Jon Stokes

I've probably infuriated more people with replies about economics than any other topic. It's ALWAYS about left or right, and the other side is the bad guys. Actual economic isn't about left or right, though. You can learn it WITHOUT political ideology. oldmanjon.substack.com/p/hello-world

@MokTJJJ @mtaplits @tetrarosie If you're going to try to use a grown-up word like "utopian" to seem sophisticated, make sure you understand what it means first. Otherwise you just look silly.

@mtaplits @tetrarosie Your view on economics is ironically very nice and utopian

being a left winger who actually understands economics is so alienating

@urpersonalgulag Those are not political questions. They're basic concepts covered in first-semester econ at any university. Your inability or refusal to comprehend something is not an argument against it. It's pretty simple if you're not trying to avoid understanding: oldmanjon.substack.com/p/demand

Supply and demand is a mechanism, not a law of nature. It operates within a system of property relations, power structures, and historical context. Who controls supply? Who sets the price? Who has the power to demand? These are political questions, not natural ones.

@kyleazyy I love posts like this because "billionaires oppress by hoarding wealth" is an announcement that you have absolutely no grasp of the very basics of economics, or reality in general, but it's okay because you can substitute delusions of moral superiority for understanding.

i love posts like this bc it makes it obvious you’ve read absolutely zero theory and have no empathy for who billionaires oppress by hoarding wealth

@HyDroliikk "the most generous estimate for the cost of ending world hunger is $86-$93B" You typed that without any shame at all, didn't you?

One man is valued at $1T while the most generous estimate for the cost of ending world hunger is $86-$93B. How the fuck can you think this is a good thing?

@AndreasSteno I don't see a lot of people "defending the U.S. healthcare system." I do see many rejecting the implicit assumption that the best way to improve it is to give the government even more control than it currently has, though.

I hate high taxes, but why anyone would die on the hill defending the U.S. healthcare system is beyond my understanding. You can't find a system anywhere on Earth that delivers worse value for money. Incredibly expensive. Mediocre outcome.

@KESalsoBort @SimplyShae13 "printing money to replace the money billionaires send into offshore accounts" Got it, you have absolutely no idea how any of this works and simply construct an alternate reality based on your feelings, assumptions, and prejudices.

@SimplyShae13 This poster has proven they have a child's understanding of the economy. They literally can't name a single principle of economics nor does he understand the cost of printing money to replace the money billionaires send into offshore accounts - inflation and then unemployment

Billionaires rarely, if ever create anything and if they do it's to humanity's detriment. They got rich from stealing your money. They keep you poor by syphoning your tax dollars and bankrolling politicians who steal your rights. I mean should I go on?

@SimplyShae13 No need, it's pretty clear already that your approach is "billionaires are bad and all these problems are because of them because I say so." Everyone reading knows not to confuse you with actual facts or reasoning.

@RepentantSky @_Credible_Hulk You could just say "no I don't, but I'm emotionally committed to this narrative and therefore it's The Truth and any information to the contrary is lies because I say so."

@_Credible_Hulk The data is in New York city. Just look at how much life has improved because the money isn't just being funneled to the rich and is being used to improve life. The data there shuts down every argument you can try, and I won't listen to you lie abd say it doesn't.

Billionaires shouldn't exist because the wealth gap is literally leaving people to die, and taxing them properly would save lives. It would also stop practices that harm humanity because there wouldn't be enough money to lobby for things that harm the less fortunate.

@Williamgallus Inequality is normal. It's neither good nor bad. Inequality doesn't make people work harder, their desire for goods and services does. You're an economic flat-earther. Facts and reasoning don't matter, the only thing that matters is defending your assumptions no matter what.

The main reason is that mainstream economists think inequality is good. Inequality makes poor people work harder. Without inequality, there will be no 'savings' to invest. Everyone would be worse off! Two false assumptions justify the damage to society. 4/5

Reducing inequality - especially during our period of ecological crisis - means taking useless things away from those who have too much. And they are going to fight for it tooth and nail. Just ask @garyseconomics Short thread 1/5

@Williamgallus @garyseconomics "Just ask @garyseconomics" is a great way to let everyone know that your thoughts on economics should not under any circumstances be taken seriously. The remainder of your babbling simply reinforces that point.

@pitzington @ShadowofEzra I live in a neighborhood and I don't want them. The problem isn't that police know where the criminals are. It's that the entire government, and whoever offers Flock the right price, knows where EVERYONE is.

@ShadowofEzra Criminals hate the flock cameras because they cannot move around. Once the flock camera picks them up the police know exactly where they are. So of course the issue has been converted to one of freedom, blah blah blah. If you live in a neighborhood you want them.

Police in Houston, Texas, are panicking and have started an immediate investigation as citizens continue to destroy Flock cameras across the city. The police are struggling to make a single arrest because nobody in the city is assisting them with the investigation. "Public distaste for the cameras is growing nationwide."

@KellMorrHK The first step would have to be downsizing the government to the point that it could function on that budget. I'm all in favor of that, but it's hard to pull off when you would need buy-in from the same people who've been expanding the budget for decades.

Here’s mine First 30k, 0 tax. Everything after that 12% flat tax. No welfare. No obamaphones. Capital gains. Flat 12% No property tax Sales tax 3% maximum Done

@BTRBT_ I don't read a LOT of theological debates, but I've seen enough to question the frequency of any premise resembling "so, imagine God is a guy."

Most theological debates I encounter: "So, imagine God is a guy." Okay, got it. That implies X, Y, Z. "What? No it doesn't! Look, God isn't just some guy!" ... Right.

