this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
919 points (96.3% liked)

memes

15782 readers
3441 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 44 points 9 hours ago (6 children)

Capitalists say the free market is king then they go and make laws to stifle and restrict it so they can make monopolies and gouge everyone out of their hard-earned income.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] camelbeard@lemmy.world 69 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

In a classic example you have a village with 2 bakeries, one of the bakers came up with a machine to kneed the bread, so he can make more bread and sell it cheaper. This is sort of the story people tell to show how great capitalism is.

But we have reached a point where that one bakery now owns a chain of bakers, adds ingredients to the bread to make it more addictive, skips on actual ingredients needed for bread and replaces them with sawdust, made donations to the current political party so any competition has to jump through hoops to get a bakery license, etc.

[–] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago

And don't forget how one bakery could pay their employees only the bare minimum, cut corners where they can and use the profit to undercut the 'good' bakery until the 'good' bakery goes bankrupt and the 'bad' bakery can simply be a local monopoly and raise prices as they like.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Capitalism only works if it's regulated. Unregulated capitalism just becomes feudalism again. In your example, the owner of the bakery chain no longer has to innovate or compete. They simply own something and wait for money to be delivered to them.

Of course, for the government to be able to regulate things, it needs to be bigger and more powerful than the businesses it's regulating. You can't have Amazon being worth 2.3 trillion because it can easily make itself immune from competition and immune from regulators.

A mixed capitalist / socialist economy is the best solution we've come up with so far that actually seems to work in the real world. Only the most insane would want things like fire services to be fully privatized, or for every road to be a privately owned toll road. But, a fully state owned economy didn't really work either. Trying that caused the USSR to collapse, and it caused China to switch to a different version of a capitalist / communist / socialist setup. The real issue is where to draw the boundaries. Most countries have decided that healthcare is something that the government should either fully control, or at least have a very strong control over. Meanwhile, the US pays more and receives less with its for-profit system. In England, they privatized water, and it seems to have been a disaster, meanwhile the socialist utopia of USA mostly has cities providing water services.

Where do you draw the line? Personally, I think Northern Europe seems to have the best results. Strong labour protections, a lot of essential things owned by / provided by the government, but with space for for-profit private enterprise too.

[–] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Agreed. I feel as though capitalism is a good option for things which can have elastic demand. Luxury items, entertainment, etc can all benefit from a competitive market because I have the luxury of not needing to buy them. On the other hand, I do absolutely need food, housing, and healthcare in order to live. Applying supply and demand principles when demand must be inelastic only leads to people getting hurt.

My dream system would be one in which, as a baseline, all human requirements for survival are provided no matter the situation, and where currency is only used for luxuries.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 hours ago

I mostly agree with you, it's just that historically governments have been really bad at producing some necessities of life.

I really wouldn't want anybody other than a government providing clean drinking water. I think they've proven they're great at that, and private industries just mess it up in various ways. OTOH, governments historically haven't been very good at producing crops. It seems like every time a government wants to fully take over farming, the result is a famine. Having said that, farming subsidies, and programs where governments are guaranteed buyers of farmed stuff is pretty great.

It really pisses me off that some of the most right-wing, most anti-government people in the US are farmers, and farmers are absolutely supported by the government. There are certainly some flaws in the system. The corn subsidy being so high is ridiculous, and results in things like high fructose corn syrup being available nearly free, and so it's in everything. OTOH, it's thanks to government intervention that the US is absolutely secure when it comes to price shocks for food items. Almost everything is made domestically. And, while there can be quirks like egg prices being high (which again is due to unregulated / badly regulated monopolies) the overall system is very stable.

Housing is another thing that is iffy if it's 100% government made. The awful apartment blocks of former soviet republics are an example of that. But, unregulated housing construction is even worse. This is one where you need to find some balance between fully capitalist and fully government run.

Mostly though, right now, the governments of the world just need to start cracking down on capitalist businesses that are harming the public. The EU is at least trying, but the results have been mixed. The US was starting to do something under Biden and then Trump took over and... wowza. I think the recent NYC election shows that the population is well to the left of the democratic party establishment, and that cracking down on big business could be a huge win in future elections.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

Even in the best case s scenario - bakeries compete making uniform quality products without involving political shenanigans - the price of bread is independent of the cost of production.

What you're looking for as a business is the "clearing price", which is the price at which your (sales * price) generates the maximum revenue.

New capital that lowers per unit cost does not change the price. It raises profit margins. Only when multiple vendors in competition have access to this capital does the clearing price fall.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 26 points 12 hours ago

And then uses his immense wealth and contacts to make frivolous lawsuits against smaller bakers trying to make their own machine, knowing full well they will not win in court but will financially ruin the smaller baker and tie them up in litigation for years, then forcing them to an unfair arbitration where they make a shit offer to buy out the competition

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 108 points 17 hours ago (10 children)

The major premise of Capitalism is risk vs reward. We hit a tipping point though, where 99% of people do not have any capital to risk, and the people who do have the capital have enough to nullify any risk.

Tax the rich.

[–] bountygiver@lemmy.ml 1 points 41 minutes ago

Not just having capital, but got a hostage situation where their failure would collapse the economy therefore they are not allowed to fail and must be bailed out by the government they paid (often for far less) for earlier.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 48 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Sometimes I get mad about how we in practice have basic income for the rich. If you have a few million dollars, you can park it in zero or low risk investments (eg: high yield savings, bonds) and get free money. Then you can just fuck off and pursue your dreams. No risk. Lots of reward.

But if you're poor? Well you better take any job for any salary or you're just a parasite blah blah blah. All pain, some risk, little reward.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 20 points 13 hours ago

My ex gets an allowance from his grandparents every week. They also bought him a house.

He’d get a job for a couple years, fuck around and get fired. Only got through college because I did his homework.

He has a house, he has a fridge full of food, he can go to restaurants and order out and take weeks off for vacation.

I worked full time through college, often three jobs. I still have massive student loans. I work two part time jobs, because the career field I went into is collapsing, and I’m not welcome as a trans person anyway.

I have always worked; he has not. I sleep on a rug and stack of pillows; he can pick out whatever luxury furniture he wants.

Work is entirely disconnected from reward.

[–] Retro_unlimited@lemmy.world 14 points 14 hours ago (6 children)

Rich people also get handed so many free things.

Put over $100,000 in the bank and they will throw free accounts, low interest credit cards, rewards, free safety deposit boxes, personal concierge services. And that’s just the start.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] wpb@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

We hit a tipping point though, where 99% of people do not have any capital to risk

When do you think this tipping point was? Because as far as I can tell this was around the French revolution.

[–] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

In modern economics, a massive change came about in the early 1970s. Productivity and profits decoupled from employee wages, and continued to rise while wages stayed flat. Fast forward 50 years, account for inflation and shifts in technology, and it's easy to see that employee wages HAVEN'T RISEN in meaningful amounts for 50 years. Meanwhile, companies are making more money than ever.

So, I'd say it was in the 70's.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Is no one going to talk about how a rune pickaxe is WAAY more expensive than a bronze pick?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The Game Boy alone proves this whole capitalist rhetoric wrong. It was the most successful hand held game system for two reasons, it was cheaper than the rest and it went through batteries slower, otherwise it was objectively the worst handheld game system on the market at the time. Look at the food you are able to eat, the clothes you are able to wear, and the place you are able to live and try to tell me the driving force on those decisions was quality. Capitalism is not concerned with improving anything, that is not the goal of the system.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 hours ago

The goal is to get the highest score.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 9 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (11 children)

Copyright and inheritance can’t exist in a capitalist society

Under true capitalism, everyone starts at 0 regardless of their birth and the only way to make more money than someone else is to work more hours regardless of profession. Over saturation of a given market is fixed by the invisible hand where people just move onto something that gives more hours

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 14 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

the only way to make more money than someone else is to work more hours regardless of profession

Workers aren't capitalists. The whole point of Capitalism is to ensure the ruling class never has to do the actual work. Capitalists make their money by exploiting workers, not working themselves.

Capitalists are people who own the means of production. Working in a capitalist system you will never earn enough to buy the factory. Inheritance is one of the main ways to become a capitalist. Sure some people get lucky but with few exceptions if you are rich the way you got rich was by exploiting other people .

Copyright was a halfway decent idea when it first came out. Give a chance for an artist or inventor to profit from their work for a few years and then it becomes public property. Thanks to corporations like Disney, that has all been twisted, and now it's used as a cudgel to keep others from competing and it takes almost 100 years for something to go out of copyright now (thanks congress).

A system where you do the work and get paid for your value is closer to Socialism than capitalism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Copyright used to have a hard limit in years. Inheritance used to pack a substantial tax.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›