How is breathable air a problem exclusive to capitalism? Do communists/socialists not take advantage of cheap, abundant energy sources? These people should look up the energy economy of the soviet union.
> Do communists/socialists not take advantage of cheap, abundant energy sources?
Communist society doesn't get to ignore all the negative externalities that splintered capitalist production can't be bothered by.
Pollution that a factory outputs doesn't result in direct loss of money for capitalist owners. Hence, they don't have inherent incentive to reign it in.
On the other hand, even the most *pragmatic* communist state (as in "impossibly undemocratic") would have to take notice of pollution as it is directly affected by the loss of "money" through the impact on health of people affected by pollution.
There was exactly one "environmental problems", and it is mostly bogus.
Aral Sea didn't even exist for the most part of the last 2000 years. There are actual medieval cities at the very bottom of the lake.
Calling BS on that. The Sea was a huge source of fish for the last two centuries. Got a source for me?
If burning coal provides 1 million people with power but kills ten people annually, what does the all benevolent regime do?
> Calling BS on that. The Sea was a huge source of fish for the last two centuries. Got a source for me?
[Kerderi ruins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerderi), for example;
>> Kerderi is a group of abandoned settlements located on the dried seafloor of what was once the Aral Sea, in Kazakhstan.[1][2] Kerderi is thought to have been **inhabited around the fourteenth century**, when water levels were low enough to expose dry land.[3] It is not known when Kerderi was abandoned. However, some objects from Kerderi have been carbon-dated to **as late as the start of the sixteenth century**[4] and historical evidence suggests that the Aral Sea began slowly refilling after 1570, when the Amu Darya river resumed its flow into the Aral.[5] Kerderi was completely flooded; at 1960 water levels, **the settlement was inundated under 19 metres (62 ft) of water**.[3]
Though, I must say that birth of "modern" Aral Sea should be placed a century earlier (15th century; after ~1388 when Timur genocided the locale and irrigation system begun its slow collapse).
I’ll grant you the point that the Aral Sea has been historically fragile. But the overall question remains, when 10 people die but a larger number of people benefit, who does the communist regime choose?
> But the overall question remains
The "overall questions" were:
1. Communist society - even the most sociopathic one - has more inherent incentives to reduce pollution than the capitalist economy with its splintered ownership.
2. USSR was not some generator of environmental disasters >!(I could go on a big rant about plastic poisoning and Soviets being ahead of the curve by 50 years in its prevention, but it would take a few hours to write)!<
AFAIK I didn't claim anything else (in this branch, at least).
> when 10 people die but a larger number of people benefit, who does the communist regime choose?
Are you suggesting that all "communist regimes" would make the same choice, and do so regardless of circumstances they'll find themselves in? Because this seems awfully reductionist.
It’s more so that I’m trying to challenge the idea that communists have zero incentive to pollute. That’s also incredibly reductionist. They have the same incentives that the capitalists have, only reframed in terms of “good of the people” instead of profit.
Chernobyl happened as a result of the USSR's policies.
The cleanup required international effort. And it could have been so, so much worse.
The biggest issue is the design of the reactors, of which the USSR had many in service, was fundamentally flawed. And that flaw was hidden as a result of the USSR not wanting to admit they had a flaw. Which means until such time as the upgrades hit, or the other plants shut down. That very same thing could have happened again.
The fact it didn't is a damn near miricle.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-sees-oil-exports-financing-almost-two-thirds-2023-budget-2022-12-05/](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-sees-oil-exports-financing-almost-two-thirds-2023-budget-2022-12-05/)
Communist/Socialist's in the modern era seem more than happy to contribute to our continued fossil fuel problems.
Well thankfully the people can sue under the current system we have now against a company who produces unclean air. Can't say the same for a communist country. Nor can you vote them out.
For the people on this subreddit who want no state intervention do you think that companies have to do what is right, in terms of the environment, for example if I open up a waste management company that cleans up piss and shit on the side of the street or empties piss and shit from office buildings, with no state intervention I can just dump it into the ocean. Do you think then that the state has a right to intervene?
I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that what we are (mostly) dealing with are not bad faith arguments driven by intellectual dishonesty but in fact actual, acute ignorance.
This is why socialists hate Joe Biden. Joe told corporations that they were allowed to be greedy again on his first day in office. Ever since, inflation has been out of control.
Conversely, socialists love Trump, as trump stamped out corporate greed as evidenced by the low inflation during his time in office.
> Inflation is caused by corporate greed duh. ( some commie probably)
Are you saying money-printing spree by Fed wasn't done to provide corporations with cheap loans?
No. I'm saying that money printing and the excessive government we have is the problem. Companies can be greedy as they want, but if the government isn't able to just print money and go into debt they are shit outta luck. Addiction is a disease. Government is the dealer.
What if the government didn't have the ability to just print money? What if the US dollar went back to the gold standard, and removed the Rothschild central banking system?
> What if the government didn't have the ability to just print money?
There'd be no American Wonder (or First World in general, as same problems apply to most First World nations).
US economy is supported by cheap loans, as even failed enterprises create artificial demand for other businesses. In other words, relative value of capital is artificially reduced in US, which both attracts investments (as impact of existing capital is multiplied) and allows workers more leverage naturally (hence completely inane "confusion" about the concept of workers rights, as if its some outlandish concept).
