I realize this isn’t really the place for this discussion but capitalism doesn’t know what the word “efficient” means. Is it efficient to have to buy the same thing twice? Is it efficient to only make cheap shitty and yet still overpriced versions of everything for the consuming public, shit that is designed to fail? Is pollution efficient? Is ruining everyone’s lives efficient? Pointless jobs? Rich people? These things are efficient the way fucking for virginity is efficient. The way Elon’s Twitter has been efficient. The way shitting the bed is efficient. Which is to say, it’s really fucking not.
It’s broader that that: it’s the most efficient way of extracting money from everything else in general.
Hence just how common it is to see large companies getting massive subsidies or having laws written to benefit them (notice, for example, the Disney Corporation rigging the system to extract more value from the broader society by getting the Copyright terms extended ahain and again), none of which is sales or employment related.
Capitalism doesn’t limit itself to things of a trading nature (which includes employment, which is basically people selling their work to others) and that’s the core of the problem with it: it naturally corrupts anything around it which can help provide not just trade advantages but even force the rest of society to give larger entities “free” money even outside trade (subsidies, bailouts) or forcing into being paid for that which would be naturally free (i.e. copyright, water rights, even land).
Some people think Crony Capitalism is not real Capitalism, but is actually real Capitalism in it’s purest form: the best ROI in this game of who makes the most money comes from buying the referees and those who make the rules.
Capitalism is effective at cleaning up inefficiency, at least if it’s allowed to run its course. Twitter, for instance: if it crashes and burns, all the talent in there will be free to move to doing something better instead. If it somehow succeeds, that’s a more obvious net benefit as well.
Is it efficient to only make cheap shitty and yet still overpriced versions of everything for the consuming public, shit that is designed to fail?
Why do people buy cheap and shitty things?
Is it efficient to have to buy the same thing twice?
What is this referring to? Obviously not efficient.
Pointless jobs?
That’s a total waste, and these would be removed in an efficient market.
Rich people?
In a free market system, rich people happen because they’ve provided something that others want, or made good investments.
Is pollution efficient?
Pollution is indeed a problem that require global solutions. CO2 markets, for instance, are a thing.
Is it efficient to have to buy the same thing twice?
What about space travel? Preclaimer: I’m a physics student.
Before SpaceX and Indian companies, one ESA launch cost like 500 million dollars, which was impossible to achieve for scientists without direct ESA funding. Now, suddenly physicists can launch small satellites with less than a million.
I realize this isn’t really the place for this discussion but capitalism doesn’t know what the word “efficient” means. Is it efficient to have to buy the same thing twice? Is it efficient to only make cheap shitty and yet still overpriced versions of everything for the consuming public, shit that is designed to fail? Is pollution efficient? Is ruining everyone’s lives efficient? Pointless jobs? Rich people? These things are efficient the way fucking for virginity is efficient. The way Elon’s Twitter has been efficient. The way shitting the bed is efficient. Which is to say, it’s really fucking not.
Capitalism is the most efficient way of extracting as much value from one’s employees, and sales from one’s customers as possible.
Efficiency isn’t always a good thing, such as in this case.
It’s broader that that: it’s the most efficient way of extracting money from everything else in general.
Hence just how common it is to see large companies getting massive subsidies or having laws written to benefit them (notice, for example, the Disney Corporation rigging the system to extract more value from the broader society by getting the Copyright terms extended ahain and again), none of which is sales or employment related.
Capitalism doesn’t limit itself to things of a trading nature (which includes employment, which is basically people selling their work to others) and that’s the core of the problem with it: it naturally corrupts anything around it which can help provide not just trade advantages but even force the rest of society to give larger entities “free” money even outside trade (subsidies, bailouts) or forcing into being paid for that which would be naturally free (i.e. copyright, water rights, even land).
Some people think Crony Capitalism is not real Capitalism, but is actually real Capitalism in it’s purest form: the best ROI in this game of who makes the most money comes from buying the referees and those who make the rules.
Couldn’t have said it better. Our society is bound to collapse, and it’s us, “the peasants”, which will be dealt the blow.
Capitalism is effective at cleaning up inefficiency, at least if it’s allowed to run its course. Twitter, for instance: if it crashes and burns, all the talent in there will be free to move to doing something better instead. If it somehow succeeds, that’s a more obvious net benefit as well.
Why do people buy cheap and shitty things?
What is this referring to? Obviously not efficient.
That’s a total waste, and these would be removed in an efficient market.
In a free market system, rich people happen because they’ve provided something that others want, or made good investments.
Pollution is indeed a problem that require global solutions. CO2 markets, for instance, are a thing.
capitalism is only good at stealing wealth from the working class
What about space travel? Preclaimer: I’m a physics student. Before SpaceX and Indian companies, one ESA launch cost like 500 million dollars, which was impossible to achieve for scientists without direct ESA funding. Now, suddenly physicists can launch small satellites with less than a million.