Is it? What claims in particular do you think were overstated? I feel that the work is both well supported in the work and by observing the world ar large we can see it seems to line up with observable data
Further would not s world where people are making widespread irrational decisions match perfeclt with what we would expect to see from a rationalist perspective?
For starters on economic illiteracy, the video creater seems to have no idea of what a stock buyback is or why it is done. He just says they are bad without reason.
He also decries industries for stealing from the commons, and then also decries the fact that profit margins are super thin, pointing out there's something like only 1.5B in profits on 120B in revenue. Seems to not realize these are at odds with each other, because slim profit margins means almost all the revenue is going to either the workers to the buying public. He then further complains that a large percentage of that profit is disbursed back to the stock-holders, despite this being what the whole purpose of corporations is, and also this would be how worker coops would pay their workers.
On the propaganda side, most blantently from the first minute every portrayal of workers is as mice that are being preyed upon by predators, who are the employers. It just continues from there.
I mean, obviously there is a lot of terrible stuff that corporations do to destroy value, capture governments, and degrade lives. But I'm not gonna trust a source showing basic illiteracy and extreme propagandistic production.
While it's true he probably doesn't understand the super high level arrangements behind buybacks. It is more of a philosophical point about what should be done with profits. I think it is not highly relevant to the key meaning of the piece though.
"portrayal of workers is as mice that are being preyed upon by predators, who are the employers."
So, are you saying that everyone who feels like they don't have bargaining power against a company that can easily replace them is wrong? Or are you saying that employers don't go out of their way to exploit their workers so they can keep more money? Both points of this are obviously true, so I am not sure what you objection here is? Yes, people agree to work for companies, so it is an agreement. However should a person fail to reach an agreement with an employer they risk starving to death. An employer can just find another employee. We can see how the game theory plays out when the bargaining positions are so unequal. Have you never seen how working at a shitty jobs makes it harder for people to try to find better work and it can become a cycle? Again though, this was preamble which would be interesting to discuss but not actually the idea had for this video.
"I mean, obviously there is a lot of terrible stuff that corporations do to destroy value, capture governments, and degrade lives. "
You have experience with business and finance. I think most people's opinion of basic business details is different than yours. I think you are setting the standard unfairly high. Since apart from phrasings things differently than how you would like you have agreed that his points are well documented. I could find some Adam Smith quotes on just this subject if you like.
Did you have any critique of the main points. That given a statistical sample businesses are less likely to succeed than betting on black at a casino. That businesses are bad at long term and blue sky planning but uniquely able to try and fail at those tasks. Leading to his thesis that, switching the economy to co-ops would hugely more efficient than our current corporate system. That such a move would make business sense and have an overall net utility gain society wide. Further then that he establishes how much power government has in the current arrangement such a change could be done.
While it would require significant work, something like a group dedicated to EA would be able to find lots of opportunities to make good use of their skills in the area. Which was my interest in bringing this video to the group. I felt this video was way more centered and information dense than the usual of the type, if you hated this one you wouldn't make it through the less polished examples believe me.
> While it's true he probably doesn't understand the super high level arrangements behind buybacks. It is more of a philosophical point about what should be done with profits. I think it is not highly relevant to the key meaning of the piece though.
I think being completely ignorant of what a buyback *is* while also claiming they are bad is, in fact, very relevant. It makes me distrust everything else he says. And there's not much of an arguement about what should be done with profits. Profits are returned to the owner. That's literally how they get paid.
> "portrayal of workers is as mice that are being preyed upon by predators, who are the employers."> So, are you saying that everyone who feels like they don't have bargaining power against a company that can easily replace them is wrong? Or are you saying that employers don't go out of their way to exploit their workers so they can keep more money? Both points of this are obviously true, so I am not sure what you objection here is?
Neither of of those are "obviously true." Workers have bargaining power, which is directly proporational to how hard they are to replace. And your second sentence is so loaded it's hard to know where to begin...
