this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
661 points (99.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

6023 readers
1972 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 90 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do I need the sandwich too? If so I'll give him half (if he asks for it, otherwise I'll just sit there and eat the whole thing while missing social cues like a dumbass).

Will I need the sandwich in the near future? If so, then again, I'll give him half.

Did I just eat a meal and I don't need the sandwich now nor in the immidate future? By all means, eat!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

I particularly like how this would be the exact same if you were someone who wants money for the sandwich. Perfect illustration for how useless it is to bring money to the mix.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I love that when these people make such analogies and fail miserably, never do they take it as a moment for reflection.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 weeks ago

I could see the dad going "Ok ok ok, forget food for a minute because that's complicated. Let's say instead it's freezing outside and you have a house but this person doesn't... Wait, no that's complicated too. Ok so let's say you're a doctor and a poor person is sick."

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

The view from the top of Mt Dunningkruger is spectacularly clear.

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

I think it has more to do with people's misunderstanding of what money even is or why it was created. Having money or an economy in general doesn't preclude generosity. Paper money evolved from a form of I-OWE-YOU notes. An I-owe-you note is only as valuable as the trust you put in the person writing the note. Now you can't vet every single person you find and it's difficult to transfer those notes from one person to another and hand written notes are easy to forge. So most people used metal currency as it has a mutual agreed value. Now metal currency is inconvenient for the fact it's heavy, so banks would write Promissory Notes with the bank's seal on it, which has the backing and trust of the banks that issues. Personally, I don't necessarily trust banks, but I trust them more then Joe Schmo. Eventually, the State got involved to regulate the banks and create their own "Promissory Notes" in the form of paper currency.

Money is very simply, regulated, tangible trust. I trust that what I will be compensated with for my goods/services can be used to acquire other goods/services from a different party. We all have the same trust in the same money.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 weeks ago

My dad: “What, you think everyone should just be entitled to food for free even if they don’t have a job?”

Me: “Yes.”

My dad: “… oh”

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The name of that son? Pjotr Kropotkin

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

The Conquest of Sandwich

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 weeks ago

Imagine you have a sandwich to spare. You could really use a drink though. There's a hungry guy with a drink to spare, and he'd give it to you in exchange for the sandwich. That's trading.

Now imagine you run a sandwich shop. You need things like bread and toppings. If you just give your sandwiches away with nothing in return, you'll run out of ingredients. No more sandwiches :(

So you need someone to give you sandwich ingredients. They also don't just want to give their things away, because they also need other things.
Not everyone who has bread or toppings to share needs a sandwich though. A baker, for example might need flour. The miller might need grain. The farmer however does need a sandwich.
So to get your bread, you'd trade your sandwich to the farmer for some grain, that grain to the miller for flour, the flower to the baker and finally get your bread.

That's a bit tedious though, so instead you all agree on a token of some value representing the work you put in to make this. You give your sandwich to the farmer in exchange for such a token, then go to the baker and trade it for bread. The baker trades it for flour, the miller for grain. That token is money.

Now, how do you get that token? Someone needs to have it first, after all, and give it to the farmer so the farmer can buy a sandwich. They'll want something in return too, eventually - maybe they don't need anything right now, but they will somewhere down the line, and they need to have that token back for that. That's a loan.

Now, the farmer gave the token back, but the lender gave them a larger set of tokens. They used it to buy a better plow that helped them cultivate a larger area, netting them more grain they can trade for tokens. After giving the loaned tokens back, he'll still have some left over. That's profit.

Now one farmer starts gathering more tokens, because he got particularly lucky, and offers some to other people in exchange for a share of their land. Those other people had a bad year and desperately need some food, which the tokens can buy. In the long run, trading away their land will leave them off worse, but the short term is more important. That's exploiting the misery of others.

The lucky guy, on the other hand, can't work all that land himself, so he offers to let the less lucky ones work on his land in exchange for a portion of the tokens their work brings in. Again, they need that money to compensate the fact they now have less land, so they agree. That's labour.

