' from being in the pockets of the rich and powerful? The problem with Capitalism is that capital naturally concentrates in the hands of a few, and concentrated wealth is power. 'Free' markets never stay free for long. Remember the Golden rule? He who has the gold makes the rules!

Under Capitalism it’s a given the richest people will try to game the system for their own advantage. I don’t think it’s a given that you need to let them so I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s an inherent part of the system. Depending on exactly how you define Capitalism if you allow them to do so, the system itself may no longer even be Capitalism.

Eg the Wikipedia definition specifies competitive markets rather than free markets.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets

Wealth gets concentrated when people are allowed to leverage their existing wealth/power to avoid having to actually compete in the marketplace. The result is markets that may fit some peoples definition of “free markets” but are certainly not competitive markets. (IMO, the real goal should be efficient markets which are slightly different again.)

 

[theprestige]

And what's to stop this 'third party' from being in the pockets of the rich and powerful? The problem with Capitalism is that capital naturally concentrates in the hands of a few, and concentrated wealth is power. 'Free' markets never stay free for long. Remember the Golden rule? He who has the gold makes the rules!

Communism has the exact same failure mode, usually at a much higher cost in human lives.

These days we mostly rely on having a liberal democracy to put guardrails around the exploitation of capital and the manipulation of markets. One of the central debates in modern, democratic, capitalist societies is how much of a social safety net to fund. That's a real-world strategy for solving the problem you allude to.

I wonder if you prefer something else? Or some refinement of the method, perhaps. Don't just rant about problems. Tell us about your solutions.

 

[Belz...]

I think a lot of the anti inheritance attitude is rooted in a belief that individual wealth belongs to the state, and that the individual is merely borrowing it.

Maybe we should go back to monarchic palace-based economy, then!

On a more serious note, there are discussions to be had about whether intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property or in what way it should be treated differently. I haven't set my mind on the issue.

 

[Belz...]

He calls it "Fully Automated Luxury Communism".

I call it Techno-Utopianism.

The main problem as I see it with Techno-Utopianism (like what the author describes) is that it makes a lot of assumptions about the future which may or may not come to pass. Another problem is a naive view of human nature. Even if we had all the technologies necessary for a Techno-Utopia, I worry that people would still mess it up anyway because there are too many idiots and megalomaniacs and anti-social types and so on.

Still, I do hope that it comes to pass some day, and not some kind of Techno-Dystopia like in every episode of Black Mirror. If the Chinese rule the world in the future, just imagine that kind of surveillance state.

Rather than abolishing Capitalism, make Capitalism obsolete, I say. Make it so that everyone has their basic needs met, and let Capitalism take care of things that aren't basic needs: art, entertainment, luxury goods, etc. Capitalism needs consumers, and consumers need money.

I think human nature screws it up. No evil required.

An economy based on allocations by A.i. might potentially be much less wasteful than a market economy.

And if I want a boat and can't have it, what do I do to earn it?

Meritocracy allocates wealth and power according to ability.

No, according to merit. You can have zero ability and still make a ton of money by finding the right idea to market. I suppose you could call that an ability, though it could be luck as well.

The US is an oligarchy.

Only to a limited degree. Otherwise Obama, to take only one example, couldn't have become president.

In my ideal world, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need would be law.

You have got to be joking.

 

[Belz...]

Capitalism leads to the creation of wealth.

No, it just redistributes wealth to the rich.

No.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe we should go back to monarchic palace-based economy, then!

On a more serious note, there are discussions to be had about whether intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property or in what way it should be treated differently. I haven't set my mind on the issue.

One concept that comes up in the context of small-C conservatism is that a lot of our social institutions are not - and cannot really be - the product merely of rules reasoned from simple premises. The daily lives of humans, and their interactions, are often more about the exceptions than the rules.

So you could try to make a rule and reason from it: IP is not like real property, and thus should be treated differently, for example.

But the reality is probably that what works for IP is something we'll evolve through trial and error, competing values, compromises, and just sticking with "if it ain't broke".

It ends up not being a question of "what rules do we make to get a healthy society", and more a question of "what rules tend to be produced by a healthy society"?

We treat corporations as persons in some context, not according to the rules of a system of formal logic, but according to the patterns of activity and priority that we've evolved over time, to try to solve certain problems without creating too many others. Etc.