
Reform capitalism or face revolution - jdc
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-milken-conference-ray-dalio-20190502-story.html
======
drukenemo
The problem with the idea of "revolution" is that it assumes that some group,
however small or large, has the panacea for fixing things up or maybe worse,
the willingness to destroy things and find out what to build in place as time
goes.

But no one can guarantee a revolution will improve things in any measurable
capacity. The risk therefore, is enourmous. And in the process, people suffer,
die and things can become permanently worse.

I believe than in the face of a problem, a slower pace of experimentations and
careful, but meaningful changes are a safer and probably more effective
approach.

~~~
katanaman
Rich and powerful people will never accept even the most of the "slower pace
of experimentations". Nothing of value was obtained without blood,
unfortunately

~~~
drukenemo
"Nothing of value was obtained without blood, unfortunately"

That's a pretty big statement and completely false. Every single day things of
great value are obtained without blood.

One thing people could do to change things politically is not to comply
collectively, pressure the government via social media, protest peacefully and
firmly etc.

------
fopen64
There are cooler heads like Warren Buffett that have been telling this for
what, decades?

~~~
crankylinuxuser
... Like Warren Buffet? He has the choice of doing the right thing. And what
does he do?

This.

[https://publicintegrity.org/business/warren-buffetts-
mobile-...](https://publicintegrity.org/business/warren-buffetts-mobile-home-
empire-preys-on-the-poor/)

[https://thehustle.co/mobile-homes-real-eastate-
scam/](https://thehustle.co/mobile-homes-real-eastate-scam/)

[https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-
watchdog/buf...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-
watchdog/buffetts-mobile-home-empire-makes-record-profits-while-foreclosing-
on-8444-homes/)

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

~~~
PButtNutter
He's definitely part of the problem, and not part the solution.

------
BadassFractal
Is there any indication that people actually understand (and can
mathematically demonstrate) how to fix this, or are all suggestions going to
be based on economic or political ideologies?

I'm not an expert, and I've heard many times the thought that macroeconomics
is simply too complex for anybody to understand, so you constantly retreat
back to "my political tribe vs your political tribe" instead of treating this
as an well understood equation that has many perfectly valid solutions that
can be explored.

~~~
49531
It's less of a "tribe" thing and more of an analysis of material conditions.
People don't break out the guillotines if their lives are stable and their
material needs are adequately taken care of; if they don't think there is
something better on the other end of the blood bath.

The same way people don't join unions if they think they will make less money
because of their union dues. They do these things as a means to improving
their material conditions.

The problem is that one "tribe"'s material conditions are at the expense of
the others. You can't increase wages without decreasing profit. So the
profiting "tribe" is at odds with the wage "tribe".

I'm scare-quoting "tribe" because the traditional word is class which we've
had ironed out of us over the last 40 years. This is class struggle and has
existed for a long time.

~~~
BadassFractal
Is it safe to say that, if the conditions of the lower and middle class are
perfectly favorable, people are living healthy, productive, happy lives and
there is upwards mobility for those who are willing to do whatever it takes to
dedicate their lives to it, then wealth inequality in and of itself isn't the
thing we need to optimize for?

Wealth inequality seems like a proxy metric for "the lower classes are
struggling". Is the correlation (or causation?) between the two well
established?

~~~
astine
In general, people will put up with a lot of governmental issues so long as
their own personal lives are fine. There are still issues with wealth
inequality leading to some groups having an outsized influence in government
which is a concern.

~~~
BadassFractal
That's totally fair. Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power
inequality? e.g. Let's say I'm ok with Steve Jobs hoarding billions of he
creates something game-changing for society over decades of starting/running a
business, as long as that doesn't mean his vote is more important than that of
an entire state.

Does this boil down to the fact that, in the current political system, wealth
can be traded for political power, and if that exchange didn't exist, then
wealth wouldn't be an issue in the first place?

~~~
icelancer
>> Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power inequality?

Why does money buy power? As state control expands and authoritarian thinking
is embraced by both parties in the United States, there is more centralized
power TO purchase.

It is in everyone's best interest at the top (politicians and billionaires
alike) that government continues to expand the size and scope of their aims,
while keeping taxes low. Not so much for the average and poor people, but this
seems obvious.

