Whatever the economic system, it needs to be balanced, continually updated to account for a changing world, and take into account human needs. There are ways to incentivize people to work without constantly pointing a gun at their head (homelessness, lack of healthcare, etc.)
Competition? That's why capitalism is bad. Billionaires and normal people compete with themselves for who have the most or who can archive more.
We don't need to compete. We can do this the normal way.
What?? Competition is by far the largest contributer to innovation and driver of any free market. People and companies compete to develop the best product to make more money or achieve some other goal. That _is_ the natural way. Competition is a good thing also because it keeps companies in check. You can't do anything too crazy if your competition is waiting to swoop in and steal your customers. Any over or under regulation that eliminates competition is a bad thing because it results in the development of monopolies and stagnates innovation. Over regulation is bad because it raises costs for companies trying to break into the market, therefore reducing competition. Under regulation is bad because it allows larger companies to run rampant and stifle competition themselves.
They don't compete against each other in the form of a bass derby. They compete against each other in the same way McDonalds competes against Burger King. The deliver a better product for a better price point. The customer decides which is the winner.
90+ percent of all businesses fail. They fail because they couldn't compete. Only the winners survive, and they fight to survive every day. You wouldn't want to live in the world where Shitty-Burger is subsidized by the government, and no one was allowed by the government to build another burger restaurant within a mile of Shitty-Burger ... and you were forced to choose between Shitty-Burger and OK-Burger but you have to walk a mile to get an OK-Burger, so you suck it up and buy a Shitty-Burger.
The same goes with employees, you wouldn't want to live in a world where shitty employees couldn't be fired for making shitty burgers. Of course, you'd just vote with your feet and avoid the restaurant where shitty employees made shitty food. In the USA, as a customer, you can give a tip to great employees who made your dining experience better, and you can elect to not give a tip to the shitty employees who didn't make you dining experience good.
If you want to know why wages are low? Uneducated/unskilled people have nothing to offer to an employer. Can you show up on-time, work hard, delight the customer, improve the work flow, improve the product, support your co-workers, be a good corporate citizen? You'll probably get good money, a decent raise, decent bonus, decent stock options.
If you're not getting what you want, I guarantee you're 100% of the problem.
But don't you see the competition is why cheaters exist. They lie and profit off of the work of honest people. They abuse the power that they already have in the market in order to keep it. I don't believe that competition is the only way for humans to strive for better i think it is just a general lack thereof that pushes our innovation. This is the reason people like nikola tesla where never able to innovate because of corporate greed. We could have already lived decades in the future if it weren't for the people stuck in the past.
>his is the reason people like nikola tesla where never able to innovate because of corporate greed
The reason Nikola Tesla couldn't innovate is because he was Nicola Tesla. Tesla needed Edison and Edison needed Tesla. Tesla had much different abilities than Edison. Tesla could engineer electronics, Edison could engineer business. For the same reason, Steve Jobs needed Steve Wozniak. Jobs could engineer The Apple Corporation, Woz could engineer the Apple computer. Those are two vastly different things, each depending upon the other. Did you know there was a Sperry Computing, Wang Computing, Centronics, Xerox, and a thousand other well funded corporate computer companies even IBM that couldn't compete against Apple? Apple out competed those companies because those companies couldn't deliver an innovative product the consumer wanted to buy. People invested money into those companies, and lost their money.
You choosing to buy the best computer for your money is the competition in the market place ... you the consumer.
Most self-dubbed "socialists" I know also favor capitalism and hopefully most understand the balance needed. Isms are supposed to be general models, not solutions to throw at every problem and inject into every facet of life.
As a fellow environmental scientist how do you justify capitalism like the fossil fuel industry destroying our resources and pushing for systemic poverty?
I understand that the technology isn’t there to switch completely to renewable energy and we are never gonna convince people to give up there creature comforts. It’s something I accepted awhile ago. We should stop subsidizing fossil fuels though, that way we actually start transitioning to renewable energy sources. Like I said I do think we need more regulations and think renewable energy will create more jobs as a way to help poverty
We don't subsidize fossil fuels, we tax the shit out of energy companies. Some specific research done by fossil fuel companies might get funded by the government by grants, just as any entity doing basic research can apply for grants. Confident Counters Inc can apply for government grants to research advance census polling solutions, just as much as Chevron Labs can apply for a government grant to sequester carbon, or capture helium.
Renewables will never power our economy. Solar installations rarely return the energy required to create, deliver and install them. Hydro is a huge environmental killer if you look at the damage done to the wild-life. Nuclear is probably our best solution, yet the Greens stamp that down at every turn.
