merdaversePragerU is starting to get it
halcyoncmdrAlmost like the root cause of one of them is maybe the other one… Nah couldn’t be.
FiniteBanjoI fail to see how private means of production and exchanging goods for currency in a market economy is the cause of Climate Change or how to create any other kind of system. Countries with publicly owned fossil fuel industries aren’t producing cleaner oil.
TheDemonBuerA system that prioritizes maximizing ever increasing profits above all else would inevitably lead to resource depletion and environmental damage, and would be inherently unsustainable.
Every system prioritizes maximizing profit/satisfaction in some form or another, every system has always inevitably lead to resource depletion. The solution here is legislative not economic.
Every system prioritizes maximizing profit/satisfaction
Wrong. Only capitalism does this. Profit motive doesn’t exist in socialist systems that place more importance on sustainable living.
If you can live within your means, there is no need for “growth” or “going to the next big thing”. No need to trample on others to achieve “success” which funnily for people whose definition of it is “making money”, is quite a shallow and sad thing to wish for.
The claim that all systems prioritize maximizing profit is dreamed up by hollow people who have to fill holes in their sad souls with unfathomable power, control, and freedom from accountability and responsibility to even feel barely satisfied for a moment.
People who are connected with the spirit of the world and have empathy don’t advocate for a system bereft of empathy and s system in which empathy is considered a weakness. A system where if you put on a mask (translation: become incorporated) then suddenly no moral obligations can stop you. You can just chant the magic words “But a business exists solely to make profit” as justifications to brush aside deplorable behavior in pursuit of wealth and power.
In every “Socialist” system that has ever existed, profit motive has existed.
so you agree that we don’t need capitalism for businesses to exist? And that socialist policies do work and can co-exist with a free market?
I think the only way you could argue capitalism “doesn’t need to exist” is if you have an extremely different definition of capitalism than me and the dictionary.
I think
most who argue for capitalism only think about themselves at the expense of everybody and everything else.
Capitalism is always “lets make differences in material conditions by promulgating that only those with money are considered successful” and then stealing from that differential. It’s quite obvious how terms like “inefficiencies in the market” can mean something quite different to a CEO and to someone who is born into poverty, or worse the wrong skin colour or ethnicity.
The people who hate socialism only see freeloaders who take the fruits of their hardwork. Those who actually have empathy can understand that their success also depends on a functioning and prosperous society where parents had ample support to raise children who would grow up with a nurturing environment.
A capitalist only thinks in terms of pure profit terms. He/she would discard old people who used to work hard for the survival and benefit of society as a whole as “spent fuel”.
An oft made argument is that Capitalism is the best system so far. That just sounds like Feudalism with a recurrent reminder of monarchy and autocracy.
You don’t use the excuse that “Every system has profit motive” to follow up with “I will choose the system that rewards that behavior”. An empathetic system of reasoning would allow socialist policies while keeping free markets alive. Such a system is proven to work in countries like Denmark, Netherlands, etc.
At least one of us is thinking.
And we measure that by how much thought is put into a reply.
But isn’t capitalism especially susceptible to the profit maximization trap? Capital naturally flows to where it will generate the highest return, which is necessarily where profits are maximized. The whole point of capital investment is maximal return. Without profit maximization, what’s the point of capital investment? And without capital, there’s no capitalism.
No, it isn’t especially susceptible, not every nation on earth is corrupt and treats their citizens like dirt. Corruption and economic system are independent factors.
No, it isn’t especially susceptible, not every nation on earth is corrupt and treats their citizens like dirt.
Profit maximization isn’t only something corrupt businesses do. Every capitalist business on the planet seeks to generate a profit. That’s the whole point. Any business that fails to generate a profit isn’t a business for very long. Some businesses are perhaps content with maintaining a level of level profitability, without seeking to aggressively grow their profits, but those companies stay small. For companies to grow, they must prioritize profit growth. And that’s true of every for-profit company in any country, anywhere in the world. And this is especially true where private capital investment is involved. Investors invest their money in businesses they think will generate the highest possible profit, so that they can get the highest possible return on their capital investment. That’s the whole point of investing. And again that’s true in every country.
You haven’t connected the dots that profit leads to evil, so you demanding I accept profit-seeking as a fact accomplishes nothing. Companies do prioritize growth, that is why people and governments have to regulate them and prevent or reverse monopolies, I literally pointed that out in my last comment.
I don’t think they’re evil, necessarily. People and businesses aren’t necessarily acting out of malice, they’re just responding to the incentives that the system naturally creates. Private capital investment and ownership naturally leads to prioritizing maximum profits.
But there is an alternative, and it’s not merely theoretical. It exists, right now, in essentially every economy on the planet: non-profit organizations. I’m not talking about charities, I’m talking about organizations that produce products and services for consumers, that they sell to generate revenue. The difference is, they only seek to generate enough revenue to cover their expenses. They’re not trying to generate a profit, which is of course a surplus after expenses have been subtracted from revenue. They can do this because they don’t have traditional capitalist owners, who want the company to have a surplus at the end of the year so they can take it and put it in their own pockets. Instead they are owned by a community, or a government, or the consumers themselves.
Under this structure, the incentives change. For instance, I get my electricity from a non-profit, member owned cooperative. They sell me electricity, and I pay them for the electricity that I use, but they don’t generate a profit. The money I pay them goes to covering the costs of producing and distributing the electricity (I should point out that non-profit cooperatives do often produce a surplus, but they are legally obligated to put any surplus they do generate back into the organization by increasing the quality and/or quantity of the products and services they provide to their customers. Some cooperatives will even redistribute any surplus they generate back to their members in the form of rebates or dividends at the end of the year). Obviously, I and my fellow members of the electricity cooperative want our electricity bills to be as low as possible, so there’s no reason for us to increase the amount of money we charge ourselves for the electricity we use.
Sounds like private property, comrade, I’d be careful around some of the other people in this thread because I don’t think they’re thinking what you’re thinking.
Sounds like private property, comrade
It can be, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. I think a non-profit economy would be a mix of private and state organizations. And I’m not even necessarily advocating for a full non-profit economy. I think private profit can have its place in society. But I think some industries should be mostly, if not entirely, non-profit. For instance, I think healthcare should be non-profit. I think profit introduces incentives that make an effective, ethical healthcare system difficult, if not impossible to achieve.
I’d be careful around some of the other people in this thread because I don’t think they’re thinking what you’re thinking.
Possibly. I consider myself a critic of capitalism, but I’m not a Marxist. I think Marxist theory is flawed because it’s based on the labor theory of value, and I think the labor theory of value is incomplete, at best. The labor theory of value made a lot of sense in the 18th century when Adam Smith came up with it. He looked around Scotland at the time and saw butchers, and blacksmiths, and bakers, and cobblers, etc, and in every instance he saw human labor transforming raw materials into useful finished products. It makes sense why he would see labor as the source of all value creation. But, then the industrial revolution happened. Steam engines and eventually machines that could turn raw materials into useful finished products with minimal, if any, human labor. And that’s never been more true.
So if human labor isn’t the source of value creation, what is? Well, it’s clearly energy. No value can be created without energy. Whether it’s a human laborer, or a beast of burden, or a machine, none of them can do any useful work without energy.
But I digress. The thing is, I think the problem a lot of Marxists have with profit is that they see it as stolen labor value, and thus the solution is to make workers owners so that they can receive the full benefit of their labor. There’s nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but making workers owners wouldn’t necessarily fix everything. Workers can still be greedy. Workers want to get paid as much as they can for as little work as possible. At least some workers will cut corners and raise prices to put as much money in their pockets as possible.
BTW nonprofits can still pay their CEOs and boardmembers millions.
That’s very true. Theoretically, executives would be kept in check by the member-owners, who would vote out board members or executives who were acting too greedy. But, in practice that doesn’t always work. I worked for a credit union, and our executives did start to treat the organization like they owned it and we were all working for their profit. I hoped the members would vote them out, but most members weren’t aware or involved enough to know or care.
Maybe the “stakeholder” economy people are right. I don’t know, but we need an alternative to capitalism. When private capital owns and controls everything, the greed just gets too out of control. And the consequences of that are lining up to be severe.
hey uh i got uh a uh question uh whos buying the fuckin oil and incentivizing selling the oil
Nations.
It’s (currently) the foundation of modern logistics and power production need to provide food and power to millions up to hundreds of millions of people.
Isn’t it one less set of people at the top overconsuming? (Politicians v. Politicians & oil barons)
Yeah but the people at the top overconsume in every nation, and the more corrupt that nation the more they consume regardless of whether their flag is red or blue, meaning the problem comes from corruption not from the economic system. So either oppose every nation or oppose corruption, but when I see people talk about “destroying capitalism” on the fediverse it usually just boils down to them supporting autocracies.
ForestGreenGhostI think the issue with capitalism and environmental degradation moreso comes from that fact that capitalism requires evermore resources for evermore economic growth.
No, that’s not a problem specific to capitalism.
“Never believe that anti-Semites people like this guy are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites people like this guy have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Jean-Paul Sartre
rapcheeThe problem is optimizing things for a small subset of people.
The large majority of the people will eventually revolt, however the longer that time takes to come the more they will have been addled and weakened by the few.
“Never believe that anti-Semites people like this guy are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites people like this guy have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Jean-Paul Sartre
Please do. I am so sick and tired of people like this guy influencing discourse via absurd arguments. I think it’s time we start fighting back.
Nice jerk circle, but I made an argument and you made an ad hominem, I think Sartre would be ashamed of you.
Never believe that anti-Semites people like this guy are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly <-- This is where you are right now in the quote.
Never believe that anti-Semites people like this guy are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly <-- This is where you are right now in the quote.