I mean if you REALLY want to be pedantic imaginary numbers are a specific subset of numbers that most kinds of numbers aren’t and also the kind of numbers the meme is talking about isn’t either.
People always like to say that capitalism is the natural state of trade, that it's all "simple economics, r*tard". Alright, show me the simple part, then we can talk about the evils of a planned economy.
Capitalism isn't necessarily natural. It just cuts out the violence and enslavement necessary in every other system, especially every planned economy to ever be thought up, nevermind those where it has been or is being tried.
Maybe it would be alright in smaller economies. But currently, the neoliberal capitalism of imperial core countries requires the enslavement or otherwise unfair and violent treatment of those in the global south. Look at the current scandal with Nestle- the child labour and other unfair practices are employed by practically every other major corporation that produces goods. Even countries that claim to keep their hands clean of such things within their own borders encourage this exploitation. And that's ignoring the violence against the proletariat within the countries that form the imperial core.
The problem with capitalism is that to work, it requires constant growth in profit, and that value has to come from somewhere. And profit isn't the same as success or health of a system.
As for planned economies, East Germany didn't go so badly. The problems originated elsewhere, and where it was flawed, it certainly wasn't worse than capitalism.
Capitalism isn't a government system, it's just a way of doing business. Most of it's supposed faults can be traced to government interference, or interference from a strongman who is supported by a government.
Capitalism doesn't require content growth, constant growth isn't even possible if the universe and life are finite, but shifting growth is in fact a natural consequence of free trade.
If you believe East Germany had to build a wall because things were so awesome that people were trying to sneak in, I might see how others might feel inclined to call you a "retard".
Just imagine if somebody arrived to steal your food and water or force you to mine for rare minerals with your child's life as collateral, but didn't have a state agent to do violence on their behalf, or a defacto monopoly on violence granted by that same state.
But that's the issue with authoritarian systems.
Tl;Dr Capitalism's "faults" are government interference, planned economies are all government.
capitalism as a system is motivated only by profits. A corporation by nature will take the most profitable choice. That is a consequence of capitalism, the entities with power will take the choice that brings in the most profit. For nike that meant using literal slave labor. The company that treats humans like humans will make less profits and be out competed. The company that acts in a moral way will be at an inherent disadvantage to a company that takes the most profitable way, note that isnt "the most profitable way following the laws of the nation." for corporations laws are considerations, they are a variable in the equation. It's a profit negative thats calculated in and in a lot of cases its more profitable to break the law and take the fine than it is to avoid breaking the law.
Capitalism is private ownership and control of property and production.
If someone is using slave labor, the slaves have every right to run or fight. Unfortunately, it's usually their benevolent government selling them out.
I'm not saying East Germany was a perfect place, just that the planned economy was at least as successful as modern neoliberal capitalism. I don't support the wall, or any walls; I believe human movement should be completely decriminalised. The wall was specifically around East Berlin, trying to prevent emigration, though, not because of a lack of food in East Germany. My statement wasn't of support for the planned economies of socialist states, but of pointing out hypocrisy.
Now, you say that all of the problem with capitalism can be ascribed to government interference. I'd say this is where we agree the most- the difference is that I think that capitalism can't succeed without a government constantly interfering to keep it viable.
Say there's no government, or very little government. Private ownership of the means of production would be all well and good, except that the workers would probably realise the power of collective bargaining and seize control one way or another. Under our current system, this is where the police step in. Without the police, it's either the workers eventually take control, or the current owner employs their own agents to do violence on their behalf. What we're left with is communism, or rule by oligarchs. It'd turn into who could hire the most thugs. And they'd reinvent authoritarian government sooner or later.
.
(TITLE FROM HUGEL0L)
The problem with capitalism is that to work, it requires constant growth in profit, and that value has to come from somewhere. And profit isn't the same as success or health of a system.
As for planned economies, East Germany didn't go so badly. The problems originated elsewhere, and where it was flawed, it certainly wasn't worse than capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't require content growth, constant growth isn't even possible if the universe and life are finite, but shifting growth is in fact a natural consequence of free trade.
If you believe East Germany had to build a wall because things were so awesome that people were trying to sneak in, I might see how others might feel inclined to call you a "retard".
Just imagine if somebody arrived to steal your food and water or force you to mine for rare minerals with your child's life as collateral, but didn't have a state agent to do violence on their behalf, or a defacto monopoly on violence granted by that same state.
But that's the issue with authoritarian systems.
Tl;Dr Capitalism's "faults" are government interference, planned economies are all government.
If someone is using slave labor, the slaves have every right to run or fight. Unfortunately, it's usually their benevolent government selling them out.
Now, you say that all of the problem with capitalism can be ascribed to government interference. I'd say this is where we agree the most- the difference is that I think that capitalism can't succeed without a government constantly interfering to keep it viable.