4 ms·

It's not wasted. Society can pay for the talent it wants, and they don't want to pay for this. Instead this talent helps to grow the overall wealth on in the wo

It's not wasted. Society can pay for the talent it wants, and they don't want to pay for this. Instead this talent helps to grow the overall wealth on in the world, letting us pay for the stuff we want.

bluerooibos 7mo ago
I'm sure people (society) wants cheap food, free universal healthcare, free public transport, so why don't we have these things? Under capitalism each of these individual systems needs to turn a profit to be deemed worthwhile instead of treating the system as a whole and taking into account the economic externalities and benefits to the entire system.
- logicchains 7mo ago
  >free universal healthcare, free public transport There's no such thing as free things, there's just some people paying for other people's things, and surprise surprise some people don't want to use their hard earned money to pay for other people's transport and healthcare.
  - pixl97 7mo ago
    And yet too much zero sum thinking leads to a crabs in a bucket mentality were the greedy get less by being greedy instead of having an educated productive society around them.
    - bpt3 7mo ago
      A large portion (I think it's the majority, but would be happy to be wrong) of our fellow man is a net loss to society, with some smaller percentage being a significant drain. Giving more and more resources to those people does not make them magically more educated, productive, or congenial. So it's not a "crabs in a bucket" mentality in that the greedy (which I assume means the wealthy here, as they're the ones funding the public system in the US specifically and the western world for the most part) are trying to keep the lower classes beneath them, it's that they are not interested in wasting their resources to no meaningful end other than increased consumption of low quality or worse goods and services.
      - pixl97 7mo ago
        Correct, and I'm sure when you become the arbiter of who is or isn't worthy that you won't put those like you at the top.
        bpt3 7mo ago
        I don't have to, or want to, put anyone anywhere. In a meritocracy, it will sort itself out, which is what I would prefer.
    - lII1lIlI11ll 7mo ago
      > And yet too much zero sum thinking leads to a crabs in a bucket mentality were the greedy get less by being greedy instead of having an educated productive society around them. These are just your biases. Take Switzerland as an example - it doesn't have any of lefty fetishes OP mentioned ("cheap food, free universal healthcare, free public transport") yet it is highly educated, productive and leaves the door open for people who want to work hard and get ahead to do so.
      - pixl97 7mo ago
        Heh, we have cities bigger than Switzerland. Trying to use any particular small area without averaging out human behavior is silly because the model will fail.
  - bluerooibos 7mo ago
    Ah, the American individualist mindset. It's free, just like schools are free - because we choose to give everyone a basic level of education at no cost, rather than allow people from disadvantaged backgrounds (no parents, mentally or physically ill parents, etc) to grow up illiterate. It works in Europe and most of the developed world. Christ, I am tired of this argument. It's free to the people who use it - I didn't say it had zero cost. Is that easier to understand? You benefit from this system whether you like it or not - the taxes used to build roads, transport infrastructure, schools and colleges - they benefit YOU, so yes - you can damn well pay back into the system. Feel free to move to Dubai or another low-tax "utopia" of your choice at any point.
- lII1lIlI11ll 7mo ago
  > free universal healthcare, free public transpor There are societies that voted for those things and have them. Many other (often more successful societies) react to those like "OMG commies are at it again".

bluerooibos 7mo ago

I'm sure people (society) wants cheap food, free universal healthcare, free public transport, so why don't we have these things? Under capitalism each of these individual systems needs to turn a profit to be deemed worthwhile instead of treating the system as a whole and taking into account the economic externalities and benefits to the entire system.

logicchains 7mo ago
>free universal healthcare, free public transport There's no such thing as free things, there's just some people paying for other people's things, and surprise surprise some people don't want to use their hard earned money to pay for other people's transport and healthcare.
- pixl97 7mo ago
  And yet too much zero sum thinking leads to a crabs in a bucket mentality were the greedy get less by being greedy instead of having an educated productive society around them.
  - bpt3 7mo ago
    A large portion (I think it's the majority, but would be happy to be wrong) of our fellow man is a net loss to society, with some smaller percentage being a significant drain. Giving more and more resources to those people does not make them magically more educated, productive, or congenial. So it's not a "crabs in a bucket" mentality in that the greedy (which I assume means the wealthy here, as they're the ones funding the public system in the US specifically and the western world for the most part) are trying to keep the lower classes beneath them, it's that they are not interested in wasting their resources to no meaningful end other than increased consumption of low quality or worse goods and services.
    - pixl97 7mo ago
      Correct, and I'm sure when you become the arbiter of who is or isn't worthy that you won't put those like you at the top.
      - bpt3 7mo ago
        I don't have to, or want to, put anyone anywhere. In a meritocracy, it will sort itself out, which is what I would prefer.
  - lII1lIlI11ll 7mo ago
    > And yet too much zero sum thinking leads to a crabs in a bucket mentality were the greedy get less by being greedy instead of having an educated productive society around them. These are just your biases. Take Switzerland as an example - it doesn't have any of lefty fetishes OP mentioned ("cheap food, free universal healthcare, free public transport") yet it is highly educated, productive and leaves the door open for people who want to work hard and get ahead to do so.
    - pixl97 7mo ago
      Heh, we have cities bigger than Switzerland. Trying to use any particular small area without averaging out human behavior is silly because the model will fail.
- bluerooibos 7mo ago
  Ah, the American individualist mindset. It's free, just like schools are free - because we choose to give everyone a basic level of education at no cost, rather than allow people from disadvantaged backgrounds (no parents, mentally or physically ill parents, etc) to grow up illiterate. It works in Europe and most of the developed world. Christ, I am tired of this argument. It's free to the people who use it - I didn't say it had zero cost. Is that easier to understand? You benefit from this system whether you like it or not - the taxes used to build roads, transport infrastructure, schools and colleges - they benefit YOU, so yes - you can damn well pay back into the system. Feel free to move to Dubai or another low-tax "utopia" of your choice at any point.
lII1lIlI11ll 7mo ago
> free universal healthcare, free public transpor There are societies that voted for those things and have them. Many other (often more successful societies) react to those like "OMG commies are at it again".