Capitalism and Its Beneficiaries, Rich People, Are the Spreaders of Coronavirus

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

We don't really have another system to compare with during this pandemic, which is part of the problem with your thesis: No control that would actually make it possible to distinguish correlation from causation.

But we do know that the major competing system from the 20th century had a blatant disregard for worker safety, public health, and environmental protection - much worse than its capitalistic counterparts. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect...g_the_Cold_War

The outcomes in communist Czechoslovakia were repeated throughout the Warsaw Pact countries.

China has a mixed economy, transitioning over several decades from communism to something more capitalistic. We know that China has a terrible track record regarding worker safety, public health, and environmental protection. We know that this extends far beyond recent capitalistic endeavors such as electronics manufacturing and assembly. And we know that the further back in time we look, the more communist the Chinese system, the worse the record.

So I think it's reasonable to assume that if we had another major economic system active in the world today, it would have similar problems with this pandemic, or else would have traded these problems for much worse problems. Therefore I think the problem you describe is more reasonably attributed to humans than it is to capitalism.

I think it's likely that if the Soviet Union were alive today, it would be better about not spreading the virus from the Soviet Haves to the Soviet Have-Nots, simply by virtue of communism producing fewer Haves than capitalism. But I think this would be more than offset by worse working conditions for the Have-Nots, worse environmental protections, and a policy of keeping the economy going "for the greater good" even at the cost of spreading the infection among the workforce to an even greater degree than us capitalists have done.

Seriously, look at the history of environmental pollution in the 20th century, compare capitalist systems with communist systems and see which one you hate more.

The Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and China were never communist. They weren't even close.

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Of the top ten richest people in the world, Bill Gates has the most liquid assets, at $46.8 billion:

https://hbcumoney.com/2014/11/24/c-r...-cash-on-hand/

If he paid $2 million/day for Covid medicine, and spent his money on literally nothing else, he'd be fine for another 64 years. In reality he'd die of starvation within a couple weeks. More realistically, he'd die of untreated aging-related complications in a few years.

The next most liquid billionaire, Ernesto Bertarelli, only has about a quarter of Bill Gate's cash on hand. That's good for a mere 16 years' worth of medicine. Depending on how old he is and how healthy he is, he might actually live long enough to enjoy the full 16 years covid-free.

Do you think extracting this kind of money from these few billionaires is a realistic or practical business strategy for any drug manufacturer? Do you think any real-world drug manufacturer is interested in even trying to do something like this?

I have no idea why your fantasy lets Bill Gates have two million a day for Covid medicine but not a penny for food.
If it was a feasible business strategy, a drug manufacturer would be there to provide much the same way that the companies that sell freezer space for the heads of dead millionaires. Realistic or practical? Well, you can sell an awful lot of utterly useless stuff and services if you can persuade somebody with money that it's what they're looking for.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I think that's true of a lot of criticisms of systems: they ignore the fact that humans are humans and pretend that the issue is with the system. That's how we got communism, in fact, and dann here doesn't even see that.

Don't plagiarize xjx388's argument. He does it better than you.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Belz...

According to dann, off-the-counter, cheap and effective medecine doesn't exist because capitalism only serves the "reach" (I can't believe he made such an issue out of a misspelling in a middle of an argument. That's really petty.).

I hate to make another one, but you keep repeating it. Switch on your spell checker.

And your strawman is incredibly dumb. That I should have claimed that [(]"off-the-counter, cheap and effective medecine doesn't exist" is entirely your fabrication. I suppose you now expect me to fall on my knees and pray to the God of capitalism for its wonderful gift of aspiring to humanity to humankind.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

I have no idea why your fantasy lets Bill Gates have two million a day for Covid medicine but not a penny for food.

It's a thought experiment. I'm examining the maximum amount of medicine Gates could possibly afford, at a price of "millions per day". The lowest plural amount of millions is two. The most he could possibly spend is all of it. The reality is that he'd run out of money for covid medicine long before the 64 years were up, because he'd have to spend some of his money on other things as well. If he lived very frugally, a pharmaceutical company with him as their sole customer could probably extract $46 billion from him over a 60-year period.

Except that he's getting pretty old, and would have to divert more and more of his money to treating complications arising from old age. He's realistically got another 40 years or so, no matter how much he spends. So really his drug dealer would only get about maybe 40 billion over 40 years. (My WAG that he'd end up spending about 6 billion on food, shelter, and aging-mitigation treatments over the next 40 years.)

Quote:

If it was a feasible business strategy, a drug manufacturer would be there to provide much the same way that the companies that sell freezer space for the heads of dead millionaires. Realistic or practical? Well, you can sell an awful lot of utterly useless stuff and services if you can persuade somebody with money that it's what they're looking for.

And yet no major pharmaceutical company has bothered to pursue this business model.

[dann]

Forgive me for returning from your attempts at derailing the thread about corona capitalism:

Quote:

Latino and African-American residents of the United States have been three times as likely to become infected as their white neighbors … Black and Latino people have been nearly twice as likely to die from the virus as white people.
Of Latino people who died, more than a quarter were younger than 60. Among white people who died, only six percent were that young.
Experts point to circumstances that have made Black and Latino people more likely than white people to be exposed to the virus: Many of them have front-line jobs that keep them from working at home; rely on public transportation; or live in cramped apartments or multigenerational homes.
New York Times

MSNBC, July 7, 2020: Castro: New Federal Data On Racial Inequity Of COVID-19 Is ‘Appalling, Tragic And Infuriating

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

The Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and China were never communist. They weren't even close.

Then you really do have no control group, no basis for comparison, no way to separate correlation from causation, and no justification for blaming capitalism rather than human nature.

Hell, you can't even propose an alternative system that would avoid these problems without creating worse ones. You're saying capitalism is the problem, even though there's nothing else going on, never has been anything else going on, and never will be anything else going on. You might as well blame people, or life, or entropy.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Then you really do have no control group, no basis for comparison, no way to separate correlation from causation, and no justification for blaming capitalism rather than human nature.

Hell, you can't even propose an alternative system that would avoid these problems without creating worse ones. You're saying capitalism is the problem, even though there's nothing else going on, never has been anything else going on, and never will be anything else going on. You might as well blame people, or life, or entropy.

That is always the way of things with communism. The system is perfect, but the people fail the system. That's why communists are always so willing to replace the people, and if that requires a little famine or genocide, so be it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

For the same reason that you can't charge very different prices for the same product: If it's one that caters to the tastes of ordinary people, billionaires will buy it for the same price. Even if billionaires can afford to pay one million for a Mars bar, they won't because they can buy them for 40 cents. But if certain things are scarce, like tests, for instance, they can afford to pay a price that lets them have the thing that poor people who need it just as much can't.
You really should pay more attention to how capitalism works.

You're not making any sense here. Your OWN ARGUMENT implies that Aspirin and Tylenol should be sold at thousands of dollars per pill because very rich people can afford to pay and capitalism doesn't care about those who can't. I am telling you that the real world DOES NOT correspond to your view of capitalism. Are you able to admit that you are WRONG here?

Quote:

In other systems, wealth isn't accumulated as capital.

Yes it is.

Quote:

Of course, there are benefits! Benefits for the state.

Benefits for EVERYONE. Even the very poor in the US are much richer than those in less developed, less democratic and less capitalist countries. Regulated capitalism has done a lot to improve the situation of just about everoyne, despite its flaws.

Quote:

That you don't like the alternative I have presented is not avoidance on my part.

Every time you're asked about alternatives you avoid the question.

Quote:

No, it's not

A counter-example to your absolutist statement is a proof that your statement is wrong. That is the foundation of logic.

Quote:

So go on: Mitigate them, for all I care.

We do. So do you. Almost every country does.

Quote:

Mitigate that people are forced to work in the middle of a pandemic without PPE, mitigate that they are forced to use public transport, and mitigate their cramped living quarters, and mitigate that they can't get tested because the billionaires bought the tests.

Circular logic.

Quote:

There is no lie to retract. I would ask you to retract your fantasy if I thought you didn't actually believe in it.

I can't retract the fantasy you made up for me. That's the issue here. You fail to understand the point other people make, and then accuse them of making a different argument. When they point out that they don't, you accuse them of lying, because you're miffed that your own lies have been exposed.

Quote:

No, that is not at all surprising, but yes, it is very undesirable that some people can only afford **** and some people can't even afford ****.

Why? Why should I be able to afford my own ocean liner, for instance?

Quote:

Having to read about your capitalist utopia is bad enough.

There is no such thing as a capitalist utopia. If you had paid attention to what I wrote you'd know this.

Quote:

I gave up trying to convince you of anything a long time ago.

I guess that's why you've substituted lies for any semblance of an argument.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

Don't plagiarize xjx388's argument. He does it better than you.

How about you make an effort to address my argument?

The fact that other people have come to the same conclusion as I did, and you became aware of theirs before mine, doesn't make it "plagiarism".

Quote:

I hate to make another one, but you keep repeating it. Switch on your spell checker.

Are you aware that other languages exist and spell this word differently? Drop the condescension and address the actual argument.

Quote:

And your strawman is incredibly dumb. That I should have claimed that [(]"off-the-counter, cheap and effective medecine doesn't exist" is entirely your fabrication. I suppose you now expect me to fall on my knees and pray to the God of capitalism for its wonderful gift of aspiring to humanity to humankind.

