Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Capitalism is good. Let me explain." video.

@rey82rey82 Yeah, theres this also. And we know some approximations of the limits of societies based on primitive exchange economies like gift-ones, like the dunbar number, there's a point on which they become unsustainable.
3
@feba33 You're projecting his projection. This is like uno now?
3
@amputatedhairstrands You say, the millions of people dying of hunger mainly in Africa, in countries that are literally socialist dictatorships? My apologies, I hadn't understood. After all, we know that life expectancy in capitalist countries has practically doubled compared to earlier periods, and that hunger in human history has never been so low. Also, the relative number of well-fed people in countries with greater economic freedom tends to be much higher than in countries where this doesn't exist. But we need to achieve a perfect world, or else we aren't qualified to talk about anything, right? If we take some of the countries most associated with hunger, like Yemen and Sierra Leone, a significant portion of them either have a history of flirting with socialism (or dictatorships and guerrilla groups with a socialist bias), or they have an absolutely laughable amount of market and peace due to constant wars. But it's capitalism's fault, right? Makes total sense. I also find this game of 'no access to health services' extremely amusing when the very notion of health services has developed to this extent precisely because of capitalism and the advances that the industry has provided. Or do you think peasants in periods prior to the Industrial Revolution lived 'happy in their disease-free communes, with access to free quality medicine'? Or that primitive tribes that even kill their babies literally because they can't feed them are also fruits of capitalism? It seems to me a pretty heavy measure of ingratitude against the benefits that you only enjoy thanks to the market and initiatives that only existed in capitalism.
2
@amputatedhairstrands I understand. I'm going to sleep now as I'm a bit sleepy, but as soon as I wake up I'll make an appropriate response, sometimes the heat of the moment can be hectic.
2
Oh, amazing, "they didn't found evidences so it does not exist".
2
You was not her friend, you was her comrad. And comrads are the first to be discarded like trash when the revolution starts.
2
I expect a massive amount of negative reactions, considering that the American left is extremely influential and most of your audience seems to be American in some way or have direct influences from American leftist thought. But it's interesting to see this kind of stance in a world where the overwhelming majority of people simply don't even know how to describe what a free market is and think they have some kind of authority to criticize it.
1
@novinceinhosic3531 After watching the video and seeing a good portion of the comments, frankly, neither is up to par in terms of quality. The video really isn't much deeper than what you'd find in online economic summaries, but the critics manage to be hundreds of times worse, citing authors willy-nilly and using dozens of arguments that have already been extensively answered again and again. These people try to win through attrition. Ahistorical people saying she was ahistorical, as if two wrongs make a right. Various people citing Graeber (who doesn't even have that good of books, and also commits various economic and epistemological fallacies in his criticisms), and people citing Marx (which is standard in videos like this, these sewer cockroaches still want to cause a few more mass genocides). It didn't cross the threshold of bad criticism, but maybe something good will appear out there.
1
@ThomasVWorm How much you bet? What about 1 monero?
1
Yeah, it happened, at the cost of millions of lives and famine.
1
@amputatedhairstrands No, it was really the socialism all the way. There's a beautiful name for it, 'the crisis of real socialism'.
1
@pxlbits6442 This is good, I live in a latin american country and I can say exactly to you that what we have here is anything but capitalism. In my country for example you almost cannot even sell your products without needing to ask permission from the state and paying for registers and keeping up to regulations. We have one of the largest law regimes in the whole world and frankly we are almost closer to a centralized economy than to a market one, the country would had collapsed if not by the gray and black market being very strong here. I cannot say for other latin america countries (mine being brazil), but at least for here this is one of the reasons. As for Africa, it has a bunch of side reasons like wars, instabilities and even some dictatorships.
1
@amputatedhairstrands Brother, I literally live in Latin America, are you saying that you know more about my country than I do living here? If this is capitalism then the United States is flying super-capitalism, because there is literally nothing of a free market here that doesn't come from the gray and black market. I selected Yemen and Sierra Leone because they are some of the countries with the highest rates of hunger on the planet; they (along with a few others) concentrate most of the numbers, that's why I chose them. And I don't consider that only first-world countries are capitalist, but the notion of capitalism has been so distorted that they call countries like Brazil (where I live, and I really doubt other latin america countries in general are any better considering our news here about them) capitalist, when to open a tiny company we have to go through an unimaginable amount of bureaucracy and literally fight against what we affectionately call 'the lion' (aka the state) to survive. I would really love it if you could cite for me 3 countries that have a wide free market, freedom of trade, and political freedoms that are going through these terrible conditions that you mentioned, because it doesn't seem to be the case that the countries most cited in the rankings of hunger, death, and violence can be classified this way. As for your final statement that capitalism is doomed to collapse, that's socialist bullshit, but I don't expect anything better than futurology coming from you guys really.
1
@amputatedhairstrands I chose Brazil because it's my birth country and where I unfortunately have to live right now. And you really have no idea what the problems are here, sorry to say. So let me tell you, this idea that other countries have 'better taxes' than here also doesn't hold up in the face of one of the largest tax codes and laws on the entire planet, in addition to all the hundreds of regulations and stealth taxes stacked one after the other on people. As for bureaucracy, you'd only know if you lived here, and considering that the vast majority of businesses literally have to evade taxes to survive and thrive, I think your statements are quite presumptuous. As for the wonderful public services here, it must be really awful to make an account for life in your country, but I doubt it's worse than being treated like a number in endless queues and going to the 'free' doctors only to get a 5-minute check-up and a shot of benzathine. And as for your claim that the problem with your healthcare system is the free market, I recommend studying a little about the health regulations in the United States and all the problems with patents that the healthcare area faces over there; it's much more realistic and honest than blaming the market.
1
@amputatedhairstrands Tu é brasileiro e não ironicamente tá dizendo essas merdas? Tu tem coragem mesmo em brother kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
1
@amputatedhairstrands Well, now I will respond. I understand that in your case, the Brazilian health care system has helped you, I really do. However, this, for better or worse, is still anecdotal evidence. Just like my grandmother received terrible healthcare through our system when she was alive and eventually passed away, and many people in my family have suffered similar fates, unfortunately (as have thousands of other people). I'm also not going to say that our healthcare system is trash in its entirety; it naturally helps millions of people every year, and that's wonderful. But it's also not the be-all and end-all, and what they sell on the internet is not compatible with the reality of thousands of people who are actually dying in its queues. And while it's true that healthcare treatments tend to be very expensive, I recommend caution in blaming the market for this and not the real problems that are well known, such as patents (one of the main barriers to entry in the healthcare market, basically because you're at the mercy of some large corporations protected by the state to acquire some essential things in the treatment of people), regulations and bureaucracy (something that makes a huge difference, and that can be the difference between having a more accessible service and not; there are hundreds of thousands of small barriers that accumulate when it comes to creating your own healthcare service), and all the tax burden that we already know about. So, I wouldn't say that the 'free' Brazilian healthcare system would be the only possible solution for cases like yours (although due to world conditions, it is your only option); it seems hasty to blame the market for something that is essentially caused by state actions. When I said that Brazil is approaching socialism because of its high bureaucracy and limited freedom, it wasn't an attempt to literally equate the two things, but to say that bureaucracy is a reflection of socialist thought being transferred to the state. Bureaucracy implies the indirect control of the state over production and distribution, which represents 'degrees of socialism' over what would be considered our 'capitalism.' When they start to put dozens of barriers and compliances to be resolved so that you can have a business, and they put you under the gun (metaphorically and literally) to lose all your assets in case of non-compliance (as happens with the very high fines that are imposed when companies do not comply with these bureaucracies), the difference between what we call the market here and a centralized economy starts to blur more and more, and it's in this sense that I attribute this issue. As for the problems of corruption and money going to the wrong places, I agree with what you say, but see that the problem turns out not to be simply 'evil capitalism,' but rather a series of other considerations that need to be taken carefully when analyzing these issues?
1
@an_account-o2o I don't know what science you're talking about, darling. A quite significant number of theoretical aspects in physics have no concrete evidence, yet they are still credited as "true" (at least in the pragmatical sense). This is simply because they fill voids in existing theories. Not to mention we're not talking about natural sciences but social sciences, where the amount of material evidence tends to be even scarcer. Statements like 'we don't know, therefore it doesn't exist' are worth as much as nothing, and we are constantly coming across new evidence for all sorts of things (for example, recently some curious articles have come out challenging several basic and well-defined notions about the origins of humanity; we've also had several changes in perspective in this regard over the years). Economic laws are derived from laws of the human action, and in this sense, they cannot be subjugated by the absence of evidence. The limited understanding of economics that anthropologists have is not an excuse for things to be different (just the fact that real-world economics works should count as excellent evidence that we're not talking about 'myths' but things that must be real and foundational for modern economies to function in the first place; people effectively deal with money as a medium of exchange, and they can effectively use non-monetary means as mediums of exchange, just as it is possible to find the evolutionary process for primitive forms of money when they do this). There are many other complications about this type of 'argument from absence' that could be made, but this should suffice.
