TFYS

8 ms·

91.
by TFYS 1y ago
Instead of increasing inequality and the problems that come with that, we should come up with new ways to pool and allocate capital. Collectively owned investment banks, co-operatives, state funding, etc. We need to innovation in collective
92.
by TFYS 1y ago
Exactly. The most important and expensive part is convincing the population that the problem is x, and the campaign financing is just a "finisher" to make sure people know which party to vote for to get the x they now think is the
93.
by TFYS 1y ago
What I find interesting to think about is a scenario where an AGI has already developed and escaped without us knowing. What would it do first? Surely before revealing itself it would ensure it has enough processing power and control to ens
94.
by TFYS 1y ago
Sure, but owning one trillionth of a share or even a few whole shares doesn't help you in any way. You're a shareholder in name only.
95.
by TFYS 1y ago
The bigger these pay gaps get, the more expensive for the average person those shares get. We are not all shareholders in any meaningful sense, and over time less and less of us will be. This works better than other things we've tried,
96.
by TFYS 1y ago
How far would you be willing to take this? Would it still be fine to you if those billionaires became trillionaires? Would it still be fine if those people had the wealth and technology to live forever and travel the stars, while you'r
97.
by TFYS 1y ago
Capitalism relies on a government enforcing its rules just as much as any other system. How do you think someone can own businesses, buildings and large swathes of land? Because if someone tries to claim them as their own, the government wi
98.
by TFYS 1y ago
Markets != capitalism. By limiting what can be owned and for what reason, we could get rid of capitalism without completely getting rid of markets. It'd be quite easy to prevent private ownership of land or large businesses without bla
99.
by TFYS 1y ago
If people are still dying of hunger and preventable diseases in capitalist countries, then it has not lifted all of humanity. I wasn't saying some other system is doing better than capitalism, just that capitalism has not succeeded in
100.
by TFYS 1y ago
> You are attacking the concept of marketing / advertising as a fundamental evil It is. Informing people about solutions to their problems is good, but advertising as it exists today is nothing more than manipulation in most cases.
101.
by TFYS 1y ago
> Philosophically, if someone gains their wealth from people voluntarily giving them money in the free market, this is the most noble possible way to earn a fortune there is People can be manipulated so that they give you money "vol
102.
by TFYS 1y ago
Yes, not all things are zero-sum, but enough are that inequality really does matter. Take labor for example. There's only a limited number of skilled people. Who do those skilled people work for? The people that can give them the most
103.
by TFYS 1y ago
It's awesome until the wrong person gets into power.
104.
by TFYS 1y ago
You might be right, but I'm wasn't saying we should ban all use of any technology that has any negative effects, but that we should at least try to understand all the effects before taking it into use, and try to avoid the worst o
105.
by TFYS 1y ago
You're right, in a system based on competition it's not possible to prevent these technologies from being used as soon as they're invented if there's some advantage to be gained. We need to figure out global co-operation
106.
by TFYS 1y ago
I agree that plastics probably do have more positives than negatives, but my point is that many of our innovations do have large negative effects, and if we take them into use before we understand those negative effects it can be impossible
107.
by TFYS 1y ago
I'm sure it's very good the first time you take it. If you don't consider all the effects before taking it, it does make sense. You feel very good, but the even stronger negative effects come after. Same can be said about a l
108.
by TFYS 1y ago
Maybe not as fast as we did, but eventually we would have. Maybe more research would have been put into other forms of energy if the effects of fossil fuels were considered more thoroughly and usage was limited to a degree that didn't
109.
by TFYS 1y ago
No, we can't be sure. There's a lot of diseases that we don't know the cause of, for example. Cancers, dementia, Alzheimer's, etc. There is a possibility that the rates of those diseases are higher because of plastics. P
110.
by TFYS 1y ago
People don't use things that they know are bad, but someone who has grown up in an environment where everyone uses social media for example, can't know that it's bad because they can't experience the alternative anymore.
111.
by TFYS 1y ago
Sometimes you can't reverse the damage and societal change after the market has already been created and shaped. Look at fossil fuels, plastic, social media, etc. We're now dependent on things that cause us harm, the damage done i
112.
by TFYS 1y ago
> And if people don't work, or don't work nearly as much as they did before, then how is the system going to be sustained? I think people and markets would just adapt to a lower level of consumption and amount of work. The work
113.
by TFYS 1y ago
Most of the money circulating in the economy has been taxed many many times. The money your employer pays you has been taxed, the money that employer got from its customers was taxed, the money those customers used was their salary, which w
114.
by TFYS 1y ago
This is probably one part of it, but I'm not sure it's a very big part. Sacrificing yourself for the group is still a part of some east asian cultures but they aren't doing any better in this regard. I think we've always
115.
by TFYS 1y ago
There are some cultures that have sustainable birthrates. Those cultures will become dominant over time and the problem will be solved.
116.
by TFYS 1y ago
Not to the same extent, and the solution to that is to improve the FDA, not to demolish it and let companies poison and fool people freely. Class action is what I meant with the difficulty of organizing. To make a class action happen and wi
117.
by TFYS 1y ago
Insanity. Do you honestly believe the average person (probably a sick one at that) has the resources and time to fight a large pharmaceutical company in court? And do you really believe that during the time between releasing the drug and lo
118.
by TFYS 1y ago
Sure, but in its current form that power can be bought and therefore mostly serves the interests of capital. That should be obvious at this point.
119.
by TFYS 1y ago
Wealth is power. Power decides what we use our collective time and resources on. The more concentrated power is, the less we use that time and resources on things that improves the life of the average person, and more on things that matter
120.
by TFYS 1y ago
And even that blocking doesn't matter much anymore, because the owners of all those 3-5 companies are starting to be the same entities. Because the same people/organizations own all of the companies, they no longer care which one

More ›