esarbe

15 ms·

181.
by esarbe 3y ago
Not an XFCE user (I'm comfortably satisfied with the simplicity that is Gnome) but I'm very happy to see XFCE's concrete plans to move towards Wayland!
182.
by esarbe 3y ago
> So the first sentence of the wikipedia article you linked about capitalism is now wrong No, it's not wrong, the articles is perfectly fine and they don't contradict each other. The phrase "Capitalism is based on private
183.
by esarbe 3y ago
If you have a valid economic theory, it doesn't matter if we apply it at 50BCE or if we apply it in 3000CE. Either an economic theory is able to explain a given economic situation and make predictions, or it is not. > Anything that
184.
by esarbe 3y ago
Well, you seem to make the argument that economic theories have to "satisfy all potential possibilities arbitrarily far into the future" because otherwise they are a "pretty dumb theory". Or how is throwing gold into a V
185.
by esarbe 3y ago
I wouldn't get hung up on individual products. This - gratuitous consumption of throw-away products - is an societal issue that needs to be addressed in a systemic way.
186.
by esarbe 3y ago
I wish people would educate themselves about this myth. Global cooling was never a concern for climate scientists. It was the press that promoted it. https://gizmodo.com/reality-check-most-scientists-never-beli...
187.
by esarbe 3y ago
> You need to prohibit them worldwide, which requires plenty of coercion of other countries. That's easy for economic blocks like the US and the EU. There's plenty of other regulations they have coerced other nations to follow.
188.
by esarbe 3y ago
It's not. [0] Especially if you consider a) the sheer amount of pieces of clothing produced and b) the expected use one gets from one such T-Shirts (see [1]). These are examples of systemic waste product that are only useful for consum
189.
by esarbe 3y ago
You don't need growth for redistribution of wealth. Just distributing the already existing output more evenly would be enough.
190.
by esarbe 3y ago
Instead of burying carbon, why not just not dig it up in the first place? Prohibiting fossil fuels seems like a much simper way than trying to somehow let the market regulate that.
191.
by esarbe 3y ago
Does your kid you really need that $5 throwaway toy that breaks within 20 minutes of playtime? Do you really need 20 low-quality shirts a year that rip with the third usage because the fabric is so flimsy? We've put too much emphasis o
192.
by esarbe 3y ago
There's tons of potential for "degrowth" that's neither destructive nor murderous. Our society is overwhelmed with low-quality, throw-away products that don't do anything to improve health or well being. If we want
193.
by esarbe 3y ago
It this written by a bot? If not, you have completely misunderstood the purpose of an argument reductio ad absurdum . The point is not whether is is currently practical of if it will be practical at some point. You are demanding that an ec
194.
by esarbe 3y ago
It's impossible for humans nowadays, but it is practically possible; one only needs enough delta v, which requires energy. There's certainly enough energy in existence to throw the Earth into the sun. Yes, obviously this is absurd
195.
by esarbe 3y ago
It's practically possible to throw the Earth into the sun. I doubt that there's any economic theory that spends any thought on this "practically possible scenario". But it's good that questions are raised. Raising q
196.
by esarbe 3y ago
Also a very good question! Im my opinion, all employees in a business should receive about the same amount of money. Either someone is doing a necessary job and thus contributing just the same as everyone else, or that job is not necessary
197.
by esarbe 3y ago
I can and I did. I don't agree with it. I don't think it makes a good argument and it reads more like an angry rant than anything else.
198.
by esarbe 3y ago
There's not much I can fault with this analysis. Thanks for your thoughts!
199.
by esarbe 3y ago
You're wrong, in two senses. Being "based on" means that private ownership and operation for profit are necessary conditions. It doesn't mean that they are sufficient; i.e.just because you have private ownership and oper
200.
by esarbe 3y ago
Because the generally accepted definition of capitalism isn't "a system in which private individuals own capital goods". (Software and machines are means of labor [0]. They are not workers and they don't receive wages.)
201.
by esarbe 3y ago
I wonder if active sabotage of military operations of a friendly country has any legal precedent. What legal standing would Ukraine have in a case against Musk?
202.
by esarbe 3y ago
I'm not sure what Linux is supposed to be struggling with. I've been using Linux for my desktop for 25 years now and every time I try Windows or Mac, I come away disappointed; these are not professional operating systems, they are
203.
by esarbe 3y ago
> If every company was worker owned as long as the goods and services produced are traded on the open market as an exchange of value, that would still be capitalism. No. We had "exchange of goods on an open market" long before
204.
by esarbe 3y ago
I think private farms and home business existed before we had what we call "capitalism". Capitalism only arises in the 18th century as a distinct market model. We had private property and market economies long before we had capita
205.
by esarbe 3y ago
If you make money on your own, from no capital inherited except what society has given you and you don't ever have any employees, only making profit from your own labor, then yes; that's not a capitalist. How does that demonstrate
206.
by esarbe 3y ago
What a very good question. One that Marx already examined. I'm not a Marxist, but I find his analysis and conclusion to be spot-on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour
207.
by esarbe 3y ago
> you can go into the woods, hunt and fish, and build your own shelter. as long as you're not breaking laws, you'll be fine. That's a big no-go in almost all European nations. Fishing and hunting is always regulated, requi
208.
by esarbe 3y ago
Property rights and a market economy are not sufficient for capitalism. For capitalism you also need to leverage the work of others for your own profit, i.e. wage labor. Syndicalism, for example, also allows for private property and a marke
209.
by esarbe 3y ago
> Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. That's not quite complete. To have capitalism, you also need labor to leverage capital. Capitalism requires the abi
210.
by esarbe 3y ago
So, despite all the FUD by Big Oil, scientists were pretty much spot on, even back then. Such a shame we wasted 40 years because the profiteers didn't want us to know the true extent of their crimes.

More ›