Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Infantry
« older newer »
Rise

Medium (920px wide max)
Wide - use max window width - scroll to see page ⇅
Fit all of image in window
set default image size: small | medium | wide
Download (new tab)
by Yupa
I am very sad..

I hope this is good buying chance..

Keywords
male 959,477, furry 75,436, mouse 42,569, rat 17,602, blood 15,768, death 8,315, stock 147
Details
Type: Picture/Pinup
Published: 1 year, 3 months ago
Rating: General

MD5 Hash for Page 1... Show Find Identical Posts [?]
Stats
1,568 views
59 favorites
87 comments

BBCode Tags Show [?]
 
ThedoktorJimmy
1 year, 3 months ago
Argentina in a nutshell
SigmundRingeck1438
1 year, 3 months ago
The poor mousey.
SentinelKnight26
1 year, 3 months ago
It's socialists democRATS fault xD.
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
they aint helpin
coolperez8
1 year, 3 months ago
:(
WeakenedState
1 year, 3 months ago
it's only bad if you're an investor.
Sangie
1 year, 3 months ago
Yup, which is mostly the top 10%

Fuck capitalism
Bitcoon
1 year, 3 months ago
The pandemic, to most of us Actual People, meant fear. Uncertainty. Death, loss, despair, tragedy.

To the rich? It meant record-breaking profits. The billionaire class got 40% richer during the pandemic, and I don't think it takes a degree in Econ to understand where that money came from.
SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
After a degree in Econ you'd probably be saying: "well it fucks a lot of people over, but, well, here's why it's a good thing actually..."
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
a good chunk of those profits were do to panic buying. most corporations and businesses that provide basic goods tend to see record sales during times of crisis or uncertainty as people try to safe guard themselves entertainment and electronics also got record sales because people were stuck at home with nothing to do.

when people talk about the profit boom they make it sound like it is a bunch of greedy cooperate suits capitalizing on the crisis to make bank, but they didn't, people just bought more stuff...and spent more time at home so they splurged on video games and movies and other forms of entertainment.

If anything would be taken advantage of it would be the vaccines but meny places made the vaccines free to essential workers or high risk groups like the elderly.

aside from the fucking weird as hell toilit paper shortages at the start of this mess, ive seen next to nothing int he way of significant price hikes on products as well. I work for a retail outlet that moves a lot of product globally but especially in the USA and this companies been haveing issues stocking the selves due to a combination of Demand and interruption of supply lines due to covid cases.


So yes these companies turned a profit but not through exploiting the pandemic...people just spent a lot more money. A portion of that profit was put into paid leave for any employee who cought covid and needed to stay home as well.
Bitcoon
1 year, 3 months ago
I'm not really trying to make a value judgment on the profit-making itself, though I understand why it would look that way. My point is more that the difference between what we've been going through down here on Earth and what the rich went through is almost on polar opposite ends of the spectrum.

I can certainly say that I'd hope to see more in the way of philanthropy from these people who saw such massive increases to their wealth coming from the desperate and suffering masses.

I'm really not sure why you'd mention that aspect at the end, where you make it sound like time off due to covid took much of those profits away - they're still up 40% at the end of it all. And I'm gonna need a source on the idea of all employers offering paid sick leave for Covid cases, because I get the feeling a lot of them just made their sick employees take the hit. But that's just me being the pessimist toward Capitalism, because taking a pay hit for being sick IS the status quo. Every job I've ever held until my current one has had no PTO, sick time or otherwise. The difference is, this one's a nice office job that's full-time and cares for its employees - it's the Walmarts and McD's that I'm more concerned about.
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
" I'm not really trying to make a value judgment on the profit-making itself, though I understand why it would look that way. My point is more that the difference between what we've been going through down here on Earth and what the rich went through is almost on polar opposite ends of the spectrum.


sure but anybody with enough money is going to be happy and secure through any crisis really. Capitalism or otherwise

" I can certainly say that I'd hope to see more in the way of philanthropy from these people who saw such massive increases to their wealth coming from the desperate and suffering masses.


some has been done yes meny companys that can afford it have made the vaccines available to staff and employes at the companies expense, this is to protect there employes as much as there investment in the business if over half your work force is out sick, you dont HAVE a business. SO i supose it's less good will and more good sense.

" I'm really not sure why you'd mention that aspect at the end, where you make it sound like time off due to covid took much of those profits away - they're still up 40% at the end of it all. And I'm gonna need a source on the idea of all employers offering paid sick leave for Covid cases, because I get the feeling a lot of them just made their sick employees take the hit. But that's just me being the pessimist toward Capitalism, because taking a pay hit for being sick IS the status quo. Every job I've ever held until my current one has had no PTO, sick time or otherwise. The difference is, this one's a nice office job that's full-time and cares for its employees - it's the Walmarts and McD's that I'm more concerned about.


in the end I mentioned it only because it was a decent example, but lets look at it from the other side. these profits were not born of exploiting the crisis, they happened as a Direct result of it. people SPEND more  during chrysies situations, it's a normal human response. We shouldn't be demanding special attention from business because they turned a larger profit unless that profit was based on Exploring the situation, they literally just sat there and sold people the same stuff they already were selling at the same prices they were selling it at, the volume of goods consumed increased thats all.

now I cant speak for Mc Donnolds But Walmart as much as i DISLIKE them IS one of the employers offering 2 weeks of paid sick leave if you contract Covid, and allow you to take basicly as much time off unpaid as you need without fireing you. they dont NEED to do that it's not a requirement it's a choice they made as a company one that earned them a tiny bit of respect from me. I still have a lot of other grevinces with how they run there bussiness but at least there covid polacy is solid enough.
Bitcoon
1 year, 3 months ago
" sure but anybody with enough money is going to be happy and secure through any crisis really. Capitalism or otherwise


Happy and secure is expected, but this has to be the best year of a lot of these people's lives and that should throw up a red flag or two. If that were me making the money, I wouldn't feel good about the mechanism by which I managed to pull in all that extra wealth, even if I wasn't trying to work the situation in my favor, but I guess that's why I'm not buying a megayacht that has its own yacht inside it.

Whether we improve the situation for our workforce by goodwill or good sense, at least we should strive to give everyone a decent quality of life. Even the most low skill jobs do deserve a baseline living that they should afford the worker. Nobody should be denied a home, the chance to save up money, to have vacation and sick time, to have their injuries and sickness tended to. And if the reason for that has to be the fact that it's often mutually beneficial to give people those things, then all the better. Let's make it happen, already! We can't be the greatest country on Earth and shrug our shoulders when we fail our own people.

I get the sense that you're more on the right politically than I am, but I do think there's a lot we can agree on. America isn't in the position it's in for no reason. We have a lot of resources and incredibly successful businesses, and perhaps on most levels, they earned those successes. But I think there's a lot of people unfortunately falling through the cracks. This pandemic weirdly both shined a light on those cracks but also demonstrated our immense potential to put our resources to use for the public good. I wish we'd see more of that.
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
those are some very good points. On one hand Your not entitiled to free shit, and your not entitiled to the government proping you up to ensure a surten standard of liveing...



On the OTHER HAND


This is fucking AMERICA! Were the most powerful, most secsessful nation in the History of the WORLD.

We kinda SHOULD be able to garantee a bare minimum Quality of life, and while our bare minimum IS better then meny other places it could be better then it is...


I think the middle ground is the best ground here but it's a tricky path to tred.. In the end I do agree with you that we should never settle for good enough, we should be striveing for better, in much the same wasy as capitalism encurages people to work harder, beterr and produce things for less cost, we should be finding ways to strive for improved quality of life for anybody working as part of that system.

Not just the CEOs.

A strong healthy market DOES help with this however, as it creates Economic Mobility opportunities. the vast majority of people who complete highschool dont have a kid out of marrage and hold down a full time job will find themselves liveing Above Poverity.

