5 ms·

You think that if someone makes $20 million, then the money has been taken away from someone else? I see this sentiment on TikTok and Reddit alot, and it makes

You think that if someone makes $20 million, then the money has been taken away from someone else? I see this sentiment on TikTok and Reddit alot, and it makes no sense.

forgetfreeman 2y ago
If it doesn't make sense then you apparently haven't come to terms with the fact that capitalism is a zero sum endeavor. We're getting off topic though quibbling over where to plant the goalposts.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > If it doesn't make sense then you apparently haven't come to terms with the fact that capitalism is a zero sum endeavor How ignorant do you have to be to still say that in 2024? We literally spent the last century conducting worldwide social experiments to show exactly the opposite. At this point objecting to capitalism itself (I’m not talking more or less regulation within a capitalist system) is like being a flat-earther. Leftist westerners loved my home country—as an object of their virtuous pity—when it was socialist. You’d see commercials begging for $1/day to feed people. Thanks to capitalism the country has changed completely in the last two decades. Vietnam and China both abandoned communism for capitalism and their prosperity soared.
  - hackable_sand 2y ago
    To be pedantic, the argument is that violence is necessary to maintain the fiction of property. The violence is abstracted now that capitalism has matured so we only see it as numbers but death is most definitely zero-sum.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      That’s a non-sequitur, because violence is required to maintain any kind of society.
      - hackable_sand 2y ago
        It's not a non-sequitor, but I am glad we are in agreement.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    "At this point objecting to capitalism itself (I’m not talking more or less regulation within a capitalist system) is like being a flat-earther." You're welcome to that delusion but you're cheerleading a system that among it's many flaws is predicated on continuous growth that's based on a closed system with finite resources to draw from. Three guesses how that ends.
    - jnordwick 2y ago
      lol. people have been predicting the end to natural resources like oil, gas, minerals, and ores for over 100 years now, but they keep getting cheaper showing that they are more abundant now than ever. go read about the Simon and Ehrlich wager where Ehrlich just got humiliated.
      - forgetfreeman 2y ago
        Now who's ignorant? You're confusing the fruits of the combination of technological advancements in extraction and exploitation of the 3rd world with endless abundance. 150 years ago oil wells were routinely dug with nothing more complicated than a pick axe and some dynamite. You think companies invested in the complexity and cost of off shore drilling (as an example) in spite of simpler more cost effective methods being available? Pull your head out.
- orangecat 2y ago
  you apparently haven't come to terms with the fact that capitalism is a zero sum endeavor This is a ridiculous claim. Do we have the same amount of total wealth as we did a hundred or a thousand years ago, and the only difference is how it's distributed?
  - int_19h 2y ago
    It is still a zero-sum endeavor because all this new wealth didn't materialize out of thin air. It was created by people, and specifically by people doing productive work with their hands and their brains - which does not describe the suits on top, no matter how much they try to convince us otherwise. The reason why the latter end up with most of this newly produced wealth in their pockets is simply because they have access to a wide assortment of mechanisms to collect economic rent from the people who actually produce - this is the zero-sum part. The notion that, without the suits, the wealth wouldn't have been produced at all is nonsense.
  - wyre 2y ago
    Sounds like you haven’t came to terms with it being zero sum either. Zero-sum: adj, of, relating to, or being a situation (such as a game or relationship) in which a gain for one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side. GDP can still increase, but doesn’t disprove capitalism isn’t zero-sum. If you haven’t been paying attention we are currently living in a period of the most wealth inequality in recent history.
    - jnordwick 2y ago
      > currently living in a period of the most wealth inequality in recent history. Th feudal period would like a word with you.
      - forgetfreeman 2y ago
        Did the conversation slip into geologic timescales or something? Unless you're advancing the argument that modern day corporate structures bear some kind of significant relationship to feudalism the phrase was recent history. I'm fairly certain reasonable people wouldn't classify, for example, the War of the Roses as recent events.
Hikikomori 2y ago
Where did it come from if not someone else?
- erickj 2y ago
  The economy is not a zero sum game (Not defending the Sacklers, fuck that family)
alistairSH 2y ago
We’re talking about people who, via a corporate shield, are polluting, or peddling drugs, or whatever else. The wealth they’re accumulating is at the expense of society at large. If you want to make a billion dollars, fine, just do it without fucking over the rest of us.

You think that if someone makes $20 million, then the money has been taken away from someone else? I see this sentiment on TikTok and Reddit alot, and it makes no sense.

forgetfreeman 2y ago

If it doesn't make sense then you apparently haven't come to terms with the fact that capitalism is a zero sum endeavor. We're getting off topic though quibbling over where to plant the goalposts.

rayiner 2y ago
> If it doesn't make sense then you apparently haven't come to terms with the fact that capitalism is a zero sum endeavor How ignorant do you have to be to still say that in 2024? We literally spent the last century conducting worldwide social experiments to show exactly the opposite. At this point objecting to capitalism itself (I’m not talking more or less regulation within a capitalist system) is like being a flat-earther. Leftist westerners loved my home country—as an object of their virtuous pity—when it was socialist. You’d see commercials begging for $1/day to feed people. Thanks to capitalism the country has changed completely in the last two decades. Vietnam and China both abandoned communism for capitalism and their prosperity soared.
- hackable_sand 2y ago
  To be pedantic, the argument is that violence is necessary to maintain the fiction of property. The violence is abstracted now that capitalism has matured so we only see it as numbers but death is most definitely zero-sum.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    That’s a non-sequitur, because violence is required to maintain any kind of society.
    - hackable_sand 2y ago
      It's not a non-sequitor, but I am glad we are in agreement.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  "At this point objecting to capitalism itself (I’m not talking more or less regulation within a capitalist system) is like being a flat-earther." You're welcome to that delusion but you're cheerleading a system that among it's many flaws is predicated on continuous growth that's based on a closed system with finite resources to draw from. Three guesses how that ends.
  - jnordwick 2y ago
    lol. people have been predicting the end to natural resources like oil, gas, minerals, and ores for over 100 years now, but they keep getting cheaper showing that they are more abundant now than ever. go read about the Simon and Ehrlich wager where Ehrlich just got humiliated.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Now who's ignorant? You're confusing the fruits of the combination of technological advancements in extraction and exploitation of the 3rd world with endless abundance. 150 years ago oil wells were routinely dug with nothing more complicated than a pick axe and some dynamite. You think companies invested in the complexity and cost of off shore drilling (as an example) in spite of simpler more cost effective methods being available? Pull your head out.
orangecat 2y ago
you apparently haven't come to terms with the fact that capitalism is a zero sum endeavor This is a ridiculous claim. Do we have the same amount of total wealth as we did a hundred or a thousand years ago, and the only difference is how it's distributed?
- int_19h 2y ago
  It is still a zero-sum endeavor because all this new wealth didn't materialize out of thin air. It was created by people, and specifically by people doing productive work with their hands and their brains - which does not describe the suits on top, no matter how much they try to convince us otherwise. The reason why the latter end up with most of this newly produced wealth in their pockets is simply because they have access to a wide assortment of mechanisms to collect economic rent from the people who actually produce - this is the zero-sum part. The notion that, without the suits, the wealth wouldn't have been produced at all is nonsense.
- wyre 2y ago
  Sounds like you haven’t came to terms with it being zero sum either. Zero-sum: adj, of, relating to, or being a situation (such as a game or relationship) in which a gain for one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side. GDP can still increase, but doesn’t disprove capitalism isn’t zero-sum. If you haven’t been paying attention we are currently living in a period of the most wealth inequality in recent history.
  - jnordwick 2y ago
    > currently living in a period of the most wealth inequality in recent history. Th feudal period would like a word with you.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Did the conversation slip into geologic timescales or something? Unless you're advancing the argument that modern day corporate structures bear some kind of significant relationship to feudalism the phrase was recent history. I'm fairly certain reasonable people wouldn't classify, for example, the War of the Roses as recent events.

Hikikomori 2y ago

Where did it come from if not someone else?

erickj 2y ago
The economy is not a zero sum game (Not defending the Sacklers, fuck that family)

alistairSH 2y ago

We’re talking about people who, via a corporate shield, are polluting, or peddling drugs, or whatever else. The wealth they’re accumulating is at the expense of society at large. If you want to make a billion dollars, fine, just do it without fucking over the rest of us.