• AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Wasteful is the wrong word. Waste implies this is some kind of poor planning, inefficiency or oversight.

    Capitalism truly is all about efficiency, literally at the expense of basic humanity.

    This isn’t unintentional waste, this is intentional separation of the poor from resources. This is intentional artificial scarcity. The fact that many are literally separated from and thus lack a bed (or a roof, or food, etc) is what makes a bed a more valuable commodity for those with enough capital to purchase one from the private owner class through vendors like this one. If basic twin beds were publically available or subsidized, it would lower the capital value and profit potential of the swankier beds. And that is something the owners won’t tolerate.

    Under unrestrained market capitalism, there need to be people dying in the streets, otherwise people won’t appreciate the capital value of purchasing what they need to live.

    We Americans cast our sub-optimal capital batteries out to die of exposure. This is by design. If, as an American not born into wealth, you refuse or are unable to generate value for the owners directly, you will still have an important economic function you will be forced to fulfill: a capitalism scarecrow, meant to scare the wage slaves back to work on Monday, making money for the owners in exchange for minimal subsistence.

    We could house and shelter all our fellow Americans, it isn’t a matter of resources or space. We choose not to, and we also antagonize our powerless homeless as the villains selfishly lowering our property values by continuing to exist while destitute. We don’t, because market capitalism incentivises cruelty for profit, and we refuse to reign it in for fear of slowing its self serving growth/metastasis at the expense of the society it is supposed to serve.

    This is an image of our economy’s and society’s waste intential, greed incentivised cruelty. We Americans are a cruel people far more interested in getting more than our neighbors than entertaining being part of a society.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Depends on your definition of waste. Capitalism produces a lot of waste, arguably part of what has gotten us into this pickle with climate change.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Capitalism itself doesn’t define that as waste. It defines the damage it inflicts on the commons, the earth, and the poor in pursuit of profit as an externality.

        Externalities of course being Orwellian double speak for “lol not my problem you fucking suckers 🤑.”

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Why do you think that China’s per capita carbon footprint is higher? I’ll give you a hint: it rhymes with “Manufacturing all of the toys and treats that Capitalism is selling”. But also yes, China is capitalist. They weren’t really ever communist by definition. Just like how North Korea isn’t a democracy, despite calling themselves one.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Actually, that graph isn’t adjusted to per capita. If it was, the US would be on top.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Rest of the world moves their dirty manufacturing over to China

          Rest of the world: “How can you pollute like this?”

          • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            That was indeed a mistake in many levels. Nevertheless, China is responsible of China’s pollution output, nobody else. Unlike you seem to imply, the chinese are not unthinking animals, but regular people – with even higher than average IQ compared to west according to some studies. They were perfectly capable of making good decisions instead of bad ones.

            And in fact, they seem to be in the process of making such good decisions now. The Economist believes that their CO2 levels will peak this year and start to go down in the near future due to China’s investments in clean energy.

            https://www.economist.com/china/2023/11/27/will-china-save-the-planet-or-destroy-it

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              China made their decision based on the rules of the game, as set by the dominating economic power of the world (i.e. the US). They could’ve turned down being the world’s manufacturer, but they wouldn’t have had a clear path to get to where they have come to this point. Now that they have economic power, they’re better able to make some changes. Like you pointed out, China is making huge investments in clean energy. Granted, a huge driving force behind that is their lack of domestic petrol production and their desire for energy dependence, but they’re still the leader when in comes to investments in clean energy. It’s embarrassing how far behind the US is and even more embarrassing when you take that graph from before and adjust it to per-capita emissions. A real letdown from the richest country in the world.

    • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Would this homeless person have a home if the bed store didn’t exist? Or what is the actual alternative that you’re looking for?

      If you give away the beds, the bed store does not exist, and people who can afford beds wouldn’t be buying beds. Then the people who might have worked in the bed store don’t have jobs and they perhaps are also sleeping on the street.

      • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        In case you don’t understand what “metaphor” or “visualization” means, nobody is saying that this exact store is a reason for the homelessness.