Why is Capitalism so monumentally wasteful and inefficient? I honestly don't understand how stuff like pic related is good for profits. Wouldn't the drive to maximize profits cause waste to become less, not more?
Why is Capitalism so monumentally wasteful and inefficient...
You have to keep the supplies low to drive up the price.
Not if it's cheaper to simply buy more product than to try and reduce waste. The environmental damage is an externality that doesn't affect profits so it's disregarded.
Shorter consumption cycles leads to more consumption with the positives and negatives that it holds.
Except the problem is that the supply are so high the demand can't match it.
How is it cheaper to buy more instead of buying less? If you're a store and you know a certain % of what you have isn't going to be bought in time for the next shipment, why not buy less?
By buying more you now control the supply and can prevent that supply from meeting demand (artificial scarcity) thus raising the prices.
I don't think this is the right question, I've thought about this before.
I think its due to the fact that the supermarkets can't make money if there isn't product on the shelves.The amount they make (the markup) is so much higher than a wasted watermelon that it simply makes sense to overproduce.
Put another way, if a company buys a certain amount of watermelons, and they only need to sell 25% of that supply to make their money back and cover all the associated labor, then anything over that 25% is profit. If they sell 50% of their supply, they've made a pretty good amount of profit, it doesn't matter if 50% of that food gets landfilled, even though objectively it is disgusting that we waste that much food. The actual numbers are even worse.
Its only compounded by the fact that empty shelves in a supermarket pisses off customers, so as a result there is more incentive to overproduce in order to keep customers
I love that pic, why haven't I seen this more?
Part of it is technological and monetary limitations related to preservation and transportation of food products.
Mostly it's shit like this .
Why is Communism so monumentally economical and efficient? I honestly don't understand how stuff like pic related is good for production. Wouldn't the drive to maximize production cause waste to become more, not less?
A way to put it simply is that a product's price relation to its supply is extremely non-linear. It's not just a matter of "the more of it tere is, the less each unit is worth", because there are a million other factors, like distribution, cartels, marketing etc.
But… communism was efficient. It managed make as much use as possible out of few supplies. It's in productivity that it failed. Capitalism has more or less the inverse problem.
Come on, feudal and modern Russia EXPORTED food, while Soviet Russia IMPORTED food.
How the fuck does that work if you are trying to say Soviet Russia was efficient.
In fact, China, Russia were not in any way lacking in resources. Meanwhile, it's the capitalist countries like Japan, Singapore and Britain that actually lack resources yet they still become economic superpower.
inb4 Soviet Russia was not socialist
If you believe USSR had a communist mode of production, then I recommend you to stop posting and either read Marx or (preferably) kill yourself for wasting the precious oxygen
When someone refers to some country as communist, just assume they're talking about the system that was implemented by communists and communist parties, after communist revolutions had taken place.
And they are assuming this was communism and any place with communist party is communist, it'd be nice not to reaffirm this mistake.
"Resources" doesn't boil down to primary sector goods, it's like that old "African countries are so rich in resources, how can they be so poor" nonsense. You need that teeny-weeny thing called capital too, and Japan, the UK etc. had enough of it, like the imperialist powers they were. The USSR, on the other hand, had to vitually start an economy from scratch with the NEP after the civil war. Capital was usually the limiting factor in a socialist economy's development, unsurprisingly. Capitalism's whole goal, after all, is growth, and thus they'll always be more productive – which is what I said – even if less efficient. Case in point: about 30% of all food produced in the world today is wasted. Nearly a fucking third. High productivity, low efficiency. As a matter of survival, Soviets had to make do with what little they had.
As for food, some details: the USSR remained exporting food until Krushchev; arguably the biggest reason for this shift was to "pay off" their increasing amount of client States; aging infrastructure and less-than-talented economic planners (say what you will about Stalin, but none of his successors had a fraction of his administrative skill); and last but not least, of course feudal and modern Russia exported food, for the very simple reason that produce nearly nothing but food and oil, as they were and are unindustrialized shitholes. By contrast, even if the USSR couldn't maintain both a industrialized economy and a food surplus at the same time like the advanced capitalist countries could (remember, capitalism will always outproduce socialism), an industrialized economy is more important, because it's the only thing that truly creates wealth in the modern age, allowing them to make up for food shortfall. Do you know of any developed agrarian countries? Exactly.
Man, let's not waste time nitpicking here. I'm saying the Soviet economy wasn't as bad as it's made out to be, regardless of what it was labeled.
Jesus christ, capitalist societies can maintain a stable industry as well as stable agriculture.
And frankly modern capitalist Russia can do that as well.
The fact Soviet Russia (yes, Soviet Russia) has to import food speaks badly of their planning.
how does it feel to be a brainlet?
food imports and export have nothing to do with food allocation you fucking idiot
my country exports food yet people starve to death on a daily basis
Capitalism is as efficient as it can get. But in the heart of classic, unmodified capitalism lies the pursuit of profit with no other consideration. And what is the easiest way to maximize profit? Make it so the expenses are on someone else - which is what every capitalist enterprise strives to do.
Pray tell, why import food when you can export food instead?
Soviet russia did not import fine french cuisine.
And your country is?
because "food" is nothing but an aggregate of individual entities, "importing food" is an irrelevant concept because you don't just "import food" you import certain commodities while locally producing others.
Just because a country produces a surplus of meat, and exports this surplus doesn't mean it produces a surplus in vegetables. and just because a country has a surplus of meat doesn't mean every citizen in that country has the ability to consume the meat that remains inside it's borders. the secind notion is the interesting part here. it is literally fucking irrelevant that imperialist russia exported food because peasants reguraly starved to death, it is LITERALLY fucking irrelevant because we are not arguing about export and import aggregates, but about the allocation of these resources.
to belive that import and export aggregates can tell you about the allocation aggregates is utterly fucking ridiculous
just how dumb are you?
I am not defending the soviet union, but what I am doing is pointing out the fact that you are literally braindead
literally every country because every country produces a surplus of an specific food item
japan exports a lot of cars, does that mean every japanese citizen has one?
But modern Russia has no people literally starving to death while they still maintain good food exports.
They were people starving to death in the USSR while they import food too.
wrong, get your facts straight faggot
kulaks deserved it
There's no record of starvation in modern Russia, as in Putin Russia.
It was after they adopted the better more effecient system of liberal capitalism that major shortages hit modern day russia. Believe it or not and i know this might sound absolutetly crazy but russia is actually more suitable for heavy industry rather than agricultural production, don't tell the Tsar.
+5 putin-coins for this post
Melon is the harvest.
The fact that plagues modern Russia is that it fucking lacks money to develop and the sanctions harm it from trading with european partners.
The food exports alone make millions for them.
They keep supply super high so that they can bust any attempt at agricultural labor demands.
They're painfully aware that farmers could theoretically threaten profits singlehandedly by threatening to just not produce food which could be socially disastrous. So they force farms to massively overproduce food if they want to keep contracts with suppliers. If any of the farmers attempt to force a rebargaining, they just threaten to cut farmers off from money and use the massive surplus they get from the other farms to cover up for the missing food.
Then they throw away everything that's been used as tokens in their ridiculous racketeering scheme.
I find this funny because it means feudal and capitalist Russia had less starving people while they were still exporting food.
How does the Soviet fuck that up?
It may not be perfect, but it's the best system they have :^)
Right, much needed money that went to international businessmen instead of modernisation and development. Turns out selling of your entire country is not the best way to have sustainable economy. But liberalism did nothing wrong, selling of assets and letting the rich get away with anything will just improve the economy it says so right here in this basic economics book, i don't think it would lie.
Did you even read the post you're replying to?
Exporting food doesn't mean you don't have starving people, it just means that you're selling food to people who can pay for it instead of delivering it to people who need it.
Look up what happened in the Irish Potato Famine, my dude. They were selling irish wheat in britain even as starving poor irish farmers were trying to storm the docks to get it back and being repelled by the army.
+5 putin-coins for this post!
…but that pic is saying capitalist Russia manages to outperform Soviet russia in less than 20 years.
I do, and the funny thing is that there were less starving people under the Tzar and Putin than under Soviet Russia.
Facts back it up though.
how does it feel to be retarded?
In this case, it does, since starvation in Russia was minor until the Soviet took the reign.
Yeah, and facts back up the claim that capitalist-run ireland was exporting food even as huge numbers of its poor starved to death.
They can't keep getting away with it.
While the Soviet imports food and millions of people still starve to death.
How does it feel to be wrong?
That picture says that the entirety of fsu is barely keeping up with the ussr 20 years before. Meanwhile in most of the rest of the world the economy has been growing during the last 20 year instead of being completely stagnant, leaving you all in the dust.
It's barely keeping up? Shit, it has already surpassed it.
You mean the capitalist economies? Well, Russia is playing catch up, they have been capitalist for what? 30 years?
But what about before 1946? All that numbers.
Which aren't famine.
Please list these "millions of people".
that wikipedia page proves that the soviet union ended hunger and famines, as people no longer starved once the soviet industrialisation plans took place, basically people starved before the soviet union, did not face unger during it's lifetime, and after started facing hunger again after it's collapse.
Good job shooting yourself in the foot you fucking brainlet. How does it feel to be wrong and retarded?
didn't happen but kulaks deserved it
Before the Holodomor, there was this:
meant to quote
anyway, I'm off brainlet, keep being retarded
Yeah, I think it is.
Considering feudal Russia has had big wars with various countries, and capitalist Russia was attached by the chechens.
Yet their famines weren't as severe.
You're blaming the Soviet Union for a famine that started before the USSR even existed?
It happened during the USSR's era.
they were though
how does it feel to be a retard?
Thanks for proving that the socialists literally can not go far enough to purge retards with lead. I'm out.
Hell, heck no, Russia only catches up much later in the game when they open up more liberal policies (late USSR), and it only went full power after Putin got into power.
Least people have money to spend on things now.
Feudal Russia also had wars, m8.
Nice one brainbox, shame your sudden interest in famines is BTFO by the fact the revolution was caused by one.
nothing new here, these fucking brainlets don't even deserve pity
What have these dastardly rogues not done to the russian people
No, they weren't.
You fucking knucklehead that means they have to produce LESS food!
So WW1 & WW2 literally excuse the Soviet from importing food and still had people starving?
Looks like the Soviets never considered BASIC ECONOMICS
Well, unfortunately, it's not the only famines the USSER suffered.
That's the point man.
They don't. They import foods, unlike feudal and capitalist Russia.
When most of your farmland is occupied by a foreign force, yes, feeding your people gets hard.
yet no one starved during the soviet era, whereas people starved before and after it
do you use your mouth to breathe?
WW1 ended in 1918. WW2 ended in 1945, the germans stopped occupying Soviet farmland in 43 and onward.
The soviet suffered two more famines, during the 30s and 1947.
And here is the point you don't get, you can export food even if you have a starving population, which is the one thing that seems to set the ussr apart from other russias is that they actually tried to cover their populations needs.
Well, people starved under the USSR.
Shit, this is basic history, man.
As said, feudal famines didn't cost 5 to 20 million lives like USSR famine, and modern Russia has no starvation.
They had to export grain, which is one of the charges people make against them during the holodomor. This was because the Brits refused to take any other payment for equipment (like farming equipment) in order to starve them out. This is why they also import other stuff, I assume. You're kind of all over the place with your allegations.
But the point is this feudal and capitalist Russia have less starving people than the USSR, despite the fact the USSR was importing food.
They exported grain by confiscation of grains from the peasants, then they start to import food to feed their cities.
Feudal Russia might have done this too, but there weren't many as dead people.
kulaks deserved it
do you understand this notion, brainlet?
the one you previously quoted that proves every single one of your arguments wrong?
neither did the USSR famines
keep sperging brainlet
Fuedal russia had a fuckload of famines thats just a fact, these ended after the soviets got their shit together and it wasn't untill the return of capitalism that food shortages came back, you're full of shit.
Worst feudal Russia famine:
Worst Soviet famine:
Modern Russia famine.
Nein, food shortages still exist in the USSR, just that famines weren't a thing post 1947.
Modern Russia has no famine or starvation.
You okay user?
It's cool, dawg.
no soviet famine was as bad as this
caused by the war, irrelevant notion
kulaks deserved it
sorry brainlet, you are still not making any sense
Okay Pol Pot.
The kulaks caused it, even in the western propaganda version of the story.
But the soviet famines were worse than the feudal famines and modern Russia has no famine to speak of.
If you speak about food security and occasional hungers, Soviet still has that post 1947.
That is true.
I mean, an entire family of 3 can be killed (that means 100% killed), but that isn't as bad as 10% of the country being killed (millions of people).
this is your brain on capitalism
Does the family of three over time become the ancestors to 100% of the country's population? Fucking idiot.
wrong, there isn't a single famine during the soviet era that caused the death of 1/3th of it's population
so capitalist russia, with it's food production surplus, still have similar food scarcity problems as the soviet union?
sounds like modern russia economy is total shit
no it isn't, trust me on this brainlet
Wow only 5 million (70% of the population) english died during the black death thats less people than in modern London! The black death was no big deal at all it seems.
This is your brain on…Holla Forums?
Said family cannot be the ancestors of a whole million group of people.
why are you speaking about brains when you have none, brainlet?
do you want us to teach you percentages?
Yeah, it just has famines that cause the death of more than 10 millions people (combined) instead.
Nah, they didn't have famines like the USSR.
So percentages are completely irrelevant? Because if that's true, then capitalism has created more poor people than any other system in history.
the black death isn't a big deal, just ask the Holocaust.
Capitalism has also created more rich people than any other system in history.
I need you to count numbers, friend.
Capitalism has killed more people than any concept in the history of everything. Why do you love murdering so much?
Which is bigger, 33% or 10%?
care to point which ones, brainlet?
which famines? there were no famines after '47
the fact that modern capitalist russia, with all of it's food exports, cannot feed it's population, proves the fact that the economy is total shit
I mean the soviets at least have the excuse of not having enough food and being in the necessity of importing it, but how exactly do you produce a surplus of food, yet still go hungry?
maybe their economy is managed by brainlets like yourself
you are mentally defective brainlet do everyone a favour and end yourself
Which is bigger, 2 millions or 5 millions?
I mean, I already quote them here:
The 2 ones before 47 and the one during 47?
But it can, there's no famine under the USSR.
I will ask again brainlet, do you need to understand percentages? I can help you, as a teacher I have dealt with autistic kids in the past
neither was there a famine after 47, once the big wars ended.
it cannot, as people still face hunger and food scarcity despite producing a surplus of food
sounds like modern russia is managed by brainlets who can't even add 1+1, is that why you like it so much?
nice freudian slip, brainlet can't even control his subconscious
Keep repeating yourself, brokebrained nigger. You're the one that came up with the hot take that the Tsar starved less people. Absolutely nobody outside of this autistic thread you've created will accept a third of the population is better than a tenth.
Yet they will accept that a 2 million is greater than 5 or 10 million?
Jesus christ, the doublethink.
45 million fed is bigger than 4 million fed
I understand number, you understand number?
Too bad there were famines before and on 47 tho.
I mean, it already can, since there's no large famine like during the USSR years.
And 5 millions starved means more people starved in the USSR than in feudal Russia.
which still makes them more efficient
Yeah, the doublethink indeed. How the fuck is the Tsar going to kill more people than a famine that caused between 5-10 million deaths with a 6 million population when the famine you're talking about was in a population of 120 million you disingenuous little fuckwit?
here brainlet, why don't you try solving this page
I'll be here to solve your doubts
yes, and sometimes numbers are a lot more complex than just the number itself, as they are part of a bigger aggregate of numbers!
now don't get scared, it is not an scary concept at all, even a brainlet like you could understand it.
caused by the war and kulaks, who deserved it
nope, it cannot
Capitalism still made more poor people than any other system in history. Why do you love impoverishing millions?
At starving people?
Exactly, the tzar can't, because he keeps his population growth in check.
I mean, you are just ignoring things at this point.
Capitalism also made more rich people than any other system in history.
I do love making other people rich.
Doesn't matter. Millions live in poverty under capitalism by using the same "logic" that you're using to "prove" le starvation meme.
then how come capitalism has impoverished so many people?
I can see you are, but it is okay, it is not your fault, it's ur mommy's because she drank while pregnant.
cheer up brainlet, one day you'll understand percentages
I like where this is going.
Excuse me, but only 2 millions were starved, as opposed to the 5-10 millions under the USSR.
2 million in one singular famine. Your very claim of "population control" is the starvation of millions more on a regular basis.
exactly, starvation is tsarist russia were starved in purpose, whereas starvation in the USSR happened due to the effects of war
the USSR starved 0 people, however people did starve due to fascists starting wars they couldn't win