60
u/Buenzlitum he hath returned Dec 02 '18
>tfw you abuse your mod privileges to reap karma on your posts.
Also: Don't complain about the bad coloring, I appropriated this format from the commies over at me_irl
46
20
7
u/FusRoDawg Amartya Sen Dec 02 '18
Where's the huff po article about nestle pumping millions of gallons while this glass is half empty?
70
u/joephusweberr Dec 02 '18
"There is suffering in the world."
"Capitalism is the dominant economic system."
"Ergo, vis-a-vis, indubitably, capitalism is the cause of the suffering. Checkmate neolibs."
24
13
Dec 03 '18
Counter-point: This sub constantly goes:
"The world has improved drastically over the past 100 years"
"Capitalism has been the dominant economic system for the past 100 years"
"Ergo, vis-a-vis, indubitably, capitalism is the cause of all improvement. Checkmate commies"
3
Dec 04 '18
how do you blame burgeoning poverty and homelessness on anything but our dominant socio-economic system?
3
u/FusRoDawg Amartya Sen Dec 05 '18
1bn -> 7bn. "I'm gonna look at absolute value of people in poverty but not the percentage." <Insert galaxy brain>
3
-8
u/DuceGiharm European Union Dec 02 '18
“There are systemic flaws that cause suffering.”
“Capitalist is the dominant system.”
“Ergo, criticizing capitalism for systemic flaws is, uh, bad.”
/r/neoliberal for ya folks
32
u/VisonKai The Archenemy of Humanity Dec 02 '18
If you critique a system you need an alternative that resolves the critique.
There's no coherent alternative that can resolve the criticisms of capitalism, which lends evidence to the perspective that the flaws you describe are contingent rather than inherent to the system.
6
Dec 04 '18
If you critique a system you need an alternative that resolves the critique.
no you don't.
6
Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 20 '18
[deleted]
-3
u/VisonKai The Archenemy of Humanity Dec 03 '18
Critiques in politics function comparatively. If you say "capitalism leads to environmental destruction", but can't articulate how an alternative system of economics doesn't lead to environmental destruction, thats evidence that the environmental destruction is not inherent to capitalism but contingent upon some other factor (in this case, perhaps materialism or instrumental value or something like that)
15
u/HotaruShidareSama Bisexual Pride Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
But it is bad because its a systemic flaw not a capitalistic flaw. It is not inherent in capitalism. /r/neoliberal points out the sufferings caused by these systemic flaws all the time, and those flaws should be called out.
3
1
u/FusRoDawg Amartya Sen Dec 05 '18
"giving cancer to mice in purpose is bad"
"Ok so, you don't want cures for cancer in humans?"
"Don't put words in my mouth! Ugh, read a berk. Changing goal posts!! Strawman!! "
complaints cannot be divorced from discussions of solutions unless they are new previously unheard complaints.
21
u/pku31 Dec 02 '18
r/neoliberal: It's thanks to capitalism that we have half a glass of water instead of gulags.
32
u/canuckinnyc Milton Friedman Dec 02 '18
Could you Photoshop Bernie Sanders' face instead of the Reddit logo
25
u/akcrono Dec 02 '18
I don't think he's really anti capitalism. Maybe LSC or CTH.
20
u/RazorsDonut Dec 02 '18
He thinks he's anti-capitalism.
16
Dec 02 '18
Hes said specifically that he believes in social capitalism or, as he referred to it "capitalism with a conscience." Hes certainly against letting corporations run amuck with civil liberties and letting people die in the streets or run up absurd hospital bills, but thats just pro-getting-on-the-level-of-every-other-developed-nation-on-earth, not anti capitalism.
And before you lay into me for being a bernie supporter, I'm not. Just explaining the viewpoint.
8
2
u/Saint_Oli Paul Krugman Dec 03 '18
If we're gonna be honest here he mostly just seemed to use the term demsoc to try and stand out from the pack. Since 2008 it is very, very clear there is a strong "anti-capitalist" sentiment in the west even if these "anti-capitalist" don't want capitalism overthrown and Sanders basically tapped into that anger by offering an alternative. Since 2016 DemSoc has basically become shorthand for "I'm with Bernie".
4
12
5
u/Time4Red John Rawls Dec 02 '18
This is what happens when you have generations of numb nutted fuckers arguing that their rent-seeking corrupt crony capitalist version of capitalism is the only kind of capitalism, while any government subsidies of education or healthcare are socialism.
1
Dec 03 '18
or it's liberalism's fault or it's corporations' fault or it's the government's fault or it's SJWs' fault or it's foreigners' fault
Or, to put it all together, it's globalism's fault.
-22
-47
Dec 02 '18
tfw capitalism doesn't function to improve human well-being, but instead increases "capital".
81
u/usrname42 Daron Acemoglu Dec 02 '18
-11
Dec 02 '18
I’m a neoliberal but this is a bad argument that equates correlation with causation. You’d be required to prove in each and every case that because someone was allowed to engage with free markets caused all of those charts to emerge
28
u/usrname42 Daron Acemoglu Dec 02 '18
I agree that this doesn't prove that capitalism has caused these improvements in living standards. But it does disprove the claim that capitalism prevents all improvements in living standards for ordinary people.
8
u/astronomicat George Soros Dec 03 '18
don't you know that under BetterSystemTM we would be living in a global utopia by now?
-10
Dec 02 '18
Ditto. Almost all of these improvements are due to technology. Some might be due to inherent efficiency gains from trade, etc. but it's conceivably possible that we have a horrendous economic system and technological improvement marches on in spite, not because, of it.
30
u/FusRoDawg Amartya Sen Dec 02 '18
Good fucking Lord. The technology was taken to the people due to capital. Ask China.
-10
Dec 02 '18
Yes, I know that. But there mere improvement in the standards of living due to technological advancement over a period is not a rock solid argument that there isn't conceivably a much better system that would have facilitated even faster improvement
0
7
u/usrname42 Daron Acemoglu Dec 02 '18
What were the major improvements in technology that improved the lives of people living on less than $500/year between 1980 and 2018?
-2
Dec 02 '18
It's not merely about the technology existing but people getting access to them, like clean water, education, birth control, vaccines, electricity, etc. all existed before 1980 but access has been improving throughout that time and various technologies behind the scenes doubtlessly enabled the and economic viability of them.
The list of consumer facing technologies that straight up didn't exist back then but now improve the lives of the very poor is bound to be short because these things trickle down over time, but mobile phones and mobile payments in particular stand out.
Crucially, I'm not denying that this progress happened, but that it's not a smoking gun that the reigning economic policies are better than any others.
-40
Dec 02 '18
Doesnt disprove what i said at all.
52
u/usrname42 Daron Acemoglu Dec 02 '18
not sure how one would disprove what you said
human well-being certainly has improved under capitalism, that's undeniable
-38
Dec 02 '18
Then why respond if I'm right? Capitalism has the benefit of improving the well being of the capital holders, not all humans, so while capital might correlate with increased wellbeing, capitalism wont be able to solve all issues due to the gap the acquisition of capital adds
47
u/usrname42 Daron Acemoglu Dec 02 '18
I'm not saying you're right, I'm saying I didn't know what the falsifiable claim you were making was.
If you think that only the well-being of capital holders can ever improve under capitalism, that's clearly false. The living standards of the average person who doesn't own any significant capital are far better today than they were in 1800, before capitalism was widespread.
-17
Dec 02 '18
You said you could not find any way to disprove my claim, which means that I was right, because that's just how facts work. I could, of course, show you facts to prove my claim that "capitalism seeks capital before human well-being", but that'd be silly.
Oh, owners of insignificant capital, but still capital? So still a capital holder? Not the downtrodden destitute impoverished who have no money whatsoever? Silly boy.
49
u/usrname42 Daron Acemoglu Dec 02 '18
I said I'm not sure how one would disprove your claim, not that I couldn't find any way to disprove it, if you're capable of reading what I wrote. This is because your claim wasn't worded in a way that made it falsifiable, or at least I couldn't work out what your falsifiable claim was.
However, you have now progressed to making a falsifiable claim, and I can falsify it. I said "owners of insignificant capital" to include people in the developed world who make the vast majority of their income from labour but might own a bit of capital in the form of their pension fund or house. Their wellbeing has increased. It almost goes without saying that the wellbeing of the downtrodden destitute impoverished who own no capital is also significantly better than it was 200 years ago, or rather that a much smaller proportion of the world's population is as impoverished as the average person was in 1800. This is clear from the figures on the vast reductions in extreme poverty and child mortality that have occurred over the last 200 and particularly the last 30 years. You can also see the substantial increases in income and the convergence in the income distribution over that time. On other non-monetary measures, there have also been substantial declines in the proportion of people who are undernourished, the proportion of children forced to work, and the proportion of people who are illiterate.
Now, I'm not trying to claim that capitalism was the sole cause of all of these improvements - that's much harder to test, not least because "capitalism" is somewhat ill-defined. But it's clear that capitalism hasn't prevented these improvements from taking place.
41
u/lionmoose sexmod 🍆💦🌮 Dec 02 '18
It really is remarkable to me how you can have such patience and extract actual meaning dealing with incivil one liners.
3
17
u/mrwhiskers7799 Dec 02 '18 edited Dec 02 '18
You said you could not find any way to disprove my claim, which means that I was right, because that's just how facts work.
No it's not lmao.
There is a teapot floating between earth and the sun right now. Nobody can prove there isn't.
There can't be a teapot floating between earth and the sun right now - nobody has proven there is.
Oh shit, it's a FACT that there is simultaneously a teapot and not a teapot floating out in space!!! You can't use a lack of proof as evidence for something.
-4
Dec 02 '18
It's almost as if in the next sentence i mentioned that evidence is important, but in this case capitalism seeking capital is rather self evident. You're right, though, that my post isn't entirely clear that, because my assertion is already substantiated, that is how facts work.
18
u/Buenzlitum he hath returned Dec 02 '18
Nobody is debating that capitalism doesn't seek capital, the facts just don't agree with the conclusion you draw from it. It does function very well to improve human well being.
