The theory that free markets are highly effective isn't based on a belief in magic. It's based on the fundamental nature of information and capital allocation. The theory is logically sound in the same way the theory of evolution is.
It's accepted economic theory validated by centuries of emperical evidence. Rejecting it based on misunderstanding the science behind it, and believing in conspiracy theories about a capitalist oligarchy coopting the Economics field, is similar to anti-vaxxerism.
> The theory that free markets are highly effective isn't based on a belief in magic.
Well, yes, that capitalism will cause a production craze is even written in the Communist Manifesto. What "effective" means in practice however is another thing - there's nothing effective about planned obsolescence, great for the current measurement of economic growth though.
> The theory is logically sound in the same way the theory of evolution is.
Please refer to a single established scientist that agrees with that cocksure statement.
> believing in conspiracy theories about a capitalist oligarchy coopting the Economics field
There is nothing conspiratorial to question the theories of the current hegemony who have a vested interests to uphold it. The upper classes have come up with theories throughout history to justify their privileges that have no basis in social justice.
'Capitalism produces planned obsolesence' is another talking point referenced by activists who haven't studied economics and therefore have a simplistic/cynical understanding of it.
>Please refer to a single established scientist that agrees with that cocksure statement.
Any economic textbook lays out the advantages of the free market, or market freedom, as I've described.
That it is generally Pareto Efficient is widely accepted in Economics
> Planned obsolescence is not a general property of a market-driven economy.
Are you really gonna try to explain one of the most obvious consequence of capitalist profit incentives by some random reddit post along with another dismissive "you don't know economics"?
I wrote "single established scientist", not some vague "every book" and a wikipedia one-liner article.
> This very sentence puts forward a theoretical conspiracy.
It's not a conspiracy where people get together in some room. It's a straight forward structure of incentives.
It is not obvious at all. There is no evidence at all of a general trend toward planned obsolescence. This is another layman's talking point.
The Reddit comment has a link to a chart showing the average life of a car every year, showing how it has increased, and it has plenty of details on how car parts have evolved to be more durable, safer and easier to repair.
>>I wrote "single established scientist", not some vague "every book" and a wikipedia one-liner article.
You didn't even address what I provided about Pareto Efficiency, which demonstrates the acceptance within the field of Economics of the free market's efficacy more than your quote would have.
>>It's not a conspiracy where people get together in some room.
Yes it is alleging a conspiracy, and you're claiming Economics in general has been coopted by it. This is no different than anti-vaxxerism.
> It is not obvious at all. There is no evidence at all of a general trend toward planned obsolescence. This is another layman's talking point.
All incentives in capitalism encourages quick cyclic consumption, and corporations spend vast amounts of resources to various forms of obsolescence [0]. This can't just be ignored even if you would like it, because it blatantly shows how wasteful the current system is.
> You didn't even address what I provided about Pareto Efficiency
"I ignored your questioned and posted something else, now please answer what I posted meanwhile I'll keep ignoring the question".
> Yes it is alleging a conspiracy, and you're claiming Economics in general has been coopted by it. This is no different than anti-vaxxerism.
A field of study with so close connections to power and wealth must be seen with skepticism. It's like not questioning the upper-classes theories of society of old. There's a lot of examples of theories justifying their privileges.
There's also an important distinction to be made. It's true that capitalism/free-market produces alot of stuff. But it's certainly not true that it produces freedom, happiness, and justice for all. The problem is that you will take the former to justify the latter injustices. That's obvious bias.
"Yale University economics professor Judith Chevalier explained to the BBC that companies react to consumer tastes, and that planned obsolescence is not simply a deception by manufacturers, but in certain situations the fault lies with consumers, who do not value a more durable product, but one that possesses the latest technology." (admits to its existence, but just blames it on the consumer instead)
Again with the layman's characterization of what incentives exist in capitalism.
A free market rewards products that win consumers over, and product reputation is a major factor that goes into consumer decisions.
Look at Apple. It developed an extremely good reputation for both quality and durability long before the first version of the iphone was released. Today Apple is worth $2 trillion making it the largest company in the world.
There's no point in me continuing to spend time refuting your mental-gymnastics/weak-objections to science. You're debating me in bad faith, with seemingly no care to ensure your statements have been rigorously fact-checked and stand up to critical analysis. In other words, you're not taking any responsibility for the accuracy of what you claim. There's no humility in your arguments, in that you don't demonstrate concern about the damage you may be doing if you're wrong, or even that you may wrong. Making broad claims of deep flaws in the socioeconomic structure, without an ironclad argument that you have verified for yourself genuinely stands up to scrutiny, is reckless, and shows total irresponsibility.
As it is, you're discounting Economics as a generally opted social science being used to manipulate the public for the interests of a capitalist elite, and you're making these extreme conspiratorial allegations without having studied economics for yourself.
You just keep replying with shallow anecdotes and telling me that I'm a ignorant layman without saying why. Apparently ignoring the links as well.
Apple is one of the most common examples of planned obsolescence, so much so that nations (France especially) have recently gone about to sue and create laws to oppose their practices. So I'm not sure why you're using that example and also adding that it's a large company like that is relevant in any way shape or form. The entire point of planned obsolescence is to make more money ffs. If anything, that is some strange mental gymnastics.
> There's no point in me continuing to spend time refuting your mental-gymnastics/weak-objections to science.
