the political system and the economic system are intertwined
Sure, but that overlap should be as small as possible while still ensuring a competitive market.
late stage capitalism
Socialists and other related academics have been throwing this term around since WW2, and every couple decades they move the goalposts. It’s little more than a scary story they tell to convince people to go along with their authoritarian ideas. It’s really not that different from Hitler blaming Jews for all of society’s problems, just with a socialist flavor instead of a fascist one.
The truth is that wealthy people need the working class to buy their stuff, and buying their stuff increases the workers’ standard of living. Standard of living has been rising pretty consistently in developed countries, especially those with relatively free markets.
Yes, wealth inequality is growing (which is a problem), but that doesn’t mean the poor are getting poorer. Quite the opposite in fact, if you look at the data, people of all economic classes are better off year over year.
A lot of the problem is self inflicted IMO. The process goes something like this:
People demand change
Politicians talk to big players in industry
Big players propose solutions that seem to fix the problem
Surprised pikachu when the changes largely entrench the big players and raise the barrier to entry for competitors
And then we have the corrupt two party system where most representatives don’t have much actual competition for their seat, as long as they have more funding (conveniently provided by helpful lobbies from 3). The longer a rep stays in office, the more they tend to listen to the big players.
It’s not impossible to fix the problems, we just need to stop trying to use government to solve everything. Government works best when it’s simple, special interests love complexity, so we should simplify the law so it’s easier for people to tell when they’re getting screwed.
For example, the IRA is an incredibly simple retirement program. You open an account at a brokerage or bank for free and then buy stuff, and taxes are either up front or upon withdrawal. Some brokerages are cheaper than others, so you can shop around for the features and costs you want. The 401k is incredibly complex, and because it’s negotiated by employers, a lot end up being expensive for customers (e.g. mine has a 0.10% asset fee on top of fund fees), all because financial institutions want a cut. The plan is selected by HR, and employees don’t get a choice other than participate or not. Taxes are complex because Turbo Tax wants to keep their customers. And so on.
Here’s a quote from the author of my favorite book:
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
The problem isn’t with corporations, they’re largely a constant. The problem is with government getting bloated and losing the plot because everyone tries to use it to solve their pet problem and the net winners are the lobbies.
It’s little more than a scary story they tell to convince people to go along with their authoritarian ideas
This is where I think you may have misinterpreted me. I’m not trying to push socialism. I think we’re genuinely fucked and there is no way out.
Sure, but that overlap should be as small as possible while still ensuring a competitive market
This is a fantasy. We talk about “free market capitalism” as if it’s some pristine, untouched mechanism that would work perfectly fine if only the government followed the rules. But the moment big money arises, the entire political field is lured in. Wealth itself becomes a gravitational force that pulls legislators, laws, and lobbyists into its orbit.
This is not a bug, it’s a feature. It’s fundamental to the system. A free market can never remain a free market. For two very simple reasons.
a) economies of scale. It’s cheaper to a lot of something per thing compared to a little of something per thing. so there is a financial incentive to get bigger and that is a self-perpetuating cycle. Eventually at the end of the game of Monopoly, there’s only one landlord standing who bought everything else up.
b) wealth is power. if you have power, you will use it to ensure your position is improved. this is human nature. this works the same in any other political economic system.
It’s not that a pure free market is corrupted by government, or that a pure socialism is corrupted by incompetent central planners; both are myths in the sense that they never truly exist in the real world. We either get forms of crony capitalism or state-managed capitalism, but the “free” part is always an abstraction.
What we need to acknowledge is that the political and economic systems are not two separate worlds that only overlap by accident. They’re conjoined twins. Pretending one can neatly excise government from the economy is a fantasy—just as fantastical as imagining the perfect socialist utopia.
The trick is to recognize that the moment large-scale wealth accumulates, it necessarily accumulates political clout. And from there, the “free market” gradually becomes a marketplace that’s anything but free.
This is what people mean by late stage capitalism. It’s capitalism that has eroded all of the public institutions and in a short amount of time fascism will take root. We’re witnessing the transition right now as we speak.
It used to be reality. Copyright law was reasonable and largely unchanged for 180 years, it lasted 28 years, with an optional extension for another 28 years. Originally it was 14 years, with an optional extension for another 14 years. The same is true for a number of other stupid laws that large corporations exploit.
