We unironically have to get rid of capitalism

i read your whole comment and it was dumb

stop sucking capitalist dicks you fucking faggot, till your mother is sold on the market as a cheap commodity that she is

>Fucktard: example post

Or invent ways to lower the cost of research

Can I buy user's mother futures?

Oh look, it's another "Veeky Forums bashes economics then proceeds to be fucking clueless when discussing it" episode

user's mom won't stop going down any time soon, so I wouldn't if I were you.

We unironically have to get rid of capitalism, and replace it with tribalism.

private enterprise and "rich people" are necessary so ventures can come from some place besides just the government. It's a necessary way to allocate resources.

The problem is you can't really replace capitalism globally without something like a benevolent AI overlord that just takes over everything. Humans in charge will end up using whatever you try to replace it with for their own benefit (especially on the scale you'd need it at, it has worked in small groups of selected people) and the proletariat will end up not working as hard as the ideal, so you'll get the downsides of communism without the upsides of it.

i don't retard. you are just jumping to conclusions because you only understand extremes

Oh the horror. Capitalism views people as commodities and not special snowflake crystal-tuned beings.

Still beats starving to death because said hippy shits are trying to de-industrialize farming and now the yield is 1% of last year.

>literally sucking capitalist dicks
>hurr durr you only understand extremes

are you retarded?

user will sell it to you for 10 cents

>Still beats starving to death

yeah no healthcare and 50 million poor starving americans despite having the highest gdp in the world is certainly the beacon of capitalism

>literally sucking capitalist dicks
>We unironically have to get rid of capitalism
those are both extremes. because i didn't agree with one you jump to the conclusion that i must agree with the other. that's why you're retarded. stay mad though

It's not for normies. It's for people trying to do important scientific work. And again, that's because those companies are paying through the nose.

It's not the research that's expensive. It's the fucking journals.

>anything but capitalism means shut down all industry

And replace it with what?

Literally. Anything.

Supercapitalism?

That's still capitalism.

Capitalism Xtreme?

>Calling yourself a scientist or engineer
> Not being a technocrat

youtube.com/watch?v=5bqPXqYWHlE

I think the problem comes from capitalism being applied to a market whose product is capable of being cheaply copied and redistributed. When no scarcity exists, the only way to make a profit is by creating artificial scarcity.

Are the people that provide content to the journals compensated for their contributions? No.

The youtube business model pays the content providers based on how many views the content attracts. The money comes from advertisers. There are no subscription fees.

Imagine if people had to pay to use youtube and the content providers had to pay to upload content while also not getting compensated for quality work. No sane person would agree to do this.

I could understand the journal model if some of the subscription fee cashflow was used to compensate the content providers.

Why are scientists cucking themselves?
Is it just a meme that has persisted from the days of paper and ink?

>When no scarcity exists, the only way to make a profit is by creating artificial scarcity.
scarcity always exists

>I think the problem comes from capitalism being applied to a market whose product is capable of being cheaply copied and redistributed.
like Cosmo or The Enquirer, right

>The youtube business model pays the content providers based on how many views the content attracts. The money comes from advertisers. There are no subscription fees.
They also lose money even with several orders of magnitude more customers.

The problem is that there aren't enough people to read these journals. Things in low demand can be very expensive to produce. This is true across all industries since you have to pay producers enough to convince them to not do something else, like work at McDonalds and collect welfare. (Only partially joking.)

>I could understand the journal model if some of the subscription fee cashflow was used to compensate the content providers.
This could definitely be done. Also reviewers could be compensated. This is not going to make it cheaper, because it is not going to increase demand. We don't have a supply problem we have a demand problem. Printing materials and distributing them is for all intents and purposes a "solved problem." That's why a paperback novel of several hundred pages is like $5, and the author actually gets paid.

We should replace finance capitalism with producer capitalism, nein?

I might be wrong, but i think the pay publishers asking for is justified because they do peer review.

Capitalism doesn't exist anywhere.

Chomsky pointed out last year that US system is a state-subsidized plutocrazy.

- The elite gets the riches while the taxpayers foot the bill.

Thats technically nothing like capitalism.

the publishers do nothing. the peer reviewers are all volunteers

oh, i thought they're getting paid to do that.

problem is with copyright law, it's absurdly long, should be a few years at the most

>When no scarcity exists

Better solution than creating an economy that cannot respond to supply changes: break up the partnerships between universities and journals that allow for journals to charges hundreds of dollars for a complete subscription. ArXiv is free and it does just fine.

...Dude.

That's not the problem. All research council / funding body grants and projects are post evaluated using metrics which take into account not only the number of publications, but also the 'quality of the journal', meaning that one publication in a good journal will ALWAYS trump 20 papers that have been put onto Arxiv (which doesn't feature peer-review as far as I know).

The authors themselves wouldn't give a shit about the journals, unfortunately their career depends on publishing in the expensive ones. My last publication fee for an open-access article was around 5000 pounds.

Why are you blaming the economic system instead of the actual motherfuckers that are trying to wreck your nation?

>motherfuckers
Do you need to swear?

>Do you need to swear?

hell yes.

uh oh it's the cuss police lmfaoooooo

this x1000

What's up this invasion of commietards lately?

Sci-hub is cool, in fact I'm the one who told you guys about it, but it's illegal as it should be. You're not entitled to anything, the fact that you think you are means you have an exaggerated feeling of self importance. And like I said before YOU STILL HAVE ACCESS TO IT so there's literally no reason for you to bitch. You can freeload, without being productive at all and you're STILL complaining.

But either way, politics belongs on /pol/ not Veeky Forums.

You clearly now nothing about economics so please stop embarrassing yourself.

This

>It's for people trying to do important scientific work
Ah you mean like sharing articles on /pol/ that "show" how inferior niggers are?
Anybody who does actual research already has access through their universities.

>scarcity always exists
If digital files can be scarce, piracy really is theft.

You're completely right, but you didn't say "Capitalism is perfect" so you're going to have to leave.

What is this fucking reddit

Being able to satisfy a want or need is not proof of a lack of scarcity.

There is a gap between "satisfaction of wants and needs" and "goods and services which would satisfy the aforementioned." Scarcity is this gap. If you want to download a "digital copy (not stealing because I define property in a totally different and fair way dude)" then you need
1) a computer
2) electricity
3) an internet connection
4) storage capacity
and so does whoever is holding onto the file (definitely legal because they define property in a totally novel way that's more philosophically sound than those stupid capitalists' greedy definition).

The fact that you can close this gap is not proof of a lack of scarcity.

Ah, the standard capitalist war cry "muh you don't anything about economics!" Actually, Marx predicted many of the things that are happening in capitalism now and capitalist economists policies that they won nobel prizes for have had disastrous consequences and directly led to the recession of 2008. I'll take science and reason over meme economics thank you very much.

Oh, those poor journals, having to host some small PDF files. They must be dying from how expensive bandwidth and storage are these days.

What does that have to do with anything?

we haven't lived under capitalism since FDR

>What's up this invasion of commietards lately?
It's called the skeptic movement, and it predates Veeky Forums.

It extends beyond OP's misgivings. It has turned humanity in soulless consumerists, destroying any notion or culture that diverges from this. It produces inferior people, science, technology, and planet. I don't really care about broad, emotive ethnical arguments. They're hollow. But inferiority in every aspect of everything...

having to buy stuff turns you into a soulless consumerist, so the government should buy it for you...?

it's not the issue of capitalism it's the issue of the government working for the benefit of corporations instead of the benefit of its citizens. fix corrupt government and the problems will cease

Let's just suspend copyright law for 20 years instead. Fuck science journals, fuck MSM, fuck Microsoft, fuck Hollywood, fuck the RIAA, and fuck you.

The government works for corporations because the government runs on tax dollars of corporations in order to pay for all the stuff commies and their ilk demand the government provide. When you have set up your society to depend on the existence of wealthy people then of course the government will serve and protect them.

I think the issue extends further than capitalism, and has more to do with the complexification of society due to societal, demographic and technological advancements.
The task of governement has become so complex that the role of society is to make sure everything doesn't explode, and in so tries to fit everyone in boxes so that they're easier to control within the system, within the rights it still has upon the citizens.
If you want to change society into something you deem more "humane", you don't have to "change" it, but rather to revert back to a previous state of development. Going into another economic model wont cut it if we still have to manage billions of people that have access to this level of information and so many ways to fuck things up.
You'd either have to cull the numbers of people, revert back to pre-information age or get rid of rights.

Copyright law should ONLY apply to people doing one of two things with someone else's work:

1: Trying to make money off of it
2: Claiming it as their own

THAT IS IT.

1: Peer-review is literally the cancer killing science and

2: Paywall journals are some of the most corrupt institutions in society and should be executed by firing squad.

You mean the capitalists? I thought I was.

...

It has everything to do with everything. Their ONLY SOLE excuse is to make a killing extorting educational institutions and scientists.

So I guess one of these scientists, physicists, or mathematicians should start their own journal and fix the problem. Since everyone is being extorted they'll happily switch over. What's the problem? Apparently it's dirt cheap to run a journal. So anyone could do it. Get cracking, user.

I think he's trying to say "hate the players not the game" as in it's not the system's fault, it's the bad people, which is dumb because there's always going to be bad people.

>copyright is crony capitalism
>patent trolling is crony capitalism
>planned obsolescence is crony capitalism
Is about time I say.

>The myth of volunteerism and easy overthrow of monopolies
Oh to be as delusional and naive as a libertarian!

That's exactly why you don't use systems that not only reward shitheads, but do so preferentially like the inverse meritocracy that is capitalism.

>overthrow monopolies
?????

>hey guise send me papers I'll publish them without charging
>ok here
FUCKING MONOPOLIES

I sell my Ju mother + whoever she wants to bring with her.

MAGNETIC MONOPHONIC CAPITALIST!

It's not exactly easy to get the reputation to make people who aren't paying for anything themselves care.

ty for speaking up for us. math and econ major here and the board makes me want to blow my brains out sometimes.

based

Tell me about it. I largely blame how economics is typically taught, but I've seen people on Veeky Forums just say plainly incorrect things while at the same time insisting that the whole field is either trivial or nonsense. It's quite sad and pretty frustrating

thebalance.com/top-sites-for-crowdfunding-scientific-research-985238

You can fund science right now.

All the most wealthy countries are capitalist.

better dead than red

Being skeptic is good, but I'm a bit skeptical about a skeptical 'movement'.

The "skeptic movement" isn't actually a movement for skeptics, it's just a different orthodoxy.

Knowledge should be a right, and not a privilege.
I'm entitled to the knowledge, and so is everybody else.
Fuck off you boot-licking scum.

>Knowledge should be a right, and not a privilege.
>I'm entitled to knowledge, and so is everyone else
>Fuck off you boot-licking scum
If you're entitled to the product of others' labor, you're the boot and he is the boot-licker, so your insult makes no sense and reveals your position to be at best incoherent and at worst intellectually bankrupt.

Easy to say for you, but even when you go to a good uni, you won't have access to every journal. I'm all for journals, but the prices have gotten so ridiculous and it's not benefiting anyone but the publishers. They don't give back the money they get, it's bullshit that you pay €50 for fucking 20 pages and it all goes to their pockets.
Scihub and libgen are godsend for everyone interested in science. I donate every month (and you do too if you're from yuropoor since it's grants/scholarship).

But they totally need that money to keep running! Don't you know how expensive bandwidth is these days, and how much they pay editors?

>you're the boot and he is the boot-licker
Only under capitalism.

No, under capitalism neither party is forced to interact due to "entitlements" so there is no boot.

That's right. In capitalism, the correct term is "getting fisted by the invisible hand".

"Entitlements" only exist under capitalism.
A laborer wouldn't have to be entitled under a communist economy.

Thanks for the gold my man.

>entitlements only exist under capitalism
>I'm entitled to the knowledge, and so is everybody else.

you guys sort it out among yourselves