As a socialist, I would argue those are both inevitable outcomes of capitalism.
First market forces incentivize consolidation (which imo killed off the vibrant early internet...), then a few players got really powerful.
Once you have that much money and power, and given the inevitable corruptability of politicians, it makes sense to try and use that money to try and manipulate market rules in your favor.
The evolution of the internet has been an in-vitro demonstration of capitalism failure modes and as somebody who liked the internet, that's very unfortunate.
OK. We were told creative destruction is good, if some companies exit the market and are replaced by others that offer better value then resources are being allocated more efficiently, no?
It does appear that people prefer the convenience of internet shopping, though I also see that other firms still successfully apply the catalog model in specific markets, eg Harbor Freight which does this for construction tools.
People don't voluntarily lose money. Understand that and the world will way more understandable.
But nobody is arguing that they do. Rather, I'm saying that if some companies lose money on selling clothes and exit the market, there's nothing wrong with that.
Any name brand would rather send their unsold clothes to a landfill in India rather than allow their wealthy customers to see poor people wearing the clothes.
It's very very easy to spend much less on clothes. Buying a new handbag every 6 months vs maintaining a bag for 20 years isn't that much different in terms of effort, but one is unbelievably more expensive.
Man it would really make my day if all the homeless people started walking around in Prada and Gucci. That would probably be just thing to kill off these brands for good.
How would we tell if the homeless started wearing Balenciaga though? Most of that trash already looks like it was lifted off the back of a homeless person (and one who is hard on his clothes)!
Some perspectives would say that they serve no real purpose other than performative wealth display and distribution. They appeal to everyone at fundamental psychological levels to "fit in" with a popular trend or "in group".
Their actual quality is often no better than other manufactured goods. It is their perceived quality and style that are the entire reason their brands exist.
(and... I can admit that certain "luxury brands" are definitely appealing to me personally, even if they make little "logical sense" to own - maybe not clothing so much, but... watches...)
Perhaps not but in the context of this discussion and legislation it is pertinent question to ask, perhaps not of you specifically but of the wider audience.
Brand value particularly for commodity products is usually just a form of information asymmetry between consumers and suppliers, and creates economic inefficiency since it diverts expenditure from other products that can materially improve lives. It also allows enshittification to happen since it creates inertia (brand loyalty) to switching, and the positive brand image sticks around for longer than the actual good quality products.
That is a slightly different scenario than taking cheap "fast fashion waste", compressing it into bales, shoving it into shipping containers, transporting/dumping it and flooding local countries/markets.
(And many of these large shipments do not end-up as donations by the time they get to their destination, but are actually sold by weight and then resold again)
But yes - distribution/logistics of donated goods needed to those who need them should be a "solved problem", but unfortunately it is not - regulations could help. (In countries/regions where governments actually WANT to regulate and then subsequently FOLLOW the regulations rather than cancel, ignore or throw them out entirely... Pretty sure everyone knows which country I am referring too...)
It seems very clear that the EU and EU leaders had that plan for a long time but that was always a hard sell to the public (even played a part in the Brexit referendum). Ukraine and the current US administration are used tactically to sell the plan to the public.
It is being very naive and gullible not to see that.
Re. JD Vance, I think he actually hit the nail on the head and that's why the reactions from the EU and EU leaders were so strong to attack and discredit him.
I wish we had done this 30 years ago, but EU leaders were weak cowards that had no such plans until they finally had to face reality.
We either get torn apart between the major powers or we become a major power ourself. To deny this simple fact is suicidal and I do not wish to be pulled to ruin with you.
Claiming that a course of action is the only way and that there is no alternative, and that opposing it is being an enemy, a traitor, or "suicidal", is an age old trick, too.
In this case, claiming that giving up on our countries as sovereign states must happen to compete against China or the US is an obvious oxymoron and rather insane.
I welcome you to suggest an alternative. Just saying there is one is not enough. How do you envision, idk, Lithuania surviving between Russia and the US?
(I would also invite you to look up the meaning of the term oxymoron, because I do not see how it even fits the sentence here.)
I don't see how the US are an existential threat to Lithuania. Anyway my point is that Lithuania does not survive by committing suicide, which is what disappearing in a federal Europe is... and that's where the oxymoron and fallacy lie.
To give up being an independent and sovereign country to become a province of a federal EU is indeed national suicide, literally. It's choosing death as a country.
Facing he "Russian threat" obviously does not require this, this is a transparent fallacy and scare tactic to push the EU narrative. Europe faced a worse Russian threat during the Cold War without giving up national sovereignty. Cooperation and military alliances do not require national suicide.
Your replies are very good illustrations of the dellusion and, really post-truth disinformation we are constantly fed in Europe, unfortunately if you do believe what you write. This is becoming very sinister.
The Baltic states used to be in the USSR so I doubt that they would be willing to surrender their sovereignty again. Perhaps that's exactly why the people are never asked if that's what they want!
> Europe faced a worse Russian threat during the Cold War without giving up national sovereignty.
That's because Europe could rely on the power of the US back then. If the US was just a patchwork of small independent states, Europe would very likely be a part of USSR now.
> Cooperation and military alliances do not require national suicide.
It may if your opponent is a single large country. Cooperation between many nations each looking out for their own best interests is a lot lot harder and slower than a single command structure. An alliance like that can't win against a more united enemy. The enemy can simply focus on manipulating the small weak countries individually to hamstring the alliance, as has been happening.
I would not want to be a small country caught between larger powers fighting each other, that's never a good position to be in. You'll just be a pawn on the board, getting pushed into proxy wars and civil wars by the bigger powers playing the game. I'd rather give up sovereignty willingly to be a part of a large power and a player in the game, and not on the board being played.
On the other hand, it is reasonable to argue that the alternative has been tried for decades and didn't work. Moreover, since the stakes have gotten so much higher with China's ascendency, it is worth the risk.
When you keep on giving money to a friend to help them, they never learn to stand on their own feet. It creates a dependency not of true friendship, but of subservience.
Risk worth taking. The EU and China have vastly different political, economic, and social orientation, so while they might align more closely on some things, I think America and the EU will always be much closer to each other.
There's two core Marxist concepts that precisely describe what you're feeling: Tendency of the rate of profit to fall [0] and worker alienation [1].
As AI automates more, the "value" of a single line of code drops. To stay profitable, capitalism forces you into a "frenzied" race to produce massive volume at breakneck speed.
You're effectively turned from a craftsman into a manager of machines - alienating you from the actual act of creation.
Stepping back to "think" could be argued is nothing less than you being a good Marxist - rebelling against a system that only ever asks "how much" instead of "why".
It's not the best explanation of the actual socioeconomic theory though, it was written more as a political ad, if you will.
If you're more interested in the actual theory, I'd recommend Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy [0].
In that book, these are particularly relevant:
The introduction
This is basically a systems thinking level analysis of the economy and a good primer.
The note about machinery, production and capital [1]
This talks pretty much exactly about machines increasing productivity, the implications for the worker and even speculates about workers one day just becoming "regulators of automated systems".
(2) General relation between production, distribution, exchange and consumption
Talks about the mechanisms behind the "frenzy". Heavy on the philosophical theory.
First market forces incentivize consolidation (which imo killed off the vibrant early internet...), then a few players got really powerful.
Once you have that much money and power, and given the inevitable corruptability of politicians, it makes sense to try and use that money to try and manipulate market rules in your favor.
The evolution of the internet has been an in-vitro demonstration of capitalism failure modes and as somebody who liked the internet, that's very unfortunate.
reply