Whatever goals we have, I’m thinking more and more there’s only one way to get there: through collective effort. That’s not to say we lose our individual identities— but that one person, isolated, simply can’t take on an entire system.

So then isn’t another way of looking at things to say: the “real” problem to overcome is our own unwillingness to get together?

I realized I never really offered any practical solutions. But there's one I come back to over and over again in my reading, which is obvious and simple: get together. Get together with others. Solidarity. Teaming up with other people, and working towards achieving a set of goals.

The analogy to war and revolution is perhaps too extreme, but if we scale it down we can see that, historically, the changes that benefit the vast majority of humanity (who are not born into the ruling class) all come from groups of people (usually large groups) feeling similar things, expressing that to one another, and putting their asses on the line to change things.

So perhaps it's a topic for a new thread, but why is this so damn hard? It certainly has been hard for me, but perhaps others have different experiences. There are many barriers that prevent not just mass movements/revolution, but even something like forming a small union or local advocacy group, and these barriers are not always bureaucratic.

It's complicated. There's variables like voluntary employment. But, no, this isn't how I would run a business, and it isn't how private owners do, by and large, in accordance with their profits. — Garrett Travers

There's much to say about voluntary employment, which does get raised a lot. "It's not as if someone has a gun to your head -- you can leave and get a better job," etc. But let's table that.

I wouldn't run business that way either. I agree that many small business owners don't run their businesses this way either -- they have relationships with their employees, and genuinely care about them, etc. So if I wasn't clear, I'm restricting my hypothetical to a major corporation, especially one publicly traded.

That out of the way, I'm glad we agree that this isn't close to an ideal way of running a company.

This is particularly a corporate phenomenon, and I hate corporations probably more than you do - not meant as a slight. — Garrett Travers

I wouldn't say I hate them. I see them as kind of a like a tool -- a legal invention that can serve a decent purpose, or can be harmful. I don't particularly hate the people who run them, either -- I just think they're making a terrible mistake in their decisions. Not only to the environment and the population, which is bad enough, but to the businesses themselves -- as William Lazonick and the late Lynn Stout did excellent research on.

This is not the way business should be operating, and such business is a state manufactured form of business. — Garrett Travers

It's certainly aided by the state, who shares a major responsibility in all of this, no doubt. But I think the thinking/justification behind a lot of this bad decision making -- which we've seen get especially worse in the last few decades (stock buybacks, etc.) -- is more a class phenomena. Meaning that a class of people at one point felt threatened and, with the aid of academia, developed a new way of running things which, ultimately, has the effect of transferring most of the generated wealth to themselves. Shareholder primacy theory, for example. You can also read basically a blueprint of this movement from the 1971 Powell memo to the Chamber of Commerce.

Thus you have the widening of income/wealth inequality, etc.

So yes, there's much to blame the government for. But recalling that corporations weren't always managed in this way, and that government wasn't always influenced by the same special interests, should give us reason to also question the class of privileged, wealthy people and their attitudes/reactions to the New Deal and, especially, the movement of the 1960s. That too was (and is) very real and had enormous effects of corporate governance and the behavior of elected representatives in government.

As for your link -- I looked at it once before. It's not very long, but interesting. The following questions are, I think, definitely the right ones:

Behind these concerns lie a number of fundamental questions. Who “owns” a corporation? What constitutes “good” governance? What are a company’s responsibilities? To shareholders? To other stakeholders, such as employees, suppliers, creditors, and society at large? How did Wall Street acquire so much power? And, critically, what are the roles and responsibilities of boards of directors?

Fair enough. Here's one that I think strikes at the heart of many disagreements, but which is also concrete:

A hypothetical scenario. A corporation makes $10 billion in profits per quarter (after taxes, after expenses, etc -- net earnings). Many of their workers are making $12 an hour and can barely get by. The board of directors decides to spend $6 billion on stock buybacks and another $3 billion on dividends. The workers have no seat at the table, but they'd all like a significant raise. The company (mostly the CEO) says that a large raise would put the company at a disadvantage and negatively effect share price.

Is this a desirable way of governing business?

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

Who's to say what's lesser or greater? What would an example be, to make it concrete?

What are you driving at with this principle? God? Isn't Anselm's argument a better formulation?

since the markets are largely influenced by government intervention, the "effectiveness" you talk about can be equally interpreted as a result of policy. — Xtrix

No, it can't. Because governments have existed for thousands of years without those results. — Garrett Travers

Nation-states have not existed for thousands of years. We're talking about the modern world, and modern industrial capitalism.

Regardless, to argue "without those results" is, once again, pure fluff. What results? The results of GDP and wages, for example? Yes, no kidding these results didn't exist -- because GDP and wages weren't measured, and weren't "a thing." It's like arguing that the Roman empire didn't produce the electric generation capacity.

The point I was making, and continue to make, is simple: there are various metrics to analyze: GDP, poverty, wages, productivity, infant mortality, lifespans, education, etc. All kinds of things to analyze. Simply throwing a graph around means nothing. To point to said graph and say "this is because of markets" is, as I said before, absurd. There are many factors involved, including fiscal and monetary policies, regulatory systems, tax structures, subsidies, welfare programs, etc., which all contribute to these measurements. To point to higher GDP growth in the 50s and say "it's because of markets," is simply incomplete. Yes, soldiers returning from war played a role -- and so did the GI bill. The GI bill was hardly "the market."

Again, it's just not as simple as you want to make it out to be.

