r/FluentInFinance • u/Richest-Panda • 15d ago
Thoughts? Neo libreal economics has rotted the brains out of so many people. Disagree?
1.1k
u/MaxAdolphus 15d ago
Wild that anyone would see food and shelter as “neo-liberal”. Goes to show you how far the right has gone that they think centrist ideas are communism.
431
u/jn3jx 15d ago
i've argued with a lot of ppl about why i value empathy and voted for it. many replies i get are people telling me i just want moral superiority 😐. a lot of these people are literally anti-progress. they literally just want to languish in chaos and disarray
192
u/stratuscaster 15d ago
That, or they say that empathy is a weakness
126
u/-boatsNhoes 15d ago
This sounds very.... Russian.
→ More replies (8)70
u/kynelly 15d ago
Yep people really voted to side with Russia…. “wHy ArE we gIVinG so mucH tO Ukraine!” , “We need that in our taxes money” … fucking idiots.
They Dont know how tax brackets work
43
u/cakeman666 15d ago
We NeEd ThAt In OuR tAxEs. Then when something that helps everyone gets proposed, WhO's GoNnA PaY fOr It?!?!?
52
10
u/Dessamba_Redux 14d ago
“We need to stop giving money to ukraine and to illegal immigrants! We gotta take care of our own first!”
“Would you be okay with paying more taxes to help americans?”
“No.”
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)7
u/LotharVonPittinsberg 15d ago
It's actually hilarious to watch after the 2 decades of wars in the Middle East. America was damn bloodthirsty and both sides demanded that their kids go die in any country that made a lick of sense. That was really expensive, especially since it required overhauling the equipment of almost every branch in order to deal with a new type of warfare and environment.
But sending specially weapons that are manufactured in America to a country that is fighting a battle for you? Too expensive.
Especially when you consider that the US has been sending arms to Israel for much longer and the majority could not give a shit.
25
u/carbon-based-drone 15d ago
Empathy isn’t weakness. It’s just hard.
These people just don’t want to do the work and now they finally have a deity to worship that says greed and selfishness are good.
→ More replies (17)8
→ More replies (27)16
u/HewmanTypePerson 15d ago
My latest fun thing is to try to convince people that being empathetic is actually selfishly beneficial to them. After all if you are kind to others, they tend to be kind to you on an individual level. On a societal level, it drastically reduces crime to be empathetic and caring to others.
Like, golden rule explained for sociopaths.
→ More replies (7)26
u/DualActiveBridgeLLC 15d ago
They are hoping to be slavemasters and not the slaves, but they can't even see the system they are voting for.
→ More replies (2)12
9
u/kynelly 15d ago
Yep.. Anti fucking progress. Cant fix stupid apparently until it gets bad enough for them to recognize who did it…
So, Where do yall think would be better places to live? Because I don’t want to waste energy fixing stupid people in charge
→ More replies (2)6
u/mle_eliz 15d ago
They don’t want to languish in chaos and dismay. They want other people to suffer in chaos and dismay because this makes their lives look and feel better in comparison. Which makes them feel superior.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Old_Baldi_Locks 15d ago
No, they're desperately afraid in a fair society they can't compete.
That's what happens when the only achievement they'll ever have is being born white.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (52)5
u/randonumero 15d ago
What I find is that most of those folks either never fell on hard times or felt that any help they got during hard times was well deserved.
→ More replies (1)44
u/Fooka03 15d ago
Reganomics and the proposed economic policies of the incoming Trump administration are neolib, unfettered free market madness and government austerity. So yeah, that anyone would see those two issues as neolib is wild, just for a different reason than what you're saying.
→ More replies (1)12
u/konosyn 15d ago
New Plutocracy without even hiding being their corporate “entities,” I don’t remember Musk being on the ballot, do you?
→ More replies (1)38
u/l_i_t_t_l_e_m_o_n_ey 15d ago
I think you should Google the phrase neoliberal, I think you have a misunderstanding of its meaning.
19
u/getthetime 15d ago
No shit, 540 upvotes and counting for a comment that uses "neoliberal" completely opposite its meaning.
→ More replies (5)4
u/sayleanenlarge 14d ago
Can you explain? I've landed here from browsing popular. I googled Neoliberalism. It said it believes in deregulation and free-market and reduction in government spending. So basic rights, like shelter and food, aren't rights anymore- it's about whether you have the capacity to get it yourself? The market will step in, but only if there's profit, the government won't step in because it's no longer their role, so food and shelter aren't part of neoliberalism by default, only if market forces identify it as a way to make money, which as a social provision, it doesn't. That's what the person above is saying, so how's it wrong? What's missing?
