Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
AKingsbury

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Well, first, let's be clear; there US is FAR from being a totally capitalist system. We have massive amounts of regulation on many sectors; including, relevantly, housing, and food. Both sectors are heavily regulated.

I do notice you compare your (unsourced) numbers to a global average, not to an average of non-capitalist nations.

2 Dec 2024 at 1:01 | Wall-to-wall | Open on mastodon.social
21 comments
Luna-Terra

@AlexanderKingsbury@mastodon.social 1. Yes, it's regulated capitalism. Laissez-faire ancap is not the only form of capitalism...

2. 9% (1/11) per the WHO https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stubbornly-high-for-three-consecutive-years-as-global-crises-deepen--un-report

3. There are 5 AES countries. China, the largest by far, has a hunger rate below 2.5% (https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13476). Vietnam is at 6.4% (https://www.globalhungerindex.org/vietnam.html). Laos is slightly behind USA at 14.8 (https://vientianetimes.org.la/freeContent/FreeConten56_Over_1_y23.php). Cuba is at 12.8% according to the US govt. (https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=110175) and obviously there are no reliable stats for DPRK (no, Park "this was once revealed to me in a dream" Yeon-Mi is not reliable) due to its isolation, although I would imagine it struggles compared to less-heavily sanctioned countries. So the AES average, excluding DPRK since it has no stats, is only 0.1% higher than the global average. And still much better than USA.

@AlexanderKingsbury@mastodon.social 1. Yes, it's regulated capitalism. Laissez-faire ancap is not the only form of capitalism...

2. 9% (1/11) per the WHO https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stubbornly-high-for-three-consecutive-years-as-global-crises-deepen--un-report

3. There are...

2 Dec 2024 at 3:28 | Open on calckey.world
Homem-Povo :v_com:

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom Regulations were introduced to save capitalism after the crash of 1929, not the other way around. The same thing happened in 2008. Regulations are a sort of bypass to some of capitalism's contradictions, and that (along with privatising) is what's called neoliberalism, as opposed to classic liberalism, where fewer regulations took place and state-owned enterprises filled the gaps in economy to keep businesses running. But regulations do not transfer the control over the means of production to the workers, nor do they keep capitalists from profiting from other people's labour by any means, so a neoliberal state is still entirely capitalist in nature, and even more so in some sense.

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom Regulations were introduced to save capitalism after the crash of 1929, not the other way around. The same thing happened in 2008. Regulations are a sort of bypass to some of capitalism's contradictions, and that (along with privatising) is what's called neoliberalism, as opposed to classic liberalism, where fewer regulations took place and state-owned enterprises filled the gaps in economy to keep businesses running. But regulations do not transfer...

2 Dec 2024 at 9:01 | Open on ursal.zone
Homem-Povo :v_com:

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Look, capitalism is certainly the best system to extract wealth from the resources available, I give you that. The point is workers, in this system, are also an available resource from which wealth is extracted, and the less we fight it, the more wealth is taken away from us. Our wealth is our time and workforce, and as you can probably see, more and more people are having to take a second job or do Uber to afford housing, which, in this shared-economy we're living, has become a sort of means of production. I see regulations taking place to save the system in a short time, but why should we still have to pay to have a roof over our heads at nighttime when there are houses already built literally for everyone in the first place?

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Look, capitalism is certainly the best system to extract wealth from the resources available, I give you that. The point is workers, in this system, are also an available resource from which wealth is extracted, and the less we fight it, the more wealth is taken away from us. Our wealth is our time and workforce, and as you can probably see, more and more people are having to take a second job or do Uber to afford housing, which, in this shared-economy...

2 Dec 2024 at 9:32 | Open on ursal.zone
AKingsbury

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

"Look, capitalism is certainly the best system to extract wealth from the resources available, I give you that."

I never asked for that, nor did I make that claim.

2 Dec 2024 at 9:43 | Open on mastodon.social
AKingsbury

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

"Regulations were introduced to save capitalism after the crash of 1929"

That implies regulations did not significantly exist beforehand. Is that an assertion you make?

"The same thing happened in 2008."

Why didn't the regulations already in place suffice?

2 Dec 2024 at 9:42 | Open on mastodon.social
Homem-Povo :v_com:

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom bypasses are bypasses and will only do so much, I'm not defending neoliberalism, far from me. Just saying it doesn't take away the features of capitalism that identify it. I said fewer regulations, but I'm not here to educate anyone on classic liberalism, neoliberalism and ordoliberalism, all of those are based on letting people who profit from other people's labour decide what is produced and to whom. Capitalism has never and will never end misery, and that should suffice for people to reject it.

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom bypasses are bypasses and will only do so much, I'm not defending neoliberalism, far from me. Just saying it doesn't take away the features of capitalism that identify it. I said fewer regulations, but I'm not here to educate anyone on classic liberalism, neoliberalism and ordoliberalism, all of those are based on letting people who profit from other people's labour decide what is produced and to whom. Capitalism has never and will never end misery,...

2 Dec 2024 at 9:55 | Open on ursal.zone
AKingsbury

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Capitalism is an economic system, not a god. Asking for it to "end misery" is pointless, as it would be to ask ANY economic system to "end misery".

2 Dec 2024 at 9:59 | Open on mastodon.social
Homem-Povo :v_com: replied to AKingsbury

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom not at all, that's the point, although I'm talking strictly about economic misery, not existential suffering, if that's what you mean.

Misery as in not having access to housing, healthcare, education and food could already have been extinguished with what we actually produce nowadays. Shortage is fabricated as a side effect of the offer and demand that governs the economy (which is run by the owners of the means of production). Excess production is wasted while people are hungry to keep prices up and profit possible, and the same thing goes for unoccupied houses, which become assets while people live in the streets.

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom not at all, that's the point, although I'm talking strictly about economic misery, not existential suffering, if that's what you mean.

Misery as in not having access to housing, healthcare, education and food could already have been extinguished with what we actually produce nowadays. Shortage is fabricated as a side effect of the offer and demand that governs the economy (which is run by the owners of the means of production). Excess production is...

2 Dec 2024 at 10:11 | Open on ursal.zone
AKingsbury replied to Homem-Povo

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

That's not the point. Capitalism simply says that taking a certain approach optimizes the distribution of scarce resources. WE decide what "optimum" means. And one of the great things is that we can come to different answers but still work together to achieve those disparate goals.

2 Dec 2024 at 10:17 | Open on mastodon.social
Homem-Povo :v_com: replied to AKingsbury

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom but that's not how capitalism work. Resources are not scarce, they are already taken when we're born, and the owners and their heirs are the only ones to decide what to do with it. We only get to decide, through our representatives in government, how much tax to charge and what to do with the taxes collected. Simple as that.

2 Dec 2024 at 10:27 | Open on ursal.zone
AKingsbury replied to Homem-Povo

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Of course resources are scarce. That's an entering premise of an economy even existing. If resources were not scarce, we would need no mechanism by which to allocate them; we would need no economy.

2 Dec 2024 at 10:29 | Open on mastodon.social
Homem-Povo :v_com: replied to AKingsbury

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

A flawed system can always be built over flawed premises.

"There are currently 28 vacant homes for every one person experiencing homelessness in the U.S." — unitedwaynca.org/blog/vacant-h

2 Dec 2024 at 10:42 | Open on ursal.zone
AKingsbury replied to Homem-Povo

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Look, I'm sorry, but this isn't just ECON 101 stuff. This is first day of ECON 101 stuff. Heck, this is basic common sense stuff.

Just because you can point to A resource that you regard as plentiful (in a specific area) does not change that resources are scarce. People all have about as much air as they want to breath; that doesn't mean that there is enough of everything for everyone to have as much as they want.

2 Dec 2024 at 11:06 | Open on mastodon.social
Homem-Povo :v_com: replied to AKingsbury

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom well if by scarce you mean finite, ok, you can't always get what you want, but by not scarce I mean everyone could get what they need, and excuse me if I just quoted The Rolling Stones right now 😂

2 Dec 2024 at 11:28 | Open on ursal.zone
AKingsbury replied to Homem-Povo

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

No, by scare I do not mean finite. By scarce I mean scarce.

2 Dec 2024 at 11:35 | Open on mastodon.social
Homem-Povo :v_com: replied to AKingsbury
Homem-Povo :v_com: replied to Homem-Povo
AKingsbury replied to Homem-Povo

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Look, I'm sorry, but you just don't seem to be grasping the basic idea here.

Maybe a specific example will work. Do you understand that titanium is a resource?

2 Dec 2024 at 11:50 | Open on mastodon.social
Homem-Povo :v_com: replied to AKingsbury

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom yeah, and a finite resource on Earth for that matter

2 Dec 2024 at 11:57 | Open on ursal.zone
Homem-Povo :v_com: replied to Homem-Povo

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom That's an excellent example, thank you. Can we all decide to prioritize the medical use of titanium so that treatments are more affordable, or is it up to the owners of the mines and that's why we get titanium watches and cellphones instead?

2 Dec 2024 at 12:12 | Open on ursal.zone
AKingsbury replied to Homem-Povo

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Okay. Do you understand that it's better than steel for a lot of applications? Let's stay specific; it would be WAY better for most car components that are currently made from steel to be made from titanium. It's lighter, which means better fuel efficiency, and it's far more resistant to corrosion. Does that make sense?

3 Dec 2024 at 0:32 | Open on mastodon.social
Go Up