You haven't spent a single minute refuting anything in any thread I've replied to you in. It's all just hot air from you, every single time. If it doesn't fit your free market narrative, like planned obsolescence this time, you just ignore it or dismiss it with extremely shallow cherry-picking.
> As it is, you're discounting Economics as a generally opted social science being used to manipulate the public for the interests of a capitalist elite,
Not really. I am however disagreeing with the notion that the "free market" objectively leads to the best outcome possible, so history should stops with free market Capitalism. That no more progress is possible. That a much more equal economical system, and thus society isn't possible - "because free market economics have said so!". And I do think that the field of economics is biased towards the current status quo due to the incentive structures that are present in that field, among with the fact that the current system is what is the core of what is actually studied.
> you're making these extreme conspiratorial allegations without having studied economics for yourself.
Yes. Most do. I disagree that it's some "extreme conspiratorial allegations" think it's very reasonable given the circumstances of that field.
You're lying, or simply not reading what I'm writing. Like I said, the Reddit comment I linked to cites a chart showing the rise in the average lifespan of cars.
This criticism is also a case of extreme hypocrisy. You provided no evidence at all for a general tendency of capitalism to produce planned obsolescence, while criticizing me for not meeting standards of evidence that you didn't even bother trying to meet. This incredible obstinance shows a complete lack of respect for people who disagee with you, which makes it all the more reckless when you're advancing economic theories roundly rejected by experts in the field.
>Most do. I disagree that it's some "extreme conspiratorial allegations" think it's very reasonable given the circumstances of that field.
No, it is not reasonable at all to discount an entire social science, with over a century of scholarship backing it, without having studied that social science for yourself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not this lazy half-baked analysis based on anecdotes, vague assertions, and unsubstantiated conjecture.
What you're exhibiting now is the hubris characteristic of the over-confident and under-informed, whether it's flat-earthers, Moon-landing denialists, anti-vaxxers, or socialists.
Evidence: "one reddit post about a single product, cars, deffo not cherry-picked"
No evidence at all: "8 links, including an economics professor and an article form an economic journal in a self-evident subject"
Gotcha.
> What you're exhibiting now is the hubris characteristic of the over-confident and under-informed, whether it's flat-earthers, Moon-landing denialists, anti-vaxxers, or socialists.
Pretty on point for a free market fundamentalist to add socialists to that list.
>>Evidence: "one reddit post about a single product, cars, deffo not cherry-picked"
My demonstration of the growing lifespan of cars was more than you provided.
You claim it's cherry-picked while you cherry picked any article you could find supporting your claim.
You also edited your comment afterwards to include those links. I didn't see those links when I responded the first time.
The quote from the Yale Economics professor is NOT using planned obsolescence in the context where you were using it, where companies were deliberately reducing the lifespan of products, not as a side effect of reducing their costs to provide lower prices, but as a deliberate objective to get more reorders.
It was referring to consumers choosing cheaper products at the expense of shorter product lifespans. This would be a trade-off preferred by a consumer, not a deliberate handicapping of product lifespans, that solely reduces economic value, as a way to gain more reorders.
The study you referred is primarily focused on theoretical incentives to engage in planned obsolescence by monopolists and oligopolists, which is already a known source of economic-rent seeking, and an outlier market structure not characteristic of most of the market. Monopolies/oligopolies engage in a host of exploitive rent-seeking practices, and the study merely gave theoretical support for planned obsolescence being one of them. This is hardly the same as your original claim.
So no, you haven't come close to proving that planned obsolescence is a general property of market economies. Even the single study you referenced doesn't provide support that assertion.
>>Pretty on point for a free market fundamentalist to add socialists to that list.
Like I said, claiming Economics is coopted by a capitalist oligarchy to push a fundamentalist ideology for their own benefit, and with nothing more than anecdotes, vague assertions and unsubstantiated conjecture to support your very serious accusation, is absolutely irresponsible quackery, and reminicient of all of the narratives I referenced.
> You claim it's cherry-picked while you cherry picked any article you could find supporting your claim.
I cherry-picked 8 articles? There are so many articles about it that it's not hard to produce 20 more if you want. Or perhaps info about the court proceedings in France?
> is NOT using planned obsolescence in the context where you were using it
Alright, so now we're back again to the classical CryptoPunk style of honing in on semantics and refusing definitions. There are several types of planned obsolescence as you can read in the Wikipedia link. All are still a product of the incentive to get more profit.
> engage in planned obsolescence by monopolists and oligopolists
Yes, and these are also the product of free market incentives.
Yes, one can cherry pick 8 sources. Most of your sources were unscientific media articles, and most of those from left-wing activist outlets.
>>Alright, so now we're back again to the classical CryptoPunk style of honing in on semantics and refusing definitions.
Your argument is made in bad faith. It's totally disingenuous pedantry. You and I both know that you weren't claiming that 'consumers in a market economy consciously choose lower cost disposable products', when you claimed the market economy produces planned obsolescence.
And I don't deserve the accusations you're levying at me. I am debating in good faith, and making sincere arguments that reflect my honest beliefs. I am not lying to myself just to make myself believe I'm right. I'm objectively and fairly assessing what you're saying before responding to your comments. You on the other hand are only trying to win the argument, truth and decency be damned. This pedantic appeal to the 'planned obsolescence' used in an entirely different context than we both know you originally used it in, and subsequent attempt to criticize me for pointing that out, being a case example.
