6 ms·
We need to rethink the economy.
by chishaku 6y ago
We need to rethink the economy.
- eanzenberg 6y agoLet’s see..we have an economic system which brought billions out of abject poverty vs. a competing economic system which has killed and murdered millions. Oh but they had “free education”, very nice locations in Siberia. Why is this still in debate?
- beisner 6y agoPast performance is no guarantee of future results.
- sattoshi 6y agoWhen did Switzerland murder millions?
- eanzenberg 6y agoSwitzerland has low taxes and restrictive immigration. Sounds like capitalism to me.
- enlyth 6y agoIt is not a binary choice, we need to continuously explore whether there are ways we can improve the system
- luke0016 6y agoThat's called a false dichotomy.
- carlisle_ 6y agoHow do people still attack the straw man like this and reduce everything to “communism bad”?
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y agoIt's debated because it's not a binary choice. We can improve whatever economic system we currently have, even if it's better than other economic systems.
- eropple 6y agoSo let's be real for a sec: if one cannot even rhetorically accept that there's a yawning chasm between Stalinism (bad! awful! really shit! which you have to say because otherwise people think you're a goddamn tankie!) and capital-uber-alles (let's ask the untold generations left in its wake?), what do you envision contributing to a discussion?
- pjc50 6y agoPeople don't want a discussion, they want a dichotomy they can throw rocks at.
- eropple 6y agoI mean, I am a rock-thrower. Granted, I'm a rock-thrower for anodyne maybe-don't-leave-the-poor-to-starve social democracy because it has a track record of working pretty well. "Let's get real amped up for mild and reasonable chaaaaaange!" is a weird place to be, admittedly.
- yourapostasy 6y agoI responded to the original flamebait, but couldn't post once it got flagged. But I'm willing to discuss the following originally directed to that now-flagged post. The currently-implemented economic model must compete in the marketplace of practices like any other model. Whether you call it capitalist or any other moniker is orthogonal to whether the model works for its participants with respect to raising children at replacement rate. If the majority of participants find it uneconomic to have children, that's not an indictment of the participants if they want to freely consent to experiment with different economic arrangements, some of whom might want to experiment to see if it yields more children, some who are in it for other reasons. It just simply means the current model has simply priced itself out of its market for "economic models that encourage having children". Majority of participants have no leverage on changing the model out of proportion to their voting power. So no "blame" or "responsibility" to assign to them. Supply and demand. There is no demand for children based upon the costs imposed upon participants. Ergo, no supply. If other economic actors want an increased supply of children, then it is on those actors to do what is in their power to raise the price offered until the market clears. If the price clearing involves a different economic arrangement, then the market has spoken.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- apta 6y agoA good start is banning interest and other parasitic practices that underly the banking system.