Oh boy. There is so much naive belief in that piece.
Take "We believe markets are an inherently individualistic way to achieve superior collective outcomes".
From the 1980's on, a vision 'unfettered capitalism' has driven the world economy. The promise was that 'freeing almost everything' would in the end 'benefit almost *all*'. After almo…
Oh boy. There is so much naive belief in that piece.
Take "We believe markets are an inherently individualistic way to achieve superior collective outcomes".
From the 1980's on, a vision 'unfettered capitalism' has driven the world economy. The promise was that 'freeing almost everything' would in the end 'benefit almost *all*'. After almost a half century of this, can we finally conclude that this 'all' has turned out to be simply not true? In the US, for instance, where this movement has been strongest, productivity has doubled, but real wages have stagnated. The rich have become richer based on those profits, the rest has stagnated because they depend on wage-related income. The top 10% of US families now own 76% of wealth. The bottom 50% own just 1%.
Regardless of this being a bad or a good thing (that is an ethical choice: is it actually important to have a fair society?), can we finally simply conclude that the theory (that *everyone* profits from unfettered capitalism) at least has definitely been proven dead wrong? How much more data do we need to accept this?
People get sold 'lower taxes' and 'more freedom', but the weaker the collective side of the economy (including government), the more unfettered predatory practices become, and the fewer people get those benefits in a *real* sense. If we really want more people to have real — and not just the marketing of — freedom (i.e. '*all* benefit') what needs to be done? And — given globalisation — can something be done at all?
Andreesen quotes modern capitalism founder Adam Smith. I find it ironical that if you read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" he actually warns for the fact that entrepreneurs are not to be trusted with the advise they give on what is best for *all* (i.e. society) as they are in the end singularly focused on what is good for *themselves*.
"We believe the ultimate moral defense of markets is that they divert people who otherwise would raise armies and start religions into peacefully productive pursuits." First, entrepreneurs do everything to make a profit. Period. Including lying to sell more arms (Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex). Or lie to sell more tobacco. Or lie to sell more oil. Or lie to sell hyper-addictive opioids. They even may start religions (i.e. Scientology) to make a profit. In fact, the key lie that unfettered capitalists tell themselves and are convinced of is this lie that unfettered capitalism is by definition good for *all*.
"Our enemy is speech control and thought control – the increasing use, in plain sight, of George Orwell’s “1984” as an instruction manual." *Cough*. Surveillance capitalism. *Cough*. Google dropping "don't be evil" as it is bad for profit. Letting evil types manipulate elections for profit.
The free market is absolutely a good thing for innovation. It is important, nobody believes we can plan everything. But ignoring the (moral and collective) downsides or the conditions for it is hyper-naive.
And Kelly? Kurzweil? Really?
And nuclear fission and fusion to give us all 1000x as much energy to use? Fine (but realistic?). And suppose that works after several decades, does that mean you're going to forbid fossil fuels? Or is that against the maximally free entrepreneurial dogma?
Techno-optimism is not necessarily bad. I like technology. I like innovation. How can we be against improvement? But religious 'free marketism' is *very* bad. A free market is an essential part of what I would think is the ideal society. But one thing it is not in any way is 'moral'. That has to come from somewhere else.
I am reminded of Bonhoeffer's analysis that stupidity is much more dangerous than malice.
"Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack." It is not a lack of intellect he is talking about: "There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid."
Oh boy. There is so much naive belief in that piece.
Take "We believe markets are an inherently individualistic way to achieve superior collective outcomes".
From the 1980's on, a vision 'unfettered capitalism' has driven the world economy. The promise was that 'freeing almost everything' would in the end 'benefit almost *all*'. After almost a half century of this, can we finally conclude that this 'all' has turned out to be simply not true? In the US, for instance, where this movement has been strongest, productivity has doubled, but real wages have stagnated. The rich have become richer based on those profits, the rest has stagnated because they depend on wage-related income. The top 10% of US families now own 76% of wealth. The bottom 50% own just 1%.
Regardless of this being a bad or a good thing (that is an ethical choice: is it actually important to have a fair society?), can we finally simply conclude that the theory (that *everyone* profits from unfettered capitalism) at least has definitely been proven dead wrong? How much more data do we need to accept this?
People get sold 'lower taxes' and 'more freedom', but the weaker the collective side of the economy (including government), the more unfettered predatory practices become, and the fewer people get those benefits in a *real* sense. If we really want more people to have real — and not just the marketing of — freedom (i.e. '*all* benefit') what needs to be done? And — given globalisation — can something be done at all?
Here are some facts about the last half century in the US: https://www.epi.org/publication/decades-of-rising-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s-testimony-before-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-ways-and-means-committee/
Andreesen quotes modern capitalism founder Adam Smith. I find it ironical that if you read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" he actually warns for the fact that entrepreneurs are not to be trusted with the advise they give on what is best for *all* (i.e. society) as they are in the end singularly focused on what is good for *themselves*.
"We believe the ultimate moral defense of markets is that they divert people who otherwise would raise armies and start religions into peacefully productive pursuits." First, entrepreneurs do everything to make a profit. Period. Including lying to sell more arms (Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex). Or lie to sell more tobacco. Or lie to sell more oil. Or lie to sell hyper-addictive opioids. They even may start religions (i.e. Scientology) to make a profit. In fact, the key lie that unfettered capitalists tell themselves and are convinced of is this lie that unfettered capitalism is by definition good for *all*.
"Our enemy is speech control and thought control – the increasing use, in plain sight, of George Orwell’s “1984” as an instruction manual." *Cough*. Surveillance capitalism. *Cough*. Google dropping "don't be evil" as it is bad for profit. Letting evil types manipulate elections for profit.
The free market is absolutely a good thing for innovation. It is important, nobody believes we can plan everything. But ignoring the (moral and collective) downsides or the conditions for it is hyper-naive.
And Kelly? Kurzweil? Really?
And nuclear fission and fusion to give us all 1000x as much energy to use? Fine (but realistic?). And suppose that works after several decades, does that mean you're going to forbid fossil fuels? Or is that against the maximally free entrepreneurial dogma?
Techno-optimism is not necessarily bad. I like technology. I like innovation. How can we be against improvement? But religious 'free marketism' is *very* bad. A free market is an essential part of what I would think is the ideal society. But one thing it is not in any way is 'moral'. That has to come from somewhere else.
I am reminded of Bonhoeffer's analysis that stupidity is much more dangerous than malice.
"Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack." It is not a lack of intellect he is talking about: "There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stupidity-versus-malice-gerben-wierda/