Neoliberal economics - Page 2

On May 14 2018 04:35 qwe5408 wrote: just curious, how many hours a week do you guys spend reading? text and books specifically i mean. but i suppose long dense prose online would count as well. basically i am trying to exclude 5 min news articles or other weak/diluted sources of information.

I prob spend around 25-30hrs/week reading on average except 80% of that is spent on fantasy books and the other 20% on something that would actually benefit me in real life e.g. psychology. When it comes to news and analysis of what is going on in the world for example, it could get really overwhelming as everyone is trying to shove their propaganda up your throat and if you arent careful you could get sucked into it quite easily, that's why I prefer to actually discuss shit here, as people like Stroggoz/Baal/Loco base their opinions on scientific research and historical facts when they're backing their thesis and if their thesis is flawed it gets destroyed. With mass media, you'll never get that.

David's new book is out. I think it'll do very well.

Oh great. More books. I don't think I've ever come across a bullshit job. I remember some days the masons would be holed up in their home base all day taking naps, playing games on their phones, and reading the newspaper but then other days they'd be working overtime doing intricate construction work. They are protected by the union after all. Sometimes you are out on a job sweating your ass off or in front of a tough customer who decides if they keep buying your stuff or not and you start thinking what the fuck is Human Resources anyway??? But, they are working their asses off too. I don't really buy the premise. I don't really care about the premise and I would much rather read a number of the other books listed in this thread.

I've come across some people on reddit who confessed that they had bullshit jobs (though they didn't use the word). They literally do nothing all day, or they work for an hour at most and then do nothing. There are no days where they are actually laboring. The common trend in the posts was exactly what David argued here: they felt like shit about it. There's really no doubt that there are a lot of those jobs out there, and it's very likely they will keep rising as more jobs become automated and UBI is not implemented.

I remember in the steel plants they had robots that could change tubes much faster and safer than humans. The human was making $30-40/hr to do the job. Let's say the robot costs $500,000 which I don't even think it was that much for that simple of a job. The robot can last decades if it is well taken care of. Of course, there is maintenance. 3 shifts x 365 days is $350,000 in human labor. It becomes clear to see how much profit there can be in automating jobs. A universal basic income just seems like the right thing to do. Let's say the robot costs $1million over 10 years. The human labor is $3.5 million over 10 years (I haven't even considered health insurance and matching retirement plans). That's $2.5 million basically going to the CEO and maybe he pays out the executives in bonus and stocks and maybe they pay out the managers in bonuses and small pay raises but I have never found trickle down to be a thing. The guys who get promotions are the ones that are willing to do fucked up work that no one else wants to do. You want a pay raise? Go to fucking China for 3 years and work 80 hours/wk. It's crazy. It's really crazy. UBI taxes even if they were 10% tax rate you get middle America bitching and moaning. I've made $63k in a year and I have made $70k in a year. It's no fucking different. It gets absurd when you consider a billionaire making $27 billion or $30 billion. What is the fucking difference? But, we could have a world where maybe babies in Africa don't get their eyes eaten out from the inside by parasites or starve to death. Fucking neoliberal economics man.

I don't really like watching youtube videos but i know graeber has written a bit on guard labour; basically labour that is devoted towards protecting and servicing the rich. It makes up a large part of the economy now, i thought that's what he meant by bullshit jobs but i read the article on it many years ago so could be wrong. The job that has proportionally increased the most over the neoliberal period in America is the job of security guard.

I had to spend 2 hours of my day today updating my taxes because I missed a form relating to the Health Insurance Marketplace. I was on Medicare in PA which ran pretty smooth but in South Carolina you need to be disabled AND have cancer (basically). I still don't really know how any of this Marketplace stuff works but I pay my bills and it's pretty decent with my psychiatrist and therapist but fucking terrible with my dentist. I made $10k last year. They defined the poverty line in my state at $11,xxx. So, they basically didn't want to give me my refund so I fill out these forms and it looks like they owe me more money but we will see. Oh yeah, I don't think the owner at the restaurant paid me for the last 2 weeks of work so there is that. It's a fucked system.

Someone has got to have healthcare down. Everyone pays a big chunk of money and then has access to decent healthcare. The super rich can pay for their own health care and get private care if they fucking want. Norway? Do they have it down? It just seems like one of those countries would.

I really want to study how collectives work and start my own or be a part of one because I don't think I have the skills to start my own business or rather I don't have any ideas or execution but my sister wants to start a coffee shop and hire me and I think it would be cool to make it a collective. Each person have a share of the company and any decision would go to a vote.

You know. I have time right now. The only thing I can really think of doing is read more. But, I think I get a lot out of watching videos and discussion too. I shun tv, most brands, most stuff. Those polished mannequins parading around as politicians. No different from the CEOs. Oh, it's vomit inducing. I try not to get too bitter because that is what the right has branded me. Oh, that bitter nihilist who wishes to destroy the world. Au contraire mes amis! ¡Viva la Revolucion! I love life and transcendence and people. Yes, I am atheist and anti-theist. Yes, I am excited by the ideas of Marx and anarchy. That doesn't mean I don't believe in anything or wish for total chaos upon the world. It's the opposite. Loco talks about animal liberation. That is pretty krunk. Not just the reduction of suffering in all sentient beings but the fucking liberation of all sentient beings. To be honest, I am not as exited about the liberation of a shrimp as I am about someone in prison for possessing marijuana or someone wrongfully accused or as I talk about a lot the children anywhere getting their eyes eaten out by parasites or starving to death.

I like these discussions on individual choices versus socialist/collective action. We could all decide to stop wearing Nikes but people are still going to wear Nikes and put them on a pedestal. How about the government or some entity being able to say "Hey, man, stop using shitty sweatshops!" I don't know if it's a fine larger than what they are saving on using that particular sweat shop or how bout throwing them in jail? Is it even possible that this could happen? I am just thinking out loud. Dreams can come true though. If it can be imagined it can come alive in some form or another.

I have a soft spot for cow. I think it is because when you go to the butchers you just see fucking slaughtered corpses strewn across the display tables. I don't seem to have the same sentiments towards chicken or shrimp. Chicken just seem so dumb and so ruthless. Ever throw a mouse into a chicken coup? Brutal. Shrimp and also lobster just seem so insect to me. So alien. But, I can not deny when I put those live lobsters in that boiling water they do not want to be there. Why not just eat some toast and some corn on the cob? BECAUSE I WANT SOME FUCKING LOBSTER AND BUTTER!!!! Torture and murder just to satisfy a self-centered craving. 5 min. of pleasure for boiling a sentient being alive. Great. What a life.

On May 18 2018 23:00 Stroggoz wrote: I don't really like watching youtube videos but i know graeber has written a bit on guard labour; basically labour that is devoted towards protecting and servicing the rich. It makes up a large part of the economy now, i thought that's what he meant by bullshit jobs but i read the article on it many years ago so could be wrong. The job that has proportionally increased the most over the neoliberal period in America is the job of security guard.

no, you got it right, that's what he theorizes.

"There are two sides to development. On the one hand, there is a global myth wherein societies, having become industrialized, attain well-being, reduce their extreme inequalities, and dispense to individuals the maximum amount of happiness that a society is capable of dispensing. On the other hand, development is a reductionistic conception which holds that economic growth is the necessary and sufficient condition for all social, psychological, and moral developments. This techno-economic conception ignores the human problems of identity, community, solidarity, and culture." - Edgar Morin, "Homeland Earth" page 59.

On May 30 2018 01:59 RiKD wrote: there is a global myth wherein societies, having become industrialized, attain well-being, reduce their extreme inequalities, and dispense to individuals the maximum amount of happiness that a society is capable of dispensing.

The free market reduces inequality only compared to more unequal systems like feudalism, but it is an unequal system, its a meritocracy, the good part about it is that in a true free market there is a lot of class-mobility, meaning its relatively easy to get rich and also to go bust, but the government greatly reduces this very vital part of the free market, just like socialism in their attempts to minimize suffering they cause much more long term.

Naturally you could call a meritocracy as unfair since IQ and most talents are quite genetic, and arguably even industriousness, but the alternative to this apparent injustice is simply terrible, lets call it equity, since that will invoke the worst in all of us, but thats kind of a phliosophical discussion and I'm not sure that is what we are doing right now in this thread.

It's not a pure meritocracy. This kind of gets into the competence hierarchy versus dominance hierarchy debate. There will always be coercion, manipulation, exploitation even if you want to call it a competence hierarchy. I think it is just as important to be a ruthless businessman and negotiator. That even may trump IQ and conscientiousness if we are talking about profit and power. Basically, it is important to be competent in manipulation, coercion, and exploitation to climb the hierarchy. There are countless stories of hardworking super smart guys getting fleeced by businessmen all the time.

What happens if someone goes bust in your free market? They just starve and die? What about the people who are already broke? Who were born broke and maybe they don't have the IQ or the conscientiousness to survive. I remember you said in another thread that the disabled would just get jobs. It's really not that easy. Yeah, it would be great that the banks don't get bailed out, beef doesn't get subsidized, corn syrup doesn't get subsidized, etc. but what is to stop a corporation from working their employees to death at sub-sustenance levels?

We can have a philosophical discussion about equity. I don't see how it would work in a capitalist society. The drive for competition and hyper continual improvement and reduction of life to profit and power doesn't lend itself to equity. It would really be the worst for the guys making like $150k and trying to live a $200k lifestyle. Taking $15k away from them when they are already maxed out and in debt they might kill somebody. I feel like that's how it is for a lot of people starting at about $80k all the way up to about $2 million. There's no liquid money. Consumption has taken its toll and will continue to take its toll. It's competition over everything. There is no empathy.

I certainly don't like the government stealing from people. That is major coercion. I don't think Bill Gates just because he's a billionaire knows better though. I don't think that is true. Warren Buffet is not a god. Our governments are so corrupt though that it's hard to stomach them handling something like equity.

I don't know how else to put it. I just finished a beautiful book today called "The Dispossessed," by Ursula K. Le Guin and she creates this anarchist colony on the moon of Anarress that is not perfect but it brings me hope even that one day a small commune could survive in that way or even a small country could say fuck it and go that route. It is more difficult in this world. I have been conditioned to want to live by myself in a large apartment and have my own property. I am getting over that though. I am considering moving into a sober living house and making all my possessions communal. Giving all my clothes away that I can't fit in a suitcase. Giving all my books to my sister or a library but really my sister because she said she wanted them and I told her I would give them all to her. But, I fear this might be getting away from equity. I am ok at living at less than equity if I don't have to put up with the unpleasantness of wage slavery. Unfortunately, in my position it is unavoidable but there are less unpleasant options than others of course.

Power is always illegitimate unless it can be proved to be legitimate. You can't call yourself an anarchist and just assume it's a meritocracy.

On May 30 2018 04:50 RiKD wrote: It's not a pure meritocracy. This kind of gets into the competence hierarchy versus dominance hierarchy debate. There will always be coercion, manipulation, exploitation even if you want to call it a competence hierarchy. I think it is just as important to be a ruthless businessman and negotiator. That even may trump IQ and conscientiousness if we are talking about profit and power. Basically, it is important to be competent in manipulation, coercion, and exploitation to climb the hierarchy. There are countless stories of hardworking super smart guys getting fleeced by businessmen all the time.

Its a meritoracy in the sense of usefulness and scarcity of skills, and its amazingly precise in dictaminating the market value of someones job, naturally its not perfect and a superb kindergarden teacher wont make much more than a regular one unless she is willing to move to other administrative positions but thats the nature of the job market, most jobs have a income cap and to earn more you either move to other position or accept the salary cap.

Of course being manipulative, lying etc can give edges in life, thats the whole point of integrity and having morals, if being dishonest always gave worse immediate results nobody would be dishonest lol, thats the nature of life.

