trailing9 @ trailing9 @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

430

Joined

2 yr. ago

Making money is not a goal on lemmy, so why should there be more rewards than entertainment?

If you want to make money, you have to look elsewhere. Crypto was an idea, but as we know, not sustainable.

If you don't find something, build it. Think like Bill Gates: build a platform where everybody can earn something. Don't keep everything for yourself.

Edit: Don't think like Bill Gates. Just consider the idea of not squeezing out all profits for yourself, which, ironically, I have first read as a quote of him.

Choose and make the winners. Exciting stuff on the internet is not exclusive. On lemmy, everybody wins.

You have two rhetorical questions. You must know that competition ceases within an oligarchy and that my point was to argue for competition and not oligarchy.

Thanks for the exchange.

In which housing market without limited supply do prices balloon?

Do you expect me to believe that competition doesn't work at all? We started this discussion with reduced wages due to increased competition among workers.

Do you want to introduce socialism to prevent competition entirely?

The atomic bomb, Stalin had to stop.

But that suggests that capitalistic meddling brought the sovjet union down. The primary question should be how the sovjet union could have kept the lead.

Those problems don't help to fix the import problem.

Housing, healthcare, insurance - it is expensive because there is not enough competition - or socialism.

Mark Cuban's pharmacy changes the market. In the same way, somebody could organize resources and create broad competition for all housing and healthcare markets.

You are sure that I don't know enough. How do you know that your knowledge about economy is enough or whom to trust to run socialism?

Now it's up to you to take a shot at creating the next exciting thing. Aim high and give all you can to succeed.

Money is not fake in international trade. Resources can be delivered to other countries.

And yet China managed to survive. Of course there are external factors but it's important to know which internal decisions could have led to success.

Processors, internet, renewable energy, etc. Maybe winning the space race prevented success in other areas?

Yes, let's also outsource the revolution.

Will China take over America? If not, why would China change the economic system in the West? Without the petrodollar, there should just be significantly less resources available.

Was that enough to turn the country into a net importer? I thought the general mismanagement was the bigger problem.

Cake is a present where everybody gets a slice because the cake was selected accordingly.

If only one person can get promoted, or an increased budget for wages is available, could that be resolved without managers, not just in theory but all over the world?

People value things. In capitalism, the ones who value them the most, and who are able to pay, get them.

If you disrupt this mechanism by allocating resources differently, you risk that resources are wasted. Of course you can use other allocations but is that a good idea?

Capitalism has many flaws, e. g. monopolies disrupt this mechanism, but it just has to be better than its competitors to survive.

You imagine taking over capitalism and allocating luxeries differently. I doubt that those luxeries will exist. If workers only want to work e.g. 8 hours per week, because socialism, the surplus will be gone.

If you can make those workers work more under socialism without a gun to their head, then you should be able to do so right now within the legal framework of a coop.

It should be easier because you only have to manage production processes without fighting a war.

Sidequestion: how does a member of the bourgeoisie without capital look like?

Land is expensive where many people live. There is enough land available in Alaska for estates

Not everybody can live in an estate and expect low travel time into the city center.

If you want to create new housing in a city, you have to share land. In other words, you have to build high-risers.

You will have to bootstrap it.

How was agriculture sabotaged?

Right, but it's not personal relations that prevent the fighting but the threat of being expelled.

You are essentially arguing that it takes capitalistic ownership to enforce social behavior.

How do you prevent knife-fights outside the mall?

Can those examples be generalized on how to handle resource conflicts?

OK, I exaggerated. You wrote that beach houses could be shared or distributed in a lottery.

You have clear arguments why coops are not an option. My point is that you can transfer them onto socialism. In socialism, there is a higher floor on worker compensation because workers don't accept being exploited. But then how do workers deal with their country having less goods available?

If you can handle it as a country you can handle it as a coop.