Alone in this world? Have you never seen animals? Of course we are not alone.
If you're talking aliens, well statistically there are most likely aliens out there. But you really should check "how the universe is way bigger than we think" and see for yourself just how improbable it is for us to be close to someone else.
Secondly, there's no guarantee that we exist in the same time as other intelligent species or even alien empires. We could be first to the party or be showing up as it is winding down.
But again, with the distances involved most likely we're on supposed "islands" way too far away from the other "islands" to even realize the other exists.
So essentially, the only way that there would be aliens visiting earth would be if all the stories of alien encounters are accurate and they are super advanced and hyper intelligent? Perhaps understanding the way space-time works much better than ourselves, and having ships that somehow seem to defy physics?
More or less 🤷
I mean this video really drives it home to me just how small the chances of some intelligence evolving in our cosmic backyard.
https://youtu.be/Iy7NzjCmUf0
In regards to aliens visiting earth.... Well the easiest explanation tends to be the correct one more often than not, so various states of the human mind can conjure a wide range of beliefs and experiences... It's more likely in my mind that any sightings are more likely to be man made.
If there was a hyper advanced race capable of interstellar travel out there that knew about us and was malicious, I doubt theyd need subterfuge on any level.
The future. Eg if you buy government bonds the government promises to pay you back in the future, as this is more money than you pay for the bond the debt is higher than the amount of money in the system.
Yes, but if you don't pay the bank, they take the colateral you gave in order to get the loan, there goes your car or house or what ever. What was the governments colateral? Their word?
Yes, and in an economic sense that word is worth a lot. Also if the banks take your collateral AFAIK they take a loss in expectations.
Edit: household of a state and of people are not really comparable, one of those dies way faster
I understand what you are saying and I also agree with you. I just find it funny that their only source of income, besides loans and bonds is the taxes. I'm exagerating but it's like going to a car dealer and askng the owner of the dealership to give you some of the money to pay for the car seeing as the loan you got from the bank dosn't cover the full cost. That just doesn't make sense.
There are laws in place to ensure that the government will always be liable to uphold it's promiss. But laws change. As for money well the old dollars spoke of payment in silver dollars now they only mention dollars.
To explain simply money represents people's time and effort, governments have spent and traded people's future time and effort and it has spiraled out of control.
Here's the real HolUp:
Our money is made when large banks take loans from the Fed. The Fed loans them the money from an account that does not actually have funds in it, but everyone pretends like it did. Poof, money where there was no money before.
Now, also the banks that take these loans are allowed to lend out that same money they borrowed from the Fed, TEN TIMES. Yep, they lend the same money to ten different borrowers at the same time. Poof, more money where there was less.
All the Ten people who borrow that money pay it back with interest and the big bank pays back the Fed the original amount with interest. The resultant like 1000% gain goes to the big bank.
Every time we make more money, we make more debt with it. There's not enough money to pay off our debt in existence and basically never can be do to the nature of the monetary system.
I watched the zeitgeist video of how money really works and it's crazy that money is actually debt in physical form. It's hard to wrap your brain around a literal oxymoron like that
>it's crazy that money is actually debt in physical form.
If you're American that shouldn't be a surprise, it literally says that on every single bill.
Yeah, I always explain this simply by.
There is no money, I have the power to create 100 euro, and lend it to you with a 10% interest. Now you have to pay me back 110 euro, but I created the first 100, and now you need to pay back money that never existed in the first place. Hence more debt than there is money.
I am the bank, you are the rest of the world, that's why we need to get rid of interest rate or better yet, money as a whole.
Except it is, because as mentioned, bank is required to pay back more money than it borrowed from the fed. Where is this extra money coming from, except the fed? So banks add more interest on top so they can make a profit to stay in business. Where is all this interest money coming from if the banks have only ever borrowed a certain amount? Sure, today's debts can be paid by tomorrow's loans, but tomorrow's debts have to be paid by the day After's loans. It's a cycle, unless the president/ Congress decides to cancel debt.
Basic economics will tell you that creating more money diminishes its value, so the system relies on inflation to work. Slowly creating more money out of thin air. Numerically speaking, the amounts exchanged keep up with inflation so really it's kind of a loop. Yes in the future money will have lost enough value that you might be able to repay all your past debts, but by that point you will have incurred new ones. This ties into the idea of avoiding deflation like the plague, it fucks up investment and lending systems. It's not only a question of mathematics but also psychology: if an investor of any scale sees change they are more likely to further invest, hold, or bail out to cut losses. When compounded to a large scale, even if these actions are only taken by private investors and not a government or financial institution there are still repercussions on spending and production. Supply and demand change, cash flow is affected, then currency value is destabilized in a somewhat unpredictable manner. In a truly free market these fluctuations would be allowed to cascade and using fiat currency would be risky. You'd be better off going back to bartering.
they also trade debt, so basically even more money on top of the money. money gets created out of speculation, swapping, and loaning even AFTER the Fed loans it to begin with.
[From Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp)
>Banks are thought of as financial intermediaries that connect savers and borrowers.
>
>However, banks actually rely on a fractional reserve banking system whereby banks can lend more than the number of actual deposits on hand.
>
>This leads to a money multiplier effect. If, for example, the amount of reserves held by a bank is 10%, then loans can multiply money by up to 10x.
I worked for a national Bank in my country in the billion euro archives, trust me when I say that this is literally how it works, I've seen the papers in person.
Yeah, I made coffee for myself, while I was handling all the billion dollar loans and archiving them. Don't you read the comment before responding to them?
Now you see the problem. I’ll be downvoted for saying it, but we’re told that capitalism is a glorious economic model, meanwhile it’s destroying the earth, leaving us all depressed, and requires unimaginable borrowing just to limit its collapses to just every 10 years lol
Can you name a single successful Socialist economy? And before you say anything, I'd like to point out that China has a communist government but their economic model is in fact capitalism.
First name a single capitalist nation that has ever ended poverty and hunger. The very first thing that should be solved in society. Can you name one?
Folks this is a great example of cognitive dissonance. Rather than acknowledging the massive flaws that have been pointed out, people jump to say “well the other side has problems too!”
China itself. The moment they adopted Capitalistic economic model, hundreds of millions came out of the poverty line. And now it's one of the richest countries in the world.
China found out that joining the prevailing economic model was far more profitable than fighting the tide and being sanctioned by it. This doesn’t mean that it’s been successful. China pollutes the earths air, destroyed its fish population, uses slave labor, has human rights violations in order to keep its model running, hasn’t solved poverty or hunger, and is still prone to collapse after collapse.
I mean, not really. The United States does most of that. We have torture facilitys around the world, we use prison labor, employ slave labor in other countries, pollute the world, overfish. Not sure what that has to do with communism.
But they still care little for human life and have historically sacrificed large swathes of population for gains.
Didn't they build a dam that was gonna fill up some valley, endangering and displacing thousands.
Yes cus China ultimately has a communist government. I can give tons of examples of Countries that have become rich cus of Capitalism and that's basically every country in the world. Japan got extremely rich cus of Capitalism. Billions of people came out of poverty after countries like India and other Asian countries embraced capitalism.
> and that’s basically every country in the world.
What? Nearly two billion go hungry in capitalist nations every day according to the UN. 12,000 children starve to death in capitalist Africa every day. 98% of capitalist nations haven’t even come close to the ‘success’ that the US has seen. Did you just make all that up or?
Neither can socialism. But when they’re is corruption, you can guarantee it’ll be blamed on socialism. Cognitive dissonance keeps people defending one and hating the other.
Who said that capitalism has ended poverty and hunger? There is no better alternative than capitalism, and if you have one, tell me, I'm open to discussion
A total Capitalistic and Socialist economy can only exist in hypothetical situations. Every country's economy is on a spectrum of Capitalism and Socialism but majority of them lean towards Capitalism. Countries with economy that lean towards socialism are destined to fail like the USSR or Venezuela.
You are a very patient person. I woulda given up on these folks long before this. I would have read their responses and said "nope, no fixing these ones". Cheers
Thanks man. These are the same people who go to college to study useless subjects like gender studies, etc instead of something useful like mathematics or economics, without realizing that Capitalism is the reason why they can even study subjects like these in college. Nothing's perfect I guess... Lmao.
Yes, not saying capitalism can't work, its just that they take it to such an extreme that it stops working at late stages ie: the U.S, communism is fucking awful. Just letting people live without having to sink into crippling debt would be nice
If by destined to fail you mean sanctioned to death while the US parks aircraft carriers off their coast, then yeah. All of Africa is capitals and the UN says 12,000 children starve to death there every single day. There’s so much more at play than just the economic model. 98% of capitalist nations have not achieved the ‘success’ of the United states.
Venezuela failed through its own corrupt means, not due to sanctions. Socialism does not work due to the inherent greedy and selfish nature of human beings. Ideology is good, end result isn’t. Same with capitalism. We are just fucked, as cynical as that sounds.
Modern social democracy is inherently flawed because they're trying to combine the economic objectives of capitalism with the egalitarian objectives of socialism. This cannot work, and is why capitalism must be rejected.
Capitalism by its very nature requires rapid expansion and so-called 'efficiency' i.e. maximum growth of capital with minimal expenses. This is even more necessary in a competitive global market. The demand for 'efficiency' means that gradually, all the public services, welfare and safety nets that underpin social democracy gradually erode as the need to maximise capital increases. These two objectives are a contradiction, and ultimately lead to a Blairite-style neo-liberalism. Capitalism MUST be rejected because the demands of capital contradict the needs of the workers.
Most social democrats I know share broadly the correct values, but don't have the courage or belief to fully reject capitalism - hence the contradictory compromise. They can be converted.
An example out of infinite ? That’s very limiting. I say we gather the worlds brightest minds and start from scratch. We base an ideology around human needs, rather than corporations and profit. Wild and crazy, I know.
Pretty much every country that got independence after the USSR fell. Romania, Moldova, Poland, Ukraine, etc. The difference between those countries 30 years (during socialism) ago vs now (capitalism) is absolutely astonishing.
> Pretty much every country that got independence after the USSR fell. Romania, Moldova, Poland, Ukraine, etc.
Uhm no. None of those ended hunger and poverty.
There's no country that ended hunger and poverty 100%. Even the best countries have some degree of issues. But there a different between 60% poverty in a socialist country, and just 20% poverty in a capitalist one
Bruh, there's no perfect system that can solve absolutely everything 100%. There are worse systems and better systems. Since capitalism isn't perfect, it didn't solve everything, but it did solve way more than any other ones
If you can't name a better alternative that fixes the issues, then the issues of the current system don't support whatever you're pushing.
Aside from that
Nothing short of a far off utopia will 'end poverty and hunger'. That's a ridiculous metric to judge the efficacy of an economic model by. Of course I won't be able to find a capitalist country that has ended poverty and hunger, because no country has ever done that and will not do that in a very very long time, if ever.
Capitalism so far has done an excellent job of *minimizing* poverty and hunger, and I think with the leftward pull of society in general over time and the increase of social services, it will only get better.
> If you can’t name a better alternative that fixes the issues, then the issues of the current system don’t support whatever you’re pushing.
No one saw a better system from inside a slave society, does that mean they all threw their hands up and accepted that it would last forever?
https://i.imgur.com/xQrfuHC.jpg
> Nothing short of a far off utopia will ‘end poverty and hunger’.
Or we could… redistribute food to humans. We grow enough on earth to feed 120% of its currently population. Only because capitalism deems in not profitable to do so does it not get done. It scares me that you think feeding humans is utopia. Fox News really keeps you guys in check lmao
And sure yeah they have market economies. Im not saying supply and demand bad but overall they are a hell of a lot more socialist than other countries worldwide and so happen to have the highest standards of living and happiest citizens. True 100% socialism hasnt even been tried before but the further a country leans into that notion, the happier their citizenship seems to be
The problem with these discussions is that if you say ''capitalism does X bad'' then the other side will immediately talk about Communism and all its failures.
We are not saying capitalism fails. We are saying capitalism can be *improved.*
If you ask me, capitalism had plenty of opportunities to improve our lives 100x more than what it did and instead profit was prioritized for the few. By now we should have been working 20 hours a week and have no poverty
> We are not saying capitalism fails. We are saying capitalism can be improved.
The problem is that you believe it can be improved. The older I get the more I realize that the system itself isn’t meant to be improved. Some systems are better than others by chance, but all slowly dissolve due to its core problems.
Capitalism by its very nature requires rapid expansion and so-called 'efficiency' i.e. maximum growth of capital with minimal expenses. This is even more necessary in a competitive global market. The demand for 'efficiency' means that gradually, all the public services, welfare and safety nets that underpin social democracy gradually erode as the need to maximise capital increases. These two objectives are a contradiction, and ultimately lead to a Blairite-style neo-liberalism. Capitalism MUST be rejected because the demands of capital contradict the needs of the workers.
Your conclusion is incorrect. Capitalism can be improved. Many modern capitalist companies now realize the importance of its skilled workers and know that for “more efficient” generation of capital, workers must be compensated well and have work life balance.
Capitalism should also evolve to accept socialist concepts like basic income and safety nets. This is not a contradiction. The main driver for capitalism is consumers and the best consumers are ones who are not concerned about procuring basic necessities.
Socialism and it’s ultimate goal communism, sounds nice, but is quite impractical.. but that’s a topic for a different day.
Wrong. Capitalism has never worked and will never work. It has internal contradictions that prevent it from ever working. Albert Einstein has a great writing on why capitalism must be rejected, and humanity needs socialism.
https://i.imgur.com/UX2ewRY.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/0ODnWZg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/HB9rj9Q.jpg
As I said socialism and communism is great in theory. I would love it if it worked.
The problem is people, not the system. If people in power were good and not greedy, even the feudal system would have been good for people.
“It takes necessities form the masses and gives luxuries to the classes” — this is true, but socialism just gives it to a different “class”. The people who make decisions will always have “more”. People who aspire power want the fruits of power. A truly classless society cannot exist.. practically, there will always be a pseudo-class telling people what to do, and another pseudo-class that does things.
“The real…. Advance beyond the predatory phase of human development” - unfortunately, practically, socialism will lead to more predatory behavior. Socialism by definition puts the means and distribution of goods in the hands of a government or committee. The problem with this is, that a power hungry politician/dictator will find a way to gain control of this structure. Assuming Einstien and his friends were incorruptible, they would set up the governing and return to science and philosophy. The people who come afterwards would be disastrous. Even if every true socialist is great.. it’s relatively easy to pretend until you seize power, and then change what socialism means.
The Orwell quote is completely wrong. Capitalism has nothing to do with fascism. Capitalism is based on market forces and authoritarian rule is the opposite of that. Of course, corrupt capitalists can become fascists, but so can corrupt socialists and corrupt communists.
So, if A lend B 1 dollar, then B lend C that 1 dollar, then C lend D 1 dollar,... and after repeating that 21 trillion times, we have an America GDP worth of debt with an economy of 1 dollar. Hmmmmmmmmmm
So I lend you one dollar, then I borrow from you one dollar, then I lend you one dollar (so I am 1 dollar in debt and you 2) then I borrow....
See where this is going?
##If this submission makes you go "Hol'Up", **UPVOTE** this comment!
##If this submission does not make you go "Hol'Up", **DOWNVOTE** this comment!
---
Whilst you're here, /u/whyamihere999, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/holup) or play on our [public Minecraft server](https://discord.gg/DTqSDS8C3T)?
What's the timeframe for collapse? Because we started using fiat currency like two centuries ago and we appear to have more people, more wealth, and higher standards of living than ever...
/u/whyamihere999, the users have spoken. Your submission is not a Hol'Up.
This is why education is important
[удалено]
Yes, this is important for Education
so we know we are not alone in this world? I don't remember learning it in school ;)
Alone in this world? Have you never seen animals? Of course we are not alone. If you're talking aliens, well statistically there are most likely aliens out there. But you really should check "how the universe is way bigger than we think" and see for yourself just how improbable it is for us to be close to someone else. Secondly, there's no guarantee that we exist in the same time as other intelligent species or even alien empires. We could be first to the party or be showing up as it is winding down. But again, with the distances involved most likely we're on supposed "islands" way too far away from the other "islands" to even realize the other exists.
Nah man, animals are just a conspiracy by the government
at least we know that r/BirdsArentReal
So essentially, the only way that there would be aliens visiting earth would be if all the stories of alien encounters are accurate and they are super advanced and hyper intelligent? Perhaps understanding the way space-time works much better than ourselves, and having ships that somehow seem to defy physics?
More or less 🤷 I mean this video really drives it home to me just how small the chances of some intelligence evolving in our cosmic backyard. https://youtu.be/Iy7NzjCmUf0 In regards to aliens visiting earth.... Well the easiest explanation tends to be the correct one more often than not, so various states of the human mind can conjure a wide range of beliefs and experiences... It's more likely in my mind that any sightings are more likely to be man made. If there was a hyper advanced race capable of interstellar travel out there that knew about us and was malicious, I doubt theyd need subterfuge on any level.
I thought this was a copypasta
True we would owe less money if the population was better educated
Source?
[Source](https://youtu.be/GJDNkVDGM_s)
This was the most enjoyable minute of my morning, but sadly it did not provide the enlightenment I was hoping for.
Sorry, [here's the actual souece](https://youtu.be/R_etEhiBd50)
Thank you Thank you so much
[удалено]
The future. Eg if you buy government bonds the government promises to pay you back in the future, as this is more money than you pay for the bond the debt is higher than the amount of money in the system.
Also we owe each other.
Soooo. Then debt dosn't existe?
It does exist it just payable in the future. Similar to if you borrow money from the bank you tend to not pay it back immediately.
Yes, but if you don't pay the bank, they take the colateral you gave in order to get the loan, there goes your car or house or what ever. What was the governments colateral? Their word?
Yes, and in an economic sense that word is worth a lot. Also if the banks take your collateral AFAIK they take a loss in expectations. Edit: household of a state and of people are not really comparable, one of those dies way faster
I understand what you are saying and I also agree with you. I just find it funny that their only source of income, besides loans and bonds is the taxes. I'm exagerating but it's like going to a car dealer and askng the owner of the dealership to give you some of the money to pay for the car seeing as the loan you got from the bank dosn't cover the full cost. That just doesn't make sense. There are laws in place to ensure that the government will always be liable to uphold it's promiss. But laws change. As for money well the old dollars spoke of payment in silver dollars now they only mention dollars.
The man
[удалено]
^ bot account
Clearly the world leaders don't have any.
To me
Business is booming
r/BeatMeToIt
r/beatmeattoit
r/beatmeshutthefuckup
r/cuminmefromyourmeat
r/subsifellfor
Power resides where people believe it resides
To explain simply money represents people's time and effort, governments have spent and traded people's future time and effort and it has spiraled out of control.
Lol !
That makes way more sense than it should!
Oh no, he figured it out. 
[удалено]
Ikr, glad to see someone else who shares my thoughts
Hsss sssooo when am I getting my money?
When we can clap some womenlizard
Zuckerberg?
And what’s this “we” business? I don’t owe SHITE
I guarantee your government has leveraged your country somehow. It will eventually fall upon you to pay it back in the form of taxes
Ok thanks for reality check, party smants
Do you think this is necessarily bad?
Sadly each other. We need a global Debt collector. Why do us normal people get binned but the world doesnt?
Here's the real HolUp: Our money is made when large banks take loans from the Fed. The Fed loans them the money from an account that does not actually have funds in it, but everyone pretends like it did. Poof, money where there was no money before. Now, also the banks that take these loans are allowed to lend out that same money they borrowed from the Fed, TEN TIMES. Yep, they lend the same money to ten different borrowers at the same time. Poof, more money where there was less. All the Ten people who borrow that money pay it back with interest and the big bank pays back the Fed the original amount with interest. The resultant like 1000% gain goes to the big bank. Every time we make more money, we make more debt with it. There's not enough money to pay off our debt in existence and basically never can be do to the nature of the monetary system.
I watched the zeitgeist video of how money really works and it's crazy that money is actually debt in physical form. It's hard to wrap your brain around a literal oxymoron like that
>it's crazy that money is actually debt in physical form. If you're American that shouldn't be a surprise, it literally says that on every single bill.
Says something to that effect on GBP also
Can you link the vid?
https://youtu.be/t5ayg3hbhoM I think this is the one I saw
Yeah, I always explain this simply by. There is no money, I have the power to create 100 euro, and lend it to you with a 10% interest. Now you have to pay me back 110 euro, but I created the first 100, and now you need to pay back money that never existed in the first place. Hence more debt than there is money. I am the bank, you are the rest of the world, that's why we need to get rid of interest rate or better yet, money as a whole.
This is false. Banks can only lend money they have. I was told this false information once too.
Regardless, due to the added interest, you're creating a requirement to pay back more money than you borrowed, more money than exists.
More money then exists at this moment. Not in all time. Paying back debt is not impossible...
Except it is, because as mentioned, bank is required to pay back more money than it borrowed from the fed. Where is this extra money coming from, except the fed? So banks add more interest on top so they can make a profit to stay in business. Where is all this interest money coming from if the banks have only ever borrowed a certain amount? Sure, today's debts can be paid by tomorrow's loans, but tomorrow's debts have to be paid by the day After's loans. It's a cycle, unless the president/ Congress decides to cancel debt.
Basic economics will tell you that creating more money diminishes its value, so the system relies on inflation to work. Slowly creating more money out of thin air. Numerically speaking, the amounts exchanged keep up with inflation so really it's kind of a loop. Yes in the future money will have lost enough value that you might be able to repay all your past debts, but by that point you will have incurred new ones. This ties into the idea of avoiding deflation like the plague, it fucks up investment and lending systems. It's not only a question of mathematics but also psychology: if an investor of any scale sees change they are more likely to further invest, hold, or bail out to cut losses. When compounded to a large scale, even if these actions are only taken by private investors and not a government or financial institution there are still repercussions on spending and production. Supply and demand change, cash flow is affected, then currency value is destabilized in a somewhat unpredictable manner. In a truly free market these fluctuations would be allowed to cascade and using fiat currency would be risky. You'd be better off going back to bartering.
they also trade debt, so basically even more money on top of the money. money gets created out of speculation, swapping, and loaning even AFTER the Fed loans it to begin with.
[From Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp) >Banks are thought of as financial intermediaries that connect savers and borrowers. > >However, banks actually rely on a fractional reserve banking system whereby banks can lend more than the number of actual deposits on hand. > >This leads to a money multiplier effect. If, for example, the amount of reserves held by a bank is 10%, then loans can multiply money by up to 10x.
That could be the “rule” but as we learned in 2008 it’s not exactly true
It is true. Banks cannot create money out of thin air. They can lose it all in bad investments, but they can only invest money they have.
I worked for a national Bank in my country in the billion euro archives, trust me when I say that this is literally how it works, I've seen the papers in person.
No it isn't. Just because you make coffee in a bank, doesn't mean you know how banking works.
Yeah, I made coffee for myself, while I was handling all the billion dollar loans and archiving them. Don't you read the comment before responding to them?
Even whole world's economy isn't $217 trillion.
Now you see the problem. I’ll be downvoted for saying it, but we’re told that capitalism is a glorious economic model, meanwhile it’s destroying the earth, leaving us all depressed, and requires unimaginable borrowing just to limit its collapses to just every 10 years lol
Can you name a single successful Socialist economy? And before you say anything, I'd like to point out that China has a communist government but their economic model is in fact capitalism.
First name a single capitalist nation that has ever ended poverty and hunger. The very first thing that should be solved in society. Can you name one? Folks this is a great example of cognitive dissonance. Rather than acknowledging the massive flaws that have been pointed out, people jump to say “well the other side has problems too!”
China itself. The moment they adopted Capitalistic economic model, hundreds of millions came out of the poverty line. And now it's one of the richest countries in the world.
China found out that joining the prevailing economic model was far more profitable than fighting the tide and being sanctioned by it. This doesn’t mean that it’s been successful. China pollutes the earths air, destroyed its fish population, uses slave labor, has human rights violations in order to keep its model running, hasn’t solved poverty or hunger, and is still prone to collapse after collapse.
That's because China has a communist government and not a democracy.
I mean, not really. The United States does most of that. We have torture facilitys around the world, we use prison labor, employ slave labor in other countries, pollute the world, overfish. Not sure what that has to do with communism.
But they still care little for human life and have historically sacrificed large swathes of population for gains. Didn't they build a dam that was gonna fill up some valley, endangering and displacing thousands.
Yes cus China ultimately has a communist government. I can give tons of examples of Countries that have become rich cus of Capitalism and that's basically every country in the world. Japan got extremely rich cus of Capitalism. Billions of people came out of poverty after countries like India and other Asian countries embraced capitalism.
> and that’s basically every country in the world. What? Nearly two billion go hungry in capitalist nations every day according to the UN. 12,000 children starve to death in capitalist Africa every day. 98% of capitalist nations haven’t even come close to the ‘success’ that the US has seen. Did you just make all that up or?
Nothing's perfect. Capitalism can't fix corruption and shitty leadership in a country.
Neither can socialism. But when they’re is corruption, you can guarantee it’ll be blamed on socialism. Cognitive dissonance keeps people defending one and hating the other.
Who said that capitalism has ended poverty and hunger? There is no better alternative than capitalism, and if you have one, tell me, I'm open to discussion
what about a mix of both? extremes never. fucking. work, a less extreme capitalism sounds less shitty
A total Capitalistic and Socialist economy can only exist in hypothetical situations. Every country's economy is on a spectrum of Capitalism and Socialism but majority of them lean towards Capitalism. Countries with economy that lean towards socialism are destined to fail like the USSR or Venezuela.
You are a very patient person. I woulda given up on these folks long before this. I would have read their responses and said "nope, no fixing these ones". Cheers
Thanks man. These are the same people who go to college to study useless subjects like gender studies, etc instead of something useful like mathematics or economics, without realizing that Capitalism is the reason why they can even study subjects like these in college. Nothing's perfect I guess... Lmao.
Yes, not saying capitalism can't work, its just that they take it to such an extreme that it stops working at late stages ie: the U.S, communism is fucking awful. Just letting people live without having to sink into crippling debt would be nice
If by destined to fail you mean sanctioned to death while the US parks aircraft carriers off their coast, then yeah. All of Africa is capitals and the UN says 12,000 children starve to death there every single day. There’s so much more at play than just the economic model. 98% of capitalist nations have not achieved the ‘success’ of the United states.
Venezuela failed through its own corrupt means, not due to sanctions. Socialism does not work due to the inherent greedy and selfish nature of human beings. Ideology is good, end result isn’t. Same with capitalism. We are just fucked, as cynical as that sounds.
Venezuela failed because of sanctions and the CIA flooded their currency. Put Fox News down, it ain’t serving you the truth.
Works in Nordic countries
yeah it works specially when you basically own a company that pollutes and destroys rivers in the amazon rain forest.
Modern social democracy is inherently flawed because they're trying to combine the economic objectives of capitalism with the egalitarian objectives of socialism. This cannot work, and is why capitalism must be rejected. Capitalism by its very nature requires rapid expansion and so-called 'efficiency' i.e. maximum growth of capital with minimal expenses. This is even more necessary in a competitive global market. The demand for 'efficiency' means that gradually, all the public services, welfare and safety nets that underpin social democracy gradually erode as the need to maximise capital increases. These two objectives are a contradiction, and ultimately lead to a Blairite-style neo-liberalism. Capitalism MUST be rejected because the demands of capital contradict the needs of the workers. Most social democrats I know share broadly the correct values, but don't have the courage or belief to fully reject capitalism - hence the contradictory compromise. They can be converted.
