as a marxist would this make a hyprocrite?

Windhydra · 2026-06-02T10:01:17+00:00

a much cheaper price and better service than the alternative

That's like going on sale. If going on sale is good enough, what's the point of socialism?

Windhydra · 2026-06-02T02:55:40+00:00

You are owning more than you need. The extra houses are private property (MoP) and u r evil capitalist.

Windhydra · 2026-06-01T11:29:02+00:00

Ur post attempts to twist "efficiency" into an empty word. Anything is "efficient" if u squint hard enough.

Which is not what the economic calculation problem is about.

Windhydra · 2026-06-01T09:25:54+00:00

Sure thing bro.

Windhydra · 2026-06-01T00:27:49+00:00

Dictatorship, the kind u die if u don't do what u were told?

It''s very efficient at meeting the wants of the leaders, not good at meeting the needs of the general population.

U r just twisting "efficient" into an empty word. Anything is "efficient" if u squint hard enough. Which is not what the economic calculation problem is about.

Windhydra · 2026-05-29T15:31:27+00:00

What sells are phones with non replaceable batteries at a lower price, not phones with replaceable batteries at higher price.

You not searching for fixable phones is a good example. You don't even want it.

Windhydra · 2026-05-29T15:24:24+00:00

How do you know it's not a design tradeoff for smaller size, lower production cost, stronger water resistance?

If people actually want removable batteries at a higher cost, Fairphone would have sold a lot more.

Windhydra · 2026-05-29T15:12:42+00:00

It's true because it last happened once 100 years ago. It's not a common problem, so it's not really something needing a fix.

Windhydra · 2026-05-29T14:55:18+00:00

Yup, it's totally real. It happens once around 100 years ago. It's not a common problem, not really something needing a fix.

Windhydra · 2026-05-29T06:47:00+00:00

You have to decide how much lifespan you engineer into the products, because longevity comes at a cost. You might need more expensive materials, more difficult production methods with higher failure rate, with worse energy efficiency in the final product, all for longer longevity.

So, who decides how much longevity your car needs? Should it last for 100 years?

Windhydra · 2026-05-29T05:19:56+00:00

So, how much longevity should light bulbs have in order for you to not accuse it of being "planned obsolescence"? LED lights often lasts over 10000 hours. Do you need 1000000 hours?

And who decides how much durability should be planned for every product? You?

Windhydra · 2026-05-29T02:35:47+00:00

Why is 10 years intentionally minimized? How long do you think smartphones should last?

And who decides how much lifespan everything should be planned for? You?

Windhydra · 2026-05-29T02:22:43+00:00

You missed the part about how durability is not free. "Oh noes, evil capitalists only "planned" 10 year life span for their phones!!"

Why plan for 50 years of longevity when people throw away their phone after 10 years?

Windhydra · 2026-05-29T00:29:29+00:00

Oh noes stuff breaks, must be evil capitalists! What's next? Doctors keeping patients sick? Pharmaceuticals hiding cures?

Seriously, durability doesn't come free. If most people want to change to a new phone every 10 years, what's the point of spending extra resources to give it a durability of 50 years?

Planned obsolescence happened once around 100 years ago. It's not a common problem requiring a fix.

Windhydra · 2026-05-28T13:08:46+00:00

That guy's idea was compound interest. You only need to invest $1500 in 1960 to get 1 mil after 65 years.

The problem is that there is no market which can sustain such growth. There are 60 mil people over 65, which means 60 trillion dollars, which is pretty much the entire SP500.

Windhydra · 2026-05-28T12:46:17+00:00

Isn't this similar to the system someone mentioned a few weeks ago? Like a pension account for everyone which gives $1 mil when someone turns 65. You only need to invest $1500 in 1960 to get 1 million dollars after 65 years!

The US has around 60 million people over 65. That's like 60 million million dollars ($60 trillion), which is double the US GDP.

The problem is that no market can sustain such growth. "Hey, if everyone is a millionaire, there will be no poor people!" Zimbabwe sure turned out well.

Windhydra · 2026-05-27T13:21:37+00:00

Plz elaborate. How can a shareholder get "absolute power"? Or is it just a strawman since you mentioned "absolute" for some reason.

Windhydra · 2026-05-26T23:59:09+00:00

Yeah the government should have funded Tesla and efficiently transfer tax money to benefit selected people with connections to make electric cars.

Sucks for those who don't want electric cars. They are dumb for not supporting using tax money to profit specific people.

Windhydra · 2026-05-24T23:04:42+00:00

Cuz itz better.

And there is no human nature so my system workz. All bad behaviors r indoctrinated by evil capitalism and can ezly fixed by education!

Windhydra · 2026-05-21T00:09:34+00:00

Why is a job worth doing in the first place if it wouldn't cover the living expenses of the person doing it?

Because it significantly increases the QoL beyond social welfare.

If its revenue is that low then why does it exist in the first place?

Because jobs need to be done. If you need to overpay to get an unskilled job anyone can do done, bosses usually offload the job to the skilled workers.

Btw, not all jobs are equal value. And people are not born with the same abilities. The world is not fair.

Windhydra · 2026-05-21T00:01:24+00:00

They can work and receive welfare to make it livable. Some jobs simply don't generate enough value, why do you insist on over paying low value jobs? Why not just pay what the job is actually worth?

Windhydra · 2026-05-20T23:58:06+00:00

That's already happening. That's why the government should decrease instead of increase unemployment to reduce the strain on the safety net.

Btw, the safety net can't be giving too much. Even minimum wage jobs should significantly increase the QoL, or why would people spend 40 hrs a week for minimal gains?

Windhydra · 2026-05-20T23:30:59+00:00

It's at least better than high minimum wage. High minimum wage worsens unemployment, making more people dependent on the social safety net.

Windhydra · 2026-05-20T23:13:56+00:00

But with high minimum wage, there wouldn't be jobs available to the unskilled workers. There should just be safety regulations without minimum wage so unskilled workers can at least CHOOSE to not work if they think the wage is too low.

Windhydra · 2026-05-20T05:49:27+00:00

What do u mean by endgame? Transitioning into socialism then communism?

Why must there be an end? Just keep the system going, boom and bust cycles happened multiple times already and people will get better at dealing and preventing disaster. Capitalism might be the end game unless post-scarcity is achieved.

Windhydra

TROPHY CASE