No. It's not an example of markets. Soldiers returning home had many effects, one of them being on markets.
— Xtrix

Yes, more people in the markets means more production. Sorry, basic shit. — Garrett Travers

Not necessarily. This is well documented as well. With the rise of better technology, better equipment, automation, etc. -- production can increase while the number of workers decreases. So it's not so "basic."

But that's also irrelevant. Because the fact remains that soldiers returning from war is a historical event, not "the market." You simply mis-spoke. Did this event have an effect on markets? Yes, of course.

I never said I had a devotion to Ayn Rand. All of you assumed this because you all have a devotion to your plagiarist god emperor Marx. — Garrett Travers

I know you never said you had a devotion to Ayn Rand. You don't need to say it, either. It comes through pretty clearly.

"All of us" have a devotion to the Karl Marx? I haven't once referenced Marx, or used his terminology. From what I've read, however, he's very useful.

Markets, in the capacity you or I know them, have NOT been around. — Garrett Travers

In the modern industrial sense, yes. Agreed.

In what fantasy of yours would people not trade goods? — Garrett Travers

Are you incapable of imagining a society that doesn't trade? A self-contained society that doesn't need to trade with outsiders, and can produce their own food and water, etc., would have no need for trade. Not hard to imagine.

That's not to deny that trade has been a very common feature in human societies, especially since the agricultural revolution. But so has social organization as well, albeit perhaps not warranting the term "government."

No, that's not close to what he's referring to; nor am I.

The second sentence is laughable and meaningless.

Also, you use the word "dirigisme" way too much. Friendly criticism.
— Xtrix

No, it's how I am describing how what he is describing is bullshit. There is only Dirigisme, and no I will not stop saying it. — Garrett Travers

A mixed economy is bullshit? That's the majority of nations today. There isn't complete control by the government, but there isn't "free markets" either.

And I didn't ask you to "stop saying it." I said you say it way too much. Why you often capitalize it is another mystery.

So the neoliberal era is primarily due to the effects of the Federal Reserve? I have no idea what this means, and I'm fairly sure you don't either. But feel free to elaborate.
— Xtrix

No, that's just an element, among all the other elements I highlighted. — Garrett Travers

Here if what you said:

As far as post 60's economy, that's primarily due to the effects of the Fed and federal taxation setting in, in tandem with the instantiation of the corporate structure we know today that initiated the decline in median income, all mixed in with new tech and innovations that sprang up out of post-war science. So, lot's of variables. Again, none of this stuff is anything I disagree with you on, except for what you call it. State economic domination has been going for thousands of years. — Garrett Travers

So I still have no idea what that one element even means. I realize you mention other elements, but I'm asking about the first one: the "effects of the Fed." I still have no idea what that means. What effects? From what actions? Are you talking about Volcker? That was the late 70s. I'm genuinely unclear about what you're driving at, all snide remarks aside.

Don't worry about it, just know that you have no evidence to back up the opinions of some neoliberal age of non-regulation and what that entails. Regulations have not stopped building since FDR's tyrant ass. — Garrett Travers

I never once said regulations "stopped," or that they "stopped building" (in this sense you mean total number, which is irrelevant).

There is enormous evidence of deregulation of various industries, particularly finance.

Some major examples:

1976 – Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act PL 94-435
1977 – Emergency Natural Gas Act PL 95-2
1978 – Airline Deregulation Act PL 95-50
1978 – National Gas Policy Act PL 95-621
1980 – Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act PL 96-221
1980 – Motor Carrier Act PL 96-296
1980 – Regulatory Flexibility Act PL 96-354
1980 – Staggers Rail Act PL 96-448
1982 – Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act PL 97-320
1982 – Bus Regulatory Reform Act PL 97-261
1989 – Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act PL 101-60
1992 – National Energy Policy Act PL 102-486
1996 – Telecommunications Act PL 104-104
1999 – Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act PL 106-102

From Wiki:

The financial sector in the U.S. has been considerably deregulated in recent decades, which has allowed for greater financial risktaking. The financial sector used its considerable political sway in Congress and in the political establishment and influenced the ideology of political institutions to press for more and more deregulation.[30] Among the most important of the regulatory changes was the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, which repealed the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act regarding interest rate regulation via retail banking. The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

Such deregulation of the financial sector in the United States fostered greater risktaking by finance sector firms through the creation of innovative financial instruments and practices, including securitization of loan obligations of various sorts and credit default swaps.[31] This caused a series of financial crises, including the savings and loan crisis, the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) crisis, each of which necessitated major bailouts, and the derivatives scandals of 1994.[32][33] These warning signs were ignored as financial deregulating continued, even in view of the inadequacy of industry self-regulation as shown by the financial collapses and bailout. The 1998 bailout of LTCM sent the signal to large "too-big-to-fail" financial firms that they would not have to suffer the consequences of the great risks they take. Thus, the greater risktaking allowed by deregulation and encouraged by the bailout paved the way for the financial crisis of 2007–08.[34][33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation#United_States

A pretty good summary. But there are dozens of others. If you want references, I'm happy to give more. David Harvey has a good book about it. But there are plenty of other scholars. Ha-Joon Chang, Michael Hudson, etc. Brookings and RAND have done very thorough studies as well.

An interesting perspective on the neoliberal era:

https://prospect.org/economy/neoliberalism-political-success-economic-failure/

Lastly, that "tyrant" was also one of the most popular presidents we've ever had. And probably the best one.

What does this have to do with your statement that the "neoliberal phase" is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed?" The "Fed" is the Federal Reserve, which is the central banking system of the United States. Did you mean the government?
— Xtrix

That isn't what I said. — Garrett Travers

Yes, it is what you said.

Let's go over it again:

You stated:

As far as post 60's economy, that's primarily due to the effects of the Fed and federal taxation setting in — Garrett Travers

To which I replied:

What is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed"? — Xtrix

To which you said:

The "neoliberal" phase of a heavily regulated economy that hasn't stopped in a long time. — Garrett Travers

Then I said:

So the neoliberal era is primarily due to the effects of the Federal Reserve? I have no idea what this means, and I'm fairly sure you don't either. But feel free to elaborate. — Xtrix

Your response to this? The following:

No, that's just an element, among all the other elements I highlighted.

Now you say "I never said that."

So let's start over: What exactly did you mean by "primarily due to the effects of the Fed?" What was "primarily due to the effects of the fed?" Since you now claim it's not the "neoliberal phase," what exactly were you talking about?

Not a surprise, given that these are concrete, and well documented, policies that have taken place over the last 40 years, starting in the late 70s.
— Xtrix

That are directly refuted by the stats I posted, but okay. — Garrett Travers

What stats? Be specific. Referencing one website, with many metrics, doesn't "refute" anything -- especially when you haven't once demonstrated that you understand these policies. It's not only deregulation, for example -- it's also tax cuts (Reagan's, Bush's, etc.), privatization, union destruction, etc. All facts, all non-controversial. How is any of this -- the policies I refer to above -- "refuted" by the "stats you posted" (which, incidentally, you didn't do -- you simply linked to a website)?

The absolute number of regulations on the books is not what is meant by deregulation. So your source doesn't address even this.
— Xtrix

It covers more than that across numerous decades, and if you looked through it, you would know that. — Garrett Travers

So cite the relevant passages. Since you've "looked through it," that should be easy enough. I'll be happy to take a look at what I missed. "More than that"? Meaning more than regulations? Like what? What else does it "cover"? Tax policy? Free trade agreements?

In 71 Nixon solidified the economy as a fiat one. In conjunction with the fed, the tax structure and the growing regulatory and SS system, the corporate structure you know today was complete in its creation. That's when wages began to fall, and haven't stopped: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ — Garrett Travers

I hate to nit-pick, but "Nixon solidified the economy as a fiat one" is meaningless. What you mean to say, I think, is that we went off the gold standard -- meaning away from representative currency (backed by gold) and into fiat currency (backed by the government).

That aside, the rest is a hodgepodge of words without any sense that you really understand what you're communicating. "Conjunction of the fed, tax structure, and the growing regulatory and SS system" -- throwing a lot of terms around wins no points with me. I see right through this, so please stop doing it. If you don't understand it, don't pretend. If you do, you have got to write clearer -- otherwise it looks like word salad.

None of this -- not the state of social security, not regulations, not the "tax structure," and not the Federal Reserve -- has the slightest thing to do with corporate structure. The structure of the corporation is and has been essentially the same for eons. Corporations consist of boards of directors, and top executives (CEO, COO, CFO, etc). The shareholders (if a company goes public) elect the board of directors. The CEO, which the board hires (and can fire), is the top management whose decisions and orders, in coordination with the board (and often with their approval for major decisions), get disseminated throughout the organization.

This is the basic structure of a corporation. This is how a corporation is organized. Shareholders, board of directors, and CEO/management.

This did not change in 1971. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

Incidentally, none of the data from the Pew reference goes before 1980, so far as I could see. Nothing about 1971. But regardless, even if there was -- it still has nothing to do with a change in corporate structure.

Yes, I'm well aware of the Nixon shock. What does this have to do with "corporate structure"? Can you be concrete about anything?
— Xtrix

Yeah, I could, but it's gonna be a while, there's a good deal of info that goes into the whole thing. You can start here to learn what the hell they are, as opposed to normal businesses:https://open.oregonstate.education/strategicmanagement/chapter/2-the-evolution-of-the-modern-corporation/#:~:text=Corporations%20have%20existed%20since%20the,the%20British%20East%20India%20Company.
Check out the wikipedia page on them to see how they operate in the states:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
Numerous funding methods through banking system:https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/062003.asp
Banking system controlled by the Fed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

This is all a good place to start investigating the massive coporate behemoth that the government feeds off of, I assure you there's more. But, no, it isn't something I can just explain. It's something you'll to piece together, no one argument is gonna do it. It's a topic for a series of discussions. — Garrett Travers

It's as if you're trying to explain to me what a corporation is. I know what a corporation is.

Likewise, I know what the Federal Reserve is, and what it does.

I appreciate the links -- but none of them address the point you made about corporate structure. So maybe this is a better question: what do you mean by "corporate structure"? Can you at least define that? Did you mean corporate governance models? Because that certainly has changed -- from managerialism to shareholder primacy. But if not this, I'm not sure what you mean.

The question isn't that states do something, it's how states do something. The effectiveness of markets have been demonstrated. That's all I'm saying.
— Garrett Travers

The "effectiveness of markets"? Demonstrated how, exactly? — Xtrix

I already gave the statistics that you mischaracterized to evade this point, I'm not going over it again. — Garrett Travers

You gave no statistics, you gave a website with various metrics, like GDP and poverty. I could give the same link after talking about government policies. So this demonstrates the effectiveness of government policy? No -- accordion to you these "statistics" demonstrates the "effectiveness of markets." I'm asking: how? How do we know the results are an outcome of "market efficiency" and not governmental policy?

The world is just not as simple as you want to make it.

So not free markets, just markets. Meaning markets with state intervention, which is all that exists. So whether we're talking about successes or failures, we're talking about state capitalist systems -- i.e., mixed economies.
— Xtrix

Yes, I was simply talking about markets, even within that context. — Garrett Travers

Markets within the context of mixed economies. Which, again, I ask: since the markets are largely influenced by government intervention, the "effectiveness" you talk about can be equally interpreted as a result of policy. Simply pointing to graphs like "GDP since the 1940s" and then saying: "See, market effectiveness!" is nonsense.

You're really not highlighting anything. Soldiers coming home from war is an example of..."markets"?
— Xtrix

Yes. — Garrett Travers

No. It's not an example of markets. Soldiers returning home had many effects, one of them being on markets.

Markets have existed for millennia. In our modern age, since the rise of the nation-state and in the industrial age, they also exist. They aren't free. There is no laissez-faire. So you pointing to the miracles of "markets" means exactly nothing, as in the case of China.
— Xtrix

No, it means plenty. It's just, you've been trained not to listen to any of it, or actually analyze data. — Garrett Travers

How about you stop pretending you know more about this than I do, when you and I both know it's not true (I've demonstrated it over and over again.), and try a different tack? Are you trying to fool yourself or others that may be viewing this interchange, or me? Who?

It is you in fact, who, through your zealous devotion to Ayn Rand, has largely prevented yourself from seeing recalcitrant data, historical and economic.

Markets have not been around for millennia. — Garrett Travers

They have. Plato and Aristotle had things to say about them, in fact. Were they the global markets of today? No, of course not. But no one is claiming that.

But so what? Does the state intervention/planning not deserve credit as well?
— Xtrix

Depends on what they've done and how they did it. — Garrett Travers

Yes, which means we have to look at policies, fiscal and monetary. Not simply point to graphs and say "markets."

Because, as has been said now many times, markets don't exist in a vacuum.
— Xtrix

No, they most certainly would exist without governments. Nothing else would exist but markets in the absence of governments. — Garrett Travers

I'm talking about the real world.

There's no evidence to suggest "nothing else would exist but markets in the absence of governments." Statements like these just aren't serious.

They exist, and they exist with massive intervention. So praising markets is essentially praising governments, which runs counter to everything you've claimed so far.
— Xtrix

No, ahistorical. Mass intervention deems it valuable, and so assumes control. Nothing more. — Garrett Travers

This is gibberish.

Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism'

What he's actually refering to is :

state control of economic and social matters. He just wants you to keep using that term while turning your gaze from his preferred dirigisme. — Garrett Travers

No, that's not close to what he's referring to; nor am I.

The second sentence is laughable and meaningless.

Also, you use the word "dirigisme" way too much. Friendly criticism.

What is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed"? What does "federal taxation setting in" mean?
— Xtrix

The "neoliberal" phase of a heavily regulated economy that hasn't stopped in a long time. — Garrett Travers

So the neoliberal era is primarily due to the effects of the Federal Reserve? I have no idea what this means, and I'm fairly sure you don't either. But feel free to elaborate.

And I actually gave you a report on this a while back and you simply didn't even respond to it. Regulation has not been diminishing over the past 70 years, but growing. Another thing you just don't get: https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/reg-stats — Garrett Travers

A report on what? The "effects of the Fed"? Because that was the topic. This paragraph is completely out of left field and has nothing to do with the above. The link you provide, which I did indeed look at, deals with regulations.

What does this have to do with your statement that the "neoliberal phase" is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed?" The "Fed" is the Federal Reserve, which is the central banking system of the United States. Did you mean the government?

The economy of the last 40 years has involved the Federal Reserve, yes. They've played an important role in bailing out corporate America. But that's monetary policy. I was referring to both the executive actions of the neoliberal era, beginning with Reagan, as well as fiscal policies. It was an era of deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, union busting, "free trade," and globalization. These are the policies that have defined this era, in contrast with the, say, "Keynesian" era of the the 40s-70s.
— Xtrix

The complete bullshit in this statement will be dispelled by the above source. I'm not responding to this nonsense. — Garrett Travers

Not a surprise, given that these are concrete, and well documented, policies that have taken place over the last 40 years, starting in the late 70s.

The "above source", again, is talking about regulations. So how this would "dispel" the policies of tax cuts, union busting, free trade agreements, and globalization is beyond me. If you mean it dispels the notion that there has been deregulation over the neoliberal era, then you're wrong. There has been -- especially in the financial sector. SEC rules governing buybacks is a good example.

The absolute number of regulations on the books is not what is meant by deregulation. So your source doesn't address even this.

"instantiation of the corporate structure" is likewise meaningless. If you want to explain it, please do, but don't assume anyone knows what you're talking about when you're being this vague. "Corporate structure" has remained largely the same. Corporate governance, on the other hand, has changed a great deal. That's worth talking about. But let's at least be clear about what we're addressing.
— Xtrix

In 1971, Nixon abolished the gold standard and the process of corporatizing America was complete. Afterwards which, the data will demonstrate that everything you hate about modern markets is in fact the fault of the government: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ — Garrett Travers

The link you provide is a series of graphs, with no commentary that I can see. Many of those graphs look suspect to me -- but that's a moot point, since there's no argument presented. Besides the fact that a number of graphs are seemingly suggesting something happened in 1971 that changed various trajectories. Fine.

