You must log in or # to comment.
There have been some pretty extensive studies that indicate that when you give poor people money, they become less poor. When you give poor people enough money to live on, they stop being poor. It’s a radical concept, but it’s also the truth.
I read a study arguing that each time someone utters the letters U, B, and I, currency devalues itself by one thousand fold, chunks of the sky rain down on metropolitan centers, and everyone instantly becomes fat, lazy, and uninterested in any activities except playing video games.
deleted by creator
Without capitalism, we don’t really need UBI because we can just go more socialist.
You don’t need “more money” if society guarantees your quality of life with no strings attached.
You still need a system of currency as individuals should be allowed to use their skills to barter.
I never said you didn’t. Money is a great way to barter labor for luxury when you exist in a system where you can never starve. Nobody is saying the government should cover Wagyu beef for every meal, or free yachts for people.
deleted by creator
Agreed! This thread is specifically following that “cash in hand” is not what guarantees people quality of life - housing and food are. If someone has all a reasonable quality of life provided for free, “extra cash” is less urgent.
I mentioned elsewhere that I think a government run supermarket would do a lot of good for grocery pricing. My thought was that we’d all get EBT (no means-testing) and the government could save money by running its own supermarket, while simultaneously forcing down the prices of private supermarkets. That is a good compromise that lets us keep a cash basis for food stamps (like everyone seems to prefer over vouchers) while still preventing any concerns people have with EBT affecting prices.
I’m fairly confident that corporations would argue that corporations are people, and therefore should get their allotment of UBI at a rate of one full income per stock share, and they’d probably win that argument too, considering the state of our legislature. Then they would argue that actual people getting their share of UBI is harming corporate profits and get UBI cancelled for everyone except the largest corporations. We still have land reaping subsidies not to grow crops from the New Deal, and all that land has made its way into the hands of the wealthy.
There are real risks of a badly-designed UBI, and it unfortunately locks us more into capitalism instead of less, but innovators giving up on innovation is not one of them.
A badly designed instance belonging to any class may be bad, regardless of the class.
I advocate for UBI, and also, I advocate for UBI that is not badly designed.
Whether the working class seeks to leverage its advantages to depose capital depends on the will and resolve of workers as a class, but in the meantime, advocating against saving, improving, and empowering workers is some combination of apologia and accelerationism.
A badly designed instance may be bad, regardless of the class of designed entities to which the instance belongs.
Not many “designated entities” cost more than quarter of a nation’s GDP, nearly the entire current tax burden of that nation and wouldn’t meet most people’s economic burden. The problem with a UBI is how much of a systematic overhaul it really is. The cost to simply feed, clothe, and house all Americans is an order of magnitude cheaper than a modest UBI. About the only win UBI might have is by “tricking” the Right into supporting it when they’d go nuclear against something reasonable… But the loss UBI might have is by “tricking” the Left to support it when it secretly reads like a Right Wing fantasy. Pro-capitalism, excuse to remove or hobble other protections. And “personal responsibility” BS when an addict uses the UBI check to buy alcohol or fentanyl instead of food.
I advocate for UBI that is not badly designed.
Got an example? I used to be a HUGE fan of UBIs, but every time I read one, I struggled with these massive gaps. The three biggest issues I see with UBIs are:
- In the US at least, the primary taxpayers are also the highest cost of living. Many of those in poverty in places like Manhattan or Boston are likely to have their economic position unaltered from UBI (and in the case of Yang’s plan, would have to opt out of UBI). The common answer I see to this is “move to a Red state”. I don’t want to tell a poor minority they need to move away from their family to Arkansas to make ends meet.
- Many UBIs are inordinately financed by the poor and/or middle-class. This is not a win to me me.
- I’m of the position that the biggest problem with the economy is “market inefficiency”, or to be specific, the profit margins of businesses. The reason the “everyone has housing and food” cost would be $2T, but a conservative UBI would be $4T is the $1T going in the pockets of an entire chain of middlemen, wholesalers, and resellers. If we fix that, UBI becomes less important because we’ve already started socializing. If we don’t fix that, I don’t see UBI being effective.
advocating against saving, improving, and empowering workers is some combination of apologia and accelerationism
You overplay here. I actually agree that the one unquestionable benefit of a UBI is worker leverage. But I think questioning a MULTI-TRILLION-DOLLAR plan that might do nothing but create worker leverage among one class of workers is extremely reasonable, far from apologia. And on the contrary, I think a UBI plan could itself be accelerationism.
And I say “one class of workers” because I mean it. The farther someone gets from their State’s minimum wage, the less leverage a UBI would provide. I’m not talking people making $1M/yr, but people making $45,760 (the US Median Wage). Someone making that much money doesn’t get much (any?) labor benefit from a UBI, but they are likely to be contributing to it in their taxes. See my problem?
EDIT: I’d like to re-summarize. For the cost of every UBI I’ve seen, we could afford to provide food, clothing, homes, and healthcare to every man, woman, and child in the United States, while still having billions or even trillions to spare. A check for $1000/mo, even $2000/mo can’t afford all those things.
For the cost of every UBI I’ve seen, we could afford to provide food, clothing, homes, and healthcare to every man, woman, and child in the United States, while still having billions or even trillions to spare. A check for $1000/mo, even $2000/mo can’t afford all those things.
The cost is the same. Money is the commodity created as the universal exchange. There is no other kind of asset suited for universal distribution that would empower everyone to access the essential commodities distributed through markets.
In fact, framing the issue in terms of cost is misleading. UBI is not the creation of any new resource or asset with intrinsic value. It is simply a political declaration, enforced administratively, that corporations and oligarchs may not hoard to such a degree that others are needlessly deprived.
Before replying to your points, I’d like to clarify that you missed the opportunity to win the discussion with a single answer. I’ll offer that again. Show me an actual UBI plan that I would not see as broken or secretly a Lib-Right utopia. Yang’s isn’t it. I’m not against the concept of a UBI. I’m against every version I’ve ever seen, and YES the price of every version of it.
The cost is the same. Money is the commodity created as the universal exchange
That’s simply untrue. Medicare is proof of that (approximately 143% higher per capita cost for equivalent benefits). Social Infrastructure that does not seek profit will consistently beat infrastructure that does by a large margin. Every day of the week. No need for marketing costs, for wholesale costs, etc. No need for stock prices or a happy board. Hell, I just have to compare the price of my wife’s garden-to-table tomato sauce vs the price of buying a jar. $5 in tomato seeds and 5hrs total of her time makes us about 100 jars of sauce. Even including the price of the jar and transport, there is a gap between material+labor cost and retail cost larger than the cost itself. UBI continues to feed that gap, but socializing can whittle it down. There was once a day that capitalism was about “we can be more efficient at scale, so it’s cheaper to buy groceries than make them yourself”. B2B still works that way. But consumer purchases do not, and never will again.
We could feed every American a balanced diet for approximately $25B/yr with socialized groceries. We can house every American for approximately $100B/yr (extrapolated cost to end homelessness by the homelessness rate) by making government housing something “not just for the poor”. Universal healthcare is conservatively estimated to cost about $1T/yr in the net (progressive estimates argue it’ll overall be a net societal gain within a year or two due to how much money the government has to subsidize various parts of the healthcare industry anyway)
Combined with incidentals, that’s less than $1.5T. Where a $1k/mo UBI would cost $4T and nobody honestly estimates it will solve the above problems.
In fact, framing the issue in terms of cost is misleading. UBI is not the creation of any new resource or asset with intrinsic value
With all due respect, I don’t know what you’re trying to argue now. Of course UBI is not the creation of a new resource or asset. It’s just a plan that taxes America to redistribute wealth blindly. And the fact that Jeff Bezos will probably get a larger check from UBI than he is taxed is on nobody’s radar.
It is simply a political declaration, enforced administratively, that corporations and oligarchs may not hoard to such a degree that others are needlessly deprived.
I’ve yet to see a UBI that would cost oligarchs even a penny, and nowhere in the UBI philosophy would it hit corporations at all. And it’s not “simply” anything. The “simply” political declaration against oligarchs is a strong millionaire tax. The whole goal of UBI is to fund people, so I find it interesting that you just described it in terms that didn’t even mention that.
I’d like to clarify that you missed the opportunity to win the discussion with a single answer. I’ll offer that again. Show me an actual UBI plan that I would not see as broken or secretly a Lib-Right utopia.
You are framing discussion around an appeal to purity and an argument from ignorance.
Your tactics are not supportive of productive discussion.
You also have attempted to negate conceptual relations that are essentially beyond controversy through statistics and Gish gallops.
To be clear, I have no issue with most people working while others do not and live off the system. I think most people will still want to do that something.
UBI isn’t going to do that.
You can point to a handful of small scale studies that show more money works, and yes, on a small scale that is exactly what you’d expect to happen.
This does not work when everyone has that same income. It’s not a matter of 99% of people making smart choices, because I concede that the vast majority of people with sudden access to additional income would spend it wisely.
The issues are twofold.
A) when the people who’ve made it their career to suck every penny out of every possible person know that there are suddenly more pennies to be had, they’re going to raise prices. It’s frankly foolish and shortsighted to expect prices to remain the same or only raise a little. This issue is not raised with small scale experiments. So regardless of their obvious success, they’re not telling the whole story.
2). UBI does absolutely nothing to address the problems it’s actually trying to solve. All it does is print a check every month as a bandaid for some serious problems that will certainly persist. You can’t fix housing without building housing. Individual healthcare will still be tied to your job. College education will be prohibitively expensive and require staffing a lifetime of debt, and we’ll still throw away an obscene amount of food, and people will still go hungry. The only thing that will probably get better is more children will have a secure diet.
And none of that assumes prices would inflate the way they absolutely will. Because even if UBI happened, the people who want all the money the working class has aren’t suddenly going to think it’s ok to leave dollars unspoken for.
The cost of college will steadily increase by about the amount kids are expected to have been able to save by the time they get there. Rent prices will go up to accommodate the new found freedom of spending. And that’s the stuff you have a choice on. You think Comcast will see people with so many extra dollars a month and think “well our customers don’t have another option but we’ll let them keep all that money?”
UBI is just a ticket to absolute dependency on a government check for 99% of Americans, and less financial freedom.
Address the actual problems, don’t just slap a half baked bandaid on it
The claim of UBI leading to runaway inflation is a myth given by reactionary propaganda.
UBI would represent a major advance for the working class. Advocating against it seems impossible to reconcile with any attitude that is not accelerationist.
Much of your commentary seems to reproduce mythical tropes such as of the “welfare queen”.
Seeking meaningful contribution to society is a robust human tendency. Doing so under constant threat from greedy employers is not necessary.
Something is not propaganda because you disagree with it.
I also make it clear in literally my first sentence that people living off the system without working is fine, but that most people probably won’t.
I’m not sure you actually read the post you’re responding to.
Removed by mod
There’s scientific facts, economic reality, and then there’s the pipe dream that suddenly corporations will be less greedy just “cuz” under UBI.
I have heard many different opinions about UBI.
I have never heard anyone suggest it would make corporations less greedy.
Perhaps your objection is directed at a strawman.
I responded to the text of your comment, and my concern about your opening sentence is not its lacking truth, as much as the litany of untruthful claims you later made in contradiction.
So no, you didn’t.
I did. Your comment is littered with mythical tropes. Even the opening is suspect, due to the suggestion of people wanting to “live off the system”.
Most want simply that their lives be not dominated by systems that are abstract, absurd, or inhuman.
Even if some cope differently than you, perhaps consider not judging so narrowly.
I would think UBI would be implemented to track inflation. I also assume it would be funded by progressive taxes, not just spinning up the printing presses (which would cause inflation). Effectively, it would be a wealth redistribution program cycling money from corporations and the rich down to the poor.
I really don’t trust the government (which is pretty much captured by corporations) to implement it well though. They’d probably give everyone just enough money to barely survive, without health care, in a van down by the river or something.
If you check my post history everywhere, I’m pretty anti-UBI. But the reasons you pitched are both problematic to me.
You “A” point… I don’t like capitalism, but when there isn’t a monopoly, increased customer-base doesn’t have the effect you’re thinking without scarcity. More people able to afford more means more businesses can compete for business. The price increases would come from paying for the increased worker leverage, and those wouldn’t be drastic.
The opposite effect is true in some sectors. Studies suggest (consistently) that UBI cause so-called “wealth-flight”, which reduces the value of housing and reduces the cost of living… But also reduces quality of life by reducing availability of things. The thing is, a little bit of socialism would counteract wealth-flight, as would a situation where the wealth is not in a position to leave freely.
Your “2” point is false. There are a lot of MAJOR cons to UBI, but studies suggest UBI would have a positive effect on housing affordability and worker leverage. Other than healthcare, your concerns don’t seem to match the models and the studies. My add-on concern, however, is addiction. Poverty starvation isn’t a risk under most UBI plans, but addict starvation still is.
When “what can I afford to pay” is one of the dominant market forces on anything but luxury, capitalism becomes dangerously fragile and businesses know it. They want to maximize profit, but they do so against demand and competition.
And none of that assumes prices would inflate the way they absolutely will
Most economists don’t think UBI would cause all that much inflation. Increasing a customer-base is not the same as increasing demand. There’s no addition of scarcity. Food prices don’t go up if we don’t run out of food - and we have so much food going to waste that isn’t going to happen. Same with housing and rent. The question isn’t “how much can the sucker afford to pay me”, it’s “how much can we get for this?”. Affordability is only one factor in that, and generally considered a “problem” to all parties when that factor applies. So long as businesses are not MORE consolidated (see above UBI concerns) prices are still market-driven - driven by competition and acceptability.
It’s valid to not LIKE capitalism. I hate it. But we should still understand it before criticizing things.
The cost of college will steadily increase by about the amount kids are expected to have been able to save by the time they get there
This is simply not factual. One thing people miss is that college profit margins have been on a slow decline (and in the single-digits since 2016). They’re NOT charging more based on how much they think they can sucker out of people. They’re charging what they do based on the friction of “making enough money to thrive” and “charging low enough that people are willing to come here”. Yes, cost of college might go up slightly, but not in the way you’re talking. Again, the issue is that “affordability” is a terrible market force and rarely the one these types of businesses care about.
UBI is just a ticket to absolute dependency on a government check for 99% of Americans, and less financial freedom
There is no study or model that says UBI will give us LESS financial freedom. The real argument is that it won’t give more financial freedom to most Americans, and the cost is prohibitive for that limited gain.
Address the actual problems, don’t just slap a half baked bandaid on it
Short of “no questions asked unemployment benefits for life”, there aren’t really any solutions to many of the problems on the table. Ultimately, all Americans, all humans, deserve a life of all necessities AND some luxuries.
At this time, nobody is seriousliy trying to solve for luxuries except UBI, and nobody is seriously trying to solve for organic worker-leverage except UBI (unions will never be the full answer).
Yeah UBI would solve this. This might be a criticism of contemporary capitalism, but it isn’t a critique of capitalism more broadly because in principle, capitalism can have a UBI.
More fruitful anti-capitalist critiques emphasize workplace authoritarianism, the employer’s appropriation of the whole product of a firm, monopoly power associated with private ownership especially of land and natural resources, and inability to effectively allocate resources towards public goods
A strike can last much longer if workers are not worried about their bread and roof.
Even without organization, a secure worker can bargain harder for higher wages and better conditions.
Aaaaand there it is, the reason they fight so hard to keep you from that security.
Nonviolence won’t solve this.
I hope that the worst kinds of conflict prove avoidable, but historically, there is always someone who fires the first shots.
The Haymarket affair illustrates the matter quite well.
Rights are won with blood, not money; those with money need no rights, and those who need rights have no money.
Good news is that a UBI doesn’t provide enough for most people to keep striking.
What would really kill them if if that money were focused on unemployment. Actually incentivize people to not work (permanently if they want) so they have free automatic leverage. You wouldn’t mean minimum wage anymore because companies would be begging you to work.
I prefer “plans for all” in most things, but I actually think housing+food+healthcare for all but Basic Income for unemployed only would be ideal.
Imagine if one day every minimum-wage worker woke up and was told they’d make $30k/yr by putting in their resignation. Bet you workplace quality would skyrocket and companies would start offering living wages yesterday.
Course, that’s why that won’t happen either, I guess.
Even a UBI specifically for food- food stamps for all- would make a massive change and improve millions of lives.
This could have negative effects similar to what has been seen in communist countries where vendor lock-in leads to weakened quality control if not every company can accept those food vouchers.
It’s good to allow people freedom of choice.
UBI would be at its best as a static lump sum of money.
Every supermarket already accepts food stamps. Expanding the program wouldn’t change that.
How about any small business? If the process of being able to accept food stamps has bureaucracy, you’ll end up locking out small companies unable to meet requirements or who cannot afford it.
Food stamps at scale could also lead to stores opting for the cheapest alternatives. Salaries will ultimately scale down through supply and demand to a point where people will have less money, but now they’ll have stamps. This in turn can hurt innovation and competition as newer products tend to cost more and people will need make stamps suffice for daily food.
A money-based UBI is safer as you’ll ultimately see smaller salaries, but the amount of money you’ll have per month will remain static. This gives freedom of choice. Not to mention people also need homes, clothing and other daily goods in exchange for money.
Any business selling food can accept food stamps. There’s no barrier to accepting them. I’m not sure why you think any food-selling business would be left out.
I think they don’t actually understand SNAP and they think you’re talking about literal vouchers like it’s an alternate physical currency.
In principle, and even in it’s intended general practical application, I agree with you.
But in America, I can see both parties getting on board with a UBI, only because they’ll use it to gut all other social welfare programs.
Need healthcare? UBI
Hungry? UBI
UBI can’t pay for both at once? Tough shit. We abolished EBT and Medicare to pay for UBI.
All must be won by struggle. Elites never surrender privilege only by being asked.
EBT is a flat 200 a month at most and the ongoing application process is humiliating Kafkaesque bullshit I wouldn’t wish on anyone after experiencing it, so I think it would work just fine to shut it down and fold it into a UBI, would be nice and simple and without complications. Health insurance on the other hand, cost varies wildly by circumstance but is generally more expensive, and because of incentives, price negotiations, all the bullshit involved with the system would be way more efficient and cost effective to have a universal healthcare program instead of giving out money to buy into a private insurance industry.
Fortunately, this seems to be recognized in most serious discussions about UBI. Almost everyone quickly acknowledges that the idea of replacing healthcare programs in particular with UBI is stupid. The UBI proposals I’ve seen that got any attention were explicit that it does not replace those. I don’t think it’s realistic they would actually try to replace Medicare with UBI.
SNAP benefit in my state can easily exceed $1000/mo for a single mother. Nobody has a UBI plan that pays for children (at least full). Housing subsidies in my state average around $750/mo. We’re nearing twice what a typical UBI plan gets you. And that’s the stable stuff. If UBI is replacing welfare, some people are either screwed or have to opt out, while still being on the hook for paying for it in their taxes.
The problem isn’t just about healthcare, unfortunately. UBI has many fatal flaws unless you put it on top of universal-life (housing, groceries, necessities, health). But once you have all those other things for free, there are valid arguments that society has paid at least part of its due to you. So sure, a $100-200/mo UBI so everyone can afford some luxury. I’d be into that.
The core issue, btw, is that cost of living is inconsistent. In some areas, $12,000 is Middle Class. In others, $48,000 is “living wage”. So under a UBI, some poor people get rich, sure, but some poor people get poorer.
Nobody has a UBI plan that pays for children (at least full)
The partial ones are all more than SNAP benefits for a single child.
Housing subsidies in my state average around $750/mo.
Who is getting a free 750 for rent? I’ve never heard of anyone getting a deal like that, I sure never got government assistance with rent, I assume whatever that’s for is hard to qualify for, and there are many many people who need/deserve that kind of help but won’t get it. One of the biggest issues with any government benefits program is that, if you know the people who need it most and what they’re capable of, and know what it takes to go through the process, it’s clear they’re never getting it. The system is designed to keep them out.
On the other hand, housing subsidies in particular could synergize very well with UBI, because the biggest mandatory expense for most people is housing, and anything incentivizing the creation of new housing will bring costs down, thus decreasing the necessary amount to allow people to live off it. So it would work better to have those kinds of programs in tandem instead of replacing them, although I would also like a direct focus on new construction and crashing the housing market.
The core issue, btw, is that cost of living is inconsistent. In some areas, $12,000 is Middle Class. In others, $48,000 is “living wage”. So under a UBI, some poor people get rich, sure, but some poor people get poorer.
Unfortunately this one is a pretty tricky issue, because any regionally targeted benefits induce market distortions. It is impossible for everyone who would like to live in NYC for example to be free to live in NYC, access is gated by money currently, and must be gated by something due to the impossibility of fitting enough people to satisfy demand. Giving everyone the ability to live most places regardless of income is itself a massively good thing, even if it doesn’t enable everyone to be in their preferred location (which currently the vast majority can’t anyway, people get priced out of regions constantly). Ultimately I don’t buy the idea that there’s a significant population of the poor that would be getting poorer, I think the majority of people now struggling financially are not really getting much help outside of healthcare.
The partial ones are all more than SNAP benefits for a single child.
Except not really. I have a friend who used to work in SNAP. I picked a lot of random “anonymous” family samples and a surprisingly large number of them would be forced to opt out of Yang’s UBI. That’s actually what got from from all-in on UBI to “show me one that works”.
Who is getting a free 750 for rent?
For eligible families, Massachusetts Section 8 housing subsidizes 100% of the difference between 30% adjusted family income and the FMR of the household. The highest FMR in Massachusetts is $3,608 (Suffolk County 4BR… probably need 3 kids to qualify). If you make $48,000/yr in Suffolk County that means you are eligible for approximately $2,600 in Section 8 rent assistance.
Note, Section 8 makes an apartment 100% means-priced, so anyone can move in to any apartment in the state so long as it’s section 8 approved and their income is under the somewhat generous thresholds. Here’s a summary.
And the thing is, while that’s the highest, numbers at or above $1000 are typical Section 8 figures. There are a lot of cons to Section 8, but for those who utilize it, it is always going to blow Yang’s UBI out of the water. Which means if declining all welfare is a requirement to accept UBI, nearly 100% of poor people in Massachusetts would find themselves opting out of the UBI. But most of them would still be taxed for it.
hard to qualify for, and there are many many people who need/deserve that kind of help but won’t get it
Not really. But it’s hard to qualify landlords for. It’s one of those rare situations where landlords have to prove they’re a viable residence, and many don’t have any interest in Section 8 because they’ve been burned by the increased risk of renters damaging things. But there’s always available rentals.
EDIT: To clarify, it’s still means-tested with red-tape. I am a strong advocate to remove all means-testing and the stigma around welfare, to grow it to a QOL baseline instead of a safety net. Importantly, even without means-testing it has certain advantages like guaranteeing apartment quality and holding landlords to task.
Unfortunately this one is a pretty tricky issue, because any regionally targeted benefits induce market distortions
Exactly. This is why I’m a huge fan of regionally independent benefits, like classic-EBT subsidized food. It can get complicated, but it can cut across the country and prevent someone from getting rich by living in Mississippi while renting a closet in NYC. Something like Section 8 would do a great job of this if it wasn’t means-tested because then anyone would be able to afford to live anywhere they chose. Obviously rich people in Martha’s Vineyard wouldn’t like that.
I use that reference because there IS Section 8 housing available on the Vineyard, and the rich people aren’t dying over it :)
Ultimately I don’t buy the idea that there’s a significant population of the poor that would be getting poorer
Fair enough that you can feel how you want. You probably don’t live on one of the many areas where the math is so clearly one-sided it’s depressing. $12,000/yr is genuinely pocket change in many parts of the US… But those areas happen to have the highest homelessness rates in the country.
$12,000/yr is genuinely pocket change in many parts of the US
I’ve had income less than that most my life so yeah, idk, it seems like a lot to me.
But there’s always available rentals.
Is that really true? So if you’re poor you can basically live in Massachusetts for free? Has to be some catch. So many desperate people around who would want that. And if the answer is that most of them just don’t know about it, that not-knowing must be a part of how it’s able to be sustained.
Ultimately for me the whole issue is about freedom. If someone is trapped in a job or relationship they don’t want, finances shouldn’t be any barrier to saying no. Not understanding how welfare systems work, not being willing to subject yourself to the process or being too ashamed or whatever, should not be a barrier to getting help. People shouldn’t have to be paranoid about anything that might make them more money because they’re going to have to go through a lot of paperwork as a result and maybe end up worse off. It shouldn’t be possible to use someone’s struggle to survive as leverage to make them work.
This is what scares me about UBI. Yang’s plan was going to hurt (or just not benefit) a lot of families in New York, Massachusetts, California, and other net-producing locations. The list of those least-benefitting from a UBI matches the list of areas with the highest poverty and homelessness rate. That, to me, is unacceptable.
The moment you have a UBI plan that poor has to contribute to and then opt out of, you just have another system that’s screwing the poor.
South American experiments with printing money make the studies hard to believe. You can’t simply give people money without causing a devaluation in said money. You have to take it away from the market somehow (so, tax the shit out of the rich)
You can’t simply give people money without causing a devaluation in said money.
The government surely can.
The government has the power to levy taxes.
The government has comprehensive powers for regulating the value of currency, through control over the money supply.
At any rate, the government printing money for workers cannot possibility be worse for workers than the government printing money for businesses, as it is doing now.
I suppose, though, you might take comfort in how inflation now is being so effectively prevented, instead of causing needless human suffering.
Ok, this time I am following you. Because I feel really strongly like there’s a lot more we’d agree on than disagree.
In this case, I agree 100% with everything you said.
And I think one common factor in both of our goals is that we shouldn’t be afraid of the government stepping in and preventing capitalism from grinding our poor into dust. We should be fighting for a government that cares more about the well being of its people than the Nasdaq.
Can’t agree with this enough. It drives me crazy when people think the Government should be run like a business. It’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard, and really shows that people don’t use their critical thinking skills.
Businesses shouldn’t even be run like businesses. Employees should never have to be just numbers on an xls file.
Removed by mod
Have you considered the actual reasons, to such a degree that you could share with us how you understand as meaningful the comparison with UBI?
Alternatively, are you simply deflecting thoughtlessly with a false analogy?
False analogy? People get free money all the time with lotteries and welfare. UBI is another word for welfare. We clearly know what people do with welfare. The lottery is like a big welfare check. And we know what they do with that too.
You wrote, “Why do most big lottery winners end up broke?”
I asked, “Have you considered the actual reasons?”
You have not answered.
So, have you considered the actual reasons, why most big lottery winners end up broke?
What are the reasons?
deleted by creator
The conversations often feel like spinning tires in mud, but it’s still fun to see how much gets kicked up.
deleted by creator
BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T EARN THE MONEY. This isn’t hard. There are numerous articles, papers, and podcasts on the topic. When you don’t earn something, you don’t respect it. I thought your question was rhetorical because it’s so asinine.
Are you aware of any cases of unearned income or wealth that would not strongly support your generalization, particularly any that may relate to the themes mentioned in the post?
deleted by creator
This is why the US government runs the mail service, since it guarantees delivery to every address, no matter how remote, even if at a loss.
This is why education should stay a government service, so that schools exist for every student, even when a given class is too small.
And this is why medicine will always need a socialized element, since rare diseases are not profitable enough to treat.
socialized healthcare will still be better at popular diseases. None of the approaches are particularly good for rare disease sufferers. But socialized is not a silver bullet.
The point is that private healthcare is driven by the profit motive.
The state is the only institution under our current social organization both that carries capacities at the same scale as corporations, and that legitimately may be supporting the interests of the public.
I live with socialized healthcare, its nice. Especially for the poor, who would not be getting any without it. But you get random doctor that might be good or not very good. Some medicine you wont get cause its too expensive to procure. In the us, it seems if you got good coverage, you get better healthcare than pretty much all countries with socialized healthcare today. But i dont live in the us, so i dont know
But i dont live in the us, so i dont know
Obviously not.
So you are saying you dont get better healthcare in the US than say, UK, if you have a good healthcare insurance?
You can buy anything money can buy (if you have the money to buy it).
If you are elite enough to get top notch health insurance in the United States, but not elite enough to hire a personal
supplierdoctor, then you get top-notch healthcare.If you’re below that tier, you might get adequate healthcare but not great healthcare. The population health of Europe seems to be consistently better on their socialized programs.
Now yes, UK’s NHS has been deteriorating specifically correlating to when the Tories outsourced it to commercial providers so that’s an instance that appears to be socialized healthcare that got corrupted by capitalism. As is George W. Bush’s modification of Medicare so that we clients allegedly choose a provider that is then paid by Medicare. It also shifted prescriptions from Medicaid to Medicare D, again outsourcing fulfillment to privatized suppliers.
What is curious is that medical services, medicines and medical treatments cost typically more than twice as much in the US than they do anywhere else for the same thing so we’re paying extra, whether we’re getting premium or shit. As a result, those who have to pay out of pocket will often get their meds shipped from Canada or Mexico.
So regardless of what your medical system outside of the US, the medical system in the US is not a good model to follow.
I’m not quite sure your point. Any medical care program will be better at treating common diseases than rare diseases. There’s just more data to pull in research and development. We get more examples of what works and doesn’t.
But the point of socialized services is to make sure everyone gets served.
One of the major concerns regarding any good or service that is essential (not just medical care, but food, water and power) is that selling it as a commodity is a moral hazard. Since the customer is obligated to buy (or starve, freeze in the elements, die of dehydration) an unchecked capitalist can charge any price and, historically, has.
Before the age of states and movements away from monarchy towards (more) public-serving governments, we depended on the Church’s (meager) charity, and just accepted that a lot of people were going to die year after year, from famine, plague, freezing and so on. But I think we’re trying to do better than the middle ages.
Here in the US, the federal and state governments are completely captured by plutocratic interests, and it’s moving back towards autocracy. And our Republican officials have expressed that they’re okay with letting small children work long hours in hazardous environments, and letting poor children starve.
Removed by mod
All money is free. It is not taken from some limited store, but rather created by government, freely.
The value, stability, and legitimacy of money is sustained by the supremacy of state power. By such power, the government both determines the supply and shapes the distribution of money, and is assured never to be insolvent.
No distribution of money is natural or naturally superior.
Money is a social construct directed by political will.
Price inflation currently occurring is largely due to the political choice to distribute money to corporations.
That is, as a consequence of particular political choices, the already imbalanced distribution has become even more unfavorable toward workers.
If the political will were rather toward distributing money to workers, then prices may follow a pattern of gradual inflation, but as long as workers’ income keeps pace, workers would not be harmed by it even in the slightly.
You do seem offended. Whatever are you talking about?
I don’t see your point other than an explicit joy in the suffering of others. Do I have that right? You think people should go hungry for your personal pleasure?
They must be having a miserable time to get so much out of other people suffering, but that’s in line with most reactionary asses I’ve met.
I recommend you read about Modern Monetary Theory. The US has Monetary Sovereignty in a fiat currency, and therefore is not limited by taxation when it comes to federal funding. Instead, the US is limited by the real economy, which is worth trillions of dollars more than the federal budget. If the federal government stopped with the federal budget and just spent on the real economy, it wouldn’t impact inflation in any way. We do this already with the military, like outspending the USSR on military tech for a decade, sending hundreds of billions of dollars worth of equipment to Ukraine, and spending billions to support Israel’s genocide.
I’m guessing facts won’t work here. The “consequences” he’s laughing about are a consistent >100% ROI on welfare. He’s laughing because he’s proud conservatives are hurting the economy (and even their own bank accounts!) by hurting the poor, either out of willful ignorance or willful malice.
Reactionaries are not hurting the economy.
They are hurting the working class, including themselves, while helping the oligarchs.
Why, you may ask, do they hurt themselves, and help the oligarchs?
The reason is that they always do what the man on the television screen tells them.
Reactionaries are not hurting the economy.
