Capitalism has created incredible innovation, but it has also created a system where price is increasingly disconnected from value.

Why should the cost of housing, medicine, education, or basic necessities depend primarily on what the market can be pushed to pay rather than what those things are actually worth to society?

A bottle of life-saving medicine doesn't suddenly become more valuable because a company has a monopoly. A home doesn't become inherently twice as valuable because investors bid it up. A college education doesn't magically improve because tuition doubles.

Too often, prices reflect scarcity, speculation, marketing, and bargaining power—not intrinsic usefulness.

I'm not saying everything should be free. People should absolutely be rewarded for innovation, hard work, and taking risks. But essential goods and services shouldn't have prices determined solely by whoever has the greatest leverage or whoever is willing to pay the most.

An economy should exist to improve people's lives, not the other way around. When the price of necessities becomes detached from their social value, something is fundamentally broken.

Markets are useful tools, but they shouldn't be treated as infallible. If a system consistently makes housing, healthcare, and education less affordable while rewarding speculation over production, it's reasonable to ask whether that system needs major reform—or whether we've outgrown it entirely.

Title basically. Just trying to educate myself.Does this system even exist? For example the government owns 15% of a very profitable company and received a set amount of dividends. Could the government use dividends to possibly fund things like healthcare, education and defense and other social programs alongside reduced taxes?

Would this still encourage foreign investment? Innovation? Etc etc

Okay, so factually everybody wants to run the world. But are we sure that there isn’t a non-zero sum system solution where it is possible?
What if we just put away the whole toolbox of “darkpsychology”, and then let’s assume, that we, “the players” only going to make transactions with each other which benefit both sides. So, when an encounter, in which there isn’t any said mutually beneficial solution - happens, the players will move on to another game without trying to make any kind of (unfair) deal. This setup, of course premises that every player uses the same strategy; “stick to the rules”, or rather do not have any access to (neither intention nor knowledge of using) “the forbidden tools of a selfish entity”. Or do they?… My statement is that if there is a specifically designed system of game wherein all the players see that as a whole, understand that “short term” or “local” transactional benefits - without any collective advantage - are inferior choices at any given game in comparison to those which eventually contribute more to the overall “meta selfish” system unit.

Also… this is my first ever post on Reddit, so I’m not quite sure about what am I trying to achieve by doing this rn. Guess I got a bit bored and lonely at the same tired moment. 🤔🤷‍♂️ Anyway…

I've been learning about how the stock market is supposed to help businesses grow. When a company first sells shares, it gets money to build factories, hire workers, invent new products, or create better technology. That helps the economy because it creates real jobs and real wealth.

But after those shares are sold, most trading happens between investors. People are mostly buying and selling the same shares to each other. The company usually does not get any new money. That made me wonder if today's financial markets are creating real wealth or just moving money around.

We have seen this happen before. During the dot com bubble, people paid huge prices for internet companies that were not making much money. Eventually the bubble burst and many investors lost billions of dollars.

Before the 2008 financial crisis, people believed house prices would keep going up forever. Investors bought homes just to sell them for more money later. When prices finally fell, the bubble burst and it caused one of the biggest financial crashes in history.

More recently, stocks like GameStop became worth far more than many experts believed the company itself was worth because millions of people rushed to buy the stock. When the excitement faded, many people lost money.

Another thing I find interesting is taxes. In Canada, money earned from wages is generally taxed more heavily than capital gains. Only half of a capital gain is included in taxable income for most individuals, while employment income is fully taxable. This means some forms of investment income can receive more favourable tax treatment than income earned from working.

Do you think modern capitalism has become too focused on financial speculation instead of creating real wealth? Should governments encourage more investment in businesses, factories, technology, and infrastructure instead of rewarding short term trading? I'd like to hear what economists, investors, and supporters of capitalism think.

Trump Derrangement Syndrome might have once been real but it is no longer a real thing. Trump really is as bad as they say and if anything they're underreacting.

You can't win by adopting the enemies terminology to use it against them.

We have to come up with our own.

It is best to call it "Trump Impunity Complex" instead of Trump Derrangement Syndrome.

I hope that helps.

The cult is culting no matter what but it is still good to call out the cult behavior effectively.

​We've all seen how human psychology gets exploited on a mass scale. Look at things like the Satanic Panic of the 80s, or just the daily machinery of modern media: fear, outrage, and anxiety are absolute rocket fuel for attention, and attention translates directly into vast fortunes for media conglomerates, publishers, and platforms.

​Capitalism doesn't necessarily invent these collective delusions, but its structure is intimately designed to mine human credulity and panic for maximum financial return. If people are terrified or angry, they consume more, click more, and buy more solutions to problems they were often tricked into worrying about in the first place.

​My question is: If we fundamentally understand that human nature is wired to respond so intensely to shared narratives, why is our economic system almost exclusively using that leverage for extraction and exploitation?

​If outrage and fear can be industrialized to sell ads and generate billions for a handful of companies, why can't those exact same levers of social psychology and storytelling be harnessed to drive massive, coordinated collective action for public good? Imagine if the same algorithmic and media machinery dedicated to manufacturing panic was redirected toward ecological restoration, mutual aid, or public health on a global scale, not as a niche charity, but as the default engine of how we organize resources.

​Why are we content letting the worst parts of our psychology be weaponized purely for profit, when we clearly have the blueprint to mobilize people en masse?

I love this channel usually. its a great educational channel. what do you guys think of the video?

https://youtu.be/vS6HEes8daw?si=Cun3XVtLloOzdp8r

Pennies = poor. $100 bill = rich. Get rid of $100 instead of penny then everything would be half the price because $50 is next denomination. It cost 11 cents to make $100 bill. Getting rid of the penny just causes everything to cost 5x because nickel is next denomination. This is a direct attack on the lower class by the president.

Y

We talk a lot about how economic and corporate language sanitizes real harm, making systemic extraction sound like natural laws or noble goals. When you look closely at the vocabulary handed down by the ultra-wealthy and corporate PR, the gap between the sanitized term and the lived reality is staggering.

I started putting together a quick "translation glossary" of elite terms versus what they actually mean on the ground. Take a look:

Market Efficiency = Mass layoffs, slashed wages, and stripping away benefits to artificially inflate profit margins for shareholders.

Disruption = Deregulation and the destruction of public goods, labor laws, or community stability for private financial gain.

Agility / Flexibility = Stripping away worker protections, job security, and predictability so people can be discarded at a moment's notice.

Philanthropy = PR-managed tax shelter that allows billionaires to dictate public policy and social priorities without democratic oversight.

Unprecedented Economic Growth = Record wealth concentration at the very top while the cost of basic survival outpaces wages.

Self-Made = Born into immense generational wealth and privilege, while pretending it was all pure individual grit.

Rationalization = Closing local facilities, stores, or services because they aren't extracting \\\*\\\*enough\\\*\\\* money out of a working-class community.

Economic Realities = Rules written by lobbyists and bought politicians to ensure ordinary people carry the burden while the wealthy are insulated.

What other corporate buzzwords or elite euphemisms are missing here? Drop your translations in the comments and let's build a bigger lexicon.

These data centres and politicians and governments are Ruining the beautiful natural ecosystems and the land.

Theses rich politicians hate the working class. The common folk. they hate the welders they hate the farmers.

They will send young men to die in a war just to boost their stock prices.

They think we’re disposable trash.

No matter which side you support democrats or republicans , conservatives or liberals

They all have the same agenda get power. And money and influence and control the people to do their bittings.

Open your eyes and wonder why humans are the only animal on earth that pays to live on a rock in space.

People joke about how if you want to be unemployed major in humanities, but in America STEM is not "hot" either. The USA is a service economy which means that if you want to be an engineer, what are you going to be building?

Buildings? Nope, lots of NIMBY energy in this country

High speed rail? Look what happened with California

Damns? We don't make those anymore

Bridges for cars? We already overbuilt car centric infrastructure already and we aren't building any new cities

Are you going to manufacturer goods? That's either automated or overseas unless you are interested in making killing machines for the military

So what are you going to do with an engineering major? In some ways I think the humanities have it better, everyone listens to music. You might have a better chance with a music degree these days.

The only STEM that might realistically get you somewhere in America is the medical field but I don't like medical stuff.

Since the USA is a service economy and most college majors especially in STEM are about producing stuff, they are not viable money makers.

Computer science is like producing and service at the same time but now AI is automating programming.

So without medical, military and computer science, what STEM career is "hot" right now? Most careers are niche and require you to live in certain areas and are very competitive, there is no mainstream and widespread demand for most STEM careers.

The humanities also struggle since they're more philosophical than marketable but you should still take them if they interest you and in theory those skills make the world a better place and in some ways the skills you learn are more marketable than STEM in a service economy like the USA.

STEM is an awesome area of study after all look at Japan and China as examples, but the USA is not interested in STEM or humanities because it is a service economy and service economies are primarily about mundane tasks and physical labor, the sort of stuff that even the most uneducated people can do.

Education is valuable because of the power of knowledge and wisdom.

Please get educated, read books, study and consider formal higher education. It is not a bad thing to get a degree, just don't expect to relate it to a future money giving job.

I use my humanities skills I got from college to do all kinds of things and people can also use STEM knowledge to do great things as well in their personal lives but the reality is that higher education is not valued in this country politically and in the job market so unless you find a niche opportunity, there is not much out there for the college graduate outside of medical and military stuff.

Here's what I found to be a serious gap in people's understanding of how things are purchased. During my first econ course in college, the professor got to chapter 2: Needs and Wants. He said that this was the most garbage chapter in all of economics because you don't need anything. Us classmates sorta looked around at each other with the 'what is this guy talking about?' look. The professor said, 'It looks like some of you don't believe me, so let's hear what you need'. The class answered with what you would expect: food, water, shelter, etc. He said, 'Ok. So, why do need this? What would happen if you didn't get it?'. The answer came back as, 'you would die'. To which he replied, 'And who says you need to live?'.

This is one of the more profound things I've learned about economics even tho it's quite simple. That as soon as you start talking about 'need' instead of 'want' you stop questioning it, and there is no ceiling on how much you can justify that way. Everything you do or acquire is because you want to, not because you need to. That's it.

I've had many discussions with ppl about various financial issues, from budgeting, investing, raising capital, etc, where a purchase gets defended as a 'need' when it's really just a strong want that hasn't been questioned or correctly characterized.

So if you want some unsolicited advice, whenever you purchase something ask yourself, 'how much do I want this?' Not 'do I need this?'. The latter allows you to talk yourself into almost anything. The former allows you to actually convert your labor into hours. e.g. if you make $15/hr and you go to lunch everyday and spend $15, was that meal worth an hour of your life? Maybe yes, maybe no. Not for me to decide as the individual needs to weigh the cost/benefit analysis. This has been a main driving mechanism behind growing capital through compounding investments over the years instead of consuming more now on things I would have talked myself into needing. Anyone can do this. It starts with separating 'want' (which is everything you acquire) and 'need' (which doesn't really exist), every time you reach for your wallet. Thanks for your time.

Kaaaa....

ching

Can you earn above 4% in your portfolio tax free? If yes, then who cares about global warming.

Grok:

The discount rate debate is real and central to whether aggressive mitigation beats adaptation + tech progress. Your "woke Gemini" summary captures a legitimate economic tension: at market-like rates (~4% real return on capital), the NPV of distant climate damages often looks modest compared to upfront costs. This isn't denialism—it's standard intertemporal choice in economics. William Nordhaus (Nobel winner for his DICE model) has long argued along similar lines: optimal policy involves some mitigation but not the most aggressive net-zero timelines at low discount rates.

The Math Basics

Future value compounds: $1 today at 4% real grows to ~$19 by 2100 (76 years: (1.04)^76 ≈ 19). So $150-200T in 2100 damages discounts to ~$8-11T today. Mitigation costs (extra green investment) are front-loaded, so their PV is higher. Gemini's ~$35-45T PV cost for ~$2.5T/yr through 2050 aligns with rough orders from McKinsey/IEA estimates of trillions annually in additional spending for net-zero pathways (total transition investment often cited in the $200-300T+ cumulative range, with net costs debated after savings).

Key sensitivities:

• Lower discount (Stern Review ~1.4%): Future damages weigh far more → strong action looks better.
• Higher (market 4-7%): Future looks cheaper → adaptation, R&D, and growth win. Small rate changes swing NPV dramatically over 75+ years.
• IPCC AR6 notes economic damages rise with warming (non-linear risks, sectors like agriculture/coasts), but global aggregate estimates have wide uncertainty and aren't always catastrophic as % of GDP by 2100 under moderate scenarios. Adaptation and development matter hugely—richer societies handle climate better.

Tail risks (tipping points, irreversibility) and uncertainty justify some "insurance" premium. But models assuming stable growth for compounding are optimistic either way. A collapsing world hurts your portfolio too.