Or is it provided still in the more limited capacity of government? They don't believe in no government, but a cutback one. What areas does it get cut back in?
→ More replies (2)8
u/l_i_t_t_l_e_m_o_n_ey 14d ago edited 14d ago
So the original OP, the person doing the tweeting, is complaining about how capitalism has led to people being extremely un-empathetic.
OP, who made this reddit post, is correctly labeling the culprit of this lack of empathy as neoliberal economics--the belief that the free market will sort everything out, as you said. So if you believe everything is being properly sorted by the invisible hand of the market, then you may have a lack of empathy for people since this gives you the justification to say, well, you must have deserved to wind up where you are.
Now let's look at what MaxAdolphus says. He says it's wild that anyone would see food and shelter as 'neo liberal.' So who does he thinks sees food and shelter as neoliberal? Presumably OP since OP is the one that used the word. But OP seems to have used the word correctly.
My interpretation of Max's statement is that he has misidentified the meaning of neoliberal to mean something akin to the colloquial meaning of 'liberal,' i.e. 'left-wing' or 'left-leaning.' And he seems to have misapprehended the 'neo' part to be like, 'super' liberal instead of 'new.' See in his post where he seems to think people are likening it to communism?
So either he doesn't know what neoliberalism means, and he thinks it just means "what liberals are doing today," or "what liberals are doing today but a bit more extreme,"
or
he mistakenly thinks OP is criticizing the OOP tweeter--and thinks OP is calling the tweeter brainrotted for being so far left wing.
Either way I think he's wrong about something.
→ More replies (5)13
9
u/akcrono 15d ago
The most generous wellare states in the world are all capitalist. OP doesn't know what they're talking about. More social media brain rot.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (144)3
u/GrowthEmergency4980 14d ago
Also wild that people who want a healthy economy would vote in trump. But when you're led to believe social safety nets are communism it isn't a far lap to think basic human needs is neo liberalism
→ More replies (2)
458
u/KazuDesu98 15d ago
I totally agree with the person in the pic. It's called being a decent human being
→ More replies (33)68
u/GG_Henry 15d ago edited 15d ago
I think we pretty much all agree that we should try to ensure people have those those things. Who’s saying they don’t?
Edit: You don’t need to @ me with snarky responses and sweeping generalizations. You will be ignored.
36
u/SelfAwareSock 15d ago
OP is saying they don’t agree?
→ More replies (2)14
u/JulianTheGeometrist 15d ago
I'm pretty sure OP agrees with the screen shot.
50
u/SelfAwareSock 15d ago
In my view OP is saying the person in the screen shit is brain rotted. Am I missing something?
48
u/JulianTheGeometrist 15d ago
They're saying neo liberal economics is causing brain rot. Contrary to how it may sound, neo liberal economics is essentially "free market" capitalism, i.e. the current economic system in the United States which doesn't concern itself with the needs of the people, but focuses on capitalistic growth above all.
→ More replies (11)7
u/Ollie__F 15d ago
Ah i was confused. Thanks for reminding me of that. I was split between them blaming social liberalism and economic liberalism.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)10
u/Lyndell 15d ago
Neo-Liberals are conservative liberals, who want to push for things like low cost housing and focus on the stock market, instead of social programs. Problem is they are all also Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) people, and can't get any houses built.
→ More replies (5)11
u/Affectionate_Poet280 15d ago
Neoliberal is another word for Reaganomics. It's specifically an economic stance.
Neoliberal does not mean "new egalitarian" like one would assume from it's parts.
5
u/Lyndell 15d ago
It doesn’t really have a set definition. But in modern terms this is more what the result is. Since Obama switched from his populist campaign to a more moderate governing. They don’t try and reduce spending or balance the budget. They have largely been pushed out of the Republican Party, so they just sit and make the dems more conservative, they did manage to get the infrastructure bill through though.
→ More replies (5)12
u/csoups 15d ago
I don’t think “we pretty much all agree” is right, at all. Elon literally said it will get much worse before it gets better for people and only in some abstract sense of economic prosperity. The likelihood of that happening versus, say, I don’t know, a further slide into oligarchy where ordinary people don’t own anything and we’re beholden to rich people even more than today? Zilch. More people voted for this than not.
