There’s starvation happening right now in every free market and there always is, because every free market relies on a surplus army of reserve labor to keep wages low. That’s why 5% unemployment is “full” employment. There need to be people who are desperate at all times for the market to function, otherwise wages rise too quickly and profits decline at an even faster rate.
The reason for this is that under a free market, nothing is more profitable than providing things people desperately need.
What’s more profitable is keeping people on the street to act as a warning to everyone else: be productive or we will kill you.
Exactly, thus the original point is a non-starter.
We need to instead analyze the proposed systems, and see which is more successful in fulfilling the needs of society, not just the elite. Socialists propose large safety nets, and satisfying the needs of the whole from the production of the whole via central planning.
Capitalist adherants argue instead that the profit motive incentivizes higher production, so even if resource distribution is heavily top-loaded, the aggregate production is proposed to be higher. However, they often fail to consider overproduction of goods purely for profit, leading to environmental issues, boom/bust cycles, and inefficient allocation of resources and production.
AES countries have also made larger efforts to provide for their poor, with free healthcare, education, and cheap housing as common advantages.
A country becoming Socialist doesn’t solve every problem overnight, but it does shift the priorities of society, and metrics tend to improve as a consequence, such as life expectancy, literacy rates, housing rates, and poverty rates.
Whereas no one has ever died because they couldn’t obtain resources from the market. 🙄
When we compare free markets to centralized control systems, pretty much all the starvation has happened under centralized control systems.
The reason for this is that under a free market, nothing is more profitable than providing things people desperately need.
There’s starvation happening right now in every free market and there always is, because every free market relies on a surplus army of reserve labor to keep wages low. That’s why 5% unemployment is “full” employment. There need to be people who are desperate at all times for the market to function, otherwise wages rise too quickly and profits decline at an even faster rate.
What’s more profitable is keeping people on the street to act as a warning to everyone else: be productive or we will kill you.
Whereas no one has ever died because they couldn’t obtain resources from the party. 🙄
Exactly, thus the original point is a non-starter.
We need to instead analyze the proposed systems, and see which is more successful in fulfilling the needs of society, not just the elite. Socialists propose large safety nets, and satisfying the needs of the whole from the production of the whole via central planning.
Capitalist adherants argue instead that the profit motive incentivizes higher production, so even if resource distribution is heavily top-loaded, the aggregate production is proposed to be higher. However, they often fail to consider overproduction of goods purely for profit, leading to environmental issues, boom/bust cycles, and inefficient allocation of resources and production.
AES countries have also made larger efforts to provide for their poor, with free healthcare, education, and cheap housing as common advantages.
A country becoming Socialist doesn’t solve every problem overnight, but it does shift the priorities of society, and metrics tend to improve as a consequence, such as life expectancy, literacy rates, housing rates, and poverty rates.
No solutions, just feelings of self importance and autofellatio. Smells American to me.