the rich poor disparity problem is unsolvable unless the solution is total control of the market and complete socialism.
Because for example I wanna take the risk and invest my money to start a buisness only if I can get a equally rewarding return in profit. Why else should I take that much risk and effort? It’s not like already established buisnesses starting a new one from scratch is incredibly risky until and if it grows big enough.
So in any economy where there won’t be having the incentive, no one will care enough to start any buisness. That makes it the govt’s job to literally run all the buisnesses to make every single product for every niche community, whetger it’s essential, luxury, hobbyist etc. And the govt can only manage so much. This is why socialist economy crumble in comparison to capitalist ones. Because in capitalist economy you MAY be rewarded for taking the risk, so people come up with all sorts of innovative stuff to become big. The downside, some of them become so successful that they become too big.
Is there an inherent need to have something like “businesses”? Do I have to be rewarded? Do I need all those niche products provided by those businesses?
Humans exist for a very long time. I am quite sure our ancestors survived pretty well without businesses, rewards, incentives, cosumerism or capitalism. Edit: And without billionaires. Especially without billionaires.
Do I need all those niche products provided by those businesses?
You might not, but there are people who might want, and in a free country their needs are needs too.
I am quite sure our ancestors survived pretty well without businesses, rewards, incentives, cosumerism or capitalism
You suggesting we need to leave technology and luxury behind? Again you can but there are people who might want them
And demand creates incentive which creates innovation.
These were questions to ask yourself, to think about what really matters.
Wants do not equal needs. I might want to have a superyacht, but do I need one? Am I entitled to one? If I work “really hard”, is it fair that I get to spend tons of resources on my superyacht, while other people don’t know how to feed their children?
Yes, other people might want luxuries and technology, too. But is it fair that these luxuries / wealth are accumulating in the hands of a few individuals while there are people in the world who literally live in the dirt without a roof?
Maybe, if I wasn’t allowed to have my superyacht, we could improve living conditions for a lot of people, prevent people from dying etc. It is a distribution problem, and in a world of limited resources, we should strive to provide a more or less equal amount of wealth to every single human being, instead of a few guys having superyachts while others can barely afford shoes.
Also, since you wrote “free country” I assume you are American - I really cannot understand how someone could in all seriousness believe that they live in a free country. This is not a free country, you are not free. Sure, we can argue about the definition of “freedom”, but from my point of view people are not truly free when there are economic constraints, you can get shot because your skin does not have the right color, because of your sexual preferences, or even just because you have a fucking multicolored flag outside your store.
I don’t see myself as truly free either, but at least I have the possibilty to choose to do fuck all with my life, never working a single hour, never providing anything of “value” to society, and still I get provided basic necessities and an monthly income which can finance a basic life. I will not die because I can’t afford a doctor, I will not get shot because I am in the wrong neighborhood, police won’t approach me with drawn weapons if my skin is a little darker.
Now this got way too long, but maybe someone might read this some time and think a little bit about wants, needs, “freedom” and superyachts.
Honestly, I think capitalism wouldn’t be so bad if it was limited to what it’s good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.
But essential food, housing, water, healthcare, even electricity and internet access, the idea that these things that will always have infinite demand is haphazardly controlled through profit motive is disgusting.
Infrastructures should be government controlled and free. Essential resources should have some sort of universal basic “food stamps” system. Then actual money just becomes the luxury “fun bucks” that you don’t lose out on if you don’t have a lot. For example pet owners would be given a credits for pet food and free vet care, but a silly pet costume would use money.
Disclaimer: This is just a personal idea I’ve been mulling over, I’m sure there’s a million holes in it.
