I don’t call this Capitalism so much as political demonizing of “the other” - get a few beers in 'em and then ask: “well, don’t those junkies deserve to die anyway? I mean, aren’t we all better off with them gone?” And they’ll say yes, sometimes even when it’s their own brother/sister or daughter/son or father/mother who is the addict, but they get strangely quiet when it’s themselves.
First tell me, concretely, what is capitalism? Who practices capitalism without distorting the hell out of it all the time? Any capitalists out there without monopoly controls? So, when you decide to and not to prevent monopolies, you’re deciding who gets to “act like a capitalist” (aka greedy pig fucker) and who doesn’t. It’s policy that’s deciding to let this happen.
It’s also literally how supply and demand work. Demand for the medicine is increasing, thus they raise the price. No ethics needed. That’s why it’s fucked up. Capitalism doesn’t consider the drug addicts less worth - it doesn’t consider them at all.
What agenda do you think drove the “masks are for sissies” COVID response?
We have plenty of capacity to make all the insulin we need and more, it’s a more profitable business when there’s short supply. We have an infinite capacity for greed.
We have plenty of capacity to make all the insulin we need and more, it’s a more profitable business when there’s short supply. We have an infinite capacity for greed.
Exactly, that is free market capitalism.
What agenda do you think drove the “masks are for sissies” COVID response?
That one I’m not sure about, but I can’t think of a way it’s money related. However, the prevalence and cost of masks definitely went up during the pandemic, as most people did mask up. Some other supplies also went up in price, like microphones and cameras for computers as everyone started working from home.
Just use the tiniest bit of imagination… how many boomers are out there spending down their retirement savings on healthcare and nursing homes? How many of their (fiscally eager to advance) children aren’t too upset that they inherited early, before it was spent down, because the disease that kills old people - unfortunately - took out dear old mumsy and pop who swore they’d never give them a dime until they died?
It depends heavily on the location. It was basically split right down party lines. Blue areas were like 90% masked, red areas were like 90% unmasked.
Just use the tiniest bit of imagination…
I’m trying not to stoop to the level of conspiracy theories. Even so, I don’t think your explanation makes any sense. How would the younger generations, especially those without money, contribute to the right wing propaganda that championed anti-masking ideas? Not to mention that most people care about their relatives for more than just their money.
The whole anti-masking things makes more sense to me as part of the long-running trend of anti-science propaganda from the right. Maybe that’s driven by oil companies because anti-science attitudes drive climate change denialism. But it also might just be the effects of the social issues that spun off of these things.
One curious anechdote - my dad was heavily questioning masking during COVID but I don’t remember him questioning masking when our town was full of smoke from wildfires from a few hundred miles north.
How would the younger generations, especially those without money, contribute to the right wing
The right wing (and left) do things to endear “their base” to them come next election. Our direct neighbors are just one example of many: felt strongly that they should be treating their father - in hospital with COVID - with Ivermectin. They were raging against “the system” that withheld Ivermectin from them for his treatment, and ecstatic when they finally got him transferred to an institution that would respect their wishes. He and his wife left this earth a couple of months later, and now they are owners of the rental properties they used to just manage for their parents, they also spend most of their time traveling. How do you think they’ll be voting this go around?
The number of people aged 40-60 I know who aren’t on speaking terms with their parents, but still on-track to inherit their parents’ wealth when they die is astoundingly high. They support policies such as eliminating inheritance taxes, passive income taxes, etc. etc. and they will vote for candidates who promise to do that.
I read your other comments and you seem informed and aware of a lot, I just don’t see how you can reflect on such and decide it isn’t ultimately driven by capitalism?
All of the “othering” you’ve witnessed and are (I think accurately) describing - that human tendency toward incoherent tribalistic behaviors and worldviews - that’s baked into us, no disagreement there. But it’s the capitalists who leverage it so successfully against us all and have made it the force that it is, here and today.
Like yeah the phenomena is real pretty much as you’re describing, and it results from, is intentionally amplified by (doesn’t just incidentally feed into) the way we are choosing to run our society. Capitalism + basic human nature = what we’re all watching.
Not being a jerk. How does capitalism get off the hook as a primary cause here?
I don’t view capitalism as the primary cause, but more as the excuse. We don’t have free unfettered capitalism, there are price controls, labor regulations, every kind of distortion of capitalism: when it serves the agendas at play. When the agenda doesn’t care to protect a certain class, like diabetics with not much money, then the agenda lets capitalism run wild.
So, sure, blame capitalism - it’s what happens when you let people decide how much profit they want in combination with IP protections and monopoly markets. That way you don’t have to point the finger at a “communist” central planning committee that arbitrarily decided the price for something. In the end, it’s still people making decisions. As the song goes: when you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
So, we don’t actually have “capitalism” now, except where we decide to let it run rampant.
This particular example is a protected monopoly. When you let a protected monopoly loose combined with greedy actors, this is what happens. Doesn’t matter what umbrella you put over it, the fact is: they’ve got what other people need and there’s no competitor out there who isn’t colluding to keep the prices sky high.
You seem to just be using your own definitions of capitalism and communism. It’s probably not worth bickering much about, but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Not in the way where I think you’re wrong and I disagree, in the way that your argument isn’t coherent enough to refute.
definitions of capitalism and communism. It’s probably not worth bickering much about
If anything, that’s my core point. Whatever definition you try to put on capitalism or communism, you won’t find it practiced like that. Our economies are dictated by legislation, executive orders, judicial decisions, corporate actions both inside and outside the law. Labels like capitalism and communism are more window dressing than actual function.
your argument isn’t coherent enough to refute.
Which is my position regarding people saying “this is capitalism.”
Labels like capitalism and communism are more window dressing than actual function
Nah fam. There’s no point in labeling sets of ideas if they’re rendered useless the moment they diverge from your imagined “pure” form. Being more complicated in practice than just a simple textbook definition doesn’t mean they aren’t “that” defined thing, it means textbook definitions are always fundamentally weak and flawed. Oversimplifications, models used to describe, not blueprints used to build.
Capitalism is roughly everywhere, underpinning everything globally because of its roaring success. Communism is roughly nowhere, for the same reasons of capitalism’s overwhelming power.
“Democratic”, now there is a very slippery word in any country lol. Regardless, Russia is not communist, I don’t know what you think you’re pointing out. Let’s go ahead and drop it yeah?
I don’t call this Capitalism so much as political demonizing of “the other” - get a few beers in 'em and then ask: “well, don’t those junkies deserve to die anyway? I mean, aren’t we all better off with them gone?” And they’ll say yes, sometimes even when it’s their own brother/sister or daughter/son or father/mother who is the addict, but they get strangely quiet when it’s themselves.
How is this not capitalism? I’d love to hear the rationale there…
First tell me, concretely, what is capitalism? Who practices capitalism without distorting the hell out of it all the time? Any capitalists out there without monopoly controls? So, when you decide to and not to prevent monopolies, you’re deciding who gets to “act like a capitalist” (aka greedy pig fucker) and who doesn’t. It’s policy that’s deciding to let this happen.
Read a book dude, it’s not my job to define basic shit for you
It’s also literally how supply and demand work. Demand for the medicine is increasing, thus they raise the price. No ethics needed. That’s why it’s fucked up. Capitalism doesn’t consider the drug addicts less worth - it doesn’t consider them at all.
Don’t forget the fact it was the same pharmaceuticals that got people addicted to begin with…
Which is just “good business practice”. If there’s no demand for your product, create it.
Yeah, but these kinds of price swings aren’t suppy and demand driven, they’re agenda driven.
They are profit driven
Call it profit, call it greed, call it extortion - all works out the same when the bill comes due.
That’s not true. Look at similar spikes in insulin and other lifesaving medicines, for example.
Different, yet similar, agendas.
What agenda do you think drove the “masks are for sissies” COVID response?
We have plenty of capacity to make all the insulin we need and more, it’s a more profitable business when there’s short supply. We have an infinite capacity for greed.
Exactly, that is free market capitalism.
That one I’m not sure about, but I can’t think of a way it’s money related. However, the prevalence and cost of masks definitely went up during the pandemic, as most people did mask up. Some other supplies also went up in price, like microphones and cameras for computers as everyone started working from home.
Just use the tiniest bit of imagination… how many boomers are out there spending down their retirement savings on healthcare and nursing homes? How many of their (fiscally eager to advance) children aren’t too upset that they inherited early, before it was spent down, because the disease that kills old people - unfortunately - took out dear old mumsy and pop who swore they’d never give them a dime until they died?
That wasn’t my experience in Floriduh.
It depends heavily on the location. It was basically split right down party lines. Blue areas were like 90% masked, red areas were like 90% unmasked.