Interesting that you accuse me of making a strawman while making one of your own.

YOU said that capitalism creates an "incentive to make money by selling drugs to the highest bidder and withholding it from those who can't pay "

Clearly, effective medecine is available to the poor and middle-class. So you're WRONG again.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

I have no idea why your fantasy lets Bill Gates have two million a day for Covid medicine but not a penny for food.

Oh, my gods, you don't know what a thought experiment is.

Get out of the thread, dann. You're out of your league.

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Then you really do have no control group, no basis for comparison, no way to separate correlation from causation, and no justification for blaming capitalism rather than human nature.

Hell, you can't even propose an alternative system that would avoid these problems without creating worse ones. You're saying capitalism is the problem, even though there's nothing else going on, never has been anything else going on, and never will be anything else going on. You might as well blame people, or life, or entropy.

You fail to understand that a control group is not necessary. All of my examples have shown one thing: This is what capitalism does. Instead of looking at those examples, you and your companions, have been obsessed with the idea that an imaginary system would do the same thing, too.
It has been very interesting to see that you are utterly bereft of the ability to take in and analyze these examples for what they are, but it has become extremely boring at this point. If you could only play the other side of your record, it might at least add a little spice to the whole thing, but it seems like your record only has one side and one track.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Originally Posted by theprestige

Then you really do have no control group, no basis for comparison, no way to separate correlation from causation, and no justification for blaming capitalism rather than human nature.

Hell, you can't even propose an alternative system that would avoid these problems without creating worse ones. You're saying capitalism is the problem, even though there's nothing else going on, never has been anything else going on, and never will be anything else going on. You might as well blame people, or life, or entropy.

That is always the way of things with communism. The system is perfect, but the people fail the system. That's why communists are always so willing to replace the people, and if that requires a little famine or genocide, so be it.

You fail to see that this is the attempt at criticism that first xjx388 and now Belz have been making the whole time: Blaming people, i.e. humans, for everything rich people and business owners do in capitalism: Capitalism is perfect, but the people fail the system.
Ironic, isn't it?!
The atrocity of letting hundreds of thousands die of Covid-19 is uninteresting. You would rather talk about something else.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

You fail to understand that a control group is not necessary. All of my examples have shown one thing: This is what capitalism does.

Without contrary examples you cannot determine that this effect is due to capitalism. That's like saying that breathing is the leading cause of solar flares because they have occured throughout the entire history of breathing. You need a control!

Quote:

you and your companions, have been obsessed with the idea that an imaginary system would do the same thing, too.

Again, strawman. You're not going to get away with those.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

You fail to see that this is the attempt at criticism that first xjx388 and now Belz have been making the whole time: Blaming people, i.e. humans, for everything rich people and business owners do in capitalism: Capitalism is perfect, but the people fail the system.
Ironic, isn't it?!

That isn't the argument AT ALL. NO ONE has said that capitalism is perfect. NO ONE is blaming the victims here.

The point is simply that the undesirable outcome you are whining about exists in ALL systems. The alternatives that have been proposed in the past, including Marxism, have only worked in theory, because they have failed to take into account the human element. Humans are greedy and violent and selfish. Marxism fails because it assumes that humans will in fact share ressources and be nice to each other if you just remove rich people from the equation. It fails to realise that rich people exist because humans tend to be bastards to begin with. You won't get rid of them if you keep the humans.

Capitalism has many faults, but at least it tries to harness that greed and put it to some use, rather than try to stamp it out, which won't work. But because excess is also very bad, capitalism also needs to be kept from getting out of hand.

The fundamental problem with your core argument is that you are not allowing for anything outside of a simple dichotomy: on one side, an idealised, laissez-faire version of capitalism that engulfs all who fail to climb to the top, and on the other an aluded to alternative system that would be better, without specifying what that would be like. Consequently, you treat every disagreement as if the other poster supported your idealised and frankly cartoonish version of capitalism, which no one on the planet uses.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Belz...

How about you make an effort to address my argument?

The fact that other people have come to the same conclusion as I did, and you became aware of theirs before mine, doesn't make it "plagiarism".

No, it just makes yours just as wrong as his, which I have criticized several times already. You are presenting exactly the same faulty argument as if it's any better the 12th time.

Quote:

Are you aware that other languages exist and spell this word differently? Drop the condescension and address the actual argument.

Yes, I learned French in high school, but I seem to remember that you would have to spell it médecine, if that is what you're going for.

Quote:

Interesting that you accuse me of making a strawman while making one of your own.

YOU said that capitalism creates an "incentive to make money by selling drugs to the highest bidder and withholding it from those who can't pay."

Clearly, effective medecine is available to the poor and middle-class. So you're WRONG again.

I am not at all wrong, and your capitalization doesn't help you.
What you fail to notice is that a cheap remedy against headaches doesn't help against diabetes or Covid-19. And a cheap test for pregnancy doesn't help you test if you have come down with the 'rona.
See?! Medicine and health care is much more difficult than you thought. Another thing you can add to what you've (hopefully) learned today.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Without contrary examples you cannot determine that this effect is due to capitalism. That's like saying that breathing is the leading cause of solar flares because they have occured throughout the entire history of breathing. You need a control!

Man, you should try to learn some science, preferably science that goes beyond the nonsense of philosophers like popper. If you claim that inhaling oxygen is how blood is oxygenated, you have to show how. When you have done that, you don't need any controls. But I guess you would prefer to have people inhale solar flares instead, for whatever reason.

Quote:

Again, strawman. You're not going to get away with those.

I am not going anywhere. You, on the other hand, have been escaping from reality from the moment you got here.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by Belz...

In the real world, if most people can't afford your product, you're not going to make billions out of it.

Of course you can make billions, if these few people that can afford product pay sufficiently high price. I will agree such business model is rare - there are not too many Bugattis or Feadships in the world. But they exist.

Originally Posted by theprestige

But we do know that the major competing system from the 20th century had a blatant disregard for worker safety, public health, and environmental protection - much worse than its capitalistic counterparts.

I like that highlighted part. That neatly excludes previous centuries and fate of people within (not that "capitalistic counterparts" in 20th century were great in this regard). I do understand why advocate of free market would want to pretend these times never existed, though.

"blatant disregard for worker safety, public health, and environmental protection"

That pretty well describes unregulated capitalism, either one from past centuries or actual result of one in wankfantasies of free market advocates, without that all pesky regulations and other inconveniences that stay between system where greed is virtue and abuse of employers, customers and environment.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

No, it just makes yours just as wrong as his, which I have criticized several times already. You are presenting exactly the same faulty argument as if it's any better the 12th time.

It doesn't need to be bettter: it's true. So far you've argued that capitalism gives incentives for certain behaviours, but you've failed to control for the question of human behaviour. I've already pointed out to you that humans act this way in every system, but you dodged that point.

Quote:

Yes, I learned French in high school, but I seem to remember that you would have to spell it médecine, if that is what you're going for.

Except that I was trying to write in English, which doesn't use accents. Do you never make typos?

Quote:

What you fail to notice is that a cheap remedy against headaches doesn't help against diabetes or Covid-19.

That is completely irrelevant to my point. Try again.

Quote:

See?! Medicine and health care is much more difficult than you thought. Another thing you can add to what you've (hopefully) learned today.

Stop acting as if you're the teacher here. If anything you don't even qualify as a student, since students at least usually listen some of the time.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

Of course you can make billions, if these few people that can afford product pay sufficiently high price. I will agree such business model is rare - there are not too many Bugattis or Feadships in the world. But they exist.

Again, we're talking about medecine. I'm not sure many pharmaceutical companies could use that business model to sell a vaccine for, say, 50 million a shot. Sure, some people could pay, but the cashflow wouldn't last long.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That is always the way of things with communism. The system is perfect, but the people fail the system. That's why communists are always so willing to replace the people, and if that requires a little famine or genocide, so be it.

If there's No True Communism, does that mean there's No True Communist?

Is a No True Communist a person? Is a No True Scotsman?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

If you claim that inhaling oxygen is how blood is oxygenated, you have to show how. When you have done that, you don't need any controls.

Once again you fail to read for comprehension.

The point is that you are establishing correlation without controlling for other factors. Do you understand what control is for?

Quote:

I am not going anywhere.

What are you talking about? Are you not familiar with that expression?

Quote:

You, on the other hand, have been escaping from reality from the moment you got here.

Yet another "No, you!"

Amazing. You're really desperate.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Belz...

That isn't the argument AT ALL. NO ONE has said that capitalism is perfect. NO ONE is blaming the victims here.

The point is simply that the undesirable outcome you are whining about exists in ALL systems. The alternatives that have been proposed in the past, including Marxism, have only worked in theory, because they have failed to take into account the human element. Humans are greedy and violent and selfish. Marxism fails because it assumes that humans will in fact share ressources and be nice to each other if you just remove rich people from the equation. It fails to realise that rich people exist because humans tend to be bastards to begin with. You won't get rid of them if you keep the humans.

Capitalism has many faults, but at least it tries to harness that greed and put it to some use, rather than try to stamp it out, which won't work. But because excess is also very bad, capitalism also needs to be kept from getting out of hand.

