Comments by "DeoMachina" (@DeoMachina) on "" video.

How's Argentina's economy doing right now?
2
Hundreds of millions of people are going to die this century because of climate change, which capitalism says we aren't allowed to do anything about People fleeing the growing desert are being machine-gunned at the border already, the catastrophe is already starting But sure, it's a great system because iphone
2
Capitalism is about to end the world but ok andy
2
It's got nothing to do with evil and corruption, companies are forced to seek the highest profit possible. Companies that don't get the highest profit can't grow as fast, and they die because investments are then made elsewhere. So even if 100% of company owners were good people and not corrupt/greedy, NOTHING would change.
2
@bkrein My point is that in Argentina (and other South American countries) the Austrian school has been particuarly influential - but with disasterous economic effects.
1
@bkrein And yet in the case of Argentina (and Chile decades ago) the poverty rate massively increased when Austrian economics was put into practice. And in Chile's case, poverty went back down when these reforms were diluted somewhat. This trend has since been repeated over and over again throughout the world - Austrian economists write a policy, it gets implemented, and poverty goes up.
1
@bkrein "Austrian economics is only now being attempted for the first time under President Milei who took office in December 2023" And the poverty rate ramped up almost overnight. My country left recession too, doesn't change the fact that the number of food banks increased by about 1000%. Despite the fact that people are getting rapidly poorer and are much more likely to be malnourished and homeless, the economy is considered to be healthy. This is like saying the house is warm, because the oven is on even if the pipes are all frozen.
1
 @bkrein You're just repeating yourself, so I refer you to my last comment.
1
@bkrein The point I made is that whatever you think of pre-austrian policy, it can't be denied that things got significantly worse practically the exact moment austrian policy was implemented. And it's happened in multiple countries, with the same nigh-instant effects. If your analysis is correct, then it must simply be a coincidence that austrian policy came into force at the exact moment conditions got worse, and it was a coincidence in every other country this happened in. I think it is unlikely that you would see a massive, sudden change after decades of broadly similar policy, typically rapid change only occurs if conditions change. Milei himself seemed to suggest that there would be a shock effect with his administration, so I don't think even he would deny it.
1
@bkrein I think there's just a fundamental disconnect between our positions that cannot be resolved. My measure of a healthy economy is if human beings are being correctly allocated resources; so if poverty is increasing then the economy is getting less healthy. Your measure is based on economic activity metrics and GDP, which do not take poverty, healthcare or education into account. In other words, if Argentina had a record breaking GDP/capita, low inflation and high economic activity - you would declare this a success. I would not even be checking these figures, I would be more concerned with daily nutrition, life expectancy, homelessness etc. For me, it's not a success unless people are materially better off.
1
@Andy_Mark And capitalism has killed more people than communism and fascism put together, what's your point? "I prefer messy, less than ideal, over revolution" I agree, so how about the capitalists stop their revolutions any time a country votes for the 'wrong' government? "We’ve seen this time and time again." That's right, we have. So we don't need any more evidence that capitalism will kill as many people as it takes to protect the bottom line.
1
@og8425 "That's true with every economic system though, that's the point" No, in a socialist economy there would be no incentive to seek growth at all costs. A company could meet the needs of the population and then safely stay at that level, increasing or decreasing production in line with the needs of society. I'll give you an example: In capitalism, Apple must sell as many iphones as it can. So each new phone comes with a marginally faster CPU and a slightly better camera. This does not actually improve your life, but it does make Apple richer. In a socialist economy, Apple could invent a new phone every 5 years, or even every 10 years. Why crank them out every 18 months? Just build a phone that lasts a decade and save resources.
1
In a communist society, what would 'the collective' want with your song? Makes no sense.
1
@BigUps2Patron Creativity and self-expression is like eating or breathing for human beings. We don't do these things because we expect a financial reward. We do those things because we are compelled to by our humanity. I wouldn't profit off hanging out with my buddies and going bowling in a socialist country either - is that a problem?
1
@BigUps2Patron It's true that somebody might get famous after ripping off somebody else's work, but this is true in any economic system and usually goes unpunished, IP law be damned. Serial plagarists do tend to get found out eventually though, and there's definitely less incentive for artists to steal the work of others if there's less profit involved. As for the bowling question: Should they? I put time and effort into learning how to remove the peel from an orange without breaking it, is that something so useful it deserves a reward? Now it could well be the case that if bowling was popular enough (or any sport) that society collectively agrees that our best players don't need to work a 'real' job. I think that even in socialism people would support football/soccer players devoting themselves to the game full-time, because people want to watch the sport. Should there perhaps be some kind of material gain for people who master a sport? Perhaps, arguably they should be retiring earlier as the strain on their bodies is significant. But I don't see any reason why they need to have 300 times the resources the rest of us do.
1