6 ms·

First, I want to state that I agree with the premise of this article. While I do think the US is more than just a capitalist oligarchy, from a certain perspect

First, I want to state that I agree with the premise of this article. While I do think the US is more than just a capitalist oligarchy, from a certain perspective you can see America as being the world's main laundry service for capital. However, the cat's out of the bag. The only historical precedent for limiting capital's ability to flow are periods of societal collapse and feudalization. When capital gets going nothing seems able to stop it (considering that IBM did business with the Nazis, even horrible things like war only seem to slow it down). I think the evidence is strong that capital has never been more powerful relative to the state than at this moment in history (the IRS freely admits it has become too expensive to audit the wealthy[1]). So the idea that we have any advantage over the past in being able to limit it seems ludicrous on its face. The best (only?) approach is to try to manage the negative externalities that the free flow of capital creates (rapidly accelerating wealth inequality, etc). Personally, I'm on the UBI bandwagon for this reason. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-ea...

arrosenberg 6y ago
> the IRS freely admits it has become too expensive to audit the wealthy The IRS is no longer receiving enough budget from Congress to successfully bring these cases. It's not literally too expensive. > The best (only?) approach is to try to manage the negative externalities that the free flow of capital creates (rapidly accelerating wealth inequality, etc) Nonsense. We already have laws on the books that would allow an enthusiastic regulator to break up the power of capital. What you are describing is a continuation of the liberal surrender to big money, with the hope that some kind of socialism takes form to offset it. Following the beaten path is much more likely to succeed.
- hacknat 6y ago
  > The IRS is no longer receiving enough budget from Congress... Why do you think that is? Probably because capital controls Congress pretty effectively (the Senate did vote for this past leveraged corporate bail out 96-4 after all). Anyway, I don't disagree with you that the situation could be remedied, I was pointing to it as evidence that capital is very, very powerful right now. > Nonsense. We already have laws on the books that would allow an enthusiastic regulator to break up the power of capital. What you are describing is a continuation of the liberal surrender to big money, with the hope that some kind of socialism takes form to offset it. I'm not arguing that capital's effects on the politics of this country cannot be dampened or curtailed to some degree, I'm arguing against the specific point made in the article that we can find meaningful ways to stop the flow of capital around the world. > Following the beaten path is much more likely to succeed. What beaten path? If you're referring to the post-War Great Compression[1], I would argue that that is a historical aberration and certainly not a well-beaten path. I don't see either major political party in this country jumping at the chance to organize a political movement around labour right now, so what political coalition is fighting capital in this country right now? None, as far as I can tell. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Compression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Compression

arrosenberg 6y ago

> the IRS freely admits it has become too expensive to audit the wealthy The IRS is no longer receiving enough budget from Congress to successfully bring these cases. It's not literally too expensive. > The best (only?) approach is to try to manage the negative externalities that the free flow of capital creates (rapidly accelerating wealth inequality, etc) Nonsense. We already have laws on the books that would allow an enthusiastic regulator to break up the power of capital. What you are describing is a continuation of the liberal surrender to big money, with the hope that some kind of socialism takes form to offset it. Following the beaten path is much more likely to succeed.

hacknat 6y ago
> The IRS is no longer receiving enough budget from Congress... Why do you think that is? Probably because capital controls Congress pretty effectively (the Senate did vote for this past leveraged corporate bail out 96-4 after all). Anyway, I don't disagree with you that the situation could be remedied, I was pointing to it as evidence that capital is very, very powerful right now. > Nonsense. We already have laws on the books that would allow an enthusiastic regulator to break up the power of capital. What you are describing is a continuation of the liberal surrender to big money, with the hope that some kind of socialism takes form to offset it. I'm not arguing that capital's effects on the politics of this country cannot be dampened or curtailed to some degree, I'm arguing against the specific point made in the article that we can find meaningful ways to stop the flow of capital around the world. > Following the beaten path is much more likely to succeed. What beaten path? If you're referring to the post-War Great Compression[1], I would argue that that is a historical aberration and certainly not a well-beaten path. I don't see either major political party in this country jumping at the chance to organize a political movement around labour right now, so what political coalition is fighting capital in this country right now? None, as far as I can tell. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Compression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Compression