If they could somehow monetize breathing, they would

  • deleted@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why I prefer socialism over capitalism.

    In socialism, I’d be poor and have no choice of what I buy or eat but I can live and afford having children.

    In capitalism, where you have freedom, the same rules applies to poor and rich citizens. The difference is that the rich can afford lawyers and are able to lobby to change/break the law on their favor. You don’t.

    This is how the cost of living would go 100% up and you wage increase by 1.34% each year.

    • TeoTwawki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      All systems fall to corruption. All. I believe an A or B choice is cheating humanity out of new solutions.

      • deleted@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed about corruption.

        But some systems are better than others.

        In USA, as a billionaire, you can screw people and lobby aka “bribe” to get what you want.

        And at the end, you pay 0 taxes.

    • razza856@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      you do know that under a socialist system worker-owned companies would compete in the market right? you’d still have lots of choice lol

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Could a worker-owned company sell itself to a single person, and become a company owned by one person?

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay, and what if that single owner then hired some wage laborers who got no ownership stake?

            You’d just have socialism that could drift into capitalism?

            Also I’ll remind you that in a free market system, a single owner who doesn’t share ownership with his workers, has arrived at that situation through a combination of customer and worker choice. Workers choose to work for non-socialized companies all the time. And there’s nothing stopping people from starting worker collectives in our present system.

            So if in the socialist system the workers are free to go capitalist, and in the capitalist system the workers are free to go socialist, then really they’re just two instances of the same landscape of choice. And it would appear the workers have chosen capitalism.

            After running my own business for a while, now that I’m working a full time job for someone else I really appreciate how I don’t have to think about ownership and I can just go home.

            My company even offers a worker ownership plan in the sense that I can purchase stock in the company at a reduced rate.

            But I’m digressing. My point is this free choice boundary between capitalist cooperatives and socialist cooperatives, where in each system people can choose to enact the other. And the result of all that is that people have chosen capitalism. Not just governments, but companies and individuals. They’ve just decided it’s an easier life working for wages, than trying to start or join a worker’s coop.

      • deleted@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m interested to know more.

        Some people only think of bad vibes of the Soviet Union when anyone talk bad about capitalism.

        In my country, we have free healthcare, free education, livable wages, free market.

        We’re not capitalist tho. A mix of socialism and capitalism.

        100% communism is bad, 100% capitalism is bad, 100% socialism is bad.

        • within_epsilon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am a worker under capitalism. The owner tells me how to work. I sell my time for money. I produce value for the owner. The owner keeps the difference between the value I produce and the money for which I sold my time. The excess value after paying for my time is kept by the owner. I have money to buy products.

          I am a worker under socialism. I decide how to work with other workers. I produce value. I provide my value to those in need.

          I prefer to own my time and value. I do not want to pay a state to give money to owners. I do not want to empower a state to use violence if I do not comply.

          I am not sure how communism, socialism and capitalism are being used here. I am an anarchist. I would say states are bad, owners are bad, heirarchy is bad.

          • deleted@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Totally agree.

            What I mean is the state should define rules and enforce them. And for critical industries the state can support / supplement the companies.

            This way big corps cannot have monopoly.

            My main issue with capitalism/ USA system is lobbying and allowing corps to do what ever they want in the fine print.

        • bi_tux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think what you are reffering to as “not capitalist” is called social market economy, at least that’s what it’s called in german.

          Some economists also reffer to it as Rhein Capitalism, because it’s mostly used in europe and was important to prevent west german citizens from wanting communism.

          • deleted@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly!

            I just know it did exist.

            One good example is Germany. If the government didn’t phase out nuclear power as the citizens wanted they would have been in better place now.

            Sometimes voting and democracy isn’t ideal as it’s easy to influence people if you have enough resources.

            • bi_tux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I disagree, voting is always right, but there’s only an ideal outcome if the population is educated about the topic.

              If people would have realised, that the true worst power source is fosile fules, we’d have cheaper electricity and better co2 rates now.

              Same problem with power in austria btw, if some missinformed teens wouldn’t have tried to be important back then we’d be maybe fully selfsufficient regaeding power now.

              • deleted@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The issue is that educating people is not easy as it sounds. Also, if you’re rich, you can influence the people who vote.

                Take Alex Jones as an example, he managed to convince someone to commit a crime. Look up Sandy Hook incident.

                Also, Trump and Jan 6th.

                You can see a pattern here. More resources means more influence thus manipulating people easily.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In socialism … I can live …

      Not according to history.

      Under capitalism people die of heart attacks and diabetes. Under socialism they die of starvation.

      • deleted@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This argument is invalid. You don’t die of heart attack… you get shot by the cops my friend. /s

  • Lemmino@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well-regulated capitalism on the other hand has resulted in an explosion of technological advancement like no other era in human history.

    The key is regulation. Not too little, but not too much either. Some things, like minimum wage, are clearly under regulated. Other things, like mandating USB-C, are honestly better left to the free market (and I fucking love USB-C.)

    • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      the systems is still inherently flawed and based on exploiting nature and people. Trying to make a system that is based on “infinite growth” adhere to the reality of our finite world is like telling a warrior society that they should start being peaceful

  • Your Huckleberry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    In capitalism, if you don’t work, some capitalist pig will throw your family out on the streets, whereas in communism, if you don’t work, some communist pig will throw your family in jail.

  • bi_tux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean they already monitize water in poor countries in Africa, so yeah.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How horrible! A profit motive attached to the extraction, purification, and provision of water!

      Some people make money they otherwise wouldn’t have and others drink clean water they otherwise wouldn’t have. Hell on earth!

      • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ahh yes Nestlé, a small helpful company that is only looking for a little extra cash at the expense of large groups of people losing their native water rights in perpetuity.

          • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Old comment, but at least we get to use the water our municipalities take, or our local governments get to have and use the profits for that water.

            Instead, Nestlé ships it off and holds the profits, essentially robbing resources permanently from people that are just trying to survive. There’s an argument I’m infantalizing people, but still.