Calling armchair economists

[Anonymous No.55324937]

I’ve always thought communism wouldn’t work because a public state wouldn’t be able to efficiently distribute resources to a growing population, leading to the systems not being agile enough and collapsing causing famine and death.

However, most modern economies are now not actually growing, and are below replacement levels of reproduction. Would it not make sense to transition to communism at this point? Growth is decapitated in ways capitalism cannot handle, it would make sense to switch to a system that tries to preserve populations rather than to grow them.

[Anonymous No.55324981]

>>55324937
midwit go back

[Anonymous No.55325014]

>>55324981
I live in this cesspool thx

[Anonymous No.55325266]

once we discover the secret to immortality and automate the entire workforce the line between capitalism and communism will blur.

[Anonymous No.55325297]

>>55324937
I like this image

[Anonymous No.55325960]

>>55325297
It’s pretty good right

[Anonymous No.55325966]

>>55324937
We already have slavery though

[Anonymous No.55326018]

>>55324937
Communism will eventually work. Crypto is step one. A decentralized currency. Step 2 is decentralized government agencies. Step 3 is decentralized corporations.


American capitalism is just as fantasy as north korean utopia. You think we have freedom and capitalism provides competition which benefits the consumers. Only because the american corporations control the media that told you that.


For example look who owns the tv channels. Maybe 6 corporations do. Look who owns the big pharma. Look who owns the big bank. Look who owns the car companies. It always boils down to a number of less than a 100. In most cases less than 10. So the control of the means of resources is just as controlled.
Hell I ll give you the best example of why capitalism is a lie. Some decades ago ATT grew so fucking big that it got split in 12 companies. But it didnt even matter because today apple is so huge that it blatantly hides profits offshore and government cant do anything.
My vision for the future is eventually people will realize we need to cooperate to get out of poverty. So the future to me looks like private communes.


What this means is that groups of people get together to live in a city and provide their own healthcare food and shelter while also selling products to other communities. Internally communist externally capitalist. As a whole everyone wins.


This wont work in a lot of places where equality is nonexistent. For example racism is an enemy of this vision. But niggers can repeat the same thing. Spics. Chinks. Etc.


You can come together and buy a small town to create "the village" (it s a movie for you kids that dont know shit)

[Anonymous No.55326059]

>>55324937
Meh, growth is a social construct. Technically, our economy is considered to be "growing" when an onlyfans model makes money, since she is providing a service and getting paid for it, and similar pointless service based sectors. Things like that doesn't really contribute to the development or strength of a state, and the resources spent on those things could definitely be better spent elsewhere. 1 billion gdp from making tanks and being able to drill oil is probably better than 1 billion gdp from onlyfans and shit. Basically, capitalism seems to allocate recourses less efficiently as economies become more service based. I think this is something that the CCP knows.

[Anonymous No.55326101]

>>55324937
Why would it make sense? You've given an argument why it wouldn't work in a growing economy but presented no arguments why a steady state economy would be better

[Anonymous No.55326111]

>>55324937
They’re not working because they’ve already transitioned half way to communism midwit

[Anonymous No.55326143]

>>55324937
First mistake here is not asking where the population is growing... Over the last 100 years we've made good progress in making sure people who want to have kids have kids and not every idiot with a boner. The truth of the matter is that kids are expensive and a lot of people don't want them, so why force them to have kids? so that these kids will grow up to become bitter adults?
As we become more and more productive we need less workers while rationing resources much more efficiently. This just means there will be an adjustment of population size and growth while levels of productivity are still capable of rising with less people.
The reason Capitalism and laissez fair markets work is because it ruthlessly cuts off systems that don't work quite well and it does so rather early by directing precious resources at that point in time towards better investments/products/etc ... If you can maintain a wasteful system for a few decades, you are just stealing growth from the future and inserting it today ( i.e. the entire EU basically with the exception of maybe 1 or two countries)

The truth of the matter is that there will always be work and there will always be a problem for humans to solve- hence there will always be a reason for productivity to grow.

The only real Sci-Fi level magic that might actually accelerate man kind to whole new levels of effortless comfort is nuclear power. But thanks to retards scaring most people away from it, we are just now starting to wake up to how invaluable that shit is.
The other one would be AI but that 's uncertain and still far away into the future - while we already have plenty of active nuclear reactors that have proven themselves super efficient.

[Anonymous No.55326164]

>>55326018
>Trying to bash capitalism but actually explaining modern global capitalist markets

commies are retarded

[Anonymous No.55326185]

>>55324937

humanity only needs 500,000 humans max. Whatever we need to do to make that happen let's do it.

/end thread

[Anonymous No.55326194]

>>55326111
this

fucking commies keep pointing at "the failiures of capitalism" when these failiures are just socialists implementing their retarded policies in the free market

[Anonymous No.55326254]

>>55326059
Growth of a country at its base it’s intrinsically linked to population growth. It’s why market advocates are always bullish on immigration, since domestic population is slow

>>55326101
If you have to plan for decline over growth, centralization simplifies and consolidates processes. As compared to growth, where new ideas are needed.

>>55326143
>The reason Capitalism and laissez fair markets work is because it ruthlessly cuts off systems that don't work quite well and it does so rather early by directing precious resources at that point in time towards better investments/products/etc
I think it’s the opposite. Dead industries can remain profitable for decades through borrowing and inflation

[Anonymous No.55326275]

>>55326018
>keep going...keep educating me ser

[Anonymous No.55326290]

>>55324937
>it would make sense to switch to a system that tries to preserve populations rather than to grow them.
Yeah maybe if you are some kind of horrible racist.

[Anonymous No.55326295]

>>55324937
Communism doesn't work because power is too highly centralized. You create a situation where it is easy to abuse power completely. That's what went wrong with the US as well.

[Anonymous No.55326308]

>>55326254
>I think it’s the opposite. Dead industries can remain profitable for decades through borrowing and inflation

who lends and who inflates? excessive burrowing didnt work we saw that in the 2008 crash, otherwise nothing would have changed... and dead industries get gutted and raided from the inside by PE funds every day... waste is just profit that's waiting to be captured by someone else i.e, resources that can be reallocated somewhere else...

Im not saying the system is perfect, but it's hella better to find out something was broken after 3 years then after 3 decades

[Anonymous No.55326321]

>>55324937
there are no capitalists or communist economies, there are only markets, and markets are either free or they are controlled and regulated by governments. now ask yourself if you want government retards meddling in free markets.

[Anonymous No.55326678]

>>55326018
There has never been a human society not organized in a hierarchy. In fact, there are no known social mammals of any species that are not organized in a hierarchy. So the question is not "how do we have a society of perfect equality?" because the answer is that you never will. The only relevant questions are "upon what criteria will the inevitable social/economic hierarchy be based?" and "who decides?". The answer to the first question must be some kind of merit that produces benefits enjoyed by most of the society. I don't know the answer to the second question, but I know it isn't by democracy or autocracy or to have armchair social engineers like you decide by fiat.