At least give me time to respond.
i'm not blaming you, i'm just saying, it's sort of silly to pretend as though i've been "REKT" when the one question that i'm asking hasn't yet been adequately answered
and by "adequately answered", i mean i should be a capitalist by the end of this conversation
I'm not sure how to elaborate further.
exactly, right
i mean, i'm not gonna sit here and tell you that
i know how it would work, either, but
one's own inability to understand something does not necessitate any sort of argument against it"You can't price things meritoriously; it doesn't even make sense. "
maybe to you and i
but to say that it
can't be done because a couple of teenagers are unable to grasp it is simply myopic
this is something i've discussed with aria before, but it was only under the token that all the world's commodities and resources are infinite
so, if you work for a week, you earn a week's worth of food--i think that's pretty simple, and i fail to see how that kind of system wouldn't work even with finite resources
the informational deficits you speak of diminish when you take animal products out of the equation
if anyone has allergies to any of the food provided, there would be alternatives
what informational deficits are there
The economy operates on productivity, not merit.
productivity is inherently meritorious
but only if it's, you know, actually
productive--you have to use that word carefully and precisely
saving cancer patients is productive; making a new ipad with 1 or 2 new redundant features is not
no matter how many drooling idiots want that ipad, it's never gonna be worth it
saving sick people is worth it 99.99% of the time
Depends on the model you're using; but put simply it's a growth in our ability to convert inputs to outputs.
that was a rhetorical question; i know precisely what productivity growth is
and i was saying that it's kind of oxymoron, in the way that we define our productivity
because the new iPad really isn't that much different from the previous model
maybe it's a little bit lighter, i don't know
and people will spend hundreds of dollars on them by the tens of millions
What makes you the arbiter of "worth" in this situation? If you don't like a product, you're free to not buy it and to persuade others why they shouldn't buy it.
of course, but you see, that's missing the point
it's not that i'm the arbiter of value--i just don't think you're going to be able to argue that a cancer patient is worth less than your iPad
you cannot believe in an objective morality if you don't have an objective system of values, can you
But it's exactly this system of free consumer demand which means we aren't living off the land with no time for philosophy, literature, art or anything else of higher value than a new iPad.
perhaps, but now we don't have to live off the land anymore
we've
built civilization, and the only reason it would collapse if capitalism were to end is because people are greedy, selfish, petty cunts
(part of the evil of capitalism is that it's self-sustaining, like a cancer)
Except it isn't; capitalism will end itself eventually. Capitalism is unsustainable in the very long run precisely for the reason that it's too innovative.
Which is a monopoly. Which is very rarely a function of capitalism.
which is just the thing
monopolies aren't inherently bad--they're only bad once they start abusing their position
a polypoly (or whatever you'd call it) is WORSE, in my opinion, because we start wasting resources on redundant products--this video game console thing is a good example
does there
really need to be three consoles on the market
why don't we just have one console and improve upon that model
oh, it's because people are greedy cunts... that's right
Yeah, and I think they're all retarded. But, again, you're misapplying something as being a function of capitalism; people are loyal about all manner of things from sports to skin colour. It's a fairly common cognitive bias, regardless of whatever economic system you have set up.
so why exploit it further
i don't think i said this, in particular, was a function of capitalism--merely that those are the type of people that capitalism
breedswhich is a fact
we
breed mindless consumers who "pick sides"
Which is a function of protectionism, which absolutely isn't a function of capitalism. I agree that people who go on about 'muh domestic industry' don't know what they're talking about.
fair enough
Knowledge and information is becoming ever more important in the modern economy; it's not surprising that younger people are therefore somewhat disadvantaged.
>somewhat disadvantaged
a little bit glib, coming from someone who hasn't quite made it to that point yet
but i guess it's better than saying we're
not disadvantaged
There's no moral principle which dictates people must have a home.
i look at it as compensation for being born
i didn't ask to be here, meta--i'm only here because a couple of fucknuts thought it would be a good idea
and it's been the same for all one hundred billion of us
i
think we're entitled to some form of compensation in the form of a
comfortable lifeand yeah, having a home is one of the
must-havescall it a "trailer park", i don't give a shit, it's the same idea
It's a broken system because people don't like what you like?
No, what
I like has nothing to do with it. I like video games, but I'm still able to make the basic concession that it would be better to donate to a good cause than it would be to waste money on a game. All capitalism does is make us spoiled brats with mixed priorities. Just because you see the stupidities of brand loyalty doesn't change the fact that there's millions of brand loyalists, and they wouldn't be brand loyalists if there was no such thing as a "brand" to begin with.
I'm not claiming the outcomes are always as efficient as possible
It should be, though. That's my argument. If your system isn't always as efficient as possible, it's a broken system. That's the very definition of brokenness. If something is inefficient, it's
broken.
I'm saying the system of pricing and resource allocation is more efficient than any other system you could name.
But not one that I could imagine.
Hell, it's why I support policies like the EITC which subsidise low wages.
It does. It's why the capitalist systems in the world are the most innovative, it's why capitalism has been the most productive system in human history. Competition works.
I don't think anyone said it didn't work. It just doesn't work
well. Or, well
enough, I should say. It's inefficient. Socialism, from all that I've read about it, just seems
so much better in theory.
And by the way, I fail to see how giving everyone the right to a comfortable home (without mortgage, of course) isn't socialism, or at least, an example of it in practice.
Show Posts
