←back to thread

122 points throw0101b | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.898s | source
Show context
flyinghamster ◴[] No.44442487[source]
Um, why was someone's perfectly reasonable take downvoted to oblivion? Too much of a newcomer? Too many Welch devotees here?

As far as I'm concerned, Welch turned GE from an industrial behemoth that more than lived up to its name, to a pale shadow of itself that has sold off almost everything. "Outsource Everything" has been an absolute disaster for our economy that will take decades to dig out of, if we even have the will to try.

replies(4): >>44442573 #>>44442590 #>>44443034 #>>44443194 #
bit1993 ◴[] No.44442590[source]
It is easy to look at Globalization in retrospect and conclude that it was a failure but you will miss all the advances it brought with it. Globalization has its place and time, it was the logical next step after the USA industrialization peaked the next step to squeeze out even more from the economy.
replies(2): >>44442611 #>>44443042 #
camillomiller ◴[] No.44442611[source]
We could have had exactly the same and possibly more if it weren’t for people like Welch. They were a hindrance to how globalization could have brought a lot more of shared wealth and less inequality
replies(1): >>44442653 #
bit1993 ◴[] No.44442653[source]
> They were a hindrance to how globalization could have brought a lot more of shared wealth and less inequality

That is not how capitalism works.

replies(2): >>44442693 #>>44442885 #
pyrale ◴[] No.44442885[source]
Says who?
replies(1): >>44443115 #
bit1993 ◴[] No.44443115[source]
Capitalism is a zero sum game.
replies(3): >>44443278 #>>44443299 #>>44443531 #
ben_w ◴[] No.44443531[source]
Falsified by the global economic growth in the period between Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

Once we reach the end of the road for further invention and improvements (even if that is in the form of our own capacity and theoretically there's more), that's when capitalism becomes zero sum. Until than point, capitalism is a way of distributing more resources to people who are better at finding those improvements.

replies(1): >>44443809 #
otikik ◴[] No.44443809[source]
It's doing the opposite of distributing. It's concentrating resources into a smaller and smaller selection of individuals.
replies(1): >>44444068 #
1. ben_w ◴[] No.44444068[source]
"Distributing" doesn't require "evenly". Amazon has distribution centres, they don't send stuff to all customers equally regardless of what is ordered.

The entire foundational assumption of (Smith's) capitalism is the idea that people who are better at making a profit are exactly who should be given more money to work with, and that this benefits all of society — and while I will agree that the phrase "trickle down economics" doesn't fit reality of the behaviour of billionaires (who act more like aristocrats), that's where that phrase comes from, and it seems to often work up to deca-millionaires at least.

The flaw with this (even in the case of millionaires) is it presumes no parasites. As it happens, both Smith and Marx noticed this, but as history shows, the proponents extolling the virtues of each were not very effective at preventing economic parasites.

replies(1): >>44444611 #
2. otikik ◴[] No.44444611[source]
I don't think I agree.

If I read an article that titled "this NGO is distributing food and medical aid to the refugees of the conflict" and then on the body of the article I find out that a single guy got all the supplies and the rest got nothing, I would consider the title very misleading.

replies(1): >>44444901 #
3. ben_w ◴[] No.44444901[source]
A single guy?

I'd count that as a sorites problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

But the distribution for wealth under capitalism isn't "one" person, and capitalism wouldn't work if it was, because nobody else could buy anything with the money, and therefore everyone else would invent a new currency or barter, and then all the money which that one person has would be worthless.

replies(1): >>44445171 #
4. otikik ◴[] No.44445171{3}[source]
Depending on the size of the imaginary conflict, "a single guy" could very well be right.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly...