|
Top-level
 @wakame @evysgarden @scottsantens I've been thinking about how money is used to exchange labour for resources, as is the basis of capitalism. How this forces labour to be continuously depreciated and resources exploited to exhaustion, because that's the only way the system can remain somewhat stable. So my idea would be to divide labour/renewable/non-renewable, have UBI resource allocation + labour exchanged at equal value, plus some labour for community for those who currently need extra help. 4 comments
@wakame Yeah, I condensed it a bit. Like, if you exchange access to resources for labour, and the resources are limited but labour is basically renewed overnight, and you want the capital to mostly remain in the hands of who has it already (for power/system stability), then today's labour has to be worth less than yesterday's, and preferrably you'd want to increase the amount of resources whereever possible ('reserves'), usually making renewables into non-renewables via exploitation. @wakame And I'll never not marvel at how Monopoly was created to show how capitalism sucks but instead was turned into teaching rentier capitalism to children. I agree with the inequality thing, and want to point out that it wouldn't make sense to amass capital with the goal to then just lose it again. Capital is a power base - like land plus title in feudalism - and systems using it need to try to consolidate and grow it to be able to function. |
Gregory's Server
@zombiecide @evysgarden @scottsantens
I would argue that the main problem of capitalism is "encouraging inequality". Like with "Monopoly", capital is used to bring existing systems out of sync.
Even with a completely local, independent economy (e.g. a village with farmers, craftspeople, bakers, butchers), capital allows you to either expand your business or lower your prices, driving competition into ruin, then have a de-facto monopoly that you can use to raise prices and accumulate more capital.
(This is of course a toy example. Large economies work... worse?)
In my opinion, exhausting resources is simply an easy way to maximize profit. Which is why I think that using any kind of non-renewable, non-recyclable resource should be too expensive for any company.
In that regard, bitcoin is actually a pure form of capitalism: Burning resources to create meaningless numbers.
@zombiecide @evysgarden @scottsantens
I would argue that the main problem of capitalism is "encouraging inequality". Like with "Monopoly", capital is used to bring existing systems out of sync.
Even with a completely local, independent economy (e.g. a village with farmers, craftspeople, bakers, butchers), capital allows you to either expand your business or lower your prices, driving competition into ruin, then have a de-facto monopoly that you can use to raise prices and accumulate more capital.