cuteman t1_it7sjtn wrote
Reply to comment by GReaperEx in A new UN report explores how to make human civilization safe from destruction. There’s a way to make civilization extinction-proof. But it won’t be easy. by mossadnik
And replace it with what?
marsten t1_it7zegz wrote
As long as we live in a world where many of the economic activities people care about require resources to be invested up-front (in factories, stores, real estate, etc.), the question is who makes those investment decisions. Capitalism's answer is: Those with the most skin in the game. It's hard to argue with that logic.
My_soliloquy t1_it85q2n wrote
Only as long as you're one of the 'winners' in the game. Those without resources or benefits or equal footing, are the losers in the capitalism game. They're just 'resources' to be used up and discarded. They get forfeit before they even start playing. The problem is, most don't even know how stacked it's become.
Gini-coefficient and wealth inequality are prime examples if you want to understand why capitalism is not a good system or think its better than all the other failures, like communism.
marsten t1_it8hbyg wrote
I think we need to separate out two things: How to maximize wealth creation for society overall, and how to distribute that wealth within society.
Capitalism is unequivocally the best answer to the first question. There are no counterexamples.
The second question is distinct and has to do with taxation, regulation, education, and so on. This is where the real discussion should be.
"Tax the rich" I get. "Destroy capitalism" makes no sense, it's the only system that works.
My_soliloquy t1_it8ltwb wrote
End stage capitalism is where we're headed, where the rich have gamed the system to the point they aren't taxed and the rest of us fund everything. They've practically captured our government with "Citizens United" and the "Patriot Act." It's exacerbated since the 1970's. Even Warren Buffet acknowledged that his secretary pays more per capita, than he does. So if we went back to the tax rates under Eisenhower, or better yet 90% above 1 million in personal income, then capitalism might be viable. But that isn't what happened. And we're headed back towards kings controlling countries and the serfs they own; with the current wealth levels of oligarchs and CEO pay disparity vs their employees. We can't even get reasonable health care and costs under control in "the richest country on earth." Medical bankruptcy is a real thing where most citizens don't even have $400 in emergency funds.
So NO, capitalism is not the best example. Only people lucky enough not to have been destroyed by it yet, might think it's still viable.
marsten t1_it8qq5r wrote
I think what you're calling out aren't problems with capitalism per se, but outcomes of the US's political system and cultural values. You could look at for example the Nordic countries for a different model of how to distribute the benefits of capitalism.
keviscount t1_itavd7j wrote
> Only as long as you're one of the 'winners' in the game. Those without resources or benefits or equal footing, are the losers in the capitalism game.
You're right that capitalism produces an outcome of winners and losers. All other systems tried have produced nothing but losers (lest they be corrupted and start incorporating some elements of capitalism, inevitably with a ruling class forming of effectively authoritarian capitalists ruling over the serfs who have been tricked).
You can pretend that other systems work, even on a small scale. But humanity doesn't work on a small scale anymore.
stupendousman t1_it8p02h wrote
> Only as long as you're one of the 'winners' in the game.
Translation:
I'm afraid I won't win according to my own subjective values in a situation where I need to provide value to others.
>Those without resources or benefits or equal footing, are the losers in the capitalism game.
First, people are individuals, there is no way to make them all equal. Second, there are many people who start with nothing and become wealthy. Third, again, you're afraid you can't do so.
>The problem is, most don't even know how stacked it's become.
Almost all market interventions which affect competition is from state organizations. My guess is you want those same states to intervene to support you.
My_soliloquy t1_it8sj14 wrote
Nope, I retired 12 years ago at 43, I already "won" at life, and yes it was state organization's that enabled me to do so. Transportation, communication, manufacturing and government among others, still use them and pay my taxes and try to get along with neighbors. Also encourage resonable competition inside of industries unless the state needed to step in to reduce monopolies and price gouging.
But I can acknowledge how fortunate I am, and how the deck is so currently stacked against others.
stupendousman t1_it8zu8w wrote
> and yes it was state organization's that enabled me to do so.
So you happily used ill-gotten resources to benefit yourself, and then turn around and critique people who didn't but succeeded without doing what you did.
> Also encourage resonable competition
You types are always wannabe dictators. You'll define reasonable, as it should be huh?
>price gouging
Sophistic political term, like union busting, X-phobia, etc.
>But I can acknowledge how fortunate I am, and how the deck is so currently stacked against others.
The deck is stacked due to people like you. Aren't you grand having concern for the little people?
I've had successes and failure, large and small. I've never lied, cheated, used ill-gotten gains, etc.
I'm far more suited to critical analysis than you are.
My_soliloquy t1_it9jeox wrote
Nice try, but I don't lie, cheat or steal either, always fully worked for a wage or if I made investment gains, I still pay more than my fair share of taxes, never taken more than I needed and I cooperate with my neighbors and contribute to my local economy. The state enabled the roads, the emergency services and other services I (and you) use, that's what I mean by the state enabled me.
