Conversation

Notices

1. 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2020 15:34:32 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   Truth.

   Though I'd say this represents moderate capitalism vs extremist socialism. So not a fair comparison if you want to get technical. But valid all the same.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2020 15:56:29 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Rob G.

     @design_RG lol

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2020 17:28:19 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     Obviously dont agree, but to each their own.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Jan-2020 08:44:01 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     The y-axis is more likely a representation of each classes wealth not the number of people in that class.

     The failing in your logic is the idea that for one class to have money they must drain it from the poor. Thats not how money works, it isnt a pie where one person having more means another person must have less. It isnt a zero sum game.

     Wealth is generated, as well as acquired. So a person can be rich and have most of their wealth generated without depriving any class of any portion of money to do so.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Jan-2020 09:10:08 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     The idea that walth is only generated through technological advancement is patently false.

     Aside from the fact that we know wealth generation occured historically prior to technology being a major factor it only takes a bit of common sense to understand why.

     If I own a bunch of cows and have no feed, and someone else has a bunch of feed and has no cows. If we do nothing my cows will die and your feed will rot. Leaving us with less wealth than we have now. However if I trade you some cows for some feed now we both have well fed cows. Our cows will have babies and grow fat and as such we will collectively have more wealth than we did previously.

     So it should be clear that anytime there is trade that is fueled by each parties personal needs that that will generate wealth, this has nothing to do with technology.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Jan-2020 09:12:44 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     The idea that wealth is only generated through technological advancement is patently false.

     Aside from the fact that we know wealth generation occurred historically prior to technology being a major factor it only takes a bit of common sense to understand why.

     If I own a bunch of cows and have no feed, and someone else has a bunch of feed and has no cows. If we do nothing my cows will die and your feed will rot. Leaving us with less wealth than we have now. However if I trade you some cows for some feed now we both have well fed cows. Our cows will have babies and grow fat and as such we will collectively have more wealth than we did previously.

     So it should be clear that anytime there is trade that is fueled by each parties personal needs that that will generate wealth, this has nothing to do with technology.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Jan-2020 09:28:25 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     If your going to call that technology then literally everything is technology. At that point the phrase becomes useless.

     I think it should be obvious by now that what generates wealth is any trade of goods or services where both parties get what they need.

     Wether its cows and cow feed or labour as a cashier traded to buy lumber I can use to build an addition to my home. Its all the same, capitalism generates wealth so long as both parties are engaging in capitalism with their own self-interests in mind in the trade.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Jan-2020 10:51:29 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     Depends, sometimes marketing ads push people to buy things they dont need. Othertimes it makes them aware of products that suit a need, particularly when the product was unknown to the buyer.

     With that said I never claimed all capitalistic actions will always generate wealth. Obviously an irresponsible buyer who buys things they dont need will generate far less wealth than a responsible buyer who buys the things they do.

     The point is only that wealth is not fixed, or anywhere near fixed. It is constantly being generated in large portions and thus any model that assumes one class deprives another of wealth simply based on the fact that they have a lot of wealth is, fundementally, flawed as an ideology. Which seems to be the basis of much of your argument.

     Furthermore I did not quote anyone, not Adam Smith, nor am I representing any one model. There are however hundreds of models out there, all of which rely on the same principles I am describing. In fact there isnt a single model that has been demonstrated to be accurate that doesnt accept the truths I've asserted.

     Smith just happens to be one among many people who have tried to describe the same thing many others have.

     As for building your own smartphone. Yes, there are many small time people who have sourced out their own parts and built their own smartphone (funded initial with their own money they earned through wages) and now represents an actual phone for sale. Or in rarer cases ony for personal use. In most cases this results in a new company with a new product that hopefully offers something new to the market that wasnt there before, and thus **generating** wealth as a result.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Jan-2020 11:29:20 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     It isnt victim blaming, it has nothing to do with blame. I never said who is to blame for their irresponsible buying habits and largely I dont think blame is useful so much as being awae of the irresponsibility and changing those habits anyway.

