5 ms·

TL;DR Market consumes nonsensical kettles. Capitalism is to blame. Not the fact that we buy with clicks. Not the fact that market does not strongly prefer repu

TL;DR Market consumes nonsensical kettles. Capitalism is to blame. Not the fact that we buy with clicks. Not the fact that market does not strongly prefer reputation systems. Capitalism.

morio 6y ago
Huh? You just pointed out what capitalism is about.
- kubanczyk 6y ago
  Capitalism is about ownership of means of production. Look it up.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    It's not possible to boil it down to just that. Also, please don't be snarky.
  - meowster 6y ago
    Unfortunately too many people are turning an economic term into a political term. But I do agree that we should all be polite here.
jacknews 6y ago
Yes it's not the fault of capitalism as such (private ownership of the means of production for private profit), but of market-based economies. They deliver a combination of what producers want to produce, and what people want to buy (measured by what they actually buy), not necessarily what people need or is good for them. Just look at the industrial food complex.
- kubanczyk 6y ago
  You blame market as a mechanism. I blame people. Thought experiment: mechanism does not exist anymore. Would people still want to click nonsensical kettles on their screens and not care about vendor's reputation? Thus my answer is education, education, education.
  - jacknews 6y ago
    I would argue civilization is a combination of educating people, and improving the environment to suit human needs. I don't believe raw market mechanisms alone are suitable to serve human needs.
- Turing_Machine 6y ago
  > not necessarily what people need or is good for them Who gets to decide what people "need" or what is "good for them"?
  - jacknews 6y ago
    There you go putting ideas in my mouth. I did not say that someone should assume authority and dictate what people need or want. Just that raw free markets with purely economic/financial incentives fail at the task. But nutrition science would be good place to find some answers to the 'need' question for food.
    - Turing_Machine 6y ago
      > I did not say that someone should assume authority and dictate what people need or want. The very idea that there is any sort of universal standard for what people "need" or what is "good for them" implies such an entity. Here's a novel thought: how about treating people as adults with their own intensional stances and allowing them to decide for themselves what they "need" or what is "good for them"? You're not their parent. "Nutrition science" isn't their parent, either.

TL;DR Market consumes nonsensical kettles. Capitalism is to blame. Not the fact that we buy with clicks. Not the fact that market does not strongly prefer reputation systems. Capitalism.

morio 6y ago

Huh? You just pointed out what capitalism is about.

kubanczyk 6y ago
Capitalism is about ownership of means of production. Look it up.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  It's not possible to boil it down to just that. Also, please don't be snarky.
- meowster 6y ago
  Unfortunately too many people are turning an economic term into a political term. But I do agree that we should all be polite here.

jacknews 6y ago

Yes it's not the fault of capitalism as such (private ownership of the means of production for private profit), but of market-based economies. They deliver a combination of what producers want to produce, and what people want to buy (measured by what they actually buy), not necessarily what people need or is good for them. Just look at the industrial food complex.

kubanczyk 6y ago
You blame market as a mechanism. I blame people. Thought experiment: mechanism does not exist anymore. Would people still want to click nonsensical kettles on their screens and not care about vendor's reputation? Thus my answer is education, education, education.
- jacknews 6y ago
  I would argue civilization is a combination of educating people, and improving the environment to suit human needs. I don't believe raw market mechanisms alone are suitable to serve human needs.
Turing_Machine 6y ago
> not necessarily what people need or is good for them Who gets to decide what people "need" or what is "good for them"?
- jacknews 6y ago
  There you go putting ideas in my mouth. I did not say that someone should assume authority and dictate what people need or want. Just that raw free markets with purely economic/financial incentives fail at the task. But nutrition science would be good place to find some answers to the 'need' question for food.
  - Turing_Machine 6y ago
    > I did not say that someone should assume authority and dictate what people need or want. The very idea that there is any sort of universal standard for what people "need" or what is "good for them" implies such an entity. Here's a novel thought: how about treating people as adults with their own intensional stances and allowing them to decide for themselves what they "need" or what is "good for them"? You're not their parent. "Nutrition science" isn't their parent, either.