

David Harvey: Crises of Capitalism (RSA Animate) - alecco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

======
johnohara
In 2007, before the financial crisis and before becoming Chairman of the
Congressional Oversight Panel investigating the Troubled Assets Relief
Program, Dr. Elizabeth Warren gave a very interesting talk at UC Berkeley
titled "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class."

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A>

At the time I thought it was a little alarmist, but in view of recent
developments I recommend watching it (58 minutes, sorry). It speaks directly
to the point about wages and how middle class households employ revolving
credit to make up the the difference. The graphs and data are interesting.

------
gibsonf1
The great irony is that the crisis is one of Statism, not Capitalism. And to
"solve" the crisis with _more_ Statism will only make life radically worse.
But it looks like that's where things are headed. It's always hard to watch
governments repeating the same mistakes from the last century - sigh.

~~~
exit
have you given up on the idea of convincing people who disagree with you?

------
tomlin
Yes, yes!

That we should look at other methodologies of our economic structure. An
excellent viewpoint and debate starter.

The Anti-Capitalism ideology isn't Socialism or Marxism or Communism.
Capitalism isn't working the way society sees it.

Capitalism is beneath us as a society.

~~~
tkahn6
I'd be interested to hear what other economic structures you think are better.

I haven't heard a better argument than capitalism.

Also, you should note that in America we don't have a capitalist economy - we
have a mixed economy.

~~~
tomlin
> I'd be interested to hear what other economic structures you think are
> better.

I never indicated I knew if there were better economic structures; perhaps it
is yet to be invented, instead of impossible to fathom. An open-mind which
considers a new approach is a first step.

I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology
(as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct
to something more mature and more stable.

Isn't that a fair thing to say?

~~~
tkahn6
_I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology
(as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct
to something more mature and more stable._

At what point did I 'protect' capitalism?

You said it's beneath us as a society and I said that what we have isn't
capitalism.

The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a
moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find
something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance.

~~~
tomlin
> At what point did I 'protect' capitalism?

You didn't make a sign or wave a $ symbol flag. When you say you "haven't
heard a better argument", I read "won't hear a better argument". Perhaps you
don't mean it that way, in which case, apologies first.

Perhaps your studies and intellectual investment would be of less worth if
someone were to dare point out any alternative possibilities.

When there is talk about a resource-based economy or singularity government,
would-be opposers jump in quickly to shoot an idea down rather than see value.

> The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a
> moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find
> something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance.

You are right. I have not studied Capitalism or any other type of economic
framework. But would it matter? If you've committed to the idea of our "finest
form" of economy, than like any religious person, your opinions are hopeless
to evolve.

We see millions suffer across the world as our "best" economical structure
fuels its fire on the backs of the uncountable. If everyone were to embrace
Capitalism as most modern nations have, Capitalism would have no "grease bin",
so to speak.

I am sure the people of developing countries share a different opinion than
you. Are they wrong?

~~~
tkahn6
_I read "won't hear a better argument"_

 _You are right. I have not studied Capitalism or any other type of economic
framework. But would it matter? If you've committed to the idea of our "finest
form" of economy, than like any religious person, your opinions are hopeless
to evolve._

I clearly said I haven't heard a better argument; not that I won't accept any.
I used to think a mixed economy was the best economic system (the best of
socialism and capitalism). Then I read _Wealth of Nations_ and a bunch of
essays from _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_. As I said, since reading those I
haven't heard a better argument.

Maybe I should point out that at this point, I think your an asshole. But I
digress...

 _I am sure the people of developing countries share a different opinion than
you. Are they wrong?_

Again, you have failed to do any research. Just Google "free market africa"

This is the first hit:
<http://www.unu.edu/africa/papers/development/Stambuli3.pdf> You should read
it.

I fail to see how you can bring yourself to argue an opinion that is not
grounded in any research. Even if you argued Marxism after reading _Das
Kapital_ , at least you would be informed.

~~~
tomlin
> Maybe I should point out that at this point, I think your an asshole. But I
> digress...

Sigh.

You've come here to fight me, yet there is a well-authored video which
highlights the points I am making.

They aren't mine, but I understand the logic and outcomes in which the author
is illustrating. It is with this my eyes open a little more, I learn a bit
more and offer my open-mind to ideas not yet in bloom.

The results you want me to find on Google reinforce your point, finds the best
practice, but not any alternative.

I will take your advice about the quality publications you have recommended;
Wealth of Nations, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, etc.

Yet, still, I will be an _asshole_ simply because I wish to see your research
as only that.

~~~
tkahn6
_You've come here to fight me_

Man, what are you talking about? Are you just trolling? I can't tell if you're
being serious.

 _Yet there is a well-authored video which highlights the points I am making._

You're not making any points as far as I can tell. Please explain to me what
points you are making.

 _I will take your advice about the quality publications you have recommended;
Wealth of Nations, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, etc._

Are you serious? _Wealth of Nations_ is by Adam Smith.

 _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_ contains essays by Alan Greenspan.

I would appreciate it if you would let me know if we are indeed having a
serious discussion.

~~~
tomlin
You're looking for me to bring a wealth of academia and research to the table
to match your high knowledge of economics. That isn't going to happen.

I've never insisted that I know more or less than the average person.

I continue to explain that I am encouraged to see those who wish to seek out
more evolved ways of thinking are doing just that -- thinking.

Likewise, I do not know a lot about the human body. Yet, I would be extremely
happy to hear about a process that would eventually conquer cancer.

It seems you want clarification to my personal conclusion that "Capitalism is
beneath us as a society.".

I say this because in the framework of Capitalism, there must always be an
element of misfortune; which isn't just a byproduct, but a prerequisite to
it's success.

~~~
tkahn6
_You're looking for me to bring a wealth of academia and research to the table
to match your high knowledge of economics. That isn't going to happen._

I do not have a high knowledge of economics. I just graduated high school. I'm
not asking you to bring any superior academic knowledge to this discussion. I
simply want you to do some bare minimum research. You are remaining willfully
ignorant in your understanding of economic systems. You have admitted that you
have not studied any of this in any detail (whether rigorously or in passing).

 _Likewise, I do not know a lot about the human body. Yet, I would be
extremely happy to hear about a process that would eventually conquer cancer._

As would I, but I wouldn't get into an argument with someone about cancer
research because I have never studied cancer in any depth.

 _I say this because in the framework of Capitalism, there must always be an
element of misfortune; which isn't just a byproduct, but a prerequisite to
it's success._

That is simply _not_ true. The core principal of capitalism is that people
engage in _mutually beneficial_ transactions without the threat of physical
harm. This is the _core_ idea of the free market.

Please go read some literature on this. And I don't mean that in a negative
way. You seem genuinely open to new ideas but you seemingly are not willing to
seek those new ideas.

And whoever is downmodding every reply I post, please explain why. We are
engaging in a discussion. The downmod does not exist to express your
disagreement with me. You do that in your replies.

~~~
tomlin
_As would I, but I wouldn't get into an argument with someone about cancer
research because I have never studied cancer in any depth._

Except I'm not arguing. You've created an argument out of a thought, which is,
to strive for stability and equality. All I've stated thus far is that
Capitalism is a stepping stone to something _better_. No matter how many times
I repeat this, you are asserting an argument.

 _That is simply not true. The core principal of capitalism is that people
engage in mutually beneficial transactions without the threat of physical
harm. This is the core idea of the free market._

Now, here comes the argument.

The core idea of the free market is religion.

I've read a lot about, and at one time considered myself a Libertarian. I've
heard about the "promise land" of free markets for some time. For a while I
was hypnotized by that ideal, but we humans operate on incentives. Some people
call it greed, but I don't want to demonize a population.

Capitalism isn't evil, it's a cloak.

The promise of success keeps us all herding towards the door of opportunity,
but only a few pass almost regardless of intelligence, morals, motivations or
intentions.

When your insurance refuses coverage, it isn't because there's an evil
_asshole_ lurking to ensure you don't get what you deserve.

 _Company A_ announces _incentives_ for employers for saving the company
money. Those who aren't on-board get reviews, get fired. The workers who
respond to incentives deny your claim. You're now fucked, to put it lightly.
_Company A_ is now full of incentive-driven bias.

This is just 1 course of Capitalism. You don't need me to dig up research or
some book about societal structure and how it applies to Capitalism. You see
it everyday.

 _Please go read some literature on this. And I don't mean that in a negative
way. You seem genuinely open to new ideas but you seemingly are not willing to
seek those new ideas._

I plan to. And yes, I am very open and very willing to seek new ideas and
support those with more knowledge and more ability to drive these efforts.
However, I am not willing to listen to steadfast, obstinate reasoning for
future consideration.

I appreciate that there are those (like yourself) that don't put up with the
hearsay and nonsensical banter, but I'm not your target. I'm just voting for
_innovation_.

~~~
tkahn6
_All I've stated thus far is that Capitalism is a stepping stone to something
better._

That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an
ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion.

 _The core idea of the free market is religion._

What does this mean? And you don't even back up this claim.

 _but we humans operate on incentives._

Yes. The entire point of the free market is that people act in their own self
interest.

I can't semantically parse the rest of your text. Can you try restating it?

 _Capitalism isn't evil, it's a cloak. The promise of success keeps us all
herding towards the door of opportunity, but only a few pass almost regardless
of intelligence, morals, motivations or intentions. When your insurance
refuses coverage, it isn't because there's an evil asshole lurking to ensure
you don't get what you deserve. Company A announces incentives for employers
for saving the company money. Those who aren't on-board get reviews, get
fired. The workers who respond to incentives deny your claim. You're now
fucked, to put it lightly. Company A is now full of incentive-driven bias.
This is just 1 course of Capitalism. You don't need me to dig up research or
some book about societal structure and how it applies to Capitalism. You see
it everyday._

I don't understand any of this.

~~~
loewenskind
>That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an
ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion.

I'm not sure he was asserting as much as hoping or maybe suggesting. You sound
like you're getting close to asserting that it _is_ an ideal system though.
Care to back _that_ up?

Neither claim could be backed up without trying different systems, but surely
you have more optimism than to think what we have now is the best we can ever
do.

~~~
tkahn6
Ahhh

What we have now is not the best we can do, but what we have _isn't_
capitalism. So to claim that capitalism is the "beneath us as a society" means
nothing because it's never been _tried_ here.

EDIT: And, if you've read the comments above, it's clear that, by his own
admission, tomlin has never studied any economic system.

~~~
loewenskind
I'd be interested to know what would need to happen for us to have a system
that meets your definition of "capitalism". As far as I know the purest for
that was ever attempted was in Chile under Pinochet. The "Chicago Boys" were
given pretty much free reign, they tried to make the system just as Milton
Friedman taught them and it was failing pretty spectacularly until they "slid
the scale a little more toward socialism", if you will.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile>

~~~
tkahn6
Well first of all, it's not _my_ definition of capitalism. It's Adam Smith's.

When people think of 'capitalism' they usually think of anarchy and large
mega-corporations that destroy the environment and do whatever the hell they
want. There _is_ regulation under capitalism. The government exists to protect
private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud.

The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners
defaulting on their loans.

I guess a first step we could take would be to 1) stop teaching kids that home
ownership is necessary to be 'American', 2) stop giving out government-
financed loans to first-time homeowners (through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) and
3) to shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to
making sure they aren't committing fraud.

I'm not an economist but I think it's clear that the fact that the government
(under Reagan ironically), made it its mission to put American's in homes.
Great. But of course what happened was that many of these people that were
initially given loans through this program defaulted on them.

~~~
loewenskind
>The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners
defaulting on their loans.

Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view. The government-financed loans were an
enabler, but people were using over-the-counter CDS' to short those loans
(i.e. more than one "insurance policy" could exist per loan and it would be
hard to even know who all had them unless the loan defaulted), rating agencies
get paid by those they rate so they gave artificially good ratings, etc., etc.
It was a perfect storm but to put the blame on those "darn irresponsible poor
people" is so simplistic as to be absurd.

>shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making
sure they aren't committing fraud.

There are many reason for the regulation on banks and mutual funds. It's not
to make the country more socialist, it's to prevent short term focused
bankers/fund managers from accidentally destroying the whole economy or
pissing away thousands of people's retirement.

>The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute
those who commit fraud.

What about dealing with monopolies? If you believe in free market capitalism
then you must know about elasticity of markets. Monopolies artificially
destroy elasticity in whatever space they're in.

In my opinion what the US government needs to do _before anything else_ is
start breaking down monopolies. "Too big to fail" is a big red flag that
someone didn't do their job.

~~~
tkahn6
_Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view._

Yeah I know. But it seems like we're on the same page about what happened.

Where do you see monopolies?

------
kiba
Oh greed! The inhumanity! More regulations. Less free markets! Markets are
inefficient!

Oh please, every inefficient market is an entrepreneur dream. That what HN
entrepreneur types want to exploit. Get the damn monopolies out of the way and
let entrepreneurs eliminate the inefficiency. Or rather, don't expect
efficient market everywhere. There will alway be some inefficiency. For
example, the browser market was stagnant for a while. However, it didn't take
a government to remedy it. It took a non-profit enterprise, who against all
odd, brought firefox to the masses.

Anybody who believes in the efficient market hypothesis did not realize the
functions of entrepreneurship and the uncertainty inherent in market. In other
words, it's a strawman designed to make free marketeers look like naive
believer in the magic of capitalism.

Regulations? Heard of regulatory capture, much? There are good regulations and
then there are bad regulations. It's not about regulators being asleep at the
wheel, it's about regulators sleeping with bankers. When that happens, the
regulations will be modified to fit what the bankers like, not whether it is
healthy for the economy.

Don't give me the bollocks about how the world should be more humane,
responsible, and just. _Everybody_ wants the world to be more humane,
responsible, and just.

Discuss or debate with the strongest supporters of capitalism and come back,
then wow me with your socialist insight instead of attacking the weakest
version of capitalism.

As it stand, the youtube video is pathetically weak. Free marketeers will pick
apart the video like no tomorrow.

------
chwahoo
While parts of his story resonate and it fun to to hear people explain
phenomena based on different ideologies, I've never heard an alternative to
capitalism that sounded credible at a large scale. (Most any system could work
at a small scale.)

~~~
forkandwait
All the successful large scale nations (the US, the UK, China, Germany, Japan,
etc) are some _mix_ of socialist and capitalist organization, and probably
pretty close to 60%/40% in one direction or the other. In a socialist nation,
there are usually at least small local produce markets etc; in a "capitalist"
nation like the US there are a huge amount of services and regulations that
are socialist (the cops, some welfare, etc, etc). In a middle country like
Japan or Germany, the government works very closely with the firms to try to
effect non-market driven policy and outcomes that have society-wide benefits
as their rationale.

And... every society is an immensely complex machine, and probably can't be
boiled down to an ideology (something Marx never understood, hence his
inability to actually propose an alternative besides a utopian vision, and his
inability to be a very effective political actor.)

~~~
tkahn6
And notice that that the US, UK, Germany, and Japan are all in dire economic
straits right now.

Also, the police force not a socialist institution. To sustain a free market
requires the state-sanctioned protection of life and property. The police
force is a very 'capitalist' institution.

~~~
forkandwait
Well, China is doing pretty OK and they are to the socialist side of the
continuum.

And, as long as we are trading isolated examples to prove general theories,
what country is on the capitalist side of the spectrum and doing notably well?
For bonus points, find me a nation that bet the farm on innovative securities
and is doing especially well.

Don't get me wrong, I love markets and entrepeneurship (sp?); I just tend
toward the Rockefeller Republican / Conservative Democrat zone, in which we
believe that (1) the important thing is the details of governance (tax policy
details, not debates about whether taxes are good) and (2) that "society" is
more fundamental than "the market."

~~~
tkahn6
Well, Brazil is doing pretty well.

My point was not to prove a general theory by isolated example - simply to
provide a counterpoint.

I think it's more fruitful to compare the economic/moral philosophies of these
systems than to compare examples of them. Primarily because no isolated
example is a paragon of its stated parent philosophy and (more practically)
because a Marxist country doesn't exist and a capitalist country doesn't exist
to compare.

And I'm genuinely curious how you separate tax policy debate from whether
taxes are good. I don't think any socioeconomic system says _all_ taxes are
bad, but they do differ on what it is moral to tax for.

~~~
loewenskind
A pure capitalist country was tried in Chile though. They had to back out the
"purity" pretty quickly.

------
MarkPNeyer
Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed
axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level
of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astrologers.

~~~
forkandwait
"Marx was completely wrong" is quite a statement -- you must have read all
2000 or so pages to be able to say this?

The labor theory of value is, indeed, rather silly. Marx did say a lot of
other stuff, however. He was a crappy economist, but a great (IMHO)
sociologist and philosopher.

One of his many points was that (market and non market) economies are socially
embedded and created, generally to support power grabs by certain classes.
Market economies have the extra advantage that they allow class structure (the
relation between groups of people who are powerful and groups who are screwed-
over) to _appear_ scientifically necessary, as inevitable as the orbit of the
planets once we know the differential equations and the initial conditions.
But really, the economies mask a power struggle that was out in the open
during feudal times (e.g. when the Norman lord showed up and said you will
farm for us and give up your weapons, or we will kill you now).

When a person can't see this social context for markets, Marx would say such a
person was blinded by "commodity fetishism" and a misguided belief in powers
of commodity relations (and that such a belief is no more rational than the
belief that a blessed doll can inflict misery on your enemies.)

~~~
MaysonL
Peter Drucker thought Marx was important, not for his answers, but because he
was asking the right important questions.