What happens if someone goes bust in your free market? They just starve and die? What about the people who are already broke? Who were born broke and maybe they don't have the IQ or the conscientiousness to survive. I remember you said in another thread that the disabled would just get jobs. It's really not that easy. Yeah, it would be great that the banks don't get bailed out, beef doesn't get subsidized, corn syrup doesn't get subsidized, etc. but what is to stop a corporation from working their employees to death at sub-sustenance levels?

When I said "go bust" I mean people in the economically top tier tumbling down, all this people who are "already broke" will be much less in a free market and institutions financed through philantrophy like the Red Cross would grow in the absence of a state.

What stops the corporation from exploiting their employees is the free market, thats capitalism 101.

Corporation next door offers better job conditions, so the exploitive corporation either equals the conditions or goes bust, thats the same reason why you can't sell a can of coke for $100, because a pepsi is $1 and you either coke sets the price close to $1 or they go bust.

We can have a philosophical discussion about equity. I don't see how it would work in a capitalist society. The drive for competition and hyper continual improvement and reduction of life to profit and power doesn't lend itself to equity. It would really be the worst for the guys making like $150k and trying to live a $200k lifestyle. Taking $15k away from them when they are already maxed out and in debt they might kill somebody. I feel like that's how it is for a lot of people starting at about $80k all the way up to about $2 million. There's no liquid money. Consumption has taken its toll and will continue to take its toll. It's competition over everything. There is no empathy.

I dont know what the free market has to do with people earning 150k but spending 200k, thats just irresponsible behavior, also just like loco you believe that the free market means consumerism, again that is just personal irresponsible behavior.

I have a few simples questions about anarcho collectivism that perhaps you lefties can help me with brief answers no 2hours podcast replies loco please.

Is labor compulsory?

If yes, who picks what job people do? what happens if a job I want has has too many people like lets say there are no positions for doctors, so I have to do a job I dont like until doctors die? because this seem to have the same problem than capitalism, because the distribution of jobs needed and what people aspire to do are vastly different and we would end up basically with the same scenario of nobody working in what they want, and in this case not even hability and hard work would get you the position.

How are resources managed? Lets say there is a TV factory that build 1k TVs per day, who manages and distributes those TVs? are they sent to palces where you just pick any number you want? if so, what stops me from getting 1 million TVs? if its only x number of TVs per person, who controls this and how? and what happens if i broke my TV gets stolen?

I can't see how resources can be distributed in a big society without a big "distributor" entity which is basically the new government and then its not an anarchy.

On May 30 2018 03:20 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2018 01:59 RiKD wrote: there is a global myth wherein societies, having become industrialized, attain well-being, reduce their extreme inequalities, and dispense to individuals the maximum amount of happiness that a society is capable of dispensing. The free market reduces inequality only compared to more unequal systems like feudalism, but it is an unequal system, its a meritocracy, the good part about it is that in a true free market there is a lot of class-mobility, meaning its relatively easy to get rich and also to go bust, but the government greatly reduces this very vital part of the free market, just like socialism in their attempts to minimize suffering they cause much more long term. Naturally you could call a meritocracy as unfair since IQ and most talents are quite genetic, and arguably even industriousness, but the alternative to this apparent injustice is simply terrible, lets call it equity, since that will invoke the worst in all of us, but thats kind of a phliosophical discussion and I'm not sure that is what we are doing right now in this thread.

I disagree with all of this but I don't have the will to fight about it anymore lol

These free market capitalism/human nature assumptions have come directly from philosophers (Mill, Smith, Locke to name a few central figures). Though in the case of Adam Smith his thought was in some ways quite perverted, he would not be supporting neoliberal capitalism as the current "classical liberals" believe. You can't separate the two topics. People like Hayek, Friedman and Mises were just running with those philosophical/psychological assumptions despite the fact that they are really quite easily debunked by the historical record and modern science.