Capitalism eventually consolidates, that's where it fails.
djmakcim t1_it8585j wrote
Honestly? No one would accept such a fundamental change to our livelihoods. The dreamers want to believe that altruism would prevail and no one would need to “work” any longer because we would all aim to help everyone out.
Making sure that we all get ours, but there isn’t incentive without money is there? Money buys goods, but it also buys power. The thing people forget in the d*ck waving contest that is the ultra wealthy (Billionaires), is the power being the richest person holds. You gain influence with enough money and if you have more money than the next guy, then you hold more weight than they do.
Plus when you have so much wealth it literally doesn’t matter what you do with it, well what feels like the ultimate feeling? Giving it away? Or holding as much money as possibly to gain control over others?
Especially if you’re a sociopath or psychopath like it’s shown many in those high positions of power and wealth are.
So I don’t know what the solution is, but we are headed towards a cliff. There isn’t enough resources to last forever and we as humans have terrible abilities to predict our futures. It likely will come to a point where we no longer can just get by, when resources begin to diminish, when homelessness runs rampant and hunger grows. Eventually we will have some sort of dystopian future or collapse because the way we are chugging along pretty well guarantees it at some point.
So what would you replace it with?
keviscount t1_itaw6mq wrote
Our dystopian future, worst case scenario, is that we start mass-executing or mass-enslaving the poor.
That's a humanitarian crisis, but not a human race crisis. The human race will be fine.
cuteman t1_it85ta4 wrote
I'm not the one saying we should abolish capitalism.
You know, the system that isn't perfect but has pulled more people out of poverty than any other before it.
bathwizard01 t1_it7uokr wrote
Communism was not good for the environment. Pollution is not about how wealth is distributed, the problem in this case is about demand for resources exceeding care for the environment, whether by a capitalist corporation or government-owned industry.
EgielPBR t1_it88vmo wrote
With socialism, of course, it worked for the Aral Sea, China is also very environment-friendly, it isn't a violent system either, no concentration camps, genocide, censorship or anything like that.
cuteman t1_it8hp46 wrote
The problem with marxism, socialism and communism is that they always seems to end in famine and genocide.
I might be open to them if there was a single successful example.
Temporary-House304 t1_it8sv8x wrote
well really they have just been susceptible to dictatorship and u.s. intervention. I don’t think there is an example of communism that hasn’t fallen to either of those. Personally i’d hedge my bets more on social democracy working, much more palatable for the west and much more within reality without a bunch of people dying needlessly.
cuteman t1_it8twdx wrote
Social democracy is still capitalism
The issue is that socialism or communism isn't self sustaining.
The only way models like scandinavian countries work is because of significant subsidy via capitalism.
Petal_Chatoyance t1_it92lvt wrote
The problem with capitalism is that it always seems to end in a very small 1% owning everything, and everyone else starving, ending up homeless and destitute, no middle class, and those not homeless essentially abused serfs working for a cruel and uncaring oligarchy.
How's your paycheck lately, cuteman? You paying off that lovely home okay? Got that new car this year? You enjoying your vacation days? Got the required minimum million in the bank to begin a reasonable retirement savings?
cuteman t1_it9aumf wrote
>The problem with capitalism is that it always seems to end in a very small 1% owning everything, and everyone else starving, ending up homeless and destitute, no middle class, and those not homeless essentially abused serfs working for a cruel and uncaring oligarchy.
You think that's any different in any other system?
Whether it's communism or feudalism it's the same.
>How's your paycheck lately, cuteman? You paying off that lovely home okay? Got that new car this year? You enjoying your vacation days? Got the required minimum million in the bank to begin a reasonable retirement savings?
I do very well because I've worked hard and built it from nothing.
harrry46 t1_it9e298 wrote
You are, in all probability, arguing with an edgy teenager that frequents r/antiwork or any other of the chaos and anarchy forums. Save your breath. It's a lost cause.
cuteman t1_it9yz7a wrote
This being reddit that's more the rule than the exception these days unfortunately.
keviscount t1_itax5ow wrote
> The problem with capitalism is that it always seems to end in a very small 1% owning everything
Eh closer to top 20% owning 80% of things, most of the time.
> Got the required minimum million in the bank to begin a reasonable retirement savings?
If you think you need $1mil to begin saving for retirement then I suggest you stop posting online and get back to studying hard in school. Learn to code and don't piss away your teenage years being a doomer.
Petal_Chatoyance t1_ite08hi wrote
I'm 62, and I have seen things and lived things you cannot even imagine.
Petal_Chatoyance t1_it922vv wrote
Unless you are an Uyghur in 2022, in which case massive genocide and concentration camps. Or you say anything negative against Xi, in which case you will be disappeared. Or you support democracy, where you will be censored, and if necessary, killed. Or you protest, in which case you will be killed. Or you do anything the government of China does not approve of, in which case your Social Credit will tank and you will be unable to work, live, or travel.
But, other than that, China is a happy place.
EgielPBR t1_it96jpf wrote
Sorry, I think you misinterpreted my comment lol That's on my tho, I forgot the /s
Petal_Chatoyance t1_ita0m6r wrote
Oh, god, I'm an idiot. I should have instantly realized. Sorry.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments