• R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Other economic systems don’t incentivise companies to produce trash products that break quickly to keep the customer coming back, or to use non-recyclable materials because they cost 3 cents less.

    • BlueBockser@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Oh yes, they do. Corruption, unrealistic n-year plans and secrecy for example lead to defective products, poor quality and accidents. That’s exactly what happened in Chernobyl, and I don’t need to tell you how bad that was for the environment.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        What happened at Chernobyl was the politicians refusing to listen to the scientists. They were performing an experiment that the designers of the plant told them was exceedingly dangerous, and blew up their reactor. At least they did it unintentionally, unlike the Army Corps of Engineers.

        • BlueBockser@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          And why did “the politicians” refuse not to listen to “the scientists”? Part of the answer is definitely due to unrealistic n-year plans.

          Also, there were other factors at play such as secrecy around the danger of graphite-tipped control rods. The Soviets had discovered this danger already, but had kept it secret even from their nuclear engineers.

    • NAK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Which economic system, in your opinion, would produce the highest quality products? And you can use whatever definition of quality you like

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The Six Nations managed to keep their economic system functioning without a hiccup for at least 15,000 to 25,000 years. That one seems to work.

        • NAK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Ok. Let’s switch to six nations.

          That definitely answers my question

            • NAK@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              When the response to my question of “what do you think is better” is an esoteric shout out to a culture that’s been dead for thousands of years, that isn’t even in the first page of Google results for “six nations” yeah. You’re right. It’s not a good faith argument

                • NAK@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Because that’s a thing capitalism is great at? If the connection between capitalism and ruthless efficiency and iteration isn’t apparent to whoever is reading this then it’s really not worth the conversation

                  • ABCDE@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    And? What is the relevance? It’s “not worth the conversation” if you can’t stay on topic, or connect your ideas together properly so as to be coherent to others.