Weakening welfare hurts the economy. That’s what he’s laughing about. Welfare has always been the biggest no-brainer in economic theory. It always makes the country more than you spend. Even the wealthy.
Why, you may ask, do they hurt themselves, and help the oligarchs? The reason is that they always do what the man on the television screen tells them.
Do you know many conservatives, for real? I’m not talking Trump-heads. I’m talking actual conservatives. There’s this underlying attitude that the world is a “free” place where you work hard and earn your way to betterment. You hear it in the voices of the older generation, but also the newer generation, when they talk about things like “work ethic”, or someone being “too proud to beg” when there’s a disaster and family or friends try to offer help. Have you never heard anyone say “I don’t want nothin for free”, or tell their boss “I don’t need that kinda money, just pay me ____ and I’ll be happy”? I’ve seen and heard all those things.
One way to look at conservativism is that it’s means based, where the Left is more ends based. A conservative cares more about “doing the right thing” than “making the world a better place”, They see the government’s place as “enforcing peace” and nothing else, so social programs seem like a giant mandated charity to them.
Conservatives rarely oppose welfare because they think it doesn’t work. They oppose welfare because they think it’s wrong whether it works or not. And that’s not a talking head telling them that, it’s decades of growing up surrounded by that same hierarchical mindset.
Like John F Kennedy said “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You. Ask what you can do for your country”. There’s people who take that to heart and feel it’s not the country’s job to make their life a better place. And will allow themselves to sink into poverty holding on to that belief.
They’re horribly wrong, but if you don’t understand why they feel that way, it’s hard to help move the country forward.
There is no “The Economy”.
There is no “The Economy”.
There really is. Even without capitalism, the median buying power of an individual will always be a thing.
Weakening welfare hurts workers.
Obviously. It hurts everyone, so of course it hurts workers.
The fuck you on about, mate?
Why is the literacy rate lower than it was before the DoE was created?
deleted by creator
Privatisation hounds do the same shit all over: enshittify a public service then offer a private alternative as a kind of shitty trojan savoir to the problem they created
Because it isn’t? It’s up by about 6%. The numbers are more accurate as well.
Frankly, even if your statement was correct, it would be the equivalent of asking why only people who go to the doctor have cancer.
Lastly, if we are throwing out random facts and trying to extrapolate the value of a system, why is Cuba’s literacy rate always close to 100%?
Probably some combination of our definition of literacy being adjusted, and the availability of more accurate data about populations and how educated they are.
Great question, why is it always Republican States as well?
The bastians of the homeschooling movement that allows household chores to be considered curriculum because of a campaigned for lack of oversight is also where there are low literacy rates? Say it isn’t so…
This reminds me of a quote from the Grapes of Wrath, (which is set during the great depression):
The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.
There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.
I’ve never gotten around to reading that book. Never knew enough about it to be interested. At the same time as I was eating on $50 of food stamps per month, I was the person who had to take out all the expired meat and stale bread and unsold, entire cakes down to the dumpster.
Had I taken anything and been seen, I would have been fired. A coworker was fired, for handing it out to the homeless shelter across the street instead. I’ve never forgotten that.
I’m going to read that book, I think.
A friend of mine ran a grocery store in the 70s in Texas, and tells me it was routine at the time for grocers to hand out their unsold just-expired meat and vegetables out at closing time. There was always a line to a Dutch door where someone handed out the food by the bag.
It was also known to reduce shoplifting.
So yes, it’s interesting that the practice of tainting discarded food has become acceptable again.
One of the USDA’s responsibilities is to track food waste like this, since 30%-40% of all food in the US is wasted, and discarded food makes up the largest factor in our managed solid waste. I can’t say it is a crime to mass-dispose of food in the US, but it is regarded as a harm, at least by the USDA.
It is certainly regarded as harmful when grocers and restaurants taint their disposed food to deter dumpster diving. But this is done to deter homeless people from trying to forage, e.g. disregarding the humanity of those desperate enough to eat discarded food.
Not only do they refuse to distribute wasted food, they’ve laid the blame on the people, stating that they can’t distribute it for fear of an overly litigious populace.
Which we’ve solved federally, I think during the Clinton administration. Businesses and people are protected when donating discarded food in good faith, let alone letting dumpster divers pick what they want.
Make sure to get the unabridged version as theres a lot of abridged versions out there for the grapes of wrath.
Yes things were really bad before Keynesian economic policy was invented. But fortunately they figured that out.
Since then most famines have been caused by political instability. The largest famine in the world since we figured out economic policy happened in a socialist country (China).
While socialism is beneficial in some sectors of the economy, historically socialism doesn’t have a reliable track record when it comes to food production and distribution.
Please explain why farmers in capitalist economies were grinding up crops after the lockdowns started.
The Keynesian theory that was enforced by the largest military in the world has arguably failed at this point.
Free markets don’t exist. It’s just a load of assumptions.
deleted by creator
Keynesian economic strategies have never been implemented. We almost did that in 2020, but the rich saw what was happening, namely them losing control, and they stopped the stimulus packages world wide, for the poor. They kept the handouts for themselves
Socialism wasn’t even mentioned, dipshit.
deleted by creator
'murica alone wastes enough food to feed ALL of their homeless population MORE THAN 10x OVER. Get the fuck out of here with your rightwing rethoric.
Since then most famines have been caused by political instability.
Like you’re so close. What causes the political instability?
Economists laugh when people believe they’re moving away from the evils of money by not using “Dollar Bills”.
You read a novel about a post-apocalyptic society where the government is giving out food vouchers just to try to maintain order, and people instantly start using the food voucher slips as currency.
Power dynamics, including the power of the person who farms the land, the person who trucks the food to a storehouse, the person who invests time and thought to design and builds the processing factory, can be expressed any number of ways. You just pick your poison about how you express that power.
Power depends on consciousness of one’s capacities for power and others’ capacities for power over oneself.
Which farmers have
Some.
Consciousness is often elusive.
Fair
I did and I got a 14 day suspension from League of Legends.
Socialism has consistently failed to do that too because it can’t handle outside influence from foreign powers. Let’s just freely distribute technology and let people farm for themselves again doing that. Highly organized societies are nothing but slave mills.
deleted by creator
I would suggest anyone concerned about food production under socialism look up Lysenkoism to find the real pitfall.
The fatal flaw in any collective system will always stem from authoritarian policies, but all you need to avoid the greatest errors is simply not, you know, rule by terror.
Yes it clearly has and if it hadn’t, they’d be the exceedingly rich countries with massive militaries, but they’re not. The U.S., the corporate oligarchy, is. So their social structure loses, and the one we both hate wins.
