There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Critics of capitalism, what concrete economic policies do you support?

Capitalism is criticized a lot on here (especially by American users, it seems to me). Most of that seems well-founded, but I also have the feeling that most of these complaints are simply venting and not the first step to improvement.

So I would like to know what specific changes you (especially Americans) want to see from lawmakers.

Nimux ,

A planned economy ideally, even if that would hardly be immediately doable for most first world countries, as they lack any actual industrial capacity. If all useless jobs were to disappear overnight, most of the population would end up unemployed. In addition a lot of the “economy” of first world countries comes from abusive monetary relationships with third world countries, wish should obviously be ended as soon as possible.

Therefore a transitionary period would be needed, during which we would reindustrialize and develop some level of self-sufficiency. That last part might be less important for the US, as they’re unlikely to get sanctioned by themselves.

Eventually a planned economy allows for production for use instead of for sale, providing to each according to their needs, and requiring work according to their abilities.

bl_r ,

Personally, I want to see the removal of capitalism, as it is a terrible system, alongside other oppressive systems like the State. Because that doesn’t happen overnight, and it isn’t something congress would ever vote on, I support strong social systems, high taxes on the wealthy and corporations, strong environmental protections, and especially legislation that strengthens communities. Strong worker protections and benefits wouldn’t be bad to see either.

Apollo2323 ,

I believe that Capitalism is great to get out a country of poverty and developed into a advance economy with wealth build for all of citizens. But just think about this : infinite grow? Does it make sense? For us humans and for the planet? So companies can keep breaking profit records each year. In my opinion that a very unstable system , we have finite resources on earth and we should instead reuse them and make them more reusable so in that case probably infinite grow can make sense. But since that cost money and then it will harm grow and everyone will freak out that a company didn’t grow more than last year but still made billions.

shinigamiookamiryuu ,

Keep the present system but add way more rules.

PlasterAnalyst ,

Health insurance through work.

Somehow health, vision, and dental insurance are a fixed price. The highest earners pay the exact same as the lowest. However, retirement savings through work are based on a percentage of income. Both of these things benefit higher earners the most

indepndnt ,

I guess one specific, concrete example would be reversing Citizens United. As I understand it, that could be done either by legislative action or through the judicial, though the former would probably be better.

shrugal , (edited )

I think capitalism can work fine if we limit the amount of stuff any one person can own. Having a few million $ seems fine to me, but everything above that leads to problems. I know this sounds like a very simple measure, but it would have huge implications.

laxu ,

Infinite growth and the shittification of services and products while exploiting labor to make that happen are the real problems.

Billionaires should not exist and companies should be doing what is best for the company, its employees and customers, not what pleases their stockholders.

CanadaPlus , (edited )

So, capitalism is itself defined more than one way depending on who’s talking, and I only have a problem with some versions of it:

In the sense that certain people get to just own stuff, while others have to work, I’d say capping wealth at like 7 digits would be a simple solution. You can save up a few million across a high-earning but normal career, but nobody makes it to 8 unless they’re a bigshot. Over time random social mobility should hopefully smooth out the remainder of class distinctions. If not, maybe 6 digits, although some dentists are going to be pissed.

In the sense that we organise our economy around profit motive and competition, I don’t have an issue with it because it seems to work well. If you need to buy something, there’s always somebody selling it and vice-verse. If you look at history, or at the crazy supply chains that exist to facilitate that, it’s quite an achievement.

In the sense that people privately own the means of production, there’s a bit of a trick deciding what the means of production even are. A foundry definitely counts, and a toothbrush definitely doesn’t, but what about a van, which you could use personally or to transport people? You could licence them separately depending on use, but then you couldn’t work as a “rideshare” even if there was a major shortage of taxis, which is dumb red tape. It’s far more productive to talk about things in terms of their market value rather than getting any more granular, which is why the law usually does that.

hallettj ,
@hallettj@beehaw.org avatar

This comment really speaks to how I feel.

In addition to flattening the wealth curve on the high end, I think the first change I would want is to increase the federal minimum wage. For decades wages have been stagnant while cost-of-living has grown which has led to mass economic insecurity. I think a lot of current political tension is a direct result. That makes it difficult to cooperate to implement policies that would help people.

CanadaPlus , (edited )

Basic income - probably at right where our minimum wage is now - would be my solution to the poverty at the other end. Honestly that’s more important, but it didn’t really fit into the format of my post so well.

Some other assorted economic policies on my wish list: Publicly-funded elections, the end of restrictive residential zoning, bigger carbon taxes right around the social cost, very open economic immigration policy, a government sponsored system for opening up intellectual property, and maybe some sort of single-payer law system because it’s a bit shit you can buy justice sometimes.

A lot of people would call me a communist for this. Communists are currently telling me I’m an idiot in another thread. Thankfully we live in an open society where I can just do my own thing and it doesn’t matter.

lily33 ,

Well, for starters:

  1. Platforms. I don’t believe that the people who create, or invest in, large internet platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Uber, Booking, Upwork, etc, have a natural or moral right of ownership to said platform. They should certainly receive returns on their investment - but they shouldn’t have full operational control. Instead, as the platofrm grows, operational control should slowly transition to its users. eventually, they should have the final say on, in the case of YouTube. what content in acceptable, what procedures should be used to remove unacceptable content, how to appeal, etc.
  2. Employment. One of the big issues I see is that employees are under someone’s direct control for 1/3 of each day, and have to do what their boss says. And while they technically consented to that relationship, I don’t see that consent as freely given, because for most people there isn’t a viable alternative. This could be done through more worker cooperative, or encouraging freelancing. Even for people who decide to remain in traditional employment, they should have more official control than they do now.
  3. AI. It seems many people here hate AI, but AI does have the potential for large productivity gains. And while, in the past, productivity gains have note resulted in less work, but rather higher GDP, we could always force the issue. After all, people did it ~100 years ago, and the economy didn’t collapse because of that.
bartolomeo ,
@bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

The price of a good is a percentage of your wealth. For example, bread costs 0.01% of your wealth.

Just like how a fixed-fine legal penalty is a law for the poor, fixed-price goods (especially essentials) are much more burdensome for the poor.

KrasMazov ,
@KrasMazov@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I’m not from the US but I’ll answer anyway.

Like a comrade already commented, I think there’s a problem with the way you’re thinking of capitalism. It would be useful to know at least a few of these complaints you saw that feel like it’s only venting.

Answering your question, I would like to see a planned economy where humans needs are put above profits. We can make a better world for everyone, instead of only for a extremely small part of the world that holds all the power.

That being said, lawmakers cannot enact meaningful changes under capitalism like you suggest. This is not an opinion, it is how the system works. Allende in Chile is the perfect example of this, he tried to reform the system, suffered a coup and was assassinated.

In capitalism the ruling class are the bourgeoisie, that is to say, the ultra-rich, and they as a class have interests that are the direct opposite of everyone else, the working class, the proletariat. This is a crucial part of capitalism, the system that Marx dedicated his whole life studying and describing.

Because of this, every time workers rights are secured or better living conditions are achieved through the system, like free housing for the poor or public healthcare, the ruling class lose some of their power which they will get back eventually. Besides that, it is difficult enough to even get to that point because they will do everything to stop such rights and safety nets from being approved in the first place, as the ruling class can just lobby and buy politicians. It’s not a coincidence that public healthcare is not a thing in the US and that so many people are living in the streets, that medication is so expensive all over the world and that the US is so averse to unions still to this day.

Capitalism will literally cook us alive, reform is not the way forward.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •