5 ms·

That has little to do with what I said. A third of the world lives in poverty. That's the fault of capitalism.

CamperBob2 5mo ago
Really? What other systems are better at lifting people out of poverty (without killing a few tens of millions in the process?) There are so many other places where this sort of low-effort high-school edgelording fits in better than here.
- hackyhacky 5mo ago
  > There are so many other places where this sort of low-effort high-school edgelording fits in better than here. A good sign of low-effort edgelording is championing an obviously broken system by using a straw man to disparage the alternatives.
  - CamperBob2 5mo ago
    [dead]
rationalist 5mo ago
> A third of the world lives in poverty. That's the fault of capitalism. So what you're saying is that capitalism lifted about two thirds of the world out of poverty. Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields.
- hackyhacky 5mo ago
  > Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields. No, that's thanks to commerce not to capitalism. Capitalism benefits those those who hold capital, which is not me. The fact that there are more than enough resources for no one to live in poverty should suggest to you that something is wrong with the distribution system. "It's true, Mr/Ms Rationalist, that our patented Miracle Medical Snakeoil caused a third of your leg to become necrotic and fall off, but be glad for the two thirds that did not fall off!"
  - rationalist 5mo ago
    > > Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields. > No, that's thanks to commerce not to capitalism. Capitalism benefits those those who hold capital, which is not me. Are you toiling in the fields? It seems to me like your attitude is that "If I can't be rich, then no one should be rich." > The fact that there are more than enough resources for no one to live in poverty should suggest to you that something is wrong with the distribution system. So instead of two thirds of the world not living in poverty, everyone should live in poverty equally?
    - hackyhacky 5mo ago
      > It seems to me like your attitude is that "If I can't be rich, then no one should be rich." The problem with capitalism is not that some people get rich and some people don't. The problem is that of an unfair playing field. Everyone has a body and a mind, and commerce allows us to rent out those features in exchange for pay. People who are smarter or stronger or work harder or work more will be able to benefit more. That's how I got rich. But there's a limit to how rich I can get, because I have only one body and one mind and there are a finite number of hours in the day. The other way to get rich is to own things. If you own a factory or real estate or bonds you get to charge other people and make a profit even though you are expending no effort. And in this case there is no limit on your profit, because you can use your profit to buy more capital and make more profit from that. The result is eventually a winner-take-all economy, where the winners own an increasing amount of society and everyone else pays them to use it. If that sounds familiar, it should, because it's feudelism, and is the eventual end state of capitalism. You should really read a bit about the philosophy that you're arguing so vehemently for, apparently without knowing anything about it. > So instead of two thirds of the world not living in poverty, everyone should live in poverty equally? No, that's ridiculous.
      - rationalist 5mo ago
        > You should really read a bit about the philosophy that you're arguing so vehemently for, apparently without knowing anything about it. You had a good comment until you wrote that. Don't lower your standards with stupid personal attacks. > The problem with capitalism is not that some people get rich and some people don't. The problem is that of an unfair playing field. I would love for things to be fair, but I grew up in the real world and learned that things weren't fair back when I was a kid in primary school. Instead of lamenting about something that I can't control, I decided to focus my efforts on what I can control. Instead of tearing other people down, I built myself up. Unless you can change the human characteristic of greed, the world will always be unfair. You can spit into the wind, or you can set a sail.
WalterBright 5mo ago
About 90% of the world lived in poverty before capitalism. Besides, America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.
- account42 5mo ago
  > Besides, America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings. Only if you define the standard of living in a consumerist way.
  - sokoloff 5mo ago
    Would you willingly swap your life (or the life of your child) for that of a medieval king? I sure wouldn’t.
    - WalterBright 5mo ago
      Neither would I.
- samiv 5mo ago
  The fact that some countries (mostly the political west) developed a wealthy middle class post WW2 was not due to capitalism but due to social democracy. Capitalism by itself does not produce egalitarian wealthy society. The system divides the populace into "capital owners" and "workers" who are in direct conflict. There are plenty of capitalistic countries where most people are poor. In fact many of the as said Western countries has also high levels of poverty while running capitalism in the 1800 etc until post WW2 social democratic movements. Once you dismantle those social democratic constructs such as labor unions and start shifting more power to the capital holders you'll see how the society splits apart to rich and poor. The rich use their wealth and power to rig the system to benefit themselves even more and become richer at the expense of everyone else. Ultimately they will remove democracy because functional real democracy is a threat to their wealth.
  - WalterBright 5mo ago
sophrosyne42 5mo ago
The third of the worls that lives in poverty obstinantly refuses to adopt capitalist methods.