But the moment big money arises, the entire political field is lured in
Agreed, and maybe we should consider constitutional limits on what governments can do. You won’t bribe someone who is legally restricted from helping you…
But honestly, the root of the problem, I think, is the two-party system, which encourages corruption, especially when state governments get to redraw federal districts. We shouldn’t be pushing for individual changes to separate government from big money until we solve the problem with party politics.
Some suggestions:
proportional representation for House Reps - you vote in your party primary to rank candidates, and seats are awarded in the general based on percent of popular vote; eliminates gerrymandering, with the risk of candidates being geographically consolidated (totally worthwhile tradeoff, and IMO not something that actually matters)
term limits - not a solution in and of itself (creates a pipeline to industry, encouraging corruption), but could be useful in addition to the first
campaign finance reform - ban political ads, and only allow organized debates and town halls, with a central location for info about each candidate (w/ fact checking by other candidates)
end FPTP - preference for STAR or Approval voting, but the specific option isn’t important; needs to be paired w/ a solution to gerrymandering though, because on its own, this doesn’t do much
Wealth itself becomes a gravitational force that pulls legislators, laws, and lobbyists into its orbit.
That’s true of any economic system. You said you’re not pushing socialism, but you didn’t offer what you do support, so I’ll speak broadly.
Power attracts money, and money attracts power. These are constants in human nature, and they need to be watched very closely. My point is that increasing the ability of governments to make changes that benefit or hurt the market attracts big money, so we should be very careful of anything we ask our governments to do. Having a political system that encourages entrenched politicians just exacerbates the problem. And moving more and more powers to the executive branch reduces the amount of work companies need to put in to get a desired result (e.g. Trump can be bought).
My opinion is that, in general, rules should be crafted and enforced as locally as possible, which would then dramatically increase the work required for a large entity to get what they want. Federal policy should be simple and limited to only what’s needed for a functioning union, and likewise down the chain.
there is a financial incentive to get bigger and that is a self-perpetuating cycle. Eventually at the end of the game of Monopoly, there’s only one landlord standing who bought everything else up.
What you’re missing is that as companies get bigger, they lose sight of their competitive advantage. Look at big household names from 50 years ago (or sooner!) that don’t really exist today. Capitalism works by smaller upstarts finding a competitive advantage, exploiting it, and then the cycle repeats.
The way large orgs compete now is by buying small orgs. We could consider blocking corporations from buying other corporations, which should encourage more disruption vs larger orgs (i.e. erode wealth of the big players), since they can’t just buy their competitors.
It’s capitalism that has eroded all of the public institutions and in a short amount of time fascism will take root.
I really don’t think the two are related. Look at fascism before WW2, they didn’t need to erode capitalism first, they just ran on a populist platform, identified a common enemy, and used the platform and enemy as an excuse to eliminate democracy, at which point they could nationalize whatever industries they want. The transition to fascism throughout history has been through political means, not the market.
I suppose it’s possible for it to happen in the other order, but I don’t think it’s inevitable. We had a similar situation w/ Standard Oil taking over everything, and we ended up doing some trust busting to fix the issue. It’s not too late to change course, we just need the public to recognize the problem and demand change.
Sure, but that overlap should be as small as possible while still ensuring a competitive market.
Socialists and other related academics have been throwing this term around since WW2, and every couple decades they move the goalposts. It’s little more than a scary story they tell to convince people to go along with their authoritarian ideas. It’s really not that different from Hitler blaming Jews for all of society’s problems, just with a socialist flavor instead of a fascist one.
The truth is that wealthy people need the working class to buy their stuff, and buying their stuff increases the workers’ standard of living. Standard of living has been rising pretty consistently in developed countries, especially those with relatively free markets.
Yes, wealth inequality is growing (which is a problem), but that doesn’t mean the poor are getting poorer. Quite the opposite in fact, if you look at the data, people of all economic classes are better off year over year.
A lot of the problem is self inflicted IMO. The process goes something like this:
And then we have the corrupt two party system where most representatives don’t have much actual competition for their seat, as long as they have more funding (conveniently provided by helpful lobbies from 3). The longer a rep stays in office, the more they tend to listen to the big players.
It’s not impossible to fix the problems, we just need to stop trying to use government to solve everything. Government works best when it’s simple, special interests love complexity, so we should simplify the law so it’s easier for people to tell when they’re getting screwed.
For example, the IRA is an incredibly simple retirement program. You open an account at a brokerage or bank for free and then buy stuff, and taxes are either up front or upon withdrawal. Some brokerages are cheaper than others, so you can shop around for the features and costs you want. The 401k is incredibly complex, and because it’s negotiated by employers, a lot end up being expensive for customers (e.g. mine has a 0.10% asset fee on top of fund fees), all because financial institutions want a cut. The plan is selected by HR, and employees don’t get a choice other than participate or not. Taxes are complex because Turbo Tax wants to keep their customers. And so on.