     In fact everything you keep saying seems to fail to understand what i keep saying. Take for example "arguing that #Ads exist to merely inform people about products they might ignore " is completely contrary to what I said. While that may be one element of ads I never said that was "merely" what ads were for or even that it was the majority of cases.

     With that said I use an adblocker and refuse to use sights that require me to turn it off. So the power to see ads or not is largely a choice I can and do make for the majority of ads in my life.

     Capitalism doesnt do damage, greed and corruption does damage. Those are pervasive in different forms regardless of the form of government. With that said pure capitalism with no restrictions is unhealthy too, capitalism is the default of a free society but there are certainly areas where non-capitalistic strategies are preferable.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2020 09:12:30 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     Definition of responsibly: in a sensible or trustworthy manner.

     While I could see the confusion because of the close relationship to the word responsible that isnt what responsibly means. IT refers to if an action is "sensible" or not.

     If you are buying things you dont need then it isnt sensible, it isnt dont responsibly. As to who is to blame, wel its never one person and largely a useless mental exercise to answer that. It certainly is partly (in many cases even mostly) the blame of the consumer, but that isnt to say those running the ads dont have some blame as well. But it wont get you anywhere useful to focus on blame anyway. It makes more sense to change the aspects you have control of, the part of the problem you can and do effect.

     It seems immature if someone is buying stuff they dont need to try to blame it on the ads or something external rather than just not buying what they dont need.

     Your going to have a really hard time convincing me (or most people) that a person isnt in charge of what they buy or dont buy. Advertising, for example, doesnt take away the fact that they, in most cases, get final say on what they are buying.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2020 10:19:23 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     I agree they are mad.

     While capitalism doesnt necceseraly assume that the market is exclusively rational actors you'd be correct in stating that when the actors are irrational then their engagement in free trade is less likely to generate wealth. The more rational people will be the ones generating wealth while the irrational ones will be unable to either generate or obtain such wealth.

     To some extent I am fine with that, people have the freedom to act responsibly or irresponsibly, it isnt our goal to save people from themselves. But I also am not one to try to sell the idea of capitalism in its extream. While it should be the default there are areas where non-capitalistic ideals make sense, at least in part.

     Healthcare is a good example where I dont support capitalism (or full on socialist) views, largely because the madness you suggest is inherent. Most people would happily give up everything they own for 5 more minutes of life. But, at the same time, the free market pressures are critical to driving quality in healthcare (something I have witnessed first hand as someone who has lived and traveled around the world). So int he case of healthcare the solutions (which are a seperate topic) would be something outside of the capitalist-socialist spectrum

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2020 10:46:56 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     You made a lot of claims here with little backing. Peer pressure is derived from individual contributions to the whole and to imply that we cant resist it is just incorrect. It may take a lot of integrity but its easy to do.

     The idea of regulation to save people from themselves leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

     You dont solve these problems by controlling people, you solve it by educating and empowering them.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2020 11:08:49 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     It is not possible to talk about systems outside of capitalism without regulation. Anarchy is capitalism, the default is capitalism. Capitalism only stops being capitalism when government regulation prevents free trade between individuals.

     So it is implied.

     The idea of a universal maximum wealth goes back to where we started. People having more money does NOT mean others have less. As we covered wealth is not a pie where one having more means others have less. Wealth is constantly generated so to assume there must be harm from anyone having a lot of money is fundementally flawed.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2020 14:54:52 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     I dont have the time to continue with this conversation, but thank you for your thoughts. I will end with this.

     You do find it among apes, as well as birds. Anytime you have an exchange of resources you have capitalism.

     @design_RG

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2020 14:57:12 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     They are, its the default :)

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2020 15:04:05 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     No it ceases being capitalism once you have collective rules that prevent free-trade. Just because it is the default doesn't make it ubiquitous.

     @design_RG

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2020 15:10:46 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Shamar
     • Rob G.

     @Shamar

     No nation implements anything in its pure rarified form, there are no pure socialisms either. In reality most countries are a mix of these principles and many others. Some lean stronger towards capitalism, others lean closer towards socialization or communism (depending on the time period and country).

     @design_RG