In the last 5 to 10 years everything seems to suck: product’s and services quality plummeted, everything from homes to cars to food became really expensive, technology stopped to help us to be something designed to f@ck with us and our money, nobody seems to be able to hold a job anymore, everyone is broke. Life seems worse in general.
Why? Did COVID made this happen? How?
Because corporate greed and the economic elite around the world hoarding more resources than ever before.
And we let them.
We don’t just let them, we cheer them on. Look at the celebrity worship culture we humans have. If you took away the person and left only their actions, most of us would happily throw the rich into a woodchipper. But they use their money to convince us that they’re special and deserve praise, and most of us go along with it because we’re sheep.
Pioneer woman.
She’s got a huge ranch a huge house a specialty made kitchen just for her show… works super hard to look blue collar.
It’s all crafted to separate you from your money…
While I agree her image is at the very least somewhat exaggerated, her net worth probably puts her somewhere in the top 10%. She’s not exactly the powerful elite.
Rae Drummond has a reported net worth of approx $65m as of last year.
The top 1% of United States net worth starts at $12m. She is just inside the top 0.1% of us net worth which starts at $62m.
Hell, her last name alone gives it away.
The Drummond family is one of the wealthiest families in Oklahoma, owning hundreds of thousands of acres of land.
Wealthy enough they have their own Wikipedia page.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drummond_family_(Oklahoma)
She’s married into one of the wealthiest families in Oklahoma.
Completely excluding the tens of millions she herself is worth from her business.
I found out recently that the land that her ranch sits on is at least adjacent to, if not directly involved in the events shown in Killers of the Flower Moon.
Unregulated capitalism…
This is the natural result of that.
COVID factored in because the handful of corporations that own a shit ton of companies figured out 8% inflation could be used as justification to double/triple prices, and if they all did it, consumers had no options.
In regulated capitalism, the government would step in to prevent this type of price fixing.
But when both political parties are “pro business” and take donations from those huge corporations…
Then corporations get away with lots they shouldn’t
In regulated capitalism, the government would step in to prevent this type of price fixing.
like this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/us/yale-columbia-price-fixing-settlement.html
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/19/rice-university-price-fixing-lawsuit/
I looked at some of those, and it’s private citizens suing corporations…
Even the rent one with the DOJ, it’s just them becoming involved in private lawsuits…
That’s not the same as the government regulating capitalism.
And while that one is sort of related to the topic, not really. It’s because the price fixing is automated by a computer program a bunch of landlords used.
In the future if you only give one link and some kind of explanation other than “like this?” The person you replied to can probably do a better job of helping you understand.
I looked at some of those, and it’s private citizens suing corporations…
That’s not the same as the government regulating capitalism.This is like saying that Texas doesn’t regulate abortion because it’s just private citizens filing lawsuits. That is bullshit.
Without the regulations, there would be no legal basis for filing a lawsuit.
But the government doesn’t regulate capitalism, they are owned by the capitalists. So many laws exist because corporations paid for them to, moreso in recent years but it was still bad 50+ years ago, just look at how successful the tobacco industry is.
Not trying to pick a fight, but having regulations is not the same thing as regulating. At least not in the context of this thread.
I will try to not fight with you.
What distinction do you make between regulating and having regulations?
The US has this bizarre setup where we “regulate” companies through the courts rather than directly through government agencies (this is not always the case, but it often is). The problem is that even when this “works”, i.e., the court punishes the company, they get a fine. So it becomes a financial decision: if we can get away with this, does that outweigh the risk that we might not? Sometimes it ends up profiting the company regardless.
Related to this is that prosecutors have total discretion in the realm of plea deals. If you do a crime here, it becomes a negotiation with the prosecutor. What can you offer them to get off the hook? Sometimes it makes sense to do a crime, because the advantages you gain become leverage to negotiate your way out of punishment.
Related to this is that prosecutors have total discretion in the realm of plea deals. If you do a crime here, it becomes a negotiation with the prosecutor.
I agree with you. The justice system should not be “let’s make a deal.”
The US has this bizarre setup where we “regulate” companies through the courts rather than directly through government agencies (this is not always the case, but it often is).
I’m afraid that I don’t understand what sort of alternative system you have in mind.
Basically do what Europe does. Government regulators actively monitor companies and stop them from misbehaving, rather than waiting for them to misbehave and then sue them. If they don’t follow regulations they get disbanded. It’s not perfect but it’s better than what we have here.
I believe that already happens here in certain fields like nuclear energy and slaughterhouses
Company makes a billion dollars and then it’s fined 200 million, ten years later because a private citizen sues them…
Is this government regulation?
You’re a meme. And by that I mean, you’re a joke.
Thank you for contributing to the discussion.
Covid made things worse, but the fundamentals were bad.
We are in the middle of a massive tightening of the labor market as boomers retire and there aren’t enough young adults to fill the gap. This is causing major ripples in the market, with a very antagonistic relationship forming between capital trying to keep labor costs down and labor tired of the bullshit.
This is causing some mild inflation, so companies are jacking up prices since they have an excuse to. This increased inflation is making the time value of money cost more. So now you have companies that were losing money having to scramble to finally generate a profit. This is causing the enshittification of the Internet and the loss of jobs in the tech sector.
The worse economy is causing political problems as it is harder for politicians to justify their positions in power. This encourages conflict between nations and the justification to deny some people of social benefits to create an underclass to benefit voters.
I agree with this, and I’d like to add that the wealth gap focusing on funneling money to the top is obviously not helping the quality of products, responsible production , or fair compensation for most of the world.
Yeah, but I’m trying to explain why it is happening. You’ve hit market saturation in so many companies when the only way to fuel growth now is to reduce costs.
Cumulative generational focus on acquiring and consolidating capital explains the why comprehensively, at least in the states.
Monopolies, market saturation, minimizing cost at all costs, poor labor compensation are all symptoms of a system focused primarily on acquiring and consolidating capital.
Capitalism. The longer Capitalism exists, the more it has to find new ways to stop/slow its own built-in death clock. If it doesn’t, it dies, due to problems like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall and rising disparity. Enshittification, so to speak.
With each economic disaster, the wealthiest of the bourgeoisie can claim large swaths of cheaper Capital at a discount, compounding the issue into a form of neo-feudalism that will eventually collapse under its own weight.
God forbid a post-scarcity world where the only currency is our reputation, honor, and credibility.
Make it so number one.
Hehehehe it started there but took an Orville hard left
It’s not “Capitalism”, it’s governments not doing their job in regulating capitalist practices, and instead embracing neoliberal economics. I don’t accept that all ownership is theft. Trade in goods and services benefits both parties. I am so sick of people using this shorthand word “capitalism” to describe what’s going on here. We’ve had capitalism for millennia, and it’s brought us longer, healthier and happier lives, and reduced warfare. It’s Thatcherite/Reaganomic practices by governments that are the problem, not the system of ownership of capital.
At the core, the issue is still deeply rooted within capitalism but governments should absolutely be doing their fucking jobs and curb the worst aspects of it a little until we’re ready for something better.
Fair point, I accept that. A bit like how democracy is the worst form of government apart from those other ones we tried.
Even then, there are still countless forms of democracy and democratic government. Democracy itself is a cool concept, the actual systems utilizing Democracy vary wildly, from the Soviet form, to the Chinese form, to the American form, to the European forms, to the forms practiced in more Anarchist societies like the EZLN and revolutionary Catalonia, and more.
There’s direct Democracy, council Democracy, republican Democracy, proportional Democracy, parliamentary democracy, and far, far more.
Liberal Democracies are of, by, and for the bourgeoisie. Because Capitalists have immense influence, the state will bend to their will.
Trade is good. Capitalism is not. Capitalism is not trade, its a Mode of Production by which there are individual Capitalists and non-owner workers. We have not had Capitalism for millenia, but a few hundred years.
Capitalism did not bring us healthier, longer, and happier lives, nor reduce warfare. Development did. Capitalism drives profit, that’s it, anything else is tangential to that end.
I think you would do yourself a lot of good by reading theory.
I agree with your last point - and I may be a bit bourgeois (not to mention ignorant) myself. I’d appreciate recommendations if you wouldn’t mind.
That’s a ton of reflection and openness, so I just want to commend you for that. Fantastic to hear and see.
Initially, I want to give a general basis for what can be considered bourgeois. The Bourgeoisie are those Capitalists who do not need to perform labor to survive, and earn their money via ownership alone. One can be a business owner actively and a member of the bourgeoisie if they can simply hire someone to manage in their place, but a member of the petite bourgeoisie cannot hire a manager to take their place and still make enough money to survive.
As for general reading recommendations? You have a lot of paths you can go. I don’t personally recommend going full ML or full Anarchist right off the bat, usually it takes a lot of reflection to pick a tendency. I myself don’t even have a tendency I identify with, as I believe the process towards progress is unique for each country and state.
If you want a real quick intro: Principles of Communism, by Engels, is an extremely quick read. Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein is another fantastic paper. The Communist Manifesto is good, but it’s extremely fiery and usually is better after you’re familiar with Marxism.
If you want to get a quick intro that breaks more into the theory side (as in, you’ll be more well-read than the vast majority of online leftists with little effort), read both Value, Price, and Profit and Wage Labor and Capital by Marx. They are condensed and simplified versions of what Marx greatly elaborates on in Capital, his seminal masterwork.
For Anarchism, An Anarchist FAQ is a good starting point. Note that Anarchists usually align with Marxists on analysis, but not on strategy.
There’s also topics like Syndicalism, Market Socialism, the idea of Reform vs Revolution (Rosa Luxembourg has a good paper on that), and more, but those are fantastic bang for buck reads.
If you still want more, you can always read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and The Conquest of Bread, the former for Marxism and the latter for Anarchism.
Hope this helps! There are tons of YouTube videos as well that simplify Marxism as much as possible.
deleted by creator
It’s come and gone throughout the millennia, like certain pieces of knowledge. Eratosthenes very accurately calculated the circumference of the world in Ptolemaic Egypt and later on people thought the Earth was flat (and some morons still do). As for capitalism, look at prehistoric societies using shells as currency. What is that currency for?
Capitalism isn’t “when people use money”. It has an actual definition.
It’s not “Capitalism”, it’s governments not doing their job in regulating capitalist practices
It’s Thatcherite/Reaganomic practices by governments that are the problem
Hmm, I’m trying to remember what economic system both these countries have… Let’s call it “Bappitalism”. And if the economic model is so powerful that it influences the governmental one (lobbyists, military spending, etc), then yes, that is a problem.
Read the other comments please.
That’s not how forums or discussions in general work. For reference, read other comments on the internet, please.
You may enjoy this read:
Thanks for this :)
Capitalism is not millennia old. Capitalism (as commonly defined) only stared to take root after the black death (1350ish) flipped feudalism on its head. Suddenly the free and unfree peasant class had some control of their own destiny and could sell their skills to whomever they wanted at whatever price they could get. Serfs could declare themselves free. Land was often up for grabs.
Alas, the alternative to capitalism has never been socialism, but feudalism.
Capitalist governments are pro-finance, not pro-people. Totalitarian gvmts (China etc) are pro-system, not pro-people. They’re just different ways of maintaining classes of people who control the power/finances.
There’s always been an uber-rich elite, all the way from the first tribal chieftain or Pharaoh or whatever until now and there’s always been a huge underclass of the rest of us. The first law of any hierarchy is to protect the people at the top.
What we see today (in Westernised countries) is the natural, logical progression of economics driven democracy. Economic theorists say wealthy people create wealth by purposefully distributing it via jobs etc but in reality they do everything possible to minimise the loss of what they see as their money by abusing labour laws, privatising everything, trying to kill unions, creating convoluted laws to protect their fortunes, avoiding taxes and hiking prices up to the point most of us are just about surviving with enough carrot to ignore or pretend we don’t see the stick.
And we’re willing participants in that system. We know this is happening but we’re dazzled by lotteries holding out the chance to join the rich, promises of work making us rich and a media which lionises the elite as some kind of fabulous aspirational status to the point we have people on social media faking a rich lifestyle for internet points.
The uber rich believe they’re better than us and our acquiescence with this system really means we agree with them.
I agree broadly with much of your assessment of history and many of the problems that bely current western society. The rich might be exploiting capitalism to their benefit but a capitalist system with proper regulation will always be better (in terms of Quality of life and freedom) for larger groups of people Than a planned economy.
Possibly but I can’t think of a time that’s been attempted, let alone successfully implemented. Capitalism always (it seems to me) ends up morphing into a system to protect wealth and the wealthy. They would never, ever allow ‘proper regulation’ (by which I assume you mean regulation to protect workers as much as the rich) to happen.
Capitalism isn’t a national thing - its global - there’s always going to be places where what one country forbids another country allows. All a rich person or company has to do is transfer their base of operations there to circumnavigate most laws and pay lip service to the laws of the countries they operate in. Look at Amazon or Starbucks.
Planned economies were the means to the end not the end. Basing it around authoritarian, suppressive, dictatorial government is what made it the end. That said, apart from freedom of speech issues. Capitalism struggles in most aspects to truly be better, even at its best. Because capitalism ends up authoritarian and suppressive as well. Those with all the wealthy and resources don’t tolerate those who are against their theft.
We should be moving past both.
Okay, but what does a system look like that moves past both? How do you ensure people get resources if you don’t want capitalism or a planned economy?
By implementing the thing Marxist-leninists were loathe to implement despite giving a lot of lip service. Actual communism. Not the Engles lenin variety. But the kind Marx spoke on. The thing to remember is that the Soviet Communist party was as communist as the national socialist party of Germany was socialist. Which is to say neither of them were.
This of course all starts with actual large scale engagement. We absolutely need to change the voting system etc as a start. For all the flaws and problems of the founding fathers, the fact that they saw us needing to largely rewrite the Constitution every few decades, let alone every few hundred years was not one of their flaws.
Then we need to uncap the House of Representatives. That’s a century overdue. Followed by abolishing the electoral college. Then reforming the house, Senate, judiciary and even the concept of the presidency. Basically take as many steps as necessary to make things as democratic/granular as possible. Dilute power.
One of the other important things we could do is abolishing the concept of private property. Private property is little more than theft. Allowing the wealthy to horde resources to the detriment of everyone else. If you own a home, you should be living in it. It shouldn’t be some sort of an investment that you never spend time in. Used for speculation on markets etc. Replace private property with something much more sane like the more limited concept of personal property. As in property, a person would actually use themselves. Tying legal fines and fees to a person’s income and wealth along with impartial enforcement is another good start.
Your suggestion would only usher in a different kind of tyranny.
Really? What kind of tyranny would increasing democracy while reducing concentration of power cause? Lol I’d really like to know.
There’s a reason the people who wrote the Constitution decided upon federalism as our form of government. It protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This concept is especially important as the urban majority seeks to assert its ignorant tyranny on the rural minority these days.
The United States isn’t a single government like most non-federal nations. There is plenty of democracy in our local and state governments, and we have our bicameral Congress which accounts for both the equality of the states, no matter their populations, as well as the inequality of the states, taking into account their populations. Remove that equality and you will be unable to get enough states to ratify your new constitution.
It’d need some pretty strong regulation, but it could work out very well
deleted by creator
Thank you for this excellent writeup.
A lot of mistakes/repercussions was readily documented beforehand and could have been avoided by proper regulations (even by not removing sane ones such as the Glass–Steagall legislation).
Moreover, Climate Change is affecting a larger and larger part of the stochastic increases in instability: from extreme localized weather and regional aberration to global temperature anomaly affecting every part of the planet differently.
However, we live in a world whereas bombastic contrarians are lauded, even elevated to positions of power or at the center of important decision making processes. No wonder we keep being surprised by avoidable disasters.
You see it all started when some dumb motherfuckers decided to leave the relatively plentiful African Savannah for the dead-land that was the desert. Then they had to invent agriculture and it was all downhill from there.
“Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.”
But then we wouldn’t have the triple breasted whores of Eroticon Six!
Ahhh, Excentrica Gallumbits. I remember her fondly.
I’ve seen the argument made that there was no mental illness (non phyiso-neurological, I suppose?) And therefore civilization is worse per se.
I mean… animals, disease, murder, rape, starvation, hydration… but still not living in the same ongoing trauma anxiety state of today
There’s no objective “answer” to this, just sharing an idea I’ve seen
The question “Why has the world gone to shit in the past 5 to 10 years” has routinely been asked every five to ten years throughout history. It’s largely due to the perceptual biases of the human mind.
While that’s true, the world has objectively gone to shit in the past 10 years.
If it’s “objectively”, you’ve got an objective measure of it?
Yeah, as measured by the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few
No, I mean can you show me the objective measure? This site has a bunch of data about economic inequality over time in various countries and I’m not seeing any particular trend in the graphs - it’s gone up and down over time in different ways for various countries. For the ones that have long term data, it looks like things were worse in the 1940s.
You’re not provocative or interesting. If you believe your own bullshit, you’re dumb. Stop redirecting the conversation from OP’s point.
That’s true, but the information age allows us to be more keenly aware of problems that aren’t just local. Our new ability to be online has contributed to an uptick in mental health issues.
Fortunately, being able to shine a spotlight on problems in the world also puts pressure on us to improve. We do have issues like financial inequality and global warming that have recently gotten worse, but if you look at trends like violent crime, illiteracy, global hunger, extreme poverty, child mortality, or deaths to many longstanding diseases, it is hard not to realize that we’re actually collectively doing a good job of making the world better.
Late stage capitalism
Things have been going great in non-capitalist societies?
Non-Capitalist societies face entirely different issues, usually due to lack of development. They don’t quite face the same issues of enshittification that developed Capitalist countries are currently seeing.
In the UK, 14 years of Conservative government has really made the rot grow.
Y’all have been going hard at Americanism for a minute now. I remember the beginning of the new world media thinking, “oh shit, there as obese and decrepit as us”
Shareholder value. Companies are cutting everything they can to increase stakeholder value: wages, quality, support, ownership, etc.
One of the major reasons is that Milton Friedman had a thought back in the 70s that fucking everyone in the western world latched onto, and the consequences have been getting worse and worse for the average person for most of the time since then.
Of course, neoliberals don’t actually believe in neoliberalism, they profit off it’s failure.
If you give a rich person even more money and it never trickles down, you just gave a rich person money. If you’re claim companies will regulate themselves and they don’t, you just gave companies the freedom to do exploitative, dangerous things in search of bigger profits.
If neoliberalism actually delivered on any of its promises, neoliberals wouldn’t support it.
It’s nothing more than a book of pre-made lies that sound plausible enough for a press conference and signal to other neoliberals that their feeding trough is being filled.
Knew the what. Not the how/why we got there. Thanks for sharing.
Indeed. Knowing how we got here is the first step to fixing it.
Shareholder primacy is older than that. Check out Dodge v. Ford
Sure, but him writing that op-ed in the NYT popularized it to the degree that it became an explicit goal of pretty much all corporate leadership people from that point on.
I think the enshitification of the Internet was sort of just what happens to everything once it gets monetized. It was already happening before COVID.
On the other hand - when I was growing up, my city was rough. So much violent crime, bands would not come here, it was notorious. Now? No. Violet crime has decreased sharply, my kids grew up in a different world than I did.
Jobs haven’t become less secure, or at least not in my experience, that change happened in the 1980s, and it’s been about the same since.
Everyone is broke because of Ronald Reagan, for lack of a better way to explain it. Deregulation. Workers have gotten ever more productive without getting their cut of that increase in productivity and this is the endgame of that trend.
The rise in interest rates meant easy money dried up for corporations. They all had to “monitize” at the same time. That’s why enshitification happened everywhere at the same time. Things are easing. Enshitification will slow down.
Are you American? Because I seem to recall between five and ten years ago a particular event that changed the way we ran a lot of the government.
People underestimate the depths of the fuckedupedness of practical every day functioning regulating govt shit as a result of it
deleted by creator
I think it is the natural result of capitalism, that’s what happens when you let it run. The system makes it inevitable.
Yeah, this is why capitalism should be treated like a dangerous dog and kept on a short leash. It can kind of work out for a while when a government restrains it, ensures that legislation exists and is enforced to protect workers, the environment, and consumers. Strong unions are a good sign. This never seems to last though, because the governments get bought eventually.
deleted by creator
How many victim points did you earn through your envious display of keyboard warriorism?
deleted by creator
The scale and proportions of this are all fucked, the rich take substantially more from the state than the non-rich. Is this a sarcastic meme or is this like shaming ‘welfare queens’?
“The scale and proportions of this are all fucked, the rich take substantially more from the state than the non-rich.” - Yes, absolutely! The parasitical rich benefit most of all! All the more reason to abolish the host - abolish the state! When the poor have more opportunity to enter the market, due to the abolishion of the state and it crony class, then the free market can raise the tide for all leaving the need for charity far less. There will be no constructed dependent class. There will be a rising again of mutual societies, unities etc that benefited the poor before gov coopted those services.
I agree we should abolish the state but you imply markets to help the poor, do you envision a capitalist structure without a state? What would stop the current hoarders of wealth from continuing their dominance and creating an even more unequal corporate feudal state?
nice meme, bold of you to assume however that all rich people don’t take all the money from the state they can get their hands on
It’s is on the graph. But it neglects the soft benefits of government that disproportionately help the rich: like the expensive police state that keeps them from the guillotine.
Ah but if you ask this guy that’s because of big gubmint meddling in an imaginary, utopian free and fair market
If you ask me there is no utopia - but there is the attempt to minimize away coercion & manipulation. It is completely Utopian to think you can create an all powerful political class and not expect exploitation by psychopaths and sociopaths.
ALL rich people? That would be quite the assumption! Many rich are parasites that use regulatory capture, artificial cartels, lobbying, bribery, threats etc because the state exists. Other rich have attained great value by giving the world much value. Don’t let envy eat you away!
Do you think they would be unable to form their cartels if the state was abolished? Pray tell, what’s to stop them from doing so?
The question should be who will enable their cartel without the state law enforcing it? What is to stop them get a large share of the market - cartel status? Well, their competition providing better goods and services!
But what is there to stop them from simply hiring a private militia to kill their competition? The NAP?
NAP, aka respect for private property rights. If a society does not respect the NAP then it is a society based foremost on the threat of violence. What is government - the threat of violence - the threat of force. So, if a society allowed private militia to kill competitors you would end up with a gang ruling over others - you know - like government. So, yes you need a society with respect for private property rights/NAP. Would all people be peaceful? Heck no! Does this mean there will also not be private institutions that uphold the law - uphold respect for private property rights? Of course! People will still need security, decision making and justice! A peaceful society with respect for the NAP would NOT allow a private militia to violate others rights! Business (in the absence of government favouritism) survives on good products, services and reputation. Sending a militia against you opponents does not do well for your reputation! So ultimately you have a choice - government, which is an involuntary institution with a monopoly on force and rule making that serves the elite to the detriment of others OR A free society with respect for private property rights that is more decentralised and snuffs out any trouble makers.
Who came up with the “end game”? O.o
