huge_clock @ huge_clock @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

136

Joined

2 yr. ago

Capitalism enables people to become rich yes, but many workers do quite well, amassing large retirement accounts and saving their hard-earned money until they too can invest it in a business. The most wealthy and productive societies with the highest wages all of major aspects of their economies controlled by free markets. It’s not a coincidence.

It’s a double coincidence of wants. The workers aren’t able to provide any of the equipment or capital for the business. They would also rather have a steady predictable paycheque rather than jointly own a risky venture. Meanwhile the investor has capital they are willing to risk and are able to provide a steady source of income. The workers can’t make profit on their own without the capital.

Right, but the owner brings something to the table: capital. That capital is then risked. Don’t you think that capital owners should be compensated for providing the resources that is used in the production of commodities?

Ordinary people who labour save their money. Are they not allowed to invest that money after they earn it? What are we supposed to do with the money that we save up that’s not used for consumption?

It’s not that i don’t agree ona subjective level, it’s that surplus value’s axioms don’t hold true, which makes it bad at explaining economic phenomenon and even worse at making predictions. If a commodity’s value was derived from how much labour went into it, then commodities that had more imbued labour would be inherently more expensive, but this is not the case in reality. Commodities that are easily produced with very little labour per unit (for example a hand-woven basket) can sell for a very low price, whereas a commodity that doesn’t have much labour per unit at all (for example an app downloaded from an online store) can have a high price.

Similarly surplus value assumes that the difference in price between the exchange value of a commodity and the labour value of its inputs are due to exploitation, but this ignores other factors of production such as land and capital. Surplus value fails to account for the very common phenomenon of capitalists starting some venture, paying employees a salary but running into some issue or another, watching the value of their stock fall to zero and declaring bankruptcy. In such cases how could you claim there was any surplus value at all?

Then you shouldn’t go around saying it’s “empirically true” because at best there is no evidence.

The way they measure economic freedom is based on how free you are to start a business and things like that.

I’m sure you’ll get there. Just keep educating yourself.

Surplus value is not even close to being an accepted economic theory.

Oh I’m sorry i didn’t realize there was empirical evidence for socialism. Please send me a link to some of these successful socialist societies.

Oxford English Dictionary defines a capitalism as :

1. ​a person who supports capitalism
2. a person who owns or controls a lot of wealth and uses it to produce more wealth

You wouldn’t be any better off on a socialist system. The people at the top of the party would control everything and the working class would be even poorer than they are now. You’re just licking the left boot instead of the right one.

You seem to be really good at coming up with excuses why you can’t access the data or why the data isn’t admissible for this or that reason. And awfully good at coming up with reasons why you cannot produce any data. Too much so IMO for someone that makes the claim of others of being intellectually dishonest and that they cannot think for themselves.

But it’s okay. Why don’t we just agree to disagree? That was my original point. Some people have centrists views on the economy where they believe in socially progressive causes, free markets and strong institutions. That this view is both rational and supported by data. That disagreements are based not on misinterpretation of facts but on differences in values.

This is a study by an independent researcher from the University of North Dakota. The economic freedom index is published by the Fraser institute. There is no alternative index at this time. Here is a link beyond the paywall. Here’s a few others as well:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-015-9616-x

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11482-017-9543-6

You’re welcome to share your own studies on economic freedom and happiness btw. . I’m “not thinking” yet i am the only one sharing scientific literature.

The data shows that economic freedom is associated with greater life satisfaction . That doesn’t mean that every billionaire is a good guy or that corporations don’t break the law.

You can’t take the train before the tracks are laid down.

Go to Europe my friend. You can go from Madrid to Barcelona for $30 on a train that goes over 300 km/h.

Right? There are pros and cons with every system. People disagree based on value judgements not based on misinterpretation of facts. People in their echo chambers will have you believe that everyone on the other side of the political spectrum all thinks the same way “the same people who say X also say Y!” Rarely is that the case. Most people are actually centrists who have their own independent beliefs on a wide range of topics.

A lot. Because our infrastructure and zoning basically demand you buy a car. That’s not the point. The point is to advocate change through local government.

I’m not even trying to go down the capitalism vs socialism debate route. All I’m saying is democracy isn’t like this perfect system that is only compatible with the most perfect and utopic principles.

Hitler was elected by a democracy in case you forgot.