1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid:
“ afloweroutofstone:
“ Yeah, you could probably get away with that until some proposal came up regarding abortion, immigration, or some other wedge issue.
On a side note, I remember reading something once about a Republican mayor who,...
afloweroutofstone

Yeah, you could probably get away with that until some proposal came up regarding abortion, immigration, or some other wedge issue.

On a side note, I remember reading something once about a Republican mayor who, as a partial solution for homelessness, gave every homeless person who wanted one an above-minimum-wage job cleaning parks or picking up garbage on the highway and painted it as a program in line with the conservative emphasis on work ethic. Like, that’s literally just a universal job guarantee painted as a conservative program. It’d probably be pretty surprising what you could get a lot of conservatives to approve if you frame it right

collapsedsquid

You know what’s going to happen the instant that becomes widespread is that they’re going to try to prove that the government is paying for people to slack off.

mitigatedchaos

Universal Basic Income as the Liberal/Leftist threat/Overton shifter, Employee Wage Subsidies as the Conservative-compatible Compromise for a post-trucking world.

Source: afloweroutofstone politics the invisible fist the red hammer
argumate
argumate

The hard part about assessing the counterfactuals to Chinese repression is that a minor flare up of civil strife can easily kill fifty million people; balancing things like that against the insidious ongoing costs of poor resource allocation is hard.

mitigatedchaos

Yeeeeeah kinda hoping there’s no new Chinese Civil War that ends up killing fifty million dudes and destroying one tenth of the global GDP, sending the economy of Earth into three decade long depression.

the iron hand the invisible fist chronofelony but also serious
argumate
quasi-normalcy

Brand loyalty is such stupid nonsense though. Like…we know you’re not a real person, McDonald’s™; we’re not going to swear an oath of fealty to your shitty ass hamburgers.

argumate

teens in unison: today we will cast off the corporate shackles

mitigatedchaos

OP may not realize what practical brand loyalty is. It isn’t about swearing fealty, but about not putting in the effort and risk to try another brand. Not a big deal for hamburgers, but, say your family had major issues with a Ford minivan and started exclusively buying all their cars from one Japanese company…

Source: quasi-normalcy the invisible fist
mitigatedchaos
mitigatedchaos

By the by, @kissingerandpals, one of the reasons I’m not a pure Capitalist is that I think such things should be voluntary, even living in communities based on it.

If you are a purist Capitalist and not a Transhumanist, then I suggest abandoning Capitalist purism.  In the long run, Capitalism will sell you out to Transhumanism unless it is leashed by a strong hand.  Its alignments with traditionalism in some cases are less to do with its fundamental nature as technology increases, and more to do with other factors (like not needing the same structure to enforce as the economy of the USSR).

mitigatedchaos

I am not a capitalist, I do not know how you came to this conclusion.

“If” wasn’t a throwaway word, I really did mean “if you are…”.  

A lot of the people who are against Transhumanism are also Traditionalists and Capitalists, who have bought into the right-wing moral justification for Capitalism.

I disagree with the right-wing moral justification for Capitalism, partially because I worry about some of the dark futures it may create, so I leverage people’s hatred for/fear of cybernetics and the like in order to convince them to ditch it.

If not you (maybe you’re a Communist or a Distributist or something), then one of the other readers will be both averse to Transhumanism and a moral Capitalist.

transhumanism the invisible fist
ranma-official
ranma-official

Socialist countries have a really bad track record of human rights abuses and a strange set of failings that are either specific to them or unusually prominent compared to the general zeitgeist, so you can draw decent conclusions like “don’t break systems a lot of people depend on, just cuz” and “freedom of press is actually really important” and “science shouldn’t be controlled by the state’s ideology ever”


instead people realize that Marx was wrong about something and the Soviet Union killed people and then go become tankies but for capitalism

isaacsapphire

I guess the real question is, “is it possible to avoid these known horrible bugs in Communism/socialism, or is it time to go look for something else and try to make that work?”

The vast majority of Communists I’ve encountered in person or online don’t seem to be trying to avoid the known problems. They either ignore/don’t know/pretend to not know about the historical issues, or they consider eg. genocide a feature rather than a bug.

ranma-official

It’s certainly possible to try avoiding​ these bugs, or dramatically improve the current social order, or to try and build some other system entirely, but then/instead you get people like @redbloodedamerica openly​ celebrating fucked up shit because capitalism is good and cool and therefore bonded labor is good and cool also, hence, tankies but for capitalism.

mitigatedchaos

Anarchists say they’re against it, but I’ve never seen them lay out how they would prevent it from happening except to claim they wouldn’t have a state - but Catalonia had death squads, perhaps not Stalin-tier death squads, but apparently it did have them. I think the way to socialism now, the way to actually convince people, is to stop telling people to embrace a Communist revolution and instead buy up a huge tract of land in a country with a weak central government and demonstrate a real, working, unoppressive, prosperous model.

