2 ms·
Sure, but none of that rebuts fragmede's point: "if I have a factory that can make either cookies or cake, and it operates under capitalism, it seems self-evid
by ncallaway 7y ago
Sure, but none of that rebuts fragmede's point:
"if I have a factory that can make either cookies or cake, and it operates under capitalism, it seems self-evident that I should make cake."
The system has evolutionary pressures towards financial reward. The game companies that make "cake" are rewarded and gain market share and power. The companies that make "cookies" are financially punished and lose market share and wither.
In the system that we have, with the financial systems at play, it's inevitable that you'll get "cakes".
- a1369209993 6y agofragmede's point doesn't need a rebuttal because it has nothing to do with the actual disagreement. > > nobody asked for the fucking fancy cake! [...] We were all very happy with the cookies we had before. > No, [...] you're wrong. Clearly the the profit-maximizing action is to manufacture cake, 'free'-to-play games, and heroin, rather than cookies, well-designed games, and nothing; no one in this thread (that I've noticed at least) is actually disputing that; we're saying that we don't want cake, as far as we can tell no one actually wants cake, and it's axiologically bad that production is focused on cake rather than cookies. Some people are then (rightly or wrongly) blaming the baker, but the only thing I was asserting was that no, the fact that people pay money for cake does not mean they want cake. (In the absence of any other evidence it suggests that people want cake - which is the reason capitalism ever works at all for anything - but we have multiple people saying cake is terrible, so there is not a absence of other evidence.)