imaginary friend

Don't tread on anyone

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

Monarchy and feudalism weren’t early capitalism. They were systems where political power decided who owned what.

Land and production were controlled from the top and granted by rulers. People worked under obligation within a rigid hierarchy.

That structure looks far closer to socialism than to markets.
In all three, control flows from political authority, resources are allocated by those in power, and individuals exist to serve the system.

Capitalism is the opposite. Property belongs to individuals and wealth comes from voluntary trade, not permission from rulers.

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

This isn’t unpopular. It’s the default script.

Blaming debt on the rich “not paying enough” is an open admission that the system only survives by extracting more from a shrinking base of producers.

That’s not fairness. It’s parasitic logic.

If your solution to overspending is permanently squeezing others harder, you’re defending the right to treat producers as livestock for state promises.

[imaginary friend @AtomizerGo]

@MaysR92 @CincinnatiaE @RockChartrand "We" who? Many people are saying just that, treating the issue of slavery as if it was a western practice specifically. The fact that that's a historically foolish way to look at (hence why history books don't treat it as such) is precisely the point.

[imaginary friend @AtomizerGo]

@Stefan_01010011 @KonstantinKisin It's as if people want to be better off, instead of worse off. Crazy huh?

[Konstantin Kisin @KonstantinKisin]

Congratulations, you taxed the rich. Now half a million people have to pay more so you can feel good.

[imaginary friend @AtomizerGo]

@Maxi76PL @ramella_f @OfficialTozzi estrazione li/co/terre rare, impatto ambientale e sociale nei paesi estrattori, gestione e riciclo delle batterie, inefficienza del trasposto merci e autostradale...

per citare alcuni costi.

[imaginary friend @AtomizerGo]

@Maxi76PL @ramella_f @OfficialTozzi maggior prezzo delle auto, riconversione dell’industria automotive con perdita posti di lavoro, potenziamento rete elettrica, infrastrutture di ricarica, adeguamento edilizio, gestione dei picchi di domanda elettrica, incentivi/sussidi all'acquisto, costi di adattamento

[Copoloco @doubtsgenerator]

@ricpuglisi -C’è della chimica nei detersivi della cucina.
-Le piante che coltiviamo sono geneticamente modificate
-Le Banche fanno profitti
-I politici di dx sono conservatori

[ZUBY: @ZubyMusic]

The West is suffering because people are pretending that obviously true things are not obvious and true.

Common sense and objective facts were sacrificed for politically correct fluff and emotionality, and now the populations are bearing the consequences.

[Chris Freiman @cafreiman]

The two most destructive misunderstandings of wealth are probably that there’s a fixed sum and that it arises primarily from natural resources

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

Politicians openly admit that taxing cigarettes, gas, or alcohol is meant to reduce consumption. They understand perfectly well that higher costs discourage behavior.

But when it comes to taxing income, that basic logic suddenly disappears. They pretend people will keep working, investing, and taking risks at the same rate while receiving less of the reward.

You can’t have it both ways.
If taxes discourage behavior, income taxes discourage earning.
If incentives matter for consumption, they matter for production.

This isn’t ignorance. It’s convenience.
They understand incentives when it supports control, and deny them when it exposes the cost of punishing work and success.

[Vincent Geloso @VincentGeloso]

When you can define something clearly, you don't need thousands of pages.

In fact, its worth remembering that Marx had thousands of pages and still ended up with the contradiction of the Transformation problem which all Marxist try to handwaive away.

[Vincent Geloso @VincentGeloso]

If you read Karl Popper, you realize why communists (and Marxists) say this all the time.

Key terms—capitalism, proletariat, exploitation, class interest, ideology, false consciousness, power—do not have stable (or concrete) definitions.

The definitions expand and contract depending on what needs explaining. When a prediction fails, the theory does not become wrong; instead, the critic is told they are using a “vulgar,” “naïve,” or “bourgeois” definition.

In other words, it serves the purpose of the religious. If you agree, you “get it.” If you don't, you are in prey to some form of ideological manipulation, false awareness or trying to hoodwink people (or all three).

Thus "you have no idea what X (where X is a given thinker in the broader Socialist family)" is a recurrent trope that has been consistently in use since the Jacobins.

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

Productivity doesn’t rise because workers suddenly “work harder.” It rises because capital investment improves tools, processes, and technology.

If you work in a pizza shop and the owner buys a better oven that cooks twice as many pizzas per hour, the oven is what raised productivity. The owner paid for it, maintained it, and took the risk. You’re still being paid for your labor, not for owning the oven.
Wages are tied to the market value of labor, not to total output.

Output is shared among:
• wages
• capital costs
• reinvestment
• risk and losses

If workers automatically received the full gains of productivity increases, no one would invest in capital in the first place. And without capital, productivity collapses.
Marxists look at the result and erase the cause.

They see higher output and pretend it came from labor alone.
It’s entitlement with a graph.

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

Socialist:
I shouldn’t have to earn a living. It’s unfair. Other people have more money than me. You can’t prove I need to work.

Capitalist:
You need food, shelter, and clothing. Those don’t appear by wishing. Work is how you trade value for value.

Socialist:
That’s just your opinion. Maybe money is a social construct. Maybe some people hoard all the jobs and leave the rest of us struggling.

Capitalist:
No one hoarded your opportunity. They built something people wanted. You’re free to do the same.

Socialist:
Well if everyone just shared their extra money, no one would be poor. Why should some people have more while others have to work harder?

Capitalist:
Because they produced more value, or produced it better.

Socialist:
That’s selfish. You only care about profits. In an ideal world, people wouldn’t have to work at all.

Capitalist:
In an ideal world, scarcity wouldn’t exist either. We don’t build systems around fantasies.

Socialist:
So you’re saying I deserve to struggle?

Capitalist:
I’m saying reality doesn’t waive the bill because you dislike the invoice.

Socialist:
This is exploitation.

Capitalist:
No. Exploitation would be forcing someone else to earn your living for you.

Socialist:
You just hate poor people.

Capitalist:
No. I hate pretending effort is oppression.

That’s the divide.
Capitalism treats people as adults.
Socialism is a tantrum that obsessively makes any excuse to avoid responsibility.

[Robert P. Murphy @BobMurphyEcon]

@elonmusk why get energy from the puny sun when there are free fusion reactors that produce 100x its output

[imaginary friend @AtomizerGo]

@CTAMELLINI @GadSaad That's not what "democracy" means, you've just listed a potpourri of desirable societal outcomes.

[imaginary friend @AtomizerGo]

@frncsc_cnt 60 milioni di persone che vivono in centro?

[imaginary friend @AtomizerGo]

@Carlo92172674 @OfficialTozzi Billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and... billions.
(cit.)

[imaginary friend @AtomizerGo]

@avidseries Accusing others to "not care for other people" = a clear sign of attributing others the worst intentions.
A normally empathic person would never put themselves in the spotlight sending out a message like that, let alone someone with a higher-than-average degree of empathy.