Life just favors evil in that way.
deleted by creator
You don’t hate it. You’re just a troll.
And I am sure totally disregarding the subject of conversation to attack me is 100% not concern trolling in any way. Nope, looking for any opportunity to fling emotional barbs at someone you hate is the height of maturity
Now back to debating the merits of socialism while you go on the block list for the umpteenth time
Oh no.
Anyways.
Removed by mod
Listen, troll.
The argument is that activity driven by the profit motive is antithetical to the prevention of needless suffering and death.
Do you have one of your own, or are we done?
It is appropriate to express the various legitimate grievances against the Soviet Union, but not through narratives that are simplistic, dishonest, uncritical, or ideological.
Within the course of half a century, the Soviet Union transformed from an agrarian peasant feudal society to the first civilization to succeed in carrying a human to space and welcoming his safe return. Such is a remarkable achievement in its own right, unequaled before or since, yet more so considering the accompanying context, that within the same period had occurred a political revolution, a Civil War, foreign invasions of one wave during the Civil War, by the great powers, including the US, and of a second wave during the Second World War, by the Third Reich.
Socialism is merely workers owning the means of production. There is no reason you can’t have local, green-style politics or market socialism.
Arguably you are simply suggesting that a population may manage land usage cooperatively.
I would not find much promise, though, in lack of organization. Lands and other resources are finite, and many will want to have a lifestyle or occupation that is urbanized, requiring food to be shipped into cities.
For conflict over land usage not to escalate into harm, it may seem necessary that those affected by its usage participate in organization.
Then let’s just kickstart human expansion into space so resources and land can be unlimited. That would be the only highly organized society you could convince me is legitimate.
We have more than enough land mass for every single human being to have at least one acre to themselves and then some right now, though. We just can’t distribute it evenly because humans are apes that form dominance hierarchies and control over the land goes to the dominant apes. Only when humans are genetically engineered to be egalitarian will it ever change, so I guess our debate is pretty moot.
So how do you distribute it fairly?
What if I a shitty piece of land with rocks in it? And my neighbor has a nice productive piece of land?
Good luck resolving these kinds of disputes
Give people the technology to meet their needs and survive happily regardless of the surface of the land they’re given. Land that cannot be built on is cut out of the equation. Vertical farms are used to grow crops instead of direct land cultivation. Water is provided in accordance with user use and if there isn’t enough, more is desalinated. Electricity and homeostasis maintenance is achieved with technology attached to the house.
Divvy up land by plains and fields first, then extend from there. Even land in the middle of fucking Siberia can have comfortable housing and farming done on it with the right technology. If it’s too cold or too hot, dome it over. Even the fucking ocean can have artificial islands or floating platforms constructed on it. No one has to go without territory.
It doesn’t have to be hard.
Sorry.
Your understanding of biology, anthropology, and history have been limited to the tropes distributed through a reactionary agenda.
Primates are social, and exhibit immensely varied and nuanced behaviors for sharing and cooperation, further enhanced by culture that adapts a particular population to local conditions. Humans share many general similarities with other kinds of ape, but are not constrained by traits that may be observed strictly in such species.
For a point of comparison, suppose we take your suggestion literally, about colonizing off planet. Do you imagine some level of cooperation being required, perhaps even great personal sacrifice, not strongly supported by your caricatured representations of nonhuman species?
At no point in the comment you are trying to answer was implied that cooperation was non existent.
I must conclude you are just arguing in bad faith
Removed by mod
No personal attacks.
Lol go tell that to my detractors who you applaud when they do it to me, in blatant violation of sitewide rules of their own instances, while mods and admins don’t bat an eye.
Don’t pretend there’s any honorability in anything people do, especially not online.
Did I represent the comment as insinuating that cooperation is nonexistent?
Your objection is outrageous, considering the intensity of its tone, and the structure of my comment, that you are criticizing, within its context.
Again, the comment was parroting reactionary tropes that are rejected essentially universally by experts who study the relevant fields.
Dangit bobbuh
Was there a watchmen parody in king of the hill that I missed? Or did someone just make this?
Don’t question Space Bobby
It’s just this one edit, it’s been around for like a decade though
Thats my purse!
Farming shouldn’t be profitable. It should be considered a service.
Nothing should be profitable except the work of the individual for that individual. Every dollar of corporate profit is a dollar exploited from the supplier, the worker, and the customer.
I suppose, though, most would not call profit the value created by one’s own labor.
That’s because we’re used to profit being exploited from our labour rather than being the benefactor of our own value. Under capitalism profit goes to the slave owner, under socialism profit goes to the worker.
I know, but some might apply terms such that you would be describing the abolition of profit, rather than preserving one particular expression.
Sure, context matters. You’ll hear me say ‘Every dollar of profit is a dollar exploited from the supplier, the worker, and the customer.’ until I’m blue in the face. But everyone understands (or at least I hope they do) that profit is a value beyond the cost of production and that should benefit the worker not the whip cracker should it exist at all.
According to your definition, though, wages plus profit might exceed total value from labor, whereas some would consider wages and profit as the two shares that divide such value.
To a capitalist, labor is purchased at market and construed as an input contributing to the cost of production. To a worker, however, wages are not a component of such cost, but rather only are non-labor inputs and additional expenses.
Therefore, profit remains as a share of value that may in principle be paid as wages, but that rather is claimed privately by an employer, because the worker cannot demand a higher wage.
Functionally, profit is the stolen wages, which would be abolished as a consequence of the abolition of private property.
According to your definition, though, wages plus profit might exceed total value from labor
Correct.
whereas some would consider wages and profit as the two shares that divide such value.
This falls short because it fails to examine how the customer is exploited by spending more than the product’s value for access to the product.
Resources + Labour = Cost
Cost + Profit = Price
∴ Profit = Exploited valueTo a capitalist, labor is purchased at market and construed as an input contributing to the cost of production. To a worker, however, wages are not a component of such cost, but rather only are non-labor inputs and additional expenses.
Correct, capitalists have a deliberately belligerent view of total value assessment because it’s not in their interest to share that value with the worker. And the workers are uneducated and rely on a capitalist system to survive so they simply don’t know better.
Therefore, profit remains as a share of value that may in principle be paid as wages, but that rather is claimed privately by an employer, because the worker cannot demand a higher wage.
Correct.
Functionally, profit is the stolen wages, which would be abolished as a consequence of the abolition of private property.
You don’t need to abolish private property in a socialised system, just private exploitation.
