Slashdot Mirror
'Americans Own Less Stuff, and That's Reason To Be Nervous' (bloomberg.com)
Bloomberg's Tyler Cowen writes about "the erosion of personal ownership and what that will mean for our loyalties to traditional American concepts of capitalism and private property." An anonymous Slashdot reader shares the report: The main culprits for the change are software and the internet. For instance, Amazon's Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionized how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. If you look at the fine print, it turns out that you do not own the books on your Kindle. Amazon.com Inc. does. I do not consider this much of a practical problem. Although Amazon could obliterate the books on my Kindle, this has happened only in a very small number of cases, typically involving account abuse. Still, this licensing of e-books, instead of stacking books on a shelf, has altered our psychological sense of how we connect to what we read -- it is no longer truly "ours."
The change in our relationship with physical objects does not stop there. We used to buy DVDs or video cassettes; now viewers stream movies or TV shows with Netflix. Even the company's disc-mailing service is falling out of favor. Music lovers used to buy compact discs; now Spotify and YouTube are more commonly used to hear our favorite tunes. Each of these changes is beneficial, yet I worry that Americans are, slowly but surely, losing their connection to the idea of private ownership. The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. It set Americans apart from feudal peasants, taught us how property rights and incentives operate, and was a kind of training for future entrepreneurship. We're hardly at a point where American property has been abolished, but I am still nervous that we are finding ownership to be so inconvenient.
The change in our relationship with physical objects does not stop there. We used to buy DVDs or video cassettes; now viewers stream movies or TV shows with Netflix. Even the company's disc-mailing service is falling out of favor. Music lovers used to buy compact discs; now Spotify and YouTube are more commonly used to hear our favorite tunes. Each of these changes is beneficial, yet I worry that Americans are, slowly but surely, losing their connection to the idea of private ownership. The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. It set Americans apart from feudal peasants, taught us how property rights and incentives operate, and was a kind of training for future entrepreneurship. We're hardly at a point where American property has been abolished, but I am still nervous that we are finding ownership to be so inconvenient.
What have Millennials killed this time?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
" I worry that Americans are, slowly but surely, losing their connection to the idea of private ownership. The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. "
Hardly. It made us into a bunch of hoarders.
I know I don't own my kindle books, I'm using Kindleunlimited for a couple of bucks a month and I read a book almost every day. (I'm retired) Much cheaper than buying them.
After my first kindle (I'm on my 6th) I donated almost 5000 books to a local library and now I got a full new room I can use.
I also got rid of my music tapes, my music cassettes, my music vinyl, my music CDs, my super8 films, my betamax, Video2000 and VHS tapes, my Laser-disks, DVDs and blurays,Ditto for my photo albums.
A small server does all that now.
Good riddance.
If I don't burn fossil fuels acquire a book made of murdered trees processed with toxic chemicals, and instead transfer some bytes down a wire, I'm a bad American?
Yeah, right.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
The notion of "ownership" makes perfect sense for things like houses and cars. For books, DVDs, and other IP-based materials? Not so much.
I have a much smaller physical library than I used to, true.
I dumped almost all of my old magazines.
But I have a LOT more of the sort of gadgets that I used to have one of, at most. Multiple desktop computers, a couple of laptops, several tablets, a phone, and an array of VR gear.
Smaller number of things overall, but much more concentrated value, in general.
Americans haven’t “owned” anything in 2-3 generations. This trend is bad news for creditors and other bloodsuckers.
I read more books and listen to more music than 10, 20 or 30 years ago. I call that an improvement, not a problem.
I still have boxes of old paper books and CDs. They don’t give me an iota of an extra stake in some high ideal of ownership in America.
The big difference in licensing content comes when the licensee passes away. Had he have books or records or cds, all those would go to his/her children, stay with the family or hit the second hand market. All this is not happening with licenses collected for decades. All the value of the collection just diminishes.
... and that is capitalism’s fault, not an attack on capitalism. Capitalism wants most people owning nothing and being beholden to the property-owning elites.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
NOTICE: ACTION REQUIRED
Americans aren't filling their homes with crappy books they might have read once and will never read again. This is a warning that capitalism and freedom are at risk of disappearing!
My ebooks are epubs stored on two RAID hard disks. I do not bother with kindles, my ereader is a cybook muse HD. They cannot erase my stuff. My music and videos are also files on my hard disc. I still have some classical books on real shelves. I took the habit of favouring digital books while growing up in Europe's tiny apartments.
My steam library is licensed stuff that could disappear, though. My GOG games are "mine" but i could end up with incompatibilities with a too recent Linux distro and have my stuff unplayable. Although with all those emulators and retro computing stuff you never know.
To each his own. I like my way of managing my digital assets. If you prefer other methods, more power for you. :)
I stream music too. But I still buy music from bands I REALLY like.
Only now because I do not do that as often, It means I can spend a lot more for some wildly packaged music, or a really cool experience with the band.
Buying less doesn't mean the remaining things you do buy are treasured less; it is the opposite in fact, you treasure the remaining things you buy more.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There’s this place called a “library” which let’s you take out books for weeks at a time. Apparently the author never heard of it.
I do have a Kindle. But I don’t often buy books, since that “library” place actually lets me check out Kindle books same as printed ones. Plus there are programs like “Kindle Unlimited” which will let you borrow lots of stuff too.
There are very few books I want to read more than once... but those I do buy - and, when I buy a Kindle book, the first thing I do is strip the DRM off of it and save a backup copy.
Same thing with movies... there aren’t that many I want to ever see more than once. Those few that I do, I purchase (and rip a DRM-free copy so I can stream them from my media box).
Besides, the DVD/videocassette argument doesn’t really support the author’s premise. For most of the time movies have been around, people did not own them... that’s only the past few decades.
#DeleteChrome
less stuff!? people park their $25k cars out in the elements and load up garages with junk... they're building storage facilities all over the place where i live... what is this article writer smoking and how can i get some?
Property ownership becomes a burden when you buy things that don't last as long as they should.
Have gnu, will travel.
Middle class folks who own house and decent cars and have nice furniture in their homes probably can't relate to this, but a few books, records and some cheap Jewelry is pretty much the extent of the property most poor folks can accumulate. Having a large chunk of that become ephemeral may very well have consequences. Imagine having 20-30% of your populace feeling like they don't own anything. Conservative ideology generally comes from having something to lose. Lower income people are often very conservative as a result. Taking that away could change that political dynamic...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I own my stuff! Or, well, I have a personally accessible copy of the data available locally and/or in personal cloud storage.
I of course didn't acquire these in, horror of horrors, traditional capitalist means and methods! I'm sure that makes me some sort of commie, and not the good commie like the Nazis say the Russians are now (didn't the Nazis have a treaty with them last time too?). Oh no, I'm an anti-corporate commie! That's the worst kind of all. But hey, I can access my data without paying an eternal corporate rent for it, so that's good with me.
Capitalism doesn't "want" anything.
Assholes who claim to be capitalists (but are mostly crony-capitalists) want this.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
First, having lots of stuff isn't necessarily healthy. I've had the family members that could have probably beaten any two exhibits on Hoarders combined with a large farmhouse, barn, and multiple sheds reduced to tiny crawlspaces and all sorts of safety and health hazards. They don't just hurt themselves doing that.
Second, we shouldn't glamorize minimalism which relies on having great families, great jobs, trust funds, and social networks to work. Pretentious yoga types, don't preach. It's not minimalism if you're just externalizing privilege.
Third, we need to challenge assumptions that participation in public life, and that one's value as a citizen, is based on the amount of property owed. Every time I see someone acting like Voter ID needs to be tightened and that somehow, it's racist to think that minorities are less able to navigate this has failed to reckon with how much of our documentation has to do with property owned and services used, and they're already penalized there even before you deal with places like Alabama that selectively shut down DMV's in majority-black counties. There's a rank classism and racism intersecting here.
Finally: we need to differentiate between private and personal property. We are taught to think of private property as a personal effect, whereas, there's a difference. Do you make direct personal use of it? Do you need it to live with dignity? Or is it leverage to boss others around? Absentee private property is a sort of dictatorship. Privatizing a county or state's water supply is not the same thing as making sure the government doesn't come and take away your toothbrush. When people talk about private property in the USA, it's not going to mean the same thing for the people lining up to reprise the role of the feudal lords as it does for those sinking to the level of peasants, and unfortunately, there's a lot done to deliberately confuse listeners on this issue.
That's how, in the name of keeping private property safe for alleged persons, we've actually been giving corporations to gouge actual people of almost every real necessity and dispossess them. The 1%, in the meantime, trades in gold-plated sports cars. They are *not* hurting.
Dunno about that - being a pretty ready rural dweller, owning extra tools and even vacuum tube stuff, with solar power and so on - All EMP proof for example..and having good neighbors also well equipped - and who farm "stuff" to eat, might be the very most valuable things you could "own" in a pinch. /s
Depends on the pinch. Doubt there'll be any much better place to live than where I do already if climate change kicks in, but then as an old fart, I'm not going to be able to hold my breath too long either. If you think you're going to have to move, do it now when it's easier...fewer zombies in the way.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Where's the actual article? The link in the headline has nothing to do with the quoted text. All the articles listed are just about Chinese economic activity.
If you scroll down, the article under discussion is linked to here.
How about some actual moderation, slashdot...?
"Crony capitalism" is a misnomer. Nobody has to give favorable treatment to their cronies for property-owners to exploit non-property-owners. That's just capitalism. That's what capitalism is: a market distorted in favor of those who own capital.
What you call "crony capitalism" is just capitalism. What you call "capitalism" is just a free market. A free market where capital is widely distributed in a decentralized way, not held by one class of people to the exploitation of another, is market socialism. "Socialism" doesn't mean everything is controlled by the state, it means capital is owned by the people. Widespread individual ownership by many people still counts; it doesn't have to (and shouldn't) be collective ownership through the state.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I'll keep my shelves full of books and my AR-15 to protect them.
Thank you, and drive through.
I wish that I could mod you crazy but you do have a bit of a point here. Read Robert Heinlein's take on the future at his most cynical level of red neck inspired madness in Farnham's Freehold. For instance in the plot he has the son of the hero redneck book hording evangelist castrated.
I know guns don't kill people etcetera on and on until they all go bang for real and end our propensity for hording as well as the insanity of consumerism run amok. Faults which causes in the primitive species Homo sapiens the penchant for partaking in wars of acquisition rather than the potlatches we were once commanded to have. As the plane worshiping tribes of the south pacific once said of us westerners "the airplane people carry too much cargo and that is why they are crazy and kill each other"
However everything is going to be fine, our species replacements are all safe and sound under area 51 waiting for the storm to pass. The reliable and humane gray aliens are completely in control and in charge of the operation to rid the planet of the plague of primitive Homo sapiens. FYI our replacements are a very hairy peaceful race of vegetarians that have life spans measured in the of thousands of years. They were seen infrequently in the mountains and wooded places all over this planet until very recently. So rest assured your AR-15 might come in useful very soon.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
You seem to be the first commenter to notice that. Guess no-one prior wanted to read the article?
Amazon still sells books you know. Your choice.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
The type of property that this refers to, is real property. The clothes on your back don't give you a stake, the ground beneath your feet does. This is why some feel those that only rent their home should not have the right to vote.
Here ya go:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
I tried to read it, but the author’s attention span seemed to wander somewhere along the way... plus he doesn’t do a very good job of developing his thesis even when he is on-topic. When he started pulling gmail into the story, I decided that was far enough.
#DeleteChrome
Go out and buy books, buy CDs and DVDs, buy the very things the author complains you no longer own.
Yes, your OS isn't yours, and your phone is welded shut (as are Macs in general), but there is nothing stopping someone from going out and buying a physical product.
But instead of doing this there will be those who will whine about the loss ownership.
I think it's sad that we're stepping away from giving kids the books we had when we were young.
Yeah, there may be digital copies. But having a physical copy with your parent's name imprinted in them by your grandparents will be something sorely missed.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Americans, in particular, younger Americans, own less stuff because they are poorer. And they are poorer because half a century of progressive politics has transferred the wealth they should have been earning into the hands of crony capitalists, political elites, and government employees.
Unfortunately, many younger Americans still believe that the answer to the government destroying their futures is to vote for more government and more taxes. Fortunately, more and more seem to be figuring out what's actually going on.
We own lots of physical books. Frequently we can get a book for $15 at Costco but the ebook is the full retail price of $25. Why wouldn't you buy the physical version? Then you have the option of keeping it if you want to read it again, or lending it to someone, or giving it to a second hand book sale (which is a common charity). All you can do with an ebook is delete it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I like to own things; but I like to have space too. For example, all my films, music, movies, TV shows, etc. are all digital. This doesn't mean I subscribe to the streaming or Prime racket. Ownership, in my definition means I have a format that I can play on any device. So, therefore I only buy things that fit that description. If you have a proprietary format then I wont buy it. For example, I will not use steam (I deleted the account years ago) and instead just use GOG now. I used to own an SNES; but I just bought an SNES mini and put all my ROMs on it. I also had about 20-25 games on a 3DS; I just hacked the 3DS and ripped as backup and installed them and sold the games. I have no interest in having things "sitting" around. But, I have no interest in purchasing formats that are DRM infested either; I'd much rather buy the physical and convert to a re-usable digital format; as this saves space.
I also have no interest in owning a house or a car. But, I do own a car with great resentment; I barely use it, but am legally forced into paying for insurance that is $100 for shit coverage. I simply do not buy into this scheme; would much rather Uber everywhere or have public transit that does not suck. A house? Don't need, I'd rather buy a 100 sq/ft apt with a bad and a power hookup and live in that.
...it's Fash the Nation!
no possessions. I wonder if you can.
This is why you buy a duplex:
(1) Often cheaper than a single-family.
(2) The tenant next to you (ATM on the hoof) pays your taxes and mortgage.
One important aspect of ownership of a physical book is that it cannot be centrally altered or deleted. Since today even children's books are altered to fit some political agenda of the day, there is value in owning a copy of information that if just stored by some cloud service, can disappear any day.
It probably reflects just more of a transition of one sector of capitalism to another.
But in the long run, I'm thinking owning less stuff per capita can only be good for the planet. Though less so for the people trying to sell that stuff.
You can attempt to redefine things (presumably to suit your own preconceived notions) as much as you like, but it doesn't mean sh*t.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The extremely interesting thing is when people reply to my comment, and their replies ALSO show that they did not fully comprehend my reply, when they include information that I already included...
This helps me realize that not everyone should have a voice that is listened to. Many people do not actually read, or if they do, understand. Their voices are used for sound a fury, signifying nothing.
The problem is I don't want any central authority deciding whom has a voice, and whom does not.
Welcome to the United States.
until the powers that be de-platform your books or games. Not unlike the wave of things that got banned for showing a confederate flag or more recently Alex Jones. If you think that it can't happen to you or that you will always be on the right side of history you're at least taking a chance. Or you're a complete sheeple who goes whichever way the wind blows and has no principles in which case you're more likely correct. Just remember though that hysterias can go both right and left and both sides do terrible things.
> We used to buy DVDs or video cassettes; now
> viewers stream movies or TV shows with Netflix.
> Music lovers used to buy compact discs; now Spotify
> and YouTube are more commonly used to hear our
> favorite tunes.
The erosion of property rights, and the elimination of the notion of personal ownership of media you've bought, isn't dying from lack of interest. It's been under assault for decades by powerful corporate thugs like Hillary Rosen, Lars Ulrich, and Jack Valenti. That lot has already bought laws, such as the DMCA, to the effect that, even if you've bought and brought home the physical property itself; it's not *really* yours to do with as you please without the RIAA/Metallica/MPAA being able to veto you.
What's going in here is simply the current generation adapting to the times. If you don't truly own what you buy, why pay full purchase price at all, when you can get the vast majority of the benefits for $10/month to Apple or Spotify? I honestly can't remember the last time I actually bought a CD. And I had a collection in the high hundreds by the end of the '90s.
Imagine all the people...
You didn't own a copy of a movie, CD or book.
You owned a piece of plastic or a bundle of paper, and were granted a limited license to the content.
In a lot of places it's still technically illegal to media-shift your CD so you can listen to it with your MP3 player.
"big media" got the best of both worlds. They charge you for a licence to listen to a song. They charge you again when you buy a new CD because your old one got scratched - you don't get a rebate because you already own a licence. They charge you again when you want to buy it in another media format - it still costs the same as the CD, despite no physical media. They charge you again when you want to stream it from someone else - they're not even paying for the bandwidth.
I wish that *I* could mod *you* crazy! What the fuck did I just read?
Americans own less information, be it books, music or software. Heck, Americans have given up rights to their own information, tacitly trading it for services, like use of email and social media. Or to companies like Equifax, which our politicians allowed to happen.
But physical objects? Kitchen knives, cars, houses, desks - that non-information stuff I think is harder to force a lease on. But if companies can figure out a way to force consumers to lease physical objects, that will happen too.
bullets on the other hand...
"... the average american doesn't give two shits about tech." Except their cars, tvs, computers etc etc etc which they all seem to love... "That is why videogames is such a clusterfuck of greed, corruption and outright fraud." No it isn't, please explain how you think any of that is true. Especially the fraud part... "Just look at the BS copyright laws." So you think the problem is that law? "In a just world we'd be able to own and repair our own software we paid for." But you aren't buying the software, you are buying a licence to it. "The reality is in tech land its lawless capitalism all the way," You literally just said the problem is the law, how can you then say it is lawlessness? "broken software and games all around because the average person is technologically ignorant and retarded" Shame you are average then... "while keeping feeding money to companies exploiting them (mmo's, steam, f2p games, etc)." How are they exploiting them? They offer a product that the person wants more than what it costs them to get it, how is that exploitation?
"... and that is capitalismâ(TM)s fault," Capitalism is just being able to privately control the means of production, nothing more or less. So how can it be to blame for anything other than being able to privately control the means of production (not even who controls it etc). You must be meaning the market, but that is just the aggregation of each person's individual choices, it makes no decisions at all. So given your comment makes no sense (see above) what is it that you mean? "not an attack on capitalism. Capitalism wants most people owning nothing" As per the above Capitalism wants nothing, so your statement is stupid. "and being beholden to the property-owning elites." How? Your argument makes no sense no matter what your subject is, unless it is government...
How do you protect your books with a loudspeaker? https://www.manualslib.com/products/Acoustic-Research-Ar15-3980831.html
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
As the other commenter said, your definitions have nothing to do with any standard use of these terms and everything to do with your personal screed.
What they're calling "crony capitalism" is not just capitalism; indeed it may be said not to be capitalist at all. The entire point of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which launched capitalism as an economic policy, was to oppose mercantilism - the system where the government granted special rights and benefits to particular companies to attempt to increase the government's power - by pointing out that such favors were not only unethical but also tended to impoverish the nation. From every problem with IP law (Eldred v Ashcroft, the patent mess, etc) to the closed-door 'tax incentive' discussions between cities and large corporations, there are a thousand ways in which people who sit on corporate boards or Chambers of Commerce or legislative bodies purport to support capitalism but actually work against a legally level playing field.
Rent is not a market distortion. Your ideal of socialism and your notions of class are a century out of date as well as far removed from reality.
The closest thing to what you're calling "market socialism" is called distributivism. Many bright people have thought about the problems of centralization but no one has found a practicable or just way to put real correctives into practice.
"This has only ever described one type of person : the worst kind." Socialists! The lowest form of scum on the face of the Earth. "The hoarders. The greed. The ones that want to live in 20 mansions." What they have isn't what is important, how they got it is. If they did not use force then nobody has any right to intervene and if they did then it should be prevented. "The pricks that live at the top that rape the planet of its resources." Except they don't, they use the resources wisely and for the benefit of others, that is why they have so much themselves. If they didn't benefit others more than it dealing with them does then wouldn't have any money at all. "Fuck the "American Dream". It's the thing wrong with the world. It's the thing currently ruining it." How? Your says so is not good enough. "Uncontrolled Capitalism is NOT a good thing." Why not? What evidence do you have for this? "Not on a limited planet-only species." Actually it and the free market are the best system for dealing with scarcity. "Not even close." Why? Again your say so is not enough. "It's the worst thing for it." How so? "It's almost guaranteed to lead to war" Every single war ever fought was because of government overstepping it's rightful bounds. The last world war was started by Socialists. "and potentially even wiping the species out, even when they are fully capable of understanding that fact. (see the current political climate)" With the left being violenebt thufs wanting to take away basic human rights like free speech, self defense etc etc. "The only stable society is part capital and part socialist." That is t even possible, by definition the two systems are mutually exclusive. Capitalism is when the means of production may be privately controlled and Socialism is when they may not. Learn what the terms mean. "This is why the few countries that run on such a model FROM THE START," The only countries to do so collapsed in poverty years ago. "like most of the Nordic countries," Just a few problems there 1. Reality shows these are some of the most free market countries on the planet, with nost Being closer to the free market than the U.S. 2. The Nordic countries we're even more free market in the past and created a vast amount of wealth which they then used to make the welfare systems they have now. 3. The result of these welfare systems is that their economies have slowed and people are becoming worse off. 4. The Nordic countries are all rolling back their welfare systems. 5. Trump's tax plan has brought U.S. business taxes more in line with the Nordic countries business taxes. " are the most stable and happiest," Based upon what? A self selection survey for happiness? Hahahahahaha. Anythi...hahahahahahahahahahahaha Sorry that is too funny, it's a survey not evidence. "generally the best financials and so on." Like what? Please be specific about what these 'financials' are. "Get fucked, capitalism nerds." Say it to my face soyboy. "Money was only ever created to make barter easier." And that is all it does. "It was never supposed to run the world." It doesn't. "The majority of the planet still live by this model today. Barter, or barter with pseudo currencies or "local" currencies which aren't traded globally. And this isn't poor little third world disasters, I mean the majority of the planet. The poor places are resource poor, the traders and local currency users aren't." And? Do you have a point with any of this? "Hilariously enough, the quality of life for the capital-driven world is quite low compared to the ones that don't live by global, fiat currencies." Nope that simply isn't true there, please post the evidence you think shows that. "In actual fact, it's usually the countries with the highest GDP / PPP that have the worst qualities for life over every index of life other than "opportunity" and access to goods." Like what? More surveys? "Oh wait, gotta rack of a lifetime of debt to access half of it. lmao" Except you don't. "The financial world is a fucking mess." How so? "Take y
Welcome to the United States.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
"Crony capitalism" is a misnomer." How is Government giving favourable conditions to some companies over others a misnomer? Really, I would like to know how you can think that. "Nobody has to give favorable treatment to their cronies for property-owners to exploit non-property-owners." Yeah they do, they need to make it so one of them can use force on the other. "That's just capitalism." No it isn't. "That's what capitalism is: a market distorted in favor of those who own capital." No it is literally just being able to privately control the means of production but nice try... "What you call "crony capitalism" is just capitalism." Nope, already explained why you are wrong above. "What you call "capitalism" is just a free market." Well in that case you are even more wrong because in the free market what you own doesn't mean you can force anyone to do anything. "A free market where capital is widely distributed in a decentralized way, not held by one class of people to the exploitation of another, is market socialism." No it isn't, by the very definition of the term Socialist that is untrue. To be Socialist there needs to be no privately controlled means of production. ""Socialism" doesn't mean everything is controlled by the state," Yeah it does. "it means capital is owned by the people." That would be a direct Democratic version of Socialism. There are many kinds, like those practiced by Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc " Widespread individual ownership by many people still counts; it doesn't have to (and shouldn't) be collective ownership through the state." That's all Socialism is, no privately controlled means of production... So either you are ignorant or lying which is it?
I have a friend who had a massive DVD collection and a really nice home theater setup. When he bought a DVD that he would plan on watching again in a short time span, he would rip it losslessly to another DVD (this was before massive, cheap hard drives.) He would set up the new DVD to only have the movie with the best soundtrack, and *nothing* else. You pop the DVD in and the movie starts immediately. No trailers, no menus, no ads, no warnings.
The sad thing is he had to technically break the law to get something he owned into a format he wanted it in. He wasn't stealing anything or infringing on anyone's IP, he just wanted to watch what he payed for without wasting time.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Adam Smith wrote nothing about capitalism he wrote about free markets. Try actually reading him.
The term “capitalism” was coined by a socialist. Its conflation with “free market” (and “socialism”’s conflation with “command economy”) is the propagandist redefinition.
The particular words you use don’t matter so long as you use enough of them to distinguish four different things:
-a market where ownership is widely distributed among many people
-the opposite of that, a market where it is concentrated in a few hands who can use that to exploit others
- the orthogonal matter of a market where trades are dictated by a central authority
- and the opposite of that, a market where trades are made freely between equals
If you only use one word (“socialism”) for 1 and 3, and another word (“capitalism”) for 2 and 4, or worse still only talk about 3 and 4 using those words while others are talking about 1 and 2 using the same words, then it’s impossible to even have a meaningful discussion about any of this.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Yawn. Someone with an agenda at Bloomberg "News" wants us to be scared of something, specifically, the allegedly increasing tendency of people to share shit. Gee, I wonder why people whose bread & butter is encouraging people to work their asses off for next to nothing, and then to squander as much of a portion as possible of that next-to-nothing they somehow have to scrape by on, buying shit that the people who own Bloomberg "News" profit from the most whenever they're bought. Could there be a relationship there? Oh, and this isn't a new thing. Lending or sharing of books, etc., predates libraries, and libraries predate this country's existence. Any upward tick in this should be viewed of as a bad thing only inasmuch as people who would rather own their own copy CAN'T because they can't AFFORD to after paying through the nose for everything they NEED, and losing an arm and a leg as the cost of anything they want afterwards.
The real thing Bloomberg's readers should be afraid of is when people start buying Amazon Kindle books and Barnes & Noble Nook books, etc., on how to improvise pitchforks and torches, and how to construct GUILLOTINES.
There is an upper bound on the amount of economic inequality people are capable, on the whole, of tolerating before saying "fuck it" and then the lights go out, and you'll wish SOMEONE had stepped the fuck up and FDR'ed America again. Or I guess rolled the fuck up in a wheelchair and FDR'ed this motherfucker again. When the system is so rigged that you can't get by no matter how hard you work, you really don't have anything to lose. One more good housing crisis, credit bubble popping, flash crash, or episode of runaway inflation and you're going to start to see rich people running for the airports, only to learn that the people already know where they are, and it's hard to take off when there's overturned cars burning all over the runways, and people have shot their getaway planes full of holes.
"Don't worry. They can't do shit to me, I'm a fucking queen!" ~ Marie Antoinette, being famously, hilariously, and extremely goddamned wrong.
enable rant mode RANT MODE ENABLED AT FULL POWER (DEFAULT)
Meanwhile, in Washington DC, your politicians continue to have been bought and paid for, and plot to give even more money to people so rich they have no real idea how much fucking money they already have, and to take away your ability to vote, organize at work, or get healthcare after their jackbooted government thug cops shoot you, break your arms, crack your skull, sear your lungs and eyes with tear gas, etc., and then the corporate-owned-and-controlled-puppet-media manages to find something else to talk about because they're owned by the same fucking people the cops are actually serving when they're locking you up for having the temerity to exercise your first amendment and other rights, just like they did at Standing Rock. Film at 11... just not on any broadcast TV channel you can pick up because... did I mention they're all owned by the same cabal of too-rich slimy assholes?
disable rant mode RANT MODE TERMINATED
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
The reason Americans are so deep in debt is that that's government policy: the Fed and the Keynesians in government are keeping interests rates artificially low and the government has made it a key priority to extend credit to everybody in the country, for anything from student loans to homes to cars. And when people default on those bad loans, the government bails them out.
Free market capitalism doesn't do that because it makes no sense for greedy capitalists to sell stuff to people who can't pay.
So you're half right: the "property-owning elites" want to create a nation of debt slaves, but the "property-owning elites" only have that power because anti-capitalists give them that power. I suspect you are among the people creating this system.
Try actually reading yourself. The word "capitalism" predates the concept of socialism. So, no, it wasn't coined by a socialist.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
In a free market, the market is certainly "distorted in favor of those who own capital": that is the whole purpose of a free market. That's because the only way you can get capital in a free market is by producing stuff other people actually want. So, in a free market, the more useful you are to your fellow human beings, the more capital you accumulate.
"Crony capitalism" isn't capitalism at all, it is technically known as "rent seeking". Under crony capitalism (and its variants, progressivism, fascism, and socialism), you get more capital and/or more power by colluding with the government, regardless of how useful you are to your fellow human beings.
You and many people before you: We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place!
With respect to "this shift is no big deal"...
Ironically, one of the first times a book was revoked from kindle owners was Orwell's *1984*, due to a contract dispute between Amazon and the publisher. It was quickly resolved (a few weeks? I don't remember).
The ideas of mass re-editing (mentioned upthread) and revocation is a very very big deal. These capabilities give someone whose priorities are theirs alone a greater degree of control over information flow than we are accustomed to, and I do not think the implications have been fully understood.
Similar in concept to the "cashless society": Dramatically improved tracking of individual choices, and dramatically easier revocation of one's privilege to participate in society doing things like buying food, etc. Those who do the tracking have already established the idea that records of our activities (accurately recorded or not) are not for us to see, validate, or argue about in any meaningful way.
