# United States (and captalism's problem)



## Deleted User (Dec 18, 2020)

So what do I mean by capitalism's problem? 
The main goal in capitalism is profit, beyond all else, and this, this has already tied into so many issues the world is experiencing, and or crisis it's about to go through.
Let's start with the more common knowledge issues that are a bit more grounded in the states(though still generally effect most capitalistic countries)
For example climate change.
Due to "the free market
_which really just means massive cooperation's get to buy out the competition. _
and the fact that lobbing is really just a proxy for bribing here in the states.
Effectively, nothing will be done about it, subsidies will still go to the coal industry, law makers generally won't do anything to protect the planet, since they get a fuck ton of money from coal/unclean energy industries, failure to support them results in them loosing their spot.
And as most of us already know, this is not the path we should be on. We should of been reducing green house gas emissions years ago, and research has existed that it was going to be, and is going to continue to be a problem for decades.

Speaking of lobbing.That's also a fun great issue the world gets to deal with.
See no matter what, as long as lobbing exists the will of the people will be ignored for those who have money. Want proof that it's a issue? Well, should I even bring up net neutrality? And how that was thrown out even though the consensus was over 80% that it shouldn't be repealed. or how we need stimulus checks but Mitch McConnell refuses to allow any discussion on it because it has no clause to write away liability from companies who have mistreated/ have not followed protocols for protecting their workers from covid. When that bill, would essentially help sooth/prevent almost3 0-40 million of American's loosing their homes/getting evicted.

This on it's own would get some people to maybe raise an eyebrow. But then again many also still continue to think capitalism=freedom
Well don't I have a apocalyptic future to bring up for you! Oh, and it's not one. It's two. And one of them directly involves jobs...

So, if anyone has been keeping up with the tech industry, you would know by now that ai is getting.... really advanced. Advanced enough that given enough data it can create deep fakes of people. And start... being advanced enough that it can do some complex takes that people usually would do.
Okay so what? I'm I talking a future where ai rules the world/ai singularity?
haha, no.
Buut, the future I'm thinking of is cooperation owning you.
How would that be possible, you ask?
Let me ask. What happens when company's need to boost their profit margins higher. Since that is also the direction of capitalism as well, always larger and higher profits. Say they have almost perfected everything possible (even though we don't treat the earth like a limited resource. since already that too is an issue) what is the next step?
Simple, replacing workers. Robot's don't need wages,Robots don't need food or water or air. Robots don't need safe conditions. robots don't need breaks, robots don't need hr departments. And it's not like we haven't seen it. as part of that process has already begun. While you don't need an ai for everything, as Walmart and self checkout isles have already proven that. They are one step closer to that inevitable process.Self driving trucks on certain highways is already a thing. It's already a thing for legal experts who would look up laws being replaced with ai.
So I beg the question, what are we worth at this point? In capitalism, it would mean you're worth, is even more meaningless and pointless. And this reality would become a inevitability, since increasing profit margins is it's only drive.
Which at that point, you're freedoms would become massively restricted. Corporations would use your data as a possible bargaining chip, maybe that's your new worth. maybe your pretty face... for a limited time until you consider:

Genetic modification.
See it also just happens that we are well, getting dangerously close into ethical questions about genetically modifying people.
For the sake of this argument, say it has a price, perhaps classified as medical treatment in the future united states. And we already have that world I just established where essentially, your only worth as much as your data.
You would essentially have zero statistical chance to be able to do anything about it.As not only would the price would be ungodly high, those on the top would have easy access. And likely even then have access to treatments, that would essentially make them superhuman compared to you. Again, capitalism doesn't care about morals, it's cares about profits.
Sounds silly?
Then let me draw a parallel
What modern united states problem do we have right now?
Did you say that the human life expectancy is dropping because we have a broken health care system that only profits the wealthy and only the rich can afford?
Still not convinced?
I'm pretty sure any millionaire, would be able to get a similar or as good of a treatment Trump did if it happened in the exact same time frame. While all of us who are not billionaires, all of us who are the working class, gets to deal with covid, loose their home, perhaps get sick and or die, and or get to deal with long term complications.
If any advancement happened, you would continue to be treated like shit, and would even further be on unequal footing.
_not like you were on equalfooting when the ceo makes over 1000% of what you make_

So if you ask me, the American dream would be quashed under capitalism, which I wouldn't count that as a good thing. Not like it already hasn't been once you consider how bad wages are.
So, I think perhaps we should be thinking of a new system to replace it.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 18, 2020)

Further more, by the way, fun fact, a lot of profound figure in history have been whitewashed to remove anything regarding socialism. Martin Luther King wasn't just a man who talked for people of color. he also happened to be very strongly opposed to a lot of aspects of capitalism and the United states handling of things. (cough cough Vietnam war cough cough)
Also there is also plenty of other issues
(Such as LBGTQ+ and gender inequality issues. The fact that we aren't supposed to be working 8 hours a day. Since we actually drop off by the 4 hour in efficiency... People can research into what I'm talking about as there is papers for it. I'm just too lazy right now to pull everything out. Oh and due to how bad wages are it's essentially slave labour with extra steps. or the fact the education system is screwed in the united states. And your not guaranteed a job even with a bachelors degree. It's about 40% of those who graduate actually get a job where their bachlor's is needed in their first year, because how bad the job market)


----------



## notimp (Dec 22, 2020)

Still reading your posting, but I'm starting to comment on it. 

Way out of the 'fossile energy trap' is a sector that makes sense to replace it and investment. If prices for renewable energy dont make sense yet, you can compensate - for a while. Which could be a long while. So you have to enact other measures as well to mitigate risk.

Reference model I have in my head for that is Chomskys big picture view of capitalism, where state investment makes (creates) private profits, (pretty much exclusively - in a certain sense) because the state is essentially the main driver on innovation on large structural change. So on the climate issue its the state that has to move (call it subsidies, call it something different). State can also enact encompasing rules to shift trajectories, but has to make sure it doesnt ruin the economy doing so.

Because the issue here is rather large, everyone wants part of the investment to be absorbed by 'dumb private money' (as in people with too much to spare). Nudges are in place in europe - everywhere on the institutional ruleset level to facilitate that. Also reduces structural inequality, before millenials inherit money.

Smart money - you want in play, when the replacement industries are scaling up. But currently we are still in 'efficiency' stages (because it costs the least to increase efficiency, and efficiency increases are needed anyhow - so you start there, also gives you additional time for R&D).

Target is not zero growth or degrowth (because growth is how you eliminated debt in the past), but slow - sustainable growth. For any developed economy. Faster growth for the non developed ones, so they can afford to become stable under the new paradigm.

People getting f*cked over most - are the poor (largest amount of energy/movement expenses in proportion to total income), and the poor again (reduced chances of social mobility - because of reduced economic growth (especially the compound growth kind)).

The first part you compensate with subsidies (literally shifting money from the new 'carbon' tax revenues to the poor), or you get revolts. The second part you cant compensate for.

New paradigm, who became rich in the old economy, stays rich forever. No compound growth. No structural taxing. Less inflation. But giving them Incentives to invest.

You dont care - because, the target is to reduce consumption of the masses. (Only that impacts the CO2 budget in a large enough way, to be even called a mitigation meassure.)


Because you see that people will revolt, once they understand what 'no social mobility' means, you invest heavy, and I mean HEAVY in PR sh*t.
Like 'endless growth possible in the services sectors (that wont grow people out of poverty - instead they will start hanging phones from trees (if you dont know the story, wait till the end..  )' - under automation, endless growth possible in the digital goods sectors, where nothing really exists, and creating something is copy/paste. You have a f*ckton of Harvard philosophical initiatives, like 'the new modesty' and 'the negative sides of merit' to keep people dosile.

And you funnel millenials currently into jobs (handywork, old people care), where they mostly get their lives financed by existing boomer money. (Growth perspective (innovation lead) in the next 10-15 years in the european countries - not that great.).
-------

After you f*cked with peoples minds of what consists a worthwhile living standard (You have to, because you need consumption reduction, for the transition.), you slowly phase in the transition, taking care that your economies dont suffocate.

AFTER the transition, its back to the same growth paradigm for your grandchildren, as long, as it is powered by largely renewable energy at that point.

No one cares about sustainability, if there are no increasing risk profiles to deal with on the flip side. Most of the increasing risk, comes from climate change. Not from bad (non renewable) resource usage.

You PR-inject the notion of 'circular economy so important' into people as well, but not because of climate change - but because of population center changes (Europe is dying out - germany looses half of relative trade volume until 2050 (percentage of world trade)), which means - you might not have the pull anymore to pay for those resources, if the demand, and growth centers are elsewhere.

In that case it pays, that you pivot away from those business models as well.
--------

US has mexico at its border. Mexico is a future growth market. So the solution for the US will be entirely different to that for the EU. Regardless of how it looks like. (Different interest groups.)

If you go into 'zero growth' with mexico (growing population) fallout would be different than in Europe (declining population).
---------

As a kicker - the whole thing is "the worlds greatest prison dilemma" because the (important) state that doesnt move - wins most. In the geopolitical context. States that move early, win modestly, and only if everyone (important) moves.
---------

NONE of this is a capitalism dilemma.
Capitalism still is a tool. And a useful tool everything considered. You just shift its goals for a little while. And later (your children/grandchildren), you remove those restrictions again.
--

If you are still stuck in the 'lobbying means, that people will never get what they want' trap -

- people with 'smart money' need/want access to the legislature to be able to 'create' future working economies.

- even if you dont have 'lobbying money' you can still brainwash the entire world with Greta (and much smaller intelligent investments into NGOs and popular movements), thats the counterbalance.

There is no world in which both of those options dont exist anymore.
And the poor will always get f*cked over.

In a 'zero growth economy' moreso than ever.
--


edit: Oh, explanation for hanging phones from trees:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...hanging-smartphones-in-trees-to-get-more-work


----------

