Ok ok - I'm with you, thanks for actually bringing the goods unlike our UGA friend. IMO, altruism is only possible on an industrial scale in the presence of abundance. Competitiveness and cooperation aren't usually exclusive, competition is just a motivating incentive
we have abundance. putting that aside, you still seem to be missing the fundamental point which is why I encourage you to read the book. Namely, that what seemed impossible in 1950– global resource management predicated on good-enough decision calculus and designed to meet basic needs for everyone involved— is not only possible but is actually how global firms are able to operate. It means rejecting the entire rationale underwriting the market economy and what passes for formal philosophy attached thereto.
We agree on this you pyscho. The literal quoted post says "I 100% agree, a well functioning public sector is necessary for a good private sector" Like what is happening
you need to drop this false dichotomy from the 20th century, public and private sector. Capitalism needs the state to exist, full stop, and the question is what trade offs are acceptable within market or socialist economies.
Look man - I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but pretty much every post you have on this site is just a derivation of "x sucks and is unfair." I haven't seen you engage substantively on a topic the in 10 years I've been on this board. On a list of board intellectuals you would be near the bottom. I spent some time earlier today trying to draw parallels between my old career and the Fed for discussion's sake, took effort and put myself out there. To which you have nothing to offer but recycled snark and tropes. Like, cmon man. Have an original opinion, tell me something I don't know already.
if there are middle schoolers reading Marx, I want to meet and empower them. Just putting that out there.
this is a classic TH trope, get hung up on some pointless tangential thing because you realize you're in over your head on the discussion being had
In my defense, I'm having like seven conversations at once. By the time I've typed out a response, there's been 5 more replies. Makes thing difficult but I am a glutton for punishment!
m8 you've made your whole personality about an ideology that has been relegated to the shadows for almost half a century. When the first successful nation based purely on altruism and cooperation (without individualism and competition) *exists*, lmk I'll still be here
Bud - this doesn't follow from this Your statement that global firms are able to uhh...*function* by allocating resources cooperatively says nothing about the rationale on how society is organized. Silly, galaxy brained take
Being earnest when I say this, the Amazon'ed list of books sitting on my dresser to read is like eleven so not gonna happen. But just reading the synopsis, seems like another in a long line of theoretical books written by people with no skin in the game. How desperate is the socialist movement that it feels it must somehow co-opt and twist Capitalism's greatest successes as its own in order to gain legitimacy?
I don't know any other read than me engaging in discussion on the last page to which your responded with gifs and asking me if I found anything extraordinary like astronomy. I then still tried to engage by giving examples that shoot holes in the private sector myth to which your didn't bother responding . I don't care about being an intellectual but I have noted your attempt to insult me. Why should I bother continuing to engage substantively when you don't respond to substantive posts? There's a lot you don't know fwiw. Like the basics of exploitation
I'm sorry I was mean earlier. I really didn't see anything from you I thought was substantive. Point me to it and I'll respond
Remember when whammy immediately responded to a lyrtch post where he linked several stories? Like there was no way he read them but he had critiques. I wonder why people people put minimal effort in engaging with you
I just read all your posts on the last page and see nothing substantive to respond to. I'm not being snarky
Redav - the articles weren't credible, one of them was written by an unemployed freelance journalist. It was like linking Breitbart, not serious content
Right I know you dismiss everything that isn't favorable to your overall point. Can't even engage in an alternative idea
Ok, that’s cool, but please don’t talk to me like you’re the arbiter of serious contributions or whatever by making judgments based on Amazon reviews.
Redav - the articles weren’t credible, I don’t know what you want me to say. Here’s a critical article critiquing the industry that I can stand behind. But I’m not giving quarter to Q-level YouTube videos and articles written by zoomers who have done a day’s worth research. It’s literally not worth discussing Would it surprise you that I am pro regulation for the crypto industry? And would agree we’re about to get slapped by regulators? Justifiably so
If you’ll remember we went through that one. Essentially confirmed the assertion that the hardcore libertarians were all early Bitcoiners who have fading relevance in the industry. We discussed all of them ad nauseum you just didn’t like the answers.
Yes that was it Again you've adopted the crypto space style of debate. It's hysterical but it's in no way serious.
Can we get a ruling on if bitcoin is capitalism, socialism or communism and then get back to our regularly scheduled program of user15000 vs gallant knight crypto brawl?
Like a week ago, you posted a dogshit sensationalized video about bored apes for….reasons…and then pivoted to an article with a link to some study that literally didn’t exist. It was a poor showing. Maybe take a lap. And there is no crypto style of debate. Only in your warped mind does every crypto person fit into your stereotypes. Grow the fuck up.