Lemmy might, MIGHT have a small bias towards the left

You're viewing a single thread.

1.8K comments

The bias is justified. The left is correct. Markets don't create wealth without necessarily simultaneously creating poverty
- For more information, research "surplus army of labor", "primitive accumulation", and "accumulation by dispossession".
  
  Primitive accumulation is a bad term. It works if you've read the theory behind it, but otherwise it sounds like someone saving up a bunch of money then starting a successful business compared to what it is which was colonial genocide, enclosure of the commons, and mass starvation as people were ripped from agricultural labor and cast into the factories and mines to work for feudal lords turned industrial capitalists.
  
  I agree but in this context I'm literally telling them to read about it.
  
  I was just summarizing for the people who are too lazy to go read anything and will just stop here
  
  Ah gotcha
- In general? All trade is zero sum? Because that is in fundamental disagreement with the vast majority of economic theory.
- Nuh, uh. Markets controlled by Oligarchs who spend billions to erode social safety nets do. A market socialist economy with strong regulations and systems like a UBI wouldn't create poverty, while still being a market (albeit a very different one to what we have today). Albeit I do think that for many things (like healthcare) having a market of any kind is just dumb.
  
  Markets controlled by Oligarchs who spend billions to erode social safety nets do.
  And where do these billionaires come from? Do they just spring out of the ground?
  Oligarchs are a feature of capitalism, not a flaw.
  A market with a UBI would simply increase rent by the UBI amount. Markets in capitalism exist to extract wealth, it is what they encourage. Thus they will support those that are best at extracting wealth, which leads to the creation of those billionaires.
  
  I said market socialist. In a market socialist economy there would be no billionaires. Also housing is an absolute necessity, which means it shouldn't be governed by a market at all, no matter the economic system. Only things outside of staple foods, a roof over your head, utilities, drinking water, healthcare and other things absolutely necessary for your continued survival, can (not should) be governed by a market, and one that doesn't funnel money upwards.
  Capitalism in any form is absolutely horrible and should not exist.
  Also, creating artificial demand should be banned.
  
  There's already one long-ass discussion about market socialism in this thread, so I'm not gonna start another, but glad to hear your perspective!
  
  A market with a UBI would simply increase rent by the UBI amount
  *Correction: an unregulated market with UBI would.
  In a regulated market, those corporations can either follow the guidelines or fuck off the market.
  
  Or just change the regulations
  
  Or they can enjoy the fact that they have regulatory capture and change the regulations, as has been seen historically.
  For practical observance: Denmark pays a wage to university students. The function of this wage is to make sure the students can focus on their studies, instead of having to have a job that demands time from them, which would lower the quality of education.
  Students also need housing, which the private sector provides in the form of "student housing", which requires you to be a student in order to live there. This "student housing" has a rent that is usually, approximately right around the student wage - thus meaning the student needs to take a job in order to afford things such as "food" and "electricity". This state of affairs occured despite regulations.

1790 comments