Current Events > Do you like capitalism?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ethosian posted...

But I like the idea of capitalism, just not how it gets bastardized in practice.

It's not a bug it's a feature
---

I can't say that Joel is the poster that's reminding me of Admiral ITT
---

averagejoel posted...

the fact remains that questions are not the same thing as claims.

imagine using the "Did the holocaust really happen? I'm just asking questions :^)" defense because you said something so stupid.

Stop acting like Admiral and people won't compare you to Admiral.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

averagejoel posted...

the fact remains that questions are not the same thing as claims.

imagine using the "Did the holocaust really happen? I'm just asking questions :^)" defense because you said something so stupid.

Stop acting like Admiral and people won't compare you to Admiral.

see, it's posts like this (and, honestly, most of the rest of your posts in this topic) that led me to put you on ignore in the first place.

you're telling lies about me, taking things I said out of context, and comparing me to a white supremacist who got banned from the site. you are clearly not interested in engaging with anyone else's ideas or having an actual discussion about them.
---

You literally can't answer why you would question me, and take issue with my statement, if you agreed with it.

You say a lot of stupid shit dude, I'm not the only one to ever point that out.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

You literally can't answer why you would question me, and take issue with my statement, if you agreed with it.

I assumed it was a rhetorical question

Broseph_Stalin posted...

You say a lot of stupid shit dude, I'm not the only one to ever point that out.

you don't need to lie about me, exaggerate what I said, take what I said out of context, or compare me to a white supremacist to point out that I say stupid shit.

and because you've done all that so much, any legitimate points you might have had in the first place get overshadowed by all the illegitimate ones. kinda a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" scenario
---

No one is lying about you. It is not normal to question people on things but then claim you never disagreed with them.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

No one is lying about you

you are.

It is not normal to question people on things but then claim you never disagreed with them.

and here you go again. I have never claimed to not disagree with you, so please don't frame it as though I have.

(for the record, I've also never claimed to be "normal" and I don't particularly care if people think that I'm normal or not)
---

"I didn't say I disagreed with your statement, I was just questioning it. Also I disagree with you"

no shit you're not normal dude, get the fuck out your extremist politics rabbit hole. It's not healthy.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

"I didn't say I disagreed with your statement, I was just questioning it. Also I disagree with you"

I find it hard to believe that someone could be this dense by accident. are you deliberately being obtuse or do you really just lack the ability to understand what I said?
---

either way, I'm extremely uninterested in continuing this... "conversation" seems like a rather generous word, but I currently lack a better one, so I'm gonna use it. back on the ignore list you go.
---

no one has the ability to understand your insane mental gymnastics dude

you took issue with what I said and demanded proof, but claim that doesn't mean you disagreed with me :^). But also you're saying you definitely do disagree with me...?

take the fucking L

MarqueeSeries posted...

Something I thought was interesting

The cost of manufacturing a vial of insulin is between $2 and $4

https://amp.businessinsider.com/insulin-prices-could-be-much-lower-and-drug-makers-would-still-make-healthy-profits-2018-9

Meanwhile, the lowest cost of a vial (without insurance) on this list is $92/vial, which is a 23x markup

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/how-much-does-insulin-cost-compare-brands/

There are 3 companies that dominate 90% of insulin manufacturing worldwide

Could more companies step in and produce insulin? In theory, yes, but in practice, its not likely.

Getting into the drug manufacturing business is messy with patent laws, which can be abused to disproportionately benefit existing mega corporations. They essentially have a monopoly on insulin production

https://www.t1international.com/blog/2019/01/20/why-insulin-so-expensive/

If you dont want capitalism to turn into a big festering mess, you need an effective government to step in and either enact price controls for these essential products, or have a heavier hand in breaking up monopolies and passing legislation that ensures they dont form in the first place

so basically

government is responsible for monopolies, and it should be trusted with more intervention to fix the problem
---

PleaseClap posted...

