Comment by Grayox@lemmy.ml on Dont get it twisted.

What about our modern world makes you think humanity exsists in a default state of nature?

We don’t live in a post-scarcity society, so the rules of nature still apply. People need food, water, shelter, energy and someone has to work to provide those things.

My fellow Lemmy user, we dont live in a post-scarity world because profits matter more than people in our Capitalist Society. We could live in a post-scarity world, but that would come at the cost of profits for the 1% who do effectively zero work.

We literally destroy food in this country instead of giving it to people who have nothing. The “scarcity” is entirely manufactured.

We could live in a post-scarity world, but that would come at the cost of profits for the 1%

No we couldn’t. If those profits went away, it wouldn’t lead to a post-scarcity society, those companies would simply cease to exist. Along with the goods they produce and the jobs they create.

Actually, they wouldn’t cease to exist without profits. Profits are income in excess of expenses.

Without profits, investors don’t get dividends. Businesses can be entirely successful without every turning a profit because they “only” produce goods and distribute the income entirely to cover costs including labor.

If we did something radical like taking ownership of companies away from investors and holding them in public trust, you wouldn’t see the companies cease to exist, you’d see prices come down, wages go up, or heavy infrastructure investment.

Profit is an indicator of market inefficiency. The equilibrium state for a market is zero profit.

You also end up with management and incentive issues. You can correct those with violence or starvation in the short term and hope everything works out in the long term.

What, to you, is the difference between the owners being the government, and the owners being investors, all else being equal?

Do you think people don’t get paid if there’s no profit? Profit is just money left over after everyone gets paid and the bills are settled. It just goes to investors, and the employees don’t see it.

Profit is an indicator of market inefficiency. The equilibrium state for a market is zero profit.

What a dumb take. If I work all day to earn money, and I use some of it to pay my bills and save the rest, does that mean I’m being inefficient? Is my employer being inefficient by paying me more than I need?

That’s literally a guiding tenet of capitalism. Profit is an indicator of market inefficiency because not enough of a good is being produced to satisfy demand. The existence of profit in a market segment signals to others that they should enter the market to try to capture some of the profit, which lowers the profit each party gets. As competition increases, profits lower until supply is in equilibrium with demand.
If it’s a situation where competition isn’t feasible, then profit is an indicator that the business is artificially charging more than they need to.

Market efficiency is one type of efficiency. Is a widget maker suddenly becomes more efficient at producing widgets, they can sell more widgets at the same price, leading to increased profits.
Production became more efficient, but the market became less efficient, signalling that other firms should find a way to compete and get those profits, until competition drives prices down to the cost of production.

https://youtu.be/b-4ry8ZLwoQ?si=1r0GU8HVCT7dC1OP

You are not a market segment, so your personal finances aren’t comparable.

Your boss is being inefficient if they’re paying more for labor than they have to. Labor is a market, and high wages signal to workers that they should enter a labor segment, which eventually drives wages in that segment down until an equilibrium is reached.

you wouldn’t see the companies cease to exist, you’d see prices come down, wages go up, or heavy infrastructure investment.

Exactly, you’d also see the inovation to drop, effectiveness of people’s work would decrease slowly and also quality of products would go down. It’s actually not that radical, many, many countries have tried that, both small and large, gigantic even. But rarely (if ever) it worked in a long run

Why do you think work effectiveness or innovation would drop? The people doing the work already don’t see the profits. Nothing would change for them.
There’s no difference between the board of directors being appointed by investors and then being appointed by elected officials, as far as the employees are concerned.

There’s a difference between a state run and a state owned enterprise.
A publicly owned enterprise is perfectly common, and indistinguishable from any other business.

They’re quite common around the world, and some of the largest companies on the planet are state owned.

So you honestly believe that if executive compensation was more modest, they would simply shut down their companies?

And if that did happen, that nobody else would jump into the gap in the market?

The means of production would still exist.

Do you know what the means of production are? Labor. Not magic!

Factories, farming equipment ,machinery all would still exist.

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
Be nice.
No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

Dont get it twisted.(lemmy.ml)

Microblog Memes

!microblogmemes@lemmy.world

Community stats

Community moderators