this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
493 points (90.2% liked)
Actually Infuriating
328 readers
169 users here now
Community Rules:
Be Civil
Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, ). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.
Content should be actually infuriating
Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.
Mark NSFW/NSFL posts
Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.
Keep it Legal and Moral
No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.
Partner Communities
- Mildly Infuriating
- Furiously Infuriating
- Memes
- Political Memes
- Lemmy Shitpost
- Not The Onion
- You Should Know
- Lemmy Be Wholesome
founded 3 days ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, because you have to use logic that goes deeper than surface level.
Banks make a ton of money from people making interest payments on debt they (the borrowers) can support. Depending on the diversification of the bank they also make a ton on investing the money they hold for you. Comparatively little money is made from collections for defaulting on debt, overdraft fees, account fees, and so on. So "bankers will keep you in debt" doesn't make a lot of sense. The banks don't set the price of the stuff you want, they only compete with other banks to give you a better rate on things you've already decided to buy. There's no small room of people trying to up your payments or interest rates and hoping you won't notice. It would be bank suicide.
Pharma is the same. Sure they treat side effects, but the main point (besides introducing new drugs that pass non inferiority studies to get new patients, which is predatory for sure) is to sell drugs that have good outcomes. It makes a lot more sense to sell the cure for cancer and charge a ton for it than it does to make a cure, make sure it has side effects, and magically keep it secret through FDA trials. This is like "the moon landing was faked" kind of bad logic. It sounds to me like "Oh, UPS needs to deliver packages to make money, so I bet they intentionally lose one in every 5 to generate more traffic!". Just... No. Thats how you put your non-monopoly company right out of business.
Weapons also ABSOLUTELY can be and are sold when there is no war. You don't need war at all. You need fear. If you needed war to sell weapons, nuclear weapons and the cold war are the perfect counter example.
Now maybe you've got your head on straight because for sure these sectors all want to maximize profit and there is certainly room for that, but "bankers keep you in debt, pharma keeps you sick, and weapon companies (prime contractors mostly) keep us at war" is nothing short of conspiratorial ignorance. The actual original post is stupid and sanewashing it still doesn't make it remotely true.