~~~
archagon
By saying that “both parties” are embracing authoritarianism, all you are
doing is being useful to the clearly, unabashedly authoritarian party
currently busy consolidating its power.

It’s just empirically untrue propaganda.

~~~
icelancer
Knocking down strawmen left and right, I'm impressed. Or just the strawmen on
your right in this case, I guess.

Both turn to authoritarianism to solve their problems. One party just happens
to be more moral in doing so. That makes them preferable, somewhat. But
friendly to libertarianism, neither party is, and calling it for what it is
doesn't make me an ally of anyone.

------
snrji
Contrary to the belief of progressive billionaires, I think the reform of
capitalism will come in form of local "soft socialism". Localism just makes
sense and can be accepted by both left and right-wing people.

------
nickik
People who write this stuff don't have a clue how revolutions work actually
work.

------
settsu
Must have been an awkward position to be in, when you tell the billionaires
who pay you to research history for them, that things don’t often work out
well for them.

On a serious note though:

• 2017: “Huge Human Inequality Study Hints Revolution is in Store for U.S.”
[https://www.inverse.com/article/38457-inequality-study-
natur...](https://www.inverse.com/article/38457-inequality-study-nature-
revolution)

• 2015: “PAUL TUDOR JONES: Income inequality will end in revolution, taxes, or
war” [https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-tudor-jones-on-
inequali...](https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-tudor-jones-on-
inequality-2015-3)

• 2013: “History tells us where the wealth gap leads”
[https://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-where-the-wealth-
gap...](https://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-where-the-wealth-gap-leads)

~~~
Bombthecat
All those studies base there idea on revolutions long long time ago. Now we
have high tech war machines and high tech spying software and machines.

Where you needed ten loyal people to keep 100 to not revolt, you now just need
1 to keep 10.000 silent.

I think the time for revolution is over.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> high tech ... I think the time for revolution is over._

Ironically, not even 10 years ago we were having exactly the opposite
conversation
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring)

~~~
icelancer
Not in the country that is relevant to this post.

------
chunsj
+1 for revolution. We cannot fix capitalism or we will not fix capitalism.

~~~
naruciakk
We won't fix capitalism, because capitalism doesn't need to be fixed.

~~~
beerbajay
lolwut

------
partiallypro
I keep seeing this drummed up, but at the same time global stats show that we
are living collectively and individually in the most prosperous time in human
history, with record low rates of poverty. The divide between rich, poor and
middle class are largely led by one thing...stock holdings, among other
volatile assets (though this is not what the media reports, I mean most of
them are public companies.) I feel like Joseph Schumpeter warned about this.

In the end, I think unlike most of the more radical ideas that are anti-market
out there...people mostly just want better social safety nets. That's not a
"reform" of capitalism, that's a reform of government.

~~~
dredmorbius
Mean != 10%ile.

Mean != 50%ile.

Sufficience for the poorest (or at least the bottom half generally) is
necessary.

~~~
partiallypro
Global poverty is at an all time low, hundreds of millions of people have been
lifted out of poverty in the past decade alone.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/world-bank-global-poverty-
ra...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/world-bank-global-poverty-rate-drops-
to-record-low.html)

~~~
dredmorbius
That's talking mostly cross-purposes.

Inequality is most socially acute within a given society, culture, or country.
And inequality, poverty, and social precariousness have been escallating in
the US and other generally more advanced countries.

Most global poverty alleviation has occurred in one country and one country
only: China. The _level_ of poverty alleviation is also based on an extreme
measure -- dollars per day ($27/day is $10k/yr). Which, yes, makes a
tremendous difference, but it's not as if we're talking about middle-class
lifestyles.

There's a whole host of other issues with the "the world is a better place"
story -- yes, there is some truth to it, but if that's the beginning and
ending of your argument, you've left out one hell of a lot of salient points.
Many of which are causing very real pain for people across the advanced world,
as their reality falls far short of their expectations. That is the sort of
thing which can become exceptionally destabilising socially and politically.

And has.

