6 ms·
> However, the production and distribution of commodities is entirely unorganized so that everybody must live in fear of being eliminated from the economic cycl
by doomlaser 3y ago
> However, the production and distribution of commodities is entirely unorganized so that everybody must live in fear of being eliminated from the economic cycle, in this way suffering for the want of everything.
Haven't fixed that yet :)
- altacc 3y agoIf anything we've doubled down on inequality.
- input_sh 3y agoAlso see his essay titled Why Socialism: https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ Last discussed a couple of months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37407331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37407331
- waihtis 3y agoIn most Western countries, people aren't dying of hunger. I'd say it's taken significant progress. Of course there's a sizeable chunk of people who want to live plush upper middle class lives without contributing a drop of sweat into the economy.
- tetris11 3y agoI think it's more that there's a sizeable chunk of people who want to live the same lives that their parents lived for the equal sweat cost, and are seeing a large disparity in what they're putting in compared to what is coming out
- waihtis 3y agowe can thank regulation for that, which is a cornerstone of socialist control
- mrbadguy 3y agoThe density of misapprehensions in that sentence is impressive.
- waihtis 3y agoRegulation is a huge factor in driving cost of items & services up. Socialism involves heavy government intervention into the markets which includes regulatory capabilities. Do you have a counterargument or are you going to leave it at ad hominems?
- _Algernon_ 3y agoSpouting fallacy names without understanding them isn't a get-out-of-jail card you think it is. Not ad hominem: "Your statement is stupid" because it goes against what is said (however poor the statement may otherwise be). Ad hominem: "You are stupid" because it goes against who says the statement. GP's comment is an example of the former.
- waihtis 3y agoyou could argue he's criticizing my intellectual capability, but whatever
- Micoloth 3y agoI have a counter argument: Monopolies drive the cost of items and services up. (besides having all the other negative effects that are always caused by a huge concentration of power in the hands a non-democratic institution). And as we see and know very well, e.g. by looking around us, monopolies or (at best) duopolies are always the outcome of unregulated markets. More or less in all sectors, and especially in this very globalised world, where economies of scale drive profits up for those who put them to effect. This of course includes the Financial sector. So, I'd say the exact opposite of you statement is true. I'm replying to your comment because you statement is kind of the prototypical statement of free-market champions. I'm sure this conversation has already happened tens of thousands of times. Still, do you think you can share any more insights about how can you possibly think regulations are the reason of a higher cost of living?
- rawTruthHurts 3y ago>In most Western countries, people aren't dying of hunger. At the cost of those who die in far away countries who work to keep our progress moving on.
- jklinger410 3y ago> In most Western countries, (most) people aren't dying of hunger. Bar is on the ground, here. Added parenthesis mine.
- troyvit 3y agoThe truth is that food insecurity in the U.S. is experiencing a sharp spike: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... I specifically focus on the U.S. because we're perceived to be one of the most affluent countries in the world. Given that we throw away a third of our food, how is it that 12.8% of us are experiencing food insecurity? Are people just too lazy to eat?
- kube-system 3y agoBe careful when interpreting those stats -- food insecurity often does not mean "doesn't have food". If you gave every single one of those people free meals for the year, we'd still have 12.8% food insecurity, because people who get free meals are counted in that number. The whole reason "food insecurity" topics like unhealthy diets, skipped meals, relying on food assistance, etc, are even a cause for concern is because starvation really isn't anymore.
- digging 3y agoThe absolute minimum we should be aiming for is that nobody is starving to death or dying of other easily solved causes like unsafe water. Congratulating ourselves for progress up to that point is all fine and good as a motivation but we really haven't accomplished as much as we might like to think.
- waihtis 3y agoI agree with your first statement. I don't think self-flagellation is useful though and the West is pulling more than their share in global welfare. Your vitriol would be better directed towards, say, Arabian wealthy dictatorships.
- gtsop 3y agoYou are clearly out of touch with reality. Even official state statistics in western countries clearly show the downward trend in life quality, you don't even need to use any reasoning, it's just math.
- waihtis 3y agoMaybe your problem is judging the quality of your life by ”state statistics.” My recommendation is picking up a philosophy book or two and looking at things from a new angle.
- gtsop 3y agoThank you for your recommendation, it is a very good one which i have already acted uppon. The philosophical conclusion is that even though, in absolute metrics, the average life is better as centuries go by, in relative metrics it is getting worse and worse. Our knowlegde and technology are being underutilized, thus obstructing access to modern quality of life to the majority of the people on earth who, by the way, do not live in the western countries
- waihtis 3y agoI actually agree with all of your points, although I would say the direction has gone ”wrong” relatively recently and we could reverse it quite easily