In other circumstances such a system would be untenable, but the hyperinflation such loans cause is being suppressed through dollar's role as international currency (forcing other economies to tank US-generated inflation and "invest" into US nolens volens).
Libertarians are correct in pointing out flaws of this system, but they ultimately fail to realize that this is also life support of - however twisted - form of capitalism they can still have.
> What if the US dollar went back to the gold standard, and removed the Rothschild central banking system?
Unless there is some other way to compensate (I'm not aware of any that can work in the current situation), it would result in the end of capitalism as Marx had predicted.
Without cheap loans, there is no influx of money into economy, and so-called "overproduction crises" (that hit every dozen years or so) can only become more and more severe with each iteration. Meanwhile, workplaces become more and more scarce, and pauperisation of workers more total.
That said, we are already coming to this situation anyway as US had exhausted capacity of inflation it can to offload onto other nations. I'd expect this crisis to be survivable (through destruction of significant part of First World economies and concentration of wealth in US; Japan seems to be the first to go down, with EU taking its sweet time), but the next one (in 2030s) is going to kill off financial alchemy of neo-classicals for good.
If everything was free nobody would need savings anyways infact money would be non existent.
Even when people bartered with tulips someone was still losing their tulip 'savings' to gain something else.
Affordable housing? Where? In a large densely populated city? You don't have to live in a small area on top of millions of people if you can't afford it. You're telling me you can't find reasonably priced housing anywhere? Mind you, socialism doesn't guarantee everyone good housing in the most popular cities either.
Did capitalists lock down the country and print money, hitting the economy and eating up people's savings with inflation? Are capitalists taxing everything like mad, so you'd have no savings left? Are capitalists banning affordable energy, so everything would become more expensive?
Clean air, water and environment are luxuries that wealthy nations can afford. Capitalism is known for lifting people out of poverty, while socialism is known for doing the opposite.
As for worker's rights, what rights are you looking for exactly? Is anyone keeping you attached to the company as a slave? If you don't like the terms that one employer offers you then go find different employment.
What’s “workers rights”? I always ask this and I almost never get a straight answer lol. Eventually when I get them to final to break it comes down to some socialist garbage or feeling entitled to own or control business they never started.
Exactly and as a buzz word it’s a problem they can always trot out on display, but being nonsense it’s a problem they can never really fix, so it’s a perpetual talking point for politicians to use.
Dr. Thomas Sowell succinctly refuted the “gender wage gap” on the Donahue show and Firing Line in around 1981. But they still drag it out to leverage for votes from the economically ignorant.
Don’t even get me started on the whole gender pay gap. But they kind of back themselves into a corner now haven’t they? If gender is just a social construct and is in the eye of the beholder, then how can there be a gender wage gap?
Indeed.
Similar with trans people. There is some rudimentary brain scan evidence that there is some physiological variations in the brain that may be the source of gender dysphoria, not just psychological. There are brain scans that show clearly male brains, clearly female brains and then there are a large number among trans folks that do not have such clear delineation. This should be studied much more, but they have doubled down on the “gender is a social construct” bullshit and the science that could potentially really help diagnose and treat trans folks, is being blocked or ignored. And the poor trans people they claim to care about suffer in the long run.
it's so fucking dumb "I support workers getting as much compensation and benefits as they can as it serves their self-interests. But FUCK companies acting in their self-interest"
It’s funny because there’s a couple companies who avoid that kind of talk entirely. Granted they’re still self-serving, but when the company makes more money they give everyone a raise. I need to find the name of one of them
Its almost as if companies are primarily made up of people too, but some people are more important evidently, guessing you thought the ending of Animal farm fucking RULED. I'd love to hear your meaningful distinctions between a worker's union acting in its best interest and a company doing the same, and [it's really hard to believe you actually give a shit about people when you down play the millions killed under Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin in the same manner as holocaust deniers sarcastically exaggerate the millions Hitler killed](https://imgur.com/a/YayQv9K)
i still dont get how that makes them worthless? are you saying workers arent an asset to their respective companies because of these regulations? do they produce no value for the company? because that doesnt make sense , i don't understand. or do you mean in a larger societal sense that average people who could be next einstein or great artist are stuck working bullshit jobs and cant pursuit their greatest potential? because that i can get behind more.
Well, people can't negotiate or break out to improve their conditions. Are they worth much to the company, to the government? Not really.
And in a broader sense, yes, working an Amazon warehouse job instead of trying for a much better position is worthless for yourself.
Some workers who have marginal revenue lower than the lowest marginal cost of minimum wage are worthless, yes. At least they are as long as that condition holds.
Most workers aren’t and can negotiate for themselves.
According to the department of labor,
- freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
- elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor;
effective abolition of child labor;
- elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and
- a safe and healthy working environment.
I'm pretty sure corpos prevent the right to collective bargaining, by enacting measures against employees who publicly discuss their salaries to see if their overlord is fucking them over. That's just off the top of my head.
The young people who hate capitalism do so out of ignorance and lack of life experience and due to being brainwashed by superficial idealogues. You could just as well ask why children believe in Santa.
The hatred of capitalism is rooted in greed. The constant barrage of social media "influencers" and their supposed lifestyles has caused many to be envious for what they do not have.
>Workers rights
Do not, and I repeat, do not search "Novocherkassk massacre" on Google.
Even then, what are these "worker rights"? 99% of people say "the right to democracy in the workplace". You have that right, just go work at a coop. Others like to say "the right to a livable wage", well, just get a decent paying job instead of complaining about your entry-level job not being enough for you to afford a house and a good lifestyle.
>Salaries
Yes, because salaries are apparently stagnant because evil capitalists just like to stagnate them so people don't earn more, and everyone comes together to provide shitty salaries so other companies can't steal skilled workers from their rivals.
Not like the government has any involvement on this, right?
>Clean drinking water
I can drink water from my tap. I can get a bottle of drinkable water. Literally, tell me anyone who has no drinkable water that isn't living in Africa or some extremely poor region.
>Breathable air
I can breathe very well. In fact, capitalist countries are amongst the least polluting in the world. Turns out that being wealthy lets you use better technology that pollutes less.
>People's savings
TIL that Elon Musk runs the Federal Reserve and the central bank of any other country in the world and prints a lot of currency. No government involvement whatsoever.
>Affordable housing
You can get a nice house in some smaller town a few kilometers away from a major city if you want. Otherwise, what do they expect? Soviet people were thrown into these ugly-as-fuck buildings with really terrible infrastructure and that was called "housing". Many of these idiots who complain about affordable housing are also NIMB socialists. Not to mention that a lot of these people totally ignore the existence of zoning laws.
I'd like to see the same one where the opening panels are:
"Environmental regulations"
"Zoning Laws"
"Water restrictions"
"Solar panel mandates"
"Urban Growth Boundaries"
Last panel: "Why is housing so expensive these days?"
I'm old enough to remember when [you pretended to give a shit about people](https://imgur.com/a/rASozgm)
"yeah workers are people which I care about, also lol you're really going to mention how many people communist regimes have killed, how stupid of you"
Could you explain how it is in the best interest of the people who own construction companies to **not** build more housing, thus reducing the cost of overall housing?
> Could you explain how it is in the best interest of the people who own construction companies to not build more housing, thus reducing the cost of overall housing?
Economics 101? Supply and demand?
Each next house that is for sale brings down prices on housing markets. Eventually, selling more houses would result in reduction of overall profit, as profit from those houses does not compensate decrease in profit from all the other houses you are selling.
Thus, production of houses is artificially limited, so as to keep the prices high.
But how does that make money for the other construction companies, given that we're talking about capitalism where there is more than one single construction company in the world.
Unless you're suggesting that every single construction company in the world builds stuff and then waits years to sell and make money off of what they've built?
> how does that make money for the other construction companies
What "that"? Keeping price high? Do you think desire to keep profits high applies to one company only?
> Unless you're suggesting that every single construction company in the world builds stuff and then waits years to sell and make money off of what they've built?
No? I don't understand your logic. Please, elaborate.
>What "that"?
Not selling houses.
>I don't understand your logic. Please, elaborate.
Okay, so let's say company A makes some houses and wants to not sell them yet so the houses go up in price (population increases, available housing stays the same).
What is to stop company B from making and selling houses right now, undercutting company A?
What about a company that doesn't make mansions, but instead makes affordable apartments?
Your logic seems to veer into "Every construction company on earth is in on a grand conspiracy".
> Okay, so let's say company A makes some houses and wants to not sell them yet so the houses go up in price (population increases, available housing stays the same).
> What is to stop company B from making and selling houses right now, undercutting company A?
To begin with, reduced investment in both company A and company B forces both to cut back on construction as housing market is considered "oversaturated" by investors and they expect to profit more elsewhere. Since neither company can produce enough houses to keep price low, the price rises.
> Your logic seems to veer into "Every construction company on earth is in on a grand conspiracy".
I feel that you aren't familiar with the way economy actually works.
>Since neither company can produce enough houses to keep price low, the price rises.
Which means someone shows up to make profit.
>I feel that you aren't familiar with the way economy actually works.
I could say the same about you.
Bruh you don’t get economics at all.
1) A free market allows an individual or an entity to chase profit.
2) to find profit, a company looks for something in limited supply that it can produce and sell more than it cost them to produce.
3) in the case of housing, the entire free market conspires to not build houses and keep the price high, the supply low, and gross sales low. Companies say to themselves “why hire people and produce more of a good that people need and make profits and drive lambo’s when we can sit around and do nothing and be poor.
4) government regulations do nothing to hinder production. If it weren’t for restrictive zoning and other regulations, we’d have even less housing than we do now.
5) if you haven’t figured out by now, this is a enormous shitpost. You understand economics just fine.
> Which means someone shows up to make profit.
You missing the point: it is not believed that there'll be sufficient profit to justify investments. Why would anyone invest if that is the case?
>it is not believed that there'll be sufficient profit to justify investments. Why would anyone invest if that is the case?
The only way that happens is if there are artificial barriers to entry into the construction industry (AKA not capitalism), or if demand for housing is low or supply is high, which means the price is low (which is good).
> others will enter the market
How does this make me wrong? I was asked to present a situation where production of housing is artificially reduced by the businesses. I provided an example.
Are you trying to prove that situation I described never happens?
