this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
48 points (81.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43950 readers
1069 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Giving money to Amazon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Google .etc

It's like, you can't have an argument for price gouging, when you're enabling them by spending. If people were smart, they'd stop giving them money 10 - 15 years ago and they'd be right now, trying to reconstruct so they can be more economically friendly than how they are now.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Because with stuff like this you cannot simply say "everyone should know better" they don't know btr, they don't care, they don't understand. For a myriad of reasons people will always do stuff counter to best logic, so you cannot ask them to. The only practical way to prevent stuff like this is through regulation and a government that serves the people. Lol it's nice to dream.

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, and also even if there's smart people doing it, it doesn't matter. Supposed 10% of people don't use Amazon, as long as 90% are fine, it won't affect them. Most people won't look beyond "it costs me less", the whole reason thing like temu is widespread is exactly that. People don't care about other people, ethics of things, or even the long term effects of their actions. They just see low price vs high price on everyday setting.

If a chain restaurant gave half price food for a year in a loss to take out all local businesses people would gladly buy it. And then when everything is gone and that chain raises price because there's no competition they'll just blame other people, economy, whatever they can find.

In many cases it also comes from the side that people can't afford to spend more money for the right reasons. Many people are living paycheck to paycheck, and those that aren't, are still not well off and want to save as much money as they can for retirement/emergencies. You can't count on anyone except yourself for your future, so they'll take whatever costs them less now.

[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

If a chain restaurant gave half price food for a year in a loss to take out all local businesses people would gladly buy it. And then when everything is gone and that chain raises price because there’s no competition they’ll just blame other people, economy, whatever they can find.

Nice summarization of modern day capitalism, this is pretty much the play book. Operate on a loss and Survive off of investments until you have created a monopoly, then the price is whatever you want, use your newfound endless wealth to pay the government to create fake consumer protections that's only goal is to increase the startup capital required to attempt to compete with you thus securing your monopoly, all while the poorest people have all of their money transferred to the people with too much money.

Then you have people come around with this unwise narrative that people need to just "choose with their wallets" like somehow you can convince enough people, who are at a majority financially unstable because of unregulated capitalism, to spend more money than they have, to stop capitalism. I totally understand where they're coming from with this, but sadly it just serves the capitalists by placing the blame for their gross greed on the people instead of on them. Its the same thing with consumer recycling agendas when global warming was a new concept, its redirecting the blame onto the wrong people.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

Building electric car charging stations without security cameras.

About 75% of the chargers are disabled in my city. The primary method of disabling them is roll up with a sawzall and just chop the cable off. Gets you $5 worth of crack, which is always a nice incentive structure when there’s unguarded copper lying around.

The only chargers that survive are in front of 24 hour businesses.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A person is smart. People, not so much.

[–] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Great movie

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

Believing public figures on camera, or on a dais with a mic in front of them.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

It's not about "smart" vs "dumb." People's ideas are shaped by their Class Interests and Material Coniditons.

[–] rando895@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 day ago

They'd stop believing people are stupid, especially those they disagree with, and realize that their differences are mostly made up by the ruling class to keep them in line.

[–] sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Stop generalising groups of people.

I cannot think of a proper example rn, but I see this everywhere.

meme example

group a does x

also group a: says something contradicting x

This happens across the board, not only in political topics.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] lps@social.trom.tf 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@yogthos @NeoToasty 🀣 almost got it....just a bit farther;)

[–] Mesa@programming.dev 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thinking that they have the "one simple trick" for everything when most matters are actually a complex network of issues where there isn't one answer.

[–] NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 1 day ago

And not counting for the variables like what could go wrong, short-term gains, long-term gains .etc

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 4 points 1 day ago

You're not getting cashback on your credit cards yous daft cunts πŸ˜‚ You're paying it in advance

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago

If people were really smart, how would they post insults to make them less obvious?

[–] goog70 1 points 1 day ago

they would stop wasting their money

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Stop driving (pollution, deaths, cost of living etc) and remodel cities and town around PT and AT , restricted gun ownership

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How do people living with no PT or AT options stop driving?

Also, the working masses must remain armed to prevent even further class slavery.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've joined three different unions and the only guns I've used were loaned to me by a representative of my country for a short period decades ago.

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Okay I still can't go anywhere without a car tho

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OP mentioned remodeling cities around public transport, I think that also goes for more rural areas. There's a solution for every scale : metro, bus, train, shuttle, etc.

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 1 points 1 day ago

I agree there are solutions, I have lived in places with great options. But getting things changed here is very slow and for now you still can't walk or bike, and there are no buses or trains.

Stop. Electing. Fraudsters.

Especially when the fraudster is a convicted felon.

[–] Vanth@reddthat.com 42 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (14 children)

I'm doing better now, but 15 years ago Walmart was the only option I had for food. Local/regional grocery stores were more expensive and I was living paycheck to paycheck with growing debt.

"If people were smart they would stop buying the most cost-efficient option" is really not feasible.

"If people were smart" they would read and stop putting oligarchs in power.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 days ago

Ignoring the fact that alternative voting systems exist and there can be more then two political parties.

That we haven't learned more from history and keep making the same mistakes over and over.

[–] finderscult@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 days ago (9 children)

They'd stop doing capitalism. Entirely. If people in the US were smart, they would have been the vanguard of the communist revolution in the late 1800s when Marxist ideas were starting to spread in the us.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 days ago

Voting for fascists/not voting

[–] MrSebSin@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They would understand that socialism is not communism. Also you can have capitalism and socialism at the same time, you just have to give and take a little.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

They would understand that socialism is not communism.

Socialism has so many definitions that this can be subjectively true or false. This isn't even some trivial gotcha, the terms were used interchangeably even by significant writers of the 1800s. For another example, a socialist mode of production and a capitalist mode of production are contradictory.

If one wants to make these kind of broad claims without starting pointless arguments, they'll need to use a more specific term than 'socialism'.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (10 children)

You're wrong about literally all of that.

[–] emmie@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Op probably thinks socialism == Scandinavian welfare states. Most online USA midwits don’t know the difference

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's what I think of about socialism. The democratic socialist Scandinavian countries

[–] finderscult@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

The ones that explicitly state they are not socialist?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί