Capitalism: the cause of and solution to all life's problems

[Travis B.]

Government as I see it would be through workers' councils, except where instead of workplaces being represented alone, people are also represented by geographic region. The difference here from traditional democratic government is that government starts at the very most local level, with people in small local regions and people in workplaces choosing individuals from amongst them to serve as delegates in their local workers' council for temporary periods, on a rotating basis, with a clear mandate being given to them by those who select them, and being arbitrarily and immediately recallable (e.g. if they break their mandate). From lower workers' councils the same mechanism operates for selecting delegates for higher workers' councils, and so on. As a result, government would not be as alienated from the general population as is the case with traditional democratic government. There would be no career politicians, decisions would be made from the bottom up, and people would have the most influence over political decisions close to home (whereas in traditional democratic government in many cases people have little influence over political decisions close to home because local races in many cases are not competitive in the first place).

In general I am fine with your style of socialism. But this electoral system is pretty undemocratic.

The first level, the local council, might be OK. I don't get the allocation of votes from "regions" and "workers' councils"... does a person get two votes, based on workplace and region? What about people who don't work (disabled, elderly, students, people between jobs)? Plus, this really seems like a way for the largest co-ops to dominate. In a large workplace, potential delegates have name recognition and a large potential base of supporters. Are they more important than people who work alone, or in small groups?

How I pictured it is that each small region, representing those who live there, put forward one delegate in the local workers' council, and each workplace, representing those who work there, also put forward one delegate in the local workers' council. An individual gets one vote in the small region where they live, and one vote in the workplace where they work. Of course, this does have the disadvantage that individuals who work in workplaces with delegates are represented twice as much as people who do not work or who do not work in workplaces of much significance. Additionally, other groupings of people could have delegates, e.g. groups to represent students, groups to represent the disabled, groups to represent the elderly, groups to represent those between jobs, and so on, which would balance this out. (Traditionally workerks' councils were on a per-workplace basis, but I figured this was not suitable because of the many people who do not belong to workplaces.)

Why would people be more interested in local government in this system? Why would it be more competitive?

Because they would have immediate control over their local government, whereas much of the time local races are uncontested at least in present-day American democracy, making them unrepresentative of the people.

"No career politicians" seems questionable. If someone turns out to be a really good delegate, you can't keep them? Rotating delegates seems like a good way to make sure that your councils are ineffective. New delegates won't know what they're doing, and your system is saying that as soon as they learn, you kick them out.

The goal is to avoid the development of a labor aristocracy, as rotting bones puts it. Note that rotation periods can be long enough that people really get up to speed, e.g. periods of a year or two in length.

Then, the "higher workers' councils" are elected by the lower? That's less democratic, not more. All you're doing there is replacing direct votes on what interests voters the most-- national policy-- with a system where individual works have no power.

I would argue that this would be more democratic than FPTP-level national politics, especially in presidential republics, where the people have few choices, typically just an either-or every once n number of years or so, or if there are more than two parties, where the party in power may not even have a majority. OTOH, IMO proportional representation within a parliamentary system is significantly more democratic than FPTP-type presidential republics, and I would actually be open to a system where local government is organized in the form of workers' councils while national government is organized in the form of a parliamentary system with proportional representation.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

The solutions to these kinds of details are, at any rate, a matter for successful revolutionaries to settle amongst themselves, democratically and responding to the local circumstances: if the yankees and their trillions of dollars of machines of death are aiming at your forehead, maybe you'd be willing to compromise in radical economic democracy in favour of nukes to make sure they don't pull the trigger.

It's not quite detail: these very practical bits really do explain quite a bit about why the Eastern Bloc turned out as it did, or why state ownership under Western European social democracy was a disappointment.

Some people are content with the idea of getting rid of capitalism (which is understandable!). I'm more pessimistic. I generally feel that if we leave the details for later, most people will half-ass the implementation and some will try to grab power where they can.
The Soviet Union is too easy a target. Let's pick on France instead.
The left (including socialists and communists) came in power in 1981 with a stated objective of getting rid of capitalism, and figuring out that everything would sort out after a good deal of nationalization (*). Needless to say, that didn't work out at all like expected. Many voters were convinced enough by Reaganomics by 1986 to put conservatives in power again.

