I think the world would be a better place if Elon didn’t have any money at all.
Because most of his wealth was generated off the back of government subsidy, daddy’s genocide emeralds, stepping on the faces of actual innovators, and grift.
How do you expect companys, however they are named and structured in your utopia, to finance large expensive projects that will not generate a return (even assuming a currency-free, post scarcity world, I would think big things still need to happen, and there has to be a benefit to doing them) for a significant period of time?
I’d really like to know what your proposed alternative is.
In a post-scarcity world, the financing of large, expensive projects does not rely on the traditional capitalist structure that prioritizes profit above all else. Instead, such projects would be driven by societal needs, scientific advancement, and the overall betterment of humanity. The collective resources of society, managed through democratic means and supported by advanced technology, would be allocated to these projects.
A cooperative approach, leveraging public funding and shared resources, ensures that the benefits of these projects are distributed equitably. This system prioritizes long-term sustainability and communal welfare over short-term profits, making it feasible to undertake significant endeavors without the constraints of capitalist profit motives.
Your question presupposes that only a profit-driven model can manage large-scale projects, but history shows that many significant advancements, such as space exploration and public infrastructure, have been achieved through public funding and collective effort. In a post-scarcity world, this approach would be even more refined and efficient, driven by a united vision of progress and equality rather than the narrow interests of profit-seeking entities.
I think the world would be a better place if Elon didn’t have any money at all.
Because most of his wealth was generated off the back of government subsidy, daddy’s genocide emeralds, stepping on the faces of actual innovators, and grift.
Bootlick. Harder.
How do you expect companys, however they are named and structured in your utopia, to finance large expensive projects that will not generate a return (even assuming a currency-free, post scarcity world, I would think big things still need to happen, and there has to be a benefit to doing them) for a significant period of time?
I’d really like to know what your proposed alternative is.
In a post-scarcity world, the financing of large, expensive projects does not rely on the traditional capitalist structure that prioritizes profit above all else. Instead, such projects would be driven by societal needs, scientific advancement, and the overall betterment of humanity. The collective resources of society, managed through democratic means and supported by advanced technology, would be allocated to these projects.
A cooperative approach, leveraging public funding and shared resources, ensures that the benefits of these projects are distributed equitably. This system prioritizes long-term sustainability and communal welfare over short-term profits, making it feasible to undertake significant endeavors without the constraints of capitalist profit motives.
Your question presupposes that only a profit-driven model can manage large-scale projects, but history shows that many significant advancements, such as space exploration and public infrastructure, have been achieved through public funding and collective effort. In a post-scarcity world, this approach would be even more refined and efficient, driven by a united vision of progress and equality rather than the narrow interests of profit-seeking entities.
Bootlick harder.