• GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Everything you wrote is great in theory. But in reality…

      The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.

      Optimal solution for whom? It’s not an optimal solution for me to work 16 hours a day, but it would be an optimal way solution for businesses who want to maximize the work they get out of their workers. It’s not capitalism that got us 8h a day 5 days a week, it was the response to the “optimal” solution that capitalism came up with, which was to work people 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. In a broad sense our current working hours is not caused by capitalism but socialism.

      The current RTO wave is another example how capitalism does not find the optimal solution. Research has shown that working from home is just as productive if not more productive than working from office (in addition to being more beneficial for the worker) and yet capital owners are demanding people return to office.

      Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that’s what economic testing is about. That’s why it’s better than socialism because it’s competitive and strives for change.

      Why do you think socialism is not competitive or striving towards change?

      If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value.

      The wages are not following the inflation and wealth gap keeps growing. The so called “middle class” is eroding into “lower class” as the wealth gap keeps making people poorer. This has been happening for decades. Where’s the fix?

      Where’s the fix to climate change that oil conglomerates knew about since the 70s? Oh right, the “fix” was to run a disinformation campaign until the evidence becomes irrefutable and they’re forced of oil, because it was the “optimal solution” for making a profit.

      What you’re talking about is the idyllic version of Capitalism where everything is great and capital solves everything, because that’s what’s taught to you. What is not taught is that it’s not how capitalism actually works.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.

      So it works based on simplifying assumptions that never hold up for real.

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      and advanced economic theory says that basic economic theory is crap, what you consider “basic economic theory” is woefully outdated and has never been backed by any evidence.

      as for the supply and demand crap, it really just boils down to the prisoner’s dilemma,

      1: A lowers prices & B lowers prices = lower profits for both

      2: A lowers prices & B does not lower prices = A has medium profits, B goes broke

      3: A does not lower prices & B lower prices = A goes broke, B has medium profits

      4: A does not lower prices & B does not lower prices = both have high profits

      and remember, the people running A and B have taken some basic courses in math and logic

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.

      It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.

      Where that falls to shit is the assumption that “everyone works”. Only 132 million people have full time jobs in the United States for example. That’s just 40% of the population.

      In reality is basic economic theory is only useful if you’re explaining economics to a child. And you should only start there - you should try to make sure they have a far more comprehensive understanding of economics before they are old enough to vote.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Ah, so the economists you paid someone to tell you to read are better than the ones they read on their own.

      Hey, what’s your contribution to the field?

      I’m interested in reading a book of yours.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Bro, you’re out here saying Marx was a 1000 year old pre-industrial economist… Might want to reconsider your placement in the rankings.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Oh, wow, your point was even worse then. At least there’s some validity to calling Marxist models outdated, but trying to pull an appeal to authority from the University of Bologna is a pretty big stretch.

              Idk man, maybe if you decide to continue your education so you can contribute to your field put a little more thought into the biases in your studies and reflect on the Socratic definition of wisdom?