So, what you are saying is that it is not possible, under capitalism, to provide a solution for the problem that planned economy solves, and that, under capitalism, people will necessarily be tortured by being denied basic necessities like that. If so, I would argue that you are, indeed, correct.
Let me remind you that the problem in question was homelessness. Planned economy solve that problem by making it so that all economic agents (in this case we only care about one - the state) are interested in providing guaranteed housing.
As for running out of working-age people, planned economies have been able to provide favorable conditions to people having children and universal healthcare and guaranteed housing so that people don’t die simply because that would make some rich guy even richer.
There are plenty of capitalist nations providing favorable conditions to people having children, most of them in Europe. It doesn’t work because people don’t have a dozen children if they don’t need them as a retirement plan.
The problem behind homelessness in Finland, a nation that actually wants to do something about it, is the same as the problem behind retirement ages rising across Europe, etc. You’re talking about a nation that taxes the wealthy quite dearly. But if there aren’t enough workers, you have to pay the ones that do exist too much. A planned economy shuffles things around, but it doesn’t make these workers appear out of thin air.
No economic system fixes the fact that with every passing year, there are more people whose upkeep needs to be provided by yet fewer people. Not until most necessary jobs can truly be automated away, but the way things are going, nobody wants that anyway.
There are plenty of capitalist nations providing favorable conditions to people having children, most of them in Europe. It doesn’t work because people don’t have a dozen children if they don’t need them as a retirement plan.
Evidently not, especially if we don’t disregard the fact that those states never provided good living standards for the people they colonised.
Children are becoming much more of an economic burden, and people are being provided fewer and fewer resources to raise them.
The problem behind homelessness in Finland, a nation that actually wants to do something about it, is the same as the problem behind retirement ages rising across Europe, etc.
If retirement age was the sole barrier to providing guaranteed housing under capitalism, we would have witnessed capitalist guaranteed housing before. We didn’t.
You’re talking about a nation that taxes the wealthy quite dearly.
And yet, it still maintains a class of people whose existence is based on making the rest of society poorer.
A planned economy shuffles things around, but it doesn’t make these workers appear out of thin air.
And yet, planned economies have always featured long-term guaranteed housing, while no capitalist economies seem to have.
No economic system fixes the fact that with every passing year, there are more people whose upkeep needs to be provided by yet fewer people.
Are you saying that, for example, 200 years ago, there were more working-class people that were able to work than there are now? Or are low birth-rates something that can be avoided?
So, what you are saying is that it is not possible, under capitalism, to provide a solution for the problem that planned economy solves, and that, under capitalism, people will necessarily be tortured by being denied basic necessities like that. If so, I would argue that you are, indeed, correct.
Yes. It is not possible, under capitalism, to provide a solution for the problem that planned economy solves: Running out of working age people.
I’m not exactly sure how a planned economy solves it, but I guess you can explain that to me.
Let me remind you that the problem in question was homelessness. Planned economy solve that problem by making it so that all economic agents (in this case we only care about one - the state) are interested in providing guaranteed housing.
As for running out of working-age people, planned economies have been able to provide favorable conditions to people having children and universal healthcare and guaranteed housing so that people don’t die simply because that would make some rich guy even richer.
There are plenty of capitalist nations providing favorable conditions to people having children, most of them in Europe. It doesn’t work because people don’t have a dozen children if they don’t need them as a retirement plan.
The problem behind homelessness in Finland, a nation that actually wants to do something about it, is the same as the problem behind retirement ages rising across Europe, etc. You’re talking about a nation that taxes the wealthy quite dearly. But if there aren’t enough workers, you have to pay the ones that do exist too much. A planned economy shuffles things around, but it doesn’t make these workers appear out of thin air.
No economic system fixes the fact that with every passing year, there are more people whose upkeep needs to be provided by yet fewer people. Not until most necessary jobs can truly be automated away, but the way things are going, nobody wants that anyway.
Evidently not, especially if we don’t disregard the fact that those states never provided good living standards for the people they colonised.
Children are becoming much more of an economic burden, and people are being provided fewer and fewer resources to raise them.
If retirement age was the sole barrier to providing guaranteed housing under capitalism, we would have witnessed capitalist guaranteed housing before. We didn’t.
And yet, it still maintains a class of people whose existence is based on making the rest of society poorer.
And yet, planned economies have always featured long-term guaranteed housing, while no capitalist economies seem to have.
Are you saying that, for example, 200 years ago, there were more working-class people that were able to work than there are now? Or are low birth-rates something that can be avoided?
If you invest upfront, that investment, like not having to handle healthcare for all those homeless, returns dividents.