The Democracy of the founding fathers was Greek Democracy, predicated upon a slave society, and restricted to only the elite. This is the society we live in today, even with our reforms towards direct representation. The system is inherently biased towards the election of elites and against the representation of the masses. Hamilton called it “faction” when the working class got together and demanded better conditions, and mechanisms were built in (which still exist to this day) that serve to ensure the continued dominance of the elite over the masses. The suffering of the many is intentional. The opulence of the wealthy is also. This is the intended outcome.

  • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’re right, it requires people! It’s too bad there’s not an army of people underemployed in exploitative jobs that do not meet their basic needs along with an army of unemployed and often even unhoused people… We could just… pay them living wages to farm… there’s an idea!

    • essell@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Excellent, so we’ll need some profits on that food then, to pay them?

      Let’s keep going with this thinking. We’re inventing a system from first principles

      • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Profits aren’t wages, you obviously haven’t read much economics. Profits are what’s left AFTER wages and costs.

        • essell@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re failing to differentiate between gross and net profits.

          Ever run a business?

          How is everyone going to afford this food if you’re selling it for a gross profit? I believe that was your original point.

          • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, I have run a business haha. Profit doesn’t mean either gross or net profits, it means, and I quote from the dictionary,

            “Profit: The amount by which revenue from sales exceeds costs in a business”. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.

            That is profit. Now, people can break it down further, but, when someone is referring to profits, you should assume they mean the dictionary definition of profits.

            • essell@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I should, should I?

              You previously suggested I’ve not read enough economics, so should I assume you have? Do they all use that word with that meaning?

              Also, I’m wondering if you have an answer to the other question. How is everyone going to afford this food that’s being sold even if it doesn’t have a markup?

              • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                How is anyone going to afford the food that is no longer being marked up? If the food is cheaper, somehow less people will be able to afford it than now? Is that the position you’re coming from?

                I’d like to answer your question, it’s just… not really a question that makes any logical sense.

                And yes, you should. I can provide plenty of economic texts if you would like to come to understand the economic system you live under. We can even start all the way back with Adam Smith, and move up from there. Like the part where he says that someone holding land without working to improve it does not deserve the land, and should not be allowed to keep it.