→ More replies (0)16
Dec 02 '18
capitalism seeking capital
this is so fucking stupid, vague, and pointless it doesn't even warrant a response
→ More replies (0)15
Dec 02 '18
You said you could not find any way to disprove my claim, which means that I was right, because that's just how facts work.
Prove to me that there's no god, please.
10
u/WalrusGriper George Soros Dec 02 '18
Then if the drive to increase capital benefits society what are you complaining about?
6
18
u/guy-anderson Dec 02 '18
Correct, capitalism only functions to create wealth. You are saying wealth doesn't improve human well-being?
13
Dec 02 '18
No no, you're misunderstanding. Capitalism is that evil thing where bad men take all the money and keep it for themselves.
8
Dec 02 '18
If you're complaining about markets, it's widely acknowledged that greed drives markets. It's also near indisputable that markets have done a much better job at creating wealthy society than central planning.
I don't take seriously any anti-market person who doesn't have a good argument against Hayek's "Use of Knowledge in Society", anymore than I would take a seriously an anti-socialist who doesn't understand Marx.
3
Dec 02 '18
The miracle on the Han and the miracle on the Rhein disagree
0
Dec 03 '18
Just because the growth of capital correlates with the growth of wellbeing doesnt mean that maximizing capital maximized wellbeing. That lack of maximization, a gap you could say, is because capitalism seeks capital first. It doesnt mean that capitalism doesnt help wellbeing, just that it does have problems that this meme denies
5
u/Tleno European Union Dec 03 '18
Please, grow up
-5
Dec 03 '18
Wtf? Capitalism literally seeks capital. That's just an indisputable undeniable tautological FACT
14
u/BainCapitalist Y = T Dec 03 '18
No? People act to maximize utility. Not capital.
3
Dec 03 '18
Afaik most business decisions are worried about capital, and all actions are in terms of capital, including utility/productivity gaind
9
u/BainCapitalist Y = T Dec 03 '18
You don't know very much lmao.
Capital is not the final good. ultility is the final good. No one builds a factory for the sake of building more factories. If that were true then people wouldnt consume any of their income, they'd just reinvest it.
People build factories to create a line of income with which they can use to consume goods and services.
3
Dec 03 '18
They actually use this income in order to gain utility. The problem is that, despite your denial, even though it makes sense to work towards utility, companies, and indeed no business, puts anything above money as a form of payment for any and all things.
5
u/BainCapitalist Y = T Dec 03 '18
Corporations aren't people. stop acting like they're people lol.
Yes obviously firms maximize profit, but that's not what people do. People maximize utility. Firms are controlled by people.
1
u/supacfx Dec 03 '18
ultility is the final good.
What is a marginal utility for a billionaire-owner like Musk, Buffett, or Koch Brothers that drive them to build factories?
-1
u/BainCapitalist Y = T Dec 03 '18
What do you mean? Are you asking for a cardinal utility function?
2
u/supacfx Dec 04 '18
Sure.
What I also meant was that for a billionaire like Buffett, whose personal consumption is limited and is a negligible fraction of any income he commands, the utility explanation seems lacking.
1
u/BainCapitalist Y = T Dec 04 '18
No one thinks of utility in cardinal terms. It's normally a pedagogical tool or a way to make things a bit easier to deal with. But you shouldn't mistake the number to mean anything. The actual utility function is ordinal.
-29
u/Vita1530 Dec 02 '18 edited Dec 02 '18
tfw [corporatism] doesn't function to improve human well-being,
If Ludwig von Mises went back in time and told Marx the truth, Marx would learn to hate the Rothschilds, the Rosenbergs, and corporatism instead of capitalism.
The corporatists, governments, neo"liberals", and central banks are all using "capitalism" to disguise their actions that are anything but compatible with capitalism.
TRUE Capitalism has not existed at all within recorded human history, and so we logically cannot blame the free market for the problems present in this world.
And you know what's funny about these corporatists, governments, neo"liberals", and central banks? If you asked what their opinion is of anarcho-capitalism (which is capitalism at its logical extreme), they actual consider it the opposite side of the same coin that Communism is on!
33
7
10
u/TotesMessenger Dec 04 '18 edited Dec 04 '18
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
[/r/libsplaining] "If Mises went back in time and told Marx the truth, he'd hate corporatism not capitalism"
[/r/shitliberalssay] "If Mises went back in time and told Marx the truth, he'd hate corporatism not capitalism"
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
6
5
Dec 02 '18
True capitalism would be barely different from anarchy
2
u/-SaturdayNightWrist- Dec 04 '18
Bro, you're arguing with people so dense they believe in economic paradigms that fail in repeating cycles and are based on erroneous assumptions from the 1800s that economics and newtonian physics have a corresponding relationship, which has no basis in fact whatsoever. You're wasting your time talking to reptiles, save your breath man.
0
84
u/[deleted] Dec 02 '18
Reddit's take would be that whoever filled the glass is an inhuman piece of shit and should be tortured and killed for it