the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
https://hexbear.net/comment/5172599
There is a lot to get into and I am short of time, but I wouldn't really say "inefficient" - after all, the median worker in the global south has directly and indirectly more surplus value extracted at lesser compensation (super-exploitation and super-profits) - that's very efficient. All those mountains of goods produced and they will probably never go on any trips or consume like westerners feel they have to - EDIT I assume you meant to say that, maybe I just overreading things
Well, what I mean exactly is that production in the poorer nations is usually significantly more labor intensive. If the labor of rich country citizens exchanged at the same rate as those of poorer countries, a first worlder would going to a third world country would actually experience a massive decline in purchasing power.