Just a quick observation

anarchyhasnogods (68) in politics • 6 years ago

Capitalism is supposed to have this great impact, increasing efficiency etc etc. If this is the end result why aren't the majority of people able to survive on less hours of labor, instead of needing more to survive? Also why are we producing more and more resources in more and more inefficient ways (I mean just look at how we feed cows corn, that takes more overall labor and is worse for the environment and people's health, but costs less so it is the only way it is done on the large scale)

politics economics informationwar communism anarchy

6 years ago by anarchyhasnogods (68)

$4.83

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

co-in (55) · 6 years ago

This post has been rated by the user-run curation platform CI! In this platform users are able to manually curate content. This is done regardless of Steem Power, for both rewards and vote size calculation.

Join in at our site here!
https://collectiveintelligence.red/

Or join us on discord to interact with the community!
https://discord.gg/sx6dYxt

This post was submitted for curation by: @anarchyhasnogods
This post was given a rating of: 0.9979063423190365
This post was voted: 100%

$0.05

1 vote

[-]

mcsvi (65) · 6 years ago

"why aren't the majority of people able to survive on less hours of labor, instead of needing more to survive?"

A possible reason could be the inflation created by printing money which eats up all the increased productivity.

$0.03

1 vote

[-]

anarchyhasnogods (68) · 6 years ago (edited)

uhhhh

sure you can print more money, but what does that do to effect the actual resources themselves? Resources are produced regardless of the money itself

$0.00

[-]

migueltovar (17) · 6 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

[-]

inertia (73) · 6 years ago

The cow example isn’t strictly an indictment on capitalism. The economics are skewed because of government subsidies on corn.

If you get rid of subsidy, the equilibrium would probably still be upset, at least in the cow example, because people are now used to the taste of corn-fed.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

space-pictures (57) · 6 years ago (edited)

you can't separate the actions of the state from the actions of capital. Capital only exists through the state, and within a system where greed is rewarded you can't expect the individuals within the state to ignore it. Another example of this is using sweatshops in other countries, it takes more labor to actually get it to this country but the labor itself costs less because the people are oppressed and are not allowed higher wages. In many cases of this the role of the state is to simply allow the capitalists to do this

http://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/

another example, the police force itself was started by capitalists convincing the government to shift the costs of their private force to the workers.

$0.00

[-]

inertia (73) · 6 years ago

you can't separate the actions of the state from the actions of capital

I don’t follow your logic on this point. I agree that there’s collusion. I’m not convinced there has to be.

$0.00

[-]

space-pictures (57) · 6 years ago (edited)

the capitalists that don't will simply lose to the ones that do. Capitalism is based on the accumulation of capital, whoever does it the most efficiently simply wins out.

capitalism cannot exist without a state, they simply become an extension of each other because of the info above

$0.00

[-]

inertia (73) · 6 years ago

I don't know about that. I think it's possible to be a moral capitalist. That is, a capitalist who doesn't use violence to gain an advantage. Is it rare? Yes. In fact, it's probably the most rare thing on the planet.

Is it "most efficient" to use violence to gain advantage and win? In a way. But it's at great expense. A capitalist that buys into the status quo and colludes with the state to gain an advantage is selling part of their soul. And I think it's wrong. I don't defend it. But I'm not convinced they go hand-in-hand. I think we just don't see it very often because they sell out.

$0.00

[-]

migueltovar (17) · 6 years ago

"Is it "most efficient" to use violence to gain advantage and win? In a way. But it's at great expense. A capitalist that buys into the status quo and colludes with the state to gain an advantage is selling part of their soul. And I think it's wrong. I don't defend it. But I'm not convinced they go hand-in-hand. I think we just don't see it very often because they sell out."

Like an argentine economist has said that whom do that sort of thing are "empresaurios".