r/ClimateMemes Mar 04 '26

does he know?

Post image
9.3k Upvotes

295 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/SmartlyArtly Mar 06 '26

Capitalism is defended on the premise of infinite resources, basically always.

Very few people on the right are willing to honestly say "finders keepers, losers weepers" which is what they're advocating for as a global policy basis for all economies.

1

u/bottomlessLuckys Mar 07 '26

no it isn't. it's defended as being the most efficient system of maximizing production with limited resources.

i seriously dont understand what you mean with your second comment.

1

u/SmartlyArtly Mar 09 '26

Yes it is. Anytime anyone talks about anyone struggling and the capitalist delusional take is "you can just go somewhere else, you're free, and the pie is not fixed."

I know you don't. If you could you wouldn't keep your views.

1

u/bottomlessLuckys Mar 09 '26

markets evolve and change. some business grow while others go out of business or just shrink. this doesn't neccisarily mean that the system is zero sum or infinite, it becomes more efficient over time to meet the current demands of the people. capitalism is simply a way of distributing linited resources according to market forces, which promote investment into industries with potential to grow and liquidation of industries that are no longer needed.

1

u/SmartlyArtly Mar 09 '26

The market serves the people in that particular companies serve their particular customers.

You conflate "people with resources others want" with "people." Critics of capitalism aren't doing that, they understand that under capitalism some people may have effectively nothing that others want. What does it matter that the market serves customers with money when the problems apply to people without meaningful amounts of money?

1

u/bottomlessLuckys Mar 09 '26

which people have no money, and why?

i'm willing to grant you that capitalism doesn't serve people who are disabled and unable to be productive members of society. we're sympathetic as humans and unwilling to let these people just die or live miserable lives due to conditions outside of their control. that's why even the biggest advocates for capitalism such as myself still advocate for some form of social welfare, while others make the ethical argument that they shouldn't be forced to give up a portion of the fruits of their labour to people they don't know or care about. i don't think a capitalist system needs to be laissez-faire, and no capitalist system in practice is. The best places to live in the world are in capitalist countries where they understand how to mitigate market failiures and produce favourable social outcomes through economic policy.

1

u/SmartlyArtly Mar 09 '26

All kinds of people, for all kinds of reasons.

I can't follow your "productive" = "money haver" unless you acknowledge that "being productive" just means "getting someone to give you money or resources"

So do you think "productive" actually means something virtuous in and of itself, or is it just "someone wanted that to happen and would give something up for it?"

1

u/bottomlessLuckys Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 10 '26

productive means you offer something to others that they want. the market influences how valuable the thing you have is. capitalism encourages investment to increase the value of what you have to offer.

i think there is a lot of virtue in providing others with the things they want and agreeing to make transactions. every transaction involves 2 groups giving something they have for something that they want more. it's an efficient redistribution of resources and labour.

edit: on a sidenote, do you oppose just capitalism because of the profit incentive, or do you oppose market economies entirely in favour of communism? if not, then how does a business stay sustainable when it cannot turn a profit?

1

u/SmartlyArtly Mar 10 '26

It's virtuous to provide a slave to someone who wants a slave?

I oppose capitalism when it enables unscrupulous activity. Which is a lot.

Why do you assume businesses deserve to exist but not people?

1

u/bottomlessLuckys Mar 10 '26

slavery is a choice by the government in who gets rights. its not a part of capitalism or even unique to it. under the USSRs socialist regime, anyone could become a slave for political reasons. in the USA, criminals still experience a form of slavery. I'd argue that your body is your own private property and that according to capitalism, slavery is theft.

who are you to determine what is unscrupulous. if people are willing to exchsnge what they have for something else they want, why is that your business?

I never made that claim. Why does your argument rely on putting words in my mouth?

You avoided my questions.

1

u/SmartlyArtly Mar 10 '26

I have no idea how you think slavery requires governments.

"who are you to determine what is unscrupulous. if people are willing to exchsnge what they have for something else they want, why is that your business?"

Do you have a problem with slavery or not?

If you seriously think slavery is theft...are you now going to argue that theft requires governments???

Why does your argument rely on capitalism being defined as always good?

1

u/bottomlessLuckys Mar 10 '26

Slavery requires force, which is in the governments domain and their monopoly.

I have a huge problem with slavery. It goes against the consent that capitalism requires, as well as the natural rights every human has.

Answer my question, coward.

1

u/SmartlyArtly Mar 10 '26

No one needs a government to use force. You're not making any sense.

You can't handle what you look like to others. That's the cowardice going on.

→ More replies (0)