Really? What other systems are better at lifting people out of poverty (without killing a few tens of millions in the process?) There are so many other places where this sort of low-effort high-school edgelording fits in better than here.

hackyhacky 5mo ago
> There are so many other places where this sort of low-effort high-school edgelording fits in better than here. A good sign of low-effort edgelording is championing an obviously broken system by using a straw man to disparage the alternatives.
- CamperBob2 5mo ago
  [dead]

rationalist 5mo ago

> A third of the world lives in poverty. That's the fault of capitalism. So what you're saying is that capitalism lifted about two thirds of the world out of poverty. Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields.

hackyhacky 5mo ago
> Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields. No, that's thanks to commerce not to capitalism. Capitalism benefits those those who hold capital, which is not me. The fact that there are more than enough resources for no one to live in poverty should suggest to you that something is wrong with the distribution system. "It's true, Mr/Ms Rationalist, that our patented Miracle Medical Snakeoil caused a third of your leg to become necrotic and fall off, but be glad for the two thirds that did not fall off!"
- rationalist 5mo ago
  > > Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields. > No, that's thanks to commerce not to capitalism. Capitalism benefits those those who hold capital, which is not me. Are you toiling in the fields? It seems to me like your attitude is that "If I can't be rich, then no one should be rich." > The fact that there are more than enough resources for no one to live in poverty should suggest to you that something is wrong with the distribution system. So instead of two thirds of the world not living in poverty, everyone should live in poverty equally?
  - hackyhacky 5mo ago
    > It seems to me like your attitude is that "If I can't be rich, then no one should be rich." The problem with capitalism is not that some people get rich and some people don't. The problem is that of an unfair playing field. Everyone has a body and a mind, and commerce allows us to rent out those features in exchange for pay. People who are smarter or stronger or work harder or work more will be able to benefit more. That's how I got rich. But there's a limit to how rich I can get, because I have only one body and one mind and there are a finite number of hours in the day. The other way to get rich is to own things. If you own a factory or real estate or bonds you get to charge other people and make a profit even though you are expending no effort. And in this case there is no limit on your profit, because you can use your profit to buy more capital and make more profit from that. The result is eventually a winner-take-all economy, where the winners own an increasing amount of society and everyone else pays them to use it. If that sounds familiar, it should, because it's feudelism, and is the eventual end state of capitalism. You should really read a bit about the philosophy that you're arguing so vehemently for, apparently without knowing anything about it. > So instead of two thirds of the world not living in poverty, everyone should live in poverty equally? No, that's ridiculous.
    - rationalist 5mo ago
      > You should really read a bit about the philosophy that you're arguing so vehemently for, apparently without knowing anything about it. You had a good comment until you wrote that. Don't lower your standards with stupid personal attacks. > The problem with capitalism is not that some people get rich and some people don't. The problem is that of an unfair playing field. I would love for things to be fair, but I grew up in the real world and learned that things weren't fair back when I was a kid in primary school. Instead of lamenting about something that I can't control, I decided to focus my efforts on what I can control. Instead of tearing other people down, I built myself up. Unless you can change the human characteristic of greed, the world will always be unfair. You can spit into the wind, or you can set a sail.

WalterBright 5mo ago

About 90% of the world lived in poverty before capitalism. Besides, America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.

account42 5mo ago
> Besides, America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings. Only if you define the standard of living in a consumerist way.
- sokoloff 5mo ago
  Would you willingly swap your life (or the life of your child) for that of a medieval king? I sure wouldn’t.
  - WalterBright 5mo ago
    Neither would I.
samiv 5mo ago
The fact that some countries (mostly the political west) developed a wealthy middle class post WW2 was not due to capitalism but due to social democracy. Capitalism by itself does not produce egalitarian wealthy society. The system divides the populace into "capital owners" and "workers" who are in direct conflict. There are plenty of capitalistic countries where most people are poor. In fact many of the as said Western countries has also high levels of poverty while running capitalism in the 1800 etc until post WW2 social democratic movements. Once you dismantle those social democratic constructs such as labor unions and start shifting more power to the capital holders you'll see how the society splits apart to rich and poor. The rich use their wealth and power to rig the system to benefit themselves even more and become richer at the expense of everyone else. Ultimately they will remove democracy because functional real democracy is a threat to their wealth.
- WalterBright 5mo ago

sophrosyne42 5mo ago

The third of the worls that lives in poverty obstinantly refuses to adopt capitalist methods.