- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/23959561
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
I think there’s a distinction to be made between free market economies and capitalism. Capitalism, with limited-liability shareholder corporations and such, allows businesses to scale and concentrate wealth in a way that markets by themselves do not, and that’s where the problem lies.
Capitalism is more broad than that. The Soviet Union was state capitalism. Basically a capitalist economy with only one company, the government, and thus no free market (monopoly on everything).
At any rate, to someone who likes competition and the free market but dislikes getting screwed and exploited by megacorps, it seems like state capitalism would be the worst of both worlds.
Assuming that attitude describes a lot of people in a country like the US (excepting the psychopaths in the owner class), and I think it does, it goes a long way towards explaining why “communism” (read: state capitalism) is wildly unpopular compared to “capitalism” (read: the opposite, in the minds of black-and-white thinkers). It seems to me that driving a wedge to separate the ideas of “free market” from “capitalism” in people’s minds would be the necessary first step to effect change.
Somehow the term free market became a bad word for many people. People think that a free market leads to a monopoly as one company eventually buys out its competitors. But if you look closely enough, nearly all monopolies are possible only with government interference in the market, either through tariffs, intellectual property laws (trademarks, patents, copyrights), or even direct monopolies over radio frequencies in the spectrum auctions.
Of course he loves it. Those videos are a core part of his business. That’s how he makes money.
Ironically only properly regulated markets can be free.
Just one more reform bro, I swear it’ll work this time
Can we have a post-scarcity managed economy of abundance a la Star Trek? Plskthx
having basically unlimited clean energy and replicators probably helps just a smidge there.
A smidge, yes, but scarcity can be enforced. Which is what happens in capitalism, for the most part. Those with means undermine methods of creating cheap abundant supplies, because it would overwhelm demand and there would be no profit. It’s not even necessarily intentional. There’s just point in investing in an over-abundance of supply, as your returns would never make it worth it.
It’s as much, if not more, about intention as means.
we have solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and 3d printers…
we don’t live in a time where star trek is fantasy any more, we have devices literally inspired by things in star trek that were once considered basically impossible, WE HAVE ACTUAL TRACTOR BEAMS.
Sure, it only takes 27 years and 600 million lives.
If we’re not losing half or more of the human population to various crises in that time I’d say that’s doing pretty good
The elites are aware & have the mass manipulation & infighting thing figured out pretty well.