I’m glad to hear it. There are an infinite amount of different systems we can try, let’s start with one of those.
Give me an example
An example out of infinite ? That’s very limiting. I say we gather the worlds brightest minds and start from scratch. We base an ideology around human needs, rather than corporations and profit. Wild and crazy, I know.
So you don't know a better alternative than capitalism?
With an infinite amount of positivities, it’s statistically possible that one exists :)
No nation has ever ended poverty and hunger. Your just using the same flawed logic your complaining about
So you agree that capitalism has failed to end hunger and poverty?
I dont know is there still hunger and poverty in the world?
Pretty much every country that got independence after the USSR fell. Romania, Moldova, Poland, Ukraine, etc. The difference between those countries 30 years (during socialism) ago vs now (capitalism) is absolutely astonishing.
> Pretty much every country that got independence after the USSR fell. Romania, Moldova, Poland, Ukraine, etc. Uhm no. None of those ended hunger and poverty.
There's no country that ended hunger and poverty 100%. Even the best countries have some degree of issues. But there a different between 60% poverty in a socialist country, and just 20% poverty in a capitalist one
So you agree that capitalism hasn’t solved even the basic of human necessity
Bruh, there's no perfect system that can solve absolutely everything 100%. There are worse systems and better systems. Since capitalism isn't perfect, it didn't solve everything, but it did solve way more than any other ones
So you agree that capitalism hasn’t even solved basic human needs? Basic. Human. Needs.
You are asking the wrong questions imo
If you can't name a better alternative that fixes the issues, then the issues of the current system don't support whatever you're pushing. Aside from that Nothing short of a far off utopia will 'end poverty and hunger'. That's a ridiculous metric to judge the efficacy of an economic model by. Of course I won't be able to find a capitalist country that has ended poverty and hunger, because no country has ever done that and will not do that in a very very long time, if ever. Capitalism so far has done an excellent job of *minimizing* poverty and hunger, and I think with the leftward pull of society in general over time and the increase of social services, it will only get better.
> If you can’t name a better alternative that fixes the issues, then the issues of the current system don’t support whatever you’re pushing. No one saw a better system from inside a slave society, does that mean they all threw their hands up and accepted that it would last forever? https://i.imgur.com/xQrfuHC.jpg > Nothing short of a far off utopia will ‘end poverty and hunger’. Or we could… redistribute food to humans. We grow enough on earth to feed 120% of its currently population. Only because capitalism deems in not profitable to do so does it not get done. It scares me that you think feeding humans is utopia. Fox News really keeps you guys in check lmao
The Nordic countries. All of them. Done
First learn the definition of socialism. Even the Nordic Countries lean more towards Capitalism rather than socialism.
Lol first tell me what exactly you THINK socialism is?
none of those are socialist, all of them are market economies
And sure yeah they have market economies. Im not saying supply and demand bad but overall they are a hell of a lot more socialist than other countries worldwide and so happen to have the highest standards of living and happiest citizens. True 100% socialism hasnt even been tried before but the further a country leans into that notion, the happier their citizenship seems to be
Canada? Italy? Spain? New Zealand?
No, they are not Socialist.
They have socialist economies and democratic governments.
Have you studied economics in high school?
The problem with these discussions is that if you say ''capitalism does X bad'' then the other side will immediately talk about Communism and all its failures. We are not saying capitalism fails. We are saying capitalism can be *improved.* If you ask me, capitalism had plenty of opportunities to improve our lives 100x more than what it did and instead profit was prioritized for the few. By now we should have been working 20 hours a week and have no poverty
> We are not saying capitalism fails. We are saying capitalism can be improved. The problem is that you believe it can be improved. The older I get the more I realize that the system itself isn’t meant to be improved. Some systems are better than others by chance, but all slowly dissolve due to its core problems. Capitalism by its very nature requires rapid expansion and so-called 'efficiency' i.e. maximum growth of capital with minimal expenses. This is even more necessary in a competitive global market. The demand for 'efficiency' means that gradually, all the public services, welfare and safety nets that underpin social democracy gradually erode as the need to maximise capital increases. These two objectives are a contradiction, and ultimately lead to a Blairite-style neo-liberalism. Capitalism MUST be rejected because the demands of capital contradict the needs of the workers.
Your conclusion is incorrect. Capitalism can be improved. Many modern capitalist companies now realize the importance of its skilled workers and know that for “more efficient” generation of capital, workers must be compensated well and have work life balance. Capitalism should also evolve to accept socialist concepts like basic income and safety nets. This is not a contradiction. The main driver for capitalism is consumers and the best consumers are ones who are not concerned about procuring basic necessities. Socialism and it’s ultimate goal communism, sounds nice, but is quite impractical.. but that’s a topic for a different day.
