2 ms·

Random thoughts ahead. You have been warned. In 1987 I visited Soviet Estonia. Seeking gifts to take back to the USA, I bought a bunch of bottle openers. They

Random thoughts ahead. You have been warned. In 1987 I visited Soviet Estonia. Seeking gifts to take back to the USA, I bought a bunch of bottle openers. They were simple and robust. Stamped metal. And (get this) with the price stamped right in the metal. See the benefits ? No arbitrage/speculation: the price is fixed, and dirt cheap. No marketing costs: that right there is going to bring down the price. No R&D bureau to finance: it's a piece of cheap stamped metal. No pilferage: who in their right mind is going to risk their job stealing cheap stamped metal bottle openers ? Translate this kind of product idea to an OECD economy. The existence of a cheap stamped metal bottle opener does not preclude the existence of fancy bottle openers, just as the existence of cheap mass-produced coffee mugs does not preclude the existence of hand-thrown hand-painted cat-themed ceramic coffee mugs. But "universal goods" (let's call them that) are made & distributed basically at cost. Similarly, how about machines that dispense nutritious biscuits for free, if you insert your ID ? Nobody says they have to taste good, but they'd keep ya going. Maybe like in Repo Man: he opens the fridge and takes out a can labeled FOOD.

Teever 3y ago
People waste so much time the argument over which is better capitalism or communism when they fail to appreciate that both systems are technically failures because they both have not lead to a scenario where the cost of ensuring that the base physiological needs of every member of society has dropped to a point where it's just a given that every member of society will have access to three meals a day and a secure and warm shelter. We throw away double digit percentages of our food every year and there are laws that ban people from feeding the homeless. It's fucking sickening.
- edanm 3y ago
  > both systems [capitalism and communism] are technically failures because they both have not lead to a scenario where the cost of ensuring that the base physiological needs of every member of society has dropped to a point where it's just a given that every member of society will have access to three meals a day and a secure and warm shelter. What? That's a very weird take. Firstly, your goal might be way too high. Even in theory, a system can be optimal without being good enough. If there isn't a way to produce enough food (for example) no matter what, then a system that produces the maximum amount of food that is possible wouldn't be a failure in my eyes. Secondly, this makes an implicit comparison between the two systems and finds them both similarly wanting. But capitalism almost completely solves the problem of "three meals a day and warm shelter", whereas communism famously doesn't solve it at all. Under capitalism, a tiny minority of people starved. Under communism, millions starved. It's not even close. And while yes, the fact that we throw away so much food is terrible, but it's definitely better than not having enough, and that happens because of capitalism, for the most part.
jareklupinski 3y ago
> And (get this) with the price stamped right in the metal. See the benefits ? No arbitrage/speculation: the price is fixed, and dirt cheap. i've spent many minutes arguing with NYC bodega owners about how "99 Cent" Arizona cans only cost 99 cents (I was even willing to pay an entire dollar for it!) at the end of the day, us humans are the optimization engines behind "the economy", whichever economy is the style of the time I agree though, and I do love the minimal stylings of some store-brand Foods
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  > i've spent many minutes arguing with NYC bodega owners about how "99 Cent" Arizona cans only cost 99 cents (I was even willing to pay an entire dollar for it!) "But the price is on the can though!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUZ2sVjLfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUZ2sVjLfY

Teever 3y ago

People waste so much time the argument over which is better capitalism or communism when they fail to appreciate that both systems are technically failures because they both have not lead to a scenario where the cost of ensuring that the base physiological needs of every member of society has dropped to a point where it's just a given that every member of society will have access to three meals a day and a secure and warm shelter. We throw away double digit percentages of our food every year and there are laws that ban people from feeding the homeless. It's fucking sickening.

edanm 3y ago
> both systems [capitalism and communism] are technically failures because they both have not lead to a scenario where the cost of ensuring that the base physiological needs of every member of society has dropped to a point where it's just a given that every member of society will have access to three meals a day and a secure and warm shelter. What? That's a very weird take. Firstly, your goal might be way too high. Even in theory, a system can be optimal without being good enough. If there isn't a way to produce enough food (for example) no matter what, then a system that produces the maximum amount of food that is possible wouldn't be a failure in my eyes. Secondly, this makes an implicit comparison between the two systems and finds them both similarly wanting. But capitalism almost completely solves the problem of "three meals a day and warm shelter", whereas communism famously doesn't solve it at all. Under capitalism, a tiny minority of people starved. Under communism, millions starved. It's not even close. And while yes, the fact that we throw away so much food is terrible, but it's definitely better than not having enough, and that happens because of capitalism, for the most part.

jareklupinski 3y ago

> And (get this) with the price stamped right in the metal. See the benefits ? No arbitrage/speculation: the price is fixed, and dirt cheap. i've spent many minutes arguing with NYC bodega owners about how "99 Cent" Arizona cans only cost 99 cents (I was even willing to pay an entire dollar for it!) at the end of the day, us humans are the optimization engines behind "the economy", whichever economy is the style of the time I agree though, and I do love the minimal stylings of some store-brand Foods

pcthrowaway 3y ago
> i've spent many minutes arguing with NYC bodega owners about how "99 Cent" Arizona cans only cost 99 cents (I was even willing to pay an entire dollar for it!) "But the price is on the can though!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUZ2sVjLfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUZ2sVjLfY