"value creation for one's customers" - that is a "not even wrong" level of misunderstanding of the system dynamics of capitalism. The primary driver is generation of _profit_ for owners of the means of production. Many things fall out of that - the tendency to monopolise, for example.
It really doesn't have to be that way. The problem boils down to, as with practically all human systems, is human behavior. There is no system you can devise that is run by humans and not corruptible and exploitable by the worst of us. Or even just everyday people.
First: How do you know that every system is corruptible and exploitable?
And second: What if other systems are less corruptible and exploitable? How do you know whether all systems have the same potential for corruption and exploitation?
Capitalism is a system that explicitly rewards greed, and that gives the most power to the people with the most to gain from exploiting said power. Why is it unreasonable to believe that other systems are likely better on these fronts?
How do I know that a system maintained by people is exploitable by people? IDK, that's a real thinker, isn't it. That all systems are exploitable, in absence of human influence, isn't the argument I'm making. It's tautologically true that systems that humans design and implement and depend on the behavior of humans to continue to run would be exploitable by humans. You cannot design a system dependent on human action that is also immune to human nature.
As for the second, the more in control of the system humans are, the more they can exploit it. Your return on exploitation, which I think is really what you're getting at, is based on how diffuse the control and power is at the point that you exploit it. But the more diffuse control and power, the less responsive and effective the system is when working at full tilt. It's two sides of the same coin.
Capitalism is a system of decentralized resource allocation. Decentralized systems have their pros and cons, and other systems that would rely on centrally planned economies have pros and cons. Capitalism isn't the issue, unfettered capitalism is the issue.
After that opener I'm guessing this will be a waste of effort... yes, it might be a real thinker, because AFAICS the two statements don't form a tautology. Is this based on actual findings by research in game theory, or did you just decide that this must be the case?
Funnily enough, in my eyes it's obvious that capitalism in a globalized world must inevitably lead to unfettered capitalism, since the gravity effect of money along with competition between countries for their investments (with tax breaks etc. ) inevitably allows the capitalists to change the laws in their favor more and more. So I would ask for an objective measure of "how much in control humans are". I don't think it's a single dimension like you're implying, and I don't think capitalism is near any optimum due to the aforementioned effect.
Governments have power, not private companies. Private companies can influence the powerful, of course (as can you or I) but you're complaining about second order or third order power without caring about first order power.
Unfortunately this naive view breaks down as soon as lobbying is introduced, since it is a direct channel for private companies to influence governments.
> Unfortunately this naive view breaks down as soon as lobbying is introduced, since it is a direct channel for private companies to influence governments.
The naive view is to think that lobbying is automatically bad. Policymakers can choose who they talk to. If you're worried about corrupt policymakers, you've correctly identified where power resides: in government.
Is the alternative is to give the power directly to the powerful? Not only will they hold the guns, but they decide what the markets will bear - often-enough with food for the poor becoming optional, if history has any lessons.
Which non-capitalist system does not ultimately concentrate wealth and power even further? And, if nation-states are organisms, and survival of the fittest is a law, which of those systems can survive in the real world? Excepting perhaps those propped up by a disproportionate natural wealth and homogeneous culture, where it is easier for people to continue to believe in "our good" when hard times come.
Capitalism is the only system that pretends to respect human nature - gives us a lever that says, "want more stuff? provide more value." It gives the self-interested a healthy outlet that the other systems lack. It must be managed, though, by power, and when the two collude you get fascism. So, I guess maybe I share your view, that lobbying breaks the system.
Globally active/influential social systems are still very young. In the couple hundred years such systems have been able to form, we've only attempted a minority of realistically possible systems, and most of this data was collected under very specific sets of circumstances which most likely only cover a tiny subset of realistically possible circumstances.
IMO it's not possible to justify your claims without taking a whole tower of (IMO likely false) assumptions for granted. I'd love to go into detail on each assumption I see, but I've had similar comments regarding flaws of capitalist systems get derailed too many times by very angry commenters who insist that such thoughts are not worth discussing and MUST NOT be discussed.
You think that the liberty of capitalism enables selfish assholes to have influence, while under the constraints of communism the people with the influence are not selfish assholes.
