Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 132

On June 18 2019 05:50 Stroggoz wrote: Well, i personally think that technological innovation should be under public control; the public should have a say in what technology gets funded after scientists present their case to the public; except in extreme cases where infomation must be kept secret in the name of national security, but we know most militaries in the world don't have national security as their goal. So i'm not in favour of elites within the state deciding where funding should go, and im sure it would be more efficient if it was under public control, under a libertarian socialist type system.

The main concern should be to getting rid of the bureaucracy, but that is much easier said than done.

I don't agree with the claims that government is more inneficient overall than private business.

efficiency =/= better (one can be efficient at doing something evi and another inefficient at something good, obviously the 2nd is better).

That being said the free market is inherently more efficient than the state in the vast majority of endeavors because its point if to maximize production at the lowest cost possible and has a darwining component to it that if somebody does it better than you they grow and you shrink.

There are many exeptions that the non-cooperative nature of the free market complicate things like instances of public transport, trains specifically (although it would be interesting to see how these system would adapt and compare)

But again, I think its important to acknowledge that private bussineses are more efficient without conceding that meaning they are overall better, as efficiency isn't everything.

One has to look at studies one by one but just in the energy sector alone there are trillion$ externalities, finance has proven to be deeply corrupt and fruadulent under private control, and it's all monopolized, which is by definition inefficient, and is a standard tendency amoung capital in order to seek profits. And a large % of the population is devoted to guard labour, that is guarding the wealth of the rich-another inefficiency. Another area i've looked at is corporatization of universities, which have a higher administrators to staff ratio since being corporatized.

You are literally using as exmaples the 3 industrie where the government has the tightest control of: Energy, finance and education (you are only missing healthcare there lol).



Colleges/hospitals hiring more administrative staff is the anthitesis of capitalism, you dont increase your operational costs bloating your product price for no reason or the competition will destroy you by offering a lower price. the administrative staff bieng hired is the state hand I thoguth this was quite obviouis.

There is no free market in energy, they are tightly regulated by the public uttilities commission, you can't just build your energy plant and sell electricity the same goes with Finance and its corruption mostly stems from its close ties with the government, for example the 2008 real state bubble was caused by the moral hazard when the government guaranteed subprime morgages.

Thats why Cryptocurrencies are such a threat to governments and the state, because it will be finally on the hands of the free market and not in the state and its "private" financial institutions.

On June 18 2019 05:50 Stroggoz wrote: Well, i personally think that technological innovation should be under public control; the public should have a say in what technology gets funded after scientists present their case to the public

I mean, do you really in the current society where we get some new trendy stupid shit every 2 weeks which takes the attention of people?

Positive discrimination, how proggressive lol

On June 18 2019 21:17 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On June 18 2019 05:50 Stroggoz wrote: Well, i personally think that technological innovation should be under public control; the public should have a say in what technology gets funded after scientists present their case to the public I mean, do you really in the current society where we get some new trendy stupid shit every 2 weeks which takes the attention of people?

heh, i knew this statement would spark drastic misrepresentations. It could be an association of scientists, and an elected leader of the people (not like a current president but someone that can be withdrawn if they make dumb mistakes), that decide where the money goes. One has to test out the best method of libertarian socialism, but the general idea is there and it's easy to see that it's better than just a bunch of elites deciding where best to allocate the research money.

as for baals comments, you simply don't know your history. Even libertarian political scientists like benjamin ginsberg's book points to corporatization as the problem of universities growing administrative staff.

that would be a cesspool of corruption to centralize it a single person elected by the ignorant public, I suppose you didn't watch the vid I posted but randomized algorithms should be better and less prone to corruption/inefficiency

I watched the video and it's terrible. Another fine example of capitalist realism. It's not even worth getting into... Veritasium is a STEMlord with no imagination and socio-economic or political awareness, but he's not even advocating for "randomized algorithms". He brings up the lottery "solution" which, if it were allowed to exist, would be just a band-aid, and it wouldn't even be likely to make scientists spend less than 15% of their time writing grant proposals still. Bbut he's most interested in the idea that the funding should go to completed research which is recognized as being the best. Well, who decides what's best? Not some objective angels in the sky. What's best for the market isn't best for human beings.

"The best solution" he could find came from Netflix, failing to see that Netflix which has paid zero taxes on their nearly 1 billion dollar income last year is exactly the kind of reason why there is so little funding. He ends the video saying "when the incentives are aligned, the result is progress, and everyone benefits". Except that's really not how capitalism works, the incentives cannot be aligned, because knowledge is only valuable insofar as it is also profitable under a capitalist market economy.

Then we have the waxing poetic about science, as if it was some kind of mystical force for good, but science is only as good as the people behind it are allowed to be. The computer scientists who ended up winning the 1 million prize for Netflix's contest were doing "good science" according to these people, they won over their competition, except that the actual work is complete and utter garbage as it only makes people more addicted to the platform. It's not progress when only Netflix benefits and everyone else doesn't (or are directly harmed).


“It’s difficult to imagine how I would ever have enough peace and quiet in the present sort of climate to do what I did in 1964,” Higgs said. “Today I wouldn’t get an academic job. It’s as simple as that. I don’t think I would be regarded as productive enough.” (Quote from the British theoretical physicist who in 1964 predicted the existence of the Higgs boson particle, told the Guardian upon receiving the Nobel Prize in 2013) https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/capita...-research-academia-funding-publishing

A direct parallel can be made to the French scientist who radicalized me -- he never had to do any of this shit as he had his own lab and just survived off of patents from new pharmaceuticals he produced once in a while and that's why he was able to be a visionary. He also said that it was becoming increasingly difficult after a while and had to close his lab (it ran from 1958 to 1995).

Also, re 'centralization', Google Bookchin. Filthy casuals...

On June 19 2019 05:22 Loco wrote: Veritasium is a STEMlord with no imagination and socio-economic or political awareness.

oh my fucking god... could a fucking meteor end this pitiful planet already?

Speaking of distorted incentives, only one day after declaring a climate emergency, Canada has approved the expansion of a massive pipeline that will increase oil production in Alberta. The logic of course couldn't be more rock-solid: "Trudeau made a commitment that every dollar earned from the expansion project will be invested in Canada’s transition to green energy. A senior official said that amounts to about $500 million per year once oil starts flowing through the pipeline."

In other words, we gotta make sure to keep selling cigarettes to have money to fight cancer.

On June 19 2019 06:26 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 19 2019 05:22 Loco wrote: Veritasium is a STEMlord with no imagination and socio-economic or political awareness. oh my fucking god... could a fucking meteor end this pitiful planet already?

First of all, your pseudo-misanthropic outrage makes no sense. It's not a controversial term, it's epitomized in the character who says that "philosophy is useless when we have science" and which is a lot more easy to come across than you would believe. Some well-known people have made that claim and they are usually physicists.

Secondly, I am not bandying that term around lightly. That is exactly who he is. I know because I can still recall years ago when he made a few dismissive Tweets towards my friend who teaches Humanities subjects. The subject was information theory, and he presented Shannon's theory as the end all be all, which is incredibly ignorant, and he called my friend a pseudo-intellectual for complexifying the subject. This subject has been complexified since the early 60s with the rise of cybernetics and it's not just people from the Humanities but other STEM scholars who have contributed, people like Prigogine and Schrodinger (two Nobel prize winners).

On June 18 2019 23:30 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On June 18 2019 21:17 Spitfiree wrote:   On June 18 2019 05:50 Stroggoz wrote: Well, i personally think that technological innovation should be under public control; the public should have a say in what technology gets funded after scientists present their case to the public I mean, do you really in the current society where we get some new trendy stupid shit every 2 weeks which takes the attention of people? heh, i knew this statement would spark drastic misrepresentations. It could be an association of scientists, and an elected leader of the people (not like a current president but someone that can be withdrawn if they make dumb mistakes), that decide where the money goes. One has to test out the best method of libertarian socialism, but the general idea is there and it's easy to see that it's better than just a bunch of elites deciding where best to allocate the research money. as for baals comments, you simply don't know your history. Even libertarian political scientists like benjamin ginsberg's book points to corporatization as the problem of universities growing administrative staff.

Its an ambitious statement cause it comes with a lot of ambiguity e.g. which association of scientists? How do you specify a branch of science exactly, considering there's so many of them. Then when you even specify that you'd have to dwell down into a branch within the branch. Only viable way I could see this happening is if we have some sort of a "parliament" with lets say 100 people, 50 of them are publicly elected, 50 of them are specialists in various areas and elected only by respective associations. That same thing could work for a political system though

On June 19 2019 08:10 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On June 18 2019 23:30 Stroggoz wrote:   On June 18 2019 21:17 Spitfiree wrote:   On June 18 2019 05:50 Stroggoz wrote: Well, i personally think that technological innovation should be under public control; the public should have a say in what technology gets funded after scientists present their case to the public I mean, do you really in the current society where we get some new trendy stupid shit every 2 weeks which takes the attention of people? heh, i knew this statement would spark drastic misrepresentations. It could be an association of scientists, and an elected leader of the people (not like a current president but someone that can be withdrawn if they make dumb mistakes), that decide where the money goes. One has to test out the best method of libertarian socialism, but the general idea is there and it's easy to see that it's better than just a bunch of elites deciding where best to allocate the research money. as for baals comments, you simply don't know your history. Even libertarian political scientists like benjamin ginsberg's book points to corporatization as the problem of universities growing administrative staff. Its an ambitious statement cause it comes with a lot of ambiguity e.g. which association of scientists? How do you specify a branch of science exactly, considering there's so many of them. Then when you even specify that you'd have to dwell down into a branch within the branch. Only viable way I could see this happening is if we have some sort of a "parliament" with lets say 100 people, 50 of them are publicly elected, 50 of them are specialists in various areas and elected only by respective associations. That same thing could work for a political system though

The general idea is that it should be under public control and democratic. at the moment it is not democratic, since elections never bring up issues like DARPA, NNI or anything related to research. Similarly im sure none of the countries that fund CERN bring that up in elections.

I can't sketch out a blueprint; there are obviously things which the public cannot hope to understand, like how many mathematicians should we have doing research in algebraic topology. In that case i think just letting that department decide how best to allocate the money works is best there.. However then it comes to massive issues like this: should our society devote billions of dollars to greentech, biotechnology, nanotechnology, F-35 jets, or upgrading our nuclear weapons system? On this the public has to be educated and decide on. And the pro's/con's should be explained in layman's terms. Under the current system there is no attempt to enlighten the public on this, and the personality of a few politicians is deemed to be infinitely more important. Meanwhile the grown ups have decided for us children that it is F-35 jets and upgrading the nuclear weapons system that is best choice of money.

a parliament of 100 people beg's the question, are they going to be elected by an informed public and do as they say? If the answer is no then it's not a democracy.

I have read three book form criticisms of the modern unviersity and it's institutions, one of the UK system when student fees trippled there: the great university gamble, one from a libertarian political scientist: benjamin ginsberg 'the fall of the faculty and the rise of the administrative class'. Another from an economist on the commercialization of new zealand. I don't remember any of these books saying much about the competition for research grants; as it is explained in the video about netflix solutions. However the video seems fine and i beleive everything in it, i don't see it being a criticism of state inefficiencies though, i didn't see this stated in the video, rather it was a statement about how universities are at the moment. I don't really see why he is a 'stemlord', or how that ad hominen is relevant to the video. Or why it's such a bad thing to have a romantic view of science. I'm not crazy about funding going towards research being recognized as the best-if it's recognition from scientists, well then certain academics won't get funding when they disagree with the consesus, keeping new ideas from emerging. I think it would also create a barrier to entry for emerging scientists. The randomized system seems fine to me if the math works out that way.

What I have learn't from reading about this is that the main beneficiaries from the corporatization of universities are not just the administrators but investment banks, as they make a killing off student debt. (except here in new zealand, where there is no interest on student debt as the government wipes it). The old system in new zealand at least was the government giving block sums of money to the university, and faculty had a good amount of say in how it was distributed, this did not result in corruption, nor did it result in a large administrative class. It simply ran at a loss and provided free tertiary education, and had a smaller administrative class.
Since they were corporatized, they are run for profit; which gives way to all sorts of perverse incentives, like for example sports in american universities; the salaries coaches get paid there dwarf what academic staff get paid because that's what brings money to universities, and a new underclass of adjuncts getting paid poverty line salaries has been created, they live a precarious existence teaching enough classes to survive-with not much room for advancement once getting in this trap. student fees went up from being essentially nothing to tens of thousands for degree's, and with this profit the administrators expanded their own beurocracy to justify their own salary increases. This is the explanation behind the rise of the administrative class in universities. It's pretty simple, and actually how corporations normally work. The more money it earns, the more the people at the top can pocket it, without contributing much to the actual corporations growth. (Dean baker's study of General Electric executive pay shows this). In Ginsberg's book he has a pretty cynical view of what the admin actually contribute to the universities. Their main contribution is having connections with people that endow the university with private money, aside from that they spend their time going on retreats to talk psychobabble and hire 'diveristy' coaches. The rational for this has been 'efficiency.', though of course there is nothing at all efficient about it in any sense.

The massive sports scene at universities is not nearly as big here, but it's not at all surpising that universities have to stop being universities and become sports focused to actually generate money.

yeah, i agree with the jacobin article although the 'threat' is exagerated. There is no risk of a 'dark age' from these incentives. I get that universities want to get rid of their dead wood, but the publish or perish imperative may have done more harm than good. It is not limited to the sciences either, I think it has had a pretty awful affect on the humanities. The simple desire to maintain an academic profession has resulted in a lot of 'junk' theory in the humanities, and arguments over said junk theory and derivatives of said junk theory(which is what graduate school students study lmao). This is at least what i think has happened in philosophy, you get thousands of stupid arguments over free will/determinism that probably no one will care about in a 100 years.

My "ad hom" was a comment in passing, not an insult that replaces argumentation. I've made arguments as to why I think the video is bad and it's mainly because it starts from the implied premise that capitalism is the only system that works. Using Netflix's business model and transposing it to science is a problem when science requires up-front funding to get resources, you can't just gamble on those things on your own dime as a researcher hoping to win a contest.

You can say "well they're just trying to work with that they currently have" but we can apply that "baby steps" justification to everything (why not?), which just ends up corroding visionary thinking and preventing progress. I've also explained why I think that this kind of detached worship of science is bad, because you find yourself into this type of situation where you consider it a success that an algorithm is able to keep people stuck to their TV screen for longer. That's actually dystopic, it's not progress.

I'm not asking you to spend hours looking at the context and trying to understand where I'm coming from, but there is a clear condescending comment from Veritasium in the comments section of the video I linked that shows what I'm talking about. Just like it bothers you that people talk authoritatively about how languages are learned instead of 'grown', it bothers me when STEM scientists (or vulgarizers of science) think they can talk authoritatively about one definition of a broad concept like information and shoot down people who come at it from different angles.

There is a reason why the competition is so fierce in academia and it's because of the underlying logic of growth within capitalism. Capitalism can no more be 'persuaded' to limit growth than a human being can be 'persuaded' to stop breathing, as Bookchin put it. Those interventions are just as naive as 'green capitalism' is. In no time would people adjust to the new incentives and they would be back to the same kind of hypercompetitivity.

On June 19 2019 15:09 Stroggoz wrote: What I have learn't from reading about this is that the main beneficiaries from the corporatization of universities are not just the administrators but investment banks, as they make a killing off student debt. (except here in new zealand, where there is no interest on student debt as the government wipes it). The old system in new zealand at least was the government giving block sums of money to the university, and faculty had a good amount of say in how it was distributed, this did not result in corruption, nor did it result in a large administrative class. It simply ran at a loss and provided free tertiary education, and had a smaller administrative class. Since they were corporatized, they are run for profit; which gives way to all sorts of perverse incentives, like for example sports in american universities; the salaries coaches get paid there dwarf what academic staff get paid because that's what brings money to universities, and a new underclass of adjuncts getting paid poverty line salaries has been created, they live a precarious existence teaching enough classes to survive-with not much room for advancement once getting in this trap. student fees went up from being essentially nothing to tens of thousands for degree's, and with this profit the administrators expanded their own beurocracy to justify their own salary increases. This is the explanation behind the rise of the administrative class in universities. It's pretty simple, and actually how corporations normally work. The more money it earns, the more the people at the top can pocket it, without contributing much to the actual corporations growth. (Dean baker's study of General Electric executive pay shows this). In Ginsberg's book he has a pretty cynical view of what the admin actually contribute to the universities. Their main contribution is having connections with people that endow the university with private money, aside from that they spend their time going on retreats to talk psychobabble and hire 'diveristy' coaches. The rational for this has been 'efficiency.', though of course there is nothing at all efficient about it in any sense.

I think the misunderstanding here is the conflation of free market and corporations since both run in pursuit of profits.

You speak as if the reason why tuitions have gone up is because they are run for profit, and that is the opposite of the truth, the real reason is because of the state meddling, It is impossible in a free market for a service to go up drastically in price across the board in a competitive market for no reason.

Its the same as people blaming "capitalist" when they jack up the price of an epipen to $700... that isn't capitalistm, its the state colluding with corporations wich is the fucking opposite of the free market.

'it's impossible in a free market for a service go up...in a competitive market'. This doesn't apply to the real world. Capitalism is largely oligpolistic and the most common thing to do in an oligopoly is to tacitly agree on a price, or for others to follow a 'price leader' within the industry.

I remember one of the arguments given in a 1990's public policy textbook for when my country was privitized, was that salaries of CEO's would not go up because this inneficiency would put them out of business, others could outcompete them. Yeah and ever since then they went up 10x. Economists have far too easily created abstract arguments that look logically sound so long as you live in a 2 dimensional world. Reality is more complicated.

You say it's state meddling but give zero examples.

On June 19 2019 15:09 Stroggoz wrote: The old system in new zealand at least was the government giving block sums of money to the university, and faculty had a good amount of say in how it was distributed, this did not result in corruption, nor did it result in a large administrative class. It simply ran at a loss and provided free tertiary education, and had a smaller administrative class.

Unfortunately, we have the same system here and I could tell you from experience the higher layers are filled with corruption, it all depends on the fundament you're installing the approach in. The education isn't completely free, but the university fees are pretty low even for our standards. As far as I remember I paid around 300euro a year. The government pays 50% of your fee, you pay another 50%. The difference is universities also get additional 500eu per student which enrolls, making the entry barrier extremely easy. So they have a personal budget, get money from fees and get money from enrolled students.

The situation with UK's system is pretty hilarious, cause their education is probably one of the most overrated ones on the planet and it costs shittons. On top of that they are flooded by students from Eastern Europe, which "take a loan" to cover their university fees, but never actually return that loan afterward. And you could say that at least they get qualified immigrants, which their country actually needs, except most of them go back home.

On June 19 2019 21:11 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 19 2019 15:09 Stroggoz wrote: What I have learn't from reading about this is that the main beneficiaries from the corporatization of universities are not just the administrators but investment banks, as they make a killing off student debt. (except here in new zealand, where there is no interest on student debt as the government wipes it). The old system in new zealand at least was the government giving block sums of money to the university, and faculty had a good amount of say in how it was distributed, this did not result in corruption, nor did it result in a large administrative class. It simply ran at a loss and provided free tertiary education, and had a smaller administrative class. Since they were corporatized, they are run for profit; which gives way to all sorts of perverse incentives, like for example sports in american universities; the salaries coaches get paid there dwarf what academic staff get paid because that's what brings money to universities, and a new underclass of adjuncts getting paid poverty line salaries has been created, they live a precarious existence teaching enough classes to survive-with not much room for advancement once getting in this trap. student fees went up from being essentially nothing to tens of thousands for degree's, and with this profit the administrators expanded their own beurocracy to justify their own salary increases. This is the explanation behind the rise of the administrative class in universities. It's pretty simple, and actually how corporations normally work. The more money it earns, the more the people at the top can pocket it, without contributing much to the actual corporations growth. (Dean baker's study of General Electric executive pay shows this). In Ginsberg's book he has a pretty cynical view of what the admin actually contribute to the universities. Their main contribution is having connections with people that endow the university with private money, aside from that they spend their time going on retreats to talk psychobabble and hire 'diveristy' coaches. The rational for this has been 'efficiency.', though of course there is nothing at all efficient about it in any sense. I think the misunderstanding here is the conflation of free market and corporations since both run in pursuit of profits. You speak as if the reason why tuitions have gone up is because they are run for profit, and that is the opposite of the truth, the real reason is because of the state meddling, It is impossible in a free market for a service to go up drastically in price across the board in a competitive market for no reason. Its the same as people blaming "capitalist" when they jack up the price of an epipen to $700... that isn't capitalistm, its the state colluding with corporations wich is the fucking opposite of the free market.

