Stomp summoned this book from the depths of my memory. Big things in store for those big paws!

Do you think you can have effective communism with only self interested parties? That was my take away from your comment, that you can get communism as a logical extension of greedy motives?

When someone says capitalism is human nature, I don’t think they mean that industrial automation allowing unskilled workers is human nature. So they’re using a different meaning of capitalism. To address their concern, you would show counter examples of large groups of people working together for a common good rather than their own enrichment. Rather than just saying they’re using the word wrong.

When you survey people on the street, would they use that definition? English isn’t a prescriptive language, the definition is what people use it as.

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

But you’d say that capitalism requires the technological advancements of the industrial revolution by definition?

I was asking to clarify, because it sounded like your definition of capitalism was something like ‘uses industrial machinery to allow for unskilled work.’ By that definition, I agree that by definition capitalism didn’t exist till after the industrial revolution, since industrial machinery didn’t exist yet. But I disagree that capitalism requires industrial machinery.

Ceramics (roof tiles and pots) were manufactured on an industrial scale in Rome for example. They employed workers and produced massive numbers of products.

What is your distinction between employing people for money and capitalism?

The aversion often didn’t work for royalty, since they weren’t raised with their siblings.

What would you call employing people for wages around 0AD? I don’t think it’s feudalism.

That backwords hair is really disturbing, that’s great.

I wonder why they mirrored the background? Was it added in post I guess?

b|ɘiW

And they were absolutely right!

Looks like this is the relevant study from that video. It found people eat more calories of highly processed food when given the option, which makes sense. Weight gain was highly correlated with calorie intake though, so if you eat the same amount of calories of highly processed and unprocessed food, it should have the same weight gain.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/

You have a study link? I’m interested in how they show causation. Because health conscious people will be more likely to eat healthier, and less likely to eat highly processed foods.

Isn’t Nolan one of the more approved of directors among movie nerds?

Trans reactionism sounds political to me. Is it not?

He was so good at being a general, brilliant on the battle field. But I haven’t really heard good things about the other aspects of ruling like economic policy or infrastructure.