> Yes, one can cherry pick 8 sources. Most of your sources were unscientific media articles, and most of those from left-wing activist outlets.
That was like just the first 8 articles describing it, as I said, there are certainly many more if you were willing to entertain another perspective than your own dogma.
So do you deny that the entire concept of planned obsolescence exists at all, or that there is something other driving it than the free markets pursuit for more profits? If so, why wouldn't more profits as an incentive not be pursued using planned obsolescence?
> You and I both know that you weren't claiming
Haha, alrighty then. You know what I actually meant.
Why would I stop at a more narrow definition when criticizing the incentives of the free market, when all types all grounded in that same incentives?
The last self-congratulating paragraph is not a good look: "I'm good, honest and righteous. You, however, are purposefully lying and have no time for truth and decency."
You have posted a single link that show, allegedly, that specifically cars are more durable nowadays. That's blatant cherry-picking. How is that honest and in good faith? I expect someone that's honest to research the topic and try to find other examples contradicting ones idea, and that is not very hard as I shown with a few links. But instead you go on the defensive, dismiss the links as left-wing, and yet again try to hide behind telling me what I actually meant with planned obsolescence, even though it was in direct reference to the supposed "efficiency" of the free market.
>>So do you deny that the entire concept of planned obsolescence exists at all
Moving the goalposts. I said that planned obsolescence is not, as you originally alleged, a general property of a market-driven economy.
>If so, why wouldn't more profits as an incentive not be pursued using planned obsolescence?
Because like I already explained, product and brand reputation are extremely important for market success. The example that I gave was how Apple's hard-earned excellent reputation for product quality played a massive role in the growth of its sales and it becoming the most valuable company in the world.
>>Why would I stop at a more narrow definition when criticizing the incentives of the free market, when all types all grounded in that same incentives?
Again with the bad faith disingenuity. The so-called narrow definition is the only one economically harmful or involving deceit and consumers being worse off. It's the one almost universally referred to when activists use the term.
If you're now going to try to claim you were talking about the looser definition all along, then I'll respond that the type of activity under this looser definition, like consumers consciously choosing more disposable products over longer-lasting ones because they judge the up-front cost-savings to be worth the more frequent replacement costs, is not economically harmful. It's what people want for themselves, and their judgment on what is in their own interests is more credible than yours.
>>You have posted a single link that show, allegedly, that specifically cars are more durable nowadays.
It demolishes this idea that the market has a general incentive to reduce product longevity. If that were the case, every major product class would see a trend toward shorter lifespans. There certainly wouldn't be a major product class not only maintaining product lifespans, but increasing them.
Any way, the burden of proof was always on you. I just provided that link to show that these angsty lift-wing comments about the world are often not corroborated by what you actually see in the world when you take a closer look.
>>hide behind telling me what I actually meant with planned obsolescence
Again with the blatant lies. When people are complaining about how capitalism allegedly produces planned obsolescence, they are not talking about a general consumer preference for disposable products.
Read any of your own links and you'll see what kind of behavior they are referring to when they use the term.
They are talking about the phenomenon where, unbeknownst to consumers, companies are reducing product lifespans to get more reorders.
You can pretend otherwise to try to avoid admitting you were wrong, but any reasonable person who read your original comment would agree that the latter was what you were originally referring to.
Of course we're dealing with natural language with a lot of the meaning of statements extrapolated from the wider context of where they appear, so there's no formal proof you are lying now. Only reasonable conjecture that you're free to dismiss as part of your culture war against the people you imagine to be your enemies.
>>But instead you go on the defensive, dismiss the links as left-wing
A lot of your links were from left-wing sources and were not scientific sources or even primary evidence showing declining product lifespans.
Googling to find a bunch of articles about planned obsolescence and then listing them without checking first to see if they are credible sources or even providing a summary of the evidence they contain to accompany them is completely inconducive to constructive discussion.
> Moving the goalposts. I said that planned obsolescence is not, as you originally alleged, a general property of a market-driven economy.
I had to ask, because that's otherwise your MO.
> Because like I already explained, product and brand reputation are extremely important for market success.
There's no brand reputation risk if most large manufacturers have similar durability.
> The example that I gave was how Apple's hard-earned excellent reputation
How can you keep using Apple as an example when it has been one of the most obvious offender and is also one of the giants within the most obviously offending industry - smartphones.
> It demolishes this idea that the market has a general incentive to reduce product longevity.
No, it just shows that technology has moved forward with regards to a advanced industrial product.
> like consumers consciously choosing more disposable products over longer-lasting ones
You've cherry-picked the only type that fits your narrative, preference for disposable products (which I actually agree with you on, but causes of this is an interesting topic in itself). But to pick that and not to explain the type where billions of dollars each year are spent on trying to create new non-essential needs that aren't really there making the existing products obsolete, a.k.a "Perceived obsolescence"? How is this "efficient"?
> but any reasonable person who read your original comment would agree that the latter was what you were originally referring to.
This is my original comment:
"Well, yes, that capitalism will cause a production craze is even written in the Communist Manifesto. What "effective" means in practice however is another thing - there's nothing effective about planned obsolescence, great for the current measurement of economic growth though."
How is this inconsistent with focusing on the inefficiencies of all kinds of planned obsolescence of the free market?
> Googling to find a bunch of articles about planned obsolescence and then listing them without checking first to see if they are credible sources or even providing a summary of the evidence they contain to accompany them is completely inconducive to constructive discussion.
Once again, you linked to a single reddit post, eat humble pie.
The difference is that we have evidence, theories and data about the free market. It isn't magical, it isn't always the best alternative, but it tends to be a very good baseline that can be "tweaked" as needed.
Most people who just outright reject the free market on principle are doing that based on unjustified beliefs. So yes, there is a parallel to anti-vaxxers.
The problem here is that you're outright dismissing the entire Socialist movement and the very prominent scientists (e.g Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein) within its history as quacks. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever and require more evidence than just "This is the current system, hence it's proven". The current "science" of economics are gobsmacked by every other crash that regularly comes around.
Bertrand Russell was an amazing logician and mathematician. Albert Einstein was an incredible physicist. I would trust none of them to handle economics.
When it comes to the socialist movement, whatever upsides it might have, its history regarding handling of economics isn't stellar either.
Also, I didn't say anything resembling "this is the current system, hence it's proven". All I said is that the free market has been studied and analyzed for ages, and we know a lot about it, including that it generates decent outcomes in many cases.
Re: economics and crashes - I fail to see how the existence of crashes - which is predicted by many economic theories, be they mainstream or not - invalidates anything.
> Bertrand Russell was an amazing logician and mathematician. Albert Einstein was an incredible physicist. I would trust none of them to handle economics.
You guys need to stop pretending that economics is 1. something really really hard that only the most brilliant economists can understand, 2. something fundamentally objective like physics. It was in large part of history even referred to as political economy for crying out loud.
It is true that the study of economics is primarily concerned with the current system and not particularly imaginative with regards to any sort of alternative. Furthermore the incentives are in no way encouraging to challenge the current way of things, if anything the direct opposite. This state of affairs just can't be ignored when evaluating the objective nature of a certain field of study.
> including that it generates decent outcomes in many cases.
For the wealthy. Most of the world is still used as cheap labour for the privilege of the West.
> Re: economics and crashes - I fail to see how the existence of crashes - which is predicted by many economic theories, be they mainstream or not - invalidates anything.
If a majority of the involved "scientists" are surprised that a crash shows up, it strongly suggests that it's largely based on speculation and external motives rather than objective science.
>You guys need to stop pretending that economics is 1. something really really hard that only the most brilliant economists can understand
Economics is about as hard as any other modern applied science. I.e. pretty damn hard, and practitioners are deserving of the same respect accorded to, for instance, social scientists and psychologists, who deal in similarly hard to capture domains.
>It was in large part of history even referred to as political economy for crying out loud.
And it stopped being referred to as "political economy" because of the fundamental upheaval the field of study went through in the early 20th century, which completely reshaped the practice of economics into something completely different from what it was in Adam Smith and Marx's times.
>For the wealthy. Most of the world is still used as cheap labour for the privilege of the West.
I happen to be from one of the countries whose people you would deprive of agency and deride as "cheap labor" and I would argue most of our issues stem from a market where the powerful have way too much opportunity to make sure that regulations that will benefit them and curtail competition are passed, not from the free market. In fact, making our market freer would only have positive effects.
A great contemporary example of how the free market can uplift poorer countries is Rwanda.
>If a majority of the involved "scientists" are surprised that a crash shows up, it strongly suggests that it's largely based on speculation and external motives rather than objective science.
Ecologists are right now scrambling to find explanations for a number of emerging phenomena. Does the fact that we do not have a complete and universally valid model of ecology mean that ecology is "largely based on speculation and external motives rather than objective science"?
> Economics is about as hard as any other modern applied science.
That still doesn't mean that it's indecipherable by brilliant people in other field of studies nor that the core parts are particularly hard.
> because of the fundamental upheaval the field of study went through in the early 20th century
Rather it became hegemonic and unimaginative and only caters to the status quo.
> whose people you would deprive of agency and deride as "cheap labor"
Please, that is the cheapest trick in the book and just dishonest. Posh accent "Oh, so you think the poor can't take care of themselves? How arrogant!".
The fact remains that much of the global norths current abundance is only enabled by the cheap labour and resources of the global south.
> Ecologists are right now scrambling to find explanations for a number of emerging phenomena.
This is just false equivalence and pointless to respond to. There's no vast pools of ecologist who's entire salary depends on some derivative to pan out or similar.
>That still doesn't mean that it's indecipherable by brilliant people in other field of studies nor that the core parts are particularly hard.
Indecipherable? No. But I wouldn't listen to Einstein on economics for the same reason I wouldn't listen to him on geography, even though I'm sure he'd be able to do very well in it if he applied himself. Just look at how many Nobel Prize winners completely fuck up when they try going outside of their specialty.
>Rather it became hegemonic and unimaginative and only caters to the status quo.
Funnily, most economists I know are quite dissatisfied with the status quo. And you know, every economics research department on the face of Earth has a cohort of "heterodox" economists, who deal exactly in challenging the status quo. The issue is that most of the time alternative theories happen to produce worse predictions than the mainstream. Paraphrasing something some famous economist once said - people aren't utility maximizers, but they sure do act like utility maximizers when prices shift!
>"Oh, so you think the poor can't take care of themselves? How arrogant!"
I'm just saying, it does get a bit ridiculous when American socialists start telling me and other people from my country what we're supposed to think and feel.
>There's no vast pools of ecologist who's entire salary depends on some derivative to pan out or similar.
Most academic economists' salary depends on exactly the same thing as ecologists, namely science funding. You might have a point when you talk about economists in think tanks and hedge funds and whatnot, but those guys aren't usually the ones producing most academic material.
> Just look at how many Nobel Prize winners completely fuck up when they try going outside of their specialty.
Either way there's no basis to dismiss people's opinion solely on their primary field of study. One obvious example would be Noam Chomsky. He's deeply knowledgeable outside of his primary field of linguistics.
> very economics research department on the face of Earth has a cohort of "heterodox" economists,
The most common use of heterodox seem to span from status-quo to far-right libertarianism. That's not very imaginative.
> I'm just saying, it does get a bit ridiculous when American socialists start telling me and other people from my country what we're supposed to think and feel.
I'm Swedish, but I assume that wont change anything there. Being from a country doesn't necessarily say anything, you may be from a privileged class of that particular country and thus have that view of that country.
> You might have a point when you talk about economists in think tanks and hedge funds and whatnot, but those guys aren't usually the ones producing most academic material.
There is no other field of study as obviously connected to money and power than the field of economics. This makes it totally reasonable to be skeptical of what comes out of that field.
>The most common use of heterodox seem to span from status-quo to far-right libertarianism. That's not very imaginative.
You might want to look into Marxian economics, Modern Monetary Theory and ecological economics. There's some interesting stuff there that might interest you. :)
Prominent scientists frequently believe in quack theories outside their area of expertise.
Socialism is complete quackery from the Economics perspective, and one the belief in which has cost humanity dearly.
Marx, for just one example, repeated basic economic fallacies like the Luddites' belief that mechanization would reduce the demand for workers and reduce wages, which is literally the exact opposite of the effect of mechanization/automation, and which was demonstrated to be wrong even within Marx's own lifetime.
> Above a certain minimal level of education, demographic outcomes like crime rate seem to be 70-80% predicted by entirely heritable characteristics, with very little environmental interaction.
This is just racism in a language that's palatable to HN.
Why compare the US to Europe, and not leftist cities in the US to right-wing ones in the US?
That removes a huge number of potential confounding factors that could explain differences in outcome, letting the effects of differences in policy be better revealed.
That it has gone from extremely shite to very shite is not something that can just be translated to "people have become soft, weak, fragile". Suffering looks different now. It's a lazy take to conclude that people must have become weak when the technological progress haven't produced the dignified and easy life of what previous generations hoped it would. Instead we just keep producing and consuming in an endless ever expanding circle, skipping the freedom of leisure for all part.
I think it's pretty relevant to post how large these Finnish fees and co-pays are compared to the US? It comes across as pretty dishonest to omit that the fee is almost symbolic in comparison. In Sweden it's like 200SEK (~$20) per visit and it seems to be 20 euro in Finland. And both fees have a cap for people needing a lot of care.
What's your point? This is more or less the end of the road in Sweden and Finland with regards to fees/co-pays, there's no difference with regards to severity. Not sure why you guys are so eager to try a "it's actually pretty much the same as here" when it clearly requires an extremely superficial look.
I don't know who "you guys are"; I'm a liberal Democrat and Rayiner is not. I'm just saying that in the retail health care setting we always seem to be talking about, the cost-sharing expectations of Europe are quite comparable to those of insured people in the US. This is a problem for people whose argument about the failings of US health care condenses to "insurance isn't enough".
The US health care system has deep, systemic problems! It's just probably not the copay problem.
It’s a couple of hundred dollars a year more than Finland or Sweden, but nothing dramatic.
And the fees/co-pays are of course not the end of the road. People in Sweden and Finland pay a lot more taxes. They pay thousands of dollars more every year, even when they don’t get sick. Median after-tax disposable income, according to the OECD, is $14,000-16,000/year more in the US than Finland or Sweden.
> It’s a couple of hundred dollars a year more than Finland or Sweden, but nothing dramatic.
In the sunny day scenario. Why can't you stop cherry-picking?
> And the fees/co-pays are of course not the end of the road. People in Sweden and Finland pay a lot more taxes
It's the end of the road with regards to the topic. point-of-service fees. Taxes are assumed already - you get something obvious in return, you do not need to worry about healthcare for you entire life, even if you've been unemployed for a long time.
> Median after-tax disposable income, according to the OECD, is $14,000-16,000/year more in the US than Finland or Sweden.
Given the US's lack of welfare services this also seem to be a sunny day scenario. Your costs for daycare, education, rents etc are significantly higher and require that kind of disposable income to just save up to. Furthermore, this is only relevant if you think that more disposable income somehow automatically translates to more happiness and quality-of-life, which we know that it doesn't beyond a certain point.
You've got it the wrong way round. You start by assuming everything is permitted and then you selectively (and ideally reluctantly) bring the weight of law to bear when you discover that it's a net benefit to society. It's a correction for gross inequalities of power.
That's something the libertarian left and libertarian right surely agree on - minimising the application of the monopoly of force and all that.
So you assume both employers and employees can freely organize and associate. That's your starting point.
Now - we've decided that the right to join a union should be protected (it evens out an existing power imbalance) and that collusion to force down wages should be illegal (because it amplifies an existing power imbalance to the detriment of society at large)
Is the classification as an employee, with attached benefits, artificial scarcity in a negative sense? If so, we got quite a few industries that would also love to remove this "artificial scarcity" and allow the use of day labourers.
Many taxi drivers, like uber drivers, are also classified as Independent contractors
Employment classification was not what I was referring to, I am talking about the endless regulations around taxi medallion system that puts a government regulated cap on the number of taxi's
There are taxi owner/operators, but since the owner cannot drive 24/7, and since the cost of a medallion is more than one can afford by working only 8 hours a day, most (all?) of them sublease their cars to several drivers in shifts. That way the car and medallion can be producing income around the clock. Those subcontracted drivers are not employees of the taxi company, they might be considered employees of the car/medallion owner but if they work for several different owners, maybe they are considered independent.
>>Alright, but that's not the case in the majority of the places where Uber have
I would love to see your source on that, most cities with any kind of taxi system have some permitting or medallion system that limits the number of taxis
> I would love to see your source on that, most cities with any kind of taxi system have some permitting or medallion system that limits the number of taxis
It's an assumption because the medallion system is very US-centric. Permits/taxi drivers license, if that's what you mean, isn't much more than a minimum qualification requirement and not a hard limit.
> Do you view this as a negative? because I do not
Yes? Because that's a ~100 year regression in most developed nations and I empathize with the people on the receiving end of that kind of hat-in-hand relationship. To not see this as a negative suggests to me a worryingly low empathy with the less fortunate and perhaps even nostalgia to a strict class-society, because that's the end result of a race-to-the-bottom unfettered capitalism.
So your position is that Day labor and/or independent contracting is only predatory?
That people are incapable of looking at a situation and making a choice for themselves if the situation is good for them or not? They must always be protected by the government "for the greater good", and that government regulation is inherently good and noble?
Really?
because after the state of CA passed a law prohibiting independent contracting for a whole host of jobs, many lost 100% of their income, many others lost flexibility in the jobs and other adverse consequences from moving from Independent contracting to employee
Many people PREFER to be independent as it affords them flexibility and well independence they could not get if they were employee's
it is foolish and ignorant to claim that I have "low empathy with the less fortunate" simply because I prefer less authoritarian government, less regulation and more personal freedom (and responsibility)
> So your position is that Day labor and/or independent contracting is only predatory?
Yes, especially when the primary USP is just to lower labour costs compared to having them as employees.
> That people are incapable of looking at a situation and making a choice for themselves if the situation is good for them or not? They must always be protected by the government "for the greater good", and that government regulation is inherently good and noble?
Yes. People in a shite economic position and without any support from a welfare state are rarely in a position to refuse an exploitative relationship.
And yes again, the government is most likely far more "good and noble" than an employer in day labourer relationship - whose primary motive is not one's well-being but profit.
> because after the state of CA passed a law prohibiting independent contracting for a whole host of jobs, many lost 100% of their income, many others lost flexibility in the jobs and other adverse consequences from moving from Independent contracting to employee
A lot of people would lose their job in the insurance industry if universal health care was adopted. But it's still the right thing to do. Furthermore, the only reason why you can use that argument "Ah, it's horrible! They're losing their income!" is because there's no welfare state to help them out in between jobs and/or (re-)education.
> Many people PREFER to be independent as it affords them flexibility and well independence they could not get if they were employee's
Maybe some, sure. Not sure why that's relevant or mutually exclusive to not regress to day labourers.
> it is foolish and ignorant to claim that I have "low empathy with the less fortunate" simply because I prefer less authoritarian government, less regulation and more personal freedom (and responsibility)
A hand-in-hat existence has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, if anything it's its opposite. Freedom for capital, or market freedom etc, does not automatically translate to freedom in its literal sense to the willing or unwilling participants.
The boss is usually the most authoritarian relationship that most people experience from day to day, worsening the less fortunate one are. This would only increase the intensity of that.
>>A lot of people would lose their job in the insurance industry if universal health care was adopted. But it's still the right thing to do.
No it really is not. but I also do not want to diverge in a debate over healthcare policy and how government run healthcare is not the Utopia people like you make it out to be, nor how many of the advancement in care the world enjoys is funded by the US Health system (which is one of the reason the US health system is so expensive) and if the US does go to be Government Run Single Payer we will see a HUGE decline is health care advancement worldwide
>>A hand-in-hat existence has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, if anything it's its opposite.
This is factually incorrect and ignorant of how these economic regulation actually impact the poor. Most of the time it causes business to fold, and the bottom rungs of the economic ladder to be removed, limiting options and forcing an ever increasing number of people in to poverty and into the welfare state. Which is then use ironically to justify more regulation which causes yet more people in the poverty and the welfare state, this cycle repeats over and over, and over again
Government regulations have NEVER lifted anyone out of poverty, free market capitalism does not, and only free market capitalism
There clearly isn't much ground for a constructive discussion here with that kind of dogmatic market fundamentalism. Pretty much all of what you wrote is trivially refutable by just comparing the US to other western-European nations.
Western Europe has more of a welfare state than the US, but they are still capitalist economies. They also depend on the US for many things, including but not limited to defense and world stability in particular. The "utopia societies" many see there have only existed since after end of World War II, and are directly tracable to the US provision of those things. Take a look at eastern Europe in the 1970/80s to see what a full-on welfare state looks like.
The contradiction is your belief that the US way of doing things is bad, while enjoying stability and advancement given to you by the US.
If the US pulled out of the European Theatre and stopped "world policing" like many in the EU (and the US) would like, then it would not be long before most of the EU was speaking Mandarin or Russian, and the EU can not stand alone with out the US backing both Militarily and Economically
the "western-European nations." you wish me to compare the US to would fall in about 3 seconds with out US backing, and their Large State Welfare systems would collapse
Please don't flame me. I could just easily flame you and I'm not.
I substantiate this very easily: affirmative action means preferential treatment for job applicants who are black, and affirmative action is very common.
> Please don't flame me. I could just easily flame you and I'm not.
Your first claim so blatantly false and wrong that it's pretty appropriate to assume that you're trolling. I mean, systemic/institutional racism doesn't exist and/or isn't a problem in the US, what?
> I substantiate this very easily: affirmative action means preferential treatment for job applicants who are black, and affirmative action is very common.
So on the one hand you deny that it exists towards black Americans, but you find affirmative action to be so significant that it however substantiate systemic racism in favour of black Americans?
Am I correct you assume that you've honed in on the word systemic and will only accept that it solely means whatever is explicitly written down? So that systemic/institutional racism does not include implicit bias?
>>Your first claim so blatantly false and wrong that it's pretty appropriate to assume that you're trolling.
You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant.
>>I mean, systemic/institutional racism doesn't exist and/or isn't a problem in the US, what?
You're not providing a counter-argument. Your incredulity at my statement of fact doesn't give your absurd allegation of systemic racism any more credibility.
>you find affirmative action to be so significant that it however substantiate systemic racism in favour of black Americans?
Affirmative action is a form of systemic racism, in that it's racism that institutionized, meaning part of the formal structure of organizations, and accepted by the social contract.
>So that systemic/institutional racism does not include implicit bias?
The formal structure of institutions, as defined by their formal usually written rules, is the best description of their systemic/institutional properties. Only laws and other formal structures can have a systemic effect, and anything institutional by definition consists solely of them.
One can stretch the definition of systemic/institutional a bit to also include the social contract.
In neither case can one claim there is anything except systemic/institutional racism in favor of black Americans.
Implicit bias is not a systemic property, as it varies between individuals. There is also significant implicit bias in favor of black Americans.
This study shows police are 25 times more likely to shoot an unarmed white male than an unarmed black male:
> You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant.
I'm curious to know about what year you think, approximately, that systemic racism against black Americans ceased?
That you find me uncivil doesn't really bother me.
> "The formal structure of institutions, as defined by their formal usually written rules, is the best description of their systemic/institutional properties. Only laws and other formal structures can have a systemic effect, and anything institutional by definition consists solely of them.
One can stretch the definition of systemic/institutional a bit to also include the social contract.
In neither case can one claim there is anything except systemic/institutional racism in favor of black Americans."
As I thought. You have just decided to entirely redefine the accepted definition of systemic/institutional racism so suit your argument. "But it doesn't say anything about race in this formal document!". Ignoring anything - apparently no matter how established and prevalent - that goes against your arguments is the fallacy of cherry-picking.
The definition at the outset of the article is accurate, and consistent with what I said:
>>Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization.
Anything "embedded as normal practice" is either part of the formal rules of the organization, or its informal social contract, just as I described.
Much of the rest of the article doesn't describe anything systemic or institutional, or it doesn't describe racism, so yes it's blatantly inaccurate. Wikipedia is articles that any one can edit, and when there is such an extreme ideological bias in the Humanities and Social Sciences, there is always the risk that the articles begin to reflect ideological conceptions of these terms, that don't match the words that the terms contain, like "institutional" and "racism".
>>I'm curious to know about what year you think, approximately, that systemic racism against black Americans ceased?
I think the end of Jim Crow laws was the end of most institutional racism, with some remnants of it existing in the social contract that was quickly dismantled in the 1970s, as society took a severe stance against anti-black discrimination.
But now we have institutional sexism and racism in favor of groups that are deemed to be disadvantaged, like women and black Americans.
>>You have just decided to entirely redefine the accepted definition of systemic/institutional racism so suit your argument.
Accepted by who? I don't accept the socialists' definition of "slavery" or "expropriation of surplus value", to include workers earning a wage, and investors earning a profit, respectively, either.
Alright, so you've redefined the entire concept into something else and then went about dismissing the established concept entirely. Because that is, unlike your objective science, based on "extremely ideologically biased humanities and social sciences". Good for you.
> I think the end of Jim Crow laws was the end of most institutional racism, with some remnants of it existing in the social contract that was quickly dismantled in the 1970s, as society took a severe stance against anti-black discrimination.
This is just staring oneself blind on the letter of law, ignoring everything else. That's not how societies work.
It's pointless to discuss subjects with someone who will just redefine them entirely and then refuse to even recognize anything else - everything else is now false, no matter how established. If this is not trolling it's at least dragging the level of discussion into never ending discussion of definitions and revisionism.
I'm referring to the terms "institutional" and "racism", when put together. If an ideological camp wants to put the terms together, and refer to a class of properties that are not both institutional and racism, I have no obligation to accept their arbitrary redefinition of the terms, and I can point out that the term is extremely misleading, like the "wage slavery" used by Marxists.