We can't even blame outside interference: the Americans generally didn't give a single fuck who was in power in France. (They found, in fact, the socialists easier to work with. Ironically, the Soviets were frankly bothered about all this. They were more comfortable with the centrists/conservatives traditionally in power, who were, at least a know entity.)


(*) OTOH, I still think of Mitterrand's two mandates as positive overall. The socialists did implement a lot that was much needed; but of course a lot of people were deeply disappointed that they never eliminated capitalism.

As somebody living under the fallout of the Reagan administration, I'm inclined to actually think of him as our worst President ever. Bush Jr. and the recently exiled rotting pumpkin may have done things that are more immediately worse, but it was Reagan who laid all the groundwork for him. The economic crises of the past few decades are the natural result of unrestrained capitalism, and trickle-down economics is a cruel and painful joke.

(Another failure is that generally evolution of personal computing is rapidly leading to a situation where most people are pure content consumers and entirely computer illiterate.)

I agree with the symptoms but not the diagnosis: personal computers used to encourage computer literacy. it's smartphones and a specific business model coming to dominate the industry that has reversed that trend, not the fact that tiny computers are more common.

I really agree with you here; it's indeed smartphones and the current business model I was thinking of.

This goes a long way towards explaining why I instinctively dislike smartphones.

[Travis B.]

I agree with the symptoms but not the diagnosis: personal computers used to encourage computer literacy. it's smartphones and a specific business model coming to dominate the industry that has reversed that trend, not the fact that tiny computers are more common.

I really agree with you here; it's indeed smartphones and the current business model I was thinking of.

This goes a long way towards explaining why I instinctively dislike smartphones.

I remember how on my first computer, an Apple //e, you could just boot up the machine and start programming. Of course, if you wanted to save your programs you had to use a boot disk (or save to a slow and unreliable cassette deck), but aside from that it was the same. Even today, you can program PC's by just downloading a language like Python and running it. However, no such things are feasible with smartphones or tablets, and after all, who would want to tap in code on one of them.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I remember how on my first computer, an Apple //e, you could just boot up the machine and start programming. Of course, if you wanted to save your programs you had to use a boot disk (or save to a slow and unreliable cassette deck), but aside from that it was the same. Even today, you can program PC's by just downloading a language like Python and running it. However, no such things are feasible with smartphones or tablets, and after all, who would want to tap in code on one of them.

I think a part of it is also that smartphones have terrible input mechanisms. Phones generally had — encouraging strings of abbreviations (I find this both ugly and unnecessarily difficult to read) and then introducing autocomplete which has had... mixed results (and produced many nonsensical messages and tweets people have to later correct). I like keyboards. I do like new things, but I also like to say that if something isn't broken, don't fix it... turning phones into mini-computers is... I don't know — I guess I'm just an old curmudgeon — rather silly? I could understand wanting a phone to perform Minitel-like functions, but I simply don't see the need to have the whole Internet on it when one has sensible computers.

When it comes to technology, most of what really interests me is modding gaming hardware or console software (my greatest success was the PS3, before the motherboard gave out; the thing endured a lot of bad storage conditions, and was a very faithful trooper; may its dead components rest in piece); now I'm looking at making the old Super Nintendo able to play Japanese Super Famicom games (the reason I did what I did to the PS3 was to break similar region-locking and to apply translation patches, which was itself an interesting process).

[Torco]

I don't think I agree with smartphones being inherently bad input devices: naively, a typical computer uses mouse and keyboard (though you can add peripherals to get more datastreams in) whereas a smartphone has a capacitive screen, a mic and a camera: all of these have, at least from a first principles POV, the capacity to gather more data as compared to a mouse and keyboard, and so it seems to me that the fact that in reality smartphones are worse as input devices (and, yes, they are) probably has to do more with software and custom than with technology itself: for example, I use google keyboard's swipe thing: it's not perfect, and it deals poorly with words it doesn't know or with codeswitching (I mean, vraiment cette texto I could not have typed it using el teléfono very comfortably) but it's not THAT far behind typing: for reference, this line

Capitalism: the cause and solution to all life's problems

took me 7 seconds on the keyboard and 14 on the smartphone.

