5 ms·

>But, it just highlighted how many people are working and not earning a living wage in the first place. Exactly, we allegedly had the best economy the world ha

>But, it just highlighted how many people are working and not earning a living wage in the first place. Exactly, we allegedly had the best economy the world has ever seen, record high stock prices/markets, and lowest rate of unemployment. But the reality the economy was revealed to be weak and not even capitalism (capital based ownership) but some form of debtism (some form of financial servitude, in lieu of ownership). In the best economy ever and 40% of the population couldn't afford a $400 emergency. Our public companies with their record stock prices needed $4T for the FED to "stabilize the market" (political speak for taxpayers are buying these stocks at these overvalued prices). Customized taxpayer bailouts for entire industries that don't have any runway of capital to service their debts.

monocasa 6y ago
> not even capitalism (capital based ownership) but some form of debtism (some form of financial servitude, in lieu of ownership). Eh, I'd argue it's still capitalism. Nothing about capitalism says how concentrated capital can't be.
- mindslight 6y ago
  With that allowance, feudalism would be considered capitalism though. The problem isn't just a skewed concentration of capital. It's that most people do not have any capital and their situation is denominated by debt.
  - ozzyman700 6y ago
    Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time? No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations. Private property has not always existed. When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order. So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society’s productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development. The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians. It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production. Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.
lucaspm98 6y ago
Honestly, the "debtism" as you describe it is more of a cultural issue of consumerism in America. The amount of people buying new $35,000 cars while they're making $40,000 a year is shocking. It's been hard for me to understand, but from what I've read the Fed isn't buying stocks directly, although that is somewhat pedantic as they are trying to prop up the stock market through other means. I still don't see how that can be a good idea in the long run.
- iamstupidsimple 6y ago
  People don't understand how to use debt properly. It should be obvious that being able to borrow against your future earnings is an amazing tool, but so many people are just careless about it and go overboard.
  - toiletfuneral 6y ago
    so you both think the problem with our economy is that poor people are just dumb? thats a pretty cool way to think about the world, must be nice to be so smart

monocasa 6y ago

> not even capitalism (capital based ownership) but some form of debtism (some form of financial servitude, in lieu of ownership). Eh, I'd argue it's still capitalism. Nothing about capitalism says how concentrated capital can't be.

mindslight 6y ago
With that allowance, feudalism would be considered capitalism though. The problem isn't just a skewed concentration of capital. It's that most people do not have any capital and their situation is denominated by debt.
- ozzyman700 6y ago
  Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time? No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations. Private property has not always existed. When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order. So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society’s productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development. The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians. It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production. Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.

lucaspm98 6y ago

Honestly, the "debtism" as you describe it is more of a cultural issue of consumerism in America. The amount of people buying new $35,000 cars while they're making $40,000 a year is shocking. It's been hard for me to understand, but from what I've read the Fed isn't buying stocks directly, although that is somewhat pedantic as they are trying to prop up the stock market through other means. I still don't see how that can be a good idea in the long run.

iamstupidsimple 6y ago
People don't understand how to use debt properly. It should be obvious that being able to borrow against your future earnings is an amazing tool, but so many people are just careless about it and go overboard.
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  so you both think the problem with our economy is that poor people are just dumb? thats a pretty cool way to think about the world, must be nice to be so smart