you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -26 points 3 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    The problem with capitalism is the high prices needed to pay for shareholder profits and executive bonuses. The key is to adopt some capitalistic programs but not so much that prices increase while quality of goods and services decrease in perpetuity.

    Oh, and also end inherited wealth, because it's antithetical to an egalitarian society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    In competitive markets that's how it worked. What we have now are mega corporations who build monopolies by buying out the competition or sending them broke by brute force. Then once the corporation has a stranglehold they are free to cheapen their products and services and/or jack up prices knowing they have no competition. That's why formerly quality brands are constantly becoming poor quality trash.

    Inherited wealth leads to spoiled, privileged idiots who have grown up thinking they earned their lives through talent and hard work, when in reality they've just been failing upwards while the family money and connections have been covering their asses.

    In late stage capitalism, those idiots have amassed enough wealth and power to make them a genuine threat to all of us. If you can't see that happening already then I have to assume you're one of the many people who are just beyond help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Monopolies are not the result of laissez-faire

    Monopolies are the natural product of capitalism with inadequate regulation. Laissez faire (hands off) is a lack of regulation.

    If government does nothing to prevent a negative outcome that it has a duty to stop, it is complicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I’d rather pay half my income in tax to ensure everyone, including my family, the basic dignity and survival of food, housing, education and medical care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    That would be on the electorate voting for that. In a socialist democratic government, the electorate has the power to recall officials anytime with a vote, for unsatisfactory performance and wastefulness. Any fraud, waste and abuse (which currently was estimated at around $135 billion dollars, out of a total budget of $7.1 trillion dollars), accounts for 1.9% of the national budget.

    The top two in vulnerability to waste are Medicare and Medicaid, of which a significant portion is payments made to fraudulent payees. The DoD is right up there too, in terms of waste.

    It’s VERY hyperbolic to say government programs are incredibly wasteful. 1.9% waste out of the national budget is pretty impressive. Still, there is room for improvement, but if citizens don’t have access to direct democratic process, versus a corrupt Republican capitalist system, change is an uphill battle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    We live in the age of AI. Government workers that do menial tasks can be replaced. The governments primary job in a socialist society is to ensure everyone has basic needs met. Various levels of nationalization can exist run by workers. With technology, government programs can run leaner and more efficient than ever, and ensuring that the maximum amount of dollars reach beneficiaries with little to no waste, and much lower overhead cost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    There is no need for competition in a socialist society. You’re trying to view this through a capitalist lens. Socialism isn’t capitalism. People still need and demand goods in a socialist system, and production is driven by this demand. The difference is there is no bourgeois or elite class profiting from the surplus value of goods or services workers produce.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    The incentive is created through public funding approved by the body of the electorate. People can still make money in a socialist system and it can be used to creative incentives. Instead of that funding given to those who are simply looking to maximize their profits to maintain social and material position, it’s given to those who hold collective concerns in mind. Like prioritizing funding of alternatives to fossils fuels and animal agriculture, versus capitalists who only want to profit at the expense of overall suffering and deterioration of the planet.

    When you only reward people’s greed and shallow materialistic desires, it’s a detriment to humanity overall. People prioritize their selfishs interest over the good of the collective. Capitalism is the modus operandi of spoiled adult children who hate doing the right thing and tantrum when they’re denied instant gratification from their favorite toys.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    High taxes are fine if it means that I don't need a savings account to live. No need to save for retirement if my basic needs are met. Need being the operative word, it is important to still have the option at least until we can move to a post-scarcity gift economy, but I doubt we'd be ready for that in the next 250 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I have that same problem now, because my healthcare costs so much and I'm young and healthy! If only there was a cheaper way to pay for that like every other developed nation in the world does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Sure, but why does American healthcare cost 2-5x what it does in other countries, esp. When our care is ranked 9th against them?

    My point is it doesn't matter if what I'm paying is a "tax" or premium, I still have to pay it. Why put a profiteer between people and access to medical care? How does that benefit society?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)