Ketraar wrote: ↑Wed, 10. Mar 21, 23:40
1- Capitalism only "works" because it keeps resetting itself over and over, but unlike with socialism its depicted as WAI instead of being called what it is, a cyclical failure. As a Vaas the wise said
2- I'd argue the existence of a system that encourages betting to gain money form air is not really good thing and sure as hell is not capitalism at all, its gambling that's what it is
3- this makes it socialistic by default. People just choose to not take any starting conditions into account,
1-You were right up until this part. Switch capitalism with communism and I don't see a difference here. I had said many time before, socialism failing is not a prediction, and not a conclusion due to the lack of trying.
2-Luck is an element in everything, but that's not the single or even most important factor in most cases, capitalism or socialism all the same.
3-I disagree, this is stretch, even if what you said before this statement is true. And they are not, but more on that at the end.
4-This is only possible because we arbitrarily decided that a farmer working 10h is worth less then a mechanic, not because their contribution is less
No, this is even more of a stretch than the previous one. And thus deserve its own quote.
I would be curious what your definition of arbitrary is, because the one I got from the dictionary doesn't fit this situation. I know it's easy to quote a CEO's compensation and claim it underseverd (and I agree), but for the large part, there is nothing arbitrary about supply and demand. We don't "randomly" decide someone flipping bugger should be paid less than someone fixing cars for 10 hours because we think "the mechanic is cool". It just turns out that way because we already have a ton of people who can flip bugger, and not enough people fixing car.
Ok, let's say I follow your logic for a bit because I do think I understand what you mean. For a society to function properly, it need bodies at every position right? Just like for a car to run, it needs tank full of gaz, the machine well oil, and all the bolts tighten ...etc... in that way yes you can say everyone are equally important. This is your angle, correct ? If it is then trust me, I do not disagree. (And if it is not, do explain, otherwise your logic is not computing for me). This is why I believe a "family" is the best place to practice socialism/communism value, in fact, my family is set up to run that way for generations. And also the reason why I believe the modern "women right" movement focus on the wrong thing.
.... But that's a different debate.
Here is the thing, when the market is in an equilibrium, you don't need the law of supply and demand. It is something that kick in to ensure the equilibrium is maintained. Let's say you have a point about equal contribution, but what you gonna do when thing is out of equilibrium? Say, a certain community needs 1000 fast food workers and 1000 car mechanic to fill all its position and function optimally. If you have a magic wand that just pop out 1000 for each all the time, then sure, we can give them the same pay. The problem is this: we need 1000 fast food workers, but there are 10000 people lining up to fill those positions. On the other hand, we need 1000 mechanics, but we can only fill 500 position, leaving 500 short. If we insist they both receive the same compensation ... then what would be the reason for anyone to be a car mechanic unless you just want to work with car? I don't think I need to explain why there are 10000 people waiting to fill one position while the other is 500 short in the first place. You seem to only look at one single variable (personal afford) while ignore things like investment, liability, skillet acquisition ...etc... Supply and Demand kick in to address that very question "why should I become a mechanic over fast food worker?" Because we need more people to become mechanic. We don't need any more fast food workers, but we're in dying need of more mechanics, so here is your incentive - we'll pay you more to become a mechanic!!. We pay mechanics more than a fast food works for the same reason why we pay someone fixing airplane more than someone fixing a car even if both working 10 hour shift, and there is nothing arbitrary about it.
If you decide a fast food worker and an airline mechanic are the same due to their "equal contribution to the import of society", then the most likely scenario is: you not gonna have any airline mechanic.
But you will never have capitalism. Its inherently flawed by design. I keep saying this, things dont happen in a vacuum,
And neither money grown on a tree, or we live in a universe with infinite resource (well, at least not until we make the galaxy our backyard). I find it's very easy to talk about socialism in a country like US, England, Japan ... etc... countries that already have an established wealth pool. Because it's easy to see the inequality, to look at the pile of money and say hey we should split it. What if there is no pile of money? Or what if the pile of money disappeared one day? It's easy to say a country like the US should switch to socialism ... and yeah, you know I won't be too against it ... because we can probably afford it. But name me a country that start with socialism at ground zero point and manage to take off from there?
My impression is you seem to think wealth follow the law of thermodynamic, it doesn't. You can certainly create wealth, and you can certainly destroy it, it doesn't only transform from one point to the next. Supply and demand, scarcity of resource, the practical need being effective ...etc... someone of these may or may not original from capitalism, but one thing for sure, in principal it embrace these idea. That's why I said it ticks all the right boxes on the fundamental level, too bad it's rigged. I think it had come up before but remember when Star Trek's was brought up as one of the example of human utopia and true socialism ... but that was only possible because in that universe, things like scarcity of resource is no longer a problem, aka infinite resource, you don't have money grown on a tree, but neither you need any money so ... close enough.
We're not at that level.