What is this? Maybe the author's book contains a more coherent argument, but I honestly can't understand what this article is trying to say, other than a vague vibe and a bunch of words.
I have a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley. My advisor was prize winner G. Ackerlof, his wife Janet Yellen, approved my dissertation topic and I was at least tied for top GPA. This article is the worst piece of nonsense I've seen on Persuasion. Persuasion has never been good at checking anything technical. They should get some help.
"the thing that has killed capitalism is… capital itself. Not capital as we have known it since the dawn of the industrial era, but a new form of capital, a mutation of it that has arisen in the last two decades, so much more powerful than its predecessor that like a stupid, overzealous virus it has killed off its host. What caused this to happen? Two main developments: the privatization of the internet by America’s and China’s Big Tech. And the manner in which Western governments and central banks responded to the 2008 great financial crisis."
This I think misses the actual explanation for what capitalism really is and is not. Capital did not kill capitalism... and I would argue that it is not dead but corrupted.
Adam Smith and other architects and observers of capitalism recognized it as an alternative social system. Or more exactly, an economic appendage supporting what would be the most effective social system with respect to the overall human condition.
The Scandinavian countries get it.
We in the US just lost our way and allowed the selfish pursuit of profit to corrupt the definition of capitalism... and then stupidly drift toward the lie that socialism is the better model.
It is in fact the bleeding of socialism into our system that is largely responsible for the corruption. When productive merit is supplanted by political connection... well that is the root of the problem and what all collectivist ideas lead to.
I do understand much of his contemporary social and tech criticism. However, I do not agree with his general solutions which is "collective ownership" = government/state ownership. He is stuck in outdated socialist ideas that not even worked for the 20th century and not to speak about 21st century. He does not understand cryptocurrenceis mainly because crypto is is part of decentralisation as of money, democracy and work while he and his movement belive that the state will create "the good life". His analysis is contemporary but much of the solution proposals are outdated or misleading
Thought provoking. I understand the rising autocracy of social media as a primarily theatrical event. The fat cat producers pay their set design technicians and key actors well to seduce the paying audiences. Those audiences not only pay to view but their personal living experiences are harvested for further profiteering by the producers. Sooner or later the audience will notice they are being abused and used and either become engaged in childlike rebellions against their oppressor or simply disengage. All Empires Fall and at their ending:
What is this? Maybe the author's book contains a more coherent argument, but I honestly can't understand what this article is trying to say, other than a vague vibe and a bunch of words.
I have a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley. My advisor was prize winner G. Ackerlof, his wife Janet Yellen, approved my dissertation topic and I was at least tied for top GPA. This article is the worst piece of nonsense I've seen on Persuasion. Persuasion has never been good at checking anything technical. They should get some help.
"the thing that has killed capitalism is… capital itself. Not capital as we have known it since the dawn of the industrial era, but a new form of capital, a mutation of it that has arisen in the last two decades, so much more powerful than its predecessor that like a stupid, overzealous virus it has killed off its host. What caused this to happen? Two main developments: the privatization of the internet by America’s and China’s Big Tech. And the manner in which Western governments and central banks responded to the 2008 great financial crisis."
This I think misses the actual explanation for what capitalism really is and is not. Capital did not kill capitalism... and I would argue that it is not dead but corrupted.
Adam Smith and other architects and observers of capitalism recognized it as an alternative social system. Or more exactly, an economic appendage supporting what would be the most effective social system with respect to the overall human condition.
The Scandinavian countries get it.
We in the US just lost our way and allowed the selfish pursuit of profit to corrupt the definition of capitalism... and then stupidly drift toward the lie that socialism is the better model.
It is in fact the bleeding of socialism into our system that is largely responsible for the corruption. When productive merit is supplanted by political connection... well that is the root of the problem and what all collectivist ideas lead to.
I do understand much of his contemporary social and tech criticism. However, I do not agree with his general solutions which is "collective ownership" = government/state ownership. He is stuck in outdated socialist ideas that not even worked for the 20th century and not to speak about 21st century. He does not understand cryptocurrenceis mainly because crypto is is part of decentralisation as of money, democracy and work while he and his movement belive that the state will create "the good life". His analysis is contemporary but much of the solution proposals are outdated or misleading
Thought provoking. I understand the rising autocracy of social media as a primarily theatrical event. The fat cat producers pay their set design technicians and key actors well to seduce the paying audiences. Those audiences not only pay to view but their personal living experiences are harvested for further profiteering by the producers. Sooner or later the audience will notice they are being abused and used and either become engaged in childlike rebellions against their oppressor or simply disengage. All Empires Fall and at their ending:
‘the best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.’
The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats