What confounds me is that the market has shown capitulating is costly. Tesla is a mess, Disney took a massive hit, Target paid a serious price. Meanwhile Costco is more popular than ever. Truly clueless to where the people are even with real data. I have been imploring everyone I know to shop local as much as they can and stop giving these people money. It's not that hard to cancel Amazon and stay off Facebook.
Capitulation is costly, but the costs of what government can do to tangle up a business's operations, especially ones like Amazon and Microsoft with AWS and Azure and oodles of government contracts, have the potential to be substantially greater.
The consolidation of local broadcast station ownership is another major problem.
But I was talking about government contracts, not acquisitions and mergers. If Jassy or Nadella stands up to the current federal administration in the US, said government could decide to do a major rethink of its contracts with their companies (for that matter, given how vapid Trump is, Bezos and Gates not sufficiently genuflecting would likely have a similar impact, though in Gates' case there is also almost certainly some Epstein-related kompromat) and that would have a major financial impact, quite possibly more than any attempted boycott would.
I hate this timeline so much. I’m wondering why they would trust Trump to honor any contracts no matter what? They have no problem cancelling as they’ve already shown. If they all stood together instead of circle jerking they could shut him down. It makes you think they want this
If you make a deal with Trump there's a chance he sticks to it (and you can get a court to publicly send him a strongly worded letter telling him to stick to it). If you don't, then you don't even have a hope.
As for defying him, it's the prisoner's dilemma. If you go it alone, you're completely screwed because any one defiant company is expendable. And because of this nobody is willing to make the first move and therefore they all bow. They don't particularly trust each other, either, after all; if Amazon bucks Trump, Microsoft would love to get those cloud-computing contracts that AWS currently has, and vice versa.
This sort of ties into a thing Trump said I want totally against. Quarterly earnings report makes our whole system short sited. Maybe going with six months would actually give CEO’s more latitude
Once again you've said something I've thought many times, but said it with more knowledge and better words. And although we're seeing an extreme example at the moment, ill-behaving capitalists have always been the enemies of a sustainable system incorporating capitalism.
My view of what I understand of Marx is that his economic critiques were largely correct and his political solutions were absolute garbage (to put it mildly).
EDIT: The problem with Marxists, then, is of a similar nature to the problem with tech oligarchs: having seen success in one field (such as critiquing capitalism, or building successful companies), they then assume that they must be the best in another field, that while not wholly unrelated is sufficiently distinct as to require different methodologies (running society). Or, to quote Jean Chrétien:
"I learned early that business is business and politics is politics. The proof is how few important businessmen have made good politicians. They may think that they are very smart about everything because they made millions of dollars by digging a hole in the ground and finding oil, but the talent and luck needed to become rich are not the same talent and luck needed to succeed on Parliament Hill."
"It is not the government's purpose to make a profit the way a company does, because a company doesn't have to give a damn about the unemployed poor or provide services that are non-commercial by definition."
We don’t want to mix Gov and religion ANYMORE, but that is kinda the foundation of government.
“ #Protestantism, Christian religious movement that began in northern Europe in the early 16th century as a reaction to medieval Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. Along with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism became one of three major forces in Christianity.”
“The English Reformation began in the 16th century when King Henry VIII DECLARED THE INDEPENDENCE of the Church of England from the authority of the Pope”- staff@pluralism.org
I only wish that the Democratic Party were more into fighting rather than appeasing. They've had numerous examples to hit them, the GOP, where it hurts, but they say nothing. Which to my mind makes them complicit. I am asking myself now WHY? Why are they not standing up and screaming the dishonesty that every person in every country can witness with their own eyes? The American people are being let down by the party they have voted for time and time again. You NEED new blood. American values are going down the drain, if your country is to survive they need to fight for this. Russia is now flying jets over Alaska! This should also worry you. Will Russia take over the USA bit by bit like they are doing in Ukraine? Trump has opened the door to Americas destruction in more ways than trade.
Because they're operating under the assumption that as soon as Trump goes away, the Republican Party will go back to being the party of George W. Bush and his ilk. They're assuming Trump is the aberration rather than the inevitable end result of Republican policies and propaganda. https://leftycartoons.com/2017/06/23/whos-a-good-voter/
I suppose they are assuming this would happen. I say it won't. In the UK we had the equivalent of the Republican Party, the Conservative party. Boris Johnson was their Prime Minister. He wasn't just an inept buffoon but he was also surrounded by inept people in his cabinet. When they were brought down there were hearings and reprimands and though not many paid the price for their crimes they lost the voters respect, even their own longtime voters sent them to the bottom. Some of them have branched off to either the far-right Reform Party, some joined the Labour Party and some even went to lucrative positions in think tanks and consultancy firms. The party in essence split up! Maybe in the next generation when peoples memories have forgotten they may try to climb up the mountain again and they might make a comeback. Yet the stench of corruption never really goes away. Trump was/is far more corrupt and dangerous and the Party backed him all the way! The GOP is toast and their members will also splinter off to get rid of their involvement.