Plus, there are probably ways a good programmer could, with better AI or maybe with current tech even, contrive for inputs to be given to the tiny computer even better: eye tracking for example. I think the thing is more that the smartphone user experience was intentionally developped to be more of an output device than an input device, as it's an offshoot of things like the ipod... what did Jobs call it? a phone an ipod and an internet machine all rolled into one or something?

It's not quite detail: these very practical bits really do explain quite a bit about why the Eastern Bloc turned out as it did, or why state ownership under Western European social democracy was a disappointment(...)

Sure, but the thing is that answers very practical questions are gonna be good or bad very much depending on very practical considerations: don't get me wrong, it's a thing of virtue and excellence to think about this question of "okay, after we're done with capitalism what can we do", but I don't think one should be married to any particular answer: I'm very partial, and perhaps nationality and occupation play a role in this, to a sort of ERP-like integrated information system to coordinate production at the business-to-business level (call it coop to coop or something I don't know) and a sort of limited market system to deal with sumptuary consumption: you know, buying a guitar, acrylic paints or a rotax engine to build your experimental ultralight, leaving necessities to a bureaucratic rights-granting system (like, I go into work, enter a lot of data into the Cybersyn3.9 client, work out a deal with the steel coop so they give us some of their slag for my coop to make into doorknobs or something, go into the housing bureau to put in an application to move to a neighbourhood nearer to my best friend's house and then use some money-like system to buy wine to get drunk with).

[rotting bones]

And yet supply, demand, and how people prioritize their expenses are all essential information.

Demand is not knowledge for the people presenting their demands. It can be measured, but being able to measure something doesn't make it a form of knowledge. Eg. We can measure the sun, but it doesn't follow that the earth orbits a form of knowledge.

Under your system, am I allowed to choose between beans made by coop A and those made by coop B? Can I pick a computer by coop C or one by coop D?

Yes, you can buy whatever you want.

Am I allowed to work wherever I like? Can a coop hire whoever they light?

Actually, there will be non-discrimination laws, and these will vary by the type of co-op, etc.

If not, we're essentially trusting the voters to make a choice based on information they don't have.
If yes, then you do have markets and competition.

No, because jobs are created by vote, not profitability.

This is the crux of my criticism of capitalism: If you want supply to account for demand, then labor cannot possibly be divided by profitability. I know that economists say markets operate by the law of supply and demand. I disagree. In my opinion, market demand is disproportionately skewed towards the demands of the wealthy. I'm trying to fix this by replacing market demand with popular demand.

No disagreement here; but I should point out that nobody, outside of the most contrarian type of libertarian, opposes that kind of measures!

I know that no one "opposes" keeping businesses open when they become unprofitable because of, eg, environmental regulations. My argument is that this lack of an opposition is impotent in a market society. The businesses will close anyway. Why? Because they are unprofitable. Your lack of an opposition to having them stay open doesn't make them profitable. Breadtreon is a solution that makes the "staying open" property of enterprises depend directly on your opinion. This frees people to vote for environmental regulations without worrying about their livelihood.

[MacAnDàil]

Ares Land's comments on co-operations give pause for thought.

Specifically?

In general, including the post just after yours.

I agree with Zompist that mere size is a key factor in alienation. Which underlines my support for independence.

What about people like me, who are alienated from our home communities? Will you sweep us under the rug because we are a minority?

Ares Land has answered this for me. Also, this is a hypothetical question. The SNP includes Christian Allard and Humza Yousaf for example.

I don't think I agree with smartphones being inherently bad input devices: naively, a typical computer uses mouse and keyboard (though you can add peripherals to get more datastreams in) whereas a smartphone has a capacitive screen, a mic and a camera: all of these have, at least from a first principles POV, the capacity to gather more data as compared to a mouse and keyboard, and so it seems to me that the fact that in reality smartphones are worse as input devices (and, yes, they are) probably has to do more with software and custom than with technology itself: for example, I use google keyboard's swipe thing: it's not perfect, and it deals poorly with words it doesn't know or with codeswitching (I mean, vraiment cette texto I could not have typed it using el teléfono very comfortably) but it's not THAT far behind typing: for reference, this line

Capitalism: the cause and solution to all life's problems

took me 7 seconds on the keyboard and 14 on the smartphone.

So twice as slow. You proved that the keyboard is more efficient. Also, my computer has inbuilt mic and camera, like many computers these days.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I don't think I agree with smartphones being inherently bad input devices: naively, a typical computer uses mouse and keyboard (though you can add peripherals to get more datastreams in) whereas a smartphone has a capacitive screen, a mic and a camera: all of these have, at least from a first principles POV, the capacity to gather more data as compared to a mouse and keyboard, and so it seems to me that the fact that in reality smartphones are worse as input devices (and, yes, they are) probably has to do more with software and custom than with technology itself: for example, I use google keyboard's swipe thing: it's not perfect, and it deals poorly with words it doesn't know or with codeswitching (I mean, vraiment cette texto I could not have typed it using el teléfono very comfortably) but it's not THAT far behind typing: for reference, this line

Capitalism: the cause and solution to all life's problems

took me 7 seconds on the keyboard and 14 on the smartphone.

So twice as slow. You proved that the keyboard is more efficient. Also, my computer has inbuilt mic and camera, like many computers these days.

This is more-or-less my response to the matter — that and when, if I precise to my personal purposes, voice recognition is nearly worthless (I speak quickly, falteringly, and am rather soft-spoken unless I'm talking to people with whom I'm comfortable), and I do not construct sentences half so well with my voice as I do with my fingers. It is, at least in part, a matter of having more practice in the one than the other, but speech is, for me, not really useful for long-form composition.

I can also customise the keyboard layout far more readily.

[Ares Land]

I know that no one "opposes" keeping businesses open when they become unprofitable because of, eg, environmental regulations. My argument is that this lack of an opposition is impotent in a market society. The businesses will close anyway. Why? Because they are unprofitable. Your lack of an opposition to having them stay open doesn't make them profitable. Breadtreon is a solution that makes the "staying open" property of enterprises depend directly on your opinion. This frees people to vote for environmental regulations without worrying about their livelihood.

Sorry to ask again, but what is Breadtreon?

In fact unprofitable businesses are kept in business even under the current system. Much of the press is kept alive through government subsidies or donations (depending on country). In France the national film industry is kept alive through government subsidies. Theater isn't profitable on ticket sales alone: it's generally kept alive through subsidies or donation. Ditto with museums which depend on sponsors, donations and subsidies. There are of course farming subsidies.
In recent news, I should mention pharmaceutical industries. Making vaccines isn't terribly profitable in itself, the process was helped along by government help and private donation.
Zoning laws are another way this is done (without them, it's doubtful any mom-and-pop store would have survived Walmart or equivalents.)
In recent news too, most countries haveB some scheme in place to help businesses during the current health crisis (restaurants aren't profitable right now!)
More questionably, there's of course the question of 'strategic' or 'too big to fail' companies.

That said, your proposal is I think a very good one, in that it enables a transparent and democratic process for these.
But I don't think it should apply to the whole economy. There are many cases where companies manage their production and do create jobs; why fix the parts that work?

[Torco]

So twice as slow. You proved that the keyboard is more efficient. Also, my computer has inbuilt mic and camera, like many computers these days.

Sure, my point is merely that it's not that slow, and that the gap could well be closed, at least in principle, by better tech. laptops don't count =P

[Travis B.]

So twice as slow. You proved that the keyboard is more efficient. Also, my computer has inbuilt mic and camera, like many computers these days.

Sure, my point is merely that it's not that slow, and that the gap could well be closed, at least in principle, by better tech. laptops don't count =P

I find entering anything into my smartphone to be slow and awkward, whereas with a keyboard, even a laptop keyboard, I am one with the machine and can enter text far, far faster than I possibly could tapping things into a smartphone (note that I am a touch-typist, which helps here).

[rotting bones]

Ares Land has answered this for me. Also, this is a hypothetical question. The SNP includes Christian Allard and Humza Yousaf for example.

I support national independence as a means to end oppression. As an end in itself, well, Indians who were Muslim in caste participated in both Indian and Pakistani liberation movements. What did any of these struggles get us? Even the smallest of the resulting states, Bangladesh, oppresses minorities. Arguably, the least oppressive regime is also the largest, India, and even there, Modi won twice.

