Like if it&#x27;s true. Comment if not.

2D

@AE23 That is wrong. Zero-sum theory has been disproved 1 million times. A left-wing fairy tale.

•

3

•

David@Redfox77

2D

@Baraccus I agree with you.

••

Wolf D.@Pilla1311

1D

@Redfox77 Capitalism is the solution, not the problem. Unfortunately, we don't have capitalism, we have creditism. Capitalism is a communist term of war, it is actually the free market economy. In no system is there more prosperity.

•

2

•

Phil R.@ruetph1

21H

@AE23 Capitalism is definitely far from perfect, but there has been no other system in human history that has provided similar prosperity, progress and stability. Communism has caused a lot of poverty around the world and under the guise of helping everyone, many have been repeatedly oppressed and there are certainly areas where the prosperity of individuals is achieved by exploiting others, but the belief that gains are always the loss of others cannot automatically be derived from this. Anyone who buys from NVIDIA today pays a lot of money for it, but would not do so if they did not see a higher value in the product. Many people have become rich at NVIDIA, founders, managers, employees and shareholders. The circle of those who benefit is even larger, as the company has a lot of stakeholders who benefit directly or indirectly.
Buffet is special in many ways, he is particularly successful as an investor, also because he himself remains modest. But I think there are many entrepreneurs who tick in a similar way

••

Bardok@AE23

9H

@Techaktien Capitalism without losers has been refuted millions of times? Show me the study! I'm more familiar with works by Piketty, Streeck, Nachtwey & Co. They show that inequality is not an accident, but rather "built-in" and intentional. The question is not whether, but how far the losers will fall and whether we will cushion this politically or simply accept it. Capitalism without regulation produces inequality, with regulation it can distribute prosperity. But that is not what many market radicals and neoliberals want. The decisive factor is how strongly the state regulates in order to prevent exploitation, monopolies and social division.
There is also a structural tendency. When major capitalist powers come under economic pressure, they are more likely to consider military means to protect their interests. In economic crises, states come under pressure to secure or expand their position - by force if necessary. The best example of this is currently the USA, which does not shy away from attacking Panama or Greenland to secure its position. The USA has always done this. Iraq war to secure oil reserves, Panama they have been before, and to maintain control of the Panama Canal. Several interactions in Latin America and France, Great Britain etc. Have "managed" in the same way over the last few centuries. Military as a means of economic power. Fact 🤷🏻‍♂️

•

1

•

4D

Capitalism always discovers its heart when the coffin lid rattles. Isn't it?
It's not about whether Buffett is a philanthropist (he is), but about the fact that a system is suddenly celebrated as "heartfelt" when individuals voluntarily give something from their billions.
And a system that hopes for voluntarism has no heart, but is lucky if someone brings one.

•

9

•

4D

@Savvy_investor_2000 I donate every day and every month. It's called taxes.

•

3

•

4D

@Techaktien
Exactly. Taxes are mandatory and fund schools, hospitals and infrastructure.
The fact that this has to be sold as a "donation" today shows exactly what is wrong with the system.

•

4

•

4D

@Savvy_investor_2000 It's called education. Some have enjoyed it.

•

1

•

4D

@Savvy_investor_2000 Then why don't you reduce taxes and ask people for donations? No? Ohh!

••

4D

@user28461
If donations were enough, there would be no state.
Anyone who seriously confuses this has not only failed to understand the system, but also their own role in it.

•

4

•

David@Redfox77

4D

@user28461 That's exactly what he said.

••

4D

@Savvy_investor_2000 A night watchman state that guarantees property and physical integrity is completely sufficient. Everything else is latently socialist and exploits high achievers and tells the lazy about justice. Opium for the people, just as the people want it.

•

3

•

4D

@user28461 Ja

••

View all 22 further answers

4D

@user28461
Anyone who equates justice with laziness is moralizing downwards.
Justice has to do with structures. Not with sympathy. Not with charity.
And "lazy" is the label you stick on people when you don't feel like arguing.
I'm open to any debate, just not to role-playing games in which someone stages themselves as a "high achiever" and sorts others to fit in.

•

3

•

JeanV@FairyDust

4D

@user28461 rarely read such nonsense

•

3

•

31415@31415

4D

👎🏻 sorry but that's bullshit
if economies (or basic human needs) are based on old russian conditions, you can dump the system

•

5

•

3D

@31415 very special diss against Tolstoy and borscht :)

••

ZimaBlue@ZimaBlue

4D

Like - Comment is somehow also a very strange way to enforce an "opinion poll", given the extra effort a comment requires

•

3

•

4D

@ZimaBlue You commented on it. Was it time-consuming?

••

David@Redfox77

4D

@Techaktien The question is not relevant. He spoke of additional effort. Was it more effort than leaving a Like would be the right question.

•

1

•

ZimaBlue@ZimaBlue

3D

@Techaktien As I said, an extra effort compared to a click to like - just shifts the "result" artificially in one direction, but maybe that's exactly how it was intended.

••

Jonas@jjjjjonas

3D

Billionaires could also simply pay taxes instead of selectively supporting the foundations they like. I can't choose what happens to my income tax either. In this respect, this "philanthropism" is cheap.

•

3

•