This is paragraph per paragraph because I had a lot of problems that can be summed up with a) please take some intro level economics classes (or watch Khan Academy) and b) pay your taxes, tax evasion is a crime
(3)Actually its a well known fact that in mainstream economics, things that do not affect or are primarily affected by the market mechanism are externalities. This is in fact the definition of externality, the term used in the game and also the very first example your Econ prof will give you. Economics is primarily focused on (data wise) meeting demand with supply; earth dying isnt part of it. It still has utility of course and is a normal part of normative policy but is seen as secondary to the industry. Secondly, the entire point is that we wish to move towards a post Capitalist society. You can see already that its changing. Also, tbh, the current shift towards more sustainable forms of energy often come from the best of non-market mechanisms (e.g. the Tokyo Accords, govt agencies etc) as its pretty normal-individuals care about the environment but when youre looking at profit margins and stuff, its difficult to focus on sustainable building. This is called the tragedy of the commons. Its also of note that capitalism DID cause global warming; the industrial revolution was when pollution really kicked off and capitalism further gained traction as capital (e.g. machines) became more prominent.
Are you an industry? When we talk about systems its not so much about individuals. Rather its why are PCs so important? Why doesn't anyone bother with serious recycling efforts? Why are we so focused still on traditional power systems? Every individual matters but sometimes you miss the forest for the trees.
Extraction is a fairly harmful industry in that its really easy to exploit? Venezuelas a good example as well as the usual extraction industries pretty much everywhere. While its true the basic D/S says that shifting price up decreases quantity demand but you also gotta think what does this say? Firstly, its also a problem of course when only few companies get this power. While pricing mechanism can help, its a problem when its easy to jack up the prices to maximise profit. This is normally called deadweight loss- if you prices goods cheaper you'd earn less profit but still be able to keep earning enough to go on while maximising utility for everyone. Also because its easy to get rich fast (especially if you dont care about workers or the environment) its very easy to fuck over the families who live in mountains you explode and the ecosystems you wreck to maximise profits. This is a common issue especially in developing nations and is aggravated by firms being encouraged to do what's best for them. Socialism doesn't have a pricing mechanism is weird? More likely the supply will be from the government rather than firms. More likely they'd have a very traditional econ pricing mechanism; MC=MR=P (or P=AR w/e) or something similar as the government has a higher incentive to maximise consumer (aka the people who vote them in)'s gains.
Have covered this, would just like to add that this is like what? A 10 minute game? Are we really arguing the merit of its failure to expound on economic and political theory? From the get go it's clear that it's focused on different paradigms of the two systems. You're talking about how capitalism is so great but neither are you expounding on the mechanisms that make them neccesary. But that doesn't make me right for flaying you for it; it just makes me a dick.
..........I'm very confused? You are right that self worth is fairly high but that doesn't mean the lack isn't felt. Often it means that these things are daily struggles you can do little about. For example, if you live in poverty and live paycheck to paycheck, you don't address the stress or depression you feel because you're unable to not because you don't feel it. You can't worry only means that you dont have the problem or resources to focus on those problems due to more pressing matters but those problems still exist. For example, homeless people struggle more with food but are also worried about their safety and only sacrifice safety for food when the situation is life threatening. This shows that while there is a hierarchy, both are pressing needs.
People do need to work but the game makes it clear. Capitalism has two main issues- not enough work (underemployment) and too much work. The latter is very dependent. If you like in Europe and relatively doing well, its likely not as big of an issue. But if you're trying to make ends meet, live in bad place or places which are rich but have strong-to-unhealthy work cultures (e.g. Japan is really notorious for this) where overtime is expected, then that is a problem. If you're dying to stay alive, that's a problem. That's the games point. Secondly, refer to the game. It doesn't say work shouldn't exist but that it shouldn't destroy people's lives (maximum hours; because a lot of labor capitalises on cheap wages and long hours case in point Amazon lately; but its fairly common) and neither should it be both something you need to live (work=wages=means to live) but also be incredibly scarce (jobs today and issue also in places where people don't want to retire and more people enter the market but less are retiring.) Socialism focuses on universal income to ensure that people don't die. Generally, I would think people WOULD want to work. UBI is essentially how much you'd earn on minimum wage, but a lot of people don't want that. Most people actively don't want that. If we didnt, why do so many people exert effort to not just go to college but focus on high income fields or try to get promotions? People always want to better if not themselves then the computers they have and the food they eat and the hous they live in. Recent UBI experiments reflect this but I think its also clear. We all like going out to a fancy restaurant and getting to spend hilidays in Disneyland.
what on earth are you on about. Natural rate of unemplyoment is generally assumed to about 3-4%. Current world average is about 6% and that covers all rates from >1 to more than 12. Welfare is not a capitalist structure. Socialism a) covers welfare in the form of UBI (generally) b) removes the gaps that cause too high/low unemployment by being less focused on capital gains and creating a society where labor structures are created by entites whos focus isn't just profit, e.g. government.
* i cant unlock the node to allow the two labor nodes to be on at the same time but the reason why work isnt always efficient is covered all around. also really its worse in capitalism, because youre not even stealing from others, youre stealing from the person earnining from everyone's efforts and gets to kick it.
Unnecessary work is common? One good example (which I'm super appalled about tbh!) is the number of military contracts the US keeps because they help keep jobs in states. Capitalism isn't about just efficiency, thats economics. Capitalism is about the best arbiters for the market are people because people naturally want to earn more so they'd maximise efficiency. As we can see, people suck! All these things assume that people are perfectly rational and that information is freely given AND that we are capable of true competition. Every basic econ class will cover that but also underscores everything with 'this is purely theoretical' (your ads thing are a good example of how these qualifictions are easily broken actually! Ads are very good at influencing decisions while still being part of monopolistic powers as ads are expensive to produce.)
Travel's nice! But in status quo, travel is really expensive and relies on everyone being in the luxary of a good boss or a job that won't fire you if you take too many vacation days. Socialism, or a postcapitalist world, hopefully moves beyond this to allow people to have both leisure and work life. Same principle as lots of people have vacation time now but only a few days a year. Enough time to kick back and celebrate special occasions. Not everyone is lucky enough to have those.
Still assumes that capitalism is bred for efficiency for maximum allocation. Both socialism and capitalism have economic theories, both of them aims towards market efficiency (positive economics) and deciding what's the best economic policy/effect to help people (normative economics). Essentially capitalism says people like money so they'll help themselves! (see, current status quo wage gap and all the shitty 1% stuff which is basically tragedy of the commons and monopolistic power) while socialist says no! people are greedy, the state should decide so everyone gets to live (see; people are still shitty as well as USSR China etc etc. Worth noting that simply because capitalism profits doesn't mean they win who's best. Beggar-thy-neighbor policies and monopolies all maximise profit for the policy maker at the expense of other people in the market)
Not reeaally? If youre in America maybe. In many places higher education is still a dream. Or in some places, education is still a contest in that the best jobs are gated generally to high achievers. If you're to poor to afford Stanford or you don't live in America, you'll never get the same opportunity. Even here, it's a race to like 4 colleges in a single area- if you can afford to finish high school. Or even some places where there is such a large disadvantage if you don't go to a good school. (Which alternatively- even if one can succeed with those thus proving the person is good enough; then why do you feel the need to put them through hell?) As terrible as the situation with loans are (which clearly, 300k debt for your whole life? Not sure one is truly winning when you have to pay that off for the rest of your life yikes) you forget that not everyone is so lucky! Most countries are capitalist or leaning capitalist (e.g. China) and not everyone is so lucky.
Harvard is a longshot. What if I told you that here (and we're not that poor! I doubt this situation is exclusive to us and we're very capitalist) 20k (for a 4 year stay) is so hard to reach? Harvard is 90k a year according to their site. Hell, here, even 600 dollars a year for tuition is difficult for many students who are stuck in poverty precisely because they can't afford higher education and neither could everyone. While it's totally fair that their should be some way to filter people out, are we really saying that because you have more money you should be allowed to succeed? If you're poor or can't afford to go to a good high school and fall through the cracks, well, sorry try again next life? That's harsh my dude. (There are alternative forms of tertiary education that people don't like to focus on. We still need lots of vocational and hands on jobs, like electricians, mechanics, etc. Nothing wrong with blue collar work, but because the high paying white collar jobs and universities earn the most, its easy for them to advertise and promote white collar work as the only way to succeed and thus making it sound like if you don't make it to college you'll fail in life.)
I don't know if I've hit this node? Also a problem. Firstly, it's common for women to be paid less or let go if they require maternity leave. Secondly, if someone is a parent or say their mom is dying and they are the only ones who can take care of her, but they'll lose their job, what then? UBI is part of this I would think. Not paid sounds like a combination of employers don't like time off (wage gaps are most presnet due to the presence of enforced maternity leave which is! someones gotta take care of the newborn) and that UBI would technically cover this? Again the focus of post capitalist worlds tends to be how do we maximise everyone's utility? Is wealth really so fairly distributed that people need the millions to their name when some barely have a hundred?
Apartments cause a shitload of money no one has. People generally live shitty lives with out homes. Some people can easily pay for a hundred shitty studio apartments in the Bronx, some people choose to only keep building in expensive high profit places. Empty apartments are a common example for price ceilings because everyone NEEDS a house so it's easy to up the profit margins until it hits the point that no one has enough money to keep living in those expensive places save those who are already rich.
Smartphones are a luxury. Flights are a luxury. Getting to nice restaurants, knowing your retirement is safe are all luxuries. Not everyone has them. Economic and political terms aren't exactly the same as day to day usage.
I like how you can admit that noncapitalist policies can improve capitalist systems but not the vce versa. Also welfare isnt perfect and is a bandaid solution to problems like why dont people have jobs? why do people slip through the cracks? etc etc. Doesnt address why we should stop at some socialist policies in regards to UBI and similar steps.
Advertising causes market inefficiency by feeding misinformation or creating irrational associations. See: Sea Monkeys, fad food, junk food, slap bracelets, shitty well marketed games like NMS, AC franchise, Pokemon GO!, makreting tactics (e.g. bigger plates to make you think you ate less to spend more), knowing that people have emotions and aren't robots who have perfect knowledge and using this to your gain. (a good link: https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/information-failure)
Glass bottles of soft drinks are seldom recycled along with most food packaging. The Boeing example. Lots of shit are used once then likely dumped in a landfill. Plastic's a good example- it's ultimately waste as once you use it, its usually too shitty to be used again (hence why you dont drink coke bottles left under the sun) but also refuses to degrade naturally and doesn't recycle well. Postcapitalism worlds is more likely to build recycling centers and focus on sustainable containers. Capitalism? Plastic containers are cheap, avoid health hazards because they're 1 use and aren't consumed, and any cost of actual disposal falls on the government. There is a TON of waste always generated that's only there because it's cheap and therefore helps minimise costs.