"Free marketeers love the term "crony capitalism" No we don't, we prefer it didn't exist. " because whenever the worst excesses of their bankrupt amoral philosophy rears it's ugly head they have a scapegoat to point at." Hat has never ever happened. You are simply lying because you don't have the facts on your side. If you think otherwise please give me an example so I can prove you wrong. "They loudly claim that all the evil results of encouraging control of an economy" And provide proof that it is the result of such, stange that you miss that out. " (and thus, inevitably a society)" No such thing as society. " to flow to people with the most stuff is a result of some unanticipated, impossible-to-account for factor" The regulations that make it so are the factors we are talking about. We are very specific about what causes the problem. "rather than the obvious result of applying a theoretical model to a world it does not match." We aren't Socialists. "Capitalism works perfectly, if only the world and human beings could just changed to accommodate it" It works perfectly with people as they are.
90% of the stuff I own sits in boxes in a garage, taking up space, not doing anyone any good. I think a lot of us can claim this same situation, considering how often you see garages stuffed full and .. storage unit rental outfits are EVERYWHERE in this country.
I think this shift toward non-ownership is ultimately a good thing. Consumerism isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway.
Besides, as a kid, I remember it was way cooler to borrow things from friends, when you were bored of it you gave it back. And you were never likely to want anything further to do with it anyway. Seems like a legit way to function as an adult, except the lender is some company, lending us text, movies, games, apps, rides in a car, whatever you can think of. You pay for what you use, then you're done, not married to it for rest of your life, having to care for it, and store it, and move it if you move.
"Crony capitalism" is a misnomer." How is Government giving favourable conditions to some conpines over others a misnomer? Really, I would like to know how you can think that. "Nobody has to give favorable treatment to their cronies for property-owners to exploit non-property-owners." Yeah they do, they need to make it so one of them can use force on the other. "That's just capitalism." No it isn't. "That's what capitalism is: a market distorted in favor of those who own capital." No it is literally just being able to privately control the means of production but nice try... "What you call "crony capitalism" is just capitalism." Nope, already explained why you are wrong above. "What you call "capitalism" is just a free market." Well in that case you are even more wrong because in the free market what you own doesn't mean you can force anyone to do anything. "A free market where capital is widely distributed in a decentralized way, not held by one class of people to the exploitation of another, is market socialism." No it isn't, by the very definition of the term Socialist that is untrue. To be Socialist there needs to be no privately controlled means of production. ""Socialism" doesn't mean everything is controlled by the state," Yeah it does. "it means capital is owned by the people." That would be a direct Democratic version of Socialism. There are many kinds, like those practiced by Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc " Widespread individual ownership by many people still counts; it doesn't have to (and shouldn't) be collective ownership through the state." That's all Socialism is, no privately controlled means of production... So either you are ignorant or lying which is it?
“Capitalist” as in one who owns capital does. “Capitalism” as in a system favoring capitalists does not.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Then explain the explosion of self storage sites crammed full of junk. It may be in certain areas, Digital media (music, literature, computer programs) that the above is true, but in general I think Americans own and possess a huge accumulation of stuff that is only growing larger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Reading books is much more important than owning them. EBooks eliminates waste.
Owning DVDs doesn't strike me as an important thing in life.
Still, despite these two things, I own a crapload of stuff.
Did you know that there has been a trend to reduce or even eliminate the savings that you, as a consumer, could realize by buying the electronic book as opposed to the physical one, despite how much more waste making and selling physical books creates?
When I asked a customer service rep at a company that shall remain namelesz, why in some cases the phsycial book is CHEAPER, NEW than the ebook when this retailer sells both, the response I got was that people are still buying physical books. (Inasmuch as that's not really an explanation why something that by rights SHOULD be cheaper ISN'T,) I replied with something like, "but... don't you have to pay the same royalties on both, based on intellectual property, but NOT have to pay to print the book itself, nor pay for the physical storage space of each in warehouses, on trucks, and ultimately on bookshelves in actual, brick-and-mortar stores whenever you start opening those for books, for the electronic books you DO sell? Why not make it easer to buy THOSE?"
The response I got basically was that they make more money pricing them this way, so this is the way they price them. (Sigh.)
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
As the plane worshiping tribes of the south pacific once said of us westerners
What is the name of this religion and how do I convert?
What's the problem with not owning stuff that has no physical form?
I own 300+ CD's and 200+ DVD's, and they are sitting in a box in the garage because I literally have no use for them -- I ripped them all to digital files, but I rarely even access the files since most of the time when I want to listen or watch something, I just get it from some streaming service. The movies I own on DVD are so old that they are generally available for free on some streaming service (Netflix or Amazon), and I don't think I own any CD's for bands that aren't already on streaming services.
I used to have hundreds of books too, but got tired of hauling them around when I move and got rid of nearly all of them, there are a few books I used to own on paper, and when I wanted to reread them, I bought a Kindle copy since it's so much more convenient. I've switched to Kindle Unlimited so I don't even have the tenuous "ownership" of purchased Kindle books and I'm fine with that, I don't need to accumulate them. The only reason I've held onto my physical DVD's/CD's is so I can prove that I own them since I've ripped them all (which itself is of dubious legality)
For physical products like a couch and TV, I do own that since that's an entirely different situation -- I can't pay a furniture store for a virtual couch that I can sit on.
Naked I came into this world. I surely can't take anything with me.
While those two statements are true, for everyone's sake, please wear some clothes in the meantime.
I started naked and will probably end up that way, in the meantime I aim to live comfortably. For me living living comfortably includes clothes, a house, a vehicle, tools of my trade, toys (tools for entertainment), etc.
Thereâ(TM)s no longer any denying that the US is not a first world nation. And thereâ(TM)s good reason why the GOP wants to privatize prisons â" thatâ(TM)s where the MAGA-hat wearers will get all their new fangled factory jobs and other guaranteed employment doing menial labor, working as prison slaves as the 13th amendment allows
Normally, anything that reduces the average citizen's complicity in their own oppression by the powers that be(*) is a good thing....but replacing ownership of personal property with rental and/or licensing does not achieve that. it's worse. It removes even the choice to "opt-out" if/when you decide your life would be much better without wage-slavery (not uncommon if you manage to pay off your house mortgage or otherwise own it outright).
(*) i.e. the actual capitalists (not the working and middle-classes who have been deluded into thinking that THEY are capitalists), the 0.001%, those who actually own & control everything of significant value - including the "means of production".
I don't have mod points to upvote you, so instead I'll just write that your post was really clear and informative. Thanks. I like it when someone brings clear definitions to a debate. Or even better, like you did, when they bring clear explanations of the underlying concepts.
You can't take a dictionary from the library, or an encyclopedia, or even an almanac. It's relatively useless to try to check out cookbooks, unless it's only on a few special occasions when you cook.
Lots of technology requires reference literature, and while some of it is available in digital form, ALL of it is available in dead trees. Very little of that is loaned by even a very good public library. Even a good university's research libraries will not have some critically important books. Thus, a prof consults colleagues, who have heavily laden shelves in their offices, or he/she needs to load down his own shelves.
Non-ownership of books is borderline functional illiteracy. Survivable, yes; desirable, no.
After ,30 years of buying whatever I want from sales and bargain bins I own enough stuff to go through during my lifetime. I've started to dig into it and realize I just don't need to buy anything else. I have enough to watch, read, listen to, and play. Anything else that comes my way better be cheap enough to get my attention.
That is all.
Lots of technology requires reference literature, and while some of it is available in digital form, ALL of it is available in dead trees.
This is backwards. Plenty of technical reference literature is only available online.
You still paid the 20% down, and the remodeling.
And if your tenant leaves, you'll need to find someone quick.
Do the remodeling yourself or go home -- (wo)man up. Not a big deal to find a tenant -- Cralgslist is your friend as usual.
