Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cockydjinn t1_j98bywh wrote

It’s criminal

201

splashattack t1_j98grrm wrote

Capitalism is working precisely as intended.

Hell, making profit off of things people need to survive is a feature, not a bug.

121

Ak47110 t1_j99yaot wrote

Don't worry, all the wealth that the rich are accumulating will trickle down eventually! ....right??

24

issuesintherapy t1_j9a6j4i wrote

We've been waiting since the 80's.... is it trickling yet?

20

Ak47110 t1_j9axm4a wrote

There's definitely something trickling down on us poors.

6

arwans_ire t1_j98u3sv wrote

>Capitalism is working precisely as intended.

Seriously! I wish it were more surprising that the people who continue to vote for people that enable this behavior don't get it, but it's not.

23

ninjacereal t1_j9990o4 wrote

Absolutely, what kind of government would regulate private companies to the point of creating a monopoly.

5

graffiti81 t1_j9ac6ey wrote

You're right, regulations don't work in this case. We need to do away with eversource and make it a state run public entity.

7

The_Best_At_Reddit t1_j9app1p wrote

Yup utilities and healthcare have proverbial moats. It’s too hard for upstarts to access the infrastructure to compete, so it’s anti competitive by nature.

5

SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_j9amzna wrote

Which is why we had a mixed market that specifically prevented monopolies... This is not because corporations are acting like they always have. This is because we elected leadership that were on the board of those corporations or are too lazy to explain complex economic concepts like oligopolies.

2

hollow-fox t1_j9b5mx5 wrote

It’s not working at all as intended. Capitalism assumes a competitive market, the energy companies are oligopolies and have no competition.

2

tjf314 t1_j9c615b wrote

all competitions eventually get a winner…

1

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j9930hq wrote

I think what you mean is regulation. There are no ties of ones personal behavior to capitalism. Capitalism is a free market. The regulation of publicly traded companies is up for oversight as required by law. The main difference? Capitalism is necessary for a free and prosperous society, corruption is not necessary and is punishable by laws on the books. Blaming Capitalism for this is like blaming money for making people fat because they use money to buy McDonalds six times a week. See you like Capitalism because you can order some desirable $#!+ on Amazon and it shows up at your doorstep. Exchange that for a controlled monetary system. No more private enterprise. Your confusion is based purely on either irrational or uneducated biases. Read a book, understand how our Republic is supposed to function, then come on back.

−13

PG-Glasshouse t1_j995edc wrote

> Capitalism is necessary for a free and prosperous society

We make people pay for their kids to get lunch at schools run for free by the government and if this arbitrary additional burden is too much we take their kids away. Third party vendors introduced a profit motive into giving children lunch and now you can lose parental rights if you don’t participate in their capitalism. Most of the rest of the school experience is still free, for now. Do you think capitalism will improve that too?

> corruption is not necessary and is punishable by laws on the books.

Who writes those laws? The legal system isn’t broken, it just wasn’t designed to punish the people with enough power to run it.

The people doing capitalism “wrong” are always the most successful capitalist and so they will always end up being the ones in control.

> Exchange that for a controlled monetary system. No more private enterprise. Your confusion is based purely on either irrational or uneducated biases.

Absolutely beautiful.

9

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j996yr3 wrote

You also are confused at what capitalism actually is. Now we are getting into the government controlled school system discussion. You are right in the sense that the government has no business educating or feeding our children and the motive of the current government to remove parental rights has nothing to do with capitalism. You either have a free market or you don't. So what's your point? Social prescribed means? Everyone of a taxpayer funded support system? Let's entertain that for a moment, who are the taxpayers employed by? What is their product or service? Do people willingly exchange their money for that product or service? If the answer to that question is no then you have an insolvent socially funded wallet. If the answer is yes then you agree that capitalism is necessary. It also all you've ever known. Everything you purchase willingly is free market enterprise. I don't get your point! It doesn't make one. Terrible response.

−14

SecretLadyMe t1_j99v2g4 wrote

If we truly had a free market, then labor would be as powerful as the ownership class because labor is also a commodity. If we truly had a free market, the railroad worker strike would not have been interrupted by the government. You are buying into the propaganda that is destroying the quality of life for everyone.

10

phantompenis2 t1_j9a6va5 wrote

it actually sounds like you're making the same point as the person you're responding to

0

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j9a8883 wrote

Interpret how you wish.. That isn't the point I made. She argued that capitalism ruins people's lives. That is incorrect. Especially if you are a beneficiary of that system. So you downvote the comment because you disagreed with it, 😆

1

phantompenis2 t1_j9a8p0e wrote

no, they're saying under a free market such disasters would have been avoided. that's a common argument libertarians make. i didn't down vote you, mr sensitive, im a free marketer

0

SecretLadyMe t1_j9adr60 wrote

I'm most definitely NOT a libertarian. And I'm saying if we listened to the rail workers (and their concern for their own lives and working conditions) over corporate interest (to maximize profits) then yes, maybe the recent disasters would have been avoided. Maximizing profits at the expense of human life is disgusting.

2

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j9a6k3w wrote

You mean the system that's worked for 100s and hundreds of years? Do you think that an employee of a business, who trades his time for money, deserves all of the same benefits as these owner of the company he's employed under? Where has the employee risked his financial wellbeing to deserve the same as the business owner? Why would it be expedient for anyone to run a business where you make the same as your employees? Does that employee do the same amount of work as the CEO keeping the business going? The sooner you accept that it costs money to live in this world and you have to earn a paycheck to live in it the better off you are. The alternative, isn't an alternative at all (social universal basic income), it is impossible for everyone to be a dependent somebody pays. You don't have to work a job if you're living in the wilderness, but you will work to survive. Nothing is possible without some trade. And I don't think capitalism is ruining anyone's life, including yours. That phone or computer you are using to argue your point is part of that system. Did your phone ruin your life? This is the mentality of the perpetual student. A growing debt and a wealth of useless knowledge un-applicable or translateable to the work force. So yes capitalism represents a free society. You were taught to think otherwise because of global bureaucratic ambitions of you your handlers.

−6

madnessdanz t1_j9a7web wrote

>system that's worked for 100s and hundreds of years?

That's not a long time, at all.

And you seem to be confusing the definition of capitalism, and production?

You can have the production of goods without capitalism.

8

ogcrusader1095 t1_j9ad71j wrote

So I’m going to start by saying that just because an institution has stood for X amount of time does not mean it is inherently beneficial. I also would like to say that working class people do deserve higher monitory compensation for the work and the capital that they bring in. There is no capital being produced without the worker. The only thing that the employer has “risked” is becoming a park of the working class while the worker is held at borderline poverty to make sure they understand that if they can’t work they will become a part of the homeless population. Now tell me u/Salty-Leg-9037, in what world is it ok to have one man collect the salary and benefits of hundreds of workers simply because he “owns” the company. He risks only becoming a worker if his business fails. Capitalism only works if there is free and abundant competition, which there is none in today’s society. It has become a monopolist market and there are no real competitors, meaning the price on everything is increasing, wages are dropping, the wealth gap is unparalleled and children are starving to death. But I guess its because they don’t work hard enough and pick up extra hours right? Or is it that they didn’t take that financial risk? Give me one good reason why families and veterans and children are starving and freezing to death while capital owners continue to make more and more profits.

4

SecretLadyMe t1_j9ade5c wrote

I didn't say make the same money. I said workers would have control over their labor. They would have more ability to decide what they are willing to work for and the conditions they demand. You know, by organizing and unions and such.

We also wouldn't have bailouts for business and then allow them to buy back stocks and post big bonuses for the c-suite and layoff for the general workers.

2

ninjacereal t1_j999bqz wrote

No bigot the solution to issues created by government regulations is more government regulations.

−10

PG-Glasshouse t1_j99aqtb wrote

School is funded by taxes. This one aspect of school (lunches) is not funded by taxes, it is run as a business. That is an example of deregulation not regulation. That aspect run as a business is conveniently provided with a legal mechanism that can remove children from their families if they can’t come up with enough money for the product.

What you are observing here is a private entity, that abuses the legal system to do what capitalism does best. Shoot the free market in the back of the head because a free market isn’t the most profitable kind of market and so capitalism does not need it. These laws were written for a reason and it wasn’t to provide regulation.

My question is instead of a system that destroys families if they can’t satisfy the profit motive, why don’t we just cover lunch with taxes too? With what money? The same money we’re spending to commission a new fighter even though the F-35 just rolled off the line.

When the government does something because capitalism has bought your representatives that thing isn’t the government it’s still being done by capitalism.

7

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99bulh wrote

See this I can agree with? Why, is the correct question. Here in CT we are too used to be being over-governed. School lunch should be free, 100%. The problem is (and capitalism isn't a factor here) the State allocates certain funding levels for schools. As you know, our state's schools are horribly underfunded. In my home town we didn't even have a high school. The problem herein lies with the school systems themselves. Why would they provide funding for food when they can attract teachers with salary? And because our education budget is always so short and we currently have low education expectations in general. They have no choice to charge for food. This is a cyclical problem and until it's roots are addressed it will continue. I have a young son I'm raising here, and I'm DEEPLY concerned about his schooling coming up. I am more than likely sending him to a catholic school, I will gladly pay for his education in a system I have a say in and his lunch is paid for. That's the difference. This state is horribly broken but sadly the voters continuously determine the status quo. Until that changes, nothing will change.

1

PG-Glasshouse t1_j99ebpt wrote

> They have no choice to charge for food.

This is untrue, no part of our education system being underfunded is because the money is not there.

It does not matter how much is privatized because the budget will always get cut further and no savings will materialize. It’s two pincers of the same claw.

Lunch accounts for 0.25% of the schools cost? Well the parents are now paying that 0.25% and funding was cut by another 3%. I guess we better find something else to privatize since funding is so low and we need more money to pay salaries.

This is the goal of privatization and the means by which it captures public institutions. It never stops.

A. Divert taxes from school funding through lobbying.

B. All of a sudden schools can’t afford materials/expertise (this creates the inadequacies in the education system you mentioned).

C. Introduce a private entity that will alleviate funding shortages through providing some of these things by charging parents directly and make a killing doing it.

D. Lobby to cut funding for education again so you can do it all over.

Congratulations you have “solved” a problem with capitalism.

The state ended 2021 with a 14% surplus, the surplus is currently sitting at over 3 billion for this fiscal year. CT is not a state short on money.

6

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99el33 wrote

Negative. All of it not true. I'm involved in local government and your claim is unsubstantiated, the figures you provided are not factual. But I am enjoying the dialogue.

2

PG-Glasshouse t1_j99fpdp wrote

> Negative. All of it not true. I’m involved in local government and your claim is unsubstantiated, the figures you provided are not factual.

Please do not lie.

The figures I provided are not “factual” because they are representations of values that only need to be larger or smaller to prove the point. They are not designed to be exact values pulled from your specific middle schools financial report. If the lunch program cost 70% of the budget, cuts to education would still quickly move to negate the savings of privatization. Let’s call it an 80% cut because the specific numbers in that example literally do not matter. No matter how much money is saved by privatization it will never make up the shortfall created by continuing to cut even more education funding and it isn’t supposed to.

2

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j9a755j wrote

It's not a lie my dude. It's common sense. When you can reason with yourself and understand that there are some things you may not understand. It's extremely easy to see that feelings or dislike for something doesn't make it untrue. The truth is actually extremely uncomfortable at times, but the truth is what the truth is. I'm sorry to say that you are still incorrect.

1

ninjacereal t1_j99dent wrote

Not only is school funded by taxes, parents are compelled to send their kids even if it's against their will.

But if you think school lunch not being free as a "deregulation" (I don't think that word means what you think it means) that's cool.

What it actually is, is regulation trying to fix regulation trying to fix regulation. It has nothing to do with capitalism tho. It's the state assumimg power that was never granted.

−6

PG-Glasshouse t1_j99gwbu wrote

> Not only is school funded by taxes, parents are compelled to send their kids even if it’s against their will.

So everything about school is handled by the government, except for this which is managed as a business.

Why is this specifically managed as a business when all the other aspects are taxpayer funded?

When you take a public institution and privatize aspects of it you are deregulating those aspects by transferring control from the government to private entities.

> What it actually is, is regulation trying to fix regulation trying to fix regulation.

Privatization is not an example of regulation. The public school system is not a wild capitalist horse yearning to be free, it was designed as a social service. You are turning a social service into a business, not freeing a business from the stifles of regulation.

> It has nothing to do with capitalism tho.

The private company providing lunches that parents have to pay money to under penalty of the aforementioned, so that it can generate a profit in exchange for goods and services… is not capitalism?

> It’s the state assumimg power that was never granted.

Say the line SovCit.

p.s. you are being detained

2

phantompenis2 t1_j9a7l13 wrote

>The private company providing lunches that parents have to pay money to under penalty of the aforementioned, so that it can generate a profit in exchange for goods and services… is not capitalism?

capitalism doesn't punish you for not buying something. i don't get a fine for not shopping at walmart or mcdonalds. are walmart and mcdonalds then not participating in capitalism?

1

ninjacereal t1_j9bx055 wrote

You authoritarians are a scary breed.

0

PG-Glasshouse t1_j9bxnhz wrote

Public education is fascism, feudalism is freedom eh?

1

ninjacereal t1_j9c57m1 wrote

Funded by men with guns threatening to throw you in a cage and take your home if you don't, regardless of if your kids attend that school.

0

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99aabi wrote

You smoke crack for a living don't you?

−5

ninjacereal t1_j99d7hh wrote

Is this... Your best?

4

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99drtd wrote

Was your misdirected comment your best? I'm guessing yes, since it was a narcissistic preconceived response with an ideologue viewpoint. Your response lacked intelligence and vaguely flung a half intelligent insult that was baseless. But if it made you feel better I guess that's all that matters now in a feelings based society isn't it? I think your comment claiming I was was a bigot was rooted more in in your self interest than in actual diagnostic dialog wasn't it?

−1

phantompenis2 t1_j9a7szd wrote

did you tell chatgpt to write an angsty, pseudo-intellectual reddit comment? because damn that things getting good

3

splashattack t1_j9a6zy3 wrote

You used a lot of words there to basically say ‘I have no idea what capitalism actually is.’

Please, define capitalism for me.

4