Personal profit will always exist through the negotiation of one’s value with their customer but the definitive separation between cost, price, and value dissappears because they become the same thing.
Who’s we?
Our capitalist society
Is society entirely capitalist?
Does it matter?
Well, sometimes it helps to be precise about what you’re vilifying.
Yes.
What is capitalism?
What investigation of the subject have you yourself undertaken?
deleted by creator
You are welcome to feed the world bro, I have enough with my family and pets
“Got mine” huh?
Not even close that’s the fucking point dude
Sounds like you are suffering under capitalism.
Not at all, if anything, I have more thanks to it.
deleted by creator
That is kind of the point.
Me, you and our tax dollars
Fat boy Dr Manhattan?
deleted by creator
What does any of this have to do with Bobby Hill being on Mars in Watchmen?
deleted by creator
There are some very serious problems with various economics systems around the world. None of theses systems is actually capitalism and all of them feed people.
“Capitalism” is a theoretical extreme form of a market economy which nobody practices. In particular, all the larger economies are heavily regulated and have a lot of social programs.
Food scarcity has been so thoroughly beaten that in “Capitalist” countries the problem is reversed. Poor people can easily get all the calories they want. In many developed countries, poverty tracks with obesity.
Capitalism is not theoretical or hypothetical.
It is a system of social organization and production that emerged in a particular historic period following from particular historic antecedents.
Capitalism requires and produces stratification, marginalization, and deprivation on a massive scale.
In the US, over one and ten are experiencing food insecurity. In marginalized countries, rates are even higher.
The fundamental definition of capitalism is that all means of production are privately owned.
The reason I say that it’s theoretical and hypothetical is that you won’t find any real economies where that’s the case. Just like we don’t find any instances of the platonic ideal of Communism the way Marx described it.
What we have instead is a set of systems with varying degrees of public vs private ownership and various implementations of what should and shouldn’t be considered a public vs private resource.
I’m not sure why you would site “product stratification” as a requirement of capitalism. That literally just means that you sort products into different categories. It has nothing to do with any particular economic system.
Most modern economic theory does involve marginalization, but probably not the way you think. The requirement is just that either consumers have different preference curves or producers have different production abilities. That’s it and there’s nothing particularly sinister about it. Communism makes the same assumptions since those differences are a requirement for, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need,” to make sense.
Deprivation isn’t a requirement of capitalism either. It’s a basic assumption of economics. The idea is that we have unbounded capacity to consume but bounded capacity to produce. If that isn’t the case you don’t need an economy, everyone just gets everything they want. The difference between Communism and Capitalism is in how they prioritize using limited resources.
You can cite a single statistic on food scarcity but the data is very clear that we’re living in an era of unprecedented food excess. If you look at data sets that cover more than a few decades you’ll see strong trends of decreased malnutrition, both within the US and around the world.
One of the chief problems with getting these facts wrong is that they lead us to making bad decisions. Food donations are a prime example. The US subsidizes food production. That’s generally a good thing since it improves food security. However that screws food prices. The US deals with this by having the government buy up excess food at guaranteed minimum prices. It then has a bunch of food that nobody wants so, in an effort to kill to birds with one stone, it ships a lot of that food to poor countries at below market prices. That feeds some people but it also massively undercuts the local agriculture industry. There’s no way a near-subsistence farmer can come close to competing on price against a modern mechanized farm. That’s theoretically OK if we came up with some alternative economic activity but we don’t.
The fundamental definition of capitalism is that all means of production are privately owned.
The reason I say that it’s theoretical and hypothetical is that you won’t find any real economies where that’s the case.
When we discuss capitalism, we are discussing existing systems that are based on the capitalist mode of production.
We have no interest in fairy tales.
I’m not sure why you would site “product stratification” as a requirement of capitalism.
I believe you misquoted the text. I apologize if I originally submitted an inaccurate representation of the intended language.
Capitalism produces forces that impose systemic inequity across the population, and also, capitalism would collapse if somehow the inequity were resolved.
Thus, capitalism produces and requires inequity, on a massive scale.
Most modern economic theory does involve marginalization, but probably not the way you think.
We are concerned with facts, not just wishes.
The requirement is just that either consumers have different preference curves or producers have different production abilities.
Marginalization is cohorts of a population being systemically separated, disempowered, and disenfranchised.
Deprivation isn’t a requirement of capitalism either. It’s a basic assumption of economics. The idea is that we have unbounded capacity to consume but bounded capacity to produce.
Again, we discuss reality. Capitalism depends on cohorts of the population lacking access to the more desirable opportunities of employment available to others, thereby becoming forced to accept less undesirable employment. It also depends on most of the population needing to be employed to earn the means of survival. Wealthy business owners require no employment to survive, because they survive from the labor provided by their employees.
Thus, capitalist society is structured by a class disparity between owner and worker, and of further systemic stratification across the working class.
Asserting the intractable necessity of similar stratification for any system represents an argument from ignorance.
difference between Communism and Capitalism is in how they prioritize using limited resources.
The difference is based on control over production. Naturally, if workers control production, then they direct it toward their own interests, as the whole public, not the interests of a narrow cohort of society that has consolidated immense wealth and power.
You can cite a single statistic on food scarcity but the data is very clear that we’re living in an era of unprecedented food excess.
Food scarcity is the degree to which certain cohorts of the population have inadequate or insecure access to food, not the total amount of food with respect to need.
Statistics are easy to find if you search.
If you look at data sets that cover more than a few decades you’ll see strong trends of decreased malnutrition, both within the US and around the world.
Much has improved over time, however, precarity and insecurity have exacerbated by most measures in recent years and decades.
The US subsidizes food production. That’s generally a good thing since it improves food security.
The relationship is weak. Food security depends on stability and equitability of distribution. A society producing enough food to support the population is considered as resilient, but such an achievement is not sufficient to ensure security for the entire population.
Inequities in distribution are harmful to the population, by producing food insecurity.
The US deals with this by having the government buy up excess food at guaranteed minimum prices.
Much food is wasted.
Retailers discard food to keep prices inflated, even as many remain hungry. The practices you are describing, of government making purchases to keep prices stable and also distributing according to need, for households unable to meet the retail price, are not occurring in practice, to any meaningful degree, to address the problems.
In the US, over one in ten are food insecure.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Why do you only get 290$ for 3 people? I thought that was the amount for one person.
deleted by creator
It’s neoliberalism, stupid.
In the US, more than one in ten are food insecure.
Our systems not only fail on their merits, but also, the systems that attempt to mitigate the harm from such failures are also faillures.