Notice how the lucky guy gives them a portion of their labour's worth? He keeps the rest, for the privilege of owning that land he bought from them in the first place. That's landlording.

He uses some of his profit to pay others to enforce his claim to that land. He uses some to buy more land. He uses his control of the majority of grain supply to leverage the miller into selling his mill too (although a skilled miller is worth a lot, so the lucky guy keeps the poor miller on as a labourer too). That's concentration of wealth.

Eventually, he can use all that surplus to buy draft animals and more plows to make the farming even more effective. Obviously, his own lands benefit first, then he lets the poorer farmers pay to use these as well. By controlling the means of production, he forces the labourers into dependency at unfavourable terms. That's exploitation.

Now, all that extra money from surplus grain can fund more things that aren't food production. That enables the development of specialists in other areas, and due to it being non-perishable, the money can also be allowed to trade things across greater distances, because merchants can now use it to buy food and other things along the way instead of having to trade locally. Technologies, tools, material and luxuries all reach a broader customer base. That's an economy.

Of course, due to the majority of the money being controlled by a few lucky people, those people end up affording most of the luxuries while the rest has to work hard for a living. That's oligarchy.

Eventually, the steam engine is invented and heralds an age of industry. However, setting up factories to effectively harness the productive capability of those machines requires a lot of up-front investment for the machines, space, infrastructure and administration required to operate it efficiently. There just so happens to be a group of people with the wealth to fund all these things, and just as they controlled the land, the grain supply, the mills and so on, they now control the means of production.

Now imagine if the poor farmers were bailed out by a communal fund instead - a form of social safety net to catch them that they all pay into in good years, knowing a bad year won't ruin them. They could afford communal draft animals and plows, they could fund an administrative apparatus to enable all those advantages of a monetised society, a military to secure them against the jealousy of greedy neighbours, all without parasites growing fat off of their sweat. Pretty sure there's a name for that too.

[–] verstra 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I mean father is right: the kid has much to learn. People might be kind in nature, but learn when they get ripped off from other people who have already lost their trusting nature.

If only we could all reset to the kind, trusting human nature.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Tit for tat plus 10% forgiveness

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

If only we could all reset to the kind, trusting human nature.

That thought has been with me for a while. Spoilers for Joe Haldeman's Forever Peace, but he's explored the concept in a fiction setting where humans can directly connect their brains to each other with a plug in the back of the skull, to directly feel each other's feelings and body. They use it for sex and war machines, which is ridiculous at first, but then it makes sense.

But the protagonists discover that if you connect to another you become "humanized", and unable to do any harm whatsoever to any other human, seeing it as a damage upon one's self.

Pretty good book, would recommend.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If only we could all reset to the kind, trusting human nature.

No one is stopping you. There's plenty of it out there, you just have to be willing to see it (E: not to mention, it isn't human nature that's the problem that needs resetting, it's capitalism that needs abolishing).

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sandwich: A Factor in Evolution

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Hoagie Hamilus

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

Ironic using Miyazaki, a known socialist for this meme.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Sounds like projection, dad. Greedy fuck.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's not the easiest way to start thinking about money, but I've come to like thinking about it as a form of potential energy.

At the end of the day it is used to inspire work from another, even if it ends up in a billionaires hand that does no work, they use it in turn to inspire the work of others. Even as payment after the fact, the promise of the payment is the inspiration to do some form of work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sounds like trickle-down economics to me

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It wasn't meant to appear that way. I wasn't trying to speak of the supposed billionaire in a good fashion, just that at the end of the day money is only used to get someone to do something which even the billionaire needs to do as they don't labor, others do on their behalf. In the case of the billionaire it's actually a huge issue in this respect as they have a massive amount of potential energy to inspire a ton of work that could be, and is, used against us.

Even if the person has already done the work, they did it for the promise of money they can then use to have someone else do something (or have already done something and are trading the fruits of their labor for the "energy deficit.")

The promise of money is the inspiration to expend energy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

you can see the dad thinking "oh god I'm raising a commie"