Capitalism Gone Wrong
kasperjunge.com
kasperjunge.com
I’m obviously biased. But my point is that the guy that wrote the linked article had preexisting biases too.
The EU is actually working on that, at least from the environmental angle.[1]
Beyond that, I agree, but in a 'yes, we should do that too; that doesn't mean we shouldn't do this' way.
[1] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-eu-rules-stop-dest...
Sports gambling is another example of the issue at scale. When it was at a racetrack, it's naturally limited to those who can go to that physical location. When it moved to OTB, the scale goes up an order of magnitude. When it moves online and to apps, the scale goes up again. And so it's become important to regulate.
Because its like comparing murder with genocide. You have to stop the enormously larger problem first before you get around to fixing your nails.
At the same time, access to abundant entertainment establishes in us an unrealistically high baseline that we're destined to fall below whenever we're not actively "plugged in". When you fall below baseline, unrealistic though it may be, you feel lacking, like an addict, and you respond to that feeling exactly like an addict.
It's all too easy nowadays to forget that boredom is good. Adversity is good. Having the time to sit with your thoughts is good. We grow stronger through any form of perseverance, and weaker through any form of surrender.
Ads aren't really the problem, either. It's the fact that people are willing to fork over so much of their lives to media feeds. It's a false community, a sea of information filled with faux connection.
The only way out of this trap is to invest in your local community. Meet people in real life and spend time with them and form mutual relationships. Media feeds aren't necessarily bad, but you need to prioritize them according to the innate human need for real community.
You're right. Ads are a different problem that just happens to finance this problem (and many others).
> Meet people in real life and spend time with them and form mutual relationships.
It's sad how hard that's gotten these days, what with so many folks havin' their faces glued to their little glass slab all the time. :(
> They are not even trying to hide it — and I suppose it is not a secret at all: The more time users spend on Facebook and Instagram, the more money Meta makes.
Why would they try to hide something that is obvious?
With the decline of Twitter as the place that it seemed like everyone used to be on, other similar services seeing a small increase is not too surprising. I'm wondering if traffic from Threads, which they launched in 2023 (after Musk bought Twitter in fall of 2022), gets counted under Instagram, since you use your Instagram account to login? I get that Zuck and co want to say those increases are tied to their magical AI to please investors, but was it really?
I hate, doom scrolling with a passion. And still I am doing it from time to time, On reddit, youtube shorts or even a little bit on HN. It just seems like wasting time by being bombarded with stimuli.
On one hand I give my self the fault, weak will power and missing volition to change it. On the other it true that the environment has real impact on my behavior. Maybe simply blocking reddit and shorts is the best approach.
But I dont know.
Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuckerberg: Just ask
Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuckerberg: People just submitted it.
Zuckerberg: I don't know why.
Zuckerberg: They "trust me"
Zuckerberg: Dumb fucksInstagram was a purchase. Facebook wasn't his idea. Threads is a copy. The 1 thing that Zuck understands better than anybody is that engagement is the only thing that matters to social networks, and he's willing to throw the entire company at the problem. He has been for 20 years.
He's good at addiction. He knows how to build an org that's world-class at addiction. It's entirely reasonable that the EU regulate it, and Zuck is exactly the person to point the regulation at.
1. Can we point to a time when Capitalism peaked in terms of a balance of maximal benefit for as many people as possible? In my lifetime, it was somewhere in the late 1990s and early 2000s. No singular answer but something better exists than where we are now.
2. How do we rewind capitalism to that point?
To me at least, there seems to have been some cut-off point where nothing but money mattered, and someone realised that consumers will just take the abuse and you won't actually be punished that much, at least not to the point where it's not worth it if money is all you care about. I'm sure there were industries that behaved like this before (tobacco comes to mind), but now it's everywhere.
The aura of 'they'll screw me over for pennies' is ever-present. Even if there were legal recourse for stuff before, you didn't need it, because the threat alone was enough to keep companies in line. Similarly, the threat of a boycott could be enough for a company to switch course. Now they've discovered that for every person willing to take a stand, there are 1000 more who'll stick around, or be swayed by ads, or whatever else.
The idea that you're doing business to provide actual goods and services which does some good in the world seems to have disappeared. Now that is nothing more than a means to an end: the money. You don't open a business because you want to get into the whatever-business. You do it to earn the most money you can. I'm sure the ever worsening socio-economic climate has something to do with it.
We can introduce more consumer and worker protection laws to bring back some breaks on all this. Make the former theoretical punishments to businesses come back as actual punishments, which will hopefully make them behave. Doing it properly is hard. The culture of loopholes isn't going away any-time soon.
Also, this is a pretty good take on a lot of related topics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTmpwVCC2So
What’s challenging now is that corporate interest in government seems to have increased rapidly. It’s unclear if legislation is viable.
2. We have to look forwards, not backwards. Yesterday contained the seeds of today. Today contains the seeds of tomorrow. No point rewinding unless you want history to repeat.
Capital and capitalists ("capitalism" was initially not the focus) is a concept which appeared in the last 17th century with the Dutch East India Company, and became a lot more prominent in the 19th century with the Industrial revolution.
Capitalism is not market economy, mercantilism or the accumulation of money (all of that was already a thing during feudal economies, and before the industrial revolution)...
Capitalism is about the means of production, their ownership, the profits (or plundering of resources, in a colonial context), the sharing thereof.
It has *always* been uneven, and unpleasant if you're not in the class which actually has ownership of the means of production.
"Maximal benefit for as many people as possible" is not a goal that the people who hoarded the means of production (people who hoarded capital) ever had in mind. I understand that you didn't explicitly say it, but it's still implied in what you wrote. Maybe the implications is that capitalism fortuitously happened to encourage that "maximal benefit", but even that is misleading: what actually happened is that whenever you have a "blue ocean" to move to, whenever the market is expanding and growing (by the introduction of new productive technologies or the growth of population), there are more spoils that can be shared and enjoyed more widely across the population.
But the rate of profit tends to fall, there are fewer profits to share, and unless encouraged by the point of a bayonet, those who own capital don't have any reason to divest themselves to share more of it with society.
A sibling comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48871234 ) already hinted at the fact that it depends a lot on which group and at which time is benefitting...
One obvious example, are the exploited people during colonialism: despite benefit from spoils being abundant in the west, one shouldn't expect that the colonies' benefit was ever a priority.
Another example is you suggesting
> somewhere in the late 1990s
A lot of the profits that you've witnessed in the west, are due to the markets of the former socialist republics opening up to western exploitation. Depending on the kind of investments or economic assistance that had been provided, some countries fared better than others... No one would've claimed that capitalism brought benefits for the many in the late 1990s in Russia, for example.
ROFLMAO! They absolutely did adequately "assess the risks" and then decided "Meh... Who cares? Do it anyway!"
Just wait 'til Musk's brain-chip gets approved for general public sale. They'll find a way to get a law passed that says everyone has to get a hole drilled in their head (except of course the super-rich and their political pets).
- said before any potential criticism of capitalism. In USA, you shall not criticize the Profit.
"peace be upon him"
- said after any mention of Mohammad. In Saudi Arabia, you shall not criticize the Prophet.
You can't expect capitalism to solve your addiction problems.
You can hope and wish that they would have at least enough ethics to not actively abuse psychology and the way human brains are hard-wired to totally take unfair advantage of those facts to extract maximum profit for a tiny handful of humanity at the expense of everyone everywhere pretty much.
1) You’re misunderstanding the concept of magical thinking. It is not an umbrella term for false expectations. Magical thinking occurs when a person assumes that their thoughts, words, or actions can influence, cause, or prevent events that are not causally connected, thereby disregarding conventional rules of cause and effect. Or one could also say that a hidden causality is assumed where common sense would recognize that none exists.
2) You’re confusing the societal level with the individual level. The expectation that my own personal problem will be solved for me is different from the expectation that a society will get a handle on a widespread problem among its people. The first sounds like someone should take more personal responsibility. The second is a reasonable expectation.
3) You leave open what follows from this. If capitalism can’t deliver on this, what should be done? Should it be reformed or overcome? Should we simply accept that many people will be harmed and let things take their course? If so, I’d like to know why we don’t also turn off all traffic lights, remove all traffic signs, and abolish all traffic rules.