Can you elaborate? Who is crony to whom here? Everyone in the exchange gives the information willingly... people here talk a lot about salary sharing, so here you go, your employer is doing salary sharing with other employers. Someone else facilitates it and makes money. What's wrong with that?
I know why I am going to freeze my data, I don't want employers to know my past salaries - but that's anti-capitalist, I am removing information from the market to give myself an edge in negotiations, and to propagate inequality. Equifax don't have to do it on "capitalist" principles, but they allow me to do that... the only crony thing is the opt-out form I guess ;)
I think it’s hard to look at what capitalism has become today and say much positive about it.
I say this as someone who works in investment finance where we sell semi-rich semi-professional investors the opportunity to become richer by building solar and wind power plants, and selling them when they are fully operational. Which is about as positive as it gets in capitalism in my experience, considering we’re actually helping the world move in the right direction as far as climate change goes.
It is, however, still contributing to the inequality in the world. I had a lot of experience from the Danish public sector digitalisation before joining my current company, and I have a second job as an external examiner for CS students, so it is fair to say that I’m likely in the top 10% of paid developers in my region. If you invest with us, you can make 10 million Danish kroner into 20 million Danish kroner in 5-10 years, and while you do so by fighting climate change, I make around 1 million Danish kroner in savings over 10 years, as one of the better paid non top-level managers in my country.
As you’ve probably guessed I’m Danish, and we’re probably famous for our take on society in that all our political parties are basically a different colour of social democrats, and we have been like this since what is essentially the dawn of modern Denmark, so equality is a big part of our society, as in, if a private company builds an apartment complex in the most attractive part of our city, they are required by law to make at least 10% of those apartment available for rent to the “common people” at the cities disposal. That’s how much we care about equality, and the best example of capitalism we have is making rich people much richer by basically doing nothing.
Another thing we are famous for is community ownerships. The best example is that we have two major supermarket chains, one is owned by investors the other is owned by the people who shop there. Guess which one has been driving positive change forward, repeatedly been reinvesting in its own business and it’s employees and under covid sent 100% of its profits on things like clothes on to small clothing stores that were closed due to lockdown?
Now I’ve ranted for a while, and it may sound like I’m getting somewhere, but I’m actually not. Because the issue with co-operative ownership is that it makes it very hard to start something new. The big co-operative ownership organisations we have typically came to be by a lot of smaller organisations joining together after they were established. The solar farms we build are a good example of this in play. We’re going to build a couple of thousand of them over the next five years and while non-profits movements have certainly helped made it a profitable area, no one outside of private investors are going to build even close to this amount. So how do you change the world without capitalism?
The answer is probably in taxing the rich, but good luck with that.
I'm a foreigner with a Danish job and I very much like the country. It's refreshingly different. Money is still very important but I think infinitely less so compared to the states; it isn't what motivates people.
It's also interesting to note that Denmark has negative interest rates and anyone with more than 100k DKK is really quite punished for keeping it in the bank. I'm glad that your company provides a vehicle for the upper middle classes to use their wealth well. What's it called? And what's the name of the two supermarkets you mentioned (is one of them Føtex?)
I’m not going to name my employer, but I agree that it’s an excellent vessel for the upper middle class to invest their money.
I wish more entrepreneurs saw the value in semi-professional and maybe even small time investors and green energy investment. Exactly because it gives people more opportunities when they rank up the 100k Danish kroner to reach the negative interest, and green energy is still in a place where everyone can have an impact and see nice returns.
I think one should not forget that Denmark's society is mostly homogenous.
When you have a vastly dominant, culturally homogenous group, it's relatively easy to trust and support one another.
In a highly diverse country like the US, where the average New Yorker or new immigrant will have a completely different culture and world view from the average Joe in Missouri, and that's just two examples out of many, it's very difficult to build a culture of mutual trust, especially in comparison to the level of support Scandinavian countries offer to their communities.
I hate hearing this argument. Simply because I'm living proof of the opposite: I'm not a native Swede, I immigrated here, I integrated into society by looking at its values, identifying with most of them and sharing those forward. I became a Swede and it has nothing to do with being born Nordic or into a homogeneous culture.
This hand-waving argument on why America is exceptional is really misplaced. America has issues because it has a big population and manages everything in terms of money. Money is the religion of the USA, it's the ideology of the country and when the only metric you use to gauge anything is on how much will be spent and how much return it will give in monetary terms, you end up with a deeply fractured web of perverse incentives and misplaced cooperation to juggle one metric: money.
America was built in a culture of mistrust, it came from inception and it never fought it. Distrust from centralised government, distrust in others (hence having guns, you don't trust you'll be protected from others so you need to take matters into your hands), distrust in commercial relationships, in personal relationships. It makes society feels fake and shallow, like everyone is just playing a part. There is just a lack of communal sense in everything regarding American culture, it's all about individualism and the self.
Sweden may be seen as a communal society but it's really not that simple, I like to say that Sweden is the most communal individualistic country I've been to, people still value self-reliance and individualism, while also keeping in mind a holistic view of society.
I wish Americans could see past this exceptionalism and move towards building something based on trust, it'd be a force to be reckoned with. Right now it's just a huge waste of bickering and pettiness all around, every single issue in America is amplified by this huge egoistic mindset.
You make some fair points about money and mistrust but the parent's argument is not unfair. You mention that you "became a Swede" by adopting Sweden's values. America doesn't have one unified set of values due to being so big. Sweden is smaller than Ohio by population. Ohioans generally share some values, but they are quite different than people in Massachusetts or Mississippi. America is closer to the EU's scale, and the EU has plenty of idealogical differences between member states. Do the Greeks trust that the Germans are looking out for their best interests?
Like dtwest says, you have embraced the local culture.
If someone from let's say, a rural village in central Asia, will immigrate to Sweden and will hold on to their original culture, I doubt the average Swedish guy will be as happy to pay that guy's medical bills, the same way they'd do for someone who does holds a similar culture.
The reason the US does nothing about climate change, privacy, inequality, etc. is lack of homogeneity? I'd like to see some evidence of the connection. Most of those policies are opposed by the same political grouping. The US has accomplished plenty of things in the past.
Homogeneity depends on the definition of the groups. Most people in the US speak English, have a smartphone, etc. The US has long unified behind ideas - democracy, liberty, civil rights, and opportunity for all, a more perfect union, but that same political grouping has significantly abandoned them (i.e., the 'for all' aspect, which is all that matters). When we look at 'ethnic' heterogeneity (often based on little but bias) the US has always been heterogeneous. For example, Italian and Polish, Protestant and Catholic, etc. used to be very separate groups. The definitions of the groups has always been flexible and convenient.
Finally, the parent argument implicitly accounts racism to the conditions, rather than to the people choosing it - a convenient cover for personal behavior. It also fits a popular trend saying that negative outcomes and human evil are inevitable. It's not inevitable at all; we certainly have good and evil in us, and we have the free will to choose which we do - an ancient belief of the Bible, the Enlightenment, etc. Racial division is a choice. There is nothing more inevitable about it than Protestants hating Catholics. Humans have done good things and bad things, and democracy - overwhelmingly the most successful form of government in history - has succeeded by depending on the good in people. You can do it right now.
Why would people look for arguments that success is impossible? We have accomplished incredible things and have much more to do.
I wasn't referring to climate change, etc. when I replied to the nice Danish fellow. I was mostly referring to his note regarding the sense of community and equality in Denmark.
My point is that cultural dissimilarity creates a lot of mistrust and frustration. If I don't have the same common goal as my neighbor, and we have a completely different style--our chances to be in conflict are a lot higher, and so my likeliness of wanting to help him out are much lower.
I'm from Israel, and even if you look just at the Jewish demography, the differences between the different groups, are huge -- even though we all speak Hebrew, part of the Jewish culture/religion in some way, etc.
The life goals of a secular Jew in Tel-Aviv, could be almost the complete opposite of a religious Jew in Jerusalem -- you can imagine the conflict to be quite immense, and hence the sense of community greatly eliminated.
> cultural dissimilarity creates a lot of mistrust and frustration
As I said above, 'cultural dissimilarity' is a matter of perspective and changes all the time. And it doesn't create mistrust and frustration; people acting divisively and hatefully, and supporting systems that promote those things - people do it. There's not mechanism to blame. What are you doing? What am I doing?
>The reason the US does nothing about climate change, privacy, inequality, etc. is lack of homogeneity
I don't agree with the general point, but I do think the GOP funding class uses the US's heterogeneity as a wedge to distract from those issues (or anything else that would cost them money). See all of the culture wars.
What's the one big thing congress passed during the Trump years? The tax cut. That's not a mistake.
I used to think this, but I'm not sure the evidence actually supports it. The UK has similar levels of immigration and overseas-born citizens as Scandi countries, but nowhere near their levels of social cohesion/social democracy.
We were more similar < 1980, but I think the rhetoric from right wing corporate and billionaire-owned press, and now the internet, has eroded it to a large degree.
> According to 2021 figures from Statistics Denmark, 86% of Denmark's population of over 5,840,045 was of Danish descent, defined as having at least one parent who was born in Denmark and has Danish citizenship.
> The most recent Census in 2011 highlights that in England and Wales, 80 per cent of the population were white British
> from 2001 to 2011, the percentage of the population of England and Wales that was White British decreased from 87.4% to 80.5%
And I imagine that white British population has gone down in the past 10 years.
Denmark is one of the most homogeneous country in Europe.
But to support your claim, Italy is even more homogeneous than Denmark, around ~91% of the population is "Italian" and yet we can't even agree that southerners and northerners are the same people.
I think that in Denmark a small population living in highly dense cities with high homogeneity helps.
I've visited Italy quite a bit and been there for nearly two months in aggregate, spanning all regions in the north, and in the south spent weeks in parts like Puglia and Campagnia. My impression was that culturally, the Italians in the south are VERY different from the Italians in the north.
Even just the different driving style was very apparent.
Wouldn't you say that the cultural experience in a random village in Puglia will be very different from the random village in Trentino?
I am Italian, from Rome, but lived everywhere in Italy, from North to South, sometimes for long periods, sometimes for as long as a week.
What you noticed is true, but it's simply a reflection of past history, where Italy was a group of villages/towns independent (and often at war) with each other.
Italians are often chauvinists and defend local over global, no matter the evidence.
But, truth is there are more Sicilians in Lombardy than in Sicily, Rome is the largest city of Abruzzo (there are more people from Abruzzi in Rome than in L'Aquila, the capital of the region ) so what happens is that they recreate their local culture where they go and slowly with times the traditions become a mix that incorporate both cultures.
For example in Milan, where I lived for the past 8 years, it's easier to eat Sicilian, Pugliese or Chinese than a typical Milanese cuisine, but it's almost impossible to find a good Roman restaurant.
On the other hand, locally, the separation is usually stronger, it's true that culturally a random village from Trentino is different from a random village in Sicily (and there are historical reasons, Trentino is kinda an outlier in Italy, it's been Italian for a relatively short period) but it's also true that a random village near Palermo is different from a random village near Siracusa.
My parents come from a small town 100kms South of Rome and in that same town the eastern and western part speak two different variations of the same dialect and also the typical dishes are different. they are only fee kms apart.
My point is that in Denmark homogeneous population is only part of the reason, the most important one is being historically a united country under the same traditions that are valid throughout their territory and keep them together. Also a small population makes it easier, Denmark has the same population of an Italian region like Lazio, where, more or less, the culture is uniformally the same and the roman culture is more prominent than the rest of the country.
The UK is like Sweden, but Denmark (and Finland) are much more homogenous. And Sweden only retains social trust because it was still homogenous 20 years ago, most people don't realize they essentially live in Rio.
I'm a naturalised Swede, coming originally from Brazil, so I have plenty of hands-on experience to both be offended as to ask what the fuck are you talking about because it's a hugely racist take on multiple layers.
Let me know exactly your points on how Sweden is essentially Rio, I'd love to hear it.
1. Sweden is not the same as Denmark/Finland, it's not homogenous at all anymore, in that sense it's very similar to the UK
2. Social trust is still relatively high in Sweden (because of inertia) but it's eroding very quickly with increased heterogeneity and crime.
There's nothing racist about pointing this out, it's just a fact. Homogenous societies have much higher trust. I don't think this is racial, I think it's cultural.
When you have a very large inflow of people from completely different cultures, mostly with little education and without any ties to the host country, that will obviously create tension, and trust between people of the same culture, that speak the same language, is of course higher than between complete strangers, like a protestant Swede and a Muslim from Syria. Or even a Christian from Syria.
Sweden used to be a very safe country, with little crime and little inequality, and a homogenous culture. Now it's very quickly turning into a very unsafe place, with increasing inequality as immigrants form a huge underclass, while the upper middle classes have profited from exploding house prices, and the rich getting much much richer.
In many locations a majority of children don't speak Swedish at home, school results are plummeting.
Sweden has gone from a country where few people locked their doors to a society where the police recommends you to not wear jewellery in public, women are advised not to walk home alone and home invasions are booming. The well-off build safe rooms and hide in gated communities.
I think I will need some hard data and facts rather than your report. No, none of what I live or hear about in Sweden is anywhere close to Rio, that's my point on racism: you are exaggerating an issue that is not close at all in terms of impact and pervasiveness and using both points to push a racist narrative, that immigrants are causing the downfall of Sweden.
Yes, many of your points have some factual basis behind them but the exaggeration you take them up to is simply the rallying point of the far-right in Sweden, repeating those as if they are causing the doom of society is just fostering their agenda.
Immigration is an issue? Yes in some senses, not in others. You know what is much worse for Swedish society well-being and erosion of the social web? Neoliberalism policies, pushed since the 90s, to the 2000s and onwards. This creates huge fractures in society as you can watch with wealth inequality getting even higher.
Sweden is still, by all accounts globally, a very safe country. Does it have issues that were exacerbated by a huge influx of immigrants? Yes, of course, but Sweden also requires a large swath of ever-dwindling low-skilled workforce, jobs that no Swede would do for the pay are currently taken by immigrants. These immigrants are then able to access the larger system of education for their kids, which will in a generation or two bump them up.
I know that works because I have numerous friends coming from refugee families from Chile, Ethiopia, etc. that are 2nd generation here, and they became lawyers, architects, and so on.
All of your talking points are very similar to the propaganda pushed by SD so I believe you are caught in some echo chamber of those types. Please, get out of that, the world is not so gloomy and Swedish society is not destined to doom. It will be though if this type of narrative keeps being pushed.
You've never lived in Rio, the situation is much much worse than simply "don't wear jewelry and lock your doors"-type of issues... You simply can't grasp it and it's ok, you haven't experienced it in a way that's shaped and molded you as an adult.
I must warn you, I haven't lived in Sweden for almost a decade so saying that I'm saying the same things as "the far right extremists" in SD (who is actually a Social-Democratic party) doesn't really work. I really don't care if Nazis, Communists or cannibals share my concern.
> Sweden also requires a large swath of ever-dwindling low-skilled, workforce, jobs that no Swede would do for the pay are currently taken by immigrants
Which is more correct do you think:
1. Before mass immigration, Sweden had no dish washers, garbage collectors or cleaners, so we had to open the borders to cheap labour.
2. When we imported cheap labour, salaries for low skilled work imploded (sort of the point) and THEN Swedes stopped wanting to do these jobs for lower pay.
> Neoliberalism policies
What aspect of this, apart from importing cheap labour, do you think has "created huge fractures"? Sure, too many companies have been privatised, lots of first world corruption. But what could possibly be more disruptive than replacing a third of the population with low skilled, low paid people from completely different cultures?
> These immigrants are then able to access the larger system of education for their kids, which will in a generation or two bump them up.
This is not happening in Sweden to any useful extent and you are probably perfectly aware of that. School results for 2nd generation immigrants are abysmal, and criminality for many groups is sky high. Politicians have promised that "integration will work soon and the investment will pay off" for 40 years now, but it hasn't materialised. What makes you think it will ever happen?
> You simply can't grasp it and it's ok, you haven't experienced it in a way that's shaped and molded you as an adult.
I haven't even been there, I was flippant. But I think we should turn this around. I grew up in Sweden when it was the safest place on Earth, you grew up in Brazil. Who do you think has a better understanding of the decline of Swedish society? Do you think that perhaps you might be judging it by Brazilian standards, and that's why it's not "gloomy"?
> Sweden is still, by all accounts globally, a very safe country.
It's probably still safer than Rio, but it's definitely not "safe":
What is that based on? It seems circular: You blame 'heterogeneity' (a concept based on a myth), it is having no effect, so therefore people just must not realize it.
One reason for the previously very high trust that existed in Sweden is the homogenous population. Everyone spoke the same language, knew the same songs, had the same values. (Other reasons could include protestantism, the cold climate, low crime rates etc).
When the population is becoming very diverse, and as crime is increasing, trust falls. This is not speculation, it is well known. And it's happening in Sweden, it's just trailing behind. People over 40 grew up in one of the safest countries in human history, so it takes time for them to adjust to the new reality. In 30 years, trust in Sweden will approach Rio.
In the case of Sweden it's not a secret that crime has increased exactly because of immigration, since some immigrant groups are extremely over represented in crime stats.
Looking at crimes in general, people with both parents born outside of Sweden are about 3x more likely to commit crimes, and the over representation is even higher for violent crimes.
Looking at violent rape, 75% of assailants were born outside Europe.
There are very extensive statistics on this, and unfortunately they don't go away no matter how much you love people "that are different". Even calling people racists doesn't work, believe me they tried.
I am convinced that the way to change the world (not necessarily towards some altruistic nirvana but at least to avoid a dysfunctional, environmentally and socially disastrous dystopia) is by raising our education / communication game towards more honesty and transparency when discussing socioeconomic challenges and less obfuscation inane, monkey chest beating like conflicts.
Already any discussion that centers around "capitalism" is deeply problematic as it invariably takes enormously complex sets of laws, conventions and behavioral attitudes that varies materially (both historically and regionally) and forces it into a binary yes/no universe. You can't solve complex problems with random hammer blows on each others heads.
All of the constituent components of what we term "market democracy" must be examined not as what they say on the label, but what happens in practice. Just as a simple and single example: when politicians routinely enter revolving-door appointments to serve private interests how can we even pretend this is a feature of "capitalism".
The true underlying behavior is cooperating private gangs marauding the commons. It doesn't matter if it happens in ultra-capitalist US or "communist" China.
> So how do you change the world without capitalism? The answer is probably in taxing the rich, but good luck with that.
That would work for a year or two, until you had egalitarianized the money so everybody had the same amount. Then what? And what would be the effect of that?
Everyone wouldn’t have the same money. 80 years ago we taxes the rich around 80% on their over all income, then thatcher and regan paved the way to the world we have now, which is obviously having issues.
I may have come off overly negative toward capitalism because I posted early in the morning, but my general point was that it’s the only economic engine that works.
It sort of breaks down when it’s not regulated though, which is why I think we’re seeing so many issues tied to financial inequality in the world today.
I don’t think the solution is for everyone to have the exact same amount of money, but I struggle with how you can look at the current state of the world and think that it’s great. We need to help poor people get better opportunities, without ruining the systems we have for everyone else. I mean, history has shown us again and again what happens if we don’t.
>> So how do you change the world without capitalism? The answer is probably in taxing the rich, but good luck with that.
> That would work for a year or two, until you had egalitarianized the money so everybody had the same amount. Then what? And what would be the effect of that?
The only way to tax wealthy people is to remove all differences in wealth??
That was sort of my point, but I may have drowned it in a little too much negativity.
I do however think we should work with capitalism as a model though. It’s quite obvious to me that it needs a strong political regulator to make sure it doesn’t run amok. I’m not against inequality for the sake of being against it, but I do recognise that too much inequality and too few opportunities for a lot of folks is potentially dangerous.
people who defend capitalism on the face of the last century's (and ongoing) environmental disaster should just be considered negationist at this point.
Sure is not all wrong but it's infinitely worse than any economic model that actually secures a sustainable future
Please stick to intelligent discussion. I didn't specify an alternative model for a good reason, it doesn't exist yet.
But your attempt to pre-empt that the only possible alternative is Chinese style state-sponsered capitalism illustrates the paucity of your imagination or the malice of your intentions
You spoke of the environment as your goal, and said that “any” economic option that was sustainable (presumably regarding the environment) was “infinitely” better. I gave just one example that meets your criteria that popped into my mind. If you don’t like it, then perhaps consider adjusting your original claim. You’re the one that said it would be better.
> I didn't specify an alternative model for a good reason, it doesn't exist yet.
There are plenty of alternatives to what the US does. You can see them in other politically and economically advanced countries, which achieve far better results. You can see them in relatively recent US history.
by all accounts those "other" advanced countries offer a better socioeconomy model for how to organize things. The (recent) US is really an outlier that makes no sense whatsoever.
But there is a weakness in this view, namely the enormous security (and energy) dependency of those "other" countries on the US. It is a coupled system, making it hard to isolate what the standalone merits of the various modelw
Well, we're not going to have double-blind controlled empirical data. However, the other countries are easily wealthy enough to fund their own militaries at this point, without significant economic impact (right after WWII, it was a different story - the US produced half of the world's economic output, IIRC).
> I say this as someone who works in investment finance where we sell semi-rich semi-professional investors the opportunity to become richer by building solar and wind power plants, and selling them when they are fully operational. Which is about as positive as it gets in capitalism in my experience, considering we’re actually helping the world move in the right direction as far as climate change goes.
Isn’t this also exactly what causes crony capitalism. How many of these semi-rich investors, have friends in politics making regulations that will benefit these.
The fact that this is a thing ensures that a percentage of our politicians pimping climate change are not doing so because they care about the environment but because they’re pimps exploiting those below them for their own profit.
Otherwise we’d welcome and fund even fossil fuel nuclear, and gas, technologies alongside the green technologies. The modern car IC engine, is proof that there are even gains to be made while still not being fully green.
But they need to make it super scary, so they can profit more. One day I hope we can see all the money they made in roundabout ways from these green companies (and big pharmaceutical with covid by the way)
Regular capitalism is when you decide between having your cake or eating it.
Crony capitalism occurs when people start to want to have their cake and eat it too.
Capitalism’s basis is that everyone is a servant. This means we’re all lower than the king, but we are also are kings ourselves.
However crony capitalism occurs when a servant makes himself greater than his master, when the greatest king and master of all showed the way to prosperity was by becoming the greatest servant.
Our politicians character is proof that capitalism has failed, because they want to be kings, but they do not want to be servants.
