The Impending Death of Modern Capitalism
Let's make sure we're all on the same page on the definition of capitalism.
It's basically a system in which private ownership of everything prevails. It's a system which provides rewards to the people who meet the marketplace desires of consumer.
I will define "modern" as the system of the last half century when the dominant generation (Boomers) of the dominant nation (USA) entered the workforce and decided they no longer wanted to pay taxes leading to the 49 state blowout win for Ronald Reagan in 1984 and the Democratic Party takeover by neoliberals like the Clintons (and later Obama) whose economic policies were effectively equivalent to 80's Republicans. It's a system which doesn't have a balance of power between labor and capital.
Before I go on, let me say that I don't consider myself an ideologue. More like a carpenter who has to choose which tool to use in order to complete a task. Capitalism is a tool and I want to give that tool a great deal of credit for many of the historical advances in human civilization. I foresee a future in which some elements of capitalism are retained. I believe the people who have the scarce skills and willingness to contribute what is necessary to maintain a flourishing civilization should be well rewarded for their contribution. Positive reinforcement will always be a good idea.
Capital has a gravitational force. It is invested where it yields the greatest risk adjusted return and it has purchased the American government outputs. The mission embedded in the Preamble to the US Constitution of maintaining domestic tranquility is obviously not being realized. We are a polarized nation of people who have aggregated into tribal affiliations full of cognitive dissonance.
Societies fail when too many of their citizens fail.
The cracks in the system are morphing into giant crevasses. The private insurance market which backstops the US mortgage market and property values is disintegrating due to both increasing extreme weather and inflation in the cost of building replacements. In states like Florida and California, the insurance industry is migrating to socialist state administered insurance. The physical health of our citizens is deteriorating as well. We're increasingly obese, contaminated with environmental toxins like plastic and our sex hormones are rapidly declining.
The problem with capitalism is that literally anything which makes money is considered virtuous. There is no desire which is considered negative.
The problem we run into is when there is a conflict between what we desire and what we need.
We need food, water and shelter from dangerous environmental factors.
There is no incentive under modern capitalism for the selfish players to contribute to the protection of our shared environment. So we see the rise in environmental poisons such as greenhouse gases, plastics, PFAS, metals growing without regulation.
Democracy in the US is effectively already gone. We are effectively living under feudalism with a group of actors / performers in both major parties offering no substantive difference in economic policy.
Socialism is going to emerge because it must in order for us to survive as a species. It may be an authoritarian and dictatorial socialism like the Nazis or it may be a democratic socialism as espoused by FDR and the pre-Boomer Democratic Party.
Any species whose population grows unchecked is destined to drown in its own toxins. A system which depends on perpetual growth on a finite Earth is programmed to eventually exceed its limits. Survival does not accrete to the strongest. Survival accretes to those most adaptable.
Adaptation is coming. The cliffhanger is whether the adaptation will be timely enough for us to continue the human experiment. In 4 billions years of life on Earth, money has only existed for 1 millionth of that time and our attachment to it is becoming fatal. It's time to let go of money as the basis for human hierarchy. A reliable food supply and the ability to reproduce should be at the top of our list.
a standard pre paid card here costs like 10 Eur once, to get it, then 1 Eur to charge it (or not, but if not associated with a checking account that's usually one Eur), and that's it.
most of them lately also can receive and send wire transfers as they have an IBAN (dunno the acronym outside Italy), anyway our swift-equivalent code.
it's just digital cash with minimal attrition.
if you are paranoid, some of them come with associated smartphone apps where you need to click notifications to approve a
In any case what you guys “get” in terms of financial regulation you pay for anyway in terms of regulatory oversight. So we still have to balance the cost/benefit of the system in reference to taxes paid and potential loss of upside from lower risk banking strategies.
And if a Euro were to come to the US and try to treat it like Europe they would be fine but they wouldn’t be optimizing their finances, which again is all fine.
In any case it seems weird to want to pay money to spend your own money just for the sake of not wanting to overspend.
It looks like cash use has stabalized in the last year after declining for a while obv.
I dont think cash is going anywhere for a while and if lending continues to tighten like it has, ita going to keep the demand there for cash - especially in a recession.
Cash can also keep the barter system going in times of disruption or sabotage of electronic services. Which is relevant in this day and age with a lot of state actors and others carrying out hybrid attacks on our services and utilities, or for those of us who live in countries where war is becoming increasingly likely.
Not to the extent it could have in the past as the vast majority of the financial system is on-grid, but it would buy you time to resume services.
Cash can also keep the barter system going in times of disruption or sabotage of electronic services. Which is relevant in this day and age with a lot of state actors and others carrying out hybrid attacks on our services and utilities, or for those of us who live in countries where war is becoming increasingly likely.
Not to the extent it could have in the past as the vast majority of the financial system is on-grid, but it would buy you time to resume services.
Sweden and Norway are reversing attempts to get to a "cashless" society just these days because of hacking risks.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/o...
Sweden and Norway are backpedalling on plans for cashless societies over fears that fully digital payment systems would leave them vulnerable to Russian security threats, and concern for those unable to use them.
A combination of good high-speed internet coverage, high digital literacy rates, large rural populations and fast-growing fintech industries had put the Nordic neighbours on a fast track to a future without cash.
Sweden and Norway are reversing attempts to get to a "cashless" society just these days because of hacking risks.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/o...
Sweden and Norway are backpedalling on plans for cashless societies over fears that fully digital payment systems would leave them vulnerable to Russian security threats, and concern for those unable to use them.
A combination of good high-speed internet coverage, hi
It is good that they came to their senses, as it was a daft idea long before the current world situation.
Other than security, which is a nice bonus, for me the obvious advantage of cash is privacy. A physical interaction takes a lot of logistics to track, and unlike electronically secured transactions it also becomes harder to track after it has occurred. Digital transaction records will be weak to future advances in decryption.
Privacy has almost been completely sacrificed on the altar of technological advance for the last 30 years. We need to start clawing it back. That the state is worried about criminals and terrorists is of secondary importance, as citizens in democracies we should have the right to presumption of innocence and privacy.
It is good that they came to their senses, as it was a daft idea long before the current world situation.
Other than security, which is a nice bonus, for me the obvious advantage of cash is privacy. A physical interaction takes a lot of logistics to track, and unlike electronically secured transactions it also becomes harder to track after it has occurred. Digital transaction records will be weak to future advances in decryption.
Privacy has almost been completely sacrificed on the altar of techn
In theory you could have full privacy with digital cash the same, with prepaid anonymous cards (bought in physical cash).
But anyway at least in Italy the "obvious" reasons leftists go against cash a lot, while the right does far less, is tax evasion. We had a "maximum 1k payment in cash" law in place till recently. The left wanted to decrease it to 500. That's on top of several transactions where it's fully illegal to use cash (including paying rent).
Meloni increased it back to 5k.
Anyway in general when they tell you they don't like cash, they are either mastercard CEO (who then became recently president of the world bank lol), or they want the plumber to collect your 100 eur and give 50+ to the state (vat, payroll, income tax).
In theory you could have full privacy with digital cash the same, with prepaid anonymous cards (bought in physical cash).
But anyway at least in Italy the "obvious" reasons leftists go against cash a lot, while the right does far less, is tax evasion. We had a "maximum 1k payment in cash" law in place till recently. The left wanted to decrease it to 500. That's on top of several transactions where it's fully illegal to use cash (including paying rent).
Meloni increased it back to 5k.
Anyway in gene
Wtf does the left has anything to do with this …
In italy? everything. The 2 coalitions talk about it during electoral campaigns, the left wants basically to make cash illegal or anyway extremely minor as a totality of transactions, the right thinks cash is privacy, autonomy, safety and so on
Ok .
In italy? everything. The 2 coalitions talk about it during electoral campaigns, the left wants basically to make cash illegal or anyway extremely minor as a totality of transactions, the right thinks cash is privacy, autonomy, safety and so on
TBH I usually love blaming leftists but that’s more traditionally associated in the US with liberals/globalists than with leftism. Not sure if it’s the same over there.
TBH I usually love blaming leftists but that’s more traditionally associated in the US with liberals/globalists than with leftism. Not sure if it’s the same over there.
Explain to me how globalism should be define by the left ?
When NAFTA came to be in 1988 for example , it was the end of Reagan era with bush coming in and Mulroney in Canada being in the Conservative Party which obviously is on the right too .
Praising eliminating tariffs and make the economy as free as possible was the way to enrich people .
Many on the left said it would cost jobs , unions were against it , but they (republicans / libertarians ) told us it was great and those jobs lost would be replaced by better jobs .
Now globalism dying , USMCA (old NAFTA) is garbage despite being sign and praise by trump , and now I hear all this “new free economy “ dating back 40 years was all a left wing bad policy ?
And now the right used some policies like tariffs that should be consider anti freedom , kinda of a new tax , basically a socialist anti free market and the right praise it being all good and the left was the problem ??
Really ?
TBH I usually love blaming leftists but that’s more traditionally associated in the US with liberals/globalists than with leftism. Not sure if it’s the same over there.
no the M5S, populist leftist pro Putin and pro china (only signatory to the silk and road initiative in the west), was on board with cash reduction/elimination and was in gvmnt (Conte prime minister was from their party) with the center left during COVID.
he set the limit for all cash transactions to 1k and pushed hard for digital transactions to the point of creating a state lottery you could only participate in with receipts from live buying with digital cash (online didn't apply because you are already paying digital anyway).
Explain to me how globalism should be define by the left ?
When NAFTA came to be in 1988 for example , it was the end of Reagan era with bush coming in and Mulroney in Canada being in the Conservative Party which obviously is on the right too .
Praising eliminating tariffs and make the economy as free as possible was the way to enrich people .
Many on the left said it would cost jobs , unions were against it , but they (republicans / libertarians ) told us it was great and those jobs lost would be
Personally I am not in favor of a totally cashless society, although the vast majority of my money is kept cashless and the vast majority of my transactions are cashless. But I do enjoy the convenience of having cash on hand as well certain transactions just work better with cash, like paying at bars where I’m not keen to hand my card over to a random bartender. So I’m not operating on some idealistic notion of a cashless society.
I am just pointing out historical associations with certain policies to certain ideologies in the US, and those are not going to be unilateral throughout the global political spectrum.
I’m also disambiguating leftism from liberalism because they often are set apart in multiple ways that I find to be semantically important to capture in my language.
That being said, it’s hard to hold static some kind of WTO vs leftism/left-liberalism paradigm because there are times where it has been expedient to support free trade and times it has been inconvenient. Certainly when we set free trade against protectionism, it seems to me feasible that a liberal or a leftist might be inclined to support free trade instrumentally to achieve some other goal. I also think that the New Right is free trade skeptical, and since they attack anything they disagree with as neomarxism, that’s how those associations came about in the public consciousness. That’s not a normative claim, it’s a descriptive claim.
I think leftists in the US don’t really like direct tariffs, they instead support the increasing of labor protections across a broad domain, and would be against the use of international trade more because they see it as a means to exploit the global south or the capitalist underclass, however they cache that out.
I’m not a big fan of broad historical narratives unless they actually serve a point of clarity, so I would distinguish my interpretation of where certain policies fit on the political spectrum against someone like Luciom who seems to think there is some collective identity that can be ascribed to the left as a kind of Jungian archetype.
