Have you ever noticed how Cyberpunk tends to frame their corporate fascist worlds as the result of "unrestrained capitalism". I was listening to a discussion on this while I was working and I wrote this in response. Let me know your thoughts below.
I really hate the framing that these types of stories do around "Capitalism". It seems to me that a sort of corporate feudalistic society is what many people believe and treat capitalism to be these days, though that is really more closely resembled to fascism. A society wherein the corporations are able to make the rules, control the people, and industry is determined by who has the most connections and not who is leading the competition.
For example, YouTube is the premier video hosting website, but it also holds that position largely because they have been allowed to operate at a continuous loss for over a decade due to Google's subsidization of their product. Because of this, no competitor could ever hope to compete with YouTube in terms of scalability or attracting creators as they simply cannot afford to offer the same profitability that YouTube can offer to content creators, aka producers. YouTube also picks and chooses what content to promote and what content to ignore within its algorithms. This means that people do not actually find the products they want, but they find the products that YouTube thinks that they want. In this way, I would never consider YouTube to be a capitalistic entity. Within it's own platform, its algorithm ensures that competition favors those who act within favor of its preferred overarching desired outcomes, and, in terms of competition as a product, YouTube is subsidized to have what could be considered an "unfair" advantage over the competition.
Here's the thing, if capitalism, meaning the free market, which is, at its most simplified, the ability to choose who to do business with and the ability to produce what you choose to produce, how do you stop businesses from choosing to work together and create advantages for themselves, their partners, or their subsidiaries, that gives them an advantage that is impossible for any other competitor to get? I'm not entirely sure if such a thing would be possible without entirely eliminating the ability for businesses to engage in business to business free market engagement. The freedom of one aspect (business to business vs business to consumer) to engage in free market activity seems to either demand or preclude the ability of the other market from being able to engage in a largely free market environment.
On another note, Reagan was a GARBAGE capitalist...by the definition I use. The Free Trade Agreement era that Reagan initiated completely sold out the working classes of Americans. If any society opens up their ability to engage economically with other nations, supply and demand tells us that the increased supply of labor, especially labor from a less prosperous nation and therefore one that demands less value for their work, will either lower the equilibrium price of that labor or cause jobs to be outsourced to the cheaper nation while the labor value in the prosperous nation stagnates. It is ECON 101 level stuff. And to do this while following an inflationary monetary policy and running up debt that will fall on the shoulders of future generations is an outright crime against the people of your nation! Why is our generation so nihilistic? Because these policies have destroyed our ability to live the american dream which actually was very possible... for about 20 years. The American Dream also did exist pre 1912, as we had a deflationary currency back then, so generational wealth was possible to grow even among the poorest of people. The switch to inflation has forced our country and every one that has followed suit into an endless game of losing wealth for ever more temporary things. This is why digital products are all now subscription based. Because subscriptions for mass content is a way for people to still be able to engage with things they enjoy that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. It's a socialistic redistribution of consumer costs onto those who buy in and consume the least to provide excess value to those who consume the most. It's the most effective redistribution of wealth society has ever developed while also a way to mask the fact that people can't actually afford to buy things. That is also why phone companies offer buy-back programs and zero downpayment financing. Most people can't afford to own an iphone, but they can afford to pay for a part of it and then sell it back after 2 years to cover some of the cost that they couldn't originally afford.
A key tenant of free market is the choice of what to produce, not just the choice of consumption. This dystopian path we see ourselves on is caused by the overemphasis of our society on the consumption aspect of capitalism while ignoring the choice of production. Choice of production has been all but removed, and, despite ever growing choices in what to consume, the ability to find those alternatives is regularly diminished among any product that can be considered commercialized or corporatized. The big players have access to the liquid capital (again, largely due to our monetary policy that allows the near infinite printing of money and lending of money that doesn't actually exist) to easily buy out any relevant competition or merge with them in order to grow in scale and drown out any struggling businesses that are attempting to grow their way into the mainstream eye. They are also able to abuse patent laws to develop things in a way and then force competitors to never be able to access those techniques, tools, or products without going through them. Essentially, we've designed our system to promote the development and flourishing of Oligopolies, which, by its very nature, it anti-free market.
See, the thing is, free markets don't necessarily require capitalism per se. They just require the ability for people to have choice in how they engage with their society, from an economic perspective, and that the choice is not restrained via corruption, undue influence from biased market controllers, or the inability to make a choice.... Also the currency should probably be deflationary so that the people can always have hope and know that the fruits of their labor will be able to carry forward into the future. Cause, right now, I need to earn $22 for every $20 I would've earned back in April cause our inflation in May was literally 5%. Thanks for the 5% pay cut in one month DC
Just thought I'd share this comment I was trying to comment on a Lotus Eaters video. Btw, ya'll should follow the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters if you aren't already. Great analysis and discussion
It's been a while since I've made a video, and this time with a locals exclusive. A cherry on top that I managed to fit within the size requirements. I like making shorter form content like this, considering my tendencies to ramble. Having content exclusive for my followers here is something I'll be working on doing more and more. I'll be creating more value here for my subscribers as well, with some subscriber exclusive content in the future. No timeline promises, cause I think we know how I get when I make a ton of promises (go hardcore for a week and then fall flat on my face unable to keep up with the sprint, lol).
