this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2026
961 points (99.3% liked)
Political Memes
12165 readers
2172 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow. That's... a lot. How long did it take you to write this, and why?
We live in a world of short-form communication. I'll be honest, I used an LLM to summarize what you wrote, not because I didn't try to read through it, but because I honestly couldn't fully understand the point you were trying to make.
After going through it, I think the core disagreement comes down to a misunderstanding of what scarcity means in an economic sense. Scarcity is not simply whether there are enough homes compared to the number of homeless people, or whether there is enough food or water in the world.
Scarcity is the reality that we have finite resources: energy, time, labor, money, materials, and production capacity. Every economic or political system, whether socialist, communist, capitalist, or authoritarian, has to decide how those limited resources are allocated. Some systems handle that allocation better than others, and some fail spectacularly, but the underlying issue of scarcity still exists.
I think what you're actually discussing is distribution and access to resources rather than scarcity itself. Those are related topics, but they are not the same thing.
I also have no idea why Epstein was brought up at the beginning of the response or how it connected to the argument being made.
If you'd like to continue the discussion, I would appreciate keeping the responses a little shorter and more focused so they're easier to engage with. I'm doing this entirely from my phone, and extremely long responses are difficult to work through.
The fact you cannot read 500+ words anymore, and have to rely on AI, tells me you are untrustworthy.
"Scarcity" means "a situation in which something is not easy to find or get" according to Cambridge University.
You don't read, you don't listen or hear to what people have to say or complain about. Why should we expect you to know what is the economical reality of people, if you don't even listen to them?
There is no scarcity. You couldn't even name a single one. There is enough food, electricity, water, housing and toys for everyone to live a happy life with dignity. But those above us are hoarding everything and it is not trickling down as Ronald Reagan promised everyone it would.
This is how much money Jeff Bezos had like 5 years ago, visualized for people who can't fathom how much a billion really is: https://eattherichtextformat.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ (if scrolling doesn't work, try your arrow keys). He has much more now, let alone Elon Musk, who is now a trillionaire.
The truth is, Capitalism is the worst solution for "scarcity," and to still support Capitalism, which is currently rewarding pedophiles and evil people exclusively, is going to become something of the past. You want people to keep supporting Capitalism so people like Jeffrey Epstein can stay in power and continue raping children? That's what Capitalism supporters are now, whether they like or not, it is what their actions are causing, directly or indirectly, no one cares anymore. People want Justice, and they can only get it through Socialism now.
Scarcity - as defined by economics
It is quite obvious that you do not fundamentally understand what you are talking about. You gave me the colloquial definition of scarcity as used by laypeople. In economics, however, scarcity has a much more specific definition.
Scarcity is not simply a comparison between how much of something exists and how many people want it. In your original example about there being more houses than homeless people, there is so much wrong with that premise that it is not even worth unpacking in a comment section. That example alone demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept.
Scarcity exists because the resources available on this planet are objectively finite. There is only a limited amount of resources that can be extracted, produced, or used at any given time. If we could somehow eliminate those limits, then scarcity would no longer exist.
Energy is a good example. There is a scarcity of energy on this planet. Not everyone has access to it, whether because of physical limitations, political constraints, insufficient infrastructure, or some combination of those factors. If we were able to provide effectively unlimited energy to everyone, then energy would no longer be scarce.
But since energy is limited, and because there is a significant global wealth gap, some people will inevitably go without while others enjoy an abundance.
My original comment was that I rarely engage with people on this topic when discussing economic systems like socialism because the nuances are often far beyond what they're prepared to discuss. This exchange is a perfect example of that.
You have added so much unrelated nonsense, a Gish gallop involving Jeff Bezos, Jeffrey Epstein, capitalism, socialism, and even something about pedophiles being rewarded. None of these points, subjects, or talking points are remotely connected to what I was saying in any way, shape, or form.
You're simply asserting that they're relevant and somehow support your argument, but they don't. They're unrelated distractions that do nothing to address the point I actually made.
More importantly, none of this has anything to do with socialism or capitalism. What exists in the United States today has, in many ways, evolved beyond traditional capitalism into a corporatocracy, a word I know you probably don't know the definition of.
Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with resolving the issues you've raised. Public ownership of the means of production has had its own massive problems throughout history, as evidenced by the many failed socialist states of the past, as well as those that still exist today. Those systems did nothing to solve the problems you're talking about and, in many cases, only exacerbated them.
Furthermore, I couldn't care less if you find me untrustworthy in every possible facet.
However, I do appreciate the length of your comment being manageable.