Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CreativeMischief t1_istbii6 wrote

Capitalism necessitates endless growth year after year even when you are already netting billions upon billions. It is not sustainable, not for the environment and not for the workers.

134

pegothejerk t1_istd634 wrote

And yet we tie healthcare and wages necessary for minimal survival on systems built to fail large numbers of people. Today corporations play musical characters chairs with jobs so they don't have to pay for healthcare or provide living wages, and yet people will still vote and preach against healthcare for all, which would remove the for profit middlemen and reduce the cost of healthcare. Oh industries of people would suddenly struggle and would have to find new jobs if we restructured healthcare? That's already happening everywhere, let's fix it now before no one but the top 1% can afford even basic services.

78

CreativeMischief t1_ister7g wrote

> And yet we tie healthcare and wages necessary for minimal survival on systems built to fail large numbers of people.

Which is what the gutted version of the ACA provided us, a bandaid fix with barely any glue. It's so sad how far to the right the US has gone. Obamacare, wasn't a new idea, Nixon talked about the same ideas in regards to healthcare. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-proposing-national-health-strategy

It's so insane how far back in time reactionaries have brought us and they will take us further.

27

pegothejerk t1_istki9b wrote

Crimes aside, Nixon would be considered liberal compared to today's centrist and moderate dems

29

CreativeMischief t1_istlfmw wrote

100%. Look at the UK as well, Boris Johnson, right wing enough to be compared to Donald Trump still ran on expanding healthcare for its citizens. He would be called a socialist by Fox News in America.

19

The_Yarichin_Bitch t1_isu4j44 wrote

I always love hearing "I'm a centrist!" because 9/10, they're just waiting for the dem candidate to say one thing they sorta dislike and they immediately start shouting slurs and right-wing propaganda... it's tiring.

11

[deleted] t1_istpbim wrote

[deleted]

0

pegothejerk t1_istqaqq wrote

I more referring to things like his admin adopting the Clean Air Act, forming the Environment Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and proposing more regulation during any presidency since the New Deal. Zero republicans would do those things now, and that sits him squarely as one of the most liberal presidents in modern times, though yes, he certainly was a solid conservative in many other manners, especially race and class relations. And sheer number of crimes.

3

Northern-Canadian t1_isvbudb wrote

Note that obama care only was able to exist after the republicans kneecapped it thoroughly.

It would truly be an amazing thing for the USA had it not been gutted.

12

[deleted] t1_iswbl3b wrote

[deleted]

4

CreativeMischief t1_iswcfzf wrote

Yeah I agree, but it was still a step in the right direction I think. A lot of companies got around it by only hiring part time employees as well. That wasn’t the reason it was gutted though, the plan was seen as radical and too progressive and that was my point. Even neoliberal polices in this country are slandered by the right as socialist

5

DistributedDemocracy t1_istoypj wrote

I think this is failure of media regulations to protect US citizens from brainwashing because you can't come up with rational management when one side is being constantly radicalized to live in their on fantasy bubble. It's far more dangerous than most ppl realize.

6

The_Yarichin_Bitch t1_isu4o23 wrote

certainly doesn't help for the types of people more inclined to want the easiest explaination/that double down on things rather than admit fault.

3

Lordprotector2005 t1_isvfk8b wrote

We can simply get around this whole middling with the law and just nationalize health care. I mean that sounds like a good idea

2

Smart_Ass_Dave t1_istctql wrote

It's not even sustainable for companies. Companies always have to grow which means they always have to change, which means they regularly kill their profitable sectors with shake ups in an attempt to be even more profitable.

28

ToastAndASideOfToast t1_isuivcr wrote

I'm not convinced that change is necessary for growth, but change gives people something to do to justify their existence at a company.

1

Fenix42 t1_isv58fb wrote

Change is nessiary to capture new customers. The trick is to make changes that get you new customers, but does not piss off your old. Or if you do piss off your old, you get enough new to make up for it.

0

Dirty_Old_Priest t1_istpxi7 wrote

No one expects business to be great YOY. Literally anyone with a brain expects business to be cyclical.

5

CreativeMischief t1_istq4x5 wrote

Cyclical short term, endless growth long term.

2

Dirty_Old_Priest t1_istr89t wrote

Again, no one actually expects that. No one in business. No one in economics.

−6

CreativeMischief t1_isu4ub9 wrote

https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/sites/default/files/The%20Growth%20Imperative.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46509898_Is_there_a_growth_imperative_in_capitalist_economies_A_circular_flow_perspective

Yeah man, no one

5

Dirty_Old_Priest t1_isuozah wrote

Did you actually read those papers? They're all under ideal, perfect, conditions lolol

2

CreativeMischief t1_isusrm9 wrote

Yeah in other words, theory. Of course it doesn’t work in the real world but that doesn’t mean companies and the overall economy doesn’t attempt these ideas

2

GrinchMcScrooge t1_isuiqbh wrote

When I worked at Target, if our store didn't show annual increase in sales of at least 12%, we lost payroll for the next year to keep profitability increasing. This was the case for 12 straight years. And the payroll decrease was always bigger than what we missed sales by. So if you only increased sales by 10%, you lost ~5% of payroll for the next fiscal year. If you only increased by 5% YoY, you lost ~10% of payroll, etc. I think the CEO changed 3 or 4 times while I was there and this was always the standard.

3

Dirty_Old_Priest t1_isumq9m wrote

That's not expecting infinite growth at all. That's actually forecasting future lower sales to heed off unprofitability.

0

Xul-luX t1_istiwln wrote

100% agree with you but I think it's too late, it's making a metamorphosis to something even worst.

1

LieutenantNitwit t1_isva6xx wrote

This has always been my understanding but I get murdered in the face any time I bring it up. Good luck out there, soldier.

1

DistributedDemocracy t1_istnmln wrote

So does every other economic system and they all have greed too... know why.. because evolution made us naturally opportunistic as part of our survival mechanism. We see an opportunity, we take an opportunity or at least we think about it real good like.

Give a human any system and they will attempt to exploit it. The real benefit of capitalism is the check and balance. I don't let you cheat because it costs me money and you won't let me cheat because it costs you money.

What that check is given to just one entity it falls apart every time, just like state run media can never work.

Can you give any example of non-capitalism governments that don't have greed and sustainability problems? I'll wait.

−12

CreativeMischief t1_istp542 wrote

> because evolution made us naturally opportunistic as part of our survival mechanism.

I don't necessarily believe that and even if that is true our entire existence as humans is about overcoming god, we fight it every day.

>Give a human any system and they will attempt to exploit it. The real benefit of capitalism is the check and balance. I don't let you cheat because it costs me money and you won't let me cheat because it costs you money.

This just isn't true, companies are becoming more and more consolidated every single year, hurting competition, consumers and especially the workers. It is in the name, capitalism benefits capital owners and people who make money off of other people's labor, not the workers. So unless you're going to show me the keys to your factory, I don't see why you're licking the boot.

>Can you give any example of non-capitalism governments that don't have greed and sustainability problems?

What does this even matter man? Let's assume your premise is true, so what people are corrupt? Does that means the richest country on earth can't provide people with housing, education, healthcare and ensure that workers see more of their surplus labor value?

6