Dear Jeff Bezos, instead of firing me, protect your workers from coronavirus

Huge indictment of capitalism that we have an unbelievably high level of productive capacity and can't do any of these things: make hospital equipment including ventilators; produce enough masks; keep hospitals open (there has been a steady trend of closures brought on by financialization (profiteering) and mergers); train adequate numbers of hospital staff; and the most ridiculous so far is every business is desperately trying to stay open even for non-essential things, like Amazon.

Profiteering is undercutting every possible thing. The profit motive over a democratically planned economy is horrible most of the time but really becomes a mess in a crisis.

But sometimes we get cheap flat screen TVs, so it's impossible to say whether capitalism is bad or not.

(with thanks to dril: https://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762)

If your life depended on getting a flat screen TV, capitalism would ensure that it costs you $25K if you're uninsured, or a $500 deductible if you're insured, whereby your insurer pays another $8K due to either being big enough to negotiate, or else being owned by the same company.

> The profit motive over a democratically planned economy is horrible most of the time but really becomes a mess in a crisis.

Why not have bread lines only in a crisis, when you can have them all the time instead?

You know, there's a vast spectrum of economic policy options between central planning and laissez faire, and you don't even have to be consistent about which gets picked for each industry. I think the OP was advocating for a different spot on that spectrum for certain things, not one of the extremes for everything.

This is not a "hey, maybe we should require some stockpiles" like they do in Switzerland (didn't stockpile enough masks, sadly enough).

The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position.

Developed countries all find some balance between central planning and laissez faire, but they do so by assuming the free market as the default. Intervention and central planning is only applied to specific cases where there is a concrete public interest in doing so.

This comment is very ignorant about:

1. how often capitalism has bread lines in countries economically linked to, but outside of, the US and other rich capitalist countries, in the "global south";

2. the fact that bread lines in "socialist" (but not actually socialist) countries like Venezuela are in large part due to US policy and sanctions, and are over-reported anyway;

and 3. the fact that socialism has never been tried in a fair way because it is an existential threat to the wealth of people like Jeff Bezos, who prefer to strangle it in the cradle instead.

But thank you for regurgitating the ignorant "bread lines!" trope when there are actual, literal bread lines in the US right now!

> But thank you for regurgitating the ignorant "bread lines!" trope when there are actual, literal bread lines in the US right now!

I am aware that there are actual bread lines right now, as implied by my original statement.

Of course, the bread lines we are facing has more to do with (at present) a rapid shock in demand, rather than actual food shortages.

Whereas in actual historical socialist countries (like Soviet Russia, East Germany, etc.) did actually have shortages on a regular basis.

> the fact that socialism has never been tried in a fair way because it is an existential threat to the wealth of people like Jeff Bezos, who prefer to strangle it in the cradle instead.

There is no notion more riddled with folly and arrogance that "socialism has never properly been tried". That the USSR was defeated and China was bullied into submission by the likes of a few wealthy corporations is nonsense.

> The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position.

No. You just seem to have reacted reflexively seeing the word "planned" placed next to the word "economy," without seeking any clarification or understanding or even really putting it in context.

The OP was clearly focused on criticizing prioritization of profit-seeking over all other interests, and the corrosive effect that has had on our ability to respond to this present crisis.

> Developed countries all find some balance between central planning and laissez faire, but they do so by assuming the free market as the default. Intervention and central planning is only applied to specific cases where there is a concrete public interest in doing so.

And you know what? This crisis is uncovering a lot of areas where less laissez faire and more government intervention would have been "concretely in the public interest."

The market system is an imperfect means to an end, not an end itself.

You might want to make your comment again without using the phrase "planned economy". It doesn't matter that you're probably using it to mean "an economy under the active influence of a government through large work orders in response to a crisis"; many economically versed individuals will take a gigantic dump on you regardless because they figure you're dog-whistling communism, intentionally or not.

Just figured you may want to know, because you have a decent point.

Thank you, but I know. I am actually promoting state ownership and democratic control of all important, nationally coordinated industries. I am a marxist. I don’t mean Stalinism, but a level of democratic, worker-controlled socialism never seen before (although people who hate socialism don’t care about the distinction anyway).

I also believe that while many people are allergic to this right now, especially on meritocracy-loving hacker news, over time, this position will become more popular with most people because capitalism is structurally unable to solve its own problems and increasingly people’s recognition of that will overcome their fear of the unknown.

I think this has a lot of intellectual appeal. Capitalism has done a lot of progressive things and nationally coordinated, centralized industry is incredible. People often point that out and they’re right. But the economy and industry we have now is socially operated - through an international division of labor from farmers to programmers - even though it is privately owned and run not to satisfy the needs of workers and people, but to increase profits. This central contradiction between how production is organized - profit for those who own capital - and who runs it and who it should benefit - everyone, as decided democratically - is behind the dysfunction and social crises we’re rapidly plunging into.

Hold onto your seat! Things are going to get crazy, and I recommend reading Marx, he’s a lot more lucid and clear thinking than people who go half way like Bernie. In the meantime I’m not worried about people who dump on me for the horrors of “communism” because they sound more absurd every week.

You're still being disingenuous because you aren't dealing with the point he was actually making.

His point was that capitalism's optimization function steered us in the direction whereby most of our "wealth" in this country is derived from the assumption of intact and normal flowing international supply chains to fuel the engine of consumerism instead of being based on the actual capability to produce and deliver finished product from raw material in a time of crisis or otherwise.

Globalism has spelled doom in the sense that we haven't been making sure to maintain our own industrial capability, while instead raking in as much "capital" return by exploiting the wage gap found internationally. Yet as soon as that decision bit us in the ass, our capability as a lone nation to take care of our owm has essentially been sold off to the lowest bidder elsewhere, who is now more than happy to turn around and hold said resources hostage as diplomatic leverage.

But no, please. Yet another entertaining and predictable rant about the socialist boogeyman would be great. Has the bonus of distracting from the actual problem as well, so kills two birds with one stone. /s

I'm so tired of hearing people hit stop points over capitalism vs. the merest notion that a nation should have some level of influence over the market and industrial infrastructure it maintains in the interests it's own security.

0x is absolutely fucking right. Unrestrained capitalism encourages selling the jewels right out from under the nation that is dependent and instrumental to the very jewel's existence. No goddamn pile of dollar bills or IOU's is capable of taking the place of actual, physical, manufacturing capability ready to go, unreliant on unreliable trade partners in a time of crisis. It's a case of personal safety, writ large.

The fantasy of a world pacified through economic interdependence was a bloody sham from the beginning, made even worse by the vices of the ultra-wealthy, and exacerbated even more by the aspirations of the swathes of temporarily inconvenienced billionaires that seek to figure out how to get on top of the carriage one day so maybe they get their turn at playing the part of the "Invisible Hand".

So I counter your Socialist boogeyman once again with "look at where your Global Capitalist paradise got you: Diplomatic tensions through the roof, your primary economic rival holding most of the relevant industrial cards; an isolated population, paralyzed by a virus you can do nil about because you sold/didn't build the factories, a collapsing economy, and in the same breadlines the "Socialists" you so despise are in".

So quit the bloody rhetorical posturing. It's all been said and it does nothing to help with the problems at hand. The country needs to industrially mobilize once more: without the crutch of foreign powers oh so eager to provide a workforce on the condition we show them how to build the actually challenging bits and leave all the physical assets with them, to be held hostage the first time things get tough.

I have no grudge against the Chinese or anyone else at the moment. We're all in this pandemic, so they're going to do what hi.ans do and look after themselves. If anything,I'm more pissed off that my own country which so pounds the drum of being responsible and self-sufficient has been on the global trade dole to the point it's forgotten how to pick itself up and go without squabbling over who gets the contract, and how hard can I screw my workers.

> No. You just seem to have reacted reflexively seeing the word "planned" placed next to the word "economy," without seeking any clarification or understanding or even really putting it in context.

I don't how one could see the phrase "planned economy" and not think the OP meant something other than "planned economy". One can criticize profit motive and not promote a planned economy. The OP is literally a self-professed Trotskyist[0].

> And you know what? This crisis is uncovering a lot of areas where less laissez faire and more government intervention would have been "concretely in the public interest."

Please do tell.

> The market system is an imperfect means to an end, not an end itself.

No one said it was an end unto itself.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22698823

As 0x262d has pointed out to you, they are a literal Marxist[0]. You are projecting your positions (some of which I would agree, and did not argue with) onto them.

I am arguing against 0x262d's actual, explicit, literal Marxism.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22773948

>economically versed individuals

Economically versed individuals would agree with the parent comment, not yours.

