🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@log

Having low or inconsistent wages is itself the result of irresponsibility in some sense.. Though to be clear i dont mean it the way it sounds. In the sense that many of these people were just raised with poor ideas and poor oppertunities to learn how to be responsible. It isnt willful all the time.

But it usually stems from this anti-capital sillyness. They stub their noses at successful people and laugh at their advice (like not spending money on frivolous things)... Those same people if they had devoted their free time to aquiring marketable skills they wouldnt be low-income to begin with. And to be fair i know it sounds like im blaming them, I'm not... because school and access to education costs money they dont have, so I get those difficulties (and generally encourage social programs to remedy it).. but the thing is, its not the land lord to blame, its usually some combination of either lack of opportunity for them to acquire skills, or a lack of willingness to pursue it. Usually some combination of the two.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@log

> If we don't have a free market, it doesn't do anyone any good to live in a hypothetical as though we did.

Yup thats what I said, free markets are essential for a functioning society. If you dont have them you wont have a functioning society.

> You, and other non-fictional persons, live in the world that exists. And the landlords that exist chose to price their units to extract market value that other people have created. They have responsibility proportional to the number of units they own.

No, they extract value from the resources they have created (the money to be able to build, maintain, upgrade and improve the building, and the land). In a free market there is balance and the value they create by doign so is the value they create.

If your hypothesis is true and landlords are taking more money than the value they provide then you need to fix the market so it is a free market. Expecting people to just pretend the market isnt brokent and charge less than the market value is absurdist and as you point out, not in line with reality.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@mayonesa@berserker.town

Its even worse than that.. building dont get built to begin with. Lets face it if your average worker was responsible enough to manage getting a building built they probably wouldnt need a landlord to begin with.

@log @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@jlou

> If the employed and employing legal party is the same, it is reasonable to think of that as joint self-employment

Its not the same in a co-op.. The employed is you, as an individual. The employee is a large collection of people of whom you are only a small voice. Sure if you are the sole owner and employed you could make that argument. But in a co-op the collective is hardlyt he same as the individual. So you still have a employeer (the whole governing body) and the employed (you) in a relationship you may or may not like.

@jeffowski

@mayonesa@berserker.town

Yup, thats my point. it is hardly unique to capitalism.

@jlou @jeffowski

@log

YEa thats just wrong sorry. The market would be greatly impacted as well, as would the economy.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@chiraag

Nuance is everything... In israel you have a conflict where both sides have been brutalized by the other in unacceptable ways. Not a single person who has lived in israel on either side has not had someone they knew and loved murdered.

While I do side with the Palestinians largely because they were there first 80 years ago, the people who were "there first" are pretty much all dead now, and the generation on both sides who are there have been there, side by side, for their whole lives. Both sides brutalize the other, and both sides should be condemned for that.

But when you have a situation where both sides have been victimized then when one side calls out the other, if you attack them for that opinion then you are both protecting a victim (the other side) while attacking a victim. Thats the crux of it, both sides are victims, both sides are terrorists. Thats somewhat unique in most conflicts.

@log

There are plenty of issues with landlords and the pricing around renting. Those issues are **not** the fault of the landlords, but rather the fault of markets that are not free.

As you say if the "pricing signals" can be distorted and the market along with it. Then you dont have a free market.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@chiraag

I certainly have no issue with you being respectful, firm, but polite in voicing your disagreement with her opinion.

But if she is being cut off and loosing friends over this or being personally attacked (as it sounds like she is) then shame on you.

I dont have the time or energy to go through your timeline though so ill let you decide for yourself if that judgement applies to you or not.

@skaly

@jlou

Exactly, co-op based systems are still entierly allowed within capitalist system, but there is still an employee-employer relationship even if you are part of a co-op.

@jeffowski

@log

And i have no issue with landlords so long as they are operating within a free-market. If as you say they are pulling out more money than they provide in value then the markets arent free, thats not the landlors fault.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@log

> Approaching from a math-based macroeconomic analysis, there would be zero negative effects from simply murdering all rentiers and seizing their property for distribution. And all those billionaires out there are mostly rentier, if they even have any capitalist left in them.

Yea thats absolute nonsense. The fallout from that would be quite noticable.

> So if they donate a greater percentage of their income than others, it still falls short of the ideal, which is to give up 100% of all economic rents.

Well I'm glad your not in charge with that sort of horrificly incorrect assumptions.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@jlou

Thats not in line with any of the normal language used. Someone owning the companyt hey work for along side other people doesnt stop that entity from being an employer.

All the companies I run have a stock-options program where my employees are part owners int he company. Despite the fact that they are owners there is still the same employee-employer relationship.

@jeffowski

@jlou

> Would you consider an economy where all firms were democratic worker coops capitalism?

It may be, it may not. As long as people have the options to privately own means of production, then its capitalism. If no one exercised that right and everyone choose to only operate as co-ops as long as they have the option then it is still capitalism.

@jeffowski

@jlou

Employer-employee relationships is the norm in both capitalist and non-capitalist society. You still have jobs in non-capitalist economies and if you have a job there is an employee employer relationship. It just so happens sometimes the employer is the government or a co-op.

@jeffowski

@log

There are plenty of issues regarding wealth and equal oppertunities. Companies are under no obligation to pay out its extras to its employees. But doing so to some extent is often int he best interest of the company.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@log

> One doesn't get to be a ten-millionaire without being a capitalist business manager.

No only is this not true, we have plenty of counter examples. The dictators that have run many of the worlds most oppressive non-capitalist countries have been far richer than event he richest billionairs.

Stalin was massively rich, Kim Jong as well. Neither of whom did so through capitalism.

It is quite clear capitalism is not needed, nor the most effective way to get insanely rich.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@log

Wealth inequality is not an issue, what is an issue is the quality of life of those with nothing. This difference is huge.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@jlou

I prefer to stick with the accepted definition than to try to make up our own.

Employer-employee relationship is not remotely unique to capitalism, and markets in general can exist in non-capitalist countries, it is not wholly unique to capitalism. what defines capitalism is **free** market, not simply having a market. Even private ownership is only capitalism when it is private ownership of the means of production. Being able to own a pocket watch doesnt make something capitalist.

@jeffowski

@WoodSharpening

I cant say for sure, but one would hope.

Regardless of if she did or not, I wouldnt have any desire to be friends with someone who abuses little children.

@niclas @AmpBenzScientist