Comments by "Ficus-lovin\x27 Capybara N\x27 pals • 🌟 • 25 yrs ago" (@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago) on "" video.

  1. 214
  2. 34
  3. 11
  4. 8
  5. 7
  6. For me the issue is so so simple. Do we have enough to go around for everyone on this planet/country/community, and if so, can we provide everyone with a reasonable standard of living, with some people having a little bit more and some having a little bit less, but everyone being above a certain baseline? I say hell yes. And if this is true, than how best do we achieve this? And I think the answer is clear: a rational and ethical combination of a regulated private sector and a more centrally-planned and controlled to public sector. I think that makes the most sense. Questions, concerns? As far as I'm concerned the standard study of economics is nothing but a bunch of convenient and casual assumptions that people try to justify with a lot of high-sounding rhetoric but in the end when you boil it down it literally is simply opinion and assumption. I mean that's just what it is. Sometimes when scarcity increases so does the price of a given good. Sometimes the opposite occurs. Sometimes neither occurs. The thing is life is complicated and people are also, and I know that conventional economics adherents like to have these basic foundational beliefs taken as always factual so the rest of their assumptions can appear more justified and self-evident, but I do not accept these claimed foundational assumptions, at least not in all cases. I also reject the idea that we have a scarcity of resources on Earth instead of an abundance that is simply mal-distributed. (Obviously we have a hard upper limit because the Earth is a finite space but compared to our population I do feel that we currently produce an abundance of natural essential resources)
    4
  7. 4
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1