Yes, I'm well aware of the Nixon shock. What does this have to do with "corporate structure"? Can you be concrete about anything?

For someone who falls back on "That's not an argument; no argument has been presented" etc, etc., you sure offer up a lot of vaguery, poorly constructed sentences, and unsubstantiated fluff. No offense!

I’m glad you quoted Nietzsche. Assimilating his critique of
Schopenhauer, and by implication Bergson and Dewey, brings one to the doorstep of Heidegger’s project. — Joshs

Don’t feed the trolls. It’s the mistake I keep making.

Your synopsis is spot-on, it's just that H's "thesis" is unoriginal and uninteresting – Laozi, Buddha ... Schopenhauer, Bergson, Dewey et al say more or less the same thing — 180 Proof

“More or less”? That’s quite vague. So I suppose they’re uninteresting as well?

trix, you're hypnotized by H's oracular sophistry and, because we're not, you trollishly call us "trolls". :sweat: — 180 Proof

I’m not hypnotized by Heidegger any more than any other thinker I’ve learned something from.

And I don’t call you a troll because Heidegger isn’t your thing — I don’t care about that. I call you a troll because you contribute nothing except Twitter-like one liners.

“Heidegger is obfuscating. No one knows what the Hell he’s saying!”

I point out, as simply as possible, what he’s saying.

“Heidegger is so unoriginal and uninteresting.”

:yawn:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/climate/climate-change-ipcc-un-report.html

(Time is running out to avert disaster, according to IPCC.)

Adjacent story:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/us/politics/supreme-court-climate-change.html?smid=url-share

Supreme Court considers limiting EPA’s ability to address climate change.

So is he drawing a distinction between will and thing-in-itself here?
This would seem strange since he repeatedly claims will is the thing-in-itself. — KantDane21

Schopenhauer says that the will is the closest we can get to the thing in itself, without going beyond time (and thus any knowledge whatsoever). At one point he says the veil isn't completely lifted, but is as close to being lifted as we can achieve. The will is sui generis different from any other object, as we know it intuitively, by "being" it.

That's my understanding of Schopenhauer. If you ask me for the passage I'll be in trouble, though, because I've totally forgotten where he says it.

The question isn't that states do something, it's how states do something. The effectiveness of markets have been demonstrated. That's all I'm saying. — Garrett Travers

The "effectiveness of markets"? Demonstrated how, exactly?

It doesn't, it has to do with (markets). — Garrett Travers

So not free markets, just markets. Meaning markets with state intervention, which is all that exists. So whether we're talking about successes or failures, we're talking about state capitalist systems -- i.e., mixed economies.

Notice the first graph — GDP. When was the era of highest growth? Not during the neoliberal era. It was when capitalism was MORE regulated, not less.
— Xtrix

Post war, yes. When the soldiers came home, flooded the market labor force, and the science from the war brought services, services, services. Markets. Regulations or not have no bearing on what I'm highlighting. — Garrett Travers

You're really not highlighting anything. Soldiers coming home from war is an example of..."markets"? They weren't coming back for 30 years. Also, manufacturing was the heart of the economy. So the comment about "services services services" is meaningless to me. Services existed then as they do now.

Also, extreme poverty decreases have come overwhelmingly from China. Is THAT your example of what “markets” have produced? There’s massive state intervention there— and the state happens to be communist. So I assume, by your theory, that we should attribute the decrease in poverty to markets/capitalism in China. Since, by essentially definition, “communism bad.”
— Xtrix

You and I are in agreement here. It's just you aren't differentiating laissez-faire and markets in your head, or in mine. — Garrett Travers

Markets have existed for millennia. In our modern age, since the rise of the nation-state and in the industrial age, they also exist. They aren't free. There is no laissez-faire. So you pointing to the miracles of "markets" means exactly nothing, as in the case of China. Plenty of success there. But so what? Does the state intervention/planning not deserve credit as well? Of course. Why? Because, as has been said now many times, markets don't exist in a vacuum. They're not some free-floating force of nature, some "invisible hand." They exist, and they exist with massive intervention. So praising markets is essentially praising governments, which runs counter to everything you've claimed so far.

There's no such thing as state capitalist economies, only dirigist ones. — Garrett Travers

Of course they exist. You're just not familiar with the term.

State capitalism has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to the economy of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed "too big to fail" receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[21][22][23] This practice is held in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[24]

"Mixed economies" is fine as a term as well. Doesn't matter much: the state intervenes in either case.

As far as post 60's economy, that's primarily due to the effects of the Fed and federal taxation setting in, in tandem with the instantiation of the corporate structure we know today that initiated the decline in median income, all mixed in with new tech and innovations that sprang up out of post-war science. So, lot's of variables. — Garrett Travers

What is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed"? What does "federal taxation setting in" mean?

The economy of the last 40 years has involved the Federal Reserve, yes. They've played an important role in bailing out corporate America. But that's monetary policy. I was referring to both the executive actions of the neoliberal era, beginning with Reagan, as well as fiscal policies. It was an era of deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, union busting, "free trade," and globalization. These are the policies that have defined this era, in contrast with the, say, "Keynesian" era of the the 40s-70s.

"instantiation of the corporate structure" is likewise meaningless. If you want to explain it, please do, but don't assume anyone knows what you're talking about when you're being this vague. "Corporate structure" has remained largely the same. Corporate governance, on the other hand, has changed a great deal. That's worth talking about. But let's at least be clear about what we're addressing.

Not that remarkable, either . — Ciceronianus

:shade: Big whup. — 180 Proof

Yes, we all know that neither of you are serious about this matter, and come here simply to register your uninformed “thumbs down,” but what I was responding to was the claim that he’s incoherent, mysterious, etc.

So, given that you’re unwilling (or unable) to read, I wanted to show that it can be synopsized. If you now want to mock how simple that summary is, then I guess the jokes on me for engaging with trolls.

Despite your claim that free markets have never existed.
— Xtrix

I've said no such thing. — Garrett Travers

Where have free markets existed?

You’ve said capitalism hasn’t existed. By capitalism you mean laissez faire capitalism. So that hasn’t existed, but free markets have? Where? When?

Free markets have never existed. Thus your claims about what markets have produced is irrelevant. Why? Because “markets” don’t function in a vacuum— there’s state intervention on every level. If these markets have produced things, good or bad, they’ve done so with support of the state.

technology and services — Garrett Travers

What technology and services? Like computers and the Internet? Which developed through state funding?

shows the trends in gdp, individual income, corporate income, and the changes in tech, health, literacy, etc. that have accompanied:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG?locations=US
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts — Garrett Travers

The first link shows graphs of various metrics. The second talks about progress in various domains (like poverty). What does any of this has to do with free markets?

Notice the first graph — GDP. When was the era of highest growth? Not during the neoliberal era. It was when capitalism was MORE regulated, not less.

Also, extreme poverty decreases have come overwhelmingly from China. Is THAT your example of what “markets” have produced? There’s massive state intervention there— and the state happens to be communist. So I assume, by your theory, that we should attribute the decrease in poverty to markets/capitalism in China. Since, by essentially definition, “communism bad.”

The reality is that state capitalist economies is all that’s ever existed, with various levels of influence from the state (regulations, taxes, etc). Turns out that with more regulation and more state-direction, as in the era of “regimented capitalism” in the 50s and 60s, you had far greater growth, wages, etc— better outcomes. Since the 80s, the neoliberal “Government is the problem” era, we’ve seen poor results (except for those on top).

Yet the claim continues. Much like trickle-down economics, its a zombie idea. It doesn’t die. Why? Because no matter what happens, there’s always a way to twist the evidence. There’s no way to falsify it.

because we have an immense amount of data over just the past 70 years showing us what markets produce for the world, and how states ruin the world as a result of being in control of those markets. — Garrett Travers

Since capitalism, in your sense, admittedly has “never existed,” then any results you’re referring to is the product of a mixed economy.

So once again your assertion, much like with other zealous individuals, amounts to nothing more than “anything positive is attributable to markets over the last 70 years.” Despite your claim that free markets have never existed.

So either something positive has come out of state-capitalist systems, which is all that exists, or state interference ruins everything.

It’s incoherent. And what data are you referring to, exactly?

Rand:

(1) Laissez-faire capitalism is the proper socioeconomic system to aspire towards.

(2) This has not yet existed.

(3) But if it did exist, it would be fantastic.

In my view, replace "laissez-faire capitalism" with "communism" and you'll have the crux of that argument as well. Completely unfalsifiable. No historical evidence. Just declarations -- based on principles that simply reduce Aristotle to a cartoon.

Rand is mostly a waste of time, but one has to tackle her to understand a lot of the justifications given for our current neoliberal era. A more sophisticated alternative for doing so would be Milton Friedman, or perhaps Hayek.

Okay— I draw similar conclusions. I thought perhaps there were texts I overlooked.

Seems obvious enough. So much for Heidegger, then. — Ciceronianus

Well that’s obviously a very broad summary, but I did so to show that it’s not that mysterious.

Culture affects the philosophy of a people, which in-turn affects the ethics of a people, which in-turn affects the laws that are created and voted for (in a democracy) by the people, including gun laws. — chiknsld

Well said. I think this is an important point to always bear in mind when discussing these social issues.

It’s the other side of the factor I mentioned earlier, which is the influence of business.

But then the question is: who influences culture?

delimited definition, it is your job to explain that. — Garrett Travers

No it isn’t, because it was perfectly clear from context. You miscomprehended it. A possible reason for misreading it is your adherence to objectivism, which you’re quite zealous about.

I’m well aware that within that particular worldview, capitalism is seen as the best possible system for the flourishing of a human being, and thus “profit” in the monetary sense is taken as simply one outgrowth of the broader definition, which is “gain” from productive, creative work.

This philosophy sees a human being as objects with needs to satisfy, as psychologically egoist, and claim that human beings can guide their greed with reason.

I disagree with how objectivists conceptualize happiness, and how they conceptualize the human being/human nature. And you know this. So you also know, very well, that I wouldn’t be using “profit” in this way — even leaving the contextual cues aside.

That gets to the heart, I believe, of this odd interchange.

No, it doesn't. It's one definition, and not the one which I used and which you responded to. I was using "profit" in the financial sense, which was clear from context.
— Xtrix

This is impermissable ignorance, I posted the definitions in the message you just quoted. — Garrett Travers

Yes, you posted the definitions, and I'm telling you that the definition used in the original post (the one you responded to initially) was this one (in bold):

a valuable return : GAIN
2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions
especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost
3: net income usually for a given period of time
4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales
5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent

Which should be clear to anyone reading what I wrote. Again, if you thought "maybe he means 'profit as gain of any kind'", then that's your own misunderstanding. In that case, try to comprehend what others are saying before jumping in with non sequiturs.