> "value creation for one's customers" - that is a "not even wrong" level of misunderstanding of the system dynamics of capitalism. The primary driver is generation of _profit_ for owners of the means of production. Many things fall out of that - the tendency to monopolise, for example.
I don't see why you're talking like this. It's "not even wrong" in the sense that it's entirely correct. Monarchy and socialism grab money through taxes, and if you think monopolies are bad, wait til you're forced to use the state service that has no motivation to do well because there's no competition. It's not only a monopoly, it's a monopoly that takes your money by force.
Capitalism requires investment and risk and competition to drive value up for customers who can choose. So you need to produce value for your customers to survive, and produce a profit after costs and taxes.
It's where you're in a pen with rows of desks and you just have to use whichever desk is free, you don't have your own desk. If you have any stuff you need to work beyond what's on the desk (say, accessibility equipment), you might get a locker (these are often underprovisioned) and you have to cart your stuff to and from the locker every day. It is awful.
I think you're conflating intelligence with consciousness. The point of Blindsight is to lead us to the idea that intelligence doesn't require consciousness (and further, that consciousness might even act as a limiter on intelligence).
I took a brief look at the code for one of the projects (https://github.com/emollick/concord/) he breathlessly praises and says "a software engineer would iron out the remaining potential bugs that I could not find quickly". The code looks like an unmaintainable mess.
Other commenters have pointed out that his isochrone map contains a lot of nonsense as well.
So the most charitable interpretation here is that this is a case of Gell-Mann amnesia.
This is a severely outdated view. Based on current policies, we're heading for something like 2.6 degrees of warming which I think is somewhere between RCP4.5 and RCP6.0. It's still bad but nowhere close to RCP8.5 so your comment is indeed unhelpful doomerism. (RCP scenarios themselves are outdated and have been replaced by "socio-economic pathways" - SSP).
It used to be that they included a bunch of software to make their hardware more useful. But I guess they couldn't resist squeezing out a bit more revenue through enshittification. The profit motive is ultimately too strong. Ads on the lock screen and in the dock next?
Arguably already happened, via notifications. They've long allowed third-party apps to send notifications that are actually ads, and a few first-party apps (most notably wallet with the F1 movie ads last year) have started doing this too. Those made it to the lock screen, and if you happened to dock any of those apps, the obnoxious red notification dot would induce you to click on it.
Any app that did that to me lost its notification privileges permanently and got uninstalled if it wasn't a built-in app, but I suppose Apple could start directly injecting unavoidable ads too.
Squeezing the extra 2% of revenue through making it shit has “no downsides”
Voting with wallet doesn’t work, the power imbalance ya too large. This isn’t boycotting your local deli because they get rid of your favourite sandwich.
Eventually china’s cultural takeover will win out and we can only hope it isn’t built on the parasitical advertising industry.
Really? This just proves the point of the grandparent comment. I can think of at least three types of activities off the top of my head: sports (granted, not all of them, but definitely true for my sport - squash), music (playing an instrument in a group setting), and volunteering. I also know people who are in a bridge club with people twice their age.
There are still social activities connecting people of different age groups although I agree with the above comment that structurally the society we have has been eroding non-labour market interactions.
All three activities are hobbies. Things people mostly do when they feel good. It's nothing that gives life a purpose.
In the past a lot of activities connecting different age groups was a job or job-like too. Working on a farm or a family business together. Running a household and childcare together.
I disagree quite strongly. I derive a lot of meaning from these types of activities (in addition to family and friends of course) and zero meaning from my job. It's the narrow focus on work to the exclusion of everything else in life that is the problem - and that's what the comments above highlight.
I would suggest that it's the fact your job has no meaning to you that raises the meaning the other things have in your life. That's a good thing. When people really love their job, it lowers the meaning the other things have in their life (I won't say family, necessarily, though it can, but also things like hobbies or friends often suffer, because the job is all-encompassing).
There's only so much meaning one can feel in a life.
I take your point that there is a limit on meaningful activities one can undertake but I disagree that it's some kind of zero-sum situation. I used to find my work more meaningful and I don't think it made any other things less meaningful - I just felt that I spent more of my day doing things that meant something to me. Life, on the whole, can feel more or less meaningful; we don't distribute a fixed amount of meaning across all the things we do.
Could you give some examples of where it's saving you a lot of time? My main time sinks are dishes, laundry, and cleaning. Is it helping out with any of those?
Sure, but there is also China where over half of new vehicle sales are EVs. Denmark is at 70%, Sweden, Iceland, Finland and the Netherlands are all above 50%, a bunch of other countries in the EU are at one third EVs. In India, 5% of sales are EVs but that is double of the year before and all the big car manufacturers in India are now offering EVs. Even Australia is at 14% after stalling on EVs for years. So change is unfolding quite quickly compared to previous years. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ev-share-new-car-sales-by-c...
Those numbers include PHEV cars. As a BEV owner, I consider PHEV to be more ICE than BEV. BEV numbers are not as impressive, but we're getting there, slowly but surely. A bit slower than I would've hoped.
The Danish numbers normally exclude PHEVs. Not that it matters, since PHEVs are almost dead as a segment here. Over the past two years 310k BEVs were sold here, but only 6k PHEVs. The situation in Norway is very similar.
And across Europe BEVs are also about twice as popular as PHEVs. In 2025 2.6 million BEVs were sold in Europe compared to 1.3 million PHEVs. It seems the biggest deciding factor is how good the public charging network is.
My Phev is about 80% ev. It uses a tank of gas a month, replacing a nearly identical vehicle (similar body and same engine - though other things have changed) that needed one or two tanks a week.
sadly thats not the norm. Various recent studies from the EU based on real world vehicle data show that actual savings from the PHEV category are about ~20% less emissions than a pure gas version. Aka, they are just gas cars. Despite manufacturers claiming ~70-80% for emissions credits. The category is today kind of a scam, in aggregate.
It doesnt have to be - bigger battery strictly-series EREVs would likely show better numbers than the weak-ev phevs sold today.
I think it is the norm only because people never run the numbers. At least where I live gas costs me 5-10x more than electric (I live in the US, gas is cheap, but all my electric is from even cheaper wind). It wouldn't be hard to teach them to plug the car in when they are at home anywhere (many people park in a garage with an outlet - if this doesn't apply to you then PHEV doesn't make sense - you don't get enough range for your effort to find a charger)
For most in the US what makes the most sense today is one PHEV they use for long trips and towing the boat. The rest should be pure EVs, which have enough range for the typical trips and the few exceptions they just reserve the PHEV that day. As time goes on more and more chargers will be built and eventually pure EV for everything will make sense, but right not there isn't enough charging infrastructure. (You can get almost anywhere in the US, but the trip is planned around where the next charger is, not where either you feel like stopping or where the battery is low - gas stations are at nearly every exit, fast chargers 1 in 30 exits or something in that range)
PHEVs when you already own them cost vastly less in electric mode. That people don't bother plugging them in is because they don't care about cost enough to bother to see if there is a difference.
It’s also because most PHEVs sold are terrible EVs. Weak, short range, cut to gas all the time. Impractical to use as a pure ev. This style of phev is greenwashing and should be sold as a gas car for emissions rules.
EREVs are a different story, and have a place in the transition for awhile.
This doesn't make them terrible! This makes them great. That means they can run 80% of the time as an EV, yet use the ICE just enough to not ever have stale gas in the tank. As a driver you barely notice, and someone outside will have no clue what mode it is operating in. (wind noise is louder than the ICE)
When there are fast chargers on every corner like gas stations are PHEV will make less sense. However in the world I live in today an EV can do a road trip but it forces you to plan your stops around where there is a charger, while with gas can still assume it will be close when you need it. This will change over the coming years, for now I won't take my EV on a road trip, but my PHEV has done it several times.
PHEV feels good on paper, but in ICE mode they’re terrible. On a recent long road trip they do about 14km/L with a fully charged EV range of 50km. Quite inefficient to lug a petrol engine and a semi large battery all the time.
Indeed. I’m holding on to my 24” Dell P2415Q that I got like 10 years ago because it’s the perfect size for my desk and there just isn’t anything in that size to replace it with.
reply