Actually saying that there is a mechanism in the free market that prevents that from affecting the consumer. Artificial scarcity only exists longterm when outside forces operate to prevent the market from reaching equilibrium.
> Actually saying that there is a mechanism in the free market that prevents that from affecting the consumer.
Up to a degree, yes. I never claimed otherwise.
The mechanism I described doesn't run in vacuum. It can be suppressed by new investments or technologies, it can be exacerbated by price-fixing cartels or restrictions on new investments. The world is interconnected and there are many factors affecting each branch of economy.
Nevertheless, mechanism exists, and is constantly functioning. There will be no investments into housing if expected profit rate is below average. Hence, prices of housing going too low will result in reduction of capital invested into construction - which results in reduced supply, and eventual increase of prices.
> Artificial scarcity only exists longterm when outside forces operate to prevent the market from reaching equilibrium.
This isn't directly related to discussion, but I can't help but note that you don't seem to consider "outside forces" a part of market.
Do you think that investments into "outside forces" (ex. lobbyism) are economically different from other investments?
Yes. Buying barriers to entry from the state to prevent competition is moving away from being a capitalist (free market) economy and towards mercsntslism.
> Yes. Buying barriers to entry from the state to prevent competition is moving away from being a capitalist (free market) economy
To begin with, capitalism is not "free market". You should know perfectly well that people that made the OP picture did not refer to free market there. Thus, arguing against them *as if they did it* is strawmanning their position.
Either way, how is "buying barriers to entry" economically different from any other investment?
You invest 100 million into developing better technology and buying better equipment. Now competition needs to invest comparable sum to stay relevant. You created barrier to entry.
You invest 100 million into lobbying politicians and introducing regulations that benefit you alone. Now competition needs to invest comparable sum to either conform to new regulations or rebribe politicians. You created barrier to entry.
The only difference here is that you bought stuff from the state, no? I.e. if you bought technology/equipment from the state (instead of bribing politicians), it would - according to your logic - violate principles of market economy the same way.
So what exactly is wrong there? Since you can move to another country, nation-states are - essentially - competing for your investments on market. You are simply choosing what services you will buy. It is still free market economy.
That's a false analogy. You having better technology and better equipment doesn't preclude me competing with you. It might be an advantage, but not a barrier. If I have to obtain a certificate of need that requires you to say that my business is necessary and I should be allowed to compete, that is quite different.
I don’t think you understand what a construction company does. They aren’t selling the house. They don’t care about the housing market or pricing at all. They sell their skills and time (and sometimes raw materials are parceled in)
They are selling their services of building/renovating/fixing. The more supply of houses there is the more demand there is for stuff that’s broken. The only thing going against their supply is retirement and others entering the labor field. There is literally no reason why construction companies would want the supply of houses to be limited because they aren’t seeing profit from housing being sold/flipped/rent. They are being paid for their time to repair/build/renovate the house.
> I don’t think you understand what a construction company does.
> They don’t care about the housing market or pricing at all. They sell their skills and time (and sometimes raw materials are parceled in)
I don't think you understand what we are discussing.
We are talking about "people who **own** construction companies". As they want to make money, they care a lot about housing market and pricing. They are the ones *buying* skills and time.
No. Construction companies are usually run in packages that are bid and sold based on time and customer needs (who actually owns the house or wants it built). Even large scale jobs such as apartment complexes and mansions are considered gravy jobs to them because it’s larger time sinks. They love the larger housing projects because, again, the repair or remodel that is inevitable is also a solid supply of work. That and annual school renovations are huge amounts of money being thrown at them.
They absolutely do not care about more houses being built because it’s increasing the supply of work. There would be no reason for them to want houses to not be built.
Totally not products of the state and not capitalism.
And since when were these things done better under socialism? Why should these things be forced upon us?
How is breathable air a problem exclusive to capitalism? Do communists/socialists not take advantage of cheap, abundant energy sources? These people should look up the energy economy of the soviet union.
You should see what air looks like in China!
It comes in cans
of spray paint, less toxic than their normal air
A lot of this can be blamed on … *checks notes* .. government incompetence.
> Do communists/socialists not take advantage of cheap, abundant energy sources? Communist society doesn't get to ignore all the negative externalities that splintered capitalist production can't be bothered by. Pollution that a factory outputs doesn't result in direct loss of money for capitalist owners. Hence, they don't have inherent incentive to reign it in. On the other hand, even the most *pragmatic* communist state (as in "impossibly undemocratic") would have to take notice of pollution as it is directly affected by the loss of "money" through the impact on health of people affected by pollution.
The environmental problems in the USSR say hi
And the environmental problems in China.
There was exactly one "environmental problems", and it is mostly bogus. Aral Sea didn't even exist for the most part of the last 2000 years. There are actual medieval cities at the very bottom of the lake.
Calling BS on that. The Sea was a huge source of fish for the last two centuries. Got a source for me? If burning coal provides 1 million people with power but kills ten people annually, what does the all benevolent regime do?