But I still would like to see a return of the middle class.
Bitcoon
1 year, 3 months ago
It's amazing just how much the world has opened up to me in the last 10 years. I'm still buried under a mountain of student debt 7 years after graduation, but now that I'm working a position where I bring in 3x my rent costs, I'm actually building a substantial savings and paying off debts, I have paid sick and vacation time, cheap and good health/dental/vision, I drive a nice (to me) car, I have opportunities and happiness I never had back when I was a low-skill wage slave. And the main difference is that this workplace pays barely above what's being pushed as the new minimum wage, and they actually care about the people they hire. I mean, when you really crunch the numbers, it's not a big difference in terms of what it cost on the employer side. But when you're barely paid enough to live, a mere 50% increase is enough to completely blow new doors open.

And that's what it feels like to me. I'm freer than I've ever been before. There's so much more I can do to advance my position in life and I don't feel stuck. There are so many amazing, truly hardworking people who just get stuck in this corporate meat grinder and never meet their potential, and we don't always realize that their suffering hurts more than just them. Their kids don't do as well. Some turn to self-harming vice like alcoholism and drugs. Some even turn to crime. These things drag down entire communities, which in turn drag down the country.

We shouldn't have the luxury of ignoring our festering wounds and failures. Human beings are hard-wired to care for those who need it. We're social creatures by necessity. Our species would die out if the strong didn't help the weak. And ultimately I believe that if we apply those principles to our social order, we become stronger as a whole. I want everyone to have the opportunities I've had, not just because it feels good to know that nobody has to dig through garbage cans just to eat, but because that individual could very well be capable of so much more. And I kinda like it when people don't have to turn to self-destructive (or outwardly destructive) habits just to cope with a miserable life. Nobody exists in a bubble.
MochiMeow69
1 year, 3 months ago
I had record breaking profits when I put just one stimulus check in Dogecoin. It's risky, but that's my glimmer of hope.
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
your free to think what you like but I hope you DO realize Capitalism is the reason the western world is the best place to live on earth? it's the reason places like American the UK canda ect, do so well? It's the reason we have nice things.. the reason we can AFFORD nice things.. It drives the market and provides incentive for innovation, innovation creates new products and services, then finds ways to make them more and more affordable so that more and more people can purchase them.


Take for example, Televisions, a few short decades ago a flat screen TV would run you several THOUSEND USD now you can buy a 50 inch at Walmart for 300 bucks...


it brought us Cars and Dishwashers and cheap delicious resteant food, it brought us video games and netflix..



yeah.. fuck capitalism...
Faren
1 year, 3 months ago
Its strange, the stock fall is a misfortune that only effects hurts people who invest into businesses and businesses that don't receive government bailouts... and yet there are people yelling 'fuck capitalists'. Who do they think are the victims hurt the most?
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
most are just regurgitateing the same brain washed talking points ever young communist has been TOLD to spew, they dont actualy even KNOW what capitalism is, they think it's a uber elite caball of the 1% that are rich through some unfair means, and that some how are actively working to fuck over everybody whos not in there yaht club.. theres no reasoning with it.
SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
That's not actually true. The main reason that the US and the UK are prosperous places is because of exploitative relations with places like Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The developed, imperialist countries actively brutalized the people in these other regions and destroyed any sort of industry (for instance, India) and made these areas places for cheap labor or resource extraction. Through the act of deindustralization, it makes the colony (or neo-colony) reliant on the colonizer and also often creates a circumstance where the colony is forced to by goods from the imperial power. In the case of India, their textile industry was demolished and their economy instead became an export based resource economy for the British textile industry and that forced India to buy textiles at a higher price than the raw materials they exported.

Then of course, following WW2, most of these colonial possessions were given sovereignty, but due to their historical exploitation their development was very limited and was directed through US-based international organizations that essentially just saddled them with a ton of debt and have used that debt to force austerity.

Also, you claim about capitalism being the source of prosperity is really sketchy. I mean the majority of the countries in the world are capitalist countries but most of them are still poor. If capitalism brings prosperity then how is that the case?

On the point about innovation, it's only somewhat true that capitalism drives innovation. Due to the desire/necessity to turn a profit, a company is always looking very short term in order to turn a profit which isn't really conducive to developing certain technologies (like the internet). The way innovation seems to work is that government funded research in public universities does most of the work in creating new technologies and then private RnD creates viable products from those technologies, so the public essentially subsidizes the RnD process. Another thing to keep in mind is that the goal of private industry is to make a profit so things like Planned Obsolescence are an innovation in the pursuit of that goal.

The reason that things are cheaper is that as time goes on we develop technologically and changes in productivity so it stops really being reasonable or possible to ask thousands of dollars for this thing that is much easier to produce, cheaper in materials, or cheaper in labor invested (which can be because of greater productivity and lower wages). One of the main reasons is that capitalism exports production to other regions that don't have the same level of labor laws, social development, and unionization, and those regions are often kept that way by violence.

All of those things can exist without capitalism, and are often made worse by capitalism. Planned obsolescence means your dishwashers and tvs are meant to beak at some point so you have to buy more and contribute to greater ecological destruction. Video games are often released unfinished and even paid games contain microtransactions now.

Yeah, i agree, fuck capitalism :)
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
this is a... REALLY indoctrinated set of view points :( and now And now I get to sit here and try and debunk each one DX im gonna have to cut down on quote size to fit it all in

" That's not actually true. The main reason that the US and the UK are prosperous places is because of exploitative relations with places like Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The developed, imperialist countries actively brutalized the people in these other regions and destroyed any sort of industry (for instance, India) and made these areas places for cheap labor or resource extraction. Through the act of deindustralization, it makes the colony (or neo-colony) reliant on the colonizer and also often creates a circumstance where the colony is forced to by goods from the imperial power. In the case of India, their textile industry was demolished and their economy instead became an export based resource economy for the British textile industry and that forced India to buy textiles at a higher price than the raw materials they exported.



this is partly true but you talk as if none of this benefited these countries in anyway, this is the Wakanda argument and it's horse crap. I agree that the imperiast take over of nother nations is bad, but one could argue it birthed national super powers that greatly benifit the modern world. The idea that a Place like Africa would be so much better off right now without the imperialist UK is sadly false, Civilization and it's progress are based on being lucky enough to get started near the right kind of land and the right kind of domesticatable livestock. THIS not race or any other reason, is the real driveing force behind WHY Places like Erope developed so fast and places like most of AFrica stayed the exact same for thousends and thousends of years. Without Imperialism Africa likely would never have developed at all, same can probobly be said for India but ive not done the same level of research on the native animals. Fun Fact the real down side to this is it's allso were all the worlds great plegues came from for the same reason. Dieses jump ffrom animals to people and we dont handle it well.

" Then of course, following WW2, most of these colonial possessions were given sovereignty, but due to their historical exploitation their development was very limited and was directed through US-based international organizations that essentially just saddled them with a ton of debt and have used that debt to force austerity.


it also left them with massive investments in roads and infrastructure that india managed to capitalize on other nations did not.

" Also, you claim about capitalism being the source of prosperity is really sketchy. I mean the majority of the countries in the world are capitalist countries but most of them are still poor. If capitalism brings prosperity then how is that the case?


take a look at the world man.. line up all the failed communist and socialist nations then line up all the capitalist ones, the capitalists are still around...even horrible governments like China subsist largely on an economy molded on capitalism, even the Norwegian/Scandinavia nations so often propped up on a pedestal as prime examples of socialism are primarily capitalist.


" The reason that things are cheaper is that as time goes on we develop technologically and changes in productivity so it stops really being reasonable or possible to ask thousands of dollars for this thing that is much easier to produce, cheaper in materials, or cheaper in labor invested


Not really no all that stuff exists because the free market recognizes there's a need and consumer desire for it, without capitalism as a motivating force that progress would be much much slower.


I agree micro transactions in video games are stupid, unfortunately as long as people are willing to BUY them they will show up, this is also the free market at work.

SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
There's something incredibly ironic about you, the supporter of the dominant ideology, are called me indoctrinated and saying that communists only say things they're TOLD to, may be a good idea to evaluate the source of your own beliefs.