On May 30 2018 07:28 Baalim wrote: I have a few simples questions about anarcho collectivism that perhaps you lefties can help me with brief answers no 2hours podcast replies loco please. Is labor compulsory? If yes, who picks what job people do? what happens if a job I want has has too many people like lets say there are no positions for doctors, so I have to do a job I dont like until doctors die? because this seem to have the same problem than capitalism, because the distribution of jobs needed and what people aspire to do are vastly different and we would end up basically with the same scenario of nobody working in what they want, and in this case not even hability and hard work would get you the position. How are resources managed? Lets say there is a TV factory that build 1k TVs per day, who manages and distributes those TVs? are they sent to palces where you just pick any number you want? if so, what stops me from getting 1 million TVs? if its only x number of TVs per person, who controls this and how? and what happens if i broke my TV gets stolen? I can't see how resources can be distributed in a big society without a big "distributor" entity which is basically the new government and then its not an anarchy.

Anarchists are by definition anti-authoritarian. Nothing is compulsory. Behavior is socially enforced because its the only way to organize a society that benefits everyone (except those who are anti-social).

Resources: it depends who you ask. I've been reading about TZM/resource-based economy who are not anarchists but they share the same end goal of a classless society. They argue that computers can do it (and in fact already do it in some parts of the world for certain things) but it could be scaled up to do everything. Distribution can be automated. Anarchists as far as I know argue for syndicates and worker self-management. If the resources are not managed by the workers themselves, then the managers are directly elected and recallable. In other words, people are democratically rotated as needed. The entire workforce always decides who is best suited for a specific job, which is what makes it fundamentally different from private ownership or state ownership.

Yes, you could pick up any number of TVs you want. There are no laws in an anarchist society so it can't be "X number per person" lol. The whole idea is ridiculous since no one owns anything -- there is no private property. "Your" TV is not yours, it's a TV that you are currently using. Not sure why you would want to have more than one TV at a time while others don't have one though since you can't sell them to gain any sort of advantage over anyone else since it's not a competitive world driven by a market economy, you'd just become an outcast and probably get your ass kicked. Stealing things is ultimately an act motivated by deprivation. An anarchist society removes the preconditions for such deprivation to ever exist, as long as resources are not scarce.

When Adam Smith, extolling the power of the market, noted that, ‘it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner’, he forgot to mention the benevolence of his mother, Margaret Douglas, who had raised her boy alone from birth. Smith never married so had no wife to rely upon (nor children of his own to raise). At the age of 43, as he began to write his opus, The Wealth of Nations, he moved back in with his cherished old mum, from whom he could expect his dinner every day. But her role in it all never got a mention in his economic theory, and it subsequently remained invisible for centuries. As a result, mainstream economic theory is obsessed with the productivity of waged labour while skipping right over the unpaid work that makes it all possible, as feminist economists have made clear for decades. That work is known by many names: unpaid caring work, the reproductive economy, the love economy, the second economy. However, as economist Neva Goodwin has pointed out, far from being secondary, it is actually the ‘core economy’ and it comes first every day, sustaining the essentials of family and social life with the universal human resources of time, knowledge, skill, care, empathy, teaching and reciprocity. And if you have never really thought of it before, then it’s time you met your inner housewife (because we all have one). She lives in the daily dealings of making breakfast, washing the dishes, tidying the house, shopping for groceries, teaching the children to walk and to share, washing clothes, caring for elderly parents, emptying the rubbish bins, collecting kids from school, helping the neighbours, making the dinner, sweeping the floor, and lending an ear. She carries out all those tasks – some with open arms, others through gritted teeth – that underpin personal and family well-being and sustain social life. We all have a hand in this core economy, but some people (like Adam Smith’s mum) spend far more time in it than others. Time may be a universal human resource but it varies hugely in terms of how we each get to experience and use it, how far we control it, and how it is valued. In sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, time spent in the core economy is particularly visible because, when the state fails to deliver and the market is out of reach, householders have to make provision for many more of their needs directly. Millions of women and girls spend hours walking miles each day, carrying their body weight in water, food or firewood on their heads, often with a baby strapped to their back – and all for no pay. But this gendered division of paid and unpaid work is prevalent in every society, albeit sometimes less visibly so. And since work in the core economy is unpaid, it is routinely undervalued and exploited, generating lifelong inequalities in social standing, job opportunities, income, and power between women and men. By largely ignoring the core economy, mainstream economics has also overlooked just how much the paid economy depends upon it. Without all that cooking, washing, nursing and sweeping, there would be no workers – today or in the future – who were healthy, well-fed, and ready for work each morning. As the futurist Alvin Toffler liked to ask at smart gatherings of business executives, ‘How productive would your workforce be if it hadn’t been toilet trained?’ The scale of the core economy’s contribution is not to be dismissed lightly, either. In a 2002 study of Basle, a wealthy Swiss city, the estimated value of unpaid care being provided in the city’s households exceeded the total cost of salaries paid in all of Basle’s hospitals, daycare centres and schools, from the directors to the janitors. Likewise, a 2014 survey of 15,000 mothers in the USA calculated that, if women were paid the going hourly rate for each of their roles – switching between housekeeper and daycare teacher to van driver and cleaner – then stay-at-home mums would earn around $120,000 each year. Even mothers who do head out to work each day would earn an extra $70,000 on top of their actual wages, given all the unpaid care they also provide at home. Why does it matter that this core economy should be visible in economics? Because the household provision of care is essential for human well-being, and productivity in the paid economy depends directly upon it. It matters because when – in the name of austerity and public-sector savings – governments cut budgets for children’s daycare centres, community services, parental leave and youth clubs, the need for care-giving doesn’t disappear: it just gets pushed back into the home. The pressure, particularly on women’s time, can force them out of work and increase social stress and vulnerability. That undermines both well-being and women’s empowerment, with multiple knock-on effects for society and the economy alike. In short, including the household economy in the new diagram of the macroeconomy is the first step in recognising its centrality, and in reducing and redistributing women’s unpaid work.