The definition doesn't care how reductive you are about it's usage, you'll need to actually clarify that you are ONLY speaking about monetary profit, so that such context is available to me — Garrett Travers

This is what I meant by "disingenuous," above.

If you read that post and thought, "By 'profits over people' is he referring to monetary gain, or any gain whatsoever?" ... then the issue isn't with me.

or you are being reductive. — Garrett Travers

You really struggle with meanings, unfortunately. Using the most common use of "profit," when discussing businesses (gun manufacturers), is not reductionism. It's using one definition of the word. I'm not denying there are other meanings.

That's how philosophy works. — Garrett Travers

And I'm supposed to be convinced that you know how philosophy "works"? Given the above behavior, forgive me if I'm less than interested.

The definitions of the term "profit" encompass all forms of individual benefit, period end of story. — Garrett Travers

No, it doesn't. It's one definition, and not the one which I used and which you responded to. I was using "profit" in the financial sense, which was clear from context.

Notice the definitions you cite all pertain to finances, except for the broadest one possible which, for some reason, you've convinced yourself is the definition.

So, to recap: profits are, to use your definitions:

the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions
especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost

Which is exactly what was meant by my post here:

The US has far more guns than nearly any other country, per capita. The gun manufacturing industry, with their propaganda and lobbying, is behind it. Which only means, as usual, the valuing of profits over people is at the core of this rot.

Same with tobacco, same with sugar, same with fossil fuels, same with opioids, same with hundreds of other examples. When you live in a socioeconomic system that chooses to value money and property over everything else, these issues are mere symptoms. — Xtrix

Which you decided to injected yourself into, invoking your own preferred definition of "profit = gain of any kind." Disingenuous at best. But mostly just confused.

No the fuck it isn't, I just gave you the damn definitions. That's all there is to it. — Garrett Travers

a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.

(Simple google search.)

Again, if you wish to define "profit" as "any gain whatsoever," OK. That's your call. But that's not what I was referring to, clearly. You responded to me. If you want to take "profit" in the sense I mean (the above definition), and object on the grounds that "profits are gains and, thus, everything we do is for profit in this sense" -- then make that clear, so I can simply ignore a completely off-topic remark.

You literally are just choosing to ignore the fact that homeostasis requires profit. — Garrett Travers

No, it isn't. Because, as I'll repeat for the umpteenth time, homeostasis, a physiological concept of mainlining equilibrium in the body, has nothing to do with profit, which is financial gain.

"Selling at $10 when the cost was $5 gives me a profit of $5 -- and has really helped maintain my temperature of 98.6."

There’s no code to break. It’s not a mysterious thesis.
— Xtrix

It must be me, then. — Ciceronianus

What is so mysterious, exactly? Once you understand his nuanced language, it's not quantum mechanics. He's saying that since the Greeks, entities have been interpreted in terms of the present (ousia), which is a particular human state (the "present at hand"). That's the thesis. Not particularly difficult, but with interesting implications.

Yes, that someone is a Nazi means less to some of us than others, I know. De gustibus non est disputandum. — Ciceronianus

Maybe it is a matter of taste. Ditto with any thinker or artist in history. Not all a bunch of great guys (or gals). But if Michael Jackson isn't your cup of tea because of what he did, for example, don't listen to his music. Simple.

I dig the Groucho picture, btw. Beat me to it.

And I'm afraid I'm also different from you in that I view capitalism as a disease, and this was one of the points that your much beloved Nazi philosopher also propounded (although of course, he wasn't the first). — Janus

Could you point me to where he discusses capitalism? I'd be very interested to take a look.

Definitions aren't semantics dude. Their definitions. — Garrett Travers

Semantics deals with meanings. Definitions are meanings of words.

Why you continue on like this is baffling.

Homeostasis:

the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes. — Garrett Travers

Exactly right.

Profit:

a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.

Totally different concepts. One deals with physiology -- equilibrium of temperature, for example -- and the other is (apart from whatever semantic fantasy one can construct) about financial gain.

Again, if you want to use the words differently, that's fine. I myself have no interest in it. Likewise if you want to argue that financial gain is "the natural motivating factor" in biological systems. It's just utter confusion to form the argument in this way, but that's not my business.

just a gentle reminder that I ignore everything you say for I believe you are not worthy to be present on this board — god must be atheist

I'm only beginning to understand this.

Again, you’re welcome to your invented semantics. I’m not interested.

Funny— I’ve offered to explain (and have done so) Heidegger several times.

There’s no code to break. It’s not a mysterious thesis.

Talk about Heidegger being a Nazi is boring. Don’t like it? Fine— go do something else.

Profit is disntinguished by any form of benefit one can accrue that contributes to homeostasis. — Garrett Travers

Meaningless.

Homeostasis has a meaning, and generally a physiological one. Profits is basically an accounting term. It’s what is left after you subject cost from final price. One has nothing to do with the other, except perhaps in a some constructed semantic fantasy. If that’s where you choose to live, you’re welcome to. But don’t involve me.

homeostasis requires profit to achieve — Garrett Travers

Homeostasis has nothing to do with profit. You wish to invoke "profits" in the definition, that's your prerogative.

