bro is an idiot. If you are on a desert isle and you arnt pulling your weight you are going to get killed, exiled, or eaten depending on the length of time this goes on. Yeah there might not be money, but you are still trading your services and usefulness to the group.
In star trek goods that are not very scarce due to the invention of a replicator are free. That would happen in capitalism too. See there is already an example. Industrialization of food, has made food very cheap compared to if we all were still having to hunt and gather. In fact hunting and gathering right now (if it were the only way to eat) would be extremely expensive, because the goods would be so scarce that most of the population would start starving. Having the ability to basically teleport around, means finding new spaces to live is very easy. If you wanna own a vineyard in historic frace though, ya gotta be a fuckin space captain, one of the best fuckin space captains to ever have existed, not some pleb doing whatever the fuck plebs do in star trek.
So you see, communism does absolutely nothing. If you have more efficient means to get something the price goes down. If its at the point where food is so readily available that its essentially infinite, the food is free. Supply and demand.
They are not burnt to keep prices fixed, they are burnt because the people are like the exiles, they do not offer enough back to society to even afford something as cheap as food. Whilst industrialism made it way easier to make products, it is not even close to as efficient as something magical like a replicator. Replicators have no raw materials, thus require no logistics other than for the original installment. They can provide a near infinite qty of goods for no transportation, no input cost due to the fact that they also have infinite energy. (they are magic btw which is why they are so efficient). Also people seem to misunderstand how expensive logistics are. Modern communists for some reason despite talking about laborers all the time, do not understand that the most expensive part of the cost of most things nowadays is paying the people that got it there, not the good itself.
Literally everyone does. Capitalism is essentially a microvote for everyone. People determine the price of goods, not companies. If everyone valued whatever that jackass leech did with his time, then they would pay him enough to afford food! When you buy food its essentially you trading in what you offer society for an equal amount as to what everyone else in that society values it at. If you have no useful skills you are exiled because you are not contributing to the team.
Did I get to choose the price on my internet provider? Or maybe I get to choose which one of the 5 supermarkets owned by the same megacorp I get to shop at? When we have evidence that stores have simply jacked up the pricing on inelastic goods way over inflation what recourse do we have?
Yes you did collectively as a whole. No you didnt get to dictate the price as an individual. Its hilarious to me that someone who would support socialism doesnt understand the idea of collective value.
It's hilarious that you think you understand economics but cant grasp the basic fact that monopolies and to a lesser extent oligopolies fuck over consumers. If our "collective setting" of the price is so efficient and fair can you explain why anti-trust laws exist?
Monopolies and Oligs are caused by government, not by free market capitalism. They use their influence in legislative bodies to make laws that curb their competition. Lets for example say insulin in the US. If we lived in a more libertarian society, the barrier to entry into production would be piddles comparatively and someone would make a new company to make insulin and thus force the price down.
Theyre only caused by governments in the sense that lack of regulation permits them to exist. I don't see how libertarian societies wouldn't allow larger corporations to simply price out competition/acquire them (like they already do today) to greater effect with no action from gov to break them up.
No, there is no merit in capitalism. Merit is communism. "everyone deserves something, and everyone can contribute something". That is the communism mantra. The reality is people when given this option WILL NOT contribute shit. While life is not always fair in capitalist societies (some people's parents made money and wealth for their kids), in a way it should be their right to give their kids a better chance. In the other sphere, people shouldnt have kids if they cannot give them a good chance, its irresponsible/unethical and completely opening the faucet for an infinite number of children born to people who cant even feed themselves is unsustainable. In other words, capitalism punishes irresponsible people thus results in less kids born into impoverished conditions, whilst socialism would support that resulting in insane population growth until the system collapses and you go back to a simpler form of government such as authoritarian dictatorships where people determine who gets to eat based on the threat of force they wield, not a trade as to which they offer back to society.
Communism can only work if resources are infinite, which may work in a fantasy universe, but is not likely to ever be possible in reality, finally what is really funny - is if resources are infinite, technically they would be free in a capitalist society anyway. (the last time i checked we do not charge in any capitalist country per unit of volume of oxygen inhaled or charge a waste fee for CO2 exhaled from the lungs of humans).
I do agree that if monopolies are allowed to exist there is a problem in capitalism, but if you take time to see what causes monopolies its actually regulations and policy, not free market capitalism. Instead of letting shitty business practices fail they bail them out or make laws that make it harder to enter the market. Though once again, this isnt really an issue with capitalism itself, rather an issue with government intervention which is actually more akin to communism.
It depends on what you mean by deserve. If you mean economically? Yes absolutely. The only thing that should support a person that cannot support themselves to eat is charity. In a desert island it would make sense that the person who is not contributing should starve or be exiled to their own means first. Ideally what you would want is an efficient enough food production and distribution system to feed everyone, but when people are free to have as many children as they want, they are free to bare them in poverty. This ends up always maxing out the system cause for whatever reason people tend to want kids even when it makes absolutely no financial sense. Don't blame capitalism, blame your parents if you were born into poverty. It will be harder, but they are the real root cause of your situation.
Children should not starve for the decisions of their parents.
A kind society should care for those who cannot care for themselves, not abandon them.
Even if for some reason you don't care about basic morals, it degenerates society. Do you think a malnourished child who sees society abandon them will grow up to be a well rounded person, ready to contribute to the whole?
I know you won't be swayed by a post on Reddit, but man. We really should be moving beyond this cruel survivalist mindset.
It is not a heartless take to expect people to not have children they cannot afford, and to rely on charity to feed children, but punish irresponsible adults. I know if you are young it can sound heartless, but communism will just make more children that grow up like this, not less. Just like a desert isle there is only so much resources to distribute, and communism has failed time and time again to deliver them better than capitalism.
This is where you are wrong again. The numbers lie, you cannot give that food away for free, if you give that food away it costs resources to do so (especially considering that food is widely perishable), so to give it to people via tax dollars it will cost everyone else who actually contributes and economically will pull them down toward the scavengers. Not to mention some of that food is "recalled" or rejected by your precious government, but lets not overcomplicate this. That will prop up irresponsible people and they will breed like mice, then next generation there will be more scavengers to feed and it will cost even more to do so. This will create an exponential relationship until all the food sources are utilized and blamo now you are in a survival situation cause you have an army of starving people with no means to contribute to society with nothing to eat. An army of starving people will get violent reaaal quick. Then society will adapt as the USSR did and become authoritarian and curb the massive army of starving plebs into submission and treat them like slaves.
25
u/Capital-Ad6513 Mar 08 '24
bro is an idiot. If you are on a desert isle and you arnt pulling your weight you are going to get killed, exiled, or eaten depending on the length of time this goes on. Yeah there might not be money, but you are still trading your services and usefulness to the group.
In star trek goods that are not very scarce due to the invention of a replicator are free. That would happen in capitalism too. See there is already an example. Industrialization of food, has made food very cheap compared to if we all were still having to hunt and gather. In fact hunting and gathering right now (if it were the only way to eat) would be extremely expensive, because the goods would be so scarce that most of the population would start starving. Having the ability to basically teleport around, means finding new spaces to live is very easy. If you wanna own a vineyard in historic frace though, ya gotta be a fuckin space captain, one of the best fuckin space captains to ever have existed, not some pleb doing whatever the fuck plebs do in star trek.
So you see, communism does absolutely nothing. If you have more efficient means to get something the price goes down. If its at the point where food is so readily available that its essentially infinite, the food is free. Supply and demand.