Muh meritocracy. Interestingly, the libertarian belief in IQ just makes this case stronger too. If you inherit your IQ to a large degree from your mom then it's in part thanks to her that you earn such a good living -- shouldn't she be remunerated for that?

Show nested quote + On May 30 2018 05:33 Baalim wrote: [QUOTE]On May 30 2018 04:50 RiKD wrote: It's not a pure meritocracy. This kind of gets into the competence hierarchy versus dominance hierarchy debate. There will always be coercion, manipulation, exploitation even if you want to call it a competence hierarchy. I think it is just as important to be a ruthless businessman and negotiator. That even may trump IQ and conscientiousness if we are talking about profit and power. Basically, it is important to be competent in manipulation, coercion, and exploitation to climb the hierarchy. There are countless stories of hardworking super smart guys getting fleeced by businessmen all the time. Its a meritoracy in the sense of usefulness and scarcity of skills, and its amazingly precise in dictaminating the market value of someones job, naturally its not perfect and a superb kindergarden teacher wont make much more than a regular one unless she is willing to move to other administrative positions but thats the nature of the job market, most jobs have a income cap and to earn more you either move to other position or accept the salary cap. Of course being manipulative, lying etc can give edges in life, thats the whole point of integrity and having morals, if being dishonest always gave worse immediate results nobody would be dishonest lol, thats the nature of life.

I wouldn't say lying plays a big part. Every executive I've ever met I wouldn't say is dishonest. They have all been rather honest albeit also political. It is more about a subtle manipulation, coercion, exploitation. Do this or I am going to make you write the monthly report, do this or you can't go on vacation, do this or else you have to work on Saturday, do this or else you are fired. It is personal responsibility but we put ourselves in positions in which losing the job is worse for the individual than losing someone is for the corporation. I think it is this way in most cases. Also, it is very difficult for an individual to hold his own in negotiations with a ruthless hierarchy. Everything is a negotiation. The one towards the bottom of the totem pole is going to have a tough time keeping it up against every last ask of the manipulative hierarchy. They turn us into achievement-subjects obsessed with continual improvement and hyper-efficiency. Part of that is keeping the bosses happy. Part of that is no negotiating with the bosses over every seemingly minute thing in their eyes. So, we are constantly losing battles to keep the boss happy and for what? To get him a bonus. What's even the point of a bonus I still have to put up with this shit every day. We are now always hurried and stressed.

