In the last 5 to 10 years everything seems to suck: product’s and services quality plummeted, everything from homes to cars to food became really expensive, technology stopped to help us to be something designed to f@ck with us and our money, nobody seems to be able to hold a job anymore, everyone is broke. Life seems worse in general.

Why? Did COVID made this happen? How?

  • neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    You see, it all started in May, 2016 with this Gorilla being killed. That’s when this timeline split off…

  • whaleross@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Because corporate greed and the economic elite around the world hoarding more resources than ever before.

    And we let them.

    • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Greed, wanting stuff, precipitates giving value in return for value. Regardless of motives everybody benefits. This is a free market.

      Throw in an institution that can manipulate & distort free market forces - government - then you get parasites that use the violence of that institution for non reciprocated greed. This creates distortions in wealth and power in favour of the scrupulous.

      • Fog0555@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Doesn’t that assume that resources were at one point distributed fairly? If you have all the value, you can devalue everyone else.

        • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago
          1. No. Why would it assume that?
          2. How so? The only way I see to have all the value & devalue others is to be an absolute dictator that has enslaved everyone. This of course is not possible in a free market as it is all about private property rights/self ownership.
          • Fog0555@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago
            1. Because if they weren’t distributed equally, some people would unfairly have more capital than others, which means a fair trade where people exchange the precise value of an item leaves some people with inherent setbacks.
            2. If I don’t own property, then I am forced into wage-slavery, which means I don’t have time to myself to innovate or property to innovate. Even if I manage to buy some property, I can innovate some, but larger players with more capital and resources can out-compete me. The more money you have, the longer you can take to turn a profit, and drive others out of business.
            • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I do not think you understand fairness or value. Life is not fair. You cannot expect it to be. To try to make it fair requires the initiation of force against another. The happenstance of an unfair life is different to the deliberate application of force to create what one thinks should be fair. Precise value??? All value is subjective! Setbacks? Every exchange that occurs happens due to the exchange making both parties life better - otherwise the exchange would not occur. You are viewing the world as a glass half empty rather than half full! Wage-slavery? There is not such thing! You own property - always! You own your body! Other peoples ability to generate wealth is something you have no right to interfere with just as much as they have no right to interfere with your body. You may not like the terms of contract but that is simply because you have no better option and you need to upskill. Innovate? If you are working you are gaining skills. Are you showing your worth or just doing the acceptable minimum to justify your employment? If the game is unfair - it is because the system (govenment) applies the law unfairly - not because others create value.

        • Lilweed2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I mean, I think it has to do with different kind of value, some have capital, some have services, they would not work without eachother

  • DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    You’re finally realizing the end game of capitalism. The 1% trying to hoard everything and milk 99% of the population. I call them piggies because they’re gluttonous with money.

    Edit: you’re

      • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        nice meme, bold of you to assume however that all rich people don’t take all the money from the state they can get their hands on

        • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          ALL rich people? That would be quite the assumption! Many rich are parasites that use regulatory capture, artificial cartels, lobbying, bribery, threats etc because the state exists. Other rich have attained great value by giving the world much value. Don’t let envy eat you away!

          • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Do you think they would be unable to form their cartels if the state was abolished? Pray tell, what’s to stop them from doing so?

            • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              The question should be who will enable their cartel without the state law enforcing it? What is to stop them get a large share of the market - cartel status? Well, their competition providing better goods and services!

                • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  NAP, aka respect for private property rights. If a society does not respect the NAP then it is a society based foremost on the threat of violence. What is government - the threat of violence - the threat of force. So, if a society allowed private militia to kill competitors you would end up with a gang ruling over others - you know - like government. So, yes you need a society with respect for private property rights/NAP. Would all people be peaceful? Heck no! Does this mean there will also not be private institutions that uphold the law - uphold respect for private property rights? Of course! People will still need security, decision making and justice! A peaceful society with respect for the NAP would NOT allow a private militia to violate others rights! Business (in the absence of government favouritism) survives on good products, services and reputation. Sending a militia against you opponents does not do well for your reputation! So ultimately you have a choice - government, which is an involuntary institution with a monopoly on force and rule making that serves the elite to the detriment of others OR A free society with respect for private property rights that is more decentralised and snuffs out any trouble makers.

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre

    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

  • Lunch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Healthy food costs more than unhealthy food…

    Edit: mb, not really an answer to your question, but it sucks nonetheless…

        • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Healthy food doesn’t cost more than crap food. The people that say that is because a fast food burger costs five bucks and a pound of ground beef also costs five bucks without the bread or cheese or ketchup. But that pound of meat will give you eight of the fast food burger.

          • eatthecake@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            More like 8 meatballs and only a quarter of your daily calorie intake. Ramen will give you all your daily calories for a couple of dollars. Show me a healthy food that’s cheaper than that.