Steve still doesn’t quite see that this is the capitalist system working as intended - serving the owner (capitalist) class, but he’s definitely getting radicalized by the current reality of it.
capitalism worked pretty well in the 40’s and 50’s, in the USA, and then the corporate leaders realized that they could be overlords if they just stopped caring about everything but money.
We know kindness and money can coexist, but if little boy jack is taught from day one that if you don’t game the system, you will lose, he’s going to grow up to be Elon Musk.
It worked pretty well because there were a lot of regulations that kept it in check. Capitalism works fine if it’s regulated either by governments or by workers through unions.
Once capitalism has regulations to keep it in check and a democratically elected government is in charge and willing to do those things it’s no longer capitalism. Capitalism is putting monied interests first and crossing your fingers that the free hand of the market is anything more than a fairy told to naive idiots to make them support a corrupt-by-design system, such that those monied interests can be said to be chosen “democratically”(vote with your wallets).
Capitalism just sucks. It was made up so parasites nobles didn’t have to give up their ill-gotten wealth when feudalism ended. Fuckin’ thing is rotten to its core.
They knew they could be overlords and were that before The Great Depression too. We are just surpassing the level of wealth inequality that was reached prior to the system collapsing back then. What followed in the 40s and 50s was an abnormal period created by the implementation of a significant number of socialist policies that stemmed the desire for blood by the disposessed masses. These fuckers have been working to dismantle them ever since. If we find a formula that allows for such reforms to stick for longer than several decades, that would be nice. There’s good reasons for skepticism though.
Yep, lots of regulation, not necessarily even socialist stuff , some of it was just prudent financial system management.
Glass-Steagall for example and bretton-woods and stuff that limited limited power and sought to tame some animal spirits.
Were they really socialist policies? From what I know, which is hardly academic in nature, they were policies designed to stave off a potential revolution (or collapse). There was no real control on the part of the workers, just safeguards and promises of better treatment. Welfare is not necessarily socialist in nature, just something that occurs from socialist development because of workers looking out for each other. Having welfare given to you, without more direct involvement in how it’s dispensed, is less socialist than it is reactionary.
It also worked because most other advanced economies had just been bombed into the ground twice over leaving the US with a huge advantage that made prosperity easy, those conditions simply don’t exist anymore.
The worst of it hasn’t happened yet. The point where consumers can no longer afford to consume is coming. The system isn’t self sustainable if they continue to chase profits in the short term regardless of what happens in the long term. They’re creating a system where only they will be consumers and that leads to a devaluation of all the currency they’re hoarding.
Prices can’t continue to go up if people can’t afford things. This price hike is going to have far reaching consequences and increase prices of everything.
The people of Germany were burning German marks in the street. They traded goods for goods when they were available, and burned the money for warmth.
The rich of our current generation seem to think they can golden parachute out of this. They have t thought about the long term repercussions of a world power of the US’s magnitude defending to third world country status, but that’s what is coming.
This means that the other 80% of Americans represent only 37% of the spending done today. If a company is looking to maximize profits the typical path is to do so by marketing to the group where they could earn the most money. That is less and less the bottom 80% of Americans.
Steve still doesn’t quite see that this is the capitalist system working as intended - serving the owner (capitalist) class, but he’s definitely getting radicalized by the current reality of it.
capitalism worked pretty well in the 40’s and 50’s, in the USA, and then the corporate leaders realized that they could be overlords if they just stopped caring about everything but money.
We know kindness and money can coexist, but if little boy jack is taught from day one that if you don’t game the system, you will lose, he’s going to grow up to be Elon Musk.
It worked pretty well because there were a lot of regulations that kept it in check. Capitalism works fine if it’s regulated either by governments or by workers through unions.
Once capitalism has regulations to keep it in check and a democratically elected government is in charge and willing to do those things it’s no longer capitalism. Capitalism is putting monied interests first and crossing your fingers that the free hand of the market is anything more than a fairy told to naive idiots to make them support a corrupt-by-design system, such that those monied interests can be said to be chosen “democratically”(vote with your wallets).
Capitalism just sucks. It was made up so parasites nobles didn’t have to give up their ill-gotten wealth when feudalism ended. Fuckin’ thing is rotten to its core.
They knew they could be overlords and were that before The Great Depression too. We are just surpassing the level of wealth inequality that was reached prior to the system collapsing back then. What followed in the 40s and 50s was an abnormal period created by the implementation of a significant number of socialist policies that stemmed the desire for blood by the disposessed masses. These fuckers have been working to dismantle them ever since. If we find a formula that allows for such reforms to stick for longer than several decades, that would be nice. There’s good reasons for skepticism though.
Yep, lots of regulation, not necessarily even socialist stuff , some of it was just prudent financial system management. Glass-Steagall for example and bretton-woods and stuff that limited limited power and sought to tame some animal spirits.
Were they really socialist policies? From what I know, which is hardly academic in nature, they were policies designed to stave off a potential revolution (or collapse). There was no real control on the part of the workers, just safeguards and promises of better treatment. Welfare is not necessarily socialist in nature, just something that occurs from socialist development because of workers looking out for each other. Having welfare given to you, without more direct involvement in how it’s dispensed, is less socialist than it is reactionary.
It also worked because most other advanced economies had just been bombed into the ground twice over leaving the US with a huge advantage that made prosperity easy, those conditions simply don’t exist anymore.
The worst of it hasn’t happened yet. The point where consumers can no longer afford to consume is coming. The system isn’t self sustainable if they continue to chase profits in the short term regardless of what happens in the long term. They’re creating a system where only they will be consumers and that leads to a devaluation of all the currency they’re hoarding.
Prices can’t continue to go up if people can’t afford things. This price hike is going to have far reaching consequences and increase prices of everything.
The people of Germany were burning German marks in the street. They traded goods for goods when they were available, and burned the money for warmth.
The rich of our current generation seem to think they can golden parachute out of this. They have t thought about the long term repercussions of a world power of the US’s magnitude defending to third world country status, but that’s what is coming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
Its mostly already arrived.
“As of June 30, the top 20% of earners accounted for more than 63% of all spending”
source
This means that the other 80% of Americans represent only 37% of the spending done today. If a company is looking to maximize profits the typical path is to do so by marketing to the group where they could earn the most money. That is less and less the bottom 80% of Americans.
But the top 20% can still spend. That number is going to drop off a cliff when the stock market tumbles, and the spending with it.
I mean, yeah, this is the system working as intended: corporations chasing profits and feeling no regrets about burning bridges in the process.