3 ms·
Saying I'm "very very" wrong and need to read history/some book isn't a good counter argument. It is the opposite, and a lazy retort at best. If I am wrong, I'
by kempbellt 5y ago
Saying I'm "very very" wrong and need to read history/some book isn't a good counter argument. It is the opposite, and a lazy retort at best.
If I am wrong, I'm sure your history lessons should be able to provide good examples how I am incorrect, and I would be happy to hear if that's the case, but I can't see just saying "you're wrong, read history" as productive conversation.
- dvt 5y ago> I can't see just saying "you're wrong, read history" as productive conversation You're denying a very foundational economic fact which, as a society, we litigated over a century ago, so giving you a resource (I can cite chapter numbers if you'd like me to) seems appropriate. Capitalist forces will always tend towards optimality and working people to the bone (including children) is optimal. This is why we need to have governmental forces preempt this by making these kinds of things (e.g. child labor) illegal. This isn't really a dig against capitalism, it's simply how the system works by design. In other words, you're denying the precise thing that corporations optimize for: worker productivity and shareholder value.