Social democracy isn’t really an alternative to capitalism, it’s more of a progressive modification of capitalism. Under social democracy, the factory would still be owned by a capitalist and operated for their profit, but the government would use its authority to regulate the factory, tax the owner’s profits (to help fund public services), protect workers, etc.
I think we need to be clear about what capitalism actually is:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit.
So, a person with access to sufficient capital buys a factory and hires people to work in the factory, and pays them a wage. The workers make a product that gets sold on the open market. Those proceeds are the source of the company’s revenue. Once expenses, including the wages paid to the workers, are subtracted from the revenue, if there is a surplus, that is profit that goes back to the owner. That’s capitalism in a nutshell. The point, the objective is to generate a profit for the owner, as a return on their initial capital investment.
Ok, so, what’s the alternative? Well, socialism:
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee.
So, a government, a group of workers, or a community acquires a factory. If it’s a government or a community that acquires the factory, they hire people to work in the factory and pay those workers a wage. If it’s acquired by workers then it’s worker owned. In either case, the workers make a product. That product can either be sold on an open market or distributed by other means. If it is sold, those proceeds are the source of revenue. Once expenses are subtracted from the revenue, if there is a surplus, that surplus either gets reinvested into the factory (to buy new machines or hire more workers), or, in the case of the worker owned company, that surplus might be distributed among the workers as profit, since they are also the owners.
People act like socialism is just some hypothetical that only exists in theory, but that’s not true. The fact is, socialism exists and works right now, today. All over the world, products and services are produced and made available to people by organizations that are government, community, or worker owned, either for a profit or non profit.
It’s actually kind of tragic. Tesla would have been, no, should have been a key domestic EV maker. They should have been our global offering in a strategically important industry. But instead, they’re rapidly becoming a pariah. And it’s all because of one man. One terrible, terrible man.
This is a very, very important lesson that America MUST learn: just because someone is rich, that does not mean they are smart, or good, or trustworthy. Personality matters, a lot. I am certain that if Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning could go back, they would tell Mr. Musk “no thank you, we’re not interested in your investment,” even though they really needed the money. It wasn’t worth it, it came with strings attached. Within just a few years of taking Musk’s money, both men were forced out of the company, and Musk was well on his way to convincing millions of Americans that we was a super genius who singlehandedly invented the electric car.
In this country, we have not only tolerated megalomaniacal narcissists like Musk, we’ve celebrated them. That has to stop. Look at where it has gotten us. One of them is president now! If we don’t learn from this, and start to see men like Trump and Musk as the disease that they are, we are doomed. If we don’t get these men under control, they will control us.
Well, that sounds great, then. I still think you’re being naive, and that you’re putting too much faith in the invisible hand of the free market, but, as I’ve said several times now, I’m not opposed to upzoning. Not at all. By all means, go for it.
Upzoning and removing red tape increases the supply of land where you can build a multi-family unit, so investors are willing to accept lower-margin returns.
Are they? You seem pretty convinced, but I’m not so sure. Upzoning initiatives have been happening in various states and metro areas in the country in recent years, is there evidence that lower margin developments have increased in those areas?
That being said, I don’t necessarily oppose any of the measures you’re proposing, but, while they might work in theory, I’m not convinced they will achieve the results you believe they will achieve, in practice. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying this strategy, though. By all means, let’s try it, even if only as a trial somewhere.
This isn’t a failure of the market to build affordable housing
It absolutely is.
I’m all for zoning reform. We should reduce or eliminate single family only zoning, and other unnecessary building requirements, in urban areas. But the idea that developers are champing at the bit to go build a lot of very low margin, quality, affordable multi family housing, and that the only thing holding them back is government regulations, is naive at best.
Owning a detached, single family home is always going to be out of reach for many, because they’re just inherently more expensive. It’s lower density housing that requires more land and infrastructure, per person. It’s less efficient use of space, it should be more expensive. The problem in the US is that higher density housing isn’t much less expensive, and that’s because there isn’t enough of it, and there isn’t enough of it because developers and investors aren’t interested in building low margin, affordable, quality apartments and condos. They’d rather build higher margin “luxury” housing. It’s “luxury” in quotes because it’s not actually high end. It’s priced as high end housing, but it’s actually quite cheaply built, with some high end veneer slapped on top. And thus, the high margins. Works great for developers and investors, but it’s a very bad deal for renters and buyers.