I mostly agree; personally I see it more as a minimums covered than specific sectors, so, capitalism is acceptable -and might be a better environment for personal growth than most- as long as everyone has the basics covered, so a roof over their head, basic food, basic clothing, minimal energy to cover AC/Heating and other minimal usage (that would need to be set by specialists, but you get the idea, X KW/h free per person/month), good public transportation, full healthcare and communication access. And then, depending on your situation you can improve over it, by paying the extras, like, example, I think everyone should have access to a 5Mb Internet access for free (Maybe a 5Gb data cap to prevent abuse, but, after the 5GB it slows down, so, you never actually lose the access). That is good for basic browsing, messaging and Social Media applications, with that, people are never locked out of the online world, allowing for job hunting, for appointment taking and other similar necessities, communication with friends and family, but also, public organisms and private companies. This access is either managed by the government via Public Companies, or mandated to Private Companies as a necessary requirement to be allowed to work in the Country (like, you need to have a $0 plan available or you are not granted the bandwidth usage). Then, if you are interested, you can buy higher packages, those would be “controlled” by the Private Companies in a “capitalistic” way.
Why I like this approach? I think that the current “deification” of work is wrong -pushed actually by wealthy capitalists-, people should be allowed to simply exist, even if they do not work (they can be lazy, yes -and I do not see anything wrong with it-, but also, they can be deeply depressed, heavily disabled -or taking care of someone that is- or simply focusing on art, sports or other activities that not necessarily grant income), my approach would allow for it, but then you can also work if you want/can -for as long as you want/can- to have more (bigger house, better Internet access, designer clothes). I am privileged, I worked hard to get where I am, but I am in a good position, I would not stop working if only my basics would be covered, for me, the work I get paid for is an acceptable trade off for getting a bit more, but even then, I would be way more relaxed and enjoying life, if I knew that losing my job would mean losing my “small luxuries” but not condemning myself to poverty.
That’s why I don’t fully agree with your division by sectors, because some can be very clear -snacks-, but others are more complicated -like tech, having the latest smartphone very year is a luxury, having a simple working smartphone is a necessity in today’s world-, or it can even vary -Like Internet was a luxury 20 years ago, but it is a necessity today-.
I hope you get the idea, sorry for the wall of text.
…capitalism wouldn’t be so bad if it was limited to what it’s good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.
I feel like we see the worst outcomes of those areas under capitalism. If you are poor you often can afford only unhealthy food, fashion is an ecological nightmare and tech produces unbelivable amounts of e-waste. And entertainment is basically only there to serve you ads and stimulate consumption.
I think you will find any place thats well moderated and cracks down on bigotry and hatespeech will skew left.
Weird how that is, huh?
I know a lot of you are meming, but the amount of dogshit takes here is almost depressing.
There is no single answer to what a good government looks like, there is no “best one” and surely any single one that is based purely on ideals or idealized human behavior will fail, no matter how hard you believe in it.
One of the arguably most successful governments is the Chinese one and they are and were neither just, nor friendly, nor purely capitalist, communist or authoritarian. They are very China first and fuck everyone else and that works because of a lack of conscience and them adapting to everything without a second thought. Looking away and screwing people over as needed. You can be capitalist as long as it works for them. You can do whatever if it benefits them.
The US does this too, in different ways with similar effects.
the amount of dogshit takes here is depressing. This guy just praised the chinese government.
The Chinese government is responsible for the biggest and fastest uplift of people out of poverty ever seen in history.
And they are also responsible for horrible horrible human rights violations against minorites and dissidents and they caused millions of needless deaths during the cultural revolution.
The second fact however does not negate the first one because they did, in fact, pull almost their entire population out of poverty and into a modern industrialized economy.
Please learn to make some space in your head for uncomfortable facts that cause conflicting emotions.
OP was right, they are an extremely successful government with a surprisingly broad support within the population because most Chinese have living grandparents that where still farmers and had no industry at all. And they now live in modern cities with modern amenities. The transformation happened in two generations.
The German government took their country from a destitute postwar state staring down perpetual crippling debt to a restored world power in just a few years, all while having a less than stellar attitude toward minorities…but I’m not seeing too many praising them overall.
Just because a take might be pragmatic doesn’t mean it’s not a bad take.
“Uncorrupt government”
This is as delusional as anyone can get.
A wise man said it all once: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
That is why we throw them out every couple of years and choose someone different.
I do the same with my underpants.
