Redacted

Its gameplay is similar to Vampire Survivors. I actually prefer it because it has more characters, upgrades and synergies.

You'll need to sign up for a new account on the other instance. I'd recommend you persevere with getting a lemmy.world one and use that as your main one. Keep the one you've got in case of an lemmy.world outage.

Content is generally shared amongst the main instances so you'll generally be able to see the same stuff wherever you create an account. Most of the Lemmy apps have multi-account functionality so you can add both.

Oops double posted for some reason, please ignore.

Ah ok cheers for the background, seems the meme checks out if that's its original definition.

The definition I was running with is this:

A political orientation originating in the 1960s, blending liberal political views with an emphasis on economic growth.

Emphasis on economic growth means inherently subscribed to capitalism, hence my top-centre interpretation.

To me neoliberal is half of top-left and half of top-right. The "centre-ground" and western status quo that think capitalism (regulated to varying degrees) will bring everyone in the world up to a decent standard of living eventually. I don't think either of the bottom quadrants have much of it going on.

Please correct me if you disagree though as I've just categorised a load of responses to my bottom-left outlook as neoliberal in a recent discussion.

Because workers don't receive what they put into the system in terms of effort. Profit must be made, which makes the workers unequal compared to capitalists that make the profit. Name one billionaire where their pay-to-effort ratio is worth that of say, a cleaner.

I think most "added value" is not worth as much as is made out when contrasted the amount of profit earned by shareholders.

I agree, complete equality is hardly possible but we're talking about vast wealth discrepancies which prop up the global capitalist system.

Genuinely surprised so many seemed to have missed my point here. Not sure if it's because it came across like I was supporting a conservative (I wasn't, just saying that their ideologies will always require some degree of inequality in wealth/happiness) or that there are more neolibrals on this sub than I assumed.

I agree but I don't understand what your point is?

Capitalism necessitates inequality in order for profit to be made.

If they get too expensive, another exploited country is needed.

That's my point.

Western countries had the fastest growth during those two decades due to a post-war boom. ie. Workers were glad they were no longer being sent to die and the future looked bright.

The study you linked isn't conclusive and even mentions in the abstract that different measures could yield different results.

The results it found might not hold true everywhere because it uses data from places where poverty is very high, meaning that the conclusions may not be as broadly applicable as they might seem at first glance.

This source, which I found searching for "inequality gdp growth", explores that further: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-59858-6_19

There are other issues with it surrounding data quality as there often are with economic studies and as such they shouldn't be held in the same regard as scientific ones.

But more fundamentally, capitalism works by paying workers less than the value of what they produce, thus extracting surplus value from their labour. That is what I was getting at with my original point.

Ok well I guess I disagree then. Look up countries that have experienced the most economic growth recently and they'll generally have fewer workers' rights, longer hours and worse working conditions.

Western countries that have the highest economic growth are either tax havens or have high quantities of fossil fuels. Both of these negatively impact others indirectly.

The key word is "enough". Most people in the world spend the majority of their lives working to make money for someone else in order to put food on the table.

More money means more time available to spend with their loved ones, from which happiness is derived as you say.

Because they'll spend their free time enjoying each other's company instead of buying things they don't need?!

Apologies, no context was provided so it seems I wrongly assumed it was related to quality of life in general, not social freedoms.

My bad, didn't appreciate it was referring to happiness in terms of social freedoms.

I meant for someone to have a good life without monetary worries on one side of the world it almost necessitates worse conditions elsewhere.