[rotting bones]

In fact unprofitable businesses are kept in business even under the current system. Much of the press is kept alive through government subsidies or donations (depending on country). In France the national film industry is kept alive through government subsidies. Theater isn't profitable on ticket sales alone: it's generally kept alive through subsidies or donation. Ditto with museums which depend on sponsors, donations and subsidies. There are of course farming subsidies.
In recent news, I should mention pharmaceutical industries. Making vaccines isn't terribly profitable in itself, the process was helped along by government help and private donation.
Zoning laws are another way this is done (without them, it's doubtful any mom-and-pop store would have survived Walmart or equivalents.)
In recent news too, most countries haveB some scheme in place to help businesses during the current health crisis (restaurants aren't profitable right now!)
More questionably, there's of course the question of 'strategic' or 'too big to fail' companies.

You are right, I definitely oversimplified here. Eg. I mentioned this previously when I said the Third World sucks because those countries can't afford interminable corporate bailouts since bigoted investors don't believe in them.

Hopefully, my motivations are now clearer, so here's my unabridged argument: It's impossible to keep society running without financially inefficient enterprises. The real choice is between having these enterprises be capitalist or socialist in character. The unprofitable enterprises that survive under capitalism are heavily skewed towards the interests of the wealthy. Eg. If you believe Chomsky (Manufacturing Consent, Necessary Illusions, ...), even the press is indispensable for shaping a common narrative.

The question we should be asking is: To what extent would capitalists be motivated to support social programs? Traditionally, they wouldn't have been able to dispense with the working class. As I see it, with the development of industrial automation, they are no longer bound by this restriction.

What I see as the immediate threat: If jobs cannot be guaranteed one way or another despite the losses incurred by environmentalism, I can't see workers (and I mean workers, not the people) ever voting for sufficient environmental protections in time. To me, this seems to be a higher priority than democracy in the workplace.

The best case scenario under capitalism: If the people can unite in protest once climate change affects the economy, the government will reluctantly institute temporary FDR-style reforms while they figure out what foreign threats to use as their next big distraction. Climate change will not be prevented.

The worst case scenario: If the establishment can redirect the strongest currents of protest into QAnon-adjacent crackpot movements, there may not even be a new New Deal.

That said, your proposal is I think a very good one, in that it enables a transparent and democratic process for these.

Thank you.

But I don't think it should apply to the whole economy. There are many cases where companies manage their production and do create jobs; why fix the parts that work?

Of course companies create jobs, but do you think they create enough jobs to facilitate an equitable distribution of resources?

In my proposal, the vote covers essential industries. By "essential industries", I mean those industries where underproduction threatens survival. Eg. Food production. As I see it, if any essential industry is excluded, it becomes unprofitable and the government refuses to prop it up for whatever reason, then people will be threatened by the loss of their livelihood. Thus the proposal would be rendered ineffective.

What do you propose that demand by vote be restricted to?

Proposals to equalize wealth accumulation by law leave me with a sense of foreboding. Assuming the extra capital isn't simply stored abroad, consider that under capitalism, rich allies of the poor are billionaires more often than millionaires. Do we really want to find out what a capitalist society with only millionaires and no billionaires looks like?

[Torco]

So twice as slow. You proved that the keyboard is more efficient. Also, my computer has inbuilt mic and camera, like many computers these days.

Sure, my point is merely that it's not that slow, and that the gap could well be closed, at least in principle, by better tech. laptops don't count =P

I find entering anything into my smartphone to be slow and awkward, whereas with a keyboard, even a laptop keyboard, I am one with the machine and can enter text far, far faster than I possibly could tapping things into a smartphone (note that I am a touch-typist, which helps here).

no, me too, for sure. but i wonder if the smartphone equivalent of touch typing has not yet come to be. this is a new technology, after all. I'd be surprised if sitting down in front of a keyboard remains the quickest way to input text into a machine forever.

[zompist]

Proposals to equalize wealth accumulation by law leave me with a sense of foreboding. Assuming the extra capital isn't simply stored abroad, consider that under capitalism, rich allies of the poor are billionaires more often than millionaires. Do we really want to find out what a capitalist society with only millionaires and no billionaires looks like?

That sounds like the postwar US and Europe, so a possible answer is: way better than the current plutocracy.

Or modern Japan, where the top 1% have average incomes of $240,000 and a grandiose lifestyle is considered embarrassing.

During the liberal period, every social class got more prosperous. When a company can't give all the gains to the executive suite, it gives something to all the workers. From a socialist point of view, it was horrible because actually prospering workers don't vote socialist. But from a human point of view, there has never been a better social system.

It's true that rich billionaires can end up generous and progressive, like Bill Gates. But they can also end up malicious and overpowered, like Rupert Murdoch. I suspect we'd do better if neither gentleman could get that rich, and whatever good works Gates is doing were done by governments instead.

You have a point: the billionaires are more likely to be progressive than millionaires are. But on the whole, having a laissez-faire system with plenty of billionaires is very bad for the 90%. Too many millionaires may be a problem, but not as big a problem.

[MacAnDàil]

Ares Land has answered this for me. Also, this is a hypothetical question. The SNP includes Christian Allard and Humza Yousaf for example.

I support national independence as a means to end oppression. As an end in itself, well, Indians who were Muslim in caste participated in both Indian and Pakistani liberation movements. What did any of these struggles get us? Even the smallest of the resulting states, Bangladesh, oppresses minorities. Arguably, the least oppressive regime is also the largest, India, and even there, Modi won twice.

Sure, it's not a panacea and things can better, especially by not having Modi oppressing Muslims. He's now got the farmers riled up. It's seems both of us jump to our home countries to talk about the issue.

[rotting bones]

zompist: I feel like there's a difference between a millionaire who just happens to be a millionaire and a millionaire who is pitted against a roadblock to capital accumulation. That is to say, a roadblock such as the wealth cap or a business that is owned by a billionaire. I suspect the latter is the source of their tendency towards antisocial bitterness: If only socialist regulations weren't holding them back, they would wipe the smirk off that smug billionaire's ugly mug! (Except maybe less childish. Also, I don't want to imply that millionaires can't be socialist. Some of them are.)

MacAnDàil: Yes, recent developments have soured me towards the whole concept of nationalism. I even used to be partial towards Dharmic spiritual traditions. That lasted until YouTube started recommending Sadhguru's "teachings" to me. It's not for no reason that I keep saying I don't believe in the existence of civilization. Everything can be corrupted, but to what end? Resource accumulation was the obvious answer. What can these people: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2Zk6V ... w=0&sort=p do when confronted by cynical manipulators like Sadhguru? Gandhi is dead.

On topic: If Scotland would be less oppressive without the UK, then I support Scottish independence. What I'm objecting to is the idea that smaller societies are more friendly to minorities. Compare the Robbers Cave Experiment.

One objection to my position might be that Bangladesh isn't small enough to be much better than India. If that's what you think, it's impressive how many abuses the Maldives have racked up for such a small country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rig ... e_Maldives Then again, a country ruled by a murderous death cult like 21st century Islam might not be a great example either. In that case, I refer you to Bhutan's record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Bhutan Despite their population of less than a million people, they even threw out Tibetan refugees in the 70's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_d ... #In_Bhutan

From the historical record, my impression is that disparate communities practice sustained, low key oppression. It seems to me that centers of civilization are usually more cosmopolitan. This means there is more general acceptance, interspersed with massive backlashes when frustration over resource competition boils over into hate.

[Ares Land]

Hopefully, my motivations are now clearer, so here's my unabridged argument: It's impossible to keep society running without financially inefficient enterprises. The real choice is between having these enterprises be capitalist or socialist in character. The unprofitable enterprises that survive under capitalism are heavily skewed towards the interests of the wealthy. Eg. If you believe Chomsky (Manufacturing Consent, Necessary Illusions, ...), even the press is indispensable for shaping a common narrative.

Yes. That's entirely correct.

The question we should be asking is: To what extent would capitalists be motivated to support social programs? Traditionally, they wouldn't have been able to dispense with the working class. As I see it, with the development of industrial automation, they are no longer bound by this restriction.

