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