Probably not the most, but:
“Capitalists are job creators.”
The jobs will exist with or without them.
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
16 points (64.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43858 readers
1688 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Well. There are some jobs that like. Aren't actually real. Instagram influencers for instance. You don't need somebody wiggling their ass or abs at you and telling you their favorite cereal flavor if the goal is just to sell decent cereal instead of inventing a bunch of wierdass subflavors based on marvel characters to try and get people to buy shit they don't actually need for way too much money.
I think it's stupid as much as anyone who's not gen Z, but to claim it's not real because it's not something I can understand is a little boomer-like. Guess we're doing the whole "everything from my childhood is how it should be and the previous/next generations are stupid/misguided if they disagree" shtick.
Agreed. "Influencers" are making money because people are paying them. So it's clearly lucrative for some reason that I'll never understand.
I think their argument is that the job exists because of capitalism and without the driving force of an economy being capital, the role of an influencer is gone.
No its more like. I'm not gonna let capitalism lie to me about whether or not I need five different flavors of cinnamon toast crunch (one of which will specifically target my interests / demographics!) to feel fulfilled.
That's been going on way since the boomers and at least formally since the ww2 generation.
Telling you that you need all of these #options plus an #attractive celebrity to identify with and tell you which flavor to like is waaay older than anyone still alive now.
my 2c:
that we live in anything approaching an Adam Smith style capitalism at all. The scope of regulatory capture, anticompetitive behavior, cartel building et al in the current corporatist handwave means that prices can never go down, competition can't really unseat incumbents and so on.
Oh, you about to give me started now.
Adam Smith had another book entirely about morality. The current use of Adam Smith is wrong. Personally, for me, modern economics is a theory of selfishness, but if you go back and read Adam Smith both of the Theory of Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations. You know, he connects morality, educational economics there, they're connected.
Modern economics says nothing about morality (because it tries to supplant all alternatives entirely), thus justifying all sorts of social ills.
"Having money is nice, I want to have a lot of money because I love spending money, and I want my personal freedom regarding the way I spend my money. I work hard for my money, and so do others. That leads to innovation and progress and is the only way to preserve freedom. Therefore, I support capitalism, and therefore, I am a capitalist."
Capitalism = Freedom. We are slaves to the system, and escape is near impossible.
Free Market is bullshit..
And SO easy to debunk. It's SO easy to attack the idea of the Free Market and construct logical arguments backed with real world examples to explain why it's such a shitty, unworkable idea that opens the door for massive abuse.
And when you're talking to a true believer, it all goes in one ear and out the other.
Capitalism favors the efficient use of resources and labor. Without capitalism, we would not have a smooth and efficient society with the comforts we enjoy!
(I feel icky writing this. Big cognitive dissonance here.)
First of All, we Lost the Vocabulary War
There almost no arguments in favor of the thing anti-capitalists dislike and call "capitalism." Every argument you see is an argument in favor of market systems and self-determination, which may be necessary components to some capitalist societies, but aren't important criteria to the people advocating against our current system.
It was a clever move on the part of whoever redefined, "capitalism" until it meant, basically, "all human, economic activity."
Fortunately, that's a double edged sword. One can advocate communism these days, calling it instead, "democratic workplaces", and "worker cooperatives", and "worker owned businesses."
And the overlords can't tell their workers, "that's communism!" Because they've spent the past 180 years redefining the terms.
Technically, according to their own warped-until-useless definitions, everything is capitalism. Because worker cooperatives ✨exchange goods and services for currency✨, they are capitalism too.
That said
Nevertheless, to answer the question: the most egregious argument in favor of capitalism is the businessman's story. You've probably heard some variant of it.
- Tom has an idea!
- He makes a prototype, refines the process, and then starts selling his whatchamacallit!
- His watchamacallit has soared in popularity! The orders are coming in faster than he can meet them! He meets with investors who, in exchange for part of his company, give him enough startup capital to build a factory and hire wage workers.
- He manages these wage workers, becoming gradually more wealthy as his business expands. He is now able to recline on a beach as the fruits of his labor continue pouring in. And those clever investors can recline on a beach as well!
By presenting (1) and (2) in the same narrative as (3) and (4), with the same characters, the story portrays (1) and (2) as mere extensions of (3) and (4), when in fact their presence in a society is hard to protect when (3) and (4) are also present.
The Wright Brothers never could get royalties from the people who used their inventions to build planes. Tesla never gained wealth from his society-altering technologies. Hedy Lamarr never earned a cent for inventing WiFi (according to some stories, she never wanted to, and donated her patents to the American war effort. But she still struggled with poverty in the middle of enriching numerous people).
The most telling part of this argument is that one could substitute (3) and (4) for literal slavery! And the narrative would look pretty much the same.
"Tom's getting more orders than he can handle, so he heads over to a slave auction to pick up some help! This way, he can produce more, and his new property can learn valuable skills! It's a win-win! This is how slaveowning helps Tom profit off of his idea!"
It was no accident that slaveowners of the American South considered their society and their struggle the last bastion against a communist takeover of the world.
It's a very compelling story (as misleading as it is). A tale where the beginning makes the listener root for the protagonist all the way to end -- even after he's committed unspeakable atrocities that plunder the world of its wealth.
Because we all want to be Tom and come up with a wonderful idea (or learn a rare skill) that makes us valuable to the world. We all want to bring some contribution to the table and have that contribution recognized.
Monetary value = social value. Capitalists constantly equivocate the two concepts.
The free market is much more efficient and better for the public.
I think we can all agree privatiation of pretty much everything didn't work out that well
It's the only system that works
"Free markets are the most efficient way of allocating resource resources"
"How do you measure efficiency?"
"I don't know"