Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j5x494c wrote

Reply to comment by westplains1865 in IBM Cuts 3,900 Jobs In Latest Tech Layoffs by itsonlyeva

[deleted]

49

Tearakan t1_j5xb5tv wrote

Yep our entire economic system is set up for profits to increase every quarter forever. That's insanity but what we have collectively agreed on.

21

1800TurdFerguson t1_j6004rb wrote

Except it’s not something that we’ve collectively agreed upon. We sat and watched as Congress deregulated the financial industry and markets, and then sat on the sidelines as the public at large was further abstracted from the levers of power. Now we shrug our shoulders, throw up our hands, and exclaim exasperatedly as all manners of corporate fuckery go unmonitored and unpunished.

3

Tearakan t1_j600fq6 wrote

Okay yeah good point. The we there is the ruling bodies of humanity and they kinda dragged everyone else along.

1

econ101user t1_j5xi1z8 wrote

Yeah it's really fucked up that capitalist democracies keep expecting constant progress. And what have we got in return? The fastest advance of living conditions in human history? Life's gotta better for everyone so quickly in the last 200 years why not stop now and agree on no more improvement

−24

Tearakan t1_j5xiekk wrote

Constant economic growth does not mean constant progress. Unlesd of course you are counting billionaires wealth growth and inequality being the worst its ever been.

Oh and this little thing called climate change which we keep ignoring in favor of more economic growth.

So about 500 years of progress leading us to utter ruin. Not a great run for an economic system compared to the rest of human civilization's history.

13

econ101user t1_j6137ch wrote

> Constant economic growth does not mean constant progress.

Just a coincidence I guess then that higher GDP correlates with higher quality of life.

> inequality being the worst its ever been

Not even close.

> Oh and this little thing called climate change which we keep ignoring in favor of more economic growth.

Economic growth doesn't have to stop to address combat change.

>So about 500 years of progress leading us to utter ruin

Utter ruin? You need to read a history book and touch grass.

>Not a great run for an economic system compared to the rest of human civilization's history.

What a shame this world is wasted on you. Somewhere in time there's a peasant in medieval Europe that deserves to swap time with you

0

Tearakan t1_j61ab4c wrote

No it doesn't. Our GDP is the best on the planet in the US. Life expectancy has dropped for the past several years. This includes before the pandemic.

There are many countries with much less GDP per capita that do markedly better on Healthcare for the majority of their citizens. As just one example of better lives.

Sure it's gotten better for the 1 percent and Americans and up. But again not better for the majority.

Wage growth for the majority of Americans has not beat inflation.

Yeah maybe look up climate change. It's a civilization ender. Especially if we can't farm because of wildly swinging temperatures and weather.

1

econ101user t1_j61bvlq wrote

> Our GDP is the best on the planet in the US.

Did you even bother to do a 10 second google before opening your mouth hole? The US is not the number one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

But even your incorrect cherry picking isn't a valid counterpoint to a correlation.

That's like saying "no height doesn't matter for success in basketball. My uncle is 6'6" and sucks at hoops".

> As just one example of better lives.

Cool bro. Guess what we're not just picking single examples like US and healthcare.

Look at this data plot and stop talking https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index-vs-gdp-per-capita

> Wage growth for the majority of Americans has not beat inflation

What does that have to do with anything? You think because eggs are more expensive that economic growth isn't linked to quality of life? Are you just shouting out random grievances?

> Yeah maybe look up climate change. It's a civilization ender. Especially if we can't farm because of wildly swinging temperatures and weather.

Okay what's your point? You think our choices are: grow the economy or solve climate change? That's a talking point created by fossil fuel industry interests to scare people into supporting measures to address it, staging a shift from carbon emitting activity as damaging to the economy. It's been refuted very well yet here we have not only right wing idiots believing it but left wing ones too. That's hilarious.

0

Tearakan t1_j61g14l wrote

By overall GDP we are. I only went into GDP per capita when discussing actual effects on the population.

My argument about climate change is we can't keep global capitalism which is defined by endless economic growth. That's incompatible with actually surviving climate change.

Endless economic growth requires either energy increasing endlessly or increasing efficiency.

We literally cannot get to 100 percent efficiency thanks to thermodynamics.

And endlessly demanding more energy will just lead us back to climate change and resource depletion on this planet.

Finally, healthcare and life expectancy are two very important parts of a good human life. You can't just throw them away from the whole "people are getting better due to increasing GDP" argument.

1

econ101user t1_j61ixnx wrote

> By overall GDP we are.

Why on gods green earth would you think that mattered?

> My argument about climate change is we can't keep global capitalism which is defined by endless economic growth.

So this is just all blather. Capitalism isn't defined by endless growth. Go find a book that defines it as such. Seriously stop talking and go find a book, open it and read it.

>That's incompatible with actually surviving climate change

Why?

> Endless economic growth requires either energy increasing endlessly or increasing efficiency. We literally cannot get to 100 percent efficiency thanks to thermodynamics.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

So let me get this straight. Your argument is that based on your made up definition that capitalism requires infinite growth, that will require infinite energy which violates the laws of thermodynamics ergo capitalism is causing climate change.

Be honest with me: are you a teenager? You need to stop. You're just saying dumber and dumber shit.

> Finally, healthcare and life expectancy are two very important parts of a good human life. You can't just throw them away from the whole "people are getting better due to increasing GDP" argument.

I didn't throw them away. Theyre in the HDI. I just didn't cherry pick like you did.

I'm going to make this straight for you: economic growth is not a bad thing. It's strongly correlated with human living conditions. A growing economy is not one that is incompatible with policies that mitigate the growth and impacts of climate change. Or in crayon: more money in the system is better for everyone, you should try to make it more fair but overall it's a good thing. You can make money off non-carbon producing activities. The technology exists today to meet the overwhelm majority of energy needs currently provided by fossil fuels. It is a policy problem, not an economic one.

0

1800TurdFerguson t1_j5zmfd3 wrote

> What part of companies exist to make shareholders > money do you not understand.

We understand it, but I don’t think you do. It’s not an issue that companies exist to make shareholders money. It’s that they only exist to maximize shareholder value, emphasizing short-term profits over everything else…corporate citizenship, sustainability, and long-term growth. This is the dystopian Friedman-esque future financial deregulators wanted.

We substitute Wall Street as a stand-in for the broader public, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Wall Street is no more representative of the population at large than Friends was of 20/30-somethings in NYC. Wall Street is a collection of very wealthy individuals and institutions that exist solely to facilitate the mass transfer of wealth upward. It’s not Fred and Barbara in the suburbs who are constantly pushing to extract every dollar in value possible. It might be the financial institution that holds Fred and Barbara’s retirement funds, but they’d push Fred and Barbara out the door in a second if it meant an infinitesimal amount of increased value at that moment for this mutual and exchange-traded funds.

6

[deleted] t1_j5zpm16 wrote

[deleted]

2

1800TurdFerguson t1_j5zuqlz wrote

Delete your account. Go herd sheep in New Zealand or something. There’s nothing superfluous in what I wrote. I’m sorry that you can’t grasp that.

−2

folstar t1_j5zxaar wrote

I think they were making a valid point, albeit somewhat poorly and unnecessarily rude.

You said "It's not an issue that companies exist to make shareholders money"

Then followed with a list of things you wish companies would do that are not making shareholders money. You could put a million things on that list (where I think the "superfluorsly expanded on" comment originated) and it won't change that none of those are making shareholders money. Maybe those items sometimes align with making money, but that is unlikely allies at best.

If you really want those things, then it IS an issue that companies exist to make shareholders money.

3

1800TurdFerguson t1_j6019hi wrote

I’m not sure whether your comment about being unnecessarily rude was directed at me or at vegdeg, but I think it’s high time we put Friedman’s thoughts on shareholder value in the same grave he inhabits. It’s an incredibly short-sighted and unsustainable ideal, and as an economic theory it’s been shown to be increasingly unworkable. The pendulum between regulation and deregulation has swung back and forth throughout American history, but never has corporate America been better positioned to halt the swing of the pendulum back into a more restrictive position. The American public is by and large unable to do anything to stop the incessant extraction of value from them by corporations and the financial markets.

0

folstar t1_j603ztx wrote

>It’s an incredibly short-sighted and unsustainable ideal

RAmen, but that's how the system works.

Maybe in the 2060s we'll have a POTUS willing to take on the system who gets shot in the head for totally unrelated reasons.

2

1800TurdFerguson t1_j63gjt9 wrote

Ramen is what I’m going to say at the end the next time I have to join a prayer. Thanks for that laugh.

I predict we’ll have AI’s of famous jurists duking it out on SCOTUS by the 2060. We’ll have Scalia and RBG going at it again, with Berger and Powell trying to build a consensus.

1

Quote_Medium t1_j5zyoxu wrote

I would heard sheep in New Zealand in a heartbeat. Are you trying to insult the guy or wish him well?

1