You have a very Eurocentric notion of history and of development:
" One way of judging the level of economic development in Africa five centuries ago is through the quality of the products. Here a few examples will be given of articles which came to the notice of the outside world. Through North Africa, Europeans became familiar with a superior brand of red leather from Africa which was termed “Moroccan leather.” In fact, it was tanned and dyed by Hausa and Mandinga specialists in northern Nigeria and Mali. When direct contact was established between Europeans and Africans on the East and West coasts, many more impressive items were displayed. As soon as the Portuguese reached the old kingdom of Kongo, they sent back word on the superb local cloths made from bark and palm fiber—and having a finish comparable to velvet. The Baganda were also expert barkcloth makers. Yet, Africa had even better to offer in the form of cotton cloth, which was widely manufactured before the coming of the Europeans. Well into the present century, local cottons from the Guinea coast were stronger than Manchester cottons. Once European products reached Africa, Africans too were in a position to make comparisons between their commodities and those from outside. In Katanga and Zambia, the local copper continued to be preferred to the imported items, while the same held true for iron in a place like Sierra Leone.

from "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" by Walter Rodney

It's so weird to say that Africa was essentially stagnant because it wasn't, there was some forms of manufacturing there, and, as shown above, the quality of some goods from Africa were preferred to that of European goods. Also, the main thing Rodney points to as giving the ability to actually colonize (rather than just trade with) Africa was the more developed weaponry of Europeans, which, is only one subset of technological development.

" take a look at the world man..

my main point about mentioning poor capitalist countries was because you claimed that it was capitalism that brought the US and UK prosperity and cool shit, so, if it's capitalism that does that, then why are there poor capitalist countries?

The notion that capitalism is the end of history or that socialism has failed for all of eternity is a weird position, because feudalism lasted much longer than capitalism has and was still been supplanted in most areas of the world by capitalism.

" it also left them with massive investments in roads and infrastructure that india managed to capitalize on other nations did not.

so what you're saying is that India is better off because it was deindustrialized during British occupation? What next is India also not as suited as Europe to "develop"?

Instead of specifically responding to the rest of it I'm going to rant about the whole "Free Market" idea. The notion of a free market is complete and utter nonsense, it's a temporary state at best. For instance, in a free market circumstance, if a company wins one day it's going to begin the next day with an advantage over competitors and after long enough the successful companies within an industry will cannibalize the others, they'll have more capital and resources than any potential startups or new contenders and may even congeal even further among the biggest to create a market controlled by just a handful of companies. It's especially bad in industries where there's essentially no ability for entry or competition with the bigger companies because the resources required or scale.

Probably won't reply anymore after this. It's very unlikely to be productive and time consuming.
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
well your free to believe these things and I will thank you for responding with civility instead of the piss and bile im used to seeing from anti capitalists (or anybody with a different opinion online these days really) For that I will give you the respect you are due and acknowledge your civility.

I do still disagree with you however, as I see it if a person takes the risk to invest in something and build it up they deserve to reap the rewords. I am against Communism more so for the forced redistribution of wealth and the Seizure of private assets and holdings by the government, this is because I am opposed to overwhelming, unchecked government power.

I also consider that kind of thing to be theft.

As for poor capitalist nations.. yes they exist but I would still rather live in a poor capitalist state then a communist one, Im more of a bigger picture kinda guy and if you just wanna look a tthe numbers, Communism is responsable for more deaths due to depravation or political stuff then any other system...

Dont get me wrong, Im not trying to say Capitalism is the ONLY system that works or even that it's the BEST system im only sayind it's the best system weve got for most people.

As for the india/africa thing well that bares a closer look and I don't pretend to be an expert but as for Africa, Lets not conflate goods of a desireable quality do to them being exotic or interesting with an equal level of development

As I said the European powers, got started long AFTER the African people did, by all accounts Africa was the cradle of human civilization, one could argue probably correctly that the african people are the origin point of Humanity. SO if it's just an issue of time and opportunity to grow why were they still liveing in mud huts while the Europeans were sailing around the world and inventing fire arms?

I'll tell you this, it has NOTHING to do with genetics or anything so racist as that it was simple LUCK.

THe Europeans happened to develop in an area of the world with ample acsess to furtile land and superb acsess to easaly domesticatable live stock. Domestication of animals is the catalyst of Civilization, it provides the nessasary things to build the cornerstones of industry and development. It allows you to move byound sustunance farming and into full on development of a nation. It's rather facinateing it's also like i said sadly the reason why Europe has had more major pandemics then anywhere else on earth.

Africa has very little in the way of Domesticatable beasts of burden or livestock most of what they do have was imported, you cant break a Zebra, you can break a horse.

India is not in quite so harsh a situation, wich explains why today India is an industrial Super power. The problem India has is there population is exceptionally over crowneded and it has lead to MASSIVE disparitys in wealth in the Indian people, people who live well in india live easaly as well as anybody in the USA or the UK while the extreamly poor live even worse then most poor people in the USA or the UK do.

That has nothing to do with imperialism India has it's own set of problems it's dealing with but it's still a global super power. Again liley due to acsess of Domesticatable livestock.

I want you to know I support Capitalism and the free market but I also aknowledge it's imperfect and theres an ugly underbelly to it all. I dont support Corpertism or exsessive greed, I dont support manipulations of the free market or governments or privite interests groups conspireing to unfairly control it such as most hedgefunds for example.


it's imperfect but it's the best we have.
SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
(1/3)
I'm sorry it's so long, it's just hard to talk about a lot of the topics you brought up very briefly. >.>

I think the reason there's so much hostility around conversations like this is because socialists have already heard a lot of the arguments for capitalism and have their own sort of refutation of them and it just feels kind of repetitive. I mean, most people do live in capitalist societies so it's not as if socialists aren't exposed to all of these concepts or arguments all the time.

" I do still disagree with you however, as I see it if a person takes the risk to invest in something and build it up they deserve to reap the rewords...

The main problem I have with this argument is it puts all of the responsibility of the success of a firm on the owner or founder of it. It really downplays or often outright erases the very necessary contributions of a large amount of people who operate the business and produce the commodities that are sold. You could argue that they can just vote with their feet and leave exploitative workplaces, but people don't always have that option especially if they're limited by educational level, transportation, they rely on their employer for healthcare, etc.

Leftists view the relationship between laborers and owners as exploitative because people are paid less than the value their labor provides to a business when they do most of the essential work that allows the business to continue to operate. Also, relatedly, I don't have a problem with taxation in principle but in the US like half of public spending goes to the military which is really yikes.

Another point, the left-wing critique or problem with private ownership of businesses is more about the relation between worker and owner, because the owner (and CEO, Board of Directors, Shareholders, etc.) have an incentive to cut the cost of production which includes things like wages and benefits. I don't necessarily think there's a problem with private ownership outside of that context, like I don't think it really matters if someone owns a restaurant or a shop as long as it doesn't include exploiting other people.

" As for poor capitalist nations.. yes they exist but I would still rather live in a poor capitalist state then a communist one...

One aspect I feel that supporters of capitalism don't really take into account is history and level of development prior to becoming a socialist country. Pretty much all state socialist countries were poor, agrarian, and/or born in the aftermath of some war. Marx's view of a socialist society was one that arose out of a developed capitalist society so it would already be industrialized and be liberalized. That's never really happened and state socialist countries have always had to worry about the problems of industrialization or rebuilding after a war or the threat of being overthrown by capitalist countries.

A few comments on the "Deaths under Communism" part. One thing I'd say to look out for is the 100 million claim. It's from a book called the Black Book of Communism in which two of the contributors have denounced the book because they felt that one of the main authors was ideologically driven to reach the figure of 100 million deaths. There's a section on the wikipedia page for the book noting those criticisms if you're interested.

