Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function.
No it doesn’t
UBI is also a great idea within socialist economies, where there would be no force against it.
Maybe. But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
UBI works very well with the market based capitalist system. That’s where I think it will shine.
No it doesn’t
It kinda does. Do you think people enjoy working for near poverty wages? They don’t. But they can’t afford to say no to poor pay because it’s still better than no pay. If people weren’t worried about becoming homeless they’d demand for higher pays. In that sense capitalism does depend on the threat of homelessness to drive down the wage to make more profits.
But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
How to say you don’t know anything about socialism without saying you don’t know anything about socialism. I’m going to give you an example of it working on a smaller scale because US kept sabotaging most national attempts to have socialism. Worker cooperatives are socialist and I recommend looking up the history of Mondragon, a successfully ran cooperative for over half a century now.
People like having more money than is strictly necessary, especially if it’s more money than whoever’s standing next to them. Capitalism’s not gonna burn down and fall over if everyone gets a two-bedroom apartment and free McDonald’s for life.
Not to endorse anything else that dingus libertarian is talking about.
You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.
Now economic policy, you’ll be amazed to understand is about fixing inefficiencies that do not allow for optimal conditions. Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that’s what economic testing is about. That’s why it’s better than socialism because it’s competitive and strives for change.
If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value. If everyone had UBI that would equate the negotiating position of workers and they wouldn’t have to take poverty wages. That’s why UBI is the capitalist solution to that problem in capitalism. It allows to market to work the way economists want it to work.
Everything you wrote is great in theory. But in reality…
The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.
Optimal solution for whom? It’s not an optimal solution for me to work 16 hours a day, but it would be an optimal way solution for businesses who want to maximize the work they get out of their workers. It’s not capitalism that got us 8h a day 5 days a week, it was the response to the “optimal” solution that capitalism came up with, which was to work people 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. In a broad sense our current working hours is not caused by capitalism but socialism.
The current RTO wave is another example how capitalism does not find the optimal solution. Research has shown that working from home is just as productive if not more productive than working from office (in addition to being more beneficial for the worker) and yet capital owners are demanding people return to office.
Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that’s what economic testing is about. That’s why it’s better than socialism because it’s competitive and strives for change.
Why do you think socialism is not competitive or striving towards change?
If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value.
The wages are not following the inflation and wealth gap keeps growing. The so called “middle class” is eroding into “lower class” as the wealth gap keeps making people poorer. This has been happening for decades. Where’s the fix?
Where’s the fix to climate change that oil conglomerates knew about since the 70s? Oh right, the “fix” was to run a disinformation campaign until the evidence becomes irrefutable and they’re forced of oil, because it was the “optimal solution” for making a profit.
What you’re talking about is the idyllic version of Capitalism where everything is great and capital solves everything, because that’s what’s taught to you. What is not taught is that it’s not how capitalism actually works.
and advanced economic theory says that basic economic theory is crap, what you consider “basic economic theory” is woefully outdated and has never been backed by any evidence.
as for the supply and demand crap, it really just boils down to the prisoner’s dilemma,
1: A lowers prices & B lowers prices = lower profits for both
2: A lowers prices & B does not lower prices = A has medium profits, B goes broke
3: A does not lower prices & B lower prices = A goes broke, B has medium profits
4: A does not lower prices & B does not lower prices = both have high profits
and remember, the people running A and B have taken some basic courses in math and logic
Ah, so the economists you paid someone to tell you to read are better than the ones they read on their own.
Hey, what’s your contribution to the field?
I’m interested in reading a book of yours.
The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.
And that means it actually happens. Yeah? Like, we could check? We could see if that is in fact what occurs, given the circumstances you assume? That’s a real thing that exists in this world? That’s what really results from that premise? With the same certainty as a law of physics? That’s definitely what happens, as routinely as apples falling off trees? It just works, always, everywhere, reliably and predictably? Never goes completely tits-up? Are you sure that’s what happens? Are you sure? Is that wh
You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
Where that falls to shit is the assumption that “everyone works”. Only 132 million people have full time jobs in the United States for example. That’s just 40% of the population.
In reality is basic economic theory is only useful if you’re explaining economics to a child. And you should only start there - you should try to make sure they have a far more comprehensive understanding of economics before they are old enough to vote.
Did you know that the US does not have a capitalist system? In fact, it’s silly to think of “capitalism” and “socialism” as systems at all. They aren’t. They are broad systemic feature sets. You’ve probably heard the phrase “mixed economy”. That’s actually what nearly every nation has, a mixed economy, meaning that we have socialist, as well as capitalist, elements. In fact, without socialist elements, the capitalist elements of our economy would have self-destructed a long time ago. You clearly have no idea what capitalism or socialism even are. That’s fine, most people don’t, it’s pretty much the norm, but now that it’s been pointed out to you, you have a choice: learn, and grow, or be a stubborn fool. Hopefully you choose well.
Haha I have a degree in economics. That why I can see all the shit you tankies write as just plain wrong.
But I’m sure your youtube video on Karl Marx makes you an expert on these things.
People don’t use words as absolutes. America is largely referred to as a capitalist country. My saying that isn’t incorrect. But you can argue technicalities of words all you want, communism sucks or (mixed economies heavily leaning to communism sucks).
Where’s your degree from, Hillsdale? I can’t imagine it would be any serious school.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you probably would be able to make a coherent argument, instead of announcing that you have a degree, like it’s a magic talisman, to always make you right.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you would probably know that there are people with more education than yourself who are socialists, and not believe that having a degree in economics necessarily makes one pro-capitalist.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you would almost certainly have had at least one or two socialist professors on your way to that degree.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you probably would have learned more intellectual discipline than to call anybody who doesn’t agree with private capital a “tankie”.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you probably wouldn’t be so unwise as to assume you were the only one. This thinking shows a really sheltered life, like somebody who has never even been to a university, or encountered new ideas. It connects back to the “magic talisman” view I mentioned above.
Sure, language is complex, and it isn’t broadly wrong to refer to the US as a “capitalist country”, as capitalism is certainly the dominant economic power, here, but that’s intentionally dodging the point. You were the one speaking in absolutes, saying “But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.” That statement alone indicates a complete lack of understanding of what socialism is, an understanding rooted in absolute systems, which in turn heavily implies a lack of understanding of what capitalism is. What do you think these words actually mean? Come on, show me what that Hillsdale degree was worth.
socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
Socialism is a very broad political movement that works extremely well in some nations.
Sure, there are also nations where it’s a total disaster… but the same is true for capitalism. Socialism should be judged by the best implementations, not the shitty ones.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function.
No it doesn’t
Market economies don’t. Capitalism OTOH by definition has an exploitative class and that class needs a whip to enforce their status. The two have been equivocated a lot by capitalist propaganda, same as they’re equivocating free and unregulated markets (which couldn’t be further apart in reality).
And it doesn’t need to be homelessness as such, it can be many things. The actual question is one of power, whether workers have a realistic option to say “nope, not that shitty a job for that shitty a wage” and tell the bosses to shove it. Can’t exploit someone who can say “fine by me, I’ll get a table saw and start to do some carpentry”.
