You're viewing a single thread.
-
What I find ultimately hilarious (in a “can’t cry, have to laugh way”) is this. HOW THE FUCK WILL ANYONE BUY THE SHIT YOU’RE PEDDLING WHEN WE’RE ALL BROKE? Like - isn’t it obvious? All this fucking corporate greed can only lead to bankruptcy of your business you short-sighted cunts.
-
They're taught that the long run is simply a succession of short runs and that therefore short term and long term economic thinking and planning are the same,which is,of course, glaringly wrong.
Anything to fill the insatiable hole in them where a soul would be in a real human.
They constantly fall under fallacies of composition or aggregation. To think in the aggregate and long term is largely thrown under the rug.
It's "right" for a single company to slash wages and gut employment to seek higher profit margins... But when every company does it, it ultimately destroys the capacity of the bottom to uphold the top and it collapses.
-
Yeah what you're describing, in computerized maths, is called a "local minimum".
When you're seeking out a global minimum of a function, such as in this example:
You might be tempted to think "well, i start somewhere, then i take one small step after another, always going downhill, until i am at the lowest point". But what happens in practice, is that you get stuck in so called "local minimums". For a visualization:
That is the fundamental problem with being short-sighted (i.e., taking one small step after another, always going downhill). If you really want to find the global minimum, you have to think globally. You have to apply analysis to the whole function, not just local parts of it, to find the best spot.
-
Great visualization and further explication for more visual learners. Love this type of comment on Lemmy where it's to further discussion and help clarify.
Appreciate that now I can use "local minimum" in a correct way with people :D
-
-
-
Yeah, but if they're in a sufficiently abstracted industry, the domino chain of failing petit bourgeoise will sustain them until retirement. Especially when you've already got enough to live comfortably, might as well squeeze as much juice out as possible, quarter by quarter. The aftermath is someone else's problem.
-
You're stumbling upon a fundamental contradiction of capitalism that Marx wrote about. The rate of profits tends to decline over time and what you're describing is the end result of that. Capitalist always attempt to fight against this contradiction to delay the inevitable crash but they can only delay. Them paying less while working people more is the fundamental way the markets attempt to delay the crash. But, again, it is only ever a delay. We are heading into a crash not seen since the great depression. It's why they are pushing automation and AI so heavily. They are preparing to capitalize on the economic catastrophe that they are creating. Crashes are not "bad" for capital owners. They are a feature that allows for further wealth concentration.
No one can predict the crash though. Not even the billionaires that control the markets. And it can bubble for decades before it pops.
-
I think the only way that capitalism could survive is if progress somehow continues. That is why they're pushing for Mars settlement so hard: Because the real growth would be progress that justifies capitalism and gives it more time to move on.
-
I think the definition of progress is misdirected specifically because of capitalism. It is a truly sick and broken society that spends more effort going to space than it does to provide lunches in school or daycare for children.
I would argue that things like space exploration actually fuel the working class to better notice the contridictions.
"Progress" use to be a tool of distraction. But we are overwhelmed with distractions every day. Our life is filled with distractions as we scroll through our phones. I would agree with you historically that progress in technologies or discoveries have given us "toys" to keep us distracted. But Mars? Mars is nothing but a massive "fuck you" to working class people that can't afford eggs.
-
-
-
I think you fundamentally misunderstand how companies are thinking.
They are thinking "well, if i pay my workers 10% less, surely they have 10% less money to spend, and that means they buy fewer products, and that hurts revenue, but they probably buy some other company's products anyway, so that's other company's loss, not mine."
companies aren't so much an organized hivemind as people seem to be thinking. A lot of them are literally competing against one another, and they don't care whether other businesses struggle because they pay their employees less.
I mean, they often dom't even care if their own employees struggle as long as they continue working for the company. Why would they care about other companies, or even the greater economy in total? They don't. Who should care, though, is the government. The US has an incredibly weak government that does not protect its citizens and give them appropriate subsidies. That's why people are having economic hardships.
-
That's the idea Marxism is based on, that capitalism is a self destructive system.
-
Well, but, will line go up? Will plausible stories be told and further depredations be clumsily obscured, and will the richbro be out of that unfortunate doomed "position" before it gets really bad?
It's pretend world until it isn't. Seems likely we may get close to or exceed "it isn't pretend anymore".
-