Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jian" data-source="post: 9677934" data-attributes="member: 78087">I think the problem is that capitalism is so deeply embedded in the global economy that it’s hard to replace it with anything without some sort of cataclysm (which is basically what WW2 did - capitalism wasn’t replaced, of course, but was significantly reformed and worked better for many people for a few years). And cataclysms are terrible for everyone.Now that the gilded age is global and many (most?) countries are basically flailing around trying to find a settlement that keeps donor money and investment while not excessively oppressing 99% of their population, we may see changes that make life more bearable or sustainable for most people. That would certainly be nice. But the level of regulatory and cognitive capture (Freeland has good examples here about how billionaires basically have no empathy or understanding of the rest of humanity and how bankers should not be Treasury secretaries, because they assume what’s good for Wall Street is good for the country and the world) in most governments makes that very hard to do.(Another nice example or insight by Freeland is a close look at Zappos, the shoe retailer that was generally hailed at the time as one of the best places to work in the US. And it does sound nice, and the founders sound nice, and make nice noises about equality and employee rights and flat management structures. But it’s still clearly grossly unequal, with employees being forced to come in randomly on weekends or get fired, and the founders becoming billionaires when they sell to Amazon. Capitalism, like feudalism, can never be nice, however much the king pretends to himself that he’s a good king.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jian, post: 9677934, member: 78087"] I think the problem is that capitalism is so deeply embedded in the global economy that it’s hard to replace it with anything without some sort of cataclysm (which is basically what WW2 did - capitalism wasn’t replaced, of course, but was significantly reformed and worked better for many people for a few years). And cataclysms are terrible for everyone. Now that the gilded age is global and many (most?) countries are basically flailing around trying to find a settlement that keeps donor money and investment while not excessively oppressing 99% of their population, we may see changes that make life more bearable or sustainable for most people. That would certainly be nice. But the level of regulatory and cognitive capture (Freeland has good examples here about how billionaires basically have no empathy or understanding of the rest of humanity and how bankers should not be Treasury secretaries, because they assume what’s good for Wall Street is good for the country and the world) in most governments makes that very hard to do. (Another nice example or insight by Freeland is a close look at Zappos, the shoe retailer that was generally hailed at the time as one of the best places to work in the US. And it does sound nice, and the founders sound nice, and make nice noises about equality and employee rights and flat management structures. But it’s still clearly grossly unequal, with employees being forced to come in randomly on weekends or get fired, and the founders becoming billionaires when they sell to Amazon. Capitalism, like feudalism, can never be nice, however much the king pretends to himself that he’s a good king.) [/QUOTE]

Verification