Also, there's a lot of considerations to keep in mind when talking about what counts as a death attributable to an economic system. Like, for instance, if we can associate the Chinese famine during the Great Leap Forward to communism would it also be fitting to associate The Bengal Famine in India during WW2 (which killed around 3 million people) or the Irish Potato to Capitalism? It occurred in a region under the control of Capitalist Britain at the time.
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
YIKES! I'll try to reply to all this but I dont think this place is going to CONTAIN it much longer


" The main problem I have with this argument is it puts all of the responsibility of the success of a firm on the owner or founder of it. It really downplays or often outright erases the very necessary contributions of a large amount of people who operate the business and produce the commodities that are sold. You could argue that they can just vote with their feet and leave exploitative workplaces, but people don't always have that option especially if they're limited by educational level, transportation, they rely on their employer for healthcare, etc.


this ones a bit iffy, see the owner/founder invests the most and stands to lose the most, they guy in the mailroom or flipping burgers is NOT as valuable as the guy who risked thousends millions or billions in capital and investments to get a company running and make it successful As for voteing with your feet, unfortunatly thats just a unkind reality, You are not entitled to anything in this world, you are privileged with everything you DO have I dont LIKE it but if you absolutely CANT leave an exploitative workplace that...sucks but thats that.. now we do have laws to try to protect employes from exploitaton and maybe those could be expanded on but to much control should never be in the hands of the gocernment, there no less likely to fall pray to corruption then a corperation.

" Leftists view the relationship between laborers and owners as exploitative because people are paid less than the value their labor provides to a business when they do most of the essential work that allows the business to continue to operate.


problem with this is it's not..the value of your labour is variable, based on you as a person, the demand for your labour the availability of that labour and what the market will support. But your labours while valuable will never equal the risk and investment a business starter invests in being successful. Your already getting a peice of that pie, your paid for your work, a fee you AGREED to when you signed the employment contract and meny employers also offer stock options and benifits based on how well you do and how well the company does, giveing you even more access to the company's value. as for your other comments about exploitive relations between emplyee and employer, im sorry but the guy in the mail room is not on the same level as the guy in the board room, He risks less, he has less investment, he stands to lose the least, if hes earning competative wages to other guys in other mail rooms hes being compensated fairly. It sounds cold but this is the best way we have to more or less determin the value of something as prone to fluxuation as the value of labour.

" One aspect I feel that supporters of capitalism don't really take into account is history and level of development prior to becoming a socialist country. Pretty much all state socialist countries were poor, agrarian, and/or born in the aftermath of some war. Marx's view...


gonna stop you right there, Marx is an idiot. I would like to here some well thought out arguments that DONT involve somebody who Supported Seizeing privite property and surrendering full ecnomic control to the state. The state is bad, the state can barly do it's own job. the less we Require the state to do the better.

" A few comments on the "Deaths under Communism"


quote cut down to save charicter count but you know what im replying to. The death toll under Russia's failed communist regime alone is staggering and theres several other nations barly hanging on today that are grand examples ofcommunism and socilism being shit. Maybe the systems are not the problem but the exacution? All i know is governments bad at it's job and should be given as few responsibilities as possible.
SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
(2/3)
If you decide to try to tally up deaths because of/under capitalism (which people have done), then you find similar or potentially higher figures, especially when you factor in yearly occurences like deaths to preventable diseases, malnutrition, lack of access to clean water (which if you're confused, the reason that people feel they can contribute these to capitalism is because capitalism produces the wealth and technology to prevent these problems but doesn't because it's not profitable to do so).

Also, through out all of this I could just say "That's not real socialism!" or "Marx said...", but I feel like it's probably more interesting and maybe informative to get in the weeds some.

If I had to choose a poor communist country or a poor capitalist country, I'd choose the former and that country would most likely be Cuba. I mean it has universal healthcare, free university, a life expectancy comparable to the US, is fairly LGBT friendly. That's all in spite of an embargo that's been on it since the revolution that's estimated to have cost Cuba around a trillion dollars in revenue (the 2018 GDP of the country was 100 billion) and it's opposed pretty much every country except the US, Israel, and Brazil.

" Dont get me wrong, Im not trying to say Capitalism is the ONLY system that works or even that it's the BEST system im only sayind it's the best system weve got for most people.

Well, I mean, even if I were to agree to that it'd only be temporarily best for most people as we continue to emit CO2 and consume until we reach a state of ecological collapse that leads to climate refugees from hotter regions, higher sea levels, worsening natural disasters/more eratic weather, etc.

The problem for the free market when it comes to climate change is that there isn't really any mechanism within market logic to value ecology. Environmental regulations are often more costly or will uproot entire industries (like oil/natural gas) and the people in positions of power in those groups have the political and economic power to get government officials to listen to them.

Climate change also affects these sort of people the least because they have the resources to move away from regions that are especially affected, so they don't have to deal with the negative outcomes of their production, and, as of a few years ago, it was only 100 companies that released 71% of all CO2 emissions.

You may say that the consumer has the power to force companies to do x or y but do we really? Like can I know all the ends and outs of the production process and what products for what companies are used in the production process of this good, so I can sanction specific companies for their collaboration choices? Also, even if I were to know all of that, would it really be fair for me, a person in a developed capitalist country, who has a much larger ecological footprint than most people in the world, to make a consumer choice that disproportionately affects people in other regions more?

" As for the india/africa thing...

One problem I have with this section is the really vague nature of the word "development." It can mean a lot of different things depending on what criteria you consider to be developed. For instance, it could be industries that produce high quality goods (like the quote I posted showed). Also, I'm not an expert on Africa either, but looking at the Mali Empire (1235-1670) Archeticture section on wikipedia shows pretty complex buildings.

KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
" If you decide to try to tally up deaths because of/under capitalism (which people have done), then you find similar or potentially higher figures, especially when you factor in yearly occurences like deaths to preventable diseases, malnutrition, lack of access to clean water (which if you're confused, the reason that people feel they can contribute these to capitalism is because capitalism produces the wealth and technology to prevent these problems but doesn't because it's not profitable to do so).


the problem with this is Unlike in a cumminist or socialist system were it's the governments responability it is not the responsability of a privite business to handle this, Preventable Disease for example, or malnutrition. These are unpleasent, horrible realities, ones that the government is primaraly responsible for fixing, so when your communist government fucks it up thats on them, hell the big DRAW for Socialism is a larger more all emcompaseing safty net, so when socialists cant feed there people, I have little faith in there system. Capitalism is not really a system of governance Socialism is, so is communism the problem is both those systems draw all there power by sucking on the and takeing control of, the privite sector. thats bad for the privite sector and therefore the economy. Leading to more hardships not less. The only way the government can TAKE control of these things is with a gun, it's theft under a fancy name. Starving kids in africa sucks, but it's also not my fualt, Appeal to peoples hearts and you see Philanthropic and charitable results, but try and guilt them into it and you get people changing the channel.

" I could just say "That's not real socialism!" or "Marx said..."


Problem is It IS and it was, and it will be.. weve seen this show before.

" If I had to choose a poor communist country or a poor capitalist country, I'd choose the former and that country would most likely be Cuba.


Ive a friend in cuba.. ive seen the state of there hospitals XD Please, go live for a few years in Castro land XD I hope you dont get sick.


" The problem for the free market when it comes to climate change is that there isn't really any mechanism within market logic to value ecology.


actually, as public concern for Ecological efforts increases it's created furtile ground for renewable sustainable products and eco friendly businesses.

as for climate change, This is a completly seperate topic but to adress it in extreamly breif terms, we dont know, and even if most of the major players on earth droped c02 to 0 tomarrow China would still be putting out enough to put us over by current pro eco doom peoples estimates. Captain planets not about to kick Xixi ping's ass, so unless you are were kinda screwed there either way.

" You may say that the consumer has the power to force companies to do x or y but do we really?


we do, the problem is people are stupid/lazy and don't flex there wallet vote because it would represent an inconvenience.


" One problem I have with this section is the really vague nature of the word "development." .


I mean Development as a nation, Infrastructure agriculture military, city building Believe it or not The white supremacists are wrong when they say Europeans are better because there white, just like the people whimpering about how places like Africa are underdeveloped because of Imperialist exploitation.

the answer is simple animal husbendry.

theres a video on it.... trying to remember where...ahh

these videos are not a comprehensive study on this topic but there informative give them a watch if for no other reason then your own curiosity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo part 2


SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
(3/3)
Also, I think that I heard somewhere that either the domestication of animals or agriculture began in 6 different places around the world around the same time. Given a short search, it seems like animals were domesticated in Africa as well. The paper specifically mentions goats, sheep, cattle, camels, pigs, donkeys, cats, dogs, and guinea fowl.

I can't really comment on the question of the time between the origination of the species and African society/why Africa didn't develop capitalism prior to Europe. I also don't know if any African society did/did not develop ships. It seems really likely that they would.

" people who live well in india live easaly as well as anybody in the USA or the UK

In any class society there's going to be stratification, yeah. Also, being a post-colonial country or having a legacy of imperalism is still going to affect countries today because historical inequities/advantage allow for greater advantage to develop on the part of those that benefit from these unbalanced relationships. That being said, some post colonial/poor countries have had a lot of success, which, in my opinion, is in large part because of globalization and the desire for capital to move production to the most economically advantageous plcaces. Also, after it stops being profitable to produce in those places or becomes more profitable to move production somewhere else companies will pull out of the countries they've invested in similar to the deindustrialization of places like Cleveland or Detroit.

" I want you to know...

Yeah, I'm mostly just a Marxist. I think given the level of technological development that we currently have that capitalism's both holding us back and actively destroying the world and that a system that takes human needs and ecology into account would be better going forward.  As is I don't think that private industry or the governments that it essentially controls have the mechanisms to really resolve the ongoing problems in the world (climate change, malnutrition, poverty, water shortages, etc.). Also, I don't have a degree in the humanities nor am I going for a degree in the humanities :P
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
" Also, I think that I heard somewhere that either the domestication of animals or agriculture began in 6 different places around the world around the same time. Given a short search, it seems like animals were domesticated in Africa as well. specifically mentions goats, sheep, cattle, camels, pigs, donkeys, cats, dogs, and guinea fowl.


yes but to a much lesser extent, these animals provided basic food and some materials like whool but nothing compared to what cattle and horses provided in the way of farming and agriculture or the sheer amount of food they can provide as a result of increased farming, allowing for mass ranching of livestock.

" I can't really comment on the question of the time between the origination of the species and African society/why Africa didn't develop capitalism prior to Europe. I also don't know if any African society did/did not develop ships. It seems really likely that they would.


the concept of capitalism does indeed predate Europe, it's as old as human civilization it is the OLDIST concept of economics, it got started with it's roots in barter and trade, and it turned into the business of capital gains and investments sometime after the first concept of banking appeared in.. the middle east.. I think...

" Yeah, I'm mostly just a Marxist. I think given the level of technological development that we currently have that capitalism's both holding us back and actively destroying the world and that a system that takes human needs and ecology into account would be better going forward.

Capitalism BUILT the world, and when things are needed or problems arise somebody will always be willing to pay for a solution or an enterprising individual will notice a need for a remedy and will provide it, hell thats how we got EVERY kind of modern convince. Damn ner every single major inovation in human history was born from nesasity and nesity is born from want, everybody WANTS money and secses becouse it brings comfort and helps with humanitys oldist requirements.

Food, water, safty and entertainment. the four things that drive human need and greed.

Now what your talking about is currently impossible, it's some startrek federation level fantasy bullshit....but it might not always be...the core problem is scarcity right now we are a Scarcity driven Ecnomy, globaly, the availability of a thing, vs the Desire for, a thing, determins a things worth, weather or not it's cash money or precious minerals or food or water or even people.

it governs wages it governs EVERYTHING.

Something like Startrek shows us a POST Scarcity Economic System were there is no longer a Limit to the amount of a thing so all needs are satisfied.

this allows for a system built around Human Interest to flurish... where a person does a job because they want to not because they NEED to though we wont know if thats even truly possible or in line with basic human nature untill we enter a post scarcity world.. assuming that is ever possible...Science tells us creating something from nothing is impossible so we would have to find a way to create things from Extremely common basic building blocks wich would require an Astronomical amount of energy like... T2 or t3 civilization level Energy like we would need a Dysen Sphere at least, level of energy...



But who knows.


anyway look up civilization Tiers and Dysen Spheres if you don't already know about them there pretty damn cool.
SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
This'll be my last reply. It was a fun conversation, hope it was enjoyable/productive for you as well, but I really need to spend my time in other ways lol.

" Marx and the state/Is the Soviet Union socialist?

You both made the claim that Marx supported an absolute state and also that the Soviet Union and similar countries were obviously socialist. Both are wrong. Also, socialism isn't just when the government does stuff, it's a certain organization of production where the people doing the labor have democratic control over the places they work. There are people who view the USSR as a socialist country either because they believe that the vanguard party (a leninist concept not found in marx) acts in the interest of the workers or that mechanisms like local elections or participation in other organs of soviet society can be considered democratic. There has also been a long history of communist critique of the USSR from around the time of it's inception with people like Rosa Luxembourg being critical of Leninist ideas, Trotsky being critical of the USSR under Stalin, Western Marxists in the cold war period, up until today when there are a lot of people who see the relations as state capitalist or not truly socialist. You can believe that it was a socialist country, whatever that means to you, but to say that it obviously is ignores a lot of debate between actual socialists so...

Also, Marx didn't envision a Soviet like society when he was talking about socialism or communism. A quote from him from "The Civil War In France":
" While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society. Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well-known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. On the other hand, nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supercede universal suffrage by hierarchical investiture.


" the concept of capitalism does indeed predate Europe

It really depends on what you mean by capitalism, if you reduce it to just trade or barter it does, but the conditions of trade and barter in a primarily feudal economy or agrarian economy operates very differently than under a capitalist system. It isn't the dominant mode of production of the society and doesn't even necessarily include the labor of others.

" Cuba

Yes, it's called being embargoed.

SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
" Videos about domestication

I'd be careful about basing your understanding of world history/development on a series of videos. History and Anthropology are fields with a lot of different perspective on events and historical development so I'd at least be aware of that when being presented a perspective on something especially as complicated or multi-factored as european colonization/hegemony. Grey didn't leave any citations to where he got his information from, but he talked about the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" in a podcast episode (that I admittedly haven't listened to), so i'm assuming it's from there. Not to say Grey's perspective is wrong or the book is wrong (I don't actually know), but here are some criticisms of that perspective i've found:
r/AskHistorians - "[...] what is the alternate theory of why there are no plagues in the americas?"
r/BadHistory - "Inaccuracies of Grey: A Disease-Free Paradise and Immune Europeans"

I haven't found anything critical of the claims about domestication (well aside from the paper i linked previously that talks about all of the species of animals that were domesticated in Africa), but that doesn't mean that perspective is completely correct it could just be that people aren't as interested in that claim as the virus related one.

" valuation of labor

From "Critique of the Gotha Program" by Marx:
" But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only — for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.


SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
The notion that everyone has to be paid the same doesn't exist within Marx's view of socialism. Within socialism, when there's scarcity of goods, Marx believed that people should be compensated based on their contribution to the society and also that the conditions of a person's life should factor into their compensation (all of which is said above). It's only within the communist phase of development where goods are distributed solely based on need rather than through some sort of allowance system. Marx proposed labor vouchers which aren't transferable and don't go into circulation but give you access to an amount to the resources of society. I imagine you'll find that arrangement really disagreeable or have criticism of it, but the main point of mentioning it was to contradict the notion that everyone's just paid the same. Also, it's another example of where State Socialist countries have diverged from Marx's proposed structures/methods of organization.

" The State and the Free Market

I always find the free market hatred of the state really puzzling because Capitalism began due to state intervention into society and the economy. In Britain through the enclosure acts common land that was shared among peasants was cut up and privatized which forced them into factories in the cities. Without that act of government intervention there wouldn't have been a workforce to industrialize Britain. It was in those cramped, unhygenic conditions that things like tuberculous spread and wiped out large swaths of people.

Outside the ongoing efforts for privatization there was very little intervention of the state into the market and, at least in that context, it resulted in widespread misery, young children working 16 hour days in very dangerous factories, etc. This isn't meant as a complete rebuttal to the Free Market Ideology, but it complicates the picture a lot. If the free market brings prosperity and freedom then why did it's implementation here bring so much misery and death?

In modern days, the market is also reliant on the state. US regime change efforts and invasions are often about natural resources like oil like the war in Iraq. In my opinion the US military mainly just exists and is active to keep areas safe for US corporations/economic interests. The US government also provides liquidity or outright bailouts to corporations at certain periods like in 2008 and last year. It also subsidizes various industries like agriculture to make exports more competitive. You could also argue that it subsidizes places that don't pay a living wage to people because of the reliance it puts on food stamps or other welfare programs.

There's also the point I mentioned in the past about research. Capitalism only really encourages very short term innovation that's expected to turn a quick profit and the more long term and less profitable innovation is done in public institutions funded by government money. There was a book written about that a few years back and here's an article about it.

Even when a relatively competitive market exists, just due to the dynamics of some companies winning and others losing it results in these bigger, monopolistic companies who control large sections of the market. One really good example of that is the gaming market. At its inception there were a bunch of relatively small publishers but nowadays there are these massive studios like Activision and Ubisoft. There's a tendency to monopolization within markets and the only real historical examples of the breakdown of monopolies is through government action (which is only a temporary thing, for example, AT&T).

SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
Also, you mention that it's unreasonable to attribute casualties related to the indifference of the free market to capitalism which is so odd a perspective. I'm supposed to support this free market thing because it's the best imperfect system but it can't really solve some of the most pressing problems in the world.

" Now what your talking about is currently impossible, it's some startrek federation level fantasy bullshit....but it might not always be...the core problem is scarcity

Given the amount of waste we have rather it be food or e-waste, it's really odd to say the problem is scarcity. Yes there may be some resources that are scare or that have to be rationed in some way, but the majority of things, like food, we have an abundance of that gets thrown away. The free market allocates it to no one because it's more profitable to destroy excess supply than it is to give to those who need it but aren't materially wealthy.

" anyway look up civilization Tiers and Dysen Spheres if you don't already know about them there pretty damn cool.

Will do comrade ._.7

Also, there's probably more I could respond to but I think I'll stop here. It was more enjoyable than I thought it'd be. To be honest, I thought it'd quickly devolve into each of us calling the other brainwashed, but it didn't, so that's cool.
Stratothrax
1 year, 3 months ago
Sorry, but it is true. πŸ™‚

Capitalism has lead to an astonishing amount of prosperity that has lifted billions out of grinding starvation poverty. It's only spoilt first worlders who have no real understanding of the insane amount of good capitalism has done for the world who don't get this.

There is a reason that the Vietnamese have an astounding 95% approval rating of capitalism.

The fact is that the world is becoming a wealthier better happier place to live for billions of people, and these people do not give a flying shit what first world white suburban spoilt middle-classers who got their understanding of the world through twitter have to say about it.

Graph go up, world more gooder 😁
SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
From "Bill Gates says poverty is decreasing, he couldn't be more wrong":
" What Roser’s numbers actually reveal is that the world went from a situation where most of humanity had no need of money at all to one where today most of humanity struggles to survive on extremely small amounts of money. The graph casts this as a decline in poverty, but in reality what was going on was a process of dispossession that bulldozed people into the capitalist labour system, during the enclosure movements in Europe and the colonisation of the global south.

Prior to colonisation, most people lived in subsistence economies where they enjoyed access to abundant commons – land, water, forests, livestock and robust systems of sharing and reciprocity. They had little if any money, but then they didn’t need it in order to live well – so it makes little sense to claim that they were poor. This way of life was violently destroyed by colonisers who forced people off the land and into European-owned mines, factories and plantations, where they were paid paltry wages for work they never wanted to do in the first place.

In other words, Roser’s graph illustrates a story of coerced proletarianisation. It is not at all clear that this represents an improvement in people’s lives, as in most cases we know that the new income people earned from wages didn’t come anywhere close to compensating for their loss of land and resources, which were of course gobbled up by colonisers. Gates’s favourite infographic takes the violence of colonisation and repackages it as a happy story of progress.

But that’s not all that’s wrong here. The trend that the graph depicts is based on a poverty line of $1.90 (£1.44) per day, which is the equivalent of what $1.90 could buy in the US in 2011. It’s obscenely low by any standard, and we now have piles of evidence that people living just above this line have terrible levels of malnutrition and mortality. Earning $2 per day doesn’t mean that you’re somehow suddenly free of extreme poverty. Not by a long shot.

Scholars have been calling for a more reasonable poverty line for many years. Most agree that people need a minimum of about $7.40 per day to achieve basic nutrition and normal human life expectancy, plus a half-decent chance of seeing their kids survive their fifth birthday. And many scholars, including Harvard economist Lant Pritchett, insist that the poverty line should be set even higher, at $10 to $15 per day.

So what happens if we measure global poverty at the low end of this more realistic spectrum – $7.40 per day, to be extra conservative? Well, we see that the number of people living under this line has increased dramatically since measurements began in 1981, reaching some 4.2 billion people today. Suddenly the happy Davos narrative melts away.

Moreover, the few gains that have been made have virtually all happened in one place: China. It is disingenuous, then, for the likes of Gates and Pinker to claim these gains as victories for Washington-consensus neoliberalism. Take China out of the equation, and the numbers look even worse. Over the four decades since 1981, not only has the number of people in poverty gone up, the proportion of people in poverty has remained stagnant at about 60%. It would be difficult to overstate the suffering that these numbers represent.

Stratothrax
1 year, 3 months ago
This opinion article is poorly constructed and disingenuously reframes the objective increase in quality of life for billions of people to advance a political agenda. It's bad. Really bad.

"most people lived in subsistence economies where they enjoyed access to abundant commons – land, water, forests, livestock and robust systems of sharing and reciprocity. They had little if any money, but then they didn’t need it in order to live well – so it makes little sense to claim that they were poor. "

This guy actually thinks starvation level subsistence farming where people did back breaking grinding labor and regularly starved to death while barely making ends meet and had horrific mortality, child mortality, and rates of sickness was a good life. What a complete and total fucking moron. We know this life was fucking miserable because even in places where foreigners did not touch these subsistence ways of life until recent decades it was still absolutely fucking miserable.

Romanticizing the suffering of people like this actually makes my skin crawl, what first world spoiled brat revisionist shit.

Here is a data backed article written by actual data scientists to explain why each point that your article writer made was wrong wrong wrong πŸ™‚.

" What is this chart based on? How do we do know that just two centuries ago the majority of the world population lived in conditions that are similar to the living conditions of the very poorest in the world today as this chart indicates? And how do we know that this account of falling global extreme poverty is in fact true?

It is the research of hundreds of historians who have carefully assembled thousands of quantitative estimates that inform us about  people’s living conditions that give us this global perspective on the history of poverty.

In public discussions of the history of poverty the extent of this careful work is often overlooked. Such a deceptively simple chart on the global decline of poverty may then be easily dismissed as being based on little evidence. While there are substantial questions that introduce uncertainty which needs to be taken seriously, it would be a mistake to believe that historians do not have produced very substantial knowledge which informs us about the improvements of living conditions and the decline of global poverty.

 

Yes, global poverty has gone down massively over time. By far the largest and most glaring fuck up your opinion piece writer made was incorrectly assuming that the people who study these things do not take non-monetary incomes into account.

" historical reconstructions of poverty and prosperity do not just concern the amount of money people had in the past. This is a common misunderstanding that is often at the heart of misinformed critiques of historical research.


Basically, he face planted directly into a basic bitch level of crappy amateur analysis, what a sloppy incompetent mess. Yikes.

SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
You specify the fact that it's an opinion article as if that just means that it's by some random person or completely uncredible but it's by a professor with a PhD in Anthropology and someone who serves on a few different commissions. He seems pretty qualified to speak on this.

Also your view of capitalism in the third world seems very off if you think it creates prosperous societies that provides for the needs of people. Capitalism exports production to other areas of the world with much less developed labor movements and labor laws in order to cut production costs and to allow the producers to create cheap goods for developed countries that are also very profitable. The goal is profit for the few not sustainable development or increase in the wellbeing of the people who live in those places.

" Yes, global poverty has gone down massively over time. By far the largest and most glaring fuck up your opinion piece writer made was incorrectly assuming that the people who study these things do not take non-monetary incomes into account.