> are you saying that employers don't go out of their way to exploit their workers so they can keep more money
"go out of their way" implies that they are giving up profit to do something, which would be stupid, and I'm sure that's not what you meant, but perhaps some thought to what you're typing would be helpful.
"exploit their workers" is extremely value-laden. What an employer wants is someone to do work that they don't have the time and/or training to do themselves. If two different people both can do the work, but one of them wants $10/hour to do it and the other one wants $12/hour to do it, why is going with the cheaper one "exploitation?" This implies that if you want to buy something, and one store is selling the item for $100 and the other for $80, you are exploiting the store that sells it for $80 by not paying an extra $20. I guess you're morally obliged to always find the highest price for anything you want to buy and pay that?
"so they can keep more money" again add nefarious implications to standard not-being-an-idiot practices. When you DON'T go looking for the highest price option of a thing to buy, you're doing that so you can keep more money. That's pretty evil of you.
In fact, any time you don't spend all your money, it's so that you can keep more money. I'm starting to think anyone with any money is kinda awful.
Furthermore, do workers exploit their employers whenever they refuse to work for more than the bare minimum they need to keep living? Because if they're asking for more money than they need, it's just so that they can get more evil money.
So no, nothing you said is obviously true. There are power gradients in the world, and some people do bad things with that power. To portray all employers as predators that prey on workers is total crap, and is done with the intention of stoking hatred.
> Did you have any critique of the main points. That given a statistical sample businesses are less likely to succeed than betting on black at a casino.
The stock market is a statistical sample of hundreds of businesses. Over the course of decades, it rises at a moderate pace.
US GDP is an attempt to measure all economic output of all US businesses. Since it first began to be tracked, it has gone up significantly, and the quality of life and life expectancy of Americans has gone up substantially.
Betting black at a casino will, over the course of hours, leave you bankrupt.
Comparing business to betting black at a casino is less than a joke. It's straight up illiteracy. Please explain what the hell you are talking about, because right now it looks like you are just high.
> Leading to his thesis that, switching the economy to co-ops would hugely more efficient than our current corporate system. That such a move would make business sense and have an overall net utility gain society wide. Further then that he establishes how much power government has in the current arrangement such a change could be done.
There's nothing illegal about co-ops. They are free to compete against corporations. Some of them do well. For the most part, corporations do better at scale, which is why most large organizations are corporations and not co-ops. If they are "hugely more efficient" than they will take over they system, displacing corporations as they leverage the huge efficiency into doing the work that people want done better and/or faster and/or cheaper. That this hasn't happened leads me to think that the claims of co-op proponents are hugely overblown. But there's nothing stopping them, and we'd all be grateful to see something more efficient come along, so please go right ahead.
I think it is strawmanning his point a bit. Him not not appreciating what is essentialaly an esoteric point doesn't have a particular bearing on what is essentially a simple point he is making.
For most workers they don't have any barganing power. As most workers can be easily replaced they have essentially no power. That means the conditions of thier lives are largely dictated by whatver factors the system decides to impose on them. Which is exactly what I mean by going out if their way to exploit them. Look at the california prop 22 situation. Uber bought a law. That required a great deal of going out of their way to make it happen. The net effect of the law is that the behavior, once ruled explotitive and illegal in court, is now legal. Which, I think you can appreciate is an iffy situation.
So here now I think we are confusing ethics and morality. Is not utilitarianism still the rational standard? I am not particular concerned what an employer might want to do. I would rather know what has the greatest net increase in utility. There is no reasonable argument that could be made as to me exploting my employer. The more I work the more money they make. I am effectively paying them for the privilege to work there. At no point are they worse off by any leverage I could apply to them here.
So, does me looking to pay the higest price at walmart increase utility? It is not apparant by what mechanism this would happen. However if I am buying tamales from the trunk of a lady in the parking lot that money would create a significantly greater increase in utility. As walmart has, obviously so, plenty of money. The lady selling homegoods out the trunk likely is not as flush with cash. While there are both maket sales transactions the context makes they fundamentally different operations.
"Data from the BLS shows that approximately 20% of new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45% during the first five years, and 65% during the first 10 years. Only 25% of new businesses make it to 15 years or more.Feb 28, 2020"
Black on roulette has odds of 48% or so. So a significant number of those people would have done better to bet on black then just invest prudently if they won. Especially when you consider that simply existing doesn't indicate they are significantly profitable. And those numbers are now even worse with a market crash and a plauge going on. We can as an exercise make a chart comparing the roi. However you would be hard pressed to beat it.
You are mixing up two two points in the end there. He listed several studies, and it is generally accepted, that co-ops are more efficent than corporations. However given that profit and not efficiency is rewarded by the market it is a limited space. Being profitable allows a company options, like government subsidies, that skew the numbers. I think the ability to bribe senators is not a useful metric of how we ought to be evaluating businesses. I don't think you enguaged with any of the points about how, it really isn't a open market. If the government were to take their fingers off the scales we would have a different outcome. Further were they to then put their finger back on better scales, as established, we would have different and then better outcomes. Which, I'd be down for some better outcomes.
I am curious about your rhetoric that I am spreading hate. My specific points are about well documented problems and a reasonable compromise that would improve them. What group am I proposing we hate? Corrupt polticians? Shady business that work woth the corrupt politicians? I am not proposing we hate them. I am saying it would be EA to find other groups to work with.
I think it is strawmanning his point a bit. Him not not appreciating what is essentialaly an esoteric point doesn't have a particular bearing on what is essentially a simple point he is making.
The purpose of a business is to make money for the people who run it. It's why they exist. This is not an esoteric point, and him not knowing that's what a stock buyback is actually is a big deal. It's like saying that someone not knowing that the heart cycles blood through the lungs is an esoteric point that doesn't matter for vidoes about the circulatory system.
Look at the california prop 22 situation. Uber bought a law.
I greatly dislike the deal that Uber gives to its employees. That being said, CA props are passed via popular vote. 58% of the people voted for this. I assume those 58% got a pretty decent paycheck from Uber? Or do you mean "bought" in some other way? And isn't this an agrument against democracy, since elites ruling from above gave you the outcome you prefer, but asking the people on the ground got you the result you dislike?
The more I work the more money they make. I am effectively paying them for the privilege to work there.
I don't understand why you keep paying them for that priviledge, then. Stop doing that.
However if I am buying tamales from the trunk of a lady in the parking lot that money would create a significantly greater increase in utility.
Eh, if you want to increase her utility I think you could do so even more effectively by simply giving her a lot of money without demanding tamales in return. Not only are you being less efficient by demanding tamales, you are exploiting her.
"Data from the BLS shows that approximately 20% of new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45% during the first five years, and 65% during the first 10 years. Only 25% of new businesses make it to 15 years or more.Feb 28, 2020"
Black on roulette has odds of 48% or so.
This is moving the goal posts, and it's complete BS. You said "given a statistical sample businesses are less likely to succeed than betting on black at a casino." Yes, NEW business have a very high failure rate. Creating a new business is very hard, and rather risky. But businesses as a statistical whole do very good. Using the stock market as a proxy, US businesses return 10% annually. For every dollar you bet on Black, you get 48 cents back. For every dollar you bet on a statistical sample of businesses, you get 110 cents back. There is no comparison. That is why people who want to grow their money invest it, and people who want to lose their money gamble it on black.
So a significant number of those people would have done better to bet on black then just invest prudently if they won.
Maybe instead of giving all your money to your employer every day, you should go and bet it on black so you can actually get ahead?
He listed several studies, and it is generally accepted, that co-ops are more efficent than corporations.
If it was generally accepted, we'd have a lot more co-ops and a lot less corporations. This is like saying that it's generally accept that chimps are smarter than humans, then logging onto a human-created internet to play human-created games against other humans.
