Capitalist funded the creation of the iPhone and withdrawal rent on their funding.
There are many ways to fund the process.
Capitalists like capitalism because they get to extract more than they funded with no upper bound.
They leech off of the value of the workers who created the product because they think funding the arrangment entitles them to infinite returns on their investment.
It’s rent seeking with more steps and no overhead. There is zero upkeep because the input is the output, capital.
If capital was additive then adding twice as much capital would result in twice as much output and that is clearly not the case.
It’s a valve and it is like a damn operator taking credit for the river.
Its just such a stupid argument on its face. We wouldn’t argue that tribalism gave us agriculture, or that somehow feudalism is good because of windmills. As a society we have ideas, we direct resources to those ideas, and then we reap the benefits of those ideas. Capitalism is simply a more effective driver of resources than the systems before. But mathematically driven aristocracy is still aristocracy.
Capitalism is destroying the Earth… and causing climate change at an unprecedented pace. Its all in what you view as valuable. If you dont value a habitable planet, sure capitalism is an effective system at exploiting workers for a few people’s benefit.
TBF if everyone ate locally raised grass fed beef that would kill the planet at an even faster rate. In the frontier days people sustained on Pigs which they would let roam wild and devour everything they came across, and then stored their meat in barrels of salt.
If every community supplied their own power and lighting such as oil lamps and furnaces, it would be worse.
If every community made their own plastics and devices instead of sophisticated centralized productions with higher efficiency and minimal material cost, that would be worse for the planet.
Capitalism is not inherently worse for the planet, nor better really. Extreme and polar distribution methods don’t change demand only processes and supply.
Capitalist funded the creation of the iPhone and withdrawal rent on their funding.
There are many ways to fund the process.
Capitalists like capitalism because they get to extract more than they funded with no upper bound.
They leech off of the value of the workers who created the product because they think funding the arrangment entitles them to infinite returns on their investment.
It’s rent seeking with more steps and no overhead. There is zero upkeep because the input is the output, capital.
If capital was additive then adding twice as much capital would result in twice as much output and that is clearly not the case.
It’s a valve and it is like a damn operator taking credit for the river.
Its just such a stupid argument on its face. We wouldn’t argue that tribalism gave us agriculture, or that somehow feudalism is good because of windmills. As a society we have ideas, we direct resources to those ideas, and then we reap the benefits of those ideas. Capitalism is simply a more effective driver of resources than the systems before. But mathematically driven aristocracy is still aristocracy.
Capitalism is destroying the Earth… and causing climate change at an unprecedented pace. Its all in what you view as valuable. If you dont value a habitable planet, sure capitalism is an effective system at exploiting workers for a few people’s benefit.
TBF if everyone ate locally raised grass fed beef that would kill the planet at an even faster rate. In the frontier days people sustained on Pigs which they would let roam wild and devour everything they came across, and then stored their meat in barrels of salt.
If every community supplied their own power and lighting such as oil lamps and furnaces, it would be worse.
If every community made their own plastics and devices instead of sophisticated centralized productions with higher efficiency and minimal material cost, that would be worse for the planet.
Capitalism is not inherently worse for the planet, nor better really. Extreme and polar distribution methods don’t change demand only processes and supply.
Yes it is.