I trust the anthropologist over you. Given his position as an anthropologist and his position on the Statistical Advisory Panel for the UN Human Development Report, I imagine he has a lot more intimate knowledge of the subject than you do. Maybe you should actually look at the credentials of the person who wrote an article before you slander if as "just an opinion piece."
Stratothrax
1 year, 3 months ago
Well it does literally say opinion article at the top of the opinion article : >

" Capitalism exports production to other areas of the world with much less developed labor movements and labor laws in order to cut production costs and to allow the producers to create cheap goods for developed countries that are also very profitable.


Unironically Yes. πŸ™‚

What, did you think this was a gotcha? We export labor to less developed countries and in the process these countries develop past that point. This happened in south korea and japan, both of which are now first world countries, those countries then exported their cheap labor to china which is in the process of becoming first world (assuming that it doesn't get caught in the middle income trap), and even now china is exporting its labor to Vietnam and Africa where labor is cheaper and in the process both vietnam and africa's economies are growing exponentially and becoming wealthier richer and more prosperous, same with india.

This only seems like a bad thing to middle class white first worlders who do not understand that these people desperately desperately want to jump on this upward trajectory in quality of life. Cheap labor has been one of the greatest forces for net good the world has ever seen. It takes a section of the economy in already rich countries and extends it into poor countries and acts as a gear to drive their prosperity. China, Vietnam, India, these countries have GDP growth between 5% and 10% because of this process, absolutely staggering numbers of growth comparively.

If true AI automation ever takes hold in rich countries and they no longer need to export cheap labor, it will be one of the worst things to ever happen to the global poor.

If you asked a South Korean or Chinese person whether they thought that the hard work for their current level of wealth and the massively massively massively increased QoL for their children was worth it they would say fucking hell yes my man, and if you tried to tell them that 'well no acchktually you are wrong and should have stayed poor forh reashons', well they would likely kick your teeth in for starters lmao.

" I trust the anthropologist over you


I trust the research of hundreds of historians who have carefully assembled thousands of quantitative estimates πŸ™‚

One woke idiot who comes from a university known for its woke garbage and makes a humilating amateur baby mistake in assuming that non-currency wealth is not accounted for does not inspire confidence.
The human advisory panel is intentionally a grab bag across the spectrum because its purpose is to provide perspectives on the main stream data science. It is equally as likely to pick up a fringe libertarian phd as this guy lol.


SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
Also, I just spent the time to look through your link. The chart is still based on a dollar a day metric, which is an incredibly low metric when measuring poverty. Even by the link you give, it doesn't paint a very good picture. If you look at the the poverty metric in 2017 (the latest year) and go by the up to $10 figure (which is around what's recommended by one of the researchers), then we come to the staggering figure of around 4 billion people in poverty.

Also, it seems like the main place where poverty is decreasing is in China which is a state controlled market economy rather than a free market economy. And also there's a period of growth in poverty in pretty much every metric minus the lowest in the graph for large sections of the middle of the graph; did the world magically become capitalist in like 2012 or 2013?

Here's where he advocates a poverty line above $10:
" Again, different poverty lines are helpful for different questions. One of us published a research paper in which we suggest a poverty line of int.-$10.89. And recently the world did in fact make rapid progress against poverty relative to higher poverty lines. Every day in the last decade newspapers could have had the headline “The number of people living on more than 10 dollars per day increased by 245,000 since yesterday.”

Stratothrax
1 year, 3 months ago

People being in the poverty braket is not good, but it is still a massive massive step up from the miserable grinding starvation hell like situation of the Extreme Poverty bracket of the past and shows that the accelerating trajectory is heading upward with most non-first world countries having doubled their gdp per capita since 2000, that is just twenty years. Another fifty or so years of this trajectory that we are on and we will be seeing most of the billions of people in the poverty bracket graduate from the poverty bracket too, extreme poverty will basically not even exist by that point.

To break it down and put it simply: Being in poverty is significantly better than being in extreme poverty. Quality of life is objectively getting better globally and is on an accelerating upward trajectory out of the poverty bracket, despite what a bunch of miserable spoilt brat white first worlder cosplay communists say lolπŸ˜‚

lastly, opening up to global capitalism is what changed when countries like china started growing. If they had remained as closed hard line communist  states their current QoL would be significantly worse with more people in the extreme poverty and poverty bracket. That's just how it is.

SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
Oh also, about the Vietnam thing, 95% of Vietnamese People support a Free Market Economy not Capitalism. To people in Capitalist countries (especially the US) that means capitalism, but people in Vietnam may very well see their economy as a free market economy after the Doi Moi reforms (a set of reforms that opened them up to western capital, similar to Dengism/"Reform and Opening Up" in China). They may also not, I have really no idea, but just remember that words may have different associations to people in other places.
Stratothrax
1 year, 3 months ago
The polled question was: Most people are better off in a free market economy even though some people are rich and some people are poor.

Free market refers to an economic system based on supply and demand with limited government control, but the latter half of the question explicitly makes it ideologically about capitalism and not socialism.

SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
There are market socialists who have a model of socialism that involves markets, i think it's usually in the form of cooperatives or syndicalism. Also, after the Doi Moi reforms which opened Vietnam to western investment, the people in Vietnam way see their country as a free market society or associate those changes with the free market.

Also, you're probably curious or see this as a failure for socialism, but the feasibility of an economic system isn't dependent simply on the internal functioning of that economic system itself. It's also dependent on the history of the country itself, what sort of resources the country has, the state of the global economy, among many other factors. So in the position of the decline and eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union, a country like Vietnam didn't really have many other choices than to reform to some degree to open itself up to capitalist investment and the world market because it no longer had it's largest ally and trade partner.

Marxism is very much about trying to understand material factors that influence the development of things (usually societies or modes of production), so that's one of the reason you'll see people call a place like Vietnam or even China still socialist even though they've come to accept capitalist investment/development in certain regions.
Stratothrax
1 year, 3 months ago
Market socialist means public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production.

Less than 4% of private firms are co-ops in Vietnam.

Vietnam is not market socialist.

-

Vietnam is economically liberal, free market, loves free trade agreements, and has a huge stock exchange. It has the highest approval of free market capitalism in the world as the best system in a permanent tense despite potential inequality. It also has one of the highest approval ratings of America in the world, one of the archetypal capitalist countries, reaching as high as 90% amongst the young.

" or see this as a failure for socialism,


Well for starters it is objectively a colossal failure of communism to go backwards and become significantly less communist.
Going from communist to neo-liberal style globalism as a country that was trying to close in on being pure communist is undeniably a humiliating embarrassment. Although I imagine that the millions of vietnamese that the communists brutalised in forced labour camps for their ideology are fairly happy about this result.

Communism has a horrific track record in the real world at improving peoples lives and often makes them significantly worse.

As for mixed market, well, it is still an objective fact that global capitalism is the engine that has created the wealth of Vietnam. Neither socialism nor communism gave the Vietnamese massive wealth and prosperity or lifted them out of grinding starvation poverty.

Capitalism did.

Graph go up, world more gooder 😁
MochiMeow69
1 year, 3 months ago
Can't win them over, but I appreciate your insight.
SimplyMiles
1 year, 3 months ago
It's going significantly better than I expected! I appreciate your appreciation~
Stratothrax
1 year, 3 months ago
It is quite hard to win people over when the facts are directly against you. Guy got absolutely dumpstered lmao πŸ˜‚
MochiMeow69
1 year, 3 months ago
Nobody is getting dumpstered here. Also, cats and a wolf here. Going to run fur my life :p
Stratothrax
1 year, 3 months ago
Graph go up, world more gooder my friend 😁

To deny this is to get dumpstered by endless infinite data science. I have no idea why someone would think it is winnable to deny this graph is real, it's like an ant trying to lift the mount everest of reality, or like a trump supporter trying to make out that trump won and is secretly still president. SimplyMilke blindly stepped on a bear trap and got rightfully absolutely dumpstered for it.
stickyfox
1 year, 2 months ago
" KevinSnowpaw wrote:

Take for example, Televisions, a few short decades ago a flat screen TV would run you several THOUSEND USD now you can buy a 50 inch at Walmart for 300 bucks...


Last year I bought a 40" 4k TV for $400.
In 2009 I bought a WXGA DLP projector for $400, and a 40" 3D plasma that also cost $400.
In 1997 I bought a flat-screen Samsung HDTV for $400.
In 1994 I bought my first Trinitron for $400.

All of those were from Best Buy except for the Sony.

I cannot recall a time when a TV cost several thousand dollars, outside of boutique home theater models that are vastly beyond consumer products sold at Walmart. Altho there was a period in the late 90's/early 2000's where computer monitors cost less than small LCD TV's for no good reason, and lots of people used GameJams (the adapter, not the game dev meetup) to bypass the extra cost.
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 2 months ago
when flat screens first came out they were several grand I remember 60 inch plasmas being near 6 and 7 grand in fact. when we made the jump to LCD and then LED we saw a sharp drop in expense but we have a TV at my store right now thats over a grand it's cutting edge  though back "in the day" it would have been several thusend by this metric
ModularDragon
1 year, 3 months ago
Do you want communism? Why don't move to China? They are moving towards this.
heyguiz
1 year, 3 months ago
brainlet take
C1de
1 year, 3 months ago
after the gamestop thing happened crypto started getting pushed extra hard, wouldn't buy into that either since now they coordinate halting trades on apps like robinhood so they can sellout but nobody else can.
YokoShirogane
1 year, 3 months ago
Yup, is why I want to and plan to move out of the US one day with my mate. The US isn't salvageable and it'll only keep going downhill from here.
Ameinias
1 year, 3 months ago
Adorable mousie.
kat37
1 year, 3 months ago
Nice mouse and sad facts
ZephyFoxy
1 year, 3 months ago
Ew, politics.
KaydrienIceclaw
1 year, 3 months ago
Only one thing to do: find something silly and adorable as antidote.
MistahToonCatUwU
1 year, 3 months ago
Bruh I can't even get rent that my parents got a decade ago
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
the Houseing and rent market has to do with Property Ecnomics and is not really the same system most other markets opperate under, unlike with say a product were you can just find ways to make more of a thing faster and cheaper, with houseing the COST of OWNING and RENTING a property goes up every year through tax increases and demand for that houseing increases a long with it, due to there being more and more people.


The cost of rend going up is not the fualt of capitalism, the bigist contributors are government and population.

I agree we need to work on ways to lower the cost of liveing.
MistahToonCatUwU
1 year, 3 months ago
oh im not blaming capitalism, it just sucks that im about to hit 30 yet i dont have an apartment for me and my boyfriend yet

shits expensive here in the rough neighborhood
KevinSnowpaw
1 year, 3 months ago
yout area and proximity to a population center will effect this, if your willing to camute to work you can move farther away and you may find the cost of liveing drops off sharply. It's not a perfect salution but it is A salution. I dont know were you live and I dont expect you to devulge that online XD (and you probobly shouldent) I just hope you guys figure things out. the houseing situation is a real problem right now.
Stratothrax
1 year, 3 months ago
Housing prices won't come down until supply can meet demand and that's not happening until the construction industry is allowed to build without NIMBYism and zoning laws being so absurdly restrictive beyond all reason or rational.

Don't even get me started on how much these horrible laws have cost us in economic growth and wealth creation. The numbers are horrific.
ParaphiliacVulpine
1 year, 3 months ago
I am in my 20s and still live with my father, we live in a RV park; it's basically destitution, just about. I can't even get proper mental support because of how much money we have to use to live.
CFC
CFC
1 year, 3 months ago
huh whats this all about ? whats down? also poor lil cute mouse just wanna snuggle him and heal him D=
notknow
1 year, 3 months ago
"USA is ruined" *put NASA suit and point gun *always has been
Nishi
1 year, 3 months ago
I guess this is vent art for a stock investment that is going down. I mean... a lot of stocks rise up again eventually. This is probably a shallow way to view a country. (There are plenty of other ways to see how our country is bad. ;3)
KaydrienIceclaw
1 year, 3 months ago
Just so. Stocks go up, stocks go down, stocks go up again, stocks go down again, up, down, up, down… little more down than usual at the moment but then that’s happened before, too.

Plenty of good and bad to go around, on other fronts.
Nishi
1 year, 3 months ago
All agreed! (: Hopefully this artist can worry a bit less, maybe it's their first time in the market. Best to be positive and patient!
IsaacTheWolf
1 year, 3 months ago
Stock goes up. Stock goes down. Coins go up. Coins go down.
HomBy
1 year, 3 months ago
아뭬리카~~
Smuggred
1 year, 3 months ago
Glad i dont live in gun fetish land
Smuggred
1 year, 3 months ago
move to a real country
Bitcoon
1 year, 3 months ago
If those other countries are smart, they won't take us.
Kalibran
1 year, 3 months ago
That's some juicy jingoism. I'll avoid your country if that's what we can expect from it.
RainbowSquirrel
1 year, 3 months ago
Lol why
Chucky
1 year, 3 months ago
If you don't like what the stock market is doing, wait a few days, it'll change. It always has and always will.
ModularDragon
1 year, 3 months ago
It is funny that people blame capitalism in what is happening. Yeah, right, capitalism raised COVID19, it's capitalism's fault, yeah, right...
ModularDragon
1 year, 3 months ago
BTW, COVID came from socialistic(totalitarian) country
BrokenPupper
1 year, 3 months ago
Didn't you nuke all of your cub porn/gore because of your misunderstanding of Germany's laws, thinking you'd get arrested for "child porn" there? Not sure how someone with that mindset is spazzing about economical affairs of a different continent but sure okay...
Veris
1 year, 3 months ago
wao ... politic topics always explode o,o just look at those MEGA WALLS OF TEXT o-o
anyways, the UK has it right now way more worse then the USA ^_^
Friar
1 year, 3 months ago
Stonks
ChristopheCoulomb
1 year, 3 months ago
The most "notstonkest" Pic ever x3 poor mousie
ParaphiliacVulpine
1 year, 3 months ago
There are SO MANY things about the United States that needs to be revamped and fixed, I'm apolitical though I heavily agree.

I just am a wannabe/uncertified paraphilia researcher, abstract artist and I live in a poor neighborhood. I don't understand the economy so I'm not going to comment on that front.

All I know is that America right now is very screwed, we let idiots run the country, and parents (especially my mother) within my generation where overprotective; my mother being so overprotective like that caused me to be weak, now in my 20s/adulthood I can say I have no life experiences whatsoever, I should've been allowed to go places more often and should've been allowed to socialize more often despite my autism spectrum disorder. I'm socially awkward though that doesn't mean I cannot improve my social skills inspite of communication difficulties that arises from my disability.

I'm stuck living with my father after my parent's separation, I stay with my father since he is mentally fit in comparison with my mother's mental illness; I'd rather not stay around someone who doesn't choose to find a mental health professional for their issues, she shows signs of undiagnosed schizophrenia and an obvious case of anorexia nervosa though I cannot be sure without a proper diagnosis paper from a qualified individual. Of course that's my issue.

I just want a life where my paraphilia isn't demonized, I've never acted upon these desires and never searched for certain materials and even then I still face prejudices and harassment from people, my case is rather social though economically I'm suffering too.

I've been trying to learn Japanese as both a language and the culture just so I can adapt to the different ways of thinking Asian cultures tend to have, I understand things from a westerners perspective though slowly Japan is becoming comprehensible. I don't know what I'm on about, just aimlessly chatting here.
To continue on; America is going downhill and I, alongside many other people suffer as a result.

I want to find useful mental health resources for my particular paraphilia without being labeled as a potential danger by the legal system, I understand the reality of my paraphilia enough to know that I should never replicate my fantasies into reality; I'm not a dumbass, I completely understand art is therapeutic, artworks are extremely helpful with coping with my abnormal desires. I have a conscious, I understand right from wrong about this particularity I have.

I cannot get into a mental health professional because of this covid-19 issue that paired with my merely destituted state right now. I am below middle class, I am living in low class, trailer park and RV park areas of the US. My US state is economically failing, Montana really isn't a great place to live in unless you own farmland and get paid to do some farming.
Yupa
1 year, 3 months ago
Cheer up.
Chimera005ao
1 year, 3 months ago
Well one thing I'm sure we can all agree on.

Change is inevitable.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.