1
@adampliszka4855 It's just a word, my friend; does it bother you? I admit it's a verbal habit of mine, but I don't see it as problematic. Regarding your statement about methodology, it's true but it's also literally what constitutes the limits of scientific epistemology. You can only know something to a certain level, and that doesn't stop scientists from creating more and more postulates. By the way, you can demonstrate a negative; you just can't evidence it. If I can logically prove none of your ideas make sense if what you're postulating is true, that's a great way to prove something doesn't exist without negative evidence. ['A quite significant number of theoretical aspects in physics have no concrete evidence' - An example maybe?] I don't get it, why the need to imply 'universally accepted'? As an example of a non-'universally accepted' postulate that has great traction in the scientific community, we can mention dark matter. ['Economic laws are derived from laws of the human action, and in this sense, they cannot be subjugated by the absence of evidence.' - This just seems like a non-sequitur.] I see no logical necessity in what you've put forward; economic theories don't 'absolutely need evidence.' As clarification, I can cite Austrian theories of economics, derived from a priori aspects and applied to real cases based on their validity. We can discuss praxeology, for instance. ['the fact that real-world economics works should count as excellent evidence that we're not talking about myths' - First of all, 'work' in what way and what specific parts?] They work in the most pragmatic way possible; they happen as they were conceived to. When economics touches upon laws describing the decrease in real value in favor of nominal value due to inflation, or when it describes subjective exchange processes according to the intersubjective preferences of the parties, etc, these are evidence for what is described. And more, when you don't agree with the "goblins explanation" just get there and refute it, as you are talking about empirical matters you can use Occams razor to get rid of these pesky goblins and proof that the more mathematically oriented and clean relativity explains gravity better than the 'goblins', it is the same with economy, if you think praxeology is wrong just give a proof that it is indeed wrong and break with the austrian theory of economics. Write a paper and send to me, you would be a hero for some socialists and other anti-market people.
1
@bluedotdinosaur These people are not saying "maybe capitalism has a slight rough edge", they are blindly saying that capitalism should be abolished. I think you are not reading the same comment section.
1
She's appears to not be an anarchist, so there's no contradiction on her saying that the capitalism had lead to innovation even with the state behind it, after all is that what liberals defend. This is just a bad criticism.
1
@IanTroesoyer They can occur under other systems, but the question is wheter they are sustainable or not. We have no evidence whatsoever for any sustainable system that can have science foundings and also keep society's well-being. In URSS for example, we had "science and technollogy", but the people were starving. Also, the thing is that capitalism is what makes the technollogy that is researched acessible to the population, which cannot be done by the state because of the well-known centralized economies problems. All of these things are factors for long-time sustainance.
1
@IanTroesoyer It is a strong claim to say China is not "capitalist". It would be another story if the economy was exactly equal to the post-revolution scene, but frankly China is much more a frankenstein of capitalism with doses of socialism than even mostly socialist, it is hard to say that this defies the point. Also, for the ireland case, I would need to research the case, but I recommend caution with these things.
1
@pxlbits6442 It seems to me that you are oversimplifying the problem here. Although it is not strictly true that the USSR suffered from extreme periods of famine after its initial periods (and even then, what should that imply? The existence of famine in those periods was still a fact), it is also not true that everything went wonderfully. Problems of distribution and resource allocation were common in the USSR even after it had industrialized, and this greater stability of the USSR's economy was often associated with various factors other than socialism, such as its vast network of black markets that supplied the population, the fact that various market concessions were made to private actors, the fact that they imported food and resources, and even prices from countries with freer markets among others. There are other fundamental issues at play here too, such as the issue that calorie intake implies nothing more than calorie intake, if you only eat fat you will be ingesting a massive amount of calories and still not equating your quality of life with the quality of life in capitalist countries. The fact that socialist regimes also have an infinitely smaller variety of food and choices is also a crucial factor here, considering that this impacts people's quality of life. It is also debatable whether they really had more nutritious food quality than the United States; I would like to see the sources of this particular claim (although it is also debatable whether this makes much difference, if all you have to eat are cereal bars and carefully planned rations you will probably have very high levels of nutrition and reasonable amounts of calories, but the price of that will be your freedom). So slow down, things are not exactly like that.
1
["Free markets are basically a model with assumptions that the actor is rational, has perfect information about the market"] Nah, this is just plain wrong. Only some modern theories fall under this category and even then have some considerations over this. And this don't apply at all to the austrian school of economics.
1
@yoshimansxl I didn't understand, dear, where exactly did the 'you need to consider which model can explain the empirical using the scientific method' come from? Because, you see, it's much more complicated than that. It's not even the case that this is a necessity, nor is it currently the case that this necessarily represents the best set of beliefs about something. The Austrian School of Economics has no obligation to 'empirically model' when it primarily deals with the logical structures of human action and derives its economic laws from there. Austrians, unlike the 'schools with empirical modeling,' are the ones who predicted things like the fall of the USSR more than 50 years before it happened.
1
I'm not surprised, the ideas that usually gets more traction in the public of these scientific channels are the most bizarre ones, because leftists do like to be validated through science for their future mass murderings.
1
@bluedotdinosaur "failing" aka the state is literally destroying them with force. But the main "libertarian experiment" which is agorism is still ongoing and very well, thank you.
1
Yet the majority of videos criticizing capitalism are too short and basic for such a complex topic such as wheter an economic system is good or bad, and nobody really talk about it.
1
@themightymcb7310 ["Politicians who got kick backs from automobile and oil companies to support car infrastructure over public transit. "] So, clearly, the problem is capitalism and not the fact that all the society works to make these politicians earn a lot of money and be able to found these non-socially-friendly solutions, right?
1
There's a thing called the failure of real socialism that is very good too. And also some interesting austrian economics books, you really should read them.
1