How is the desire to own less shit a problem in the grand scheme of things? Unbelievable
When economists talk about rent-seeking, they're talking about economic rent which is not the same as contract rent. You have confused the two.
Note that in surveys of economists consistently over 90% agree that rent controls reduce the quality and quantity of available housing.
Similarly, much of the rest of what you say flatly contradicts what "we've already figured out and what you'd learn in a 4 year college economics degree."
You titled your post "Problems your (sic) describing have mostly been solved" but you're not addressing any of the problems I described at all. I didn't talk about Lehman Brothers or fret about overpopulation, and I don't know why you think ranting about such topics constitutes a reply to me. If you want to tell me instead that you've solved e.g. the problems of regulatory capture, please enlighten us as to your miraculous solution.
I lease the land I run my business on and I lease and hire the expensive equipment and machinery my business uses. I live in a rented house and I also employ a handful of people.
Do I not have a stake in the system because of this?
I started out leasing and renting things so that I didn't need to put hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital into starting up. My original intent was that as I started making money, I'd sink it into purchasing those things the business uses, but with the help of my bean counter I realised that it's far better to put that capital to work elsewhere where it can earn more capital or make life easier.
Filling your home with mass-produced consumer goods isn't what I'd call a good thing. Those goods aren't going up in value and are occupying space. Sure, collect them if that's your thing, but if the argument is about conditioning people not to own things I'd say by far the larger problem is electronic payments and credit cards breaking the connection between spending money and it being a physical thing you can count and feel in your hand.
Point in case: I get my computers refurbished. I'm a computer expert (duh). I get more out of a piece of junk computer than a regular guy out of a brand new 27" iMac pro. No surprise here. Hence, if I need to get a cheap high value car I'll ask somebody who's deep into cars. He'd probably be able to recommend something that costs a tenth of the regular price and lasts ages. My refurbished ThinkPad X220 costs 200$ + some cheap RAM and an SSD and does more than any regular computer user could ever ask for. I'd expect the same results from a car expert. Those Volvo station wagons from 2000 and before come to mind. They start warming up at 250 000 milage.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
As the plane worshiping tribes of the south pacific once said of us westerners
What is the name of this religion and how do I convert?
Cargo cult Their understanding of the people on the airplanes is that the planes are just protecting them from harm because they rely upon far too much cargo. The people on the planes are in danger of killing each other if the planes do not protect them and all their cargo. So they worship the airplanes for this reason in their eyes airplanes have a been given a divine spirit regardless of how or who made them. They believe that all material things including that which we modify and create have spirit. And if you fight over cargo or the ownership of any material thing you will become a mad evil spirit after death that needs to be exorcised.
Cargo in their language is simply anything that you must carry around with you as you travel through life. Their lives rely on not having to carry cargo because cargo is shared by all. Materialism is beyond their understanding, the ownership of any material thing of the earth and sky is not a good thing in their eyes.
The beginnings of same type of belief was still present in most of North America until we fucked the natives over, in British Columbia and elsewhere there are still echoes of the potlatch economy. Would that an economy and laws based on potlatch become more advanced. Any economy that is based upon ever cheaper labour, the overconsumption and hording of material things will eventually fall as did Rome. Economic growth has limits that are defined by the availability of food and materials and we are quickly using everything up and are doomed as a civilization for this very reason.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
No! The words you use matter immensely - that is, if you have any intention of productive communication. Yes, Adam Smith didn't use the word 'capitalism' or the term 'lassiez-faire' etc but rather the term 'system of natural liberty.' But for a century and a half this is what has been understood by 'capitalism' and no other name for such a system has been anywhere near so widely recognized. Socialism has always meant social ownership rather than private ownership. Coming up with your own redefinitions and playing Humpty Dumpty is just poor communication.
To talk about proposals for trying to decentralize economic power and distribute ownership, again, the term that will communicate that to people is 'distributivism' and not 'socialism.' Claiming that centralization and markets are simply orthogonal is to ignore the obvious issues: there is no way to allow free exchange and simultaneously prevent uneven accumulation of wealth.
BTW Bernard Shaw, who was with the (socialist) Fabian society, had debates with Chesterton about socialism and distributivism. In the 1920s he explained the standard meaning of 'capitalism' and 'socialism' for the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Shaw
Actually I would say their is far more technology reference material available in digital form that is completely unavailable in tree form. By coincidence I happen to be looking at a guide to updating the firmware to a particular piece of tech I admin, it is only available in pdf form via a secure download site, no tree copies available. The same is true for a great deal of technical reference material.
Contract rent is a type of economic rent.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. It set Americans apart from feudal peasants
Nothing set that apart from the feudal system. If you consider property ownership as the base of political participation, you basically have the feudal system back with the guys at the end of the food chain being the poor peasants and the guys with money who run the country.
bickerdyke
Adam Smith wrote about free markets, not about capitalism. The term capitalism as originally coined did not refer to the same thing as a free market. It is a redefinition of terms to equate the two.
Market socialism predates Shaw. It predates even Marx. Marx is the one who first claimed that free markets entail capitalism and that socialism therefore required a command economy, but many of his socialist contemporaries disagreed with him, only to be largely forgotten by history now. So clearly "market socialism" is not a contradiction in terms in their original sense, and "socialism" therefore cannot simply mean the opposite of "free market".
"It doesn't matter what words you use" as in I'm not trying to defend the purity of language for its own sake here, but to be able to distinguish between concepts, however you want to label them. If by "capitalism" you mean only the opposite of a command economy, a free market, then you now have no word to describe the opposite of widely distributed ownership, unless you'd like to coin one, but then nobody's going to understand what you mean until you explain you new word.
Likewise if by "socialism" you mean only the opposite of a free market, a command economy, then you now have no word to describe widely distributed ownership. You're using the word "distributivism" here, but that means specfically a market-based kind of distributed ownership, and not just the concept of distributed ownership agnostic to the market or command nature of the economy. So, again, do you want to have to coin a new word?
The earliest free market thinkers like Adam Smith did not favor concentrations of wealth and did not call themselves capitalists. The earliest socialists did not favor command economies, but they opposed concentrated ownership of capital and systems that favored it, which they called "capitalism". Back then we had these four clear terms -- free market, command economy, capitalism, socialism -- and could discuss things coherently.
Then Marx and his followers and their opponents over the past century or so heavily conflated free markets with capitalism and socialism with command economies to the point that now people cannot even think about the two different issues at play there. I am simply informing people of the older, undistorted meanings of the words, and opening up the possibility of discussing things more clearly with them.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
This becomes most clear when we try to discuss anarchism. Not to argue for or against it, but just to talk about what it is and how it relates to other ideas.
Most anarchists would say that anarchism is inherently socialist, and that capitalism is wholly incompatible with anarchism. What they mean by that is that in an anarchic society, ownership would necessarily be widespread, because if it was concentrated in just a few hands then those few owners would effectively rule everyone else so it couldn't be anarchy.
Anarcho-capitalists on the other hand would say that anarcho-socialism is a contradiction in terms because by "socialism" they mean "command economy" which you can't have without a state obviously. Instead they would insist that anarchy must inherently be "capitalist", by which they means "free market", because with no state there's obviously nobody to control the market.
Thing is, the anarcho-socialists were there first. (Before the anarcho-capitalists, and before Marxist style socialists too). And in their use of the words, they can and do say that market capitalism is possible, state socialism is possible, and state capitalism is possible, and they are against all of them, especially the last one. Anarcho-capitalists on the other hand, like the state socialists they oppose and everyone on the line in between them, cannot even comprehend what "anarcho-socialism" or "state capitalism" would mean, because their use of language has become so degraded that they don't even have adequate words for ideas.
It's the same reason that the modern "right" think fascism is "left". Fascism is state capitalism, but they think statism = socialism and so cannot even see that they are as close to fascism as the state socialists they oppose, and the true opposite of it is anarcho-socialism, libertarian socialism, market socialism, which is an idea they're not even capable of thinking thanks to this Orwellian newspeak that can't distinguish between things anymore.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Owning less stuff is a good thing. Our minds are poisoned by attachment to stuff. Our attachment to stuff is poisoning our planet. What planet is this dude on?
Professional Idiot
Dude, learn to work the quote and break tags with your ass. That shit is not fucking comprehensible.
.though I think the examples cites (Kindle books vs. real books) is a bit shaky.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Oh the justice and inequality thing. True. But I see a simple starting point. Humans are innately cooperative and competitive. Love and War.
Any proposed solution is inherently these two things together. Like, the current system is bad so let’s compete against it with a new system. It’s the cycle of violence. Often in pursuit of love and justice.
Logic often can’t handle this “two things together” pattern. Debating gets polarised.
Plus there may be reasons why capitalism works which are nothing to do with the theoretical explanations for why it works. It’s not a clean-room science.
For myself I assume it is about individuals and creativity, in that, you can be as capitalist as you like but without a creative population you just have a pile of nuts and bolts coming off factory lines.
And the great sins of capitalism, like crashes, and super-rich, are just accidents in complex systems, in that you cannot foresee who or what is going to go off the charts and thus regulate in advance to stop them.
When the world only needs five computers, why would you regulate an industry to prevent billions getting hoovered up by key players, for example?
Life is risky. And managing risk is risky. And things are always “obvious” in hindsight especially when you can’t verify your insight because now the event is already history. But people can get qualifications and respect for their unverified theories.
Anyway, I think everyone agrees that, on the love side of our natures, we don’t want desperately poor people. And meanwhile, creative power is often competitive and has winners and losers. Plus even if society is very encouraging of creativity, things just go wrong for many individuals, like addiction or bad parenting or malnourishment (cheap sugary foods don’t count) and emotional and psychological stresses, and so on.
On the whole I am very lucky to have been born in a Western country which is already very developed. How or why the West developed is debatable, but ideologies don’t seem to be a way forward here. They might be useful in third world countries though, kinda like how traditional religions may be useful in giving people dreams of an ideal or pure life.
if you really want to own physical copies, you can still do so. since less and less people choose to actually own them, i guess that was the preferred option all along, except that it wasn't available to do so.
i stream a lot, but i also have a lot of physical copies. If i like it well enough, i will buy it! otherwise, it was nice for one viewing/reading/listen, but not anything more. Not that much different to how a library works (except that it requires a bit more effort).
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Crashes are a sin of governments and fiscal policy, which turn moderate market fluctuations into disasters.
As for the very wealthy, they come in two varieties: the robber barons, who enrich themselves through government, and the entrepreneurs, who enrich themselves through creating stuff other people want to pay money for. Government creates robber barons (that's what the term originally comes from: the railroad and stell magnates who enriched themselves through government).
That's why free market capitalism rewards creativity richly: if you are creative in a way that helps your fellow human beings, as determined by the votes of your fellow human beings, you get richer. We call those votes "dollars".
If you are "creative" in ways that don't help your fellow human beings, nobody votes for you, and you don't get rich.
The percentage of desperately poor people in the US and the OECD is nearly zero, one of the great achievements of even moderately free markets.
These are all issues within the control of individuals and individual choices. Socializing the costs of such choices makes those problems worse over time.
No, not really: it's pretty well understood.
Great you realize it. And what is the absence of ideology? Letting individuals make their own choices, respecting their private property, and respecting their right to self-determination.
Stock pays dividends.
Stuff depreciates.
QED
..don't panic
https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
Oh, I found the article. I was just wondering what it says about Slashdot that all the comments prior to yours were apparently by people who didn't try to read the article, just the summary.
My wife and I have a use it or lose it policy with most things in our house. We regularly toss stuff we don't need into a bin and either donate it to goodwill, scrap it, or throw it out. Digital storage of media is great for saving space. I don't have to deal with a wall full of DVD's, and my wife can check out books for free from the local library on her Kindle. It makes cleaning easier and opens up space.
You can't take a dictionary from the library, or an encyclopedia, or even an almanac. It's relatively useless to try to check out cookbooks, unless it's only on a few
special occasions when you cook.
Who really uses dictionaries and encyclopedias anymore? Finding a word/lemma in a digital reference is so much easier, plus you can follow links and do full-text search (if the index doesn't contain what you're looking for)
Cookbooks: yes, they are useful. I am a pretty hard-core amateur cook, but there's only a couple books I use a lot (mostly silver spoon (italian) and food lab). 90% of my recipes are digital, either my own collection, or (selected) online recipes, e.g. seriouseats.
Lots of technology requires reference literature, and while some of it is
available in digital form, ALL of it is available in dead trees. Very little of
that is loaned by even a very good public library. Even a good university's research libraries
will not have some critically important books. Thus, a prof consults colleagues,
who have heavily laden shelves in their offices, or he/she needs to
load down his own shelves.
I'm an (associate) professor and have been in social science research for the past 14 years. I hardly ever use physical books or journals. We don't even have personal bookshelfs anymore in my department. I've not visited my library since grad school. Everything relevant is written in journals or the occasional edited volume, all available online.
Non-ownership of books is borderline functional illiteracy. Survivable, yes; desirable, no.
I love owning books for leisure reading, in bed, on holiday, on the couch. But I have friends who use ebooks for that and they seem perfectly happy with it. ...
Books make great sound-isolation and decoration, though. A shelf full of ebook readers is just not very pretty to look at :-)
No, that's completely false. Any portion of contract rent may be economic rent, from 100% to zero, but they are quite different things.
Well, I have to say that I'm shocked.. SHOCKED! (Well, not that shocked) by this report.
When you are actively prevented from owning practically anything (From books, all the way to homes), it's hard not to be cynical about capitalism.
Capitalism means nothing when you are not allowed to have capital. The US is becoming (or in may cases already has become) everything it hated about communism.
The fact that a sizable portion of the population actually loves Russia is very telling all in itself.
Almost everything listed that people are becoming satisfied renting from services, as opposed to buying on physical media? They're all intellectual properties that the sellers/creators insist you don't really OWN after buying them. When you buy a music CD, you're not allowed to duplicate it and share copies of the content with others. When you buy a movie on DVD, it's illegal to decrypt the copy protection on it, even for the purpose of transferring the movie content to a different form of media so you can watch it on various electronics you own that can't play from the physical DVD disc.
When you shell out the $50-60 for a new video game for your console, it's subject to whatever usage terms and restrictions they want to place on it. Might have to buy a second one if you want to play the game online from two different consoles in the house, so your kids can play it against each other. Who knows?
I think that's a BIG driver of the change to a rental, on-demand model.
To the extent that calling the 'system of natural liberties' 'capitalism' was a redefinition, it was already redefined that way in standard English usage roughly 150 years ago. Trying to use the word to mean what you claim it means based on your personal interpretation of Marx is a Humpty Dumpty move and not a serious attempt at communication.
'Socialism' never, not even in the earliest "utopian socialist" writers, described "widely distributed ownership," it always described social ownership, which is antithetical to private ownership however widely distributed. That's not identical to a command economy, but no other scheme for social ownership beyond the smallest scale has been seriously propounded.
'Distributivism' only entails a market economy to the extent that that's entailed by any private ownership.
You're not informing people about "undistorted meaning" or being more clear, you're distorting the meaning of socialism to push your own opinion while ignoring the obvious dilemmas, just like so many advocates of socialism from Saint-Simon to the present day.
Yeah, all we have to do is massively relocate about 20% of the population of the United States, that'll solve it! It's only a little shy of 60 million people, we can do it! I guess one out of every five people in this country just chose to be born in the wrong place. Fuck you.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I take issue with this argument. I've had it before with people.... First off, "wage slavery" is a nonsense term. Slaves weren't paid wages at all and never entered into an employment contract with anyone. It trivializes the plight of real slaves, forced to do labor while owned as property by someone else.
Capitalism is a whole economic system that benefits all of its participants. The middle class or working class may not "own the means of production", but that doesn't mean they're not part of the Capitalist system. Owning the means of production does you NO good if nobody wants to buy what you're producing. The 0.001% can't just buy and sell exclusively to each other.
The system we have is about making voluntary choices and promises, for the most part. Government has mandatory taxation it throws into the mix, so that part is forced. But when I decided to buy a house, I was well aware that I was committing to 30 years of loan payments and a need to work for those 30 years to make sure I had the funds to keep making those payments. That's not wage slavery! That's a VOLUNTARY choice on my part. There's not even any guarantee I *have* to labor for 30 years to pay the house off. Many other things could happen, including my property value increasing enough so I can make money reselling it, to pay it off with a profit. Much less likely -- I could win a lottery of some kind and be able to pay it off that way. Or perhaps I'd come into an inheritance that helps pay it off? Maybe I decide to leverage it as a money generation tool, renting to people via AirBnB at some point?
I don't understand this flawed argument of yours that claims we're all just slaves to the system. It sounds like you want the ability to just be handed possessions and not have to pay for them?
Economic rent is when someone who is the gatekeeper to a resource won't allow access to those who need it to use unless they are paid to do so.
The owner of a piece of property is legally a gatekeeper to it, inasmuch as they can legally exclude others from use. Allowing others to use it, but only for a fee -- "contract rent" -- is therefore an example of economic rent.
Fun fact: "usury", a term usually considered an epithet today, literally just means that, etymologically: A fee for use. All rent is usurious, by definition. (Including all interest, which is just rent on money).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Shelves of DVDs, CDs, Cassettes, Videos and Books. I found that for the most part, I only ever watched, listened or read them once. Now I own mainly paper reference books, and some digital books that could probably be deleted. I'm quite happy using my kindle app, streaming movies and not owning dust collecting media.
yes, there is a social security fund that's about to go bankrupt. It's supposed to go bankrupt. It's the fund needed to pay for the aging baby boomers who, despite all their efforts, are eventually going to die. There are fewer Gen Xers and fewer still millennials.
Yes, Social Security has some problems. That's because inflation keeps devaluing the dollar and we don't raise the hard cap on SS taxes. All we have to do to 'fix' SS is to raise the cap on what can be taxed.
But that's not the point. This is what's called "Starve the Beast". The goal here is to make SS collapse so the ruling class can pocket the money. They'll do it in stages so you don't notice. Paul Ryan's already floated the idea of ending SS for anyone under 55. He and his ilk will keep pushing that narrative. It's the same line of thinking that got us "We had to bomb the village to save it". You were never there to save the village, where you?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
When it comes to books, music, and movies, I think the OP is backwards. Bards used to travel and tell stories. The concept of writing them down and selling them to own was new. Now that we're streaming such story content is actually a return to the original, where the value is in its novelty and temporal relevance, rather than in repeated accessibility and reproduction.
But I've noticed this issue in something that I feel is much worse. Household contents.
Think about furniture. Think about art. Think about tools and dishes and plant holders and pillows and photo albums and records and record players and rugs. And impressive chrome strollers -- basonettes? And classic cars. And fur coats.
My grandparents inherited these types of family heirlooms. My parents did too. Owning 100+ year old family furniture, of course. The furniture can last that long, and it's good, who would throw it out?
Now look today. How much will you take of your parents' stuff? Do you want their wood furniture? Ikea's cheap, get new stuff. Do you want their painting? Digital screens.
And tomorrow? How much do you have that you're saving for your children to inherit? Old strollers? You likely lease your car, and no one wants your own one anyway.
Planned obsolescence. . .of ownership, of families, of pride in anything.
Not owning your own media (or anything) will be a problem...eventually. We're in a small window right now where the average person puts up with subscription models on certain things, but if more vendors went that direction we'd reach a point where people can't afford that any more. Cell phones, cable Internet, Spotify, iTunes, etc...when is the limit?
I didn't buy and store books. I borrowed them from a library. Why would I want to maintain my own library?
I didn't buy and store cassets. I listened to the radio. Why would I want to curate and constantly switch out tapes when someone else would do the selection for me to keep it fresh?
I didn't buy and store DVDs. I'd go to the movies, rent them from a store, or wait for them to be broadcast. I very seldom watch a movie more than once. Why would I want to keep stacks of plastic around that I never use?
In short, the author needs to get a life and maybe finding a hobby. If you're life revolves around hoarding and curating "media", you're a loser.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Glad you like it, thanks for the feedback. :-)
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Thanks! :-)
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
There is no reason to be nervous. We had way, and I mean WAY too much stuff to begin with. So far I've taken a Chevy 1 ton extended express and used it to haul crap from my Son's house to the dump - 9 times! I'm not talking about a truckload the way he'd fill it up, I'm talking the whole fucking truck was full to the top. Now it's ready to think about cleaning it up about the same amount again!
This is not unique. I flip homes too. I come across homes that the people just left it as it is. They're full of more crap today than they were 20 years ago. The DVDs, game consoles, direct tv boxes... and on and on and on.
The property concept is still alive and kicking.
Now that it's a day later, here's the link you'll be looking for:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
To be clear, I'm not saying that crony capitalism isn't a thing. It is a thing, and it's a bad thing. But it's a specific bad thing: where those with power due to their capital-ownership give unfairly favorable treatment to their cronies in what should be fairly competitive arenas. It doesn't just mean "the bad kind of capitalism".
All capitalism is the bad kind, because all capitalism is inherently about those who own capital exploiting those who don't. If that isn't happening, then it's not capitalism happening -- even if it's a free market. A free market where that doesn't happen isn't capitalist, because that's just what capitalism means. A landowner extracting money from tenants in exchange for nothing, just because those tenants have no land themselves and so have to live somewhere or another on the terms (and at the price) set by whoever owns that somewhere, has nothing to do with cronies, but is the epitome of capitalist exploitation. Likewise a wealthy banker lending money at interest, or any gatekeeper of a resource limiting access to it unless people bribe them into allowing its use. That's what capitalism is.
NB that buying or selling something is not capitalist.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
My time is not free. Often it's worth more than what the contractor's asking.
Often doing the work yourself takes less time than babysitting a contractor who's barely literate.
Maybe a loss of a sense of personal ownership ... but corporations are more focused on ownership than ever.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Frankly, people never owned the music or the words in the book. They owned a physical copy printed on a dead tree or a shiny disc. Copyright law always restricted what you were able to do with the music or words.
People had the rights of the owner of a lawfully made copy, as set forth in 17 USC 109, 117, and 1008, and foreign counterparts, These include 1. the perpetual right to use the work privately as long as the copy remains in usable condition, and 2. the right to resell the copy to someone else. A streaming lessee does not have these rights.