3 ms·
> Goods are manufactured, shipped across the planet, to be dumped in a landfill. Goods are shipped because someone bought them with their hard-earned money to
by rualca 6y ago
> Goods are manufactured, shipped across the planet, to be dumped in a landfill.
Goods are shipped because someone bought them with their hard-earned money to fulfill a need they personally have. Whatever they do with it afterwards is up to them.
I fail to see how central planning comes into play in this scenario, unless you're trying to claim that you personally know best than anyone else what to do with other people's money or needs.
> A significant portion of food goes to waste
I fail to see the relevance of your comment. Demand is not predicted or specified by a crisp value, and even supply is subjected to stochastic variations. Thus you either underprovision, which causes scarsity, or you over provision, which increases the odds all needs are fulfilled at the risk of increasing losses.
So the problem boils down to either food shortages or "waste".
So, with this in mind, again what's the problem with "waste"?
> all the while some other people starve
I fail to see the rational basis and relevance of your argument. It reads like apuerile appeal to emotion, in fact. I mean, if I forget some leftovers in the back of the fridge and later I decide to just throw it out to avoid any risk of suffering through a bout of food poisoning, am I contributing to a famine somewhere in the world? Would those fictional and hypothetical starved people benefit in any way if I didn't threw out my leftovers? Or would I be contributing to end world hunger if I ate all my food and left no leftovers at the end of a meal? And does the driver of a truck transporting food supplies be found guilty of causing famines if he has an accident which ends up destroying his cargo?
> We have given trillions to help pay for the losses of the bankers (...)
And here comes the rest of the anticapitalist bingo. It's as if centrally planned economies weren't forced to shift resources around during economic crises to avoid collapsing. I mean, al those shipments from the URSS to Cuba were never bailouts, right?
- andrepd 6y ago> Goods are shipped because someone bought them with their hard-earned money to fulfill a need they personally have. Whatever they do with it afterwards is up to them. This sets the tone for any further conversation we might have. You are simply a fundamentalist, a dogmatist. People earn money because they work hard, then they buy stuff with that money, then they do things with that stuff. And that's how our economy works! I don't even know how to reply to such an absurd statement. It's like someone saying the sky is pink. What are you even supposed to argue other than... just look out your window? > points two and three Glad you decided to split my sentence in two in order to argue against something that I didn't say. A significant portion of food goes to waste while there are shortages in other places, this is what I said. You can argue all you wan't but you cannot change the basic reality that your system for allocating resources isn't doing a good job at allocating resources. > We have given trillions to help pay for the losses of the bankers Bankers (class I people) are given free money that they then lend out, with interest, to the rest of us (class II people) who pay tithe to them for the economy to work at all. Not content with this, if they ever make a serious fuck-up and tank the whole economy, we will be there to compensate them for their losses and make sure that they still get their due profit. This is not right, full stop.