“The world is a giant resort for 1000 rich people; the rest of us are staff”
Stuck with me
Kinda reminds me of a planet in the game Endless Sky which had rich people go to it for retiring and the only other people were the staff at the resort planet.
What is this from?
Ngl, lemmy meme
Governments should not aim to be profitable. Full stop. Their goal should be to just eek by with enough funding to stay afloat and the rest should go to public services.
Government having lots of money only does good for those in power.
Governments really aren’t in this whole “staying afloat” business either, that’s a corporate perspective as well.
Governments make the rules entirely, so they can be indebted to their citizens, their corporations, and even other governments and be totally fine.
They realistically need to have some sort of pathway to be chipping at their debts, but many can go into much deeper debt to churn out social programs that add value back to their economies in the long term.
For instance a country could go into debt so all their citizens could have free access to schooling and college, and it would be net positive for that country because the those citizens could contribute more towards the economy than they could without that free education.
Another example is paying for bullet trains, nuclear power plants, solar energy panels, etc. are all worth the investment and worth going into debt for since they add so much value back to economies and open up new jobs.
The one caveat I’ll give is in the cases where countries are literally printing more currency rather than borrowing. Countries need to be borrowing money, even from themselves. They can’t just print more to pay it off, without that money being backed by labor.
In small cases it’s fine or healthy to print more money, but it’s a horrible move to just print more money to pay off all your debts if you want to still be able to trade with other countries in the future.
I actually think government should be in some amount of debt as it means they are actively building new stuff for the people but also like only a little and because of infrastructure development not just military budget bloom for billion dollar planes that dont get built.
That would be nice.
But then you get another outside government to come and annex them.search for China annexes Nepal - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60288007
I didn’t read this particular article. It just came from a search and my words are from memory.
This is only for convenience in case you are being lazy to search.Ideally you[1] have to manage the 2 parameters:
- profitability for anyone trying to annex the country
- Your military power needs to scale with GDP and exploitable geographical resources to protect from outside threats
- But the more money/power the government gets, the greater the internal threat (corruption mostly)
- QoL of citizens
problem being, there is no “you” that will manage that ↩︎
- profitability for anyone trying to annex the country
Does this make money into company script and every business, regardless of position or size, a company store?
McCarthyism essentially never ended in America or this would be common knowledge everyone repeats in casual conversation
This is “crazy talk” and “nonsense” because critical thinking has been made illegal in America for decades
Also common knowledge: Communism is worse. Talk about fast-tracking authoritarianism.
lol almost everyone who says “communism is worse” has no common knowledge at all
Most cannot even define what capitalism or communism even is, nevermind talking about socialism instead
McCarthyism has done irreversible damage to “common knowledge” itself
communism = centrist Democratic positions??? /s
There’s how you define things, and then there’s how they work in practice. If you’re just going for the tired “Communism hasn’t been properly tried yet” then I will submit that it never will be.
I’m all for regulated capitalism. That’s what’s done in some of the more “socialist” countries that exist today. But the idea that you can have a functioning system where the market sets none of the prices is laughable.
Please expand because as it is right now, your comment is laughable and one would think you’re just ignorant
This breaks community rules. No politics. I hope I’m not the first person to report it.
Edit: the downvoters haven’t read the community rules, or don’t care. Fuck y’all. The rules literally use the word capitalism as an example of what isn’t allowed in a post.
Thanks for the report and being active in helping to shape the community.
There is gray area in the no politics rule. I’ll be the first to admit that it is inconsistently enforced. The comments section has stayed pretty civil. And the post made some interesting analogies, it wasn’t just “capitalism bad”. So I’m tempted to leave it.
Always open to feedback.
I just see capitalism here, no politics.
Ok so even if capitalism is mentioned in the rules, its a system everyone lives under. So of course it will be in shower thoughts sometimes. You never think about our system we live in?
So I think its a stupid rule. But thats just like, my opinion, man. :)
Read the rules. This post breaks them, blatantly.
Hate towards capitalism has priority over rules.
No it doesn’t. Rules are rules. If you don’t like them start your own community.
Governments are also ok with pushing AI so hard cause just like a business they are trying to replace the workforce to save money.
We the people cause them not the people to weep
…and actively disables and undermines competition which cannot be absorbed or acquired.
The us government hands much of our taxes directly to the rich every year. Directly like oil and gas and farm subsidies and contracts to the defense industry… or indirectly like food stamps for wal mart workers. The rich don’t want to pay taxes cause they’re the ones who GET most of the tax money. (Yes I know Medicare and entitlements are a large portion of federal spending.)
100% truth and fact.
TBF, so does socialism
If your understanding of socialism is entirely based on imperial capitalist propaganda, then sure, why not.
deleted by creator
Yep, better to go back to mercantile & pre-mercantile economic systems of feudalism & before. Shit was way better then.
Indeed, only systems designed to enrich the already rich have the possibility of existing, of course! Anything else is obviously delusions dreamed up by dirty red commie bastards.
Or, hear me out, you could just have a good HR department even if you have to group up to demand rights.
Why you got to throw everything away like that? There can be/are good businesses.I’ve never heard of a good HR department. Are you suggesting a better government less susceptible to government failure? Or a review of serious, scholarly work in political economy or public choice pertaining to these questions? That would be a refreshing change.
Most of the time, criticisms on here boil down to “capitalism is the worst system except for all the others we’ve tried”. No insights, just opinions regurgitating muddled takes on dated philosophy.
Milton Hershey was apparently pretty awesome to his employees, built an entire town that was locally situated to have public transport, every house had amenities and he built free schools and theaters and more. His water reservoir is even a public garden.
Seems like it didnt last but hey they tried for a while there.
Also i once worked for a company that raised my pay equal for every employee we were down by until we rehired back up. That was awesome.
Benevolent, philanthropic businesses & business magnates are possible as are benevolent kings & dictators.
To not “throw everything away”, that doesn’t suggest how to keep the integrity of government to regulate capitalism or any successful economy.
So you want 1 random person on the internet to solve all the worlds problems for you?
I’ll ruminate on it when im next in the shower and i have again forgotten my Bluetooth speaker.
No, just that the observation that benevolence exists applies as much to worse economic systems.
Your thought may not apply distinctly to capitalism. Is it possible economic influence from any type of economy would also corrupt susceptible governments? Have you considered perhaps the problem lies more in the structural types of governments susceptible to influence by special interests that don’t serve the majority?
L shower-thought
I have long existential showers or ones were i sing and have no thoughts. No inbetween I’m sorry.
Quite politically charged for an existential shower methinks. And this comm has rules against that
Capitalism has no borders nor nationality, methinks
Sorry immediate response, anyways sorry if it is darker than you think appropriate
Not really darker per se. Just not the typical shower thought vibe.
I get your post though. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
I am told my humor is dark and my outlook bleak, but i will try to have a funner shower thought next time.
But i also think that this isnt political but just true. Like regardless of if you think its right or not.
Countries become about what they can produce or provide, and that means a workforce maintained to continue to provide the products.And those that own capital can either be state or private thus negating picking a side. (Oh god that’s worse, i am gonna shut up) Im gonna try and bird law my way out of this.Bro’s all over the place…
But fr, i agree with you, but did you really think about all this in the shower…? Like, you must’ve been thinking about this for quite a while
I realized it was still off vibe, trying to not go into that topic with you.
And, yeah. I was not kidding about my 2 shower types. I either remember my bluetooth speaker or i lose an hour of my evening. It’s a good place to think, i dunno.