> I am arguing against 0x262d's actual, explicit, literal Marxism.

0x262d's positions actually seem pretty reasonable and interesting, though we'd probably find disagreement if we got deeper into details.

I don't know much about Marxism, but I do know it's broader and more varied than some strawman desire for a Soviet Union Part Deux. I also think it will be possible to transcend capitalism without disaster, and libertarians have done a good job convincing me that's a worthy topic to think about and a worthy goal to work towards.

So you do acknowledge that, contrary to your initial claim, 0x262d was in fact arguing for central planning?

>> And you know what? This crisis is uncovering a lot of areas where less laissez faire and more government intervention would have been "concretely in the public interest."

> Please do tell.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/business/coronavirus-us-v...

> Thirteen years ago, a group of U.S. public health officials came up with a plan to address what they regarded as one of the medical system’s crucial vulnerabilities: a shortage of ventilators....

> Money was budgeted. A federal contract was signed. Work got underway.

> And then things suddenly veered off course. A multibillion-dollar maker of medical devices bought the small California company that had been hired to design the new machines. The project ultimately produced zero ventilators....

> The stalled efforts to create a new class of cheap, easy-to-use ventilators highlight the perils of outsourcing projects with critical public-health implications to private companies; their focus on maximizing profits is not always consistent with the government’s goal of preparing for a future crisis....

> Government officials and executives at rival ventilator companies said they suspected that Covidien had acquired Newport to prevent it from building a cheaper product that would undermine Covidien’s profits from its existing ventilator business....

> In 2014, with no ventilators having been delivered to the government, Covidien executives told officials at the biomedical research agency that they wanted to get out of the contract, according to three former federal officials. The executives complained that it was not sufficiently profitable for the company.

That's just something I read recently.

There's also the general fact that capitalists love efficiency and hate excess capacity, which means they tend to sacrifice resiliency. There's no profit today in maintaining capability to handle a disruption in a socially beneficial way, so they specialize for their hothouse environment. Heck, if some apologists for price-gouging had their way, such a firm could even profit handsomely from a crisis they failed to prepare for.

That's beyond absurd. So we get cheap, unnecessary items, while many don't have access to healthcare, are homeless, are literally starving, or all three and that somehow makes it impossible to say whether capitalism is good or bad? I'd say that fact alone makes US capitalism bad. Trading millions of lives for cheap TVs and other garbage. I really hope you were joking but knowing this forum, that's probably too much to hope.

> So you do acknowledge that, contrary to your initial claim, 0x262d was in fact arguing for central planning?

No, because that wasn't my original claim. My position was that we explore how he understands the concept of "democratically planned economy" rather than jumping to Soviet conclusions. It's really all in the details.

it is a meme and is meant sarcastically, see the linked tweet.

> No, because that wasn't my original claim.

I said:

> The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position.

And you said: "No".

Either you were saying "no" to my assertion that the OP was advocating for central planning by default, or you were saying "no" to my assertion that such a position is extreme. Please clarify.

> My position was that we explore how he understands the concept of "democratically planned economy" rather than jumping to Soviet conclusions.

OP is a self-professed literal Trotskyist. Trotskyists were (among) the original Soviets. I'm not jumping to any conclusions. It is quite plainly implied by the label.

> There's also the general fact that capitalists love efficiency and hate excess capacity, which means they tend to sacrifice resiliency.

I do actually agree with this criticism.

> There's no profit today in maintaining capability to handle a disruption in a socially beneficial way, so they specialize for their hothouse environment. Heck, if some apologists for price-gouging had their way, such a firm could even profit handsomely from a crisis they failed to prepare for.

So here's an interesting question: if charging extra for items in high-demand during a crisis (price-gouging) were legal, would there be enough?

Consider that housing inventory can be a cost, and that for many companies controlling costs is a necessary step if they want to stay in business. They might even want to have some excess inventory to handle shocks in demand. But if they can't charge more for selling goods that are in their reserve inventory, then they won't be able to cover the costs of holding onto that inventory for so long.

Those costs exist, and society has to pay them, even when the government is the one holding the reserves. Now, if we don't want consumers to have to pay the extra cost during a crisis (which is fair, because many people might have lost their jobs) we could just have the government step in and pay the difference.

It may seem like it would be rewarding price-gouging, but all it would be doing would be to delay government paying the cost to warehouse reserves.

