— SteemCN

I think we need to be much less wasteful. We are destroying $10,000 houses that would cost $50,000 to build in the USA and instead building million dollar houses. We also waste money on new cars and throw out like half our food.

We could also boost productivity and although I am not onboard with the brok hippie stuff if we are going to have trees in our yard they may as well be fruit trees.

The market is what causes this wastefulness.

Without market economics we would have a lot less so I guess there would be less waste.

How so? If your goal is to profit, why would you ever want to be wasteful? Wastefulness is just lost profits.

To decrease supply to increase price/exchange value.

1/3 of food goes to waste.

5 houses to every homeless person.

The most striking example of market restrictions of supply is the diamond industry.

Those shiny rocks sure are abundant, but for some reason expensive.

https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullshit

Scaricty is enforced because it keeps class society intact.

Food goes to waste because of consumer wastefulness, not producers (unless you count for the produce that is unfit to be sold).
5 empty houses to every homeless person. Not five ownerless houses to every homeless person. Property is very, very rarely not owned by someone.
Scarcity is not enforced by anyone, but is rather a business choice made by retailers/producers. Even then it is not a prominent thing to do due to modern production efficiency.
And yes, diamonds are bullshit.

"Food goes to waste because of consumer wastefulness, not producers (unless you count for the produce that is unfit to be sold).'

It's the whole market system that wastes it. The concept that food that isn't picture perfect and it gets thrown away, instead of used, is completely insane and an anti-social conception.

If there was a plan to use food to feed people, instead of just making money, then that wouldn't happen.

"5 empty houses to every homeless person. Not five ownerless houses to every homeless person. Property is very, very rarely not owned by someone.'

This is called hoarding, something that, once again, is a product of the market and a way to accumulate capital.

If we focused on housing people, instead of making money, then we have the material means to completely end homelessness. The market isn't ending poverty, it works from social inequality.

'Scarcity is not enforced by anyone, but is rather a business choice made by retailers/producers. Even then it is not a prominent thing to do due to modern production efficiency."

Scaricty being a business choice is enforcement. We have the material means to end a vast swath of poverty, but we don't, because of the market economy.

'And yes, diamonds are bullshit"

The reason why? The market economy.

Scarcity is a reality. There are some corrupt businesses that do manipulate scarcity but everyone can not have everything they want for free.

RE: Why the end of the market economy is inevitable.

You are viewing a single comment's thread from: