
Capitalism Is Collapsing and Nothing Is Rising to Replace It - kodfodrasz
http://www.alternet.org/economy/end-capitalism-and-end-our-world
======
_yosefk
Dean Baker, a great economist and easily the best on the (relatively) radical
left, said (in the context of discussing Piketty's work) that "capitalism is
infinitely malleable" \- markets are shaped by infinite rules and tweaking
those rules tweaks the outcomes. To speak of "capitalism" as a thing with
defined outcomes is to ignore how vast that range of outcomes is, and how
badly things work without _any_ market whatsoever, which is what true
alternatives (as opposed to tweaks) to capitalism amount to.

"That changed on Nov. 8, when the American oligarchs ousted noncompliant
professional politicians and assumed direct power through Donald Trump and his
cabinet."

Does it follow that Obama was defiant of "the American oligarchs" in his bold
support for, say, TPP?

"Marx thought communism would see the withering-away of the state. Instead,
capitalism has reduced the state until its chief functions are protecting the
rich and policing the poor."

Does TFA imply that things got worse since Marx's days in terms of the
absolute standard of living of "the poor"? Does the modern state redistribute
less from "the rich" to "the poor" than it did in Marx's days?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Since the rich don't pay taxes, and the poor (unemployed) get only money from
the state, there is _no redistribution_ from the rich to the poor. There is
redistribution from the middle class to the poor, right?

~~~
falcolas
The rich do pay taxes, just a smaller portion of their income as compared to
your average taxpayer. But that smaller portion is leaps and bounds larger
than the bigger portion paid by the average taxpayer.

I seem to recall some graph indicating that even though they pay 4-5x (or
higher) lower percentage of their money in taxes, the higher amounts mean they
shoulder most of the tax burdon.

I don't think the percentage difference is ultimately beneficial to society,
but it's not correct to say they pay nothing.

~~~
jcranmer
The share of taxes paid by the rich is greater than their share of income and
wealth.

~~~
cmurf
The chart in this article says people who make more than $250K per year are
paying just over 1/2 of income tax paid.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-
income-...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-
americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/)

And then here, merely the top 10% of wealth holders hold 76% of the wealth,
and the top 20% of wealth holders hold 85% of total wealth. The statistics are
no where near what you appear to be claiming.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States)

------
krschultz
Our agency is collapsing. I recently read the Federalist papers. What struck
me most was the impression that the founders viewed government simply as a
problem to be solved. We view the Constitution as second only to God's word
handed down on stone tablets, but it was just a bunch of guys getting together
thinking through the potential implications of different systems. I'm reminded
of the part of Zero to One that talks about how we used to imagine large scale
projects (e.g. filling in the SF Bay, for better or worse), but today we
barely can get 2 miles of subway built in NYC.

Somewhere along the way we fell into stasis. We have a bunch of a problems in
society and in the world. They need to be solved. These days the only two
dynamic areas are philanthropy and startups. Almost everything else - US
federal, state, and local government, large legacy businesses, small
businesses, the UN, the EU, NGOs - are stagnant.

~~~
0xCMP
We basically started caring about what people think and how we affect their
lives. Those previous projects were done at the expense of those it affected
negatively. Maybe they were willing to accept that because they believed life
would be better for everyone as a result.

------
jdpedrie
> the American oligarchs ousted noncompliant professional politicians and
> assumed direct power through Donald Trump and his cabinet.

This strikes me as an extremely odd reading of the election results. The
establishment (which oligarchs are almost by definition part of) was by and
large very much anti-Trump.

~~~
jcranmer
What happened after the election is that a lot of those people decided to try
to convince themselves that maybe a Trump administration won't be so bad, but
yes, they were very-much anti-Trump on election day.

~~~
cylinder
And not to mention Clinton spent about $1 billion from very large donors on a
very industrialized campaign based on TV advertising and direct mail, while
Trump spent $60 million made up of small donations. To say presidential
elections are won by big money oligarchs is kind of silly.

~~~
alphabettsy
$60 Million? He put in over $60 Million of just his own money so that figure
is off bigly! Big money put their money into PACs on both sides so it's
impossible to say they have/had no effect. WAPost:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-
finance/) Forture: [http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/donald-trump-campaign-
spending...](http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/donald-trump-campaign-spending/)

------
blakes
A more open, free, and transparent version of capitalism will be the cure I
think.

Transparency is key, we need to start requiring openess in all aspects of
government and business.

~~~
ythn
Could you elaborate on why you believe transparency is the cure?

~~~
nateabele
Prototypical example: healthcare. Healthcare in the US is one of the most
_unfree_ markets anywhere. Price transparency is near zero across the board,
and federal and state agencies, which engage in reverse price-fixing
(mandating costs for goods and services they cover), account for over 30% of
all healthcare spending.

Coupled with the copious regulations around insurance, pushing it out of the
realm of reasonable affordability for all but the biggest corporations, and
insurance companies' backroom dealing with major healthcare providers, price
discovery for the consumer is basically dead.

As a result, US healthcare costs have ballooned out of control compared to
everywhere else in the world, with no measurable improvement in outcomes.

------
rabidvermin
It's been on the verge of collapsing imminently for almost 200 years now.

~~~
Bombthecat
3000,since humans used some kind of currency.

It's always almost dead :)

The ones calling capitalism dead are the ones who want to replace it with
communism and co.

And we know how that will end...

So we stick to capitalism and going back to future/ past feudalism

~~~
ant6n
capitalism in most of the world is less than 200 years old. Before that we had
feudalism.

Most progressives want to amend capitalism with some socialism; social
democracy exists or did exist in much of Europe, and is largely under pressure
by the race to the bottom caused by globalization. And of course ever-more
powerful multi-national corporations.

~~~
witty_username
What is the race to the bottom? And if so, it's a great thing. Lower wages
mean cheaper products.

Powerful multi-national corporations often lobby for anti-capitalistic
measures (protectionism, subsidies). Socialism only increases the influence of
corporations via a bigger government.

~~~
mmstick
Lower wages doesn't necessarily mean cheaper products, especially once you
take inflation into account. The cost of living has been increasing
drastically, despite any efficiency gains. Wages have not been increasing to
keep up with the pace. Seniors who are now retired are now effectively effed
and are forced to go back to work to make ends meet. The young who are trying
to get a fresh start aren't able to and most people in their 30s still live
with their parents because a full time job isn't enough to afford the most
basic apartment.

Companies are more willing to hire outside labor -- effectively slave labor,
because they are able to pay foreign workers much less than domestic citizens.
Companies are also more willing to replace human employees with robots,
because it's cheaper than paying a human to do the same job. Companies will
not help employees transition into new job positions. Fast food restaurants
are beginning to replace all their workers with robots. The truck driving
industry is about to replace all of it's drivers with robots. Walmart is
replacing it's stockers and cashiers with robots. Pizza shops are even going
for full autonomy with self-driving pizza trucks that automatically make pizza
while delivering it. A huge percent of existing jobs today will soon be taken
over by robots. You can definitely ensure that all the jobs that are
considered entry level will no longer exist. How then, will the young get
their foot in the door and become independent when they have no jobs?

That race to the bottom has merely displaced millions upon millions of people
and abolished the middle class, in addition to destabilizing the world
economy. Capitalism is entirely incapable of keeping up with the modern world.
The only way forward is a basic income.

~~~
witty_username
> Lower wages doesn't necessarily mean cheaper products, especially once you
> take inflation into account. Wages have not been increasing to keep up with
> the pace.

The wages are lower even adjusted even with inflation.

> The cost of living has been increasing drastically, despite any efficiency
> gains.

No, it has not. See
[https://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1611.pdf](https://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1611.pdf)
(PDF Page 70, Table 24). It's increased about 20% in the past 10 years.

In the same period GNI per capita (i.e. average income) has increased about
20%. (See [http://data.worldbank.org/country/united-
states](http://data.worldbank.org/country/united-states))

> Seniors who are now retired are now effectively effed and are forced to go
> back to work to make ends meet.

But, why do you think this is due to capitalism?

> Companies are more willing to hire outside labor -- effectively slave labor,
> because they are able to pay foreign workers much less than domestic
> citizens.

How is it "slave labor"? Slavery is forced work. That's different from low
wages, which are precisely why it's so wonderful. The poorest people of the
world are getting jobs. It's bad but without a job they'll be in an even worse
situation.

> Companies are also more willing to replace human employees with robots,
> because it's cheaper than paying a human to do the same job. [...] Walmart
> is replacing it's stockers and cashiers with robots. Pizza shops are even
> going for full autonomy with self-driving pizza trucks that automatically
> make pizza while delivering it.

That's great; we're moving one step towards robot utopia.

> Companies will not help employees transition into new job positions.

That's not in their contract so it's not their responsibility. Shareholders
(most of us indirectly hold stock) want more money just like all of us.

> How then, will the young get their foot in the door and become independent
> when they have no jobs?

They will do other jobs that aren't replaced by robots. Those jobs' real wages
will increase due to robots increasing purchasing power. Also, see lump of
labor fallacy.

In fact, although this is probably due to the recovery from the 2008
recession, unemployment rate has been decreasing since the sudden increase in
2008.
([https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000](https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000))

New technologies replacing jobs is hardly a new phenomenon. Robots aren't new
either; they've been used for decades.

> The truck driving industry is about to replace all of it's drivers with
> robots.

Cheaper truck transport is great.

> That race to the bottom has merely displaced millions upon millions of
> people and abolished the middle class, in addition to destabilizing the
> world economy. Capitalism is entirely incapable of keeping up with the
> modern world. The only way forward is a basic income.

Who has been displaced? How has the middle-class been abolished? Globally, the
middle-class is growing (7% -> 13 %)
([http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/08/a-global-middle-class-
is...](http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/08/a-global-middle-class-is-more-
promise-than-reality/)) and inequality slightly decreased from 1981 to 2005
(ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak968e/ak968e00.pdf, PDF page 2, Table 1).

> in addition to destabilizing the world economy.

What destabilization? If you mean recessions, socialist countries have had
recessions too. And how are recessions due to capitalism?

EDIT: made corrections to part about global inequality

------
tim333
>Capitalism Is Collapsing

but it isn't really - it's a pretty robust system that's been through worse
challenges such as the great depression and rise of communism. The author
moaning about things like washing machines not lasting like they used to
doesn't change that.

------
adamnemecek
I've always found georgism to be an interesting political idea but idk if I'm
actually in favor of it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)

Check out this book by Henry George himself [https://www.amazon.com/Social-
Problems-Henry-George-ebook/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Social-Problems-
Henry-George-
ebook/dp/B00C8WJXS8/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1484147841&sr=8-5&keywords=georgism&linkCode=ll1&tag=akhn-20&linkId=5f89431033f02154d32f8e9d8a0760d6)

------
throw2016
Systems of governance are not static. They have to keep on evolving. We have
pretty highly educated populations now compared to 50 or 100 years ago.

Raising the scare of communism seems to be a position of anti-change and
resorting to the anti improvement TINA factor.

Like capitalism communism was another form of governance, an experiment that
did not always work but the motivation as not negative. It was a reaction to
feudalism and a effort to find a better alternative.

Currently we need more democracy and accountability as elections are
increasingly becoming token gestures while special interests and organized
groups indulge in lobbying and regulatory capture everyday.

------
0xCMP
Question: Why is this flagged?

~~~
FuNe
sssst - you will get downvoted for asking such questions. Answer: HN is pro-
capitalism first and foremost. Everything else -democracy and truth included-
take a back seat here.

@HN admins: you can hide your heads in the sand as much as you like. Good luck
and thanks for the fish.

UPDATE: OK - I'll take at face value the replies and apologize for the attack
to admins. I'm still not following though why/how this is flagged.

~~~
witty_username
I think there's a sizeable pro-socialism portion that's at least 50%. Just
look at the comments here.

~~~
vidarh
HN does have quite a few left wing commenters, but also a very large liberal
and libertarian portion that often express concern about where capitalism is
heading without necessarily wanting socialism... But in either case I think
this article's comment-section is a bad one to judge by - the headline draw in
a specific subset of commenters with a specific interest in the idea of the
collapse of capitalism, which I suspect will disproportionally include left-
wingers.

------
skilesare
I'm trying. [http://catallax.info](http://catallax.info)

Real life keeps getting int he way.

------
nix0n
Weirdly Vancouver-centric. If Vancouver is collapsing, maybe Milwaukee can
replace it.

------
FuNe
flagged? It transcends me why this post might be flagged. And it will be a
marker of very bad undemocratic qualities of this forum if it stays like that.

~~~
grzm
Flagging is the result of user action. Speculation, but one reason may be that
users think the discussion is likely to generate much more heat than any
additional new light on the topic.

~~~
FuNe
I'm not following though. So -any user can flag a post without any need to
justify his action? Where is the value in that? Only posts that are at least
neutral to all get to pass? Then we end up talking about anything but the
things that actually matter in fear that they will generate "heat".

The posted article is much more decent than most anti-Trump articles that were
the norm in here the past months. Personally I cannot wrap my head around it
being flagged. If this is a result of a defective process then fix the process
- that is if this is supposed to be a forum of reasonable practical people
trying to find solutions to problems (aka hackers).

~~~
grzm
Multiple users need to have flagged a submission for it to receive a
'[flagged]' label.

My initial comment is not meant as arguing for or against flagging in general
or for this submission in particular. You asked why it might have been
flagged. Another commenter responded similarly:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13374725](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13374725)

If you've noticed submissions from the past couple of months, you've likely
come across user discussion about flagging and what submissions are
appropriate for HN. For example, there was a Political Detox Week:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404)

As an aside, I think it's a difficult process figuring out how have civil and
substantive online discussions. Just asking people to do so, even if they're
generally reasonable people, doesn't seem to be enough. Some topics will
nearly always result in flame wars of various temperature, and too many of
those can drive away those who are willing to be reasonable. I respect your
desire to want to dig into topics like this, and they're things that should be
discussed. That said, it's a legitimate question if this _is_ indeed the forum
where they can be discussed constructively. That's not necessarily a failing
of HN or its community, either. It just may not be the right tool for the job,
so to speak. There are other forums other there.

------
rm_-rf_slash
Why is this flagged? I would imagine that the nature of capitalism is
something many tech employees with uncertain stock option payouts would be
somewhat interested in.

~~~
grzm
This question has been asked twice in this submission with responses:

\-
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13374538](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13374538)

\-
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13374571](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13374571)