The fundamental problem with your core argument is that you are not allowing for anything outside of a simple dichotomy: on one side, an idealised, laissez-faire version of capitalism that engulfs all who fail to climb to the top, and on the other an aluded to alternative system that would be better, without specifying what that would be like. Consequently, you treat every disagreement as if the other poster supported your idealised and frankly cartoonish version of capitalism, which no one on the planet uses.

No one here has said that communism, imaginary as it is for the time being, is perfect either, but that doesn't seem to bother any of you.

But for your sake, let's say that "the undesirable outcome" I have pointed out (you are the one who's whining!) throughout this thread "exists in ALL systems," actual as well as imaginary. Would that make you happy? Would that enable you to take a serious look at how capitalism spreads the coronavirus?

You may not have noticed, but capitalism actually has got out of hand. If you haven't you should take a look at the latest numbers of corona cases and corona deaths.

Rich people don't exist because humans. Capitalists exist because capitalism. And what needs to be removed is capitalism, but I too bored with you to want to explain it to you at this point and in this thread, which is about capitalism and coronavirus.

I am surprised that you fail to see that my core argument is how capitalism spreads coronavirus. You are somewhere else entirely, and you shouldn't be in this thread if you don't have anything meaningful to contribute to it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

In other systems, wealth isn't accumulated as capital.

What other systems? Please give an example of another system, in practice today, where wealth isn't accumulated as capital.

Or give an example of such an alternative system from history, if there's none in practice today.

Or give a theoretical example from peer-reviewed academia, if no such system has ever actually existed to our knowledge.

Or give an example from lay speculation, if no such system has ever existed, and you're not aware of any academic theories about such systems.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

No one here has said that communism, imaginary as it is for the time being, is perfect either, but that doesn't seem to bother any of you.

I don't think anyone is doing that, no. But if you're going to present it as an alternative you have to show that it's better than the system you're arguing against here.

Quote:

But for your sake, let's say that "the undesirable outcome" I have pointed out (you are the one who's whining!) throughout this thread "exists in ALL systems," actual as well as imaginary. Would that make you happy? Would that enable you to take a serious look at how capitalism spreads the coronavirus?

I've already given a serious look at your claim and found it wanting. The very reason we're discussing these other things is to get to the bottom of that claim, and what I'm saying, mainly, is that you've not established that things would be different under any other reasonable system. Of course if you're to propose a system in which everyone is poor and therefore cannot travel, or where travel is forbidden, you'd have a point, but good luck in establishing or selling a system like that. If not, then I'd like to know what you have in mind.

Quote:

You may not have noticed, but capitalism actually has got out of hand.

I live in Canada, so I haven't noticed, no.

Quote:

Rich people don't exist because humans. Capitalists exist because capitalism.

And this is where your ignorance of history fails you. Rich people have existed IN EVERY SYSTEM. Greed exists in ALL societies. That's why even in the marxist utopia of the USSR there were rich asshats. Sounds like a human problem more than a capitalist problem to me. But the fact that more well-off people exist in capitalist systems should tell you something.

Quote:

I am surprised that you fail to see that my core argument is how capitalism spreads coronavirus.

I do see it. See above.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Belz...

It doesn't need to be bettter: it's true. So far you've argued that capitalism gives incentives for certain behaviours, but you've failed to control for the question of human behaviour. I've already pointed out to you that humans act this way in every system, but you dodged that point.

No, I haven't. But now I think that you are the one who need a control group: How do you know that it's human behaviour if you don't have any control group of aliens to compare it with? See?! It's a stupid argument.

Quote:

Except that I was trying to write in English, which doesn't use accents. Do you never make typos?

Yes, but I try to avoid them, and when I don't, I own them instead of coming up with ridiculous excuses.

Quote:

That is completely irrelevant to my point. Try again.

Whatever.

Quote:

Stop acting as if you're the teacher here. If anything you don't even qualify as a student, since students at least usually listen some of the time.

Sorry, my hearing is impaired, but I'm a very sharp reader, which annoys the hell out you, obviously.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

I like that highlighted part. That neatly excludes previous centuries and fate of people within (not that "capitalistic counterparts" in 20th century were great in this regard). I do understand why advocate of free market would want to pretend these times never existed, though.

"blatant disregard for worker safety, public health, and environmental protection"

That pretty well describes unregulated capitalism, either one from past centuries or actual result of one in wankfantasies of free market advocates, without that all pesky regulations and other inconveniences that stay between system where greed is virtue and abuse of employers, customers and environment.

Whoosh.

The point is that communism attempted to abolish greed as a virtue, and ended up being even worse than the system that (in your opinion) celebrated it.

Comparing capitalism to other systems that have been tried shows pretty clearly that regulating greed has better outcomes than abolishing greed, for worker safety, public health, and environmental protection.

The "20th century" qualifier was intended merely to acknowledge that while communism had its heyday during that period, there aren't any extant examples to act as controls for dann's thesis about the current pandemic. It was not intended to restrict you from examining other periods of history or bringing up examples of capitalism (or feudalism, or whatever) from earlier centuries. Go wherever you want in human history, and my argument will happily follow you there.

Also, I think you are seeing a defense of capitalism where there is only a rebuttal of dann's piss-poor anti-capitalism arguments. You can think capitalism is horrible and still think that dann is doing a terrible job of attacking it here. In my opinion, you should.

Hell, in my opinion, capitalism *is* horrible. It's about the worst economic system that has ever been tried...

... If you know what I mean.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dann

You fail to see that this is the attempt at criticism that first xjx388 and now Belz have been making the whole time: Blaming people, i.e. humans, for everything rich people and business owners do in capitalism: Capitalism is perfect, but the people fail the system.
Ironic, isn't it?!

No, it isn't ironic, it's a straw man. The entire point is that no human system can ever be perfect precisely because people are never perfect. You can never build perfection out of flawed parts.

The advantage of capitalism is that it can still work reasonably well even with all these flaws. Not perfectly, of course, but reasonably well.

Quote:

The atrocity of letting hundreds of thousands die of Covid-19 is uninteresting. You would rather talk about something else.

When a volcano erupts and kills everyone in a city, that's not an atrocity, that's a tragedy. It's a tragedy and not an atrocity even if the government of that city failed to evacuate the residents when it should have known. To qualify as an atrocity, the negative outcome has to be the desired result. There's absolutely no reason to think that any capitalist system wanted lots of people to die of Covid-19. Furthermore, as theprestige pointed out already, you've got no control for your hypothetical experiment. There's no alternative system which has performed better than capitalism, which saved everybody that you think capitalism has killed.

Can we point to any actions in this whole mess where we can reasonably conclude that increased infections and death were intended results? Why yes, as a matter of fact, we can. China's efforts to hide the origin and severity of the outbreak, deny human-to-human transmission even as they tried to stockpile PPE from foreign countries, and keep international travel to Wuhan open even as it shut down domestic travel, could all be reasonably interpreted as a desire to make sure the rest of the world suffered as much as China did. But I'm sure you'll try to find a way to blame capitalism for the sins of the Chinese Communist Party.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

No, I haven't.

Then by all means link to your response to that. I won't be holding my breath.

Quote:

How do you know that it's human behaviour if you don't have any control group of aliens to compare it with? See?! It's a stupid argument.

No, it's just you failing to understand the argument again. AGAIN!

Quote:

Yes, but I try to avoid them, and when I don't, I own them instead of coming up with ridiculous excuses.

The FIRST thing I did was owning it, mentioning it was a typo! Stop LYING. And how is it an excuse to point out that my first language spells the word differently? Why do you insist on acting like a jerk? You know it just reflects poorly on you, right?

Quote:

Whatever.

See what I mean? You're not really interested in the discussion or in the arguments presented. You'll use any excuse to avoid them, turn them on their head, or mischaracterise them.

Quote:

Sorry, my hearing is impaired, but I'm a very sharp reader

A sharp reader? BWA ha ha ha ha! You can't even understand simple sentences and arguments. God, that's rich.

Quote:

which annoys the hell out you, obviously.

Says the guy who keeps using "No, you!" arguments all the time.

[theprestige]

Also, seriously? Communism in the 20th century had way worse environmental outcomes than capitalism. The rebuttals to this fact (can facts be rebutted?) are, so far:

"No True Communism"

and

"But capitalism was also really bad!"

Yes, we know that capitalism is really bad. That's not a rebuttal to the observation that Communism was demonstrably worse, and worse pretty much across the board.

I am all for replacing capitalism with something better. Do you have any suggestions other than communism?

[dann]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I don't think anyone is doing that, no. But if you're going to present it as an alternative you have to show that it's better than the system you're arguing against here.

I am not. You are the ones who seem to be obsessed with communism. I have been focussing on capitalism and coronavirus the whole time. I have offered Cuba as an example of a different system that hasn't made the mistakes of capitalism in its strategy against the virus, but that doesn't seem to interest you.

Quote:

I've already given a serious look at your claim and found it wanting. The very reason we're discussing these other things is to get to the bottom of that claim, and what I'm saying, mainly, is that you've not established that things would be different under any other reasonable system. Of course if you're to propose a system in which everyone is poor and therefore cannot travel, or where travel is forbidden, you'd have a point, but good luck in establishing or selling a system like that. If not, then I'd like to know what you have in mind.

Oh, you've found it wanting, have you? How very interesting. What claim are we talking about, exactly? Could you come up with a quotations?

