It's ALWAYS Oligarchs, an open challenge

[PureX]

The essence o

The essence of trade is both parties being
better off for the transaction.

That's the ideal, of course.

But that unfortunately completely contradicts the other ideal of getting as much for ourselves out of the trade as we can, regardless of the effect on the other side. Making the exploitation of others (by whatever means) our goal. And that's why we then need systems of oversight and regulation to protect us from each other during our commercial interactions. All the BS about "free trade" is just an excuse for allowing economic exploitation and abuse to run amok, and 'may the better exploiter, win'.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I beg to differ. In a capitalist regime, "free" markets require rule by violence and authority in order to preserve all-important private property and capital.

Conversely, a free society might as well do away with the oppressive system of capitalism altogether - and arguably has to, if it wants to pursue genuine freedom for every single one of its members.

I hear this so much. If not capitalism, then what would be the alternative?

 

[PureX]

I hear this so much. If not capitalism, then what would be the alternative?

Socialism. Giving control of commerce to those engaged in it, instead of giving it to the capital investor, only.

 

[Audie]

I'd say it depends a lot on who is doing the seizing and the distributing here.
An authoritarian regime is only going to use these actions to increase its power and support among the powerful, especially when they simply give capital away to their supporters and cronies.

An autonomous, libertarian community arming itself and seizing an oligarch's wealth for common and collective use by all - for example, seizing real estate to be used for communal housing, or seizing factories or businesses to turn them into worker-controlled cooperatives - would be a rather different issue.

Not much different. Won't work either way.

 

[Audie]

I hear this so much. If not capitalism, then what would be the alternative?

Poverty and dictatorships

 

[Audie]

Socialism. Giving control of commerce to those engaged in it, instead of giving it to the capital investor, only.

There you go! Give, don't earn.

If people want to run co ops, great.
Go do it. Nobody stopping you.
Heck, someone might GIVE a grant
to kick start it.
Go ahead do a worker paradise coop.

 

[Audie]

I once estimated that about 30% of his car's cost is taxpayer
subsidized (because electric cars are so fashionable).
His company is a mooch.

Hardly his fault that greenies vote

 

[Audie]

That's the ideal, of course.

But that unfortunately completely contradicts the other ideal of getting as much for ourselves out of the trade as we can, regardless of the effect on the other side. Making the exploitation of others (by whatever means) our goal. And that's why we then need systems of oversight and regulation to protect us from each other during our commercial interactions. All the BS about "free trade" is just an excuse for allowing economic exploitation and abuse to run amok, and 'may the better exploiter, win'.

A very dark view.

 

[PureX]

There you go! Give, don't earn.

"Earn" is just capitalist BS for, "I deserve to have so much more than you!".

 

[PureX]

A very dark view.

And yet so true.

 

[Audie]

"Earn" is just capitalist BS for, "I deserve to have so much more than you!".

You'd have a terrif time with my late- of-the
Red Guard uncle". You could denounce
capitalist- readers and running-dogs all
day long.
Find another translator tho., I
am sick of that garbage.

(We will definitely be out earning
more)

 

[Audie]

And yet so true.

As I said, you'd love discussing the evils of
economics with the red guard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hardly his fault that greenies vote

I hear that the oligarchists are behind his subsidies.

 

[icehorse]

Thanks to silver spoon, I control wealth
enough to put me in the top .0001
or so percent.

So I must be truly dreadful.

You figure some social ills would be
prevented if all but enough to live on
were seized and distributed?

What if I made it .00001% ?

Now, I'm not talking about "seizing and distibuting", but I AM talking about paying your fair share of taxes, and of not letting your opinion matter in DC more than mine does

 

[icehorse]

The problem still remains. Regardless of who "owns" the business, they all would rather sell 10 widgets for $10 each than 100 widgets for $1 each. The income is still $100, but the cost of production is far less in the former trade, than the latter.

ALL trading seeks to exploit us for it's own gain. And that's what has to be mitigated by the 'trading systems' that we set up and engage in. "Free" trading does not address this problem except by allowing us to refuse to engage in it. Which is an extreme and very impractical method of mitigation. What we need are trading systems that increase our control relative to our need to participate in them. If, for example, we have to have some form of transportation to survive in a modern society, then we have to control the transportation market relative to that need, so that everyone can reasonably afford it. Thus, the transportation market cannot be "free" to do whatever it pleases for the sake of it's own profit.

