this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
1632 points (95.9% liked)

Solarpunk

5986 readers
26 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 10 months ago (42 children)

Unfettered capitalism will be the end of us.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (41 children)

Capitalism can work to our benefit. It's main benefit is incentivising people to get more, which seems to work well at encouraging people to be productive. The main idea is supposed to be efficient resource allocation, but that plainly does not work as it leads to wealth accumulation at the top.

Our problem is twofold. The first problem is we externalize negative costs onto society. So environmental damage, health costs, workers pensions, roads, bridges etc.

The second problem is efficient wealth distribution. Currently we focus on income rather than wealth. We should tax wealth just as much as income. We certainly should make any use of an asset as collateral a taxable event.

Some things that might help. We should look at changing taxation systems to be a formula rather than bands. The more income you get, the higher it goes. The lower your income, the lower you're taxed. Same as now but rather than having to meet a threshold to move bands, every dollar is taxed based on where it falls in the distribution curve. It would be more complex for people to get their heads around at first, but actually simpler for all calculations going forwards.

UBI would also help with redistribution and make society more efficient overall.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (11 children)

I get what you are trying to say, but you sound like someone in an abusive relationship that still believes they can fix the abuser somehow.

[–] Yondoza 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I think these are reasonable suggestions to make society more equitable. Do you disagree with any of them? Or just don't like them because they modify the existing system instead of tearing it all down?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They are reasonable suggestions if you refuse to think outside the box of capitalism.

And no, thinking outside of capitalism doesn't require to tear it all down. That is exactly what the capitalist want us to think with their TINA.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What would you change it for? We've tried many systems globally and historically. Capitalism seems to be the best at reducing poverty.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No it's not. Russian and Chinese state capitalism turned two preindustrial countries into global superpowers in a matter of decades, and lifted unprecedented numbers of people out of poverty. And they weren't even communist! Communism has been tried in places like Catalonia and economically, it succeeded. Militarily, not so much, but only because all the capitalists turned against them. Capitalism is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to lifting people out of poverty.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, China and Russia had rapid advancements in reducing poverty by embracing capitalism market principles. That's partly the point.

Nobody is advocating for pure capitalism. No country practices it. It's theoretical and has no restrictions, or regulations.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

No, they didn't advance by adopting capitalism market principles. They advanced by adopting state capitalism, which is actually defined by lack of a market. They had a planned economy instead, and they advanced faster than the US because markets are inefficient. China has a planned economy with markets, but highly regulated and non based on competition like a traditional capitalist style market.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's a completely ahistorical take. Capitalism is best at creating poverty when you look at it globally. Yes it is good at concentrating riches in a few places, and from a rich western perspective it may look like it "reduced" poverty, but even that is starting to become questionable these days.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, its really not. Capitalism increases productivity and wealth. How that wealth is distributed varies by country. Russia for instance has oligopolies that mean most goes to individuals. Europe has social programs that mean its more evenly spread. Its up to the countries and law makers to plan that well. Its not the fault of the concept if its misused. Its a tool, like any other.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Sorry but I hate to pop your privileged bubble, but that is evidently false and pure propaganda by capitalists. And capitalism isn't even a tool, it is a political ideology with a clear goal (concentrate wealth in a few hands).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Bbbut be just needs anger management classes...

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (37 replies)
load more comments (37 replies)