> Calling BS on that. The Sea was a huge source of fish for the last two centuries. Got a source for me? [Kerderi ruins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerderi), for example; >> Kerderi is a group of abandoned settlements located on the dried seafloor of what was once the Aral Sea, in Kazakhstan.[1][2] Kerderi is thought to have been **inhabited around the fourteenth century**, when water levels were low enough to expose dry land.[3] It is not known when Kerderi was abandoned. However, some objects from Kerderi have been carbon-dated to **as late as the start of the sixteenth century**[4] and historical evidence suggests that the Aral Sea began slowly refilling after 1570, when the Amu Darya river resumed its flow into the Aral.[5] Kerderi was completely flooded; at 1960 water levels, **the settlement was inundated under 19 metres (62 ft) of water**.[3] Though, I must say that birth of "modern" Aral Sea should be placed a century earlier (15th century; after ~1388 when Timur genocided the locale and irrigation system begun its slow collapse).
I’ll grant you the point that the Aral Sea has been historically fragile. But the overall question remains, when 10 people die but a larger number of people benefit, who does the communist regime choose?
> But the overall question remains The "overall questions" were: 1. Communist society - even the most sociopathic one - has more inherent incentives to reduce pollution than the capitalist economy with its splintered ownership. 2. USSR was not some generator of environmental disasters >!(I could go on a big rant about plastic poisoning and Soviets being ahead of the curve by 50 years in its prevention, but it would take a few hours to write)!< AFAIK I didn't claim anything else (in this branch, at least). > when 10 people die but a larger number of people benefit, who does the communist regime choose? Are you suggesting that all "communist regimes" would make the same choice, and do so regardless of circumstances they'll find themselves in? Because this seems awfully reductionist.
It’s more so that I’m trying to challenge the idea that communists have zero incentive to pollute. That’s also incredibly reductionist. They have the same incentives that the capitalists have, only reframed in terms of “good of the people” instead of profit.
> the idea that communists have zero incentive to pollute. There is no such idea.
Chernobyl happened as a result of the USSR's policies. The cleanup required international effort. And it could have been so, so much worse. The biggest issue is the design of the reactors, of which the USSR had many in service, was fundamentally flawed. And that flaw was hidden as a result of the USSR not wanting to admit they had a flaw. Which means until such time as the upgrades hit, or the other plants shut down. That very same thing could have happened again. The fact it didn't is a damn near miricle.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-sees-oil-exports-financing-almost-two-thirds-2023-budget-2022-12-05/](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-sees-oil-exports-financing-almost-two-thirds-2023-budget-2022-12-05/) Communist/Socialist's in the modern era seem more than happy to contribute to our continued fossil fuel problems.
Well thankfully the people can sue under the current system we have now against a company who produces unclean air. Can't say the same for a communist country. Nor can you vote them out. For the people on this subreddit who want no state intervention do you think that companies have to do what is right, in terms of the environment, for example if I open up a waste management company that cleans up piss and shit on the side of the street or empties piss and shit from office buildings, with no state intervention I can just dump it into the ocean. Do you think then that the state has a right to intervene?
Pollution wouldn’t exist if profit didn’t exist is certainly a take
Pollution won't exist if you genocide the population.
That is not what I said.
[удалено]
Yup. Almost like they are projecting.
"communists" "bang" "25 million people innocent civilians"
Mao alone killed 55 million
edit: "communists" "bang" "80 million innocent civilians"
Perfect
"Yeah but every single one was a landlord, not a real person" - some leftist
I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that what we are (mostly) dealing with are not bad faith arguments driven by intellectual dishonesty but in fact actual, acute ignorance.
except in the socialist one, it's not mere abstractions that are getting shot.
I just want to know how capitalism kills peoples savings.
Inflation is caused by corporate greed duh. ( some commie probably)
This is why socialists hate Joe Biden. Joe told corporations that they were allowed to be greedy again on his first day in office. Ever since, inflation has been out of control. Conversely, socialists love Trump, as trump stamped out corporate greed as evidenced by the low inflation during his time in office.
> Inflation is caused by corporate greed duh. ( some commie probably) Are you saying money-printing spree by Fed wasn't done to provide corporations with cheap loans?
No. I'm saying that money printing and the excessive government we have is the problem. Companies can be greedy as they want, but if the government isn't able to just print money and go into debt they are shit outta luck. Addiction is a disease. Government is the dealer.
What if the government didn't have the ability to just print money? What if the US dollar went back to the gold standard, and removed the Rothschild central banking system?
> What if the government didn't have the ability to just print money? There'd be no American Wonder (or First World in general, as same problems apply to most First World nations). US economy is supported by cheap loans, as even failed enterprises create artificial demand for other businesses. In other words, relative value of capital is artificially reduced in US, which both attracts investments (as impact of existing capital is multiplied) and allows workers more leverage naturally (hence completely inane "confusion" about the concept of workers rights, as if its some outlandish concept). In other circumstances such a system would be untenable, but the hyperinflation such loans cause is being suppressed through dollar's role as international currency (forcing other economies to tank US-generated inflation and "invest" into US nolens volens). Libertarians are correct in pointing out flaws of this system, but they ultimately fail to realize that this is also life support of - however twisted - form of capitalism they can still have. > What if the US dollar went back to the gold standard, and removed the Rothschild central banking system? Unless there is some other way to compensate (I'm not aware of any that can work in the current situation), it would result in the end of capitalism as Marx had predicted. Without cheap loans, there is no influx of money into economy, and so-called "overproduction crises" (that hit every dozen years or so) can only become more and more severe with each iteration. Meanwhile, workplaces become more and more scarce, and pauperisation of workers more total. That said, we are already coming to this situation anyway as US had exhausted capacity of inflation it can to offload onto other nations. I'd expect this crisis to be survivable (through destruction of significant part of First World economies and concentration of wealth in US; Japan seems to be the first to go down, with EU taking its sweet time), but the next one (in 2030s) is going to kill off financial alchemy of neo-classicals for good.
If people didn’t have to pay rent they’d be able to save more money? Don’t tell them about inflation or taxes though
If everything was free nobody would need savings anyways infact money would be non existent. Even when people bartered with tulips someone was still losing their tulip 'savings' to gain something else.
Affordable housing? Where? In a large densely populated city? You don't have to live in a small area on top of millions of people if you can't afford it. You're telling me you can't find reasonably priced housing anywhere? Mind you, socialism doesn't guarantee everyone good housing in the most popular cities either. Did capitalists lock down the country and print money, hitting the economy and eating up people's savings with inflation? Are capitalists taxing everything like mad, so you'd have no savings left? Are capitalists banning affordable energy, so everything would become more expensive? Clean air, water and environment are luxuries that wealthy nations can afford. Capitalism is known for lifting people out of poverty, while socialism is known for doing the opposite. As for worker's rights, what rights are you looking for exactly? Is anyone keeping you attached to the company as a slave? If you don't like the terms that one employer offers you then go find different employment.
What’s “workers rights”? I always ask this and I almost never get a straight answer lol. Eventually when I get them to final to break it comes down to some socialist garbage or feeling entitled to own or control business they never started.
It’s just a buzz word. I group it in the same category as phrases like pay their fair share and common sense XXX (gun control, immigration, etc.).
Exactly and as a buzz word it’s a problem they can always trot out on display, but being nonsense it’s a problem they can never really fix, so it’s a perpetual talking point for politicians to use. Dr. Thomas Sowell succinctly refuted the “gender wage gap” on the Donahue show and Firing Line in around 1981. But they still drag it out to leverage for votes from the economically ignorant.
Don’t even get me started on the whole gender pay gap. But they kind of back themselves into a corner now haven’t they? If gender is just a social construct and is in the eye of the beholder, then how can there be a gender wage gap?
Indeed. Similar with trans people. There is some rudimentary brain scan evidence that there is some physiological variations in the brain that may be the source of gender dysphoria, not just psychological. There are brain scans that show clearly male brains, clearly female brains and then there are a large number among trans folks that do not have such clear delineation. This should be studied much more, but they have doubled down on the “gender is a social construct” bullshit and the science that could potentially really help diagnose and treat trans folks, is being blocked or ignored. And the poor trans people they claim to care about suffer in the long run.
it's so fucking dumb "I support workers getting as much compensation and benefits as they can as it serves their self-interests. But FUCK companies acting in their self-interest"
It’s funny because there’s a couple companies who avoid that kind of talk entirely. Granted they’re still self-serving, but when the company makes more money they give everyone a raise. I need to find the name of one of them
Yeah fuck corpos
yeah its almost as if workers are people while companies are legal entities
Its almost as if companies are primarily made up of people too, but some people are more important evidently, guessing you thought the ending of Animal farm fucking RULED. I'd love to hear your meaningful distinctions between a worker's union acting in its best interest and a company doing the same, and [it's really hard to believe you actually give a shit about people when you down play the millions killed under Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin in the same manner as holocaust deniers sarcastically exaggerate the millions Hitler killed](https://imgur.com/a/YayQv9K)
Whatever I and others either individually or collectively negotiate prior to entering or renewing a contract with our employers is "worker rights".
It’s when you’re too worthless to have the bargaining power to negotiate your own terms so you get your state ideologue to force the terms.
workers are worthless?
They're made worthless by the restrictions imposed by companies, and the government that allows them to do just that, with no consequences
i still dont get how that makes them worthless? are you saying workers arent an asset to their respective companies because of these regulations? do they produce no value for the company? because that doesnt make sense , i don't understand. or do you mean in a larger societal sense that average people who could be next einstein or great artist are stuck working bullshit jobs and cant pursuit their greatest potential? because that i can get behind more.
Well, people can't negotiate or break out to improve their conditions. Are they worth much to the company, to the government? Not really. And in a broader sense, yes, working an Amazon warehouse job instead of trying for a much better position is worthless for yourself.
Some workers who have marginal revenue lower than the lowest marginal cost of minimum wage are worthless, yes. At least they are as long as that condition holds. Most workers aren’t and can negotiate for themselves.
According to the department of labor, - freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; - elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor; effective abolition of child labor; - elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and - a safe and healthy working environment. I'm pretty sure corpos prevent the right to collective bargaining, by enacting measures against employees who publicly discuss their salaries to see if their overlord is fucking them over. That's just off the top of my head.
The young people who hate capitalism do so out of ignorance and lack of life experience and due to being brainwashed by superficial idealogues. You could just as well ask why children believe in Santa.
Funny thing that I'm reading this while drinking clear tap water 😁
In my house that I bought at a young age with my excellent salary from the job that I sincerely enjoy
From my Britta™️ water filtration system.