I’m trying not to stoop to the level of conspiracy theories. Even so, I don’t think your explanation makes any sense. How would the younger generations, especially those without money, contribute to the right wing propaganda that championed anti-masking ideas? Not to mention that most people care about their relatives for more than just their money.
The whole anti-masking things makes more sense to me as part of the long-running trend of anti-science propaganda from the right. Maybe that’s driven by oil companies because anti-science attitudes drive climate change denialism. But it also might just be the effects of the social issues that spun off of these things.
One curious anechdote - my dad was heavily questioning masking during COVID but I don’t remember him questioning masking when our town was full of smoke from wildfires from a few hundred miles north.
The right wing (and left) do things to endear “their base” to them come next election. Our direct neighbors are just one example of many: felt strongly that they should be treating their father - in hospital with COVID - with Ivermectin. They were raging against “the system” that withheld Ivermectin from them for his treatment, and ecstatic when they finally got him transferred to an institution that would respect their wishes. He and his wife left this earth a couple of months later, and now they are owners of the rental properties they used to just manage for their parents, they also spend most of their time traveling. How do you think they’ll be voting this go around?
The number of people aged 40-60 I know who aren’t on speaking terms with their parents, but still on-track to inherit their parents’ wealth when they die is astoundingly high. They support policies such as eliminating inheritance taxes, passive income taxes, etc. etc. and they will vote for candidates who promise to do that.
I read your other comments and you seem informed and aware of a lot, I just don’t see how you can reflect on such and decide it isn’t ultimately driven by capitalism?
All of the “othering” you’ve witnessed and are (I think accurately) describing - that human tendency toward incoherent tribalistic behaviors and worldviews - that’s baked into us, no disagreement there. But it’s the capitalists who leverage it so successfully against us all and have made it the force that it is, here and today.
Like yeah the phenomena is real pretty much as you’re describing, and it results from, is intentionally amplified by (doesn’t just incidentally feed into) the way we are choosing to run our society. Capitalism + basic human nature = what we’re all watching.
Not being a jerk. How does capitalism get off the hook as a primary cause here?
I don’t view capitalism as the primary cause, but more as the excuse. We don’t have free unfettered capitalism, there are price controls, labor regulations, every kind of distortion of capitalism: when it serves the agendas at play. When the agenda doesn’t care to protect a certain class, like diabetics with not much money, then the agenda lets capitalism run wild.
So, sure, blame capitalism - it’s what happens when you let people decide how much profit they want in combination with IP protections and monopoly markets. That way you don’t have to point the finger at a “communist” central planning committee that arbitrarily decided the price for something. In the end, it’s still people making decisions. As the song goes: when you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
And people literally had to die to get them. You do understand that, right? Those regulations, however meagre they may be, are written in blood.
So, we don’t actually have “capitalism” now, except where we decide to let it run rampant.
This particular example is a protected monopoly. When you let a protected monopoly loose combined with greedy actors, this is what happens. Doesn’t matter what umbrella you put over it, the fact is: they’ve got what other people need and there’s no competitor out there who isn’t colluding to keep the prices sky high.
You seem to just be using your own definitions of capitalism and communism. It’s probably not worth bickering much about, but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Not in the way where I think you’re wrong and I disagree, in the way that your argument isn’t coherent enough to refute.
If anything, that’s my core point. Whatever definition you try to put on capitalism or communism, you won’t find it practiced like that. Our economies are dictated by legislation, executive orders, judicial decisions, corporate actions both inside and outside the law. Labels like capitalism and communism are more window dressing than actual function.
Which is my position regarding people saying “this is capitalism.”
Nah fam. There’s no point in labeling sets of ideas if they’re rendered useless the moment they diverge from your imagined “pure” form. Being more complicated in practice than just a simple textbook definition doesn’t mean they aren’t “that” defined thing, it means textbook definitions are always fundamentally weak and flawed. Oversimplifications, models used to describe, not blueprints used to build.
Capitalism is roughly everywhere, underpinning everything globally because of its roaring success. Communism is roughly nowhere, for the same reasons of capitalism’s overwhelming power.
The distinctions exist and matter.
Finland and Russia are neighbors, both democratic capitalist societies.
“Democratic”, now there is a very slippery word in any country lol. Regardless, Russia is not communist, I don’t know what you think you’re pointing out. Let’s go ahead and drop it yeah?