porcoesphino

An economic model that includes capitalism explains a lot of the world including having some close process analogs in nature.

A capitalist sounds like a label you're trying to apply in an attempt to label someone as being maximally for profits. A lot of companies admittedly work that way and it's important to include that concept.

By my reading you're taking the use of the first term and then saying they are using the second term. I think this is called equivocation.

For profit system!?

I'm pretty sure every time I've seen humans get together there's someone trying to get more of something than the other people. Even in communes or communities without money like jails (and in the romanticised tribal past). Some parts of economic theory help predict these outcomes even in places that aim for these ideals.

Where are you seeing evidence of a system that's close to what you're describing that's functional, stable over time, and more than a few isolated individuals?

You have a niece that's a poor student but talented at art.

You clone her painting, sell for a profit, keep the money.

Same issue different specifics.

You're still aggressively okay with this and would still use sophisticated language to slander the niece's actions?

I'd argue memes that duplicate other peoples work are common but questionable on the ethical front.

Kind of like how alcohol consumption is common and got shoehorned in through our long history with it but newer drugs are more likely to have people question their cost to society (and demonise them usually for political gain, still many have some obvious costs).

If you're a small family store that makes an amazing recipe and people love it, and you keep that recipe a secret. You're honestly okay with a competitor stealing it? Not a competitor making a bad ripoff, but finding a way to get the recipe and using that to clone the meal for a profit.

Obviously with larger companies it's easier to say fuck them but investing time in something and then having it taken is a hit even if its "information", isn't it?

And remove any need to offer them security from China

I'm amazed at how many people found rogan authentic. Is it the same sort of podcasters playing off people's intuitions, like the fact checker used to?

I'm not very bilingual but I grew up with English and have spent a few months in Latin America.

I noticed that in English I now say Mexico the Spanish way when I'm with local people, but the English way when I'm visiting friends in the US. I always say it the Spanish way in Spanish, and don't think I use any regional accents.

I'd add "mania" to that list of terms that need defining. They seem to have a specific meaning that's probably misaligned with most people reading the question:

https://lemmy.world/comment/19666332

Does anyone have a good breakdown of this 1.5 trillion number?

Everything I saw while searching was pretty right wing and it would be nice to have an idea if some of it is pessimistic, or even to have some of the numbers explained rather than solely demonised.

That doesn't change the logic I gave

Why? Lemmy seems great