Capitalist paradox
Anyone else find it interesting that capitalism is predicted on the idea that infinite growth is possible, therefore that infinite resources exist, but somehow also there isn't enough to share?
Capitalist paradox
@Hex i don't think infinite growth is a prerequisite for capitalism.
Capitalist paradox
@sneak i should have said something like infinite growth is "assumed," but, yeah, infinite growth is a required because capitalism is a Ponzi scheme. The only way it keeps going is by consuming more resources and borrowing from the next generation...
Capitalist paradox
@sneak Money requires infinite growth. Money has to be with less and less over time so people spend or invest it instead of just removing it from circulation. If people took money out of circulation, the economy would collapse. Imagine if all currency worked like Bitcoin, and you can see why that doesn't work...
Capitalist paradox
@sneak Since competition within the capitalist market place is basically a genetic algorithm where the fitness function is how much money you can leverage, capitalism has infinite growth baked right in to it's functional prerequisites.
Money becomes worth less over time, so you have to constantly consume more money. But also, the value you need to compete increases with each generation because bigger organizations will just consume you to make more money...
Capitalist paradox
@Hex none of the things you have described have anything to do with capitalism. i'm confused how you have conflated fiat inflation and capitalism, when the former was promoted as a social good hundreds of years after the invention of the latter.
Capitalist paradox
@Hex "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
Capitalist paradox
@sneak that's a useless definition because "private owners for profit" could be workers owning the means of production and controlling then as independent democratic collectives that use markets... Which is a type of socialism. If you remove "for profit" it could as easily be almost any form of anarchism, and if you read it strictly there is no such thing as capitalism anywhere in the world...
Capitalist paradox
@Hex sorry that you asked me for a definition then i gave you an exact one then you called it useless because it wasn't the one you were already using when you farcically demanded that i define it for you
Capitalist paradox
@sneak your profile says you're a hacker, so you have to understand that documentation often doesn't match implementation. We're talking about flaws in a system. Capitalism is a system. The definition you gave is not the definition of a system.
It's like if you told some dev they should have XSS in their threat model and they said their ORM didn't have it, so you were like "that's strange, send me the docs so I can check that." Then they googled ORM and sent that.
Capitalist paradox
@sneak if you claim there isn't a flaw in a system, when it's widely understood to be a fundamental flaw in the system, then you need to account for the delta. Maybe it's a different definition, fine, we can work with that. Maybe it's not a part or the system you realized exists, fine, we can work with that.
So I proposed a definition of a system based on observations. You can propose an alternative definition. But we can't get anywhere without a real definition.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!