So I've spent the last week and a half doing AS Economics as part of my A-Level course.
As much as this may sound like a personal gripe with the teacher or me complaining about how I just don't get it, I think I've figured out partially why those that support capitalism use the argument of "Basic economics commie" and it comes from a place of ignorance.
One of the very first concepts you are taught is that there is a scarcity of resources and economics is the study of how to allocate resources most effectively. The teacher may call upon examples like holidays or toys as examples of scarcity, not exactly bringing up data as to the quantity against their exact demand but simply casting a student's mind towards these ideas allows them to make that connection of "yeah not everyone has these things so that makes sense". Now, I too do not have the data for these products so cannot argue against that, but the teacher may slip "food" into that list. Now THAT is something that you can argue against. According to "The Richest", "A recent report stated that the top 100 billionaires in the world have added some $240 billion to their incomes just for the year 2012 alone. This amount can already end world hunger four times over.". Now this means they can buy enough food from your local Tesco or Walmart. This consequently means that, since the cost footed by consumers must be the highest, they have enough for the production of this. But not only does this mean that it's physically possible for these people to perform, as in the production capacity is there, but that we as a global society have the production capacity to eliminate global hunger itself. However, as the study of economics also admits, firms have a primary objective to make profit.
Continued in comments.... #communism#socialism#anarchocommunism#anarchism#rojava#ypg#ypj#antifa#antifascism#legaliseit#marijuana#cannabis#weed#freespeech#economics#econ#economy
2 hours ago
“I’m not really like that, my social anxiety makes me hate homeless people uwu” 😭😂🤣