Comments by "DeoMachina" (@DeoMachina) on "Unlearning Economics"
channel.
-
106
-
76
-
26
-
21
-
20
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
"The workers are the least important part of the business because they are hired and can be fired and replacements hired"
This is like saying bricks are unimportant to a building because they can be replaced. You're just factually incorrect. Walls are an integral part of a building, and the building cannot exist without them. Replacability is not the same as import. Your lungs are replaceable thanks to surgery, going to tell me you don't think they're important now?
" If need be ,the business can usually be moved to another country where people are more willing to work"
No, no it can't. We know this because businesses generally don't do it.
" A fatal flaw of Marxism , including liberalism"
Marxism does not include liberalism.
" it fails to recognize the vital importance of the creator of the business. It is he who has the new idea, the intervention ,the innovation ,the drive to work hard ,make sacrifices and take risks to start the business"
Weird business owners pay people to do all of those things then, huh?
"That flaw explains why Marxism and socialism and communism do not innovate"
Capitalism genuinely stifles innovation and is frequently an obstacle in the way of progress. So many achievements have been denied because of the profit motive and I could easily write hundreds of words explaining how.
" It is difficult to think of a great invention or nes drug from the Soviet union during the 70 years it existed"
Russia wasn't even industrialised at the start of the USSR, what are you expecting here exactly? Are you also whining that rural Pakistan isn't leading the way into cancer research?
" But no, many think Someone else should have the idea, the innovation and work hard ,make sacrifices and take risks to start the company. "
That's capitalism, you are describing capitalism.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@thinktankdonahue Interesting you can't respond to what is said, and instead have to flee to some weird tangent about North Korea
Regardless, inequality STILL isn't fine. Mathematically, it's not sustainable. Look at the state of US infrastructure for example. Bridges falling apart to the point where bridges have to be built under the bridges, to catch the debris.
You start off thinking "take money from poor people, inequality is fine", but what happens when they have no more money to steal? It gets taken from local governments, federal programs etc. Now critical infrastructure is suffering, infrastructure the national economy is reliant upon. Eventually, things just won't work anymore.
At the drop of a hat, hundreds of millions of dollars can be spent to kill a handful of guys halfway across the world, but keeping a library open at home becomes this insurmountable task. Do you think this kind of economic system is going to last?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Think about it this way:
Technology is sort of like a box of concentrated labour. Somebody else worked really hard at making it, put a lot of labour into it. For a high price, all that labour is yours to add to your workers. Now you can do more, get more customers, expand the business faster.
Or to put it another way, imagine you ran a handmade brick factory. Your workers can't make enough bricks, so you import a huge stack of them to satisfy demand. This doesn't make sense economically since those bricks would be more expensive, but if it leads to your company getting more contracts and growing, its worth it.
But as Brandon above me says, once everybody is doing it there's no longer an advantage for doing it, only a disadvantage for not doing it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Doc51499 "Under capitalism people have been free to do as they please more or less"
This isn't true, we have to dedicate a substantial portion of our lives in the service of capital or we die.
"the overwhelming majority of millionaires and billionaires are what’s called “self made” meaning they started from either middle class or below"
I don't care what class billionaires were born into, I don't see why that's a huge deal.
"studies also show that any inherited wealth tends to dissipate by the time the self made individual’s grandchildren roll around."
This doesn't seem too important either? I don't care if Bezo's money will be spent before his great-grandchildren are born. I'm more worried about billionaires in 2020, not 2100.
"Without capitalism we’d never have cars or electricity or any number of things you take for granted."
You haven't attempted to back this claim up with any kind of reasoning. You're just assuming that because X was invented within a specific economic system, it could never have been invented in any other system. And yet scientific progress predates capitalism!
Regardless, the 'innovation' argument is a terrible one, given how often capitalism sabotages new technology and how few inventions are made without state-subsidised research. The fact is that research and development is a gamble, and shareholders hate gambling. Private industry is ludicrously inefficient in this way.
"Furthermore many communists believe that goods and services have an objective value and that all profit is therefore theft"
This isn't really what the labour theory of value means, but profit is actually theft, yes. The fact that I can work harder and earn the company more money without getting a proportional rise in compensation is proof of this. Because my boss DOES see more money when I work harder.
"as such the workers aren’t necessarily being exploited"
People are working themselves to death and still forced to live in crushing poverty. You are an extremist if you deny this is exploitation.
"The ability to own Private property is considered by many (myself included) to be a fundamental right"
And does your right to own property take higher priority than the right of other people to be alive? If not, then welcome to the revolution comrade!
And if it does? Then we can regard your rights the same way you regard ours.
"the undertaking of this task would require a totalitarian state"
Friendly reminder that if you protest the construction of an oil pipeline on your land, the police beat the absolute shit out of you and attack you with dogs.
If you protest police brutality, you will be tortured and beaten.
If you attempt to organise others, you will be assassinated.
Again, what am I supposed to be afraid of that isn't already happening? Make me a better offer, because if I'm going to get attacked by a police officer and thrown in jail I'd at least like to do it in a system where I don't get billed for it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alecstewart212 "it certainly beats the alternatives which have to ever be shown to work without being so much more easily corruptible."
This is propaganda, just so you know. Corruption can infect any system, you have no reason to believe that private ownership of industry guards against it.
"A more free market with some regulations to protect people, potentially a few industries being managed by the government, keeping corporate interests out of government, and allowing people to own and control their own property seems to be the best option for the most freedom"
On what planet would handing over even more control to the biggest companies grant us more freedom?
"Because I recognize the flaws, I have to then not be a capitalist?"
Well, yes. If you think otherwise it either means you do not actually know what the flaws of capitalism are, or you think they are acceptable (which makes you a zealot)
"So if you accepted the flaws with socialism, and you're still a socialist, can I then say you're a zealot "
That depends, are the flaws of socialism the deliberate engineering of a ecological disaster that is going to kill tens, possibly hundreds of millions of people?
Because capitalism can take the credit for that one. In no other economic system is there an incentive to melt the polar ice caps.
In no other system does it make sense to watch a virus spread across the world and just..let hundreds of thousands of people die.
Say what you like about socialism and feel free to critique it, but unlike capitalism it isn't inherently self-destructive. Capitalism cannot even sustain itself, we haven't gone a single generation without an economic crash. You can't have a system where everybody depends on everybody else, while also putting them in direct competition with each other. If Marx said as much 150 years ago and nobody has came up with a solution since, you know there's a deep problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is great and I'm subscribing with bells on, but have I misunderstood the video? Imo nothing here reeaally contradicts what was said on philosophy tube. At most I got "The claim that the market causes the crisis is not fully substantiated"
Which, don't get me wrong, is a good criticism and the additional nuance here is sorely needed...but I now feel more confident that the housing market is causing the housing crisis. I'm not sure this was intended?
The apple example works in favour of that claim, because the supply of apples is so high, it is actually extremely difficult to sell me an apple. In fact the only reason I ever buy Honeycrunch or Royal Gala is because Jazz apples aren't in stock. It's 100% a buyers market, either apple suppliers sell their apples cheaply or they don't sell them at all. Note: This doesn't mean apples don't get sold, this means it is very hard to ensure that your apple is the apple I buy. Make no mistake, if apple suppliers could control sources of vitamin C, they would absolutely restrict availability, drop the volume of supply and raise the prices of apples. They would do this, or they would be bought out by somebody prepared to do it.
In reference to how the housing market works in other countries, I think it is worth pointing out that for cultural reasons, Japanese homes cannot retain value. The expectation is that when you buy a home you will demolish it and build your own, and houses are only designed to last about as long as you expect to live. In this sense there isn't really a "housing market", but a construction one.
Korea bypassed the market with government intervention - which is a good thing - but this only proves that there cannot be a solution to housing allocation within the framework of a market.
Germany was mentioned, but I genuinely can't comment as I don't know anything about that country.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jakovvodanovic9165 "I would argue that capitalism had nothing with that"
It would be an argument you would lose.
-Capitalist nations had years to prepare for mutations of various coronaviruses, vaccine research had already started but because there was no immediate financial incentive to finish it...it wasn't finished. Only in capitalism does waiting for a pandemic to happen first before making a vaccine make sense. (The above also goes for mask stockpiles etc)
-Even without a vaccine, lockdown before the infection reached Europe/America was obviously the only chance to contain it. But that would have damaged private profit, so lockdown only occured when the infection rate was high. Thousands, tens of thousands of people would still be alive today if businesses were not given top priority.
-Even now, after every mistake has been made, the demands of capital to do what makes the most money and not what is best for everybody have hamstrung the vaccine rollout. The strategy of selling vaccines to the richest nations only prolongs the pandemic, giving rise to more variants that are more resistant, faster spreading, and more deadly.
-many people, unreasonably, distrusted everything government and the scientific community had to say
And that has nothing to do with capitalism? The privately-owned media companies who only run news that makes them money regardless of accuracy? Nothing to do with capitalism? The social media networks that spent years allowing extremists to fester online because they brought traffic, nothing to do with capitalism?
"The main problem is social and political, not arising from the structure of economy."
Sure would be inconvenient for your position if society and politics didn't wholly hinge on the nature of our economy then, wouldn't it?
"Action of that sort is often dangerous and creates tenfold injustice than it intends to solve."
How serene, I wonder if it will convince somebody who already knows they will die before 'incremental change' comes their way.
"Point to me one revolution that worked as planned"
Uh, Haiti? Russia? Cuba? Ireland? I could go on?
How about you point me to one reformist victory that worked as planned?
Bit of a trick question, since there haven't been any at all.
2
-
@jakovvodanovic9165 "there are innumerable viruses, surely it wouldn't be possible to try and develop vaccines for all of them just in case one of those viruses gets out of control."
At this point it is worth reminding you that this century we had already seen several coronavirus outbreaks and long before Covid-19 it was known that this was a matter of not if, but when. We had all the warnings we needed. We knew this was going to happen.
"Croatia, started the lockdown before any serious rise in infections (Australia was also very serious about it). Both are capitalist countries."
That's great, but just because capitalism didn't put a stripmine in my garden doesn't mean stripmines elsewhere aren't a problem. The success of Croatia means nothing if we cannot beat the virus globally.
"I don't know why you included Russia, which was one of the bloodiest revolutions ever, leading to the Red Terror which killed tens of thousands people for political disagreement and also led to Stalin of whose crimes I don't think I need to speak"
Here's the thing:
No matter how bad it was, no matter how many people died...the death toll is still lower than capitalism.
People talk about how violent revolution is, but they never stop to ask why they are always violent. I'll tell you:
The reason is that the people they are revolting against are willing to kill an endless number of people to retain power.
The Tsars were still killing people, Batista was brutally torturing people in Cuba. Going to incrementally change your way out of that?
"More than million people fled Cuba (which was illegal at the time) between 1959 and 1993 (they left because of poverty and hunger, which were especially rampant in the 90s)."
Two things about that:
The first is that people fled Cuba because the state seized their slave-run companies and freed their workers.
The second is about what happened in the 90's: Why do you think it got so bad then?
It's because the USSR stopped existing and the USA would not allow any trade with the island. If capitalism is so great...why weren't companies allowed to sell Cuba food?
China is a good point against reformism IMO. The revolution brought big changes, but after reformism was adopted we saw the communist nation devolve into a capitalist one. China today is more like state-capitalist, and the needs of capital will ruin it the way it does every other nation.
"By the way, I'm not saying people shouldn't fight for their rights, I'm saying they shouldn't consider cutting heads as an optimal solution for their problems."
Capital thinks nothing of cutting millions of heads a year, what else is there left to do? How many more must die before you admit it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tespri "They are the ones who come up with the idea and organize the chaos of thousands of workers "
Not true, company directors have a small number of managers who in turn have a small number of managers and supervisors etc. Have you like, had literally any kind of job?
"Which one has biggest and most important role in building a scyscraper. Engineer or a low skill worker?
That depends, who needs to be there every single day working on the skyscraper, and who can afford to visit once a week or so? Ahaha
"it would take him much longer to do so than to hire couple low IQ people such as yourself to do it for him"
Weird how you refer to construction workers as "low IQ", but also compare them to me. Are you trying to say that construction workers are also socialists? Or that they are stupid like I am? Why do you hate the working class so much?
"Not even millions of those manual labor people could ever replace that engineer. But that engineer could easily replace any of those workers."
False, you've never worked on a building site. A lot of workers could learn engineering. My first job was in construction and I went on to learn new skills for another career.
"Also again you would be using threat and breaking the contract"
Cry about it
"Because that worked so well in real life"
You're right, it has actually worked well in worker co-ops.
"It just ends up being popularity contest where biggest and most charismatic moron wins."
Wins? Wins what? Wait, do you think I'm talking about a presidential election or something? You don't actually know what democracy means?
"Revolution is not same as change. It's violent uprising."
Sorry but I'll take the dictionary over your whiny ass, kid
"Keep on lying."
lmaooo, fucking COPE
You can't handle it, you can't even acknowledge the possibility that I'm just some guy with just some job. Imagine somebody telling you that they're nothing special, just pure average, and you're stunned with disbelief. How sheltered.
2
-
2
-
@Tespri "Your chaotic direct democracy wouldn't work"
Accountability isn't chaotic, it is the opposite.
"You can get new job in less than week if you're good worker."
This is a lie, you have resorted to outright lies. Employers looking for employees have no method to determine who is and who is not a good worker, and infact have to turn down the majority of applications before the interview stage.
"It's no where in comparable to live in debt hell for decades or rest of your life for failing your business."
And yet somehow CEO's avoid this, even the ones running failed companies.
"No it doesn't prove their importance. They are all easily replaceable"
You think replacability is the same as unimportance. This is an error.
"Anyone can dug ditch, but not everyone can do what Tesla had. Which is my point."
You are now avoiding the point.
"Actually it's"
By definition it is not, and you knew anything about IQ you would at least know what the 'Q' stood for. It is not a measure of intelligence, or it wouldn't be called what it is. The name literally means not a measurement. How are you this ill-informed?
"talented people to work hard so society produces more than enough to feed most of it."
You think production is allocation, we have been overproducing for quite some time now, and yet somehow people still go without. Why is that?
"Literally born into it and part of it."
I can't help but notice you have chosen not to deny what I said.
"Pretty much."
Again, you are lying. You do not believe what you said.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@qualia8892 The world does have more than one iron mine, true. But the other mines see an increase of demand as the supply falls, so they put their prices up. Not every company can meet that cost, some necessarily fail because of this.
And what did those companies make? Whatever it is, their clients suddenly can't get what they need. And the cycle repeats.
Not every company fails, but enough of them do to cause the entire economy to crash. There is more to recessions than this, loans/interest play their role too.
The problem is that every company must produce the absolute maximum using the least amount of money possible, or it fails. But in order to have a working economy, we need to have companies that won't fail. Yet we force them to play a game that necessarily makes some of them fail.
There are systems that would solve this problem, for example a system where we only produce what we need, and production isn't always 'maximum' by default.
1
-
@qualia8892 "If we had a system in which we didn't produce "maximum by default" wouldn't that mean that we would be constantly living in a recessions. A recession is only called a recession in reference to a better time"
We call them recessions because the economy shrinks during them.
People living during the great depression were better off than people in the middle ages? Well, some of them were.
But people in the USSR were better off during the depression than in the USA, so by that logic...
"Also if we had a system which produce only what we need, who would decide what would we need?"
The people who own the means to produce things. That is to say, all workers collectively.
Does that sound unrealistic to you? Ask yourself, who decides what we need right now? Isn't it weird how some trends are set by single companies? I think we need for example, healthier food produced more responsibly. But that doesn't matter, because the people who actually decide what food we need are the food production companies, owned by a few people.
I think we need less bombs and warplanes, I think that money could be better spent elsewhere. But wealthy arms manufacturers decide otherwise.
You have to admit, this whole thing could be a lot more democratic..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whitescar2 "The fact plants will continue to make food, fruit and berries and nuts, is inconsequential."
Oh, okay. You brought that up for no reason then? That's fine, moving on.
"Yes, it is an absurd notion"
Correct, it is. That's why I'm not engaging with it. Stick to reality.
"People don't just start making bicycles because they thought it would be a good effort to put some of their excess labor into. They start making bicycles, because there is a desire for transportation."
And did putting the labour into the bicycle parts make them more desirable, less desirable, or equally desirable? This is my point. Desire for the various components increased after labour was put into them.
"That we only desire something once some other, unthinking and unfeeling, human has put some work into it."
This is odd projection on your part.
1
-
@whitescar2 "I've demonstrated that human desire for food exists outside any labor put into food creation. You ignore it."
And why wouldn't I? It has nothing to do with what I said.
"I've demonstrated human desire for air and water exist outside human labor put into creating either. You ignore it."
This is a lie, you do not believe it. I already acknowledged natural labour and you called it inconsequential. If it's inconsequential, should we ignore it or not? I'm very confused here.
"Yes, most things we use to satisfy our desires stems from human labor."
So we're actually in agreement then, love to see it.
"If your model were correct, the reason would be that since people no longer made film cameras, that meant that people no longer desired to buy film cameras."
Desire for film cameras has dropped, yes. So you're just telling me I'm right again.
"And the only reason people desire to buy digital cameras is because people make digital cameras"
I'm sorry, was there a huge demand for digital cameras before the invention of digital cameras? Am I missing something?
"people will not desire something simply because labor was put into its creation."
But people do desire things that have labour put into their creation, and these things become more valuable after the labour is put into them. You already acknowledge all of this to be true, you just don't want to acknowledge the ramifications.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1