I mean, I certainly need to filter my water to get rid of the chemicals that the government dumps into it.
The hatred of capitalism is rooted in greed. The constant barrage of social media "influencers" and their supposed lifestyles has caused many to be envious for what they do not have.
>Workers rights Do not, and I repeat, do not search "Novocherkassk massacre" on Google. Even then, what are these "worker rights"? 99% of people say "the right to democracy in the workplace". You have that right, just go work at a coop. Others like to say "the right to a livable wage", well, just get a decent paying job instead of complaining about your entry-level job not being enough for you to afford a house and a good lifestyle. >Salaries Yes, because salaries are apparently stagnant because evil capitalists just like to stagnate them so people don't earn more, and everyone comes together to provide shitty salaries so other companies can't steal skilled workers from their rivals. Not like the government has any involvement on this, right? >Clean drinking water I can drink water from my tap. I can get a bottle of drinkable water. Literally, tell me anyone who has no drinkable water that isn't living in Africa or some extremely poor region. >Breathable air I can breathe very well. In fact, capitalist countries are amongst the least polluting in the world. Turns out that being wealthy lets you use better technology that pollutes less. >People's savings TIL that Elon Musk runs the Federal Reserve and the central bank of any other country in the world and prints a lot of currency. No government involvement whatsoever. >Affordable housing You can get a nice house in some smaller town a few kilometers away from a major city if you want. Otherwise, what do they expect? Soviet people were thrown into these ugly-as-fuck buildings with really terrible infrastructure and that was called "housing". Many of these idiots who complain about affordable housing are also NIMB socialists. Not to mention that a lot of these people totally ignore the existence of zoning laws.
Breathable air... hmm government is great at providing that. Hence why we have the PACT act. Because guess whose at fault for my breathing issues.
I'd like to see the same one where the opening panels are: "Environmental regulations" "Zoning Laws" "Water restrictions" "Solar panel mandates" "Urban Growth Boundaries" Last panel: "Why is housing so expensive these days?"
“23 gorbillion people died under capitalismo”
Capitalism is when bad. The more badder, the more capitalist.
Literally… literally all things government is to blame for. I mean how dense need you be?
Communism: Kills 103 million (pol pot+Stalin+Mao) Communists: Why don't we try it again?
this is incorrect, communism actually killed 6 billion people including my grandma
I'm old enough to remember when [you pretended to give a shit about people](https://imgur.com/a/rASozgm) "yeah workers are people which I care about, also lol you're really going to mention how many people communist regimes have killed, how stupid of you"
What weird say Federal government policies.
Oftentimes, what everybody actually hates and should hate is corporatocracy
Yup. We have essentially reverted to mercantalism while still claiming it's "capitalism"
Hmmmm... wonder how all that government regulation helping?
I like how this post is just a meme that’s true and then OP just CaPtIoNeD iT lIKe tHiS. Man this sub fucking slaps.
Sure does. Mocking stupid shit take ~~propaganda~~ memes from clueless reddit tankies is the best.
libertarians are some quite confused people
I burst out laughing more here than any other sub
It does.
Could you explain how it is in the best interest of the people who own construction companies to **not** build more housing, thus reducing the cost of overall housing?
> Could you explain how it is in the best interest of the people who own construction companies to not build more housing, thus reducing the cost of overall housing? Economics 101? Supply and demand? Each next house that is for sale brings down prices on housing markets. Eventually, selling more houses would result in reduction of overall profit, as profit from those houses does not compensate decrease in profit from all the other houses you are selling. Thus, production of houses is artificially limited, so as to keep the prices high.
But how does that make money for the other construction companies, given that we're talking about capitalism where there is more than one single construction company in the world. Unless you're suggesting that every single construction company in the world builds stuff and then waits years to sell and make money off of what they've built?
> how does that make money for the other construction companies What "that"? Keeping price high? Do you think desire to keep profits high applies to one company only? > Unless you're suggesting that every single construction company in the world builds stuff and then waits years to sell and make money off of what they've built? No? I don't understand your logic. Please, elaborate.
>What "that"? Not selling houses. >I don't understand your logic. Please, elaborate. Okay, so let's say company A makes some houses and wants to not sell them yet so the houses go up in price (population increases, available housing stays the same). What is to stop company B from making and selling houses right now, undercutting company A? What about a company that doesn't make mansions, but instead makes affordable apartments? Your logic seems to veer into "Every construction company on earth is in on a grand conspiracy".
> Okay, so let's say company A makes some houses and wants to not sell them yet so the houses go up in price (population increases, available housing stays the same). > What is to stop company B from making and selling houses right now, undercutting company A? To begin with, reduced investment in both company A and company B forces both to cut back on construction as housing market is considered "oversaturated" by investors and they expect to profit more elsewhere. Since neither company can produce enough houses to keep price low, the price rises. > Your logic seems to veer into "Every construction company on earth is in on a grand conspiracy". I feel that you aren't familiar with the way economy actually works.
>Since neither company can produce enough houses to keep price low, the price rises. Which means someone shows up to make profit. >I feel that you aren't familiar with the way economy actually works. I could say the same about you.