I don’t actually think they have that model, so I don’t see myself supporting Communism over Boring Welfare Capitalism any time soon.

politics the invisible fist the red hammer the iron hand
collapsedsquid
xhxhxhx

I was bored so I wanted to do a ballpark estimate for the excess deaths resulting from the Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War, assuming that a counterfactual Nationalist China would have the crude death rates of Taiwan rather than the crude death rates of China between 1953 and 1979.

It’s about 158 to 161 million.

Now, that isn’t appropriate or fair. It’s not appropriate because CDRs aren’t comparable across populations with different age structures – once you get to the 1980s It’s unfair because Taiwan had lower CDRs than Mainland China when the comparison started. 

We can also ask the question of how rapidly the Nationalists and Communists reduced its mortality from the same starting point. Because the Nationalists had 18 deaths per 1,000 in 1947, we might as well start there; the Communists had the same death rate a decade later, in 1957. So what happens if we start the clock running in 1957? How does that look?

Not great for the Communists. The Communists still have about 80 million excess deaths between 1957 and 1979, of which about 39 million are from period between 1958 and 1961.

Well, I guess you can’t win ‘em all.

argumate

hey you can’t make an omelette without killing fifty million people

collapsedsquid

Like others, Ryan reasonably selects as Exhibit A of the criminal indictment the Chinese famines of 1958-61, with a death toll of 25-40 million, he reports, a sizeable chunk of the 100 million corpses the “recording angels” attribute to “Communism” (whatever that is, but let us use the conventional term). The terrible atrocity fully merits the harsh condemnation it has received for many years, renewed here. It is, furthermore, proper to attribute the famine to Communism. That conclusion was established most authoritatively in the work of economist Amartya Sen, whose comparison of the Chinese famine to the record of democratic India received particular attention when he won the Nobel Prize a few years ago.

Writing in the early 1980s, Sen observed that India had suffered no such famine. He attributed the India-China difference to India’s “political system of adversarial journalism and opposition,” while in contrast, China’s totalitarian regime suffered from “misinformation” that undercut a serious response, and there was “little political pressure” from opposition groups and an informed public (Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, Hunger and Public Action, 1989; they estimate deaths at 16.5 to 29.5 million).

The example stands as a dramatic “criminal indictment” of totalitarian Communism, exactly as Ryan writes. But before closing the book on the indictment we might want to turn to the other half of Sen’s India-China comparison, which somehow never seems to surface despite the emphasis Sen placed on it. He observes that India and China had “similarities that were quite striking” when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. “But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India” (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: “India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame,” 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).

In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the “ideological predispositions” of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when “the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed,” thanks to the market reforms instituted that year.

Overcoming amnesia, suppose we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story, not just the doctrinally acceptable half. We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist “experiment” since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the “colossal, wholly failed…experiment” of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone.

That’s Noam Chomsky’s point.

collapsedsquid

xhxhxhx:  right, but Taiwan seems to have managed it without the surplus corpses

Do you think that’s because it’s a smaller island with a lot fewer people on it maybe?

mitigatedchaos

Or, just gonna put this out here,

The cultural starting conditions between China and India are not the same.

We’re supposed to consider that irrelevant because all cultures are equal and human beings are just economybots, but… have you observed the records for overseas Chinese as compared to other populations?  

Source: xhxhxhx the invisible fist the red hammer
collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid

Index funds are on a roll. Funds that passively track indexes are popular because they’re cheaper than the alternatives run by active money managers, and the robotic, rules-driven funds often outperform their human rivals, too.

In fact, passive funds will swallow up the US stock market before too long, according to Pictet Asset Management (paywall). Index trackers currently hold more than 40% of US stocks, according to Pictet’s analysis, and if the present rate of growth continues they could eventually own everything by 2030, or perhaps a bit before. Passive funds now control more than 30% of all US assets:

collapsedsquid

stumpyjoepete:  i guess one thing to worry about is that the HFT folks have an easier time skimming off the top of those by doing cross-market frontrunning, iiuc

Some older articles I posted were about this means the stock market could totally fail to allocate capital.  It also calls into the question the whole idea of the stock market and if it’s either useless in general or will stop allocating capital, the question becomes like “Why not nationalize it?“

mitigatedchaos

“If these trends continue-”

It won’t happen.  There is nothing to suggest that they have some sort of exotic characteristic that will become the new dominant paradigm that is the gunpowder of finance and which will push all other funds out of the market.

Probably capital allocation is currently overvalued because it controls the capital and thus decides how much it gets paid.  Passive funds will continue to expand for a while and then slow down as the market is corrected.

Or something.  I’m a supervillain, not an economist.

the invisible fist
collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid

Dean Baker’s been doing this whole “Kill intellectual property“ thing for a while, and now he’s published it in Jacobin.  He’s also getting an amusing amount of pushback elsewhere about how he’s condoning theft.

My dark fear here though is for software. The way them to deal with this shit is to make everything a subscription service, and already too much shit is subscription service.  I want to only have to pay once for something.

mitigatedchaos

Thing is, there’s a lot of ground between axing all the intellectual property and just reducing some of it.  I bet the greatest freeing up in resources would occur from removing the first 10% of bad intellectual property law.

the iron hand the invisible fist