this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
868 points (97.0% liked)

World News

32350 readers
348 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] darq@kbin.social 179 points 1 year ago (93 children)

Remember, we know how to address many of the world's problems, including poverty, homelessness, and climate change.

But those with capital in society choose not to.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 50 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Those with capital choose not to

Those with capital profit off of not doing so.

[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Like the one recent CEO saying the quiet part aloud by saying government should promote higher unemployment, since in the high employment environment employees aren't desperate and have more demands costing him money. That employees arent feeling enough pain and despair in economy.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, this isn't that far away from the economic theory underlying using interest rates to manage inflation - it's just phrased in a different way.

[–] SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's the problem with fractional reserve banking it's making up money for those who lend theirs. It's about extracting value from those who work for those who accumulate. It's not a tbf, it's a this is also an issue in every area of our society.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SevFTW@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I recently heard it phrased like this:

Capitalism is built on hierarchy, which means someone fundamentally NEEDS to be at the bottom. There is no way around it, someone needs to suffer.

[–] TheSambassador@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But if we raised the bottom up enough, it wouldn't really matter if they were on the bottom. Many people would be happy if they had a stable place to live, food, healthcare, and freedom, and many don't really need or even want "more" all the time. The problem is the vast differences in wealth and ownership.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (35 children)

I don't think that this is really true.

If someone has "more" then yes of course someone needs to have "less", merely by definition.

The question is really whether those with less are living below the poverty line or living comfortably. I guess it's a question of semantics whether "capitalism" requires people to be living below the poverty line but I don't think it does. It's just shitty regulations which allow wealth to become as concentrated as it has.

Socialism in principle sounds great, but most times it's been implemented it's suffered from the same problem as capitalism - the people with power are greedy and use their power to manipulate and oppress the populace.

load more comments (35 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

In most cases, yes; but in this case in particular, with UBI increasing the buying power of the poor, those with capital would actually profit off of implementing such a service. No, this one boils down to good old fashioned classism.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (92 replies)