The fear of destitution makes workers obedient and compliant.
It’s hard to get two sides to come to an agreement on something when one side is totally irrational.
Tbh the people are not educated properly, too enslaved to debt service and bills, and so brain conditioned to individual greed that forming a cohesive army to restore democracy is a laugh.
That’s very true. Our problems don’t only exist at the top. We have fundamental, critical problems at every strata: top, bottom, and middle.
This country is so fucked.
Tesla cannot be saved until and unless Musk sells his share of the company and completely divorces himself from it. Even that may not be enough, as the brand is so closely associated with Musk that his stain may not wash off, but it’s their only chance.
Firefighters, EMTs, and police are all first responders, and so it’s necessary for them all to have at least emergency medical training. Yet, they are distinct agencies, because each job requires unique skills and training. I think police, and for that matter all first responders, should have mental health emergency training, just as they have medical emergency training, but I also think it would be useful for there to be a distinct agency that specializes in mental health emergency response, just as there are agencies that specialize in fire emergency and medical emergency response. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the police to fill this role, just as I think it would be unreasonable to expect the police to fight fires or provide all of the services of an EMT.
We need an option other than the police for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The police are not mental health professionals, and we shouldn’t expect them to be. The police are enforcers, emphasis on “force.” We need to establish a new agency of responders who are trained to deal with people who are experiencing a mental health crisis.
I think one of the greatest mistakes you can make in war is to underestimate your enemy.
There are a lot of philosophical questions that this whole situation brings up. They’re not new questions, people have been pondering and theorizing for a long time on these matters, but I think they remain uncertain. What is the end result of wealth and economic development? Where does it end, where does it take a society, and the world?
The US was a manufacturing superpower. Those manufacturing jobs lifted a lot of people out of poverty and into the middle class. Average wealth and living standards increased significantly. Then things stagnated, and those manufacturing jobs moved to other countries where people were poorer and thus willing to accept lower wages than the American workers. The US transitioned from a manufacturing economy to a consumer economy.
The manufacturing jobs were replaced with service jobs. Now, instead of working in a factory you worked in a retail store, or a customer support center, or for a financial institution, or a software company, etc. All well and good, I suppose, but it was still stagnation for a lot of people. Many people stopped getting wealthier and their living standards stopped improving. Some people did get much, much wealthier, but many others actually started getting poorer.
So, where do we go from here? Trump thinks we just need to bring back the manufacturing jobs and that will fix everything, and he’s not alone. Many people, across the political spectrum, think that’s the solution. But, I don’t think it is. Don’t get me wrong, a good manufacturing job is a god send for someone who needs the work and for whom the job will improve their economic situation, but for the rest of us, and I think that’s most of us, it doesn’t mean much. So, what does? More desk jobs?
I think that once you reach a high enough level of economic development, your goals change. It’s no longer about getting out of poverty, it’s about something else: freedom. I think people ultimately want freedom. Freedom to pursue the things that bring them joy and fulfillment. But, how? Because people also want security and a decent standard of living. A hobo might be “free” in many ways, but he’s not free from poverty. So how can we be free, to pursue the things that bring us joy, while also having a good place to live and raise a family, in safe, clean neighborhoods, a good education, and healthcare, etc? How? Or, are those two things mutually exclusive? It seems to me, the only way you can have both freedom and security is to be independently wealthy, but that’s just not possible for everyone. In fact, I don’t think it’s possible for the majority of people. So, what? Where do we go from here?
Everything’s stupid and nothing matters.
If you’re going to start a war, you better know for a fact that you can win. Trump thinks he knows, but he doesn’t know shit.
The US has a terminal disease: hubris. This is what it’s like to live in an empire in decline.
The US and allies control WTO, and China was only allowed trade on WTO terms after they accepted to follow the WTO standards, basically designed by USA
That means nothing, anymore. Those standards are meaningless, China holds most of cards, now. Any attempts to reign in China have been half hearted at best, and often undermined by the US itself. As tough as people have tried to sound in their rhetoric about China, the fact is American corporations and consumers continue to do business with them because it’s just too good of a deal for them.
and American politicians have openly stated how they need to prevent China from expanding their influence.
Well, they have failed, spectacularly, and that was true LONG before even Trump’s first term, let alone these tariffs.
Lol, k. Can’t wait to hear this great solution.