Here’s a quote from the author of my favorite book:
The problem isn’t with corporations, they’re largely a constant. The problem is with government getting bloated and losing the plot because everyone tries to use it to solve their pet problem and the net winners are the lobbies.
This is where I think you may have misinterpreted me. I’m not trying to push socialism. I think we’re genuinely fucked and there is no way out.
This is a fantasy. We talk about “free market capitalism” as if it’s some pristine, untouched mechanism that would work perfectly fine if only the government followed the rules. But the moment big money arises, the entire political field is lured in. Wealth itself becomes a gravitational force that pulls legislators, laws, and lobbyists into its orbit.
This is not a bug, it’s a feature. It’s fundamental to the system. A free market can never remain a free market. For two very simple reasons.
a) economies of scale. It’s cheaper to a lot of something per thing compared to a little of something per thing. so there is a financial incentive to get bigger and that is a self-perpetuating cycle. Eventually at the end of the game of Monopoly, there’s only one landlord standing who bought everything else up.
b) wealth is power. if you have power, you will use it to ensure your position is improved. this is human nature. this works the same in any other political economic system.
It’s not that a pure free market is corrupted by government, or that a pure socialism is corrupted by incompetent central planners; both are myths in the sense that they never truly exist in the real world. We either get forms of crony capitalism or state-managed capitalism, but the “free” part is always an abstraction.
What we need to acknowledge is that the political and economic systems are not two separate worlds that only overlap by accident. They’re conjoined twins. Pretending one can neatly excise government from the economy is a fantasy—just as fantastical as imagining the perfect socialist utopia.
The trick is to recognize that the moment large-scale wealth accumulates, it necessarily accumulates political clout. And from there, the “free market” gradually becomes a marketplace that’s anything but free.
This is what people mean by late stage capitalism. It’s capitalism that has eroded all of the public institutions and in a short amount of time fascism will take root. We’re witnessing the transition right now as we speak.
It used to be reality. Copyright law was reasonable and largely unchanged for 180 years, it lasted 28 years, with an optional extension for another 28 years. Originally it was 14 years, with an optional extension for another 14 years. The same is true for a number of other stupid laws that large corporations exploit.
Agreed, and maybe we should consider constitutional limits on what governments can do. You won’t bribe someone who is legally restricted from helping you…
But honestly, the root of the problem, I think, is the two-party system, which encourages corruption, especially when state governments get to redraw federal districts. We shouldn’t be pushing for individual changes to separate government from big money until we solve the problem with party politics.
Some suggestions:
That’s true of any economic system. You said you’re not pushing socialism, but you didn’t offer what you do support, so I’ll speak broadly.
Power attracts money, and money attracts power. These are constants in human nature, and they need to be watched very closely. My point is that increasing the ability of governments to make changes that benefit or hurt the market attracts big money, so we should be very careful of anything we ask our governments to do. Having a political system that encourages entrenched politicians just exacerbates the problem. And moving more and more powers to the executive branch reduces the amount of work companies need to put in to get a desired result (e.g. Trump can be bought).
My opinion is that, in general, rules should be crafted and enforced as locally as possible, which would then dramatically increase the work required for a large entity to get what they want. Federal policy should be simple and limited to only what’s needed for a functioning union, and likewise down the chain.
What you’re missing is that as companies get bigger, they lose sight of their competitive advantage. Look at big household names from 50 years ago (or sooner!) that don’t really exist today. Capitalism works by smaller upstarts finding a competitive advantage, exploiting it, and then the cycle repeats.
The way large orgs compete now is by buying small orgs. We could consider blocking corporations from buying other corporations, which should encourage more disruption vs larger orgs (i.e. erode wealth of the big players), since they can’t just buy their competitors.
I really don’t think the two are related. Look at fascism before WW2, they didn’t need to erode capitalism first, they just ran on a populist platform, identified a common enemy, and used the platform and enemy as an excuse to eliminate democracy, at which point they could nationalize whatever industries they want. The transition to fascism throughout history has been through political means, not the market.
I suppose it’s possible for it to happen in the other order, but I don’t think it’s inevitable. We had a similar situation w/ Standard Oil taking over everything, and we ended up doing some trust busting to fix the issue. It’s not too late to change course, we just need the public to recognize the problem and demand change.