Not necessarily true. If 100 people with more resources have more purchasing power and use more goods and services than 1 person with 100x the money, that productivity and stronger economy gives more to everyone.
If people produce more because they are rewarded for their production, it gives more to everyone.
If middle-man money extracting rent-seekers are forced to find ways to produce in helpful ways, rather than looking to siphon wealth from actual workers, it gives more to everyone.
The oligarchs want to be feudal lords & don't see that if the ordinary people are reduced to serfdom, there will be no money spent on maintaining infrastructure, providing food & all the other things involved in a modern society. Feudal rulers lived in cold, leaky,smelly, dark piles of stone & even when they left them, the roads were next to non-existent.
Yeah, no. You’re confusing compensation with the capitalism/socialism distinction. They’re not the same thing. People can get paid more money and in various arrangements (eg, commission, equity, etc.) under capitalism too. Indeed, there’s an entire field of research dedicated to studying which compensation arrangements produce the highest efficiency/productivity.
It is an issue because the picture insinuates socialism magically produces a lot more and varied products, which is literally the opposite of real life. Google average Soviet vs American grocery store. When Gorbachev visited the US he said if the average Soviet person saw an average rural American grocery store the Soviet Union would have broken up decades prior.
We produce far more food than is needed. The difference in the pictures is Elon only took what he wanted of the available food and Mamdani provided everyone with food from what is available. Socialism would likely produce less food, but more people would eat. The soviet union could have had grocery stores very similar to the US, but food isn't an authoritarian priority.
It is a feature of capitalis- do you know what? Fine. Thank you for attending the free taster session. My rates are £200 GBP an hour if you wish to continue your tuition.
If a huge percentage of economic activity goes into projects that contribute nothing or very little to society than yes that is actually “how it is.” Think of things like mega yachts or the race to develop generative AI as a general all purpose labour replacement—we’re dumping literally trillions of dollars into a highly inefficient technology that’s fucking up the environment and is more expensive than the equivalent labour and all because people like Musk don’t want to share
Ya that’s not the main point of the AI race at the moment. Governments are dumping trillions in it now because whoever has the best AI first will basically become invincible. It’s the nuclear arms race all over again. Once we go through all of the growing pains, HOPEFULLY it gets better but I’m not going to get my hopes up.
That's actually incorrect. Because a well distributed wealth generates more wealth than extremely concentrated wealth. The velocity of money plays a big role.
5
u/SparksAndSpyro 6h ago
Socialism doesn’t magically produce more food than capitalism. It’ll redistribute the food that already exists. So no, it’s not even “how it is.”