> Why is this not feeding developing countries?
Because that is not the problem, the problem is neocolonialism/imperialism the highest stage of capitalism[1].
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Sta...
Because that is not the problem, the problem is neocolonialism/imperialism the highest stage of capitalism[1].
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Sta...
If anything, vertical farming should be able to produce the consistent "big mac" equivalent of the tomato/lettuce/potato?
Am I incorrect in the sentiment of the capitalist argument here?
It's even possible to end up with situations where food is destroyed because it cannot economically be sold, while people are also starving. This is not about food but about power.
If you want another possibly transformational read, Hernando De Soto's The Other Path has a lot of interesting things to say about rule of law and property rights.
Yes you can point to cobalt being extracted in Africa or wherever. But that misses out the money being made in finance. It misses the Googles making billions from advertising.
Look at the richest GDP per capita countries [1]
Luxembourgs wealth isnt based on digging rocks out the ground.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no...
No it doesn't, labor aristocracy is literally one of the predictions on the summary.
> But that misses out the money being made in finance. It misses the Googles making billions from advertising.
None of those produce anything, they are entirely dependent on actual production.
> Look at the richest GDP per capita countries [1]
GDP per capita is just the GDP divided by population, and GDP itself is not necessarily about production at all.
"None of those produce anything, they are entirely dependent on actual production"
They might not produce something physical, but then neither does a musician, or a writer. They're a part of the economy though, my entire point is that your link ignores non physical bits of the economy, but that is now the dominant part of the economy, so the theory is at least outdated.
"GDP per capita is just the GDP divided by population, and GDP itself is not necessarily about production at all"
How would you like to measure production then? Cars per person? Per nation? Is a Tata equivalent to Ferrari?
I know what GDP per capita is, that's why I used it, have you got any particular reason why I should be using absolute GDP figures?
No I mean they do not literally produce anything. A musician or writer produces music or writings. An ad is like a mudpie, nobody wants it. Does ads maximize profits in capitalist economy? Yes but that requires the assumption of capitalist economy. In real terms it is pure overhead and does not achieve any social or environmental need. If you need ads to buy something you don't need it by definition.
> They're a part of the economy though, my entire point is that your link ignores non physical bits of the economy, but that is now the dominant part of the economy, so the theory is at least outdated.
No actual production is the dominant part of the real economy, but money hides it because imperialism allows super explotation where the real producers are paid virtually nothing compared to the value produced. E.g. 1000 trillion worth of value is bought at 2 trillion. You cannot at the same time acknowledge the exploitation and think that some bullshit rent-seeking is what is producing most value in economy.
> I know what GDP per capita is, that's why I used it, have you got any particular reason why I should be using absolute GDP figures?
You should not be using GDP or any monetary value at all to measure anything real. Behind it is the assumption that money is same as social or environmental value, but the relationship is often not there or inversed.
Except the people who pay for them. Google isnt some tech unicorn which might make money one day, it's one of the biggest companies in the world, it's one of the biggest companies in the world because it sells a valuable service.
"1000 trillion worth of value is bought at 2 trillion"
Who decides that? Someone is more than welcome to come along and pay 3 trillion. And looking at it from the other side am I being exploited for paying 1000 trillion for 2 trillion worth of goods? Why don't I go to the producer directly? What's a reasonable price? Am I being exploited when I buy an iphone? It's twice the price as an android phone for the same amount of material?
The fact is that the west at least is immensely wealthier than the 1800s and most of us don't build anything anymore. The most practical job I've had is serving drinks, which isnt exactly making things, and the chances are, you don't make anything either.
"No actual production is the dominant part of the real economy"
"You should not be using GDP or any monetary value at all to measure anything real. Behind it is the assumption that money is same as social or environmental value"
If you want to talk about the real economy, I'm going to (legitimately) talk about GDP. If you want to talk about some softer measure then fine let me know what that is, and I will bet now Luxembourg does better than the average.
The problem isn't that there isn't such a system the problem is how to implement the system without people who benefit from current system trying to destroy it. But we can extrapolate from the fact that even in the most ridiculously unfair conditions such systems have managed to feed people far better than any capitalist country in same or even comparable conditions.
"Imperialism was both normal and common worldwide throughout recorded history, the earliest examples dating from the mid-third millennium BC, diminishing only in the late 20th century."
I am not aware of any capitalists or corporations predating the Iron Age, but perhaps you can enlighten me there.
> Also capitalism implies imperialism, not the other way around.
I would disagree that capitalism implies imperialism, but let's put that aside. My claim was exactly that imperialism doesn't imply capitalism, so I guess we agree on that? Non-implication is not exclusion, mind you. The Soviet Union was imperialist, but not capitalist.
Having said, that, I'm sure there is a fruitless debate to be had with those Trotzkists that would claim that the Soviet Union was imperialist, capitalist and fascist[1].
[1] https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm
That's why Eastern Block suffered from food and other daily usage products shortage. In fact Russians suffered the same due to massive waste, economy inefficiencies, continuous arm race with the West and madman project like White Sea-Baltic channel (Belomorkanal), agriculture "inventions" by Lysenko and thousands of similarly idiotic ideas.