this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
48 points (84.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43948 readers
559 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Giving money to Amazon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Google .etc

It's like, you can't have an argument for price gouging, when you're enabling them by spending. If people were smart, they'd stop giving them money 10 - 15 years ago and they'd be right now, trying to reconstruct so they can be more economically friendly than how they are now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (3 children)

They'd stop doing capitalism. Entirely. If people in the US were smart, they would have been the vanguard of the communist revolution in the late 1800s when Marxist ideas were starting to spread in the us.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Marxism is critically flawed about surplus value and definitions of egalitarianism unfortunately so while it all sounds nice on paper it never worked in practice

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago

Except it's currently working in practice in many countries, one of which is more successful by every measure than the US. Also Marxist-leninism is responsible for being more people out of poverty than any other system of socioeconomics.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That depends, people can be smart but malicious, non-coorperative, or selfish.

The prisoner's dilemma shows that there are systems where individually, the "smart" individual thing to do is globally non-optimal.

Even smartness and altruism alone isn't enough. Medical professionals are smart and out to help others, but any ER doc/nurse will tell you they have limited trust in their patients (rightly so in the real world).

Does "everyone is smart" also include both "altruism and cooperative trust in others"?