@MrExaminer @swingsandmises A basic principle of economics does not 'fail' simply because you choose not to believe it. And confidently saying "infinite regression problem" is not a meaningful argument outside your echo chamber of economic illiterates.

Ah ha! So the idea of opportunity cost comes to fill in where marginal utility—projected for an isolated individual—fails on its own. Then we need more theories on top of that like expectation, "dispersed knowledge," equilibrium, disequilibrium, etc. etc. Instead of just proposing one common market standard of value that solves the problem. PS The idea of opportunity cost as you articulated it obviously suffers from an infinite regression problem.

This doesn't make sense. A rich man with 10 homes won't forgo one house for a hamburger when he's hungry, right? Markets work because different people judge things via a shared, objective standard.

@MrExaminer It doesn't make sense because you're starting with the bizarre assumption that "markets work because different people judge things via a shared, objective standard" and he is starting with the fairly obvious reality that different people have different preferences.

@RegularSanStan @GR1FF1NONE "A commodity must have a use value and a exchange value." Why? In fact, why assume the distinction is meaningful, or conversely that there are only two types of value? This may be hard to hear, but not everyone accepts "because Karl Marx said so" as absolute proof.

@GR1FF1NONE A commodity must have a use value and a exchange value. This is garbage yes, but it's being used to commemorate a event (use value)

Labor theory of value in shambles rn.

@PatrickHeizer It might be good PR, but it won't significantly affect anything on a large scale. Whatever a government spends, it needs to collect in taxes or fees. If not now, than later with interest.

With both the "affordability crisis" and the increasing revolt against taxes, it's wild how many states still tax groceries, diapers, and feminine products. How isn't this a top political issue in these states? It'd be a very easy and popular thing to campaign on.

@SizweLo People "defend capitalism" because they understand what it actually is and as a result aren't misled by the authoritarian propaganda you're regurgitating. Just because your echo chamber assures you something is true doesn't mean the rest of humanity will fall for it like you did.

People defend capitalism because they confuse it with commerce. They believe “capitalism” is when people start businesses and sell things. If people understood that the thing they call capitalism and love so much is actually just commerce and that it’s not the same thing as capitalism, they would feel very different. This is because a local baker selling bread, a mechanic fixing cars, or an artisan selling wares on a digital storefront is a sign of commerce in a market economy, which is simply a mechanism for exchanging goods and services based on supply and demand. Needless to say, this has existed for thousands of years before capitalism was created. As economic historian Fernand Braudel pointed out, commerce and capitalism are not only distinct; but historically, they have often operated at cross-purposes. According to Braudel, ordinary commerce is competitive and transparent, while capitalism is anti-competitive and deliberately opaque, making it a zone of privilege held by a small elite who bend the rules in their favour. Braudel further argues that commerce, or the market, is horizontal, transparent, and competitive and as old as civilization itself. It involves individuals or small groups trading goods, where barriers to entry are low, no single player dominates, and profit is a reward for fulfilling a specific need. Capitalism, meanwhile, is a specific institutional arrangement that emerged relatively recently in human history, around the 16th to 17th centuries. It is NOT just people “trading stuff”. It is instead the legal and financial system where the means of production are privately owned, and the primary objective is the continuous, infinite accumulation of capital. Because of this accumulation-obssessed nature of capitalism, when it scales up, it seeks to eliminate the free play of commerce to protect its investments. True market competition is risky for massive capital as it drives prices down and threatens profit margins. Braudel contended that capitalism only begins where commerce ends. It is the zone of high finance and state collusion. Because it operates across vast distances such as the 17th-century spice trade, information takes months to travel, which creates a deliberate lack of transparency. Braudel noted that the great capitalists of the early modern era in Madeira and Venice or the Dutch East India Company, never wanted to compete in a fair, transparent market because competition slices profit margins to the bone. Instead, they secured royal charters, exclusive trading rights, and naval protection. At the same time, the state granted them legal monopolies, effectively outlawing competition. Therefore, capitalism naturally trends toward creating monopolies and securing state interventions like bailouts, subsidies, and regulatory capture to shield itself from the very market forces it claims to champion. In fact, the most important takeaway from Braudel’s analysis is that capitalism is NOT the natural evolution or the highest form of the free market, it is its dark shadow. So, when our lizard overlords use “free market” and “capitalism” interchangeably, they’re deliberately hiding this distinction and using the moral legitimacy of the hard-working, transparent business owner to defend the structural privileges of the protected financial elite and its regulatory capture. If ordinary people could comprehend these distinctions, many self-described “capitalists” would realise they are just pro-commerce, and actually anti-capitalist, because it would be clear that defending “capitalism” means defending the right of a small parasite class to bypass the market entirely.

@Calab7nbz @_Credible_Hulk The wealth in those companies isn't hoarded. It's at work producing goods and services, paying employees, keeping suppliers and vendors in business, and paying taxes. The US economy is far too large to be manipulated in any meaningful way by one person's companies.

@_Credible_Hulk They own multiple companies and hold too much concentrated power. They can literally manipulate countries and markets if they wanted to, it’s not a logical way to run a society

All the people who loved the previous version will love this meme

@urpersonalgulag "Movements that challenge capitalism itself" are deservedly ignored or mocked by people who like their own prosperity more than they hate others' prosperity.

The ruling class funds acceptable forms of resistance like identity politics, liberal reformism, and environmentalism, but only as long as they leave out class analysis. Movements that challenge capitalism itself are starved or suppressed.