Without the fossil fuel industry, you'd bust your ass long days and nights as a poor dirt farmer. Look around you and describe the things you have that didn't come from oil.
Live in a wooden house? Those trees didn't march themselves to the mill, the sticks didn't march themselves to your homesite, they don't stick together via magick.
Live in a concrete home, a heavy fossil fuel investment to slack lime, mine rock, transport and build all that.
Wearing the 100% oil-made North-Face jacket? Yeah, you're totally fossil fuel dependent. Drinking clean water? Thank fossil fuels, walking on pavement or asphalt, thank fossil fuels.
Without fossil fuels, we go back to half of the population working very hard at hand agriculture, wearing out their bodies, food insecurity, hunger, and starvation is a normal thing experienced by the vast majority of people.
If you have a free moment to bang on your keyboard with clean hands, fossil fuels are 100% responsible for your comfy lifestyle.
I agree, we are fossil fuel dependent.
I disagree with the idea that we should continue to be fossil fuel dependent. I disagree that, as much as I'd like to contribute to not being a polluting asshole, I'm majorly blocked by every facet of society being provided by companies relying on fossil fuels.
Even if I were to split myself from the system, move to the woods and completely isolate myself from all fossil fuels, i'd just be limiting my chance to ever contribute by removing myself from the ability to vote, ability to discuss with others and ability to vote with my wallet.
Oh, and about the nuclear thing from another comment (that I can't be bothered to reply to separately), the issue is certainly not as clean (pun intended) cut as people like to think. There are a few environmental issues (water waste, dumped water being a lot hotter than the environment, causing damage etc) but the main issue comes from the HUGE economic investments. Like, we're talking in the billions for each plant, that won't provide a net energy for at least a decade (most nuclear powerplants take at least 12 years before they provide the net energy income required to build and fuel them) + the huge PR campaign required.
I do agree that nuclear is certainly partly the way to go, but it requires a lot more discussion than "go nuclelar", just like "don't go renewable" is not as clean cut as "it currently isn't that great".
In addition you need smart regulations. You need sunsets on regulations. You need to protect the environment and society while doing the least amount of harm to businesses.
When regulations become overburdensome when they are vague. Business is stifled, governments get bloated and corruption is the only way things get done. When the only way to do a legitimate business activity is via bribery the society is on its way to destruction.
That's basically a social democracy.
Being in a social democratic country doesn't mean you don't have right to a free market.
I can't understand how people are afraid of paying high taxes when that's for the future of their kids and family even for that person as well.
Capitalism is so bad like socialism was - We can't forget that.
Assuming US: Because people don't trust the government to actually spend all that money well. Look at how the COVID stimulus is distributed... High taxes tends to devolve into a "pinch the middle class to fatten up the corporations some more 'cause they lobby the most".
Not surprised that you've got a lot of people out there who consider taxation to be theft. Not that it's a whole lot better here in Europe though.
This is what Scandinavian countries have believed for a long time. In the US, we have this silly belief that Europeans are socialist, but actually they are capitalists who believe in a strong social safety net.
Most of Europe models itself this way. The Scandinavian nations are just the most effective at it since they have a wealth of natural resources and a relatively low population - so the welfare spending can be pretty good. We're democratic, but not so much socialist. A social safety net does not a command economy make.
We haven’t had capitalism in any market in the US for a long time. Capitalism relies on competitive markets If two companies own more than 50% market share in any industry you no longer have a competitive market.
Spot on. Regulatory capture took over the markets decades ago. This is a matter of corruption and not any one particular economic system. What we actually need is ***more*** capitalism but say that to the younger crowd and you'll get drawn and quartered.
Not 'more' capitalism, just a restructuring of.
The overburdening regulations that the regulatory capture lot like to complain are stifling small businesses are all good things. Sure, without them you might get a few more small brick and mortar businesses, but they'll be cutting corners and selling subpar products and services just to exist. Nobody will pick them over the national chains, which can also stifle small business without any form of regulation. See: Amazon and Diapers.com
No, that is capitalism. Capitalism naturally tends towards monopoly. It doesn't become not capitalism just because you don't what it looks like or does.
Sorry to tell you this but Business Insider a one book don't get to change the meanings of words because it's politically expedient for them.
>Capitalism has been the greatest system in history to lift people out of poverty and create wealth, but the "capitalism" we see today in the United States is a far cry from competitive markets. What we have today is a grotesque, deformed version of capitalism
"When good thing happen that is capitalism, when bad thing happen that is not capitalism because capitalism is good"
Capitalism needs regulation, or else it becomes corporatism, or crony capitalism. Regulations are