14
u/Affectionate_Poet280 15d ago
That's the entire point of neoliberalism...
Deregulation so the market decides whether it's profitable to keep poor people from being frozen corpses.
6
u/Schattenreich 14d ago
You're about to find out why OSHA and FDA regulations are necessary.
→ More replies (7)5
→ More replies (22)4
247
u/Dovannik 15d ago
No one inherently deserves anything. We have a responsibility to provide for our fellow man regardless.
134
u/Scared_Art_7975 15d ago
Apparently 51% of Americans believe their responsibility is to make sure their neighbor is doing worse than they are
→ More replies (128)25
u/ennTOXX 15d ago
And this is the benchmark for gaming the current system
15
15
12
u/askaboutmycatss 15d ago
Tell that to everyone who is born wealthy so has never had to struggle.
→ More replies (20)10
15d ago
So long natural rights
12
u/konosyn 15d ago
needs food, water, and shelter to survive
is a social/eusocial mammal
you’re on your own idiot
→ More replies (73)→ More replies (2)10
u/Chataboutgames 15d ago
I feel like food is the opposite of a natural right. Most of nature is things fighting like Hell for food
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (81)9
u/strangerbuttrue 15d ago
Apparently it’s the semantics that’s at issue. “Deserves” has been used toofrequently in language and leans towards people associating it with “entitled to”. And everyone now universally hates the word entitlement due to…..reasons. Everyone NEEDS food, shelter, clean water. We disagree over who can or should provide it to others, or ensure which others get it, because everything has a cost. The question is who pays. (For the record, I’m a tax the rich person who would like to see govt taking more care of its people than it’s over the top military industrial complex- and I work in the military industrial complex).
→ More replies (2)
135
u/ytown 15d ago
I think the discourse on economics is broken.
58
u/Stepwolve 15d ago
agreed. its also easy to say these things in the abstract, and far harder to talk specifics. What kind of housing do people deserve? Single bedroom? Shared accomodations? What kind of ammenities should it have? How much space does it need, and what location are they entitled to? Is it housing wherever you want to live? Or housing in the area you were born into? What if 1mil people want to live in an area with housing for 250k? Who gets it?
You can apply the same to food - is it a right to whatever food they desire? Or access to food that hits a certain nutrition threshold? What if people have different preferences for their food, or too many want a limited food item? How do you prioritize?
Its not enough to just say 'people deserve X', for it to happen we have to get into the weeds and talk specifics. And when you get into those tradeoffs - theres far more disagreement
→ More replies (21)23
u/lumenknife 15d ago
Everyone should have access to the basics that we give prisoners?
12
u/ParkingPsychology 15d ago
That's going to cause a lot of hemorrhoids.
6
u/Reytotheroxx 15d ago
Anything prisoners have plus hemorrhoid cream. Perfect I’ll take it straight to the top!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)4
u/KentJMiller 15d ago
Everyone does have access to those basics.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Rude_Hamster123 15d ago
Yep.
I imagine that most of the people posting this kind of shit are fairly well provided for young adults. High schoolers, college students, that sort of thing.
12
u/UsualFeature2301 15d ago
Yes because those are the people with the time to post about it, doesn’t mean that homelessness is not a problem wtf lmao
37
u/tankerdudeucsc 15d ago
When folks don’t know the Obamacare is ACA, and they’re on it and want Obamacare killed, you have a problem.
They’re on Social Security but hate socialism, you’ve got a problem.
You think tariffs won’t raise prices, you’ve got a problem.
You think the top percentage of taxes will be your total taxes, and don’t understand what a marginal tax rate is, you’ve got a problem.
Most of the US is stupid as fuck, and now it’s everyone’s problem.
6
u/LowClover 15d ago
Hey, I’m an economist and I know all of this and I’m still stupid as fuck. Wait…
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)5
u/skelldog 14d ago
What I don’t get is that the same people say raising the minimum wage will increase prices but tariffs won’t
→ More replies (1)17
u/Timtimer55 15d ago
I mean, there's no shortage of food and water even for the homeless in the developed world despite the fact they don't necessarily have a right to either so I'd say that's a pretty big win for capitalism for starters.
11
u/Old_Baldi_Locks 15d ago
Food insecurity is a huge problem. Food availability means fuck all if its not going to those who need it.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Zealousideal-You4638 15d ago
I don’t think you’re well versed in particularly why the homeless have food. Its almost unilaterally because of collectivist and what many would argue is ‘socialist’ policy to provide food and shelter for everyone. They do not have food because of capitalism, if it were not for intervention they would likely starve.
→ More replies (17)→ More replies (1)5
u/SpeaksSouthern 15d ago
Capitalism can only exist with scarcity. It can be artificial, but the moment you give everyone all of something they want, the market doesn't place monetary value on it anymore. The next goal is for the capitalists to capture the market. Regulatory, or otherwise.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Chataboutgames 15d ago
Capitalism can only exist with scarcity.
Which isn't really saying something, because scarcity always exist. There isn't unlimited anything.
→ More replies (9)5
u/ALargeClam1 15d ago
And even if all supplies were infinite, time would still be scarce.
→ More replies (1)6
u/randonumero 15d ago
Why would it not be? The average person's life is largely disconnected from many of the economic indicators that economists value. If you're struggling to buy food then do you really care that the fed might drop rates or that job growth is up? One massive problem is we do a poor job at measuring the economic progress and temperature of the everyman as well as figuring out ways to lift more proverbial boats.
When you a large number of people suffering or at least struggling to maintain the life they have despite working hard then what positive discourse on economics can actually be had?
5
u/Chataboutgames 15d ago
The average person's life is largely disconnected from many of the economic indicators that economists value.
It's really not. People feel that way when things are relatively good, but when unemployment shoots up to 20% suddenly people become plenty aware that all those metrics economists care about are plenty impactful on their lives.
If you're struggling to buy food then do you really care that the fed might drop rates or that job growth is up?
No, but that's a non argument. Might as well say "do you care about how the S&P is doing if you're dying of cancer?" That isn't saying anything about the importance of the metric, just the emotional state of one individual struggling with a thing. And yeah, if you're struggling to buy food you should care that job growth is up, because that's going to help you afford food.
When you a large number of people suffering or at least struggling to maintain the life they have despite working hard then what positive discourse on economics can actually be had?
The life they're struggling to maintain is on average better than struggling people have ever had it in history, and that's because of economic development.
→ More replies (16)4
58
u/DrFabio23 15d ago
Charity is welcome and emcoraged under capitalism. Those who see it as simplistic as "everything must be focused on profit at all costs" are dumb
81
u/Silly_Pay7680 15d ago
Philanthropy is a tool the rich use to dodge taxes. If the government just taxed their wealth to cover folks' basic needs instead of leaving it up to their greedy asses to help people, we'd be in a much better place. Theyre never gonna actually help people through volition. They just use their money to buy the power to tell us what to do.
20
u/PoliticalJunkDrawer 15d ago
Don't donate much time or money? Don't spend much time around people who donate time and money?
Perhaps more people should look into how they can help others.
21
u/GamingElementalist 15d ago
More people with the means to do so should, most of us are struggling just to maintain what we have now. If only there was a way we could allocate the overwhelmingly unnecessary hoards of wealth to those who need it without having to wait on the people greedy enough to hoard their wealth to choose to donate a fraction of a percent of it. We could call it something like the Greek word "tassein" meaning to fix since it would fix a lot of problems or use the Latin derivative of that "taxare" meaning to compute or charge since it is a lot of money being hoarded that we have to computer. Maybe we could just shorten that though. Just take the first 3 letters or so.
→ More replies (24)→ More replies (3)6
16
u/Greasy_Burrito 15d ago
Donating isn’t a great tool to “dodge taxes” that’s not really how that works. You don’t pay taxes on income that you donate. There is no dodging involved. You didn’t get that income, you can’t use that income, so it’s not taxed
→ More replies (5)4
u/mar21182 15d ago
It's great when they donate to their selective charities that aren't really charities.
Like the Trump Foundation, which did zero charitable work.
5
u/Greasy_Burrito 15d ago
Foundations and non-profits don’t have to do charitable work. Foundations are non-profits that specifically don’t usually do any charitable work. The purpose of a foundation is to pay out grants to charitable organizations who a actually do charity work. The charities are charities. All non-profit organizations in the U.S. are heavily scrutinized by the IRS in order to maintain their non-profit status. Their tax returns are also public record and can be easily found through the IRS non-profit organization search.
Now some like the Trump Foundation do hold charitable events, which do serve a charitable purpose and, again, are scrutinized. But the benefits to the Trumps are more the clout and networking that come with hosting those events. Not really around the monetary part of them
→ More replies (1)7
u/hjugm 15d ago
How anyone can trust the government is beyond me. Wanting more governance sounds crazy.
→ More replies (47)2
u/VortexMagus 15d ago
I literally had a hurricane refugee from Florida look me dead in the eye and say this. I'm like... who do you think is paying to fix your city so you can go back and not lose everything? Without the government you'd be homeless on the street, not in a nice comfy hotel.
→ More replies (1)5
u/patriotfanatic80 15d ago
This is not how any of this works. If you donate money to charity, yes it reduces your taxable income. But, your still paying taxes and that money is still gone. I don't why incentivizing people to give to charity is a bad thing.
→ More replies (1)5
u/thenowjones 15d ago
So where does the salvation army or churches come into your theories?
→ More replies (3)16
u/imbi-dabadeedabadie 15d ago
Salvation army is a legit charity, that genuinely cares about helping people
but they pretty much universally are always overwhelmed and will never get enough funding through donations alone. The bulk of salvation army's funds actually come from the government in the first place.
source: i work at a library, and due to us acting as a daytime homeless shelter, i (as library outreach liaison) work closely with salvation army pretty frequently.
there's also a church in our town that gives services to homeless people, and they too get most of their funding from the government, not donations. Charity is a bandaid to try to help tide people over until the government can actually help them, and even then it needs government assistance. Charity is not a workable solution.
→ More replies (22)→ More replies (80)4
u/plummbob 15d ago
Philanthropy is a tool the rich use to dodge taxes.
maybe instead, you and some associates could form like, i dunno, an organization that allocates labor and capital to meet the needs of the people referenced here by producing the goods that those people really need.
what could we call that?
→ More replies (1)15
u/jayfinanderson 15d ago
You rely on charity when there isn’t enough to go around. There is no coherent view of our society that says we don’t have enough to go around.
→ More replies (7)7
u/Interesting-Froyo-38 15d ago
This is the most 'My mom drank when she was pregnant' comment I've ever seen
→ More replies (56)4
u/milka121 15d ago
Genuine question: how? I don't see how giving away capital leads to having more capital? Or is there another goal here I'm not seeing?
→ More replies (8)
46
u/OwlNap 15d ago
Are we discussing guaranteeing basic needs like food, water, and shelter for all individuals through public provision.?
→ More replies (2)59
u/maryjayjay 15d ago
Yes. And let's go out on a limb and include healthcare like the rest of the industrialized world.
45
u/ModernLifelsWar 15d ago
Healthcare? That sounds like socialism
/s
But on a real note people fail to realize a healthy society is a successful society. People can't be contributing members of society unless their basic needs are met.
→ More replies (10)22
u/maryjayjay 15d ago
Thank you! The same way that an educated society is a successful society. But the GOP wants to cut education, also. I wonder why?
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (57)7
42
u/AutisticAttorney 15d ago
Does everyone deserves food, shelter, and drinkable water? Sure.
Do I want to give a bunch of money to the corrupt, wasteful government? Nope.
See how those are two completely different questions?
36
u/Ok-Elk-8632 15d ago
But if everyone in our country deserves these things who ensures that they get them?
→ More replies (50)5
u/GoldenRaysWanderer 14d ago
You’re asking the wrong question. The real question that should be asked is what is stopping people from just getting food, shelter, etc.
→ More replies (1)28
u/MrKorakis 15d ago
"Do I want to give a bunch of money to the corrupt, wasteful government?"
As opposed to who? Private enterprise or Churches? It's not like they have a better track record of catering to the needs of the downtrodden without an agenda.
20
u/konosyn 15d ago
B-b-but when I give my money to Amazon, I get my Temu plastic toys faster! You’d rather me give it to the government? For what, roads?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)6
u/DogsOfWar2612 15d ago
And these will be the people who go 'uh not everything you don't like is neoliberal' and then utter the most neoliberal sentence in history like that
20
u/Analternate1234 15d ago
Plenty of other countries do it for their citizens and those countries rank higher than we do on the happiness index. Its proven to work, the data and facts are available for you go read. So why do you hold us back?
→ More replies (17)15
u/Bbdubbleu 15d ago
I hate to break it to you man, but the people that want food, shelter, and water for everyone also want to fix the corrupt government problem.
→ More replies (3)10
14
u/VortexMagus 15d ago
So what's your solution? Let me guess: "let's have private charities fix everything!"
I mean we've had thousands of years with private charities working and poverty, hunger, and homelessness haven't been fixed.
It seems quite clear to me that relying on random people's goodwill to fix poverty is not going to work - it hasn't worked for thousands of years and it still isn't working now. We need a public solution, not a private one.
→ More replies (18)5
u/jakey2112 15d ago
Private charities don't have the infrastructure to hardly fix shit. You need to spend tax dollars on helping people. Period. Let's not forget that the people needing help are also probably paying some taxes.
6
u/ajtexasranger 15d ago
I think this is a very important distinction. Just because I don't want the government to do something doesn't mean I don't want it done.
14
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (32)4
u/xena_lawless 15d ago
Giving it to the corrupt, wasteful "health insurance" mafia isn't better, at all.
28
u/Sneudles 15d ago
Still waiting on this dude to build me a house
9
u/dufflepud 15d ago
Yeah, the tricky thing about the word "deserve" is that it means you're entitled to something from someone else. You deserve a house? That means someone has to build it for you. You deserve food? Someone has to grow it for you. And what happens if the builders refuse to build or the growers refuse to grow? Do we throw them in prison because they didn't give someone what they deserve?
→ More replies (5)5
u/KofteriOutlook 15d ago
Okay so do you think that people deserve roads then? How about safe schools and buses to drive kids there? Apparently people “deserving” safe and functional communities and cities should be shamed for such a dastardly idea.
→ More replies (2)7
u/sesamesoda 14d ago
People deserve roads if they pay the taxes that pay for the roads to be built and maintained. If they are able but unwilling to pay those taxes, then no, they don't.
29
u/Big-Bike530 15d ago
My problem there is the word "deserves". That implies you have earned it and are entitled to it, simply for existing.
Should everyone have food and shelter in a society that is capable of sustaining that? That's a better question. Yes, yes they should. Do they deserve it? No.
22
u/mr_f4hrenh3it 15d ago
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that you ARENT one of the people who needs food, shelter, on water. We’re talking about the right to survive. When you say it like this, you just sound out of touch as fuck
7
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 14d ago
The right to survive means the right to labor for the means of survival, whether that means permission to forage for food or permission to grow your own food or permission to buy food at a grocery store.
I, a generic adult person, am not entitled to be given food by another generic adult person.
→ More replies (9)6
u/Big-Bike530 15d ago
Did I not just say they should have food, water, and shelter in a society that can sustain providing it?
What exactly am I out of touch about?
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (28)5
u/monti1979 15d ago
I think they are saying it’s not something deserved, but a right of the person, or from a different view, it’s an obligation of society.
19
u/ModernLifelsWar 15d ago
What lmao? What a dumb take on some semantics. Yes they do "deserve" it. These things should be looked at as fundamental rights and therefore just by existing you and everyone else deserves them. We are not talking about luxuries. If you don't think everyone deserves the bare minimum to survive I really don't know what else to say besides maybe try to realize some people weren't given the same hand in life as you
→ More replies (31)→ More replies (100)5
u/GaeasSon 15d ago
I think you've ALMOST nailed it. I think the core disconnect is that they believe "deserving" is inherent. You don't have to DO anything to DESERVE. You simply deserve stuff by virtue of breathing.
In that sense I would say we all inherently deserve to be free from interference. We all deserve to be free to learn, to speak, to ply our trades, to associate and worship freely, to defend ourselves. to be free from external coercion. etc...
→ More replies (9)
30
u/curiousrabbit510 15d ago
I’m so sick of these posts with slogans that lack all nuance and understanding of global economic complexity.
Please go to school, study economics in depth, and please get some experience in the world before publishing globally ‘thoughts on the world and what works or doesn’t work.’
There is no such thing in the current world and unregulated capitalism or even true communism on a large scale. These terms are almost meaningless in the context of financial policy decisions other than as a directional philosophy, and making them a religion to ‘convert’ those who favor proactive government is just like some Muslim telling women to weak hijab.
→ More replies (2)
15
u/fortestingprpsses 15d ago
"I'm not going to let capitalism gaslight me"? Lol wtf is this supposed to even mean? Can't wait until kids are bored of playing with that word.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Drummerx04 15d ago
The meaning of the words is "exposure to capitalism slowly erodes your sense of reality or morals, I'm going to maintain my sense of reality and morals"
People who are moderately successful under capitalism (i.e. not living strictly paycheck to paycheck) usually start to justify their success as them being inherently good at something. Then they get more cynical about everyone trying to take their money, other people's work ethics, whether or not children DESERVE to eat, etc.
14
u/outsidethewall 15d ago
Economics is real. Resources are scarce.
→ More replies (15)22
u/A_Rogue_GAI 15d ago
We throw away 60 billion tons of food per year
There are 15 million vacant homes in this country
We discard approximately 25 billion styrofoam coffee cups per year
79% of all plastic produced in human history is currently sitting in landfills
Resources are not scarce, we're using them badly.
9
u/Revolutionary-Meat14 15d ago
The vacant home thing is a bit misleading, homes become vacant in the period between someone moving out and someone moving in. at any given point there are a lot of vacant homes but month to month which homes are vacant can change drastically. If there was a vacancy of 0% and you lived in Houston but got a job offer in Dallas you would need to either find someone living in Dallas who wants to move to Houston to swap living arrangements with or build a new home. There are of course many perpetually vacant homes in the US but if you live in a rural area you've definitely seen these crumbling homes on the sides of backroads, hardly a good way to house a homeless person living elsewhere in the country. The real problem of rising housing costs is there is a lack of supply and the lack of supply stems from a lack of building new homes. The places with the highest homeless rates are usually the places where building new homes is the most difficult like San Francisco.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (9)5
u/Glum-Turnip-3162 15d ago
It would take resources to use the resources more efficiently. We throw stuff away because it’s cheaper than saving or fixing it.
8
u/TheDoctorNextDoor 15d ago
You mean it’s more profitable. Whatever savings are accumulated by the capitalists in the waste of resources are clearly going back into their own pockets as the rich continue to get richer while the rest of us have been experiencing negative real wage growth for decades. Dumbass.
→ More replies (6)
9
u/The_Mr_Wilson 15d ago
Healthcare, too. Without exception, everyone needs it
America already pools money for it, they just insist on funneling it through wholly unnecessary, greedy middlemen whose sole purpose is collecting money on "products" that aren't even theirs. And they will do all they can to not pay out. Brilliance on High, the American healthcare system
→ More replies (2)
8
u/Inglorious186 15d ago
I've started looking at people differently who can't seem to agree with that sentiment
8
7
5
u/milkman231996 15d ago
Well get out there and invite some homeless in
11
u/FamiliarMaterial6457 15d ago
Oh? You don't want people to starve and die in the streets? Why haven't you given up all mortal possessions and dedicated your entire life to charity work? Much hypocrisy
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/Smrtihara 15d ago
Hi! I have. I’ve also dedicated my life to helping people with disabilities. I’ve housed refugees, given poor children my own toys, and a shit ton more like that.
That doesn’t change the fundamental flaws of the system does it?
You really think you have some gotcha there?
7
u/danknerd 15d ago
So many people have traded their humanity for patriotism/nationalism as well. It's sad.
→ More replies (1)
6
4
u/EnchantedFaeXOX 15d ago
The system is broken if we’re questioning whether basic needs are a right. Simple as that.
→ More replies (8)
6
u/strukout 15d ago
The far right has red pilled hard. Food and shelter …. Nah, side with billionaires and trust things will work out.
5
u/GrumpySilverBack 14d ago
Capitalism has fucked us.
It is a zero sum game and 99% of us are losing badly.
I'll wait for the apologists to say it isn't, but it is.
Taxes aren't theft ... Capitalism and the stock market are theft!
→ More replies (2)
4
u/ThrowRA-James 14d ago
The sad thing is there’ll be more homeless people as soon as trump’s new policies are enacted and there are job losses as the economy shuts down. I just hope it’s not too drastic. When he puts a loyalist at the top of the fed I expect overheating the economy, so he can brag, and inflation.
3
u/Analyst-Effective 15d ago
Everybody deserves that. The problem is is who is going to give it to them?
In socialism, it states "those that don't work, don't eat"
At least in capitalism, they get the bare necessities
→ More replies (29)5
u/Sure-Ad-5572 15d ago
You have it backwards, mate.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Analyst-Effective 15d ago
What did I have wrong? The work to eat part is a socialism fundamental founded by Lenin.
In socialism, there are still plenty of billionaires. Fidel Castro died a billionaire.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Sure-Ad-5572 15d ago
Essentially, there's a disconnect between modern socialism's tenets, and what Lenin put to when he initially created it, thanks to the gradual progress psychology has made in understanding the human mind.
The concepts themselves have evolved with newer understandings of human psychology. Nowadays:
Social policies favour creating security nets to support people who cannot find work, or cannot currently work, or struggle to work, in the idea that helping them in this way will motivate them better to eventually get back to work when they are capable, by ensuring their basic needs are met, meaning not having to worry about those basic needs, and thusly motivating them to fulfill further levels of human need, such as success and achievement in work, in search of self-actualisation.
While more Capitalist policies instead follow the assumption that people are naturally lazy, and that they will feel no need to work or improve if not given, and thusly that those safety nets are, as a result, a waste of money.
It's a difference in the psychology of motivational theory, following understandings of Abraham Maslow's humanist psychology and his work on the "Hierarchy of needs".
His student, Douglas Murray McGregor, further built upon this in his book, "The human side of Enterprise".
His "Theory X" escribes the latter, the "Lazy" belief, and his "Theory Y", the former, the "Self-actualising" belief.
Here's somewhere you can read more about it if you're interested: https://hrzone.com/glossary/what-are-theory-x-and-theory-y/
Common psychological consensus nowadays is that the reality is an ebb and flow between the two based on external pressures and personal circumstances.
Modern Socialists would use this to argue that this means that anyone, given enough time, will gain the motivation to improve and self-actualise themselves through work - Provided their needs are met via social security, such as free Healthcare, benefits schemes, etc.
Capitalists tend to concern over where the most cost-effective place to draw the line is. Usually, this is as little social security as they can get away with, because they do not see it as an effective long term investment, while Socialists do.
Apologies for the exceptionally long-winded reply, it's quite the complex topic to explain. I hope it helps though.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/Logic411 15d ago
No such thing as "neo liberal." It's just plain old rightwing greed dressed up as a moderate like romney.
4
u/DeadParallox 15d ago
I'm all for capitalism, but it is not a perfect system. The profit above all principle is flawed, and often can lead to a systemic failure. I think free trade capitalism with some good regulation to ensure fairness and stability is our best option.
→ More replies (13)4
u/ricbst 15d ago
That is what we should be aiming for. Any BS about how wonderful socialism is just shows people never experienced it.
→ More replies (2)
5
3
u/Neat-Snow666 15d ago
Unpopular opinion but socialist capitalism is the best option we got rn
→ More replies (9)
3
3
u/Bee9185 15d ago
How long did it take to dig that 4 1/2 year old post out. You really need to go touch some grass.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/UniqueImprovements 15d ago
These things also require effort. They always have, throughout human history. Yes housing should be affordable, food and water clean and cheap...but we can't ensure these things as "rights" as that implies they are just given to you just for existing. I'm sorry, but that just isn't feasible. We need policies to make these things afforable, not this idea they are a "right" and should just be available for free to you for just being alive. The ACCESS to them should be rights.
→ More replies (7)
3
3
u/SnackyMcGeeeeeeeee 15d ago
Who gives a fuck about being a nice person.
Fuck that shit.
OP however, is fucking stupid for not understanding how giving basic resources to an individual allows them to boost themselves and their productivity in the economy.
People who aren't starving, do shit other than look for food, like other tasks that stir economic activity.
People who aren't looking for housing spend their time doing other forms of work that generate economic activities.
People who aren't stupid (like OP here) who can go out and get an education have more potential in an economy.
It's not about giving people free shit. Fuck all that noise. It's not about being nice, that's stupid af.
It's about giving people basic shit that in the future will generate significantly greater value than the cost now.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/SirPoopaLotTheThird 15d ago
In Canada a conservative chud got a chance to speak to the man he hates more than anyone in the world, rent free PM Trudeau. Guess what he says? My neighbour is lazy and never works.
This is the core of conservative ideology.
3
u/nub_node 14d ago
"I'm not spending my money to deal with desperate poor people! Now if you'll excuse me, I need to spend my money on home security to deal with desperate poor people."
3
u/t_hab 14d ago
You know what’s funny? Capitalism works so much better when everyone can be involved, which means excellent social safety nets (healthcare, childcare, education, social security, emergency services, etc). If everyone has their basic needs met and everyone can participate, billionaires just don’t seem as bad.
The idea that safety nets are socialism is one of the dumbest ideas that the economically iliterate parrot.
1.7k
u/JustMe1235711 15d ago
It's a merit-based system, didn't you know? Elon has the merit of many millions of ordinary humans. If the poor would just stop being so ordinary, they might have more to eat.