Why would you wish to discuss North Korea?

And why do you think that somebody is trying to sell a system? Have you seen any systems being offered anywhere? Is there any particular system that you have in mind? And what does it have to do with the coronavirus?

I thought you had already looked at my alleged claim and found it wanting, and now you would like to know what I have in mind? For real?!

Quote:

I live in Canada, so I haven't noticed, no.

It doesn't interest me where you live.

Quote:

And this is where your ignorance of history fails you. Rich people have existed IN EVERY SYSTEM. Greed exists in ALL societies. That's why even in the marxist utopia of the USSR there were rich asshats. Sounds like a human problem more than a capitalist problem to me. But the fact that more well-off people exist in capitalist systems should tell you something.

If your point is that rich people in Ancient Greece were spreading the coronavirus, too, I might be interested in hearing about it. And if rich asshats were spreading the virus in the USSR, that might be interesting, too. It would be particular interesting to hear what they did to spread it back then. In this thread, I have focussed on how capitalism is spreading coronavirus in 2020, so if that doesn't really interest you, you should make a thread in either History or Medicine about hos diseases were spread in all of recorded human history.

Quote:

I do see it. See above.

You obviously don't. See above.

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Also, seriously? Communism in the 20th century had way worse environmental outcomes than capitalism. The rebuttals to this fact (can facts be rebutted?) are, so far:

"No True Communism"

and

"But capitalism was also really bad!"

Yes, we know that capitalism is really bad. That's not a rebuttal to the observation that Communism was demonstrably worse, and worse pretty much across the board.

I am all for replacing capitalism with something better. Do you have any suggestions other than communism?

Does the thread still annoy you so much that you will do anything to derail it?
Take your environmental arguments against communism to some other thread where it's relevant.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

I am not. You are the ones who seem to be obsessed with communism. I have been focussing on capitalism and coronavirus the whole time.

The point of bringing up communism is that it offers a documented, historical comparison to capitalism. I happen to think it's a informative contribution to the debate.

Quote:

I have offered Cuba as an example of a different system that hasn't made the mistakes of capitalism in its strategy against the virus, but that doesn't seem to interest you.

Is Cuba not a capitalist system?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dann

Does the thread still annoy you so much that you will do anything to derail it?
Take your environmental arguments against communism to some other thread where it's relevant.

Ahem.

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

That pretty well describes unregulated capitalism, either one from past centuries or actual result of one in wankfantasies of free market advocates, without that all pesky regulations and other inconveniences that stay between system where greed is virtue and abuse of employers, customers and environment.

(hilight mine)

You are right that talking about the environment is off topic. But theprestige isn't the one who derailed the thread with it, Madar is. I suggest you point your complaints in that direction.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

I am not. You are the ones who seem to be obsessed with communism.

Not an obsession, but an obvious, recent and well-known example that has often been used as an alternative.

But fine, what alternative system would you have in mind, then?

Quote:

Oh, you've found it wanting, have you? How very interesting.

I'm sorry your arguments have been unconvincing to everyone here. It must sting, but them's the breaks.

Quote:

What claim are we talking about, exactly?

The... the whole premise of the thread, dann.

Quote:

Why would you wish to discuss North Korea?

An authoritarian, murdering military junta with a cult of personality? Not particularily, no.

Quote:

And why do you think that somebody is trying to sell a system?

Well if you don't have an alternative, what's the point? Complaining is fine and all but with no solution to the problem you're highlighting (assuming we'd agree that the problem is due to capitalism) what then?

Quote:

I thought you had already looked at my alleged claim and found it wanting, and now you would like to know what I have in mind? For real?!

There's no contradiction there. I can agree for the sake of argument with your claim and see where it'd lead. Have you never done that?

Quote:

It doesn't interest me where you live.

It should. Different countries have different situations, and just because your ****-hole country has issues with income inequality doesn't mean that's true everywhere.

Quote:

If your point is that rich people in Ancient Greece were spreading the coronavirus, too, I might be interested in hearing about it.

Quote:

And if rich asshats were spreading the virus in the USSR, that might be interesting, too.

You're missing the point. Deliberately, I think, since you're probably aware of your own arguments in this thread. You blame capitalism for rich people on vacation spreading the virus. Presuably the existence of rich people with the capacity to travel in any economic system would snap you out of your misconception, were you a more reasonable person.

Quote:

You obviously don't.

No, sorry, disagreeing with you doesn't mean I don't understand your argument. You'd like to think so, for sure, but it doesn't work that way.

(NOTE: Here's the "obviously" as "in my opinion" again)

[dann]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Then by all means link to your response to that. I won't be holding my breath.

That's good. But beware of the danger of inhaling solar flares.

Quote:

No, it's just you failing to understand the argument again. AGAIN!

