Continuing the discussion from Pointless debate again against established science or facts:
This isn’t fair, I couldn’t post even once. Anyway, I’ll just be active in the wiki and suggestions for some time.
why ending the discussion is unjustified
Firstly, there were people who wanted to talk about this topic. Banning it would be against the will of the people.
If seeing too many arguments and negativity in the forum makes other people feel bad, the discussion can be turned into a private thread with a public invitation link.
Second of all, it is unconstitutional.
The discussion wasn’t about two political parties in a country. Farming, green energy, capitalism and communism will be in the game and the arguments people made here (without citation) can be examined in other threads.
This isn’t r/CapitalismVSocialism, but at least it is relevant, more than the average “not thrive” I would say.
The third reason is that, there is nothing wrong with a discussion being heated. Someone said people were snarking[1], it didn’t felt like that to me. Why the discussion had gone wrong wasn’t explained.
discussion
I agree
There is an invisible hand, but it doesn’t always help the people because people have inelastic demands. Ireland and India both exported food and made a profit during their famines, it turns out people that are starving can’t suddenly get a degree and find a new job.
These figures are disproven. Capitalism can increase overall gdp, but poverty was only reduced with the emergence of left wing governmnets.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2vPhySbRETM
Medication costs way more than how much it costs produce them. That is because the companies can price the drugs as high as they want, and they do. Capitalism isn’t the case here, another company can’t produce the same drug for cheaper because patent laws are broken and patents don’t expire* like they should.
I guess if the economy becomes stagnant, adaptive radiation would end, the number of niches get reduced and the competitive exclusion principle would ensure that the small companies would go bankrupt, no matter if the government issues stricter regulations or not.
The first stages of capitalism is the most innovative one, once the government or a company becomes a monopoly, the economy stagnates.
Companies try to make profit, but the purpose of a government is to make money/production too, othervise it can’t keep existing. They exist in the same environment and are subjected to the same rules. Companies are the junior partner in this symbiotic relationship, unless it is a banana republic.
A company is a government like entity that only owns some of the buildings in a city (or infrastructure like oil rigs) instead of making a territorial claim on antarctica.
But the line between a government and a company is vague. A company can build houses* and roads for its employees, become a company town* and declare independence (or think about the east india company), or a country can lose all of its territory and turn into a company*[2]
Democracies just do whatever the people wants in the short term. Dictatorships can be more succesful than democracies because they think for the long term.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYUSUcVSG4s&t=458s