← Back to context

Comment by ivewonyoung

17 hours ago

The problem is that your proposed approach has been tried again and again and has failed every single time with disastrous consequences for several generations.

Once people are given all the resources they want they are not motivated to work. The productive people get tired of the product of their hard work being forcibly taken away and stop working since they would be given resources anyway. That's how the system collapses since there aren't enough resources for everyone to sit and consume. Thats exactly what happened in the eastern bloc. https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/When...

How many times should we run the same failed experiment and ruin millions more lives?

https://www.africadatahub.org/blog/what-usaid-funding-of-afr...

https://www.ft.com/content/c10e4f2f-5564-42a4-8aa7-66c78ca1c...

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/kathy-hoch...

> Once people are given all the resources they want they are not motivated to work

You are again straw manning an argument. I said nothing about giving people all resources with no work. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite: I want a society where people compete to provide labor in order to gain material advantage.

My argument against capitalism is that that competition should be fair: people should compete for resources with labor, and not against those who contribute no labor.

  • That makes no sense because labor needs capital to take risks so they get salaries. For example new drug discoveries cost a lot of money and a huge percentage fail with big losses that go to paying labor but not eventually benefiting from it. Banning that model where capital is risked by passive investors would've meant far fewer life saving drugs being invented, literally making mankind worse off.

    If someone wants to passively invest $3M into a new coffee shop and pay labor to work in it, banning it like you want to do will kill the economy and disadvantage the little guy.

    • > That makes no sense because labor needs capital to take risks so they get salaries.

      Total non sequitur. Labor (and salaries) predate the existence of money, as well as capital investment.