I don't believe automation really destroys jobs or the working class. The service sector, in particular, isn't going to be eliminated away.
Under an hypothetical scenario where everything could be done by machines (we're talking science-fiction, or fantasy here) it should be remembered that capitalists own capital by common convention -- assuming there'd be no jobs at all and everyone is facing starvation, that convention would fly out of the window.
Now, more realistically, support of social programs is a classic case of prisoner's dilemma. Your individual entrepreneur benefits by paying employees as little as possible but collectively entrepreneurs benefit from having everyone well-educated, in good health, and affluent enough to afford their products!
Judging by 20th century history, entrepreneurs can generally pick the right solution to this dilemma at the cost of a very regular kick in the ass.
More cynically, the Soviet Union did a lot of good to the Western World by constantly reminding everyone that ultimately, the alternative to paying your employees reasonably and doing your taxes is the storming of the Winter Palace and being sent to Siberia to build rail tracks in the middle of winter.

But I don't think it should apply to the whole economy. There are many cases where companies manage their production and do create jobs; why fix the parts that work?

Of course companies create jobs, but do you think they create enough jobs to facilitate an equitable distribution of resources?

They can but there's no guarantee. Right now the situation seems to be that they can't -- or at the cost of unreasonably low wages.
I agree that additional jobs must be supplied by additional, more socialized ways.

What do you propose that demand by vote be restricted to?

I don't think restrictions should be hard-coded, so to speak. Technically any industry could be helped that way. In practice that would depend on what happens to be profitable at the time. For instance, right now, there's no problem with the food industry in general; but specific projects (such as local food production) need to be helped with a view to future needs.

Proposals to equalize wealth accumulation by law leave me with a sense of foreboding. Assuming the extra capital isn't simply stored abroad, consider that under capitalism, rich allies of the poor are billionaires more often than millionaires. Do we really want to find out what a capitalist society with only millionaires and no billionaires looks like?

I have no particular problem with millionaires, or billionaires who may individually may be good or bad people or vote for whoever they like. The problem is wealth accumulation.
More generally, unless economic growth happens to be very high, money attracts money and wealth distribution will inevitably get inegalitarian and accordingly threaten the livelihood of everyone.
The traditional response to that is that growth is low right now because of socialism, or general laziness, or lack of Protestant work ethic, and that if we make enough tax cuts 5% growth will make a return.
So far it looks like growth under 1% is actually the normal situation, that tax cuts increase national debts to dangerous amounts and while there is some trickling down, it is woefully insufficient. Why do I think it's insufficient? Simple enough: in what are the largest, most developped economies in the history of mankind, we still have people begging in the street, and the hospitals are unable to handle a moderately severe respiratory infection. There is besides, no evidence that growth requires wealth concentration.
That is, of course, only taking into account the Western world. The situation elsewhere else is just frightening.

The current economic wisdom is that economy isn't a zero-sum game (which is true) and that wealth accumulation isn't a problem (which is false). At any given point, there is only so much money to go around, and only so much real estate in London, San Francisco, Beijing or Delhi.

[kodé]

So twice as slow. You proved that the keyboard is more efficient. Also, my computer has inbuilt mic and camera, like many computers these days.

Sure, my point is merely that it's not that slow, and that the gap could well be closed, at least in principle, by better tech. laptops don't count =P

I find entering anything into my smartphone to be slow and awkward, whereas with a keyboard, even a laptop keyboard, I am one with the machine and can enter text far, far faster than I possibly could tapping things into a smartphone (note that I am a touch-typist, which helps here).

Seconded. I wonder if this is an age thing (I’m 34), and if my now 5-year-old son will soon surpass me in speed of typing on a smartphone. Or maybe it’s my “trumpet fingers” (fat, uncoordinated fingers that aren’t nimble enough for a smartphone or a woodwind instrument).

[kodé]

The current economic wisdom is that economy isn't a zero-sum game (which is true) and that wealth accumulation isn't a problem (which is false). At any given point, there is only so much money to go around, and only so much real estate in London, San Francisco, Beijing or Delhi.

From my outsider perspective on the field, it seems that a good majority of economists believe that wealth accumulation and/or extreme inequality is a big problem (economically, not to mention humanitarian-ly). It’s the politicians (well, enough of them) who are peddling economic ideas from decades ago that have aged badly.

(Sorry if I misunderstood the referent of “current economic wisdom”)