I can't say that Joel is the poster that's reminding me of Admiral ITT

can someone else please confirm that he sounded unhinged and I didn't? it feels like he was gaslighting me
---

TheMikh posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

Something I thought was interesting

The cost of manufacturing a vial of insulin is between $2 and $4

https://amp.businessinsider.com/insulin-prices-could-be-much-lower-and-drug-makers-would-still-make-healthy-profits-2018-9

Meanwhile, the lowest cost of a vial (without insurance) on this list is $92/vial, which is a 23x markup

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/how-much-does-insulin-cost-compare-brands/

There are 3 companies that dominate 90% of insulin manufacturing worldwide

Could more companies step in and produce insulin? In theory, yes, but in practice, its not likely.

Getting into the drug manufacturing business is messy with patent laws, which can be abused to disproportionately benefit existing mega corporations. They essentially have a monopoly on insulin production

https://www.t1international.com/blog/2019/01/20/why-insulin-so-expensive/

If you dont want capitalism to turn into a big festering mess, you need an effective government to step in and either enact price controls for these essential products, or have a heavier hand in breaking up monopolies and passing legislation that ensures they dont form in the first place

so basically

government is responsible for monopolies, and it should be trusted with more intervention to fix the problem

Correct

However, what that really means is that we need a bottom to top government reform. If it was corrupt policymaking that allowed this kind of thing to happen, you need to implement a system that minimizes corruption

Moving from a representative democracy toward a direct democracy should be the main goal imo. The further removed from the public the policy making is, the more points of entry for corruption that exist
---

MarqueeSeries posted...

Correct

However, what that really means is that we need a bottom to top government reform. If it was corrupt policymaking that allowed this kind of thing to happen, you need to implement a system that minimizes corruption

Moving from a representative democracy toward a direct democracy should be the main goal imo. The further removed from the public the policy making is, the more points of entry for corruption that exist

if there is any takeaway from polling during leadup to the iraq war, it's that people will vote precisely how they're programmed to

it's going to take more than converting the government to a direct democracy, if you'll keep in mind that (1) the road to this messy state of governmental affairs was a bipartisan job, and (2) it's quite clear how easily consent is manufactured in the voting masses that don't have sound and consistent principles guiding their voting

finally: the regulatory state of affairs, after all, is merely the product of years of piling up legislation that at one time was considered progressive, to the point where the only people that can afford to navigate it are the wealthy
---

Do people who do not like capitalism grow their own fruits and vegetables and raise there own cows and pigs?

12Medz86 posted...

Do people who do not like capitalism grow their own fruits and vegetables and raise there own cows and pigs?

Better start learning now for when climate change really makes shit hit the fan in a few more decades

12Medz86 posted...

Do people who do not like capitalism grow their own fruits and vegetables and raise there own cows and pigs?

I'm sure some of them do, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with not liking capitalism

---

averagejoel posted...

I'm sure some of them do, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with not liking capitalism

Why take in part of something you do not like?

TheMikh posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

Correct

However, what that really means is that we need a bottom to top government reform. If it was corrupt policymaking that allowed this kind of thing to happen, you need to implement a system that minimizes corruption

Moving from a representative democracy toward a direct democracy should be the main goal imo. The further removed from the public the policy making is, the more points of entry for corruption that exist

if there is any takeaway from polling during leadup to the iraq war, it's that people will vote precisely how they're programmed to

it's going to take more than converting the government to a direct democracy, if you'll keep in mind that (1) the road to this messy state of governmental affairs was a bipartisan job, and (2) it's quite clear how easily consent is manufactured in the voting masses that don't have sound and consistent principles guiding their voting

finally: the regulatory state of affairs, after all, is merely the product of years of piling up legislation that at one time was considered progressive, to the point where the only people that can afford to navigate it are the wealthy

I think you're right about people's tendency to vote a certain way (mostly as a team sport, but that's for another day...), and that fact is gonna make effective decision making extremely difficult in a direct democracy.

However, I kind of see representation itself as part of the issue. People may not agree with some (or most) of the policies of a representative, but vote for them anyway, mostly due to a cult of personality surrounding them. If you take away the team in the team sport, I think people will be more likely to consider their own best interests when voting directly on issues

As far as current regulatory practices go, a change in government structure is going to require a top to bottom reevaluation of the standards put in place by the old system; best to transfuse out the old, bad blood in favor of new for the health of the body, yeah?

Out of curiosity, what would be your suggestion to fix the issues I've presented?
---

12Medz86 posted...

Why take in part of something you do not like?

because it is the dominant global economic system and most people don't want to live in the woods

---

averagejoel posted...

because it is the dominant global economic system and most people don't want to live in the woods

Or move to a socialist country?

some countries are better at capitalism than others.

i like those countries.

---

12Medz86 posted...

Or move to a socialist country?

sure. that is one option. for some people

but not everyone speaks the languages that are commonly used in socialist countries. there are other barriers too

plus some people might prefer trying to improve things where they are rather than somewhere else

---

MarqueeSeries posted...

i agree that a key issue with representative democracy is that people tend to make compromises with respect to their principles when forming coalitions, and direct democracy eliminates the need compromise when voting and certainly grants people the freedom to vote for what they believe in their best interest

however, issues emerge when given the option to vote on issues that transcend the scope of one's own life/interests, where they have not deeply contemplated the ramifications of certain policies/actions and thus are vulnerable to their opinion being swayed

this is why i cited the iraq war in my previous post, where it had majority support not just among government representatives, but even among americans polled at the beginning. while the regime in iraq was not popular with americans before the road to war began, there was a systematic large-scale effort on the part of government and media to drum up support among americans, and given americans' belief in the legitimacy of their news sources, they ate it up, lies and all. this phenomenon is known in political science as "manufactured consent" (and in hollywood as "inception")

restructuring the government itself would not have prevented this phenomenon; so, too, would the media need to be reformed, as some of the corporate sponsors of all the major networks were beneficiaries of our participation in that conflict among other government decisions, pushing opinion toward such ends.

that aside, issues emerge in governance when decision-making which may benefit one segment of the population comes at the expense of or is imposed on another. there are an assortment of political demographics with conflicting interests. there seem to be several ways of resolving these conflicts: to favor one over the other, or for the conflicting interests to have their disputes arbitrated or to otherwise negotiate with each others towards some binding compromise that satisfies both.

as for the solution i lean towards, a total mitigation of the involuntary commons. that is to say, people should not be compelled to do anything they disagree with, but neither should they be free to do anything that transcends the scope of their immediate lives and control in a manner that affects others without some form of consent/agreement.

this addresses the healthcare monopolization issue by granting anyone the freedom to produce and distribute healthcare goods and services, and which anyone can audit for quality or otherwise serve as an optional accrediting intermediary on behalf of consumers/patients. price gouging is mitigated by competition, while fraud or subpar quality is alleviated by this accreditation, all without the need for top-down policymaking.

patents would be non-binding, but may be recognized by some group or another which may opt to refuse to cooperate with or otherwise offer less favorable terms to those are complicit in infringement, but in the absence of an all-encompassing legal jurisdiction, there isn't much sway to be had with respect to enforcing intellectual property.

this model doesn't prevent war outright, but if those who want it have to carry the entire weight of the effort themselves - out of their own pockets, and with their own lives - and be subject to backlash, ostracism, and economic constraints by those who abhor it, it's a lot less appealing.

while the media is still free to operate how it pleases, denying it leverage over political matters by limiting its influence to individuals operating within the scope of their own lives and networks is a somewhat effective means of damage control.

finally, because the likes of dumping and emissions directly affects others and their communities (see: cancer alley), parties would be beholden to the environmental concerns of others, and thus under pressure to develop processes satisfactory to such communities lest they be cut off from any form of activity involving such communities or affiliated parties.

---