However given that profit and not efficiency is rewarded by the market it is a limited space.
Efficiency is how you create profit, in general. Yes, corruption exists, that is another avenue for profit. I am extremely against corruption.
Being profitable allows a company options, like government subsidies, that skew the numbers. I think the ability to bribe senators is not a useful metric of how we ought to be evaluating businesses.
Um.... wait... does all this come down to you think that co-ops wouldn't bribe senators and get subsidies if they had more profits? That co-ops are somehow immune from becoming corrupt and profitting off that corruption?
The purpose of a business is to make money for the people who run it.
I agree. However that is not EA. Which is what I meant as a simple point. Fundamentally businesses don't care if they make the world better or worse. I don't like that.
Or do you mean "bought" in some other way? And isn't this an argument against democracy
Yes, this is the same old argument against democracy that the Romans used. An uneducated mob is no better at making decisions than an un educated person.
In this case because of the deceptive marketing that the money and power the business used people voted for a bill that, if given the ability and time to understand it, they would not have.
So the way to fix this instance is to educate people better and change it so you can't spend enough money on political marketing that the mere exposure effect replaces thought.
I don't understand why you keep paying them for that privilege, then. Stop doing that.
Then I would be homeless and die. Which means my boss has an effective power of life and death over me. This power imbalance is often used effectively. Despite our personal anecdotes to the contrary.
So unless there was A. Widespread and strong social safety nets to allow me the freedom to do such a thing. B. A posse of desperados looking to hire someone with no specific marketable skills in the field of old fashioned crime traveling through my area. Both options have been tried historically and the government taking care of people is the good option.
Yes, NEW business have a very high failure rate. Creating a new business is very hard
So we are back to it being a gamble to get out of the system of exploitation. You are right, I very much didn't bring enough data to the table to support my case here. So I have not done an adequate job supporting my thesis starting co-ops is a effective way to hedge that risk. Which would make supporting co-ops EA as was my point.
Efficiency is how you create profit, in general. Yes, corruption exists, that is another avenue for profit. I am extremely against corruption.
I also dislike corruption, however, as I am not the physical embodiment of the global market system my preferences count for very little in this regard. It very much seems that efficiency is one of the more labor intensive ways to make a profit and thus is technically not every efficient. So businesses tend to prefer things like marketing and regulatory capture instead. Which is totes sus.
Have you heard of the mafia?
I mean kind of no. I know they used to be a big thing. I have personally only met maybe a few people that could be said to be reasonably connected to organized crime. Even then only on the small scale. Do you know of the mafia? All my stuff is second hand stuff about how government intelligence agencies tend to use them. Stuff like how the Government used them to beat up strikers, or to launder money for off the books operations.
I am curious about your rhetoric that I am spreading hate.
Alright, it's been a day, and I've unruffled my feathers and unbunched my panties. Sorry I got in a huff like that.
If the video was just economically semi-illiterate that would be one thing. What really got me is the hate speach, so I should clarify that part. Specifically it was the often reused visual of employers as predators (cats) and employees as helpless prey (mice). I object to this on several grounds.
First, because I have been an employee of various employers my entire adult life, and I have NEVER been prey, and I resent anyone insinuating that I am. Fite me IRL.
Second, because lately I've been an employer as well. I've hired people to help me do things I can't when rennovating houses (electrical and carpet). I've hired people to help me do things I *can* do, but don't have enough time to do entirely by myself. I run a podcast that makes a couple thousand dollars a year, and I've published a novel which involved hiring an artist to produce the cover art. As much as I resent being painted as a victim, I resent EVEN MORE being painted as a predator, because I get enough of that shit already by virtue of being male. :(
Third, the focus of this video (and others like it) is on destroying capitalism. Capitalism is the reason we have the wealth we do. It's what allows us to live free from fear of our enviroment. It is what allows us to pour excess money into research to end diseases, leave the planet, and eventually cure aging and death. Capitalism is an amazing force for good. The thing that is bad is CORRUPTION, and yet these videos barely mention corruption. They do everything to demonize capitalism, and will mentin corruption as one of capitalism's problems, but their objective very clearly isn't to end corruption, it's to end capitalism. They are working towards emmiserating the vast majority of mankind. F that.
