๐ณ๐ฑ
@freemo
Which Communism are you talking about? The one where everybody shares everything or the one where there's a dictator making them share nothing?
Maybe, but if communism converges to these two cases with the same result, it seems to be from the same error in thinking.
The root error comes from the assumption people will cooperate with the principle willingly. Once you assume most people will exploit any system for personal gain when they can it becomes evident communism is not a workable system without a totalitarian government. Even then people will generally do the bare minimum so you get poverty.
Capitalism exploits the inherent selfishness of individuals for the greater good of society.
@freemo
I wondered if that was the angle. It is an unfortunate but realistic view.
While not probable I still hold out that there is a possibility, however minuscule, that we can break that cycle.
Oh we absolutely can, but that is just capitalism with compassion at that point. It isnt communism if people do it willingly rather than a totalitarian government.
We have it in capitalism all the tine, its called a commune.
@freemo
I had a long reply but I realized it was this..
John Lennon: Imagine
Right but what im sayi g is,john lenon was describing capitalism, a capitalism filled with altruistic people.
@freemo
Altruistic Capitalism seems to be an oxymoron.. but I suppose that's the point. That it can't exist. That we are in fact doomed and destined to deal with the greed of humanity... Which is another unfortunate but realistic view.
@avlcharlie How is it a oxymoron. All capitalism is is any system which includes free market trade, that is, trade in which natural supply-demand pressures dominate the markets pricing.
Nothing about that implies greed or altruism, it only implies everyone is trying to maximize their own fitness function (get the most utility for their resources). Its about effiency not greed.
@freemo @avlcharlie well, unless people attempt to develop some level of sophistication, efficiency turns into greed, because thoughtless accumulation is the easiest thing to do. This is reinforced by a social environment where chronic accumulators are considered successful by chronically accumulating media.
Bow ya figure that makes no sense. Accumulating resources in a vault untouched is the least effecient form, you literally have negative effiency as inflation devalues assets. A person would achieve effiency by investing thrir mo ey wisely and ensuring other people are using those resources to effectively increase the total resources in the market.
You are getting stuck in the fallacy that someone havibg authority (ownership) over those resources means that other people cant use it for their own gains as well which is entierly contrary to the reality. Those resources will be in others hands and used by them in some agreement to use them for mutual gain (investment in others).
@freemo @avlcharlie maximisers would invest for profitability and not for sustainability. Clearly this conversation is way too abstract and way too generalising, but rich people investing in cheap resources is a real problem in times of pressing change.
Optimising is by definition deprived of vision, ask effective altruists ;)
Who said anything about sustainability. We said utility, that may or may not line up with sustainability. They will pick sustai able when it has the most utility.
Similarly thry dont buy cheap if cheap is less utility. Somethi g at half the price that breaks in 1/10th the time is a bad investment, so no thry dont just go with what is cheapest. Rich people dont invest in cheap resource they invest in what gets them the most utility, which is what prfitability is.
Optimising has vision, for the thing you are optimising for.
@freemo @avlcharlie the problem is that environmental cost are not part of the final price. Instead they are internalised by those with weaker negotiation power.
Examples:
- miners from poor countries pay with their lives to extract resources that unaccountable mine owners then can sell at competitive prices
- wildlife gets pushed away from investment-grade land
I can go on with Amazonian rainforest, Russian taiga, Australian Coral reefs, African rhinos, l Mediterranean fish, orangutans, polar bears,...
@mapto I think what you're illustrating is NOT that the costs aren't included, but that you personally don't agree with the costs.
You want those people to place higher value on their resources than they do. Their valuation doesn't match your own, and you're insisting that you're right, wanting to impose your personal values on them.
Let's be clear about what you're doing here, including the way it has associations with colonialism.
The people in those poor countries need to be fixed in their valuation of their resources?
@volkris @freemo @avlcharlie I agree with your other comment.
My diagreement is not with the current calculation of the costs. I claim that any explicit calculation by default (due to the complexity of the real world) excludes some implicit aspect that optimisers then readily ignore.
Also, utility is not only contextual, but subjective. To someone a million dollars might be enough to secure a lifetime, to someone else it could be enough to buy a house, to a third person, it might mean buying some nice nice stuff to show off.
Also, utility is not only contextual, but subjective.
Half-true.. the utility of a single transaction is subjective. But you are maximizing for the aggregate utility, that is objective.
To someone a million dollars might be enough to secure a lifetime, to someone else it could be enough to buy a house, to a third person, it might mean buying some nice nice stuff to show off
That statement isnt describing utility.
On a re read i think i see now where you got it all wrong. You are assuming, incorrectly, that money and utility mean the same thing. They dont. Moneybis the resource, not the utility. Utility only exists when money is in motion. Utility is how much you can accomplish with the money, not the money itself.
Okay so I'm not so self-absorbed that I can't say I guess I was wrong and I misunderstood what capitalism was. This has been relatively enlightening.
My question then is what's the one where greedy people hoard up all of the money and resources, abuse the working class and create a system of poverty?
My question then is what’s the one where greedy people hoard up all of the money and resources
I just want to point out how unrealistic this is in today’s world, despite how frequently it’s mythologized and theorized and used to promote political interests.
For someone to hoard up all of the money and resources is for that person to voluntarily accept a lower standard of living for themself, to act against their own interests, quite irrationally.
It’s to say, Sure I could buy these things and contract for that service, which would make my life better, but nah, I’ll just warehouse away my wealth instead of actually using it to make my own life better.
Modern society has built plenty of mechanisms to avoid getting stuck in such opportunity costs to the wealthy.
Scrooge McDuck and his swimming in his money vault was not a real option.
This is exactly my point!
Notice how he spent? Instead of hoarded?
Bezos could have hoarded that money, but then he’d have lost out on the benefits of buying this property, which is exactly how our society gives very enticing alternatives to hoarding.
Bezos will never fill his moneypit because he has so much benefit in actually spending the money instead.
@volkris @freemo @mapto
If you can't find the ridiculousness in 600 million being spent for a house then we have a difference in opinion of what is ridiculous money.
The example isn't even about the house it's that he could do this and not even notice it.
Personally in the big picture for me it's this.. you focus your society on people or you focus your society on things/money. We've decided to do the latter and screw the other one.
What does rediculousness matter? Its not like burn gets consumed when you buy something rediculous (what we call a luxury formally). It just moves the money aroubd, usually no harm done.
No it doesnt, because a person using wealth thry creat and thryo destroy a portion doesnt effect anything because if thry couldnt own the money thry never woukd have made the wealth in the first place.
No, but i have run quiye a few companies and even helped bring one public. So i do deal in a lot of this stuff. I also have written a few economic equations used in models, so i have some formal training in economics too
@freemo @volkris @mapto
You say that like it's a bad thing LOL I totally just remembered you're a financial consultant if I remember right. You've held a very civil discussion on this matter if so.