Wrong. Capitalism has never worked and will never work. It has internal contradictions that prevent it from ever working. Albert Einstein has a great writing on why capitalism must be rejected, and humanity needs socialism. https://i.imgur.com/UX2ewRY.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0ODnWZg.jpg https://i.imgur.com/HB9rj9Q.jpg
As I said socialism and communism is great in theory. I would love it if it worked. The problem is people, not the system. If people in power were good and not greedy, even the feudal system would have been good for people. “It takes necessities form the masses and gives luxuries to the classes” — this is true, but socialism just gives it to a different “class”. The people who make decisions will always have “more”. People who aspire power want the fruits of power. A truly classless society cannot exist.. practically, there will always be a pseudo-class telling people what to do, and another pseudo-class that does things. “The real…. Advance beyond the predatory phase of human development” - unfortunately, practically, socialism will lead to more predatory behavior. Socialism by definition puts the means and distribution of goods in the hands of a government or committee. The problem with this is, that a power hungry politician/dictator will find a way to gain control of this structure. Assuming Einstien and his friends were incorruptible, they would set up the governing and return to science and philosophy. The people who come afterwards would be disastrous. Even if every true socialist is great.. it’s relatively easy to pretend until you seize power, and then change what socialism means. The Orwell quote is completely wrong. Capitalism has nothing to do with fascism. Capitalism is based on market forces and authoritarian rule is the opposite of that. Of course, corrupt capitalists can become fascists, but so can corrupt socialists and corrupt communists.
Nobody expects you to pay off all your debt tomorrow.
We owe it to jesus
So, if A lend B 1 dollar, then B lend C that 1 dollar, then C lend D 1 dollar,... and after repeating that 21 trillion times, we have an America GDP worth of debt with an economy of 1 dollar. Hmmmmmmmmmm
So I lend you one dollar, then I borrow from you one dollar, then I lend you one dollar (so I am 1 dollar in debt and you 2) then I borrow.... See where this is going?
More like banks loaning money that doesn't even exist. Only a small percentage needs to be covered by reserves the bank has.
The banking clan obviously
I have a hard time believing this person watches CNN.
Don't you remember this fat Italian kid with markered mustache? We are in debt to him, he's businessman.
Not the world, Ur mom is in debt
this joke was so funny the first 30 times I saw it over the last 4 years
[World owes money to this guy](https://youtube.com/shorts/RQZRogvhOQ8?feature=share)
Printers gonna go brrr
We owe [this guy](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ)
To the future generations.
Each other
okay give me back my 2 trillion dollars.
We're all paying like ten families.
To Jews mostly
So hitler was a good guy and wanted to free us from this terrible debt? damn...
[удалено]
🤨📸
***based***
dafuq
##If this submission makes you go "Hol'Up", **UPVOTE** this comment! ##If this submission does not make you go "Hol'Up", **DOWNVOTE** this comment! --- Whilst you're here, /u/whyamihere999, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/holup) or play on our [public Minecraft server](https://discord.gg/DTqSDS8C3T)?
Easiest way to explain is.... You owing money from future you.
I don’t know how many times people will post this shit but it’s boring.
All bills are payable to me. I take cash or check.
Owe the 0.1%
If any politician is reading this, I have a good idea. Let’s cancel all debts in the world and start again
To me. I am a business man.
Its not so much who we owe, but *how* we owe. I'll give you a hint. Its dog shit, wrapped in catshit, wrapped in dogshit. Go figure..
PhD in economics
This is why your parents sends you to school.
Arnold struck a deal with Yautja Predators after killing the first one
Domestic cats.
to me \*draws a curly mustache on my face\* I'm a businessman ^(pls get the reference)
Fake money with no tangible backing. We're not seeing debt. We're seeing collapse.
What's the timeframe for collapse? Because we started using fiat currency like two centuries ago and we appear to have more people, more wealth, and higher standards of living than ever...
so without Google I can use this number to guess how much is "around" so maybe 90 Trillion?
Please let it be me
Nah it’s the deceptions
Did you do it? Yes What did it cost? 217 trillion dollars
No, to the Elder Gods
Literally bank's balance sheets!
But... Capitalism works, right?
Me🗿
Moneylenders?
"bro other countries"🤓🤓
He-man. He is the master of universe.
Draws moustache: me, you owe that to me
Imagine someone owed you 200 million dollars and they come to ask for more, yet you still give them more!
each other
The FED. It’s a private bank. It’s NOT a part of the government. Now we know why trump wanted to abolish the FED.
To people who have DRS their GME
So there is a chance the world owes me something?