"A superficial agitation takes hold of individuals the moment they escape the enslaving constraints of work. Unchecked consumption turns into bulimic overconsumption, which alternates with curative privations." -Edgar Morin

It is what they want us to do after all.

I think it's easy to be a capitalist as a poker player. With poker the manipulation and exploitation happens openly at the table. It is part of the game. There are no rulers. I used to love that about poker. No authority. Then I go down to a place like Buenos Aires which has a certain lawlessness to it. A certain vibe. A certain energy. It's fucking brilliant. Capitalism all the way! I remember when I played poker I was fiercely anarcho-capitalistic even though that is an oxymoron. Get into a multinational corporation and see how it functions and capitalism loses it's luster.

Show nested quote + What happens if someone goes bust in your free market? They just starve and die? What about the people who are already broke? Who were born broke and maybe they don't have the IQ or the conscientiousness to survive. I remember you said in another thread that the disabled would just get jobs. It's really not that easy. Yeah, it would be great that the banks don't get bailed out, beef doesn't get subsidized, corn syrup doesn't get subsidized, etc. but what is to stop a corporation from working their employees to death at sub-sustenance levels? When I said "go bust" I mean people in the economically top tier tumbling down, all this people who are "already broke" will be much less in a free market and institutions financed through philantrophy like the Red Cross would grow in the absence of a state. What stops the corporation from exploiting their employees is the free market, thats capitalism 101. Corporation next door offers better job conditions, so the exploitive corporation either equals the conditions or goes bust, thats the same reason why you can't sell a can of coke for $100, because a pepsi is $1 and you either coke sets the price close to $1 or they go bust.

But, without unions or minimum wage laws the corporations are going to push it to the limits. I mean first thing these guys are going to do is automate everything and kick everyone to the curb. Then what? They are going to spring for a universal basic income out of the goodness of their hearts? Yeah...........................

Show nested quote + We can have a philosophical discussion about equity. I don't see how it would work in a capitalist society. The drive for competition and hyper continual improvement and reduction of life to profit and power doesn't lend itself to equity. It would really be the worst for the guys making like $150k and trying to live a $200k lifestyle. Taking $15k away from them when they are already maxed out and in debt they might kill somebody. I feel like that's how it is for a lot of people starting at about $80k all the way up to about $2 million. There's no liquid money. Consumption has taken its toll and will continue to take its toll. It's competition over everything. There is no empathy. I dont know what the free market has to do with people earning 150k but spending 200k, thats just irresponsible behavior, also just like loco you believe that the free market means consumerism, again that is just personal irresponsible behavior.

Yeah, but the whole system is set up for it. Again, I think this is your biases as a free thinking, non-conforming poker pro. You're off the grid, you are out of the system. Go work in an office at a multinational corporation for a month and see what you think.

Are you saying under a free market we could drop this idea of GDP and "never ending" growth? The profit and power mongers will never have it. Let's ride this train to the bitter end they say.

It's personal irresponsible behavior led by an entire culture.

It's not even a matter of "they won't let us have it"... as in, the system could survive if they did let us have it and the rich would just be less rich. No, the system would collapse if people weren't overconsuming (buying wasteful/inefficient products) and if they weren't getting indebted. That's why things are built with planned obsolescence to begin with, it's not even being hidden from us. It's not something that's up for debate... Are we going to debate creationism too?

The thing I find the most charming about anarcho-capitalists is that they believe that a single micro trade that perfectly advantages both parties in an isolated situation is what is represented in all trades in the "free" market, lol. Like, Stefan Molyneux gives this example in a debate with Peter Joseph of a little girl who opens up a lemonade stand. You buy the lemonade because you were thirsty and the little girl makes a few pennies. Win-win! That is the beauty of the free market -- there is absolutely nothing else to it. It's just win-win trading, perfectly consensual and fair, until the government interferes that is. Economics is so simple! Everyone has free will to act in the free market and the invisible hand takes care of everyone's needs, just like it took care of this little girl. The worst thing that can happen is that there is no demand for lemonade, and the little girl will have a little frowny face but she'll be freed up to put her talents to use towards something else.