How do these people have no soul? Do they not see what they are doing to younger generations or are they living in their wealth bubble that they have lost their moral compass. How many of these tech titans also studied history, psychology, sociology and understand the impact of “should I do this?” I see Zuckerberg as socially stunted, facebook a product of a lack of emotional intelligence coupled with misogyny- but what of the rest?
Are there any big corporations bucking the system? UCLA was asked to pay $1 billion in fines in order to get $500 million in grants and given a list of government mandates so authoritarian that it undermined the whole mission of the education.
What of the people who are bamboozled by this regime, who don’t see their own rights and quality of life eroding?
I suspect like the German industrialists of the 1930s, they calculate they can play the lazy ill-educated buffoon who is playing at Presidenting. What they are not thinking about is a thin-skinned sociopathic narcissist does not respond rationally or even in his own best interest. He gains pleasure in being cruel and breaking the things of others. He is a cowardly sex predator desperate to not have his truth get out there. America isn’t simply going authoritarian, it is about to have an all out fight amongst four or five authoritarian-minded groups to see who is dominant after Donnie goes.
What I think you'll see is people reading an article like https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/what-is-liberalism and arguing that concentrated ownership of capital is incompatible with liberalism because the instincts of the owners of capital will always be to protect themselves rather than the system which made it possible in the first place, under the assumption that they are "too big to fail". (The loosening of economic regulatory enforcement under the likes of Reagan was the turning point here but he spoke the language of the civil religion: https://bsky.app/profile/rahaeli.bsky.social/post/3loqsfhswjk2r ) Private ownership of capital therefore cannot act as an effective counterbalance to overweening government since owners of capital inevitably genuflect toward authoritarian government in order to protect themselves and their assets. (The proponents of fish-hook theory will also take this as validation of their assertion, that self-professed centrists are really just fascists looking for an excuse to go mask-off.)
The Marxists will of course then argue that capital must be expropriated to prevent private concentration. The antitrust crusaders (like Matt Stoller) will argue for companies to be broken up even if all the various lines of business were established internally and not through acquisitions. (The Georgists will continue to yell about taxing land.) The capitalists (that is, the current owners of capital) will hire whoever they can find to protect themselves against the mob with the torches and the pitchforks (by convincing the torch people that the pitchfork people think that torches suck). I personally think that it will at the very least require moving away from rentier capitalism and a reexamination of when economic capital becomes economic land, but I have no idea of the extent of the regulatory measures necessary to do that.
There are many academic arguments to be had about the nature of capital and political power, and I do have a lot of thoughts. But my piece today is meant to be received purely as a moral commentary.
In that case I would submit this moral observation on capitalism and political power from 1844:
"When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another, such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live—forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence—knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains." (Friedrich Engels, "The Condition of the Working Class in England")
And this, from 1892:
"In our civilized societies we are rich. Why then are the many poor? Why this painful drudgery for the masses? Why, even to the best paid workman, this uncertainty for the morrow, in the midst of all the wealth inherited from the past, and in spite of the powerful means of production, which could ensure comfort to all, in return for a few hours of daily toil?
"The Socialists have said it and repeated it unwearyingly. Daily they reiterate it, demonstrating it by arguments taken from all the sciences. It is because all that is necessary for production—the land, the mines, the highways, machinery, food, shelter, education, knowledge—all have been seized by the few in the course of that long story of robbery, enforced migration and wars, of ignorance and oppression, which has been the life of the human race before it had learned to subdue the forces of Nature. It is because, taking advantage of alleged rights acquired in the past, these few appropriate to-day two-thirds of the products of human labour, and then squander them in the most stupid and shameful way. It is because, having reduced the masses to a point at which they have not the means of subsistence for a month, or even for a week in advance, the few can allow the many to work, only on the condition of themselves receiving the lion's share. It is because these few prevent the remainder of men from producing the things they need, and force them to produce, not the necessaries of life for all, but whatever offers the greatest profits to the monopolists. In this is the substance of all Socialism." (Peter Kropotkin, "The Conquest of Bread")
What confounds me is that the market has shown capitulating is costly. Tesla is a mess, Disney took a massive hit, Target paid a serious price. Meanwhile Costco is more popular than ever. Truly clueless to where the people are even with real data. I have been imploring everyone I know to shop local as much as they can and stop giving these people money. It's not that hard to cancel Amazon and stay off Facebook.
Capitulation is costly, but the costs of what government can do to tangle up a business's operations, especially ones like Amazon and Microsoft with AWS and Azure and oodles of government contracts, have the potential to be substantially greater.
Oh whaaaa. They shouldn’t be allowed all these massive mergers anyways. But I get what you’re saying. This nextstar crap has me livid
The consolidation of local broadcast station ownership is another major problem.
But I was talking about government contracts, not acquisitions and mergers. If Jassy or Nadella stands up to the current federal administration in the US, said government could decide to do a major rethink of its contracts with their companies (for that matter, given how vapid Trump is, Bezos and Gates not sufficiently genuflecting would likely have a similar impact, though in Gates' case there is also almost certainly some Epstein-related kompromat) and that would have a major financial impact, quite possibly more than any attempted boycott would.
I hate this timeline so much. I’m wondering why they would trust Trump to honor any contracts no matter what? They have no problem cancelling as they’ve already shown. If they all stood together instead of circle jerking they could shut him down. It makes you think they want this
If you make a deal with Trump there's a chance he sticks to it (and you can get a court to publicly send him a strongly worded letter telling him to stick to it). If you don't, then you don't even have a hope.
As for defying him, it's the prisoner's dilemma. If you go it alone, you're completely screwed because any one defiant company is expendable. And because of this nobody is willing to make the first move and therefore they all bow. They don't particularly trust each other, either, after all; if Amazon bucks Trump, Microsoft would love to get those cloud-computing contracts that AWS currently has, and vice versa.
This sort of ties into a thing Trump said I want totally against. Quarterly earnings report makes our whole system short sited. Maybe going with six months would actually give CEO’s more latitude
Once again you've said something I've thought many times, but said it with more knowledge and better words. And although we're seeing an extreme example at the moment, ill-behaving capitalists have always been the enemies of a sustainable system incorporating capitalism.
Excellently put. You may well be right.......
Such a pity that the Marxists still have all the critiques and none of the answers.
Democracy is what both are seeking to undermine and replace with their preferred form of authoritarianism.
My view of what I understand of Marx is that his economic critiques were largely correct and his political solutions were absolute garbage (to put it mildly).
EDIT: The problem with Marxists, then, is of a similar nature to the problem with tech oligarchs: having seen success in one field (such as critiquing capitalism, or building successful companies), they then assume that they must be the best in another field, that while not wholly unrelated is sufficiently distinct as to require different methodologies (running society). Or, to quote Jean Chrétien:
"I learned early that business is business and politics is politics. The proof is how few important businessmen have made good politicians. They may think that they are very smart about everything because they made millions of dollars by digging a hole in the ground and finding oil, but the talent and luck needed to become rich are not the same talent and luck needed to succeed on Parliament Hill."
"It is not the government's purpose to make a profit the way a company does, because a company doesn't have to give a damn about the unemployed poor or provide services that are non-commercial by definition."
“principle and profit”
We don’t want to mix Gov and religion ANYMORE, but that is kinda the foundation of government.
“ #Protestantism, Christian religious movement that began in northern Europe in the early 16th century as a reaction to medieval Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. Along with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism became one of three major forces in Christianity.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protestantism
“The English Reformation began in the 16th century when King Henry VIII DECLARED THE INDEPENDENCE of the Church of England from the authority of the Pope”- staff@pluralism.org
Trump is probably even less controllable than Hitler was.
I only wish that the Democratic Party were more into fighting rather than appeasing. They've had numerous examples to hit them, the GOP, where it hurts, but they say nothing. Which to my mind makes them complicit. I am asking myself now WHY? Why are they not standing up and screaming the dishonesty that every person in every country can witness with their own eyes? The American people are being let down by the party they have voted for time and time again. You NEED new blood. American values are going down the drain, if your country is to survive they need to fight for this. Russia is now flying jets over Alaska! This should also worry you. Will Russia take over the USA bit by bit like they are doing in Ukraine? Trump has opened the door to Americas destruction in more ways than trade.
Because they're operating under the assumption that as soon as Trump goes away, the Republican Party will go back to being the party of George W. Bush and his ilk. They're assuming Trump is the aberration rather than the inevitable end result of Republican policies and propaganda. https://leftycartoons.com/2017/06/23/whos-a-good-voter/
I suppose they are assuming this would happen. I say it won't. In the UK we had the equivalent of the Republican Party, the Conservative party. Boris Johnson was their Prime Minister. He wasn't just an inept buffoon but he was also surrounded by inept people in his cabinet. When they were brought down there were hearings and reprimands and though not many paid the price for their crimes they lost the voters respect, even their own longtime voters sent them to the bottom. Some of them have branched off to either the far-right Reform Party, some joined the Labour Party and some even went to lucrative positions in think tanks and consultancy firms. The party in essence split up! Maybe in the next generation when peoples memories have forgotten they may try to climb up the mountain again and they might make a comeback. Yet the stench of corruption never really goes away. Trump was/is far more corrupt and dangerous and the Party backed him all the way! The GOP is toast and their members will also splinter off to get rid of their involvement.
Will their explanation be “I was just fulfilling orders.”?
How do these people have no soul? Do they not see what they are doing to younger generations or are they living in their wealth bubble that they have lost their moral compass. How many of these tech titans also studied history, psychology, sociology and understand the impact of “should I do this?” I see Zuckerberg as socially stunted, facebook a product of a lack of emotional intelligence coupled with misogyny- but what of the rest?
Are there any big corporations bucking the system? UCLA was asked to pay $1 billion in fines in order to get $500 million in grants and given a list of government mandates so authoritarian that it undermined the whole mission of the education.
What of the people who are bamboozled by this regime, who don’t see their own rights and quality of life eroding?
I suspect like the German industrialists of the 1930s, they calculate they can play the lazy ill-educated buffoon who is playing at Presidenting. What they are not thinking about is a thin-skinned sociopathic narcissist does not respond rationally or even in his own best interest. He gains pleasure in being cruel and breaking the things of others. He is a cowardly sex predator desperate to not have his truth get out there. America isn’t simply going authoritarian, it is about to have an all out fight amongst four or five authoritarian-minded groups to see who is dominant after Donnie goes.
It is ugly now…it may get very much worse.
Truth. Sad, sad truth.
Central Banking is a communist/english/perfidious Albion idea.
Jefferson warned us..we do not have capitalism we have a fiat currency controlled centrally.
What I think you'll see is people reading an article like https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/what-is-liberalism and arguing that concentrated ownership of capital is incompatible with liberalism because the instincts of the owners of capital will always be to protect themselves rather than the system which made it possible in the first place, under the assumption that they are "too big to fail". (The loosening of economic regulatory enforcement under the likes of Reagan was the turning point here but he spoke the language of the civil religion: https://bsky.app/profile/rahaeli.bsky.social/post/3loqsfhswjk2r ) Private ownership of capital therefore cannot act as an effective counterbalance to overweening government since owners of capital inevitably genuflect toward authoritarian government in order to protect themselves and their assets. (The proponents of fish-hook theory will also take this as validation of their assertion, that self-professed centrists are really just fascists looking for an excuse to go mask-off.)
The Marxists will of course then argue that capital must be expropriated to prevent private concentration. The antitrust crusaders (like Matt Stoller) will argue for companies to be broken up even if all the various lines of business were established internally and not through acquisitions. (The Georgists will continue to yell about taxing land.) The capitalists (that is, the current owners of capital) will hire whoever they can find to protect themselves against the mob with the torches and the pitchforks (by convincing the torch people that the pitchfork people think that torches suck). I personally think that it will at the very least require moving away from rentier capitalism and a reexamination of when economic capital becomes economic land, but I have no idea of the extent of the regulatory measures necessary to do that.
There are many academic arguments to be had about the nature of capital and political power, and I do have a lot of thoughts. But my piece today is meant to be received purely as a moral commentary.
In that case I would submit this moral observation on capitalism and political power from 1844:
"When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another, such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live—forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence—knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains." (Friedrich Engels, "The Condition of the Working Class in England")
And this, from 1892:
"In our civilized societies we are rich. Why then are the many poor? Why this painful drudgery for the masses? Why, even to the best paid workman, this uncertainty for the morrow, in the midst of all the wealth inherited from the past, and in spite of the powerful means of production, which could ensure comfort to all, in return for a few hours of daily toil?
"The Socialists have said it and repeated it unwearyingly. Daily they reiterate it, demonstrating it by arguments taken from all the sciences. It is because all that is necessary for production—the land, the mines, the highways, machinery, food, shelter, education, knowledge—all have been seized by the few in the course of that long story of robbery, enforced migration and wars, of ignorance and oppression, which has been the life of the human race before it had learned to subdue the forces of Nature. It is because, taking advantage of alleged rights acquired in the past, these few appropriate to-day two-thirds of the products of human labour, and then squander them in the most stupid and shameful way. It is because, having reduced the masses to a point at which they have not the means of subsistence for a month, or even for a week in advance, the few can allow the many to work, only on the condition of themselves receiving the lion's share. It is because these few prevent the remainder of men from producing the things they need, and force them to produce, not the necessaries of life for all, but whatever offers the greatest profits to the monopolists. In this is the substance of all Socialism." (Peter Kropotkin, "The Conquest of Bread")