fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3363 ]

[ SECRET POST #3363 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3363 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 101 secrets from Secret Submission Post #481.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thanks to free market capitalism, anyone can start a blog or a YouTube channel, and if it's popular enough, make more than middle management off of it. I don't see the problem here.

But not everyone does -- especially when there's so much competition.

Competition is only bad when it doesn't allow some people any chance, other than that? Without competition, we won't have almost any progress.

Congratulations, you've nailed exactly what's wrong with the current system. With too many people competing to fill too few niches, some people are inevitably going to be shut out. And this applies to everything, not just Youtube.

Then the problem is the number of people and that implies that the system does work with a smaller population.

Well, yes. But I don't see how you can reduce the population in an ethical way short of colonizing the stars.

The better solution, at least for right now, is to provide a safety net for everyone. A mixture of capitalism and socialism would support each other's strengths while making up for each other's weaknesses.

In theory that would be a great short term solution, but the long term one is still a mystery and in practice though... from where would the resources for that safety net come from? How big be that safety net should be? And what about the social and cultural issues around it?

Sadly, unless people start being replaced by logical and pragmatic robots, any attempt for a change like that, not matter how well planed it is, can backfire easily.

Competition is the whole point. It forces people to be good at what they do.

Why is people being good at what they do the point? Why can't people just...be?

Please look around you at the things you enjoy and ask yourself if these things would exist without people striving to make a superior product or fill a market niche.

I honestly think that the vast majority of things around me I don't actually need, or don't need in 150 slightly different varieties.

Re: Anti-capitalists

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-19 22:43 (UTC) - Expand

There's such a thing as too much competition. A healthy level of competition is necessary, but when everyone's trying to do the same thing inevitably some people are going to fall through the cracks with no other recourse. Your libertarianesque naivete is adorable tho.

Edited 2016-03-19 23:19 (UTC)

Leaving aside your typical cheap shot...

I do think there's too much competition among college graduates and a generation in crisis because they were told they would have X if they just did Y, and it was a lie. What they should have been told is that they would have X if they did Y better than anyone else, or in a new an innovative way.

Which is also kind of a lie, and doesn't take away from the central problem of too many people striving for X with not enough X to go around even for the innovators.

Re: Anti-capitalists

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-20 00:43 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

dethtoll - 2016-03-20 00:45 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-20 00:47 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

dethtoll - 2016-03-20 00:49 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-20 00:55 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

dethtoll - 2016-03-20 01:02 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-20 01:04 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

dethtoll - 2016-03-20 01:08 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-20 01:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

dethtoll - 2016-03-20 01:13 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-20 01:14 (UTC) - Expand

(frozen comment) Re: Anti-capitalists

dethtoll - 2016-03-20 01:15 (UTC) - Expand

(frozen comment) Re: Anti-capitalists

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-20 01:19 (UTC) - Expand

(frozen comment) Re: Anti-capitalists

dethtoll - 2016-03-20 01:20 (UTC) - Expand

Sometimes what some people are good at is dying in a competitive system. Not everyone thrives on competition. I think there ought to be a way that allows people who enjoy and thrive on competition to do so, but does not force those who do not to also compete. That way, of course, is Minimum Basic Income Guarantee, where everyone is paid a living income (a genuinely living income, with some room for small luxuries) but allows those who want to compete to get loadsa money to do so. Of course that means competing hard, because people put less value on money under such a system, but they wanted the competitive pressure.

Everyone as in everyone who works? Then would be fair and it's something that's needed, but let's be honest: how the hell you define what's the minimum basic?

Or everyone as in after certain age whether they work or not? That couldn't work in any imaginable way.

Your imagination is limited.

Re: Anti-capitalists

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-20 12:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Anti-capitalists

(Anonymous) - 2016-03-20 17:40 (UTC) - Expand

So your vivid imagination can't imagine any negative consequences for making it attractive for perfectly able-bodied people with no mental health issues or any other conditions precluding their earning their own living to be guaranteed a cushy standard of living at other people's expense, just for sucking up air and taking up space?

Thanks to free market capitalism, you can also move your factory to say, Bangladesh, get cheap labour there, and have thousands of people in the country it was originally based in go out of a job, because given living expenses, they literally cannot compete wage-wise.

So it's two-fold - you're exploiting people in third-world countries who have to take those jobs to survive, and you're creating a shit job market in some sectors in the West because of it.

That's just one example.

I'm not saying Capitalism is the Devil, I honestly believe in some sort of middle ground, but saying "I don't see the problem because hypothetically you could become a YouTube celebrity" is terrible naive.

Edited 2016-03-19 22:15 (UTC)

I'm not saying there aren't problems with capitalism or that it doesn't need some regulation.

You said capitalism was "really not good for a lot of people," and I assumed you meant people without jobs or people who were underemployed. And I think that ignores that we live in an age where it's possible for more people than ever to succeed at self-employment with little capital up front.

Self-employment...really isn't for everyone. I mean you really can't say you'll fix unemployment with that, either. Not sure what it's like where you are, but here one-man businesses & startups goings bankrupt are at an all-time high. Sure, there's a luck few who will find their fortune. But that is the inherent flaw in hardcore capitalism: some people ill always be left behind or disadvantaged.

And to add to that - with the dawn of the internet those disadvantaged groups have gotten a voice, hence your explanation for the anti-capitalist sentiment.

I'm all for disadvantaged groups having a voice - and if free market capitalism gives them the opportunity to make money off it as well, more power to them!

Hey, I'm a liberal. I'm all for public assistance for those who need it. But I think a lot of liberals have forgotten that liberalism embraces free markets - the emphasis there being on FREEDOM.

We don't really have a free market though.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only