Homeostasis, a desire for food, etc.
— Xtrix

Your words exactly. — Garrett Travers

"X, y, etc.," does not imply y=x.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

Yes, you used words to describe something that wasn't homeostasis. — Garrett Travers

I didn't once describe homeostasis, so the above is meaningless.

The people being bribed are the "masters"?
— Xtrix

Yes — Garrett Travers

:lol: OK!

Meaning, I care more about people than anyone you know, including yourself. — Garrett Travers

Good for you! Well done.

Seems to me that Russia has a much greater justification for invading Ukraine than the US did for invading Iraq.

That's not homeostasis. — Garrett Travers

I didn't once offer a definition, so this statement is meaningless.

Scraps are profit. And perhaps they should try harder and live more virtuously. — Garrett Travers

:lol:

I don't let those who bribe others off the hook. Again, you're welcome to.
— Xtrix

No, just their masters. — Garrett Travers

The people being bribed are the "masters"?

You're derailing.

But in actuality is the greatest murder of the human in history. — Garrett Travers

According to a simplistic dogma that blames any and all problems on governments.

It doesn't, and I don't care about the world outside in terms of other people. — Garrett Travers

It does, and we're all well aware that you don't care about other people -- but thank you for clarifying.

You and all other humans are almost exclusively dominated by a desire for homeostasis, you are a functionally profit-seeking being. — Garrett Travers

Homeostasis, a desire for food, etc., has nothing to do with profit. Nothing. If you want to define profit in some other way, you're welcome to.

all people who have things are benefitted by profit. — Garrett Travers

A small minority benefit from profit. The rest get scraps.

Not the people tempted to offer the bribe because of some perception of fear. — Garrett Travers

I don't let those who bribe others off the hook. Again, you're welcome to.

Blaming the government in every instance is, as I've talked with you about before, too simplistic. It's an incomplete analysis. But one with an important function: to divert attention from the decisions of private power.
— Xtrix

There is no private power, there is only state institutionalized power. — Garrett Travers

There is private power, and it's unaccountable. State power is accountable to the people, in principle. In corporations, there isn't a vote for CEO among the employees. They're private tyrannies. We can find a way to blame the state for the decisions of private power, but again -- simplistic, incomplete analysis.

The money in my bank account in no way relates to anyone else. — Garrett Travers

It does.

Because there's a world outside the self.

Valuing money is not what is leading to destruction, valuing destruction is — Garrett Travers

I doubt very much that the CEOs of Chavron or Exxon "value destruction." They're helping to destroy he environment, yes -- but that's not because they value destroying it. Their destroying it is a consequence of short-term thinking, spurred on by a system that demands greater share prices each quarter.

Profits are what benefits people — Garrett Travers

A small minority of people, yes. The environment and the rest of the population -- not so much.

Meaning, there is no distinction between people, and the pursuit of profits in function, and also nothing wrong with profit. — Garrett Travers

There is a very clear distinction between people and the concept of profits. I don't know what the above sentence is supposed to mean.

There is something wrong with profit when profit gets prioritized over human well being, yes. As we see over and over again, with the examples I mentioned.

The lobbying you mention would not be possible if law makers, who are representatives of the monopoly on force that is actually the core "of this rot," wern't there to be bought from rich people seeking to avoid competition through government protections against said competition. — Garrett Travers

That's one part of the story, yes. We can blame the weak-willed bride-takers. We can also blame those who bribe. You seem much more reluctant to do the latter.

Blaming the government in every instance is, as I've talked with you about before, too simplistic. It's an incomplete analysis. But one with an important function: to divert attention from the decisions of private power.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that market "competition" will solve any issue, let alone all issues (as is often claimed). Market efficiency, in my view, is a myth -- much like free markets.

When you live in a socioeconomic system that chooses to value money and property over everything else, these issues are mere symptoms.
— Xtrix

Money and property is the recognition of individual value. — Garrett Travers

Money and property have nothing to do with a human being's value.

But even if it were true, the ranking of money and property over everything else, as mentioned above, is leading, and will continue to lead, to massive destruction.

There's a social world outside of the self.

The US has far more guns than nearly any other country, per capita. The gun manufacturing industry, with their propaganda and lobbying, is behind it. Which only means, as usual, the valuing of profits over people is at the core of this rot.

Same with tobacco, same with sugar, same with fossil fuels, same with opioids, same with hundreds of other examples. When you live in a socioeconomic system that chooses to value money and property over everything else, these issues are mere symptoms.

Philosophy and religion -- though neither are well defined -- care about (i.e., ask questions about) similar things, like what human beings are, what the ultimate reality is, what truth is, what is good, how to live a good life, what happens when we die, etc. Where "religion" seems to separate from philosophy (and science) is in its openness to change. It gives answers, and from then on stops questioning. It bases the rest of its system on these indisputable axioms.

In Christianity, there's a certain set of beliefs one must have to be entitled to label oneself a Christian. Likewise in Buddhism and other religions.

Similar things can be said about schools of thought in philosophy. Platonism, Aristotelianism, etc. In this case, these too can be considered quasi-religious.

Others will say the defining feature of religion is that it is faith-based. But philosophy itself takes many things for granted before it gets off the ground. Most of our actions in life are also faith-based in many ways.

I think it's more useful to look at the questions being asked, and in the end giving up words like philosophy, science, and religion. They've mostly been a nuisance. Instead, we should focus more on questions like "What do you want to do with your life?", "How can one contribute to the world?", "What am I?", etc. Whether one is "doing" philosophy or religion or science or whatever makes no real difference, in my view.