Capitalism is supposed to have this great impact, increasing efficiency etc etc. If this is the end result why aren't the majority of people able to survive on less hours of labor, instead of needing more to survive? Also why are we producing more and more resources in more and more inefficient ways (I mean just look at how we feed cows corn, that takes more overall labor and is worse for the environment and people's health, but costs less so it is the only way it is done on the large scale)
Just a quick observation
6 years ago in #politics by anarchyhasnogods (68)
$4.83
- Past Payouts $4.83
- - Author $3.72
- - Curators $1.11
455 votes
- inertia: $2.09
- co-in: $0.50
- bloom: $0.22
- mcsvi: $0.19
- anarchyhasnogods: $0.18
- tobias-g: $0.17
- rynergy: $0.16
- hagbardceline: $0.16
- i-d: $0.15
- shinternational: $0.15
- nikokafka: $0.14
- shivohum2015: $0.14
- mrviquez: $0.11
- charlie777pt: $0.06
- cyberdemon531: $0.05
- football-365: $0.05
- fancybrothers: $0.02
- fractalnode: $0.02
- dirge: $0.01
- theironfelix: $0.00
- and 435 more
This post has been rated by the user-run curation platform CI! In this platform users are able to manually curate content. This is done regardless of Steem Power, for both rewards and vote size calculation.
Join in at our site here!
https://collectiveintelligence.red/
Or join us on discord to interact with the community!
https://discord.gg/sx6dYxt
This post was submitted for curation by: @anarchyhasnogods
This post was given a rating of: 0.9979063423190365
This post was voted: 100%
"why aren't the majority of people able to survive on less hours of labor, instead of needing more to survive?"
A possible reason could be the inflation created by printing money which eats up all the increased productivity.
uhhhh
sure you can print more money, but what does that do to effect the actual resources themselves? Resources are produced regardless of the money itself
"but what does that do to effect the actual resources themselves? "
That you need more money to buy that resources in order to produce those necessary goods for the people, making them more expensive. Because printing money causes a decrease on the value of money which gets people poorer and is all cause by the State (obviously, because they have the monopoly of the money creation and the only benefited are them), like in latin american countries like Venezuela and Argentina.
The cow example isn’t strictly an indictment on capitalism. The economics are skewed because of government subsidies on corn.
If you get rid of subsidy, the equilibrium would probably still be upset, at least in the cow example, because people are now used to the taste of corn-fed.
you can't separate the actions of the state from the actions of capital. Capital only exists through the state, and within a system where greed is rewarded you can't expect the individuals within the state to ignore it. Another example of this is using sweatshops in other countries, it takes more labor to actually get it to this country but the labor itself costs less because the people are oppressed and are not allowed higher wages. In many cases of this the role of the state is to simply allow the capitalists to do this
http://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/
another example, the police force itself was started by capitalists convincing the government to shift the costs of their private force to the workers.
I don’t follow your logic on this point. I agree that there’s collusion. I’m not convinced there has to be.
the capitalists that don't will simply lose to the ones that do. Capitalism is based on the accumulation of capital, whoever does it the most efficiently simply wins out.
capitalism cannot exist without a state, they simply become an extension of each other because of the info above
I don't know about that. I think it's possible to be a moral capitalist. That is, a capitalist who doesn't use violence to gain an advantage. Is it rare? Yes. In fact, it's probably the most rare thing on the planet.
Is it "most efficient" to use violence to gain advantage and win? In a way. But it's at great expense. A capitalist that buys into the status quo and colludes with the state to gain an advantage is selling part of their soul. And I think it's wrong. I don't defend it. But I'm not convinced they go hand-in-hand. I think we just don't see it very often because they sell out.
"Is it "most efficient" to use violence to gain advantage and win? In a way. But it's at great expense. A capitalist that buys into the status quo and colludes with the state to gain an advantage is selling part of their soul. And I think it's wrong. I don't defend it. But I'm not convinced they go hand-in-hand. I think we just don't see it very often because they sell out."
Like an argentine economist has said that whom do that sort of thing are "empresaurios".
"capitalism cannot exist without a state, they simply become an extension of each other because of the info above"
Read Murray Rothbard and get aware that there is an option.
yeah it is.
I don't see you in the CI discord, have you checked that out at any point?
No, can you provide me with a link?
https://discord.gg/B4yYrA
Where do you leave that we are living in the era of the greatest economic mobility?
Rule by force is the disease, who and how are symptoms.