Anyhow, let me know your thoughts and questions below. Have a great day everyone!
A direct upload! It turns out I recorded a video just short enough to meet the minimum upload offerings that locals offers to small communities like mine. That means you guys get this exclusively on locals!
I didn't sleep much last night, so I decided this was the perfect time to mull over my confused thoughts on how businesses are viewed from a legal perspective. Businesses are somewhat legal enigmas to me. Corporations are kinda treated as persons so that they can be double taxed, but have other protections, other types of businesses aren't treated the same way. They're able to consolidate power like governments, yet aren't subject to any form of limitations in regards to violating natural rights the same way the government is, despite being treated somewhat like persons they can still buy each other. It's just very odd to me from a principled, legal, and philosophical position.
Anyhow, my ramblings here are just that, ramblings. Still, I am curious what you all think of this topic. ...
The 2020 election is over, and the battle has just begun. What do I expect to come from the end of the election? Will the legal suits turn over anything for this election, or will they mean something for later down the line? I reflect on these questions and more in this discussion, and I also reflect on some final thoughts relevant to the Rise and Fall of Empire Series, that, thus far, being episodes 8 through 10 of the Construct Cast. Let me know your thoughts, and if you have any reflections of your own from this year's political cycle or other developments that you can't seem to get off your mind in the comments below.
In this episode of the Construct Cast, I discuss my analysis of Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, with an emphasis on my own consideration for what it would take to help an empire survive, or reboot. If immortality for an Empire is impossible, is rebirth impossible in the same way? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Editor's Note: Returning to the podcast versions of the Construct Cast, I want to catch our content up to the videos we have had released over the past month. I apologize for this getting away from me for a bit. With the rise in content production, I had allowed this to get away from me. We will be returning to audio podcast uploads of the Construct Cast as per our original regular schedule, at 12PM EST on the day of the original upload, going forward.
In this second Crossover podcast, we are once again recording with Kevin @Eng_Politics. His channel is a bastion of political thought and analysis from the perspective of a conservative engineer. Interested in diving deeper into my concept of Progressive Traditionalism and combating the concept with his own beliefs of what it means to be Conservative, we decided to put our definitions and beliefs to task in this crossover episode!
Be sure to check out Kevin's locals community here:
And if you're more interested in the video version, here is a direct link:
As someone who works with daily reporting to the Fed, big companies dealing with regulation are basically a clusterfuck and the requirements basically leave the companies in a position where they can never really update their systems because they need their systems literally every day. They can make new systems, potentially, but updating the regular system is more of a liability since missing a single day can screw the company up. At the same time, it seems like the big companies, at least the one I'm in, are mostly carried forward by the inertia of their own weight. I am fully convinced there will be another massive financial crisis if other major banks are like mine, just cause there really isn't anything that can be done if something is messed up. It's like fake it til you make it, only in reverse. Once something goes wrong, the requirements for constant regular action leaves no time to go back to correct the damage. All you can do is mitigate. Like debt gaining interest, eventually ...
Does anyone have any advice for the work, life, content creator balance? I just genuinely have not had the spirit in me to be able to create the content I want to be able to create these past few months as I am just feeling totally worn out day in and out. I'd like to get back into the philosophic deep dives and contemplations you followed me for, yet that's feeling like a lifetime ago now and every day feels like a step away from where and what I'm supposed to be doing
My locals app is finally working again. Been sick lately. Started considering the differences between corruption and evil. I decided to look at it from a moral framework and came up with a new perspective on how to define the 2 from a moral standpoint. A corrupt person will defy their morals to achieve their goals, whereas an evil person will determine their morals based on whatever ends satisfy or help to achieve their goals. In this way, you can see that a corrupt person may acknowledge when they are doing something morally wrong and feel guilt over it, whereas an evil person will determine that all who oppose them are the true evil threat and could even assess their own will as being justice.
Just a little thought that's been running through my mind lately. And it's interesting because it really makes you wonder which is worse? One who will defy morals or one who will redefine them? Perhaps they both have the same end result, but do they both have the ability to find redemption? I ...
Welcome to Commutation Construct. This is a community designed around maximizing open dialogue and discussion. Get your first month on us by using the coupon code "STARTHERE" or by following this link:
Happy to have you!