If I understand you correctly, I think the sentence of yours that I bolded is critical, and on this point we disagree. As a consumer, I want providers to compete with each to see who can make the best quality products as cheaply as possible, correct?

 

[icehorse]

I have a fun one for you, @icehorse - connect the dots between oligarchy and human overpopulation.

Several ways to connect dots here:

1 - Extremely wealthy religions like Catholicism work hard around the world to keep women ignorant. Not only that, but Catholicism makes having a lot of kids a goal. But we know that educated women have fewer children.

2 - More broadly, oligarchs have taken control of critical aspects of our education systems, and hobbled them. Back to point one, ignorant women have more children.

3 - Poor people tend to have more children - one reason why, is that poor infants and toddlers have higher mortality rates than their more financially secure counterparts, so an ancient strategy of poor people is to have more kids, betting on the fact that only some of them will survive. brutal!

 

[icehorse]

Fair challenge. Start with Elon Musk, since he's famous for giving things away.. How is his wealth making everything worse?

Almost all oligarchs resist decentralized societies. It's harder to make huge profits in decentralized societies.

Producing electric power is still mostly not environmentally sustainable. (Maybe we'll achieve fusion power soon?) Until it is, even electric cars feed into the myth that the planet can remain healthy and sustain billions of individuals driving one-ton cars around the planet 10 or 20 or 30 thousand miles a year.

But even with that said, I like to think Elon is one of the "better" oligarchs.

 

[PureX]

As a consumer, I want providers to compete with each to see who can make the best quality products as cheaply as possible, correct?

That's a nice fantasy, but it only becomes a reality in the luxury markets, where the buyer does not need the items being sold, to survive. Unfortunately, in our modern and highly inter-dependent societies, very few markets are true luxury markets, anymore. And non-luxury markets are all captive markets, where-in the buyers have to buy from someone, and the sellers all know it. So they are not competing in the manner that you suggest: lowest price and highest value to entice the buyer. They are competing for just the opposite: the highest price for the least value that the buyer can bear. There may be ten gas stations in a town, but every one of them still wants to sell the least amount of gas for the highest price possible, and every one of them knows we're going to have to buy it from one of them. So the game is to inch those prices up, until we simply can't afford it. Because that's where they ALL want to be. None of them want to inch the prices down so they can sell more gas for less money.

 

[icehorse]

That's a nice fantasy, but it only becomes a reality in the luxury markets, where the buyer does not need the items being sold, to survive. Unfortunately, in our modern and highly inter-dependent societies, very few markets are true luxury markets, anymore. And non-luxury markets are all captive markets, where-in the buyers have to buy from someone, and the sellers all know it. So they are not competing in the manner that you suggest: lowest price and highest value to entice the buyer. They are competing for just the opposite: the highest price for the least value that the buyer can bear. There may be ten gas stations in a town, but every one of them still wants to sell the least amount of gas for the highest price possible, and every one of them knows we're going to have to buy it from one of them. So the game is to inch those prices up, until we simply can't afford it. Because that's where they ALL want to be. None of them want to inch the prices down so they can sell more gas for less money.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I see that happen very often in the world. I think your example is the rare one.

 

[Quintessence]

1 - Extremely wealthy religions like Catholicism work hard around the world to keep women ignorant. Not only that, but Catholicism makes having a lot of kids a goal. But we know that educated women have fewer children.

Counterpoint - the most populous nations on earth (China, India ~3 billion combined) are not Catholic, or even Christian. How does this then follow?

2 - More broadly, oligarchs have taken control of critical aspects of our education systems, and hobbled them. Back to point one, ignorant women have more children.

Setting aside the "ignorant women have more children" is a problematic assertion considering human females are not capable of parthenogenesis...

... in what countries have oligarchs taken control of (aka, wholly privatized and rendered elitist) the education system? What do you mean by "taken control" and where's the evidence of this on a widespread scale?

3 - Poor people tend to have more children - one reason why, is that poor infants and toddlers have higher mortality rates than their more financially secure counterparts, so an ancient strategy of poor people is to have more kids, betting on the fact that only some of them will survive. brutal!

Counterpoint - infant mortality rate is trivially low such that this is a virtual non-factor. In general, mortality rates have plummeted and life spans inflated worldwide. How are oligarchs responsible for this?

Hint - technology is far and away the dominant factor in causing human overpopulation. How do you connect human overuse and misuse of technology with oligarchy?