>>This is just staring oneself blind on the letter of law, ignoring everything else. That's not how societies work.
This is just ignoring what the terms "institutional" and "racism" mean, to push a grievance ideology narrative that castigates society.
I'm commenting on "institutional racism", not racism in general. Institutional racism is "racism that is embedded as normal practice within society", which only occurs through the mechanism of systemic properties like its laws or rules, or its social contract, just as I explained.
>>It's pointless to discuss subjects with someone who will just redefine them entirely and then refuse to even recognize anything else
You're the one redefining "institutional" and "racism", and resorting to ad hominem when any one points out the pure absurdity of your narrative.
> Institutional racism is "racism that is embedded as normal practice within society", which only occurs through the mechanism of systemic properties like its laws or rules, or its social contract, just as I explained.
Come on. You've cherry-picked a single vague line from the preamble of that article because it's so general that it also fits your narrow definition. The rest of the article goes on about the established definition.
You're redefining an entire concept coined to mean what we are talking about. Instead your clutching at straws adamantly sticking to the textboox definitions of the each word. That's just childish and have to place in any adult conversation.
Just in the last week you've redefined the following to fit your unsupported narrative here on HN and called everything else objectively false and refused to even discuss the other definition:
* Institutional/System racism, ignoring ~50 years of history (for the term itself, the practice itself is obviously much earlier).
* Soclal Democracy, ignoring ~200 years of history
* The concept of personal property and it's distinction from private property. Ignoring ~200 years of socialist history.
You do realize that you don't have to agree with the concept to at least discuss it? Something like "Yes, if we use established definition, which I disagree with, there's systemic/institutional racism against black people in America".
Because what definition do you even think people are using when asking you if it exists? "Do you like the color blue?", "No! there's no blue color". That's just childish and will never generate any constructive discussion at all, and is for all purposes just trolling or at least sabotage - answering a question that contains an established concept/definition with an entirely new one that only you know about.
>>Come on. You've cherry-picked a single vague line from the preamble of that article because it's so general that it also fits your narrow definition. The rest of the article goes on about the established definition.
The preamble is the most important section of an article. You don't "cherry pick" the most important part of an article.
My definition is exactly what the terms "institutional" and "racism" would imply when put together.
>>You're redefining an entire concept coined to mean what we are talking about.
It was not coined to mean whatever it is you're talking about (which none of you have actually specified by the way, because you know how absurd it sounds when spelled out).
>>* The concept of personal property and it's distinction from private property. Ignoring ~200 years of socialist history.
The concept of personal property is a socialist one. It's not used outside of left-wing circles who believe in left-wing economic quackery that is completely rejected by mainstream economics.
>>You do realize that you don't have to agree with the concept to at least discuss it? Something like "Yes, if we use established definition, which I disagree with, there's systemic/institutional racism against black people in America".
Established by who? Just as socialists don't get to establish what private property, or the terms "wage" and "slavery" when used together, mean for everyone else, racial injustice grievance activists don't get to establish what the terms "institutional" and "racism" mean when they're used together, for every one else.
Personal property is a form of private property, and demonstrates the prehistoric roots of capitalist principles.
The massive expansion of social welfare spending in the US over the last 50 years reflects the US moving drastically toward the social democratic pole of the free market - social democracy.
Workers are not "wage slaves" and their relationship with employers in no way resembles slavery.
There is no institutional racism in America, except in favor of members of allegedly disadvantaged groups, which receive explicitly favorable treatment through institutional privilege like affirmative action.
> The preamble is the most important section of an article. You don't "cherry pick" the most important part of an article.
Yikes. If this is the level that you're at, I really hope that you are trolling.
The point is that you don't have to agree with the definition, you can just recognize that it exists and that it's used. Then you can try to argue against the actual contents of it instead of the naming. So let's call "systemic/institutional racism" something of your choosing and go on about actually challenging the contents of it instead, alright? If not, this is a waste of time.
Is the massive BLM protests just a massive misunderstanding - nostalgia of former injustices rather than current ones?
>>Yikes. If this is the level that you're at, I really hope that you are trolling.
Please stop trolling. Comments like this are extremely pretentious, and qualify as trolling someone else.
>>Is the massive BLM protests just a massive misunderstanding - nostalgia of former injustices rather than current ones?
Is the massive Tea Party protests just a massive misunderstanding? How about the massive pro-Trump protests against the results of the election? How about the massive anti-lockdown protests?
You're acting like it's absurd to reject the beliefs of protestors.
Yes, but vastly different. Universal health care certainly won't come with a dozen pages of fine-print. It doesn't have pricing levels either. You won't hear: "Oh, you should've chosen our premium plan for that!".
That's true. The tradeoffs are different. There will be procedures you can't readily get, and more complexity in getting others. Some of those are procedures you shouldn't be getting in the first place. You'll have far less control over your own care, but most people weren't taking advantage of that control in the first place.
I guess I misunderstood you? Because that's what I'm saying. That it would require substantial wealth to be able to have significant control over your own care.
> Anti-free-market-ism is the anti-vaxxerism of the intelligentsia.
Well, I mean, yes? That is blatant fundamentalism. "Everyone who doesn't agree with the magic of the free market is as stupid as anti-vaxxers"