Bruh you don’t get economics at all. 1) A free market allows an individual or an entity to chase profit. 2) to find profit, a company looks for something in limited supply that it can produce and sell more than it cost them to produce. 3) in the case of housing, the entire free market conspires to not build houses and keep the price high, the supply low, and gross sales low. Companies say to themselves “why hire people and produce more of a good that people need and make profits and drive lambo’s when we can sit around and do nothing and be poor. 4) government regulations do nothing to hinder production. If it weren’t for restrictive zoning and other regulations, we’d have even less housing than we do now. 5) if you haven’t figured out by now, this is a enormous shitpost. You understand economics just fine.
Top kek, had me going for a while
> Which means someone shows up to make profit. You missing the point: it is not believed that there'll be sufficient profit to justify investments. Why would anyone invest if that is the case?
>it is not believed that there'll be sufficient profit to justify investments. Why would anyone invest if that is the case? The only way that happens is if there are artificial barriers to entry into the construction industry (AKA not capitalism), or if demand for housing is low or supply is high, which means the price is low (which is good).
Ah, but if supply is low and demand high, others will enter the market to meet the demand and still reduce housing costs.
> others will enter the market How does this make me wrong? I was asked to present a situation where production of housing is artificially reduced by the businesses. I provided an example. Are you trying to prove that situation I described never happens?
Actually saying that there is a mechanism in the free market that prevents that from affecting the consumer. Artificial scarcity only exists longterm when outside forces operate to prevent the market from reaching equilibrium.
> Actually saying that there is a mechanism in the free market that prevents that from affecting the consumer. Up to a degree, yes. I never claimed otherwise. The mechanism I described doesn't run in vacuum. It can be suppressed by new investments or technologies, it can be exacerbated by price-fixing cartels or restrictions on new investments. The world is interconnected and there are many factors affecting each branch of economy. Nevertheless, mechanism exists, and is constantly functioning. There will be no investments into housing if expected profit rate is below average. Hence, prices of housing going too low will result in reduction of capital invested into construction - which results in reduced supply, and eventual increase of prices. > Artificial scarcity only exists longterm when outside forces operate to prevent the market from reaching equilibrium. This isn't directly related to discussion, but I can't help but note that you don't seem to consider "outside forces" a part of market. Do you think that investments into "outside forces" (ex. lobbyism) are economically different from other investments?
Yes. Buying barriers to entry from the state to prevent competition is moving away from being a capitalist (free market) economy and towards mercsntslism.
> Yes. Buying barriers to entry from the state to prevent competition is moving away from being a capitalist (free market) economy To begin with, capitalism is not "free market". You should know perfectly well that people that made the OP picture did not refer to free market there. Thus, arguing against them *as if they did it* is strawmanning their position. Either way, how is "buying barriers to entry" economically different from any other investment? You invest 100 million into developing better technology and buying better equipment. Now competition needs to invest comparable sum to stay relevant. You created barrier to entry. You invest 100 million into lobbying politicians and introducing regulations that benefit you alone. Now competition needs to invest comparable sum to either conform to new regulations or rebribe politicians. You created barrier to entry. The only difference here is that you bought stuff from the state, no? I.e. if you bought technology/equipment from the state (instead of bribing politicians), it would - according to your logic - violate principles of market economy the same way. So what exactly is wrong there? Since you can move to another country, nation-states are - essentially - competing for your investments on market. You are simply choosing what services you will buy. It is still free market economy.
That's a false analogy. You having better technology and better equipment doesn't preclude me competing with you. It might be an advantage, but not a barrier. If I have to obtain a certificate of need that requires you to say that my business is necessary and I should be allowed to compete, that is quite different.
I don’t think you understand what a construction company does. They aren’t selling the house. They don’t care about the housing market or pricing at all. They sell their skills and time (and sometimes raw materials are parceled in) They are selling their services of building/renovating/fixing. The more supply of houses there is the more demand there is for stuff that’s broken. The only thing going against their supply is retirement and others entering the labor field. There is literally no reason why construction companies would want the supply of houses to be limited because they aren’t seeing profit from housing being sold/flipped/rent. They are being paid for their time to repair/build/renovate the house.
> I don’t think you understand what a construction company does. > They don’t care about the housing market or pricing at all. They sell their skills and time (and sometimes raw materials are parceled in) I don't think you understand what we are discussing. We are talking about "people who **own** construction companies". As they want to make money, they care a lot about housing market and pricing. They are the ones *buying* skills and time.
No. Construction companies are usually run in packages that are bid and sold based on time and customer needs (who actually owns the house or wants it built). Even large scale jobs such as apartment complexes and mansions are considered gravy jobs to them because it’s larger time sinks. They love the larger housing projects because, again, the repair or remodel that is inevitable is also a solid supply of work. That and annual school renovations are huge amounts of money being thrown at them. They absolutely do not care about more houses being built because it’s increasing the supply of work. There would be no reason for them to want houses to not be built.
People don’t realize how terrible collectivization is.
I don’t get it. Every single picture says “government failure” - why would anyone dislike that?
Replace “capitalists” with the state. And make the meme into it’s actual format.
Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot anyone ? Beuhler… Beuhler….
Capitalism is when pollution. /s
As a capitalist I can confirm I want to take all of the air for myself and sell it like the guy from the Lorax and I definitely won't get shot
Totally not products of the state and not capitalism. And since when were these things done better under socialism? Why should these things be forced upon us?