Education, like health care, are services where principles integral to the success of the free market just aren't there. You can't opt out of getting it, and you're often limited in your choice for other reasons than money or availability of variety. Not to mention the people getting the education aren't the ones responsible for the funding. Like, if people feel that computers are overpriced, they won't upgrade as frequently. But then another . If transferring data is too expensive, people will meme less on their cellphones. These are markets where the free market has worked fantastically - one of few norwegian privatizations I am almost entirely positive about is the privatization of telecommunications. (Downside is a few individuals profiteering huge amounts from publicly funded infrastructure, but I think the upside of much less expensive and much faster internet - and the price started dropping immediately after it became competitive - has been more positive than that has been negative. )

But with education, people can't be like oh well I'll just skip college, lol. So if it becomes more expensive and more students have to take huge loans to get by, that ends up happening. But whereas in telecommunications and computers you'll have entrepreneurs thinking 'hm if I cut costs here and here I can offer a vastly less expensive product while still making bank, I'll do it!' ,people who feel that school has become too expensive (I mean, there's khan academy and stuff like that, but we're a long way from that being the equivalent of a full college degree) can't just go 'ok, I'm just gonna go make my own school' in the same manner. Same way with health care, you don't have a choice of not getting it, and you can't just be like 'ok, just gonna drive to the next city then' when you're in dire need of surgery.

That's why those two are among the most essential public services. The US isn't quite like that. The desire for profit - which is not there if education or health care is state driven - is what drives up the costs. In Norway, the fee for university (about $50 per semester) follows inflation, but otherwise it has stayed the same for the past 30 years.. Health care costs, I don't know exactly, but I don't think they've increased substantially either (although I guess it's possible I'm wrong here, if you're looking at a % of the original cost. Either way they're still very low. )

joe biden's speech to fundraisers.

https://i.redd.it/7wstxujv0b531.png

It's interesting how good they are at working togethor, when compared to their class enemy. If only the political left could organize as well as the rich.

On June 19 2019 21:11 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 19 2019 15:09 Stroggoz wrote: What I have learn't from reading about this is that the main beneficiaries from the corporatization of universities are not just the administrators but investment banks, as they make a killing off student debt. (except here in new zealand, where there is no interest on student debt as the government wipes it). The old system in new zealand at least was the government giving block sums of money to the university, and faculty had a good amount of say in how it was distributed, this did not result in corruption, nor did it result in a large administrative class. It simply ran at a loss and provided free tertiary education, and had a smaller administrative class. Since they were corporatized, they are run for profit; which gives way to all sorts of perverse incentives, like for example sports in american universities; the salaries coaches get paid there dwarf what academic staff get paid because that's what brings money to universities, and a new underclass of adjuncts getting paid poverty line salaries has been created, they live a precarious existence teaching enough classes to survive-with not much room for advancement once getting in this trap. student fees went up from being essentially nothing to tens of thousands for degree's, and with this profit the administrators expanded their own beurocracy to justify their own salary increases. This is the explanation behind the rise of the administrative class in universities. It's pretty simple, and actually how corporations normally work. The more money it earns, the more the people at the top can pocket it, without contributing much to the actual corporations growth. (Dean baker's study of General Electric executive pay shows this). In Ginsberg's book he has a pretty cynical view of what the admin actually contribute to the universities. Their main contribution is having connections with people that endow the university with private money, aside from that they spend their time going on retreats to talk psychobabble and hire 'diveristy' coaches. The rational for this has been 'efficiency.', though of course there is nothing at all efficient about it in any sense. I think the misunderstanding here is the conflation of free market and corporations since both run in pursuit of profits. You speak as if the reason why tuitions have gone up is because they are run for profit, and that is the opposite of the truth, the real reason is because of the state meddling, It is impossible in a free market for a service to go up drastically in price across the board in a competitive market for no reason. Its the same as people blaming "capitalist" when they jack up the price of an epipen to $700... that isn't capitalistm, its the state colluding with corporations wich is the fucking opposite of the free market.

You've been saying this shit for years. We all know it by now. The tenets of free market fundamentalism aren't more difficult to understand than those of Christian fundamentalism. It's not a "misunderstanding" that you believe in the false dichotomy of crony capitalism versus real capitalism. And somehow that doesn't fly for leftists when they say that state capitalism isn't real socialism (true) though eh?

But let's forget that -- say for the sake of argument I grant this to you. It's not real capitalism, and real capitalism would be better. Now what? What's your plan? What do you do about the power that has been concentrated through this "mingling with the state"? Obviously you can't have a fair and meritocratic society if people have cheated their way into power and the monopolies currently exist. Say the state is abolished tomorrow. Doesn't it logically follow that you first have to do redistribution in order for the real capitalism to exist? Assuming my logic follows yours so far, can you give us the details on that redistribution? Who operates it and on what basis? Also, how do they not have essentially the function of a state?