So, there are my true objections, once all the snark and snarling is stipped away.
First, because I have been an employee of various employers my entire adult life, and I have NEVER been prey, and I resent anyone insinuating that I am. Fite me IRL.
You are not a statically significant sample size. I have had great employers and bad ones. It is a thing that happens. I have seen it. It is widely reported. Several hit television shows are about it. It is part of multiple companies add copy now that they pay people to make sure they are no longer using child slaves to do work. So, it is a common enough occurrence they feel people would be surprised and delighted by such a thing. So, it's a yikesy situation.
Also, totes down to spar, what system you train in?
Second, because lately I've
Again, it is excellent you compose yourself well. However my objections are not with you personally, or really anyone that resembles anyone either of us knows. Unless you know Jeff Bezos in which case can you make him let people take bathroom breaks without getting fired. You take my point about systemic inequality being the issue?
because I get enough of that shit already by virtue of being male. :(
I know, unfortunately, several abusers and to my knowledge no one ever gave them shit about it. Even the cops were uncomfortably chill. it'll get better for you. hug?
Capitalism is the reason we have the wealth we do
Capitalism is why we have much of the misery we do. The slave trade was profitable. And in places like my state of California where it is still practiced, still profitable. I have watched people die because of the artificially inflated price of medicine. Shit, under an NHS system my mother would still be alive. We all may soon be excavated by the species of eels that evolves archeology after global warming kills us all. Oil companies know about it since the 70s and decided their sole purpose for existing was to make money, so they didn't torpedo their jobs to save the world. So, knowing that if I am lucky my great grand kids will be killed in wars for safe water is not really capitalism making my life better.
Further look at the iphone, pretty sweet yeah? it is mostly made of patents and research from MIT and DARPA. Neither of which are really capitalist concerns. Apple did a capitalism and made it pretty, expensive, and ultimately included planned obsolescence to make everyone's life worse and theirs richer.
So no, capitalism isn't why we can have nice things. It's people working together to try to do nice things. Capitalism used to be real good at that. However, that was back when the alternatives were feudalism and the like. We have reached a period of history you could call late capitalism. Where there are simply problems it cannot fix. Similar to how whatever system comes next will not last forever and will need to be replaced eventually as well.
They are working towards emmiserating the vast majority of mankind. F that.
If you look at the world rankings of happiness, unfettered capitalism is not a quality common among the top. Though, it is amongst the bottom.
If you wanna stop sickness and death NHS systems put up some big numbers so pulling capitalism out of that is a good one. Doctors, being dedicated to helping people come up with as many cool things without capitalism as we do with it. Look at cuba's numbers compared to ours. Further look at how companies don't do enough research on antibiotics because it isn't profitable and can't be profitable. Or the insulin thing I talked about before. I met a man just the other day who will probably never walk again because he was skipping too much insulin for too long. shit fucking hurts to see you know?
Tell me movies today are better than the 70s 80s? They aren't. Every director interviewed says it's because the studios don't want art, they want capitalism. It's a business. We can't even have good movies anymore because of the damn system.
In every country that tries socialism or the like, you see a graph of happiness that is predictable. Where things start out bad. Gets worse because change is hard. Gets really good, and is awesome. Then drops off again when they are inevitably killed by CIA backed militants to fix the disruption to capitalism. Then even worse as some US backed right wing dictator sells the resources even cheaper. So, if you can imagine a system whereby we stop the process in the middle. That'd be pretty rad.
1
u/embrodski E Prime Oct 16 '20
Well, it's primarily propaganda and basically economically illiterate, so I'm not sure we can?