In the last 5 to 10 years everything seems to suck: product’s and services quality plummeted, everything from homes to cars to food became really expensive, technology stopped to help us to be something designed to f@ck with us and our money, nobody seems to be able to hold a job anymore, everyone is broke. Life seems worse in general.
Why? Did COVID made this happen? How?
deleted by creator
I think it is the natural result of capitalism, that’s what happens when you let it run. The system makes it inevitable.
Yeah, this is why capitalism should be treated like a dangerous dog and kept on a short leash. It can kind of work out for a while when a government restrains it, ensures that legislation exists and is enforced to protect workers, the environment, and consumers. Strong unions are a good sign. This never seems to last though, because the governments get bought eventually.
Who came up with the “end game”? O.o
Thing is most people on earth would do the same if given the opportunity to become ultra wealthy.
The issue is the system allows people to become ultra wealthy
No, most people would not.
Most people would share, or hit a point and think “OK, that’s enough for anything I really want personally… I’m gonna try and help out now…”
Nobody in their right mind should want a world where they are privately wealthy, but publically impoverished.
Because then, you have no security.
Someone will always be gunning for you.
You can stave it off by layering brute force, and laws, but there is no such thing as 100% secure. Eventually something will make it through, and wreak havoc. And because all you now care about, over everything, is whatever paltry “wealth” you’ve managed to secure, the catastrophe is magnified orders of magnitude. You have no real friends or community to turn to, nobody who would support you if you didn’t have the most, and the rules didn’t make you “king” because of it.
It’s a sickness.
We live in the materialistic era of wanting more. Given minimal effort, the overwhelming majority of people would not stop until they have tens or hundreds of millions of net worth.
No matter what you say you’re just wrong
Nah, only about 5% of the population have antisocial personality disorders. That’s a lot of people, but not “most.”
If Jeff bezoz offered you his position in Amazon along with his entire net worth, do you think you (or 19/20 people) would disband that privileged position down to a point where no one would think you’re ultra rich poison?
No, most would give away some but continue to live a overly luxurious lifestyle. My point is proven because it’s the same reason why people enter the lottery, for extreme wealth
Eh, I’m not sure what position Bezos has now. If I ran Amazon, I’d probably covertly support unionization of the entire workforce. I don’t really care about a luxurious lifestyle, and don’t plan on having kids to give an inheritance to, so yeah, I’d probably just give almost all away and buy a small farm to garden in and work on open source projects or something. Like, that’s my dream. It would actually be really hard to figure out how to give all that money away. Could provide the initial funding to like 100,000 decently sized worker-coops I guess.
Edit: I should say, I don’t think most people care so little about luxury and money as I do. My problem is not so much about people having wealth (though wealth is a limited resources, so that does mean others will not have it), but my problem is what people do to get such wealth. It usually involves deceiving your network of associates and exploiting your employees. I do not think most people would be ok with forcing their employees to shit in bags.
deleted by creator
How many victim points did you earn through your envious display of keyboard warriorism?
deleted by creator
The scale and proportions of this are all fucked, the rich take substantially more from the state than the non-rich. Is this a sarcastic meme or is this like shaming ‘welfare queens’?
“The scale and proportions of this are all fucked, the rich take substantially more from the state than the non-rich.” - Yes, absolutely! The parasitical rich benefit most of all! All the more reason to abolish the host - abolish the state! When the poor have more opportunity to enter the market, due to the abolishion of the state and it crony class, then the free market can raise the tide for all leaving the need for charity far less. There will be no constructed dependent class. There will be a rising again of mutual societies, unities etc that benefited the poor before gov coopted those services.
I agree we should abolish the state but you imply markets to help the poor, do you envision a capitalist structure without a state? What would stop the current hoarders of wealth from continuing their dominance and creating an even more unequal corporate feudal state?
nice meme, bold of you to assume however that all rich people don’t take all the money from the state they can get their hands on
It’s is on the graph. But it neglects the soft benefits of government that disproportionately help the rich: like the expensive police state that keeps them from the guillotine.
Ah but if you ask this guy that’s because of big gubmint meddling in an imaginary, utopian free and fair market
If you ask me there is no utopia - but there is the attempt to minimize away coercion & manipulation. It is completely Utopian to think you can create an all powerful political class and not expect exploitation by psychopaths and sociopaths.
ALL rich people? That would be quite the assumption! Many rich are parasites that use regulatory capture, artificial cartels, lobbying, bribery, threats etc because the state exists. Other rich have attained great value by giving the world much value. Don’t let envy eat you away!
Do you think they would be unable to form their cartels if the state was abolished? Pray tell, what’s to stop them from doing so?
The question should be who will enable their cartel without the state law enforcing it? What is to stop them get a large share of the market - cartel status? Well, their competition providing better goods and services!
But what is there to stop them from simply hiring a private militia to kill their competition? The NAP?
NAP, aka respect for private property rights. If a society does not respect the NAP then it is a society based foremost on the threat of violence. What is government - the threat of violence - the threat of force. So, if a society allowed private militia to kill competitors you would end up with a gang ruling over others - you know - like government. So, yes you need a society with respect for private property rights/NAP. Would all people be peaceful? Heck no! Does this mean there will also not be private institutions that uphold the law - uphold respect for private property rights? Of course! People will still need security, decision making and justice! A peaceful society with respect for the NAP would NOT allow a private militia to violate others rights! Business (in the absence of government favouritism) survives on good products, services and reputation. Sending a militia against you opponents does not do well for your reputation! So ultimately you have a choice - government, which is an involuntary institution with a monopoly on force and rule making that serves the elite to the detriment of others OR A free society with respect for private property rights that is more decentralised and snuffs out any trouble makers.
So who decides the law and how does justice get upheld in this system? It seems to me that if any corporation becomes powerful enough, it essentially becomes the de-facto government in any areas it has control over.