It's just you failing to understand that I have turned one of your wrong arguments against one of your other wrong arguments. I know that it isn't easy to grasp.

Quote:

The FIRST thing I did was owning it, mentioning it was a typo! Stop LYING. And how is it an excuse to point out that my first language spells the word differently? Why do you insist on acting like a jerk? You know it just reflects poorly on you, right?

Which one are we talking about now? Reach or medecine? And what was the point of different languages? If medecine was a typo, then it was a very persistent one. Just saying.

Quote:

See what I mean? You're not really interested in the discussion or in the arguments presented. You'll use any excuse to avoid them, turn them on their head, or mischaracterise them.

I am interested in all arguments that have to do with the way that capitalism spreads coronavirus. If you would rather discuss how other systems than capitalism spread diseases, you should open another thread. It is not an uninteresting discussion, but I don't see the relevance here.

Quote:

A sharp reader? BWA ha ha ha ha! You can't even understand simple sentences and arguments. God, that's rich.

Says the guy who keeps using "No, you!" arguments all the time.

I wasn't aware till now how much I've missed applecorped's level of argumentation.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dann

That's good. But beware of the danger of inhaling solar flares.

Well I guess you lied again when you said you had already addressed it, eh?

Quote:

It's just you failing to understand that I have turned one of your wrong arguments against one of your other wrong arguments.

No, you didn't. You just failed to understand the point of the argument I made, partly because you don't understand theprestige's point about controls.

Quote:

Which one are we talking about now? Reach or medecine? And what was the point of different languages? If medecine was a typo, then it was a very persistent one. Just saying.

No, you are definitely not "just saying". You're hammering it as if it's important. Yes, I make mistakes because though I've been speaking and writing English for a very long time I'm not as used to it as I'm used to French. I'm also slightly dyslexic. So expect to see more typos and misspellings. However, since they have no bearing on the argument, how about you focus on-- oh, who am I kidding? You can't make arguments, so obviously you're going to focus on stuff like that!

Quote:

I am interested in all arguments that have to do with the way that capitalism spreads coronavirus. If you would rather discuss how other systems than capitalism spread diseases, you should open another thread.

No. Whether other systems would do better is at the heart of your claim. If NO other reasonable system would do better, then your claim is defeated.

Quote:

I wasn't aware till now how much I've missed applecorped's level of argumentation.

See, another lie from you. I guess I'm collecting them now. I've explained to you WHY it's hilarious. You clearly have no ******* clue what people are telling you.

[xjx388]

Let's have a little fantasy where we all agree that Capitalism is responsible for the spread of Coronavirus. OK, now what?

When people argue that (and this is just an example, not a cause for a derail) systemic racism is the cause of poverty, police brutality, etc etc, those people usually have a solution in mind. The point of the argument is to advocate for that solution. Or maybe they don't have a firm solution in mind but they want to have a discussion about possible solutions.

The problem is much more essential than an economic system; the problem is the basic flaws in the human psyche: greed, selfishness, stupidity, arrogance, pride, etc. It's not easy to find a solution to something that essentially has no solution. Those human flaws are responsible for the spread of Covid-19. Those flaws would be present in any economic system. Some cultures, like China, Cuba, South Korea, etc instill an obedience to authority and their governments have more power over the people as a result. In every country with a compliant populace and a government that can enforce shutdowns, they've gotten control over the virus.

The US, for better or worse (and make no mistake, it's worse in the context of a pandemic), is not such a country. We don't have strong central leadership either at the Federal or State level and our people are a bit rebellious and definitely non-compliant. It's too difficult to "lock down" the American people for an extended timeframe, plain and simple.

I think there are two other big factors in the spread of Covid-19: Population density and the ease of international travel. Look at New York and New Jersey -the virus has spread like wildfire through the dense urban areas but not as much through the more rural areas. And NYC (which is the focus of both the NY and NJ outbreaks) is THE major hub for international travel.

None of these things has much to do with Capitalism, specifically. It's not like a non-Capitalist country would not have dense urban areas and international travel. And Capitalist countries can have strong governments and compliant people.

So no, dann . . . your complaints are noted but rather useless. Your complaints about Capitalism sound very much like someone complaining about mountains causing deserts -ok, but so what? What are you going to do about it? Level the mountains? Probably not, right? So what's the point of arguing about it?

[Jerrymander]

To be honest, I don't see how things would be different under another system. I mean, in a socialist or communist system, even though there's little to no profit motive, won't there still be incentive to keep the economy going?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

To be honest, I don't see how things would be different under another system. I mean, in a socialist or communist system, even though there's little to no profit motive, won't there still be incentive to keep the economy going?

I can see that you also believe capitalism is a perfect utopia!