What's more, is that the government would only be paying for those reserve goods that it would actually need. There are an endless number of goods that could possibly be needed in a disaster; stocking up on them all would be untenable. Allowing corporations to do most of that work would drastically reduce the burden on the government (and the average citizen).

Lastly, even when government's prepare, they don' know all of what those needs might be (again, the example of Switzerland not stocking up enough of masks).

NOTE: I am not saying I am OK with people price-gouging for goods already on the market. I'm just talking through a situation where a legal change might allow corporations to have better incentives with regard to disaster preparedness and redress the flaw we both see in the current system.

Thank you for taking things at face value instead of hysterically posting that I am a Trotskyist, I appreciate it! I have one comment here which is that soviet is just the Russian word for council and originally meant bottom-up, democratic structures of workers and soldiers that eventually took power because they and only they were willing to end WWI, give land to the peasants, and break the power of the capitalist class. Then, due mostly to Russia's extreme backwardness as well as attack by literally 28 capitalist countries including all the previous belligerents of WW1, the USSR degenerated into a bureaucratic monstrosity that fetishized the word "soviet".

The original Bolsheviks predicted this and had no hope of success without socialism being achieved in a rich country and coming to their aid; Russia did not have the economic basis for socialism. As Trotsky put it, "When there is little bread, the purchasers are compelled to stand in line. When the lines are very long, it is necessary to appoint a policeman to keep order. Such is the starting point of the power of the Soviet bureaucracy."

Capitalism is hurtling towards revolutionary crisis and stopping it is impossible, but if we achieve socialism on a better basis than Russia did, I'm optimistic we can overcome their specific problems. This has to be dramatically more democratic than Russia but the comparison point is, right now, nurses are fired if they wear masks in many hospitals (https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/kaiser-permanente-nurses...). We have the economic basis to transcend this, we just have to do it.

> Thank you for taking things at face value instead of hysterically posting that I am a Trotskyist, I appreciate it!

I'm just quoting your own words[0].

I get the impression that many people are used to seeing more moderate, mainstream progressive positions slurred with the label "Communist" (with a capital C), and sought to cast your position in a more moderate light. I don't see anything inaccurate in characterize you as a Communist (of which Trotskyists are a flavor). You're certainly welcome to own and defend that position, but it is undeniably an extreme position (even on the Internet).

I can also understand if some want to distinguish socialism (or their own variant of it) from the strain(s) that produced the USSR, perhaps in order to avoid the stigma, no such distinction is possible in your case. Any such association is something you have to deal with directly.

> I have one comment here which is that soviet is just the Russian word for council and originally meant bottom-up, democratic structures of workers and soldiers that eventually took power because they and only they were willing to end WWI, give land to the peasants, and break the power of the capitalist class.

There are other interpretations that paint the revolution in a somewhat dimmer light[1].

> Then, due mostly to Russia's extreme backwardness as well as attack by literally 28 capitalist countries including all the previous belligerents of WW1, the USSR degenerated into a bureaucratic monstrosity that fetishized the word "soviet".

> The original Bolsheviks predicted this and had no hope of success without socialism being achieved in a rich country and coming to their aid; Russia did not have the economic basis for socialism. As Trotsky put it, "When there is little bread, the purchasers are compelled to stand in line. When the lines are very long, it is necessary to appoint a policeman to keep order. Such is the starting point of the power of the Soviet bureaucracy."

"I was brutal to my own people because my enemies were mean" is a terrible justification the atrocities committed by the USSR, both at the beginning and throughout the decades of it's reign of terror.

> Capitalism is hurtling towards revolutionary crisis and stopping it is impossible, but if we achieve socialism on a better basis than Russia did, I'm optimistic we can overcome their specific problems.

In principle I think it's reasonable to discuss why the Russian revolution failed to achieve it's objectives, and whether we could achieve them ourselves. Whitewashing the crimes does not lead me to think it will be a fruitful discussion in this context.

> This has to be dramatically more democratic than Russia but the comparison point is, right now, nurses are fired if they wear masks in many hospitals (https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/kaiser-permanente-nurses...).

Saying that (the lack of) democratic planning of the economy or the healthcare system has anything to do with nurses being fired for wearing masks (which is truly a terrible tragedy) is illogical. All it takes to deal with that problem is the willingness to put the truth above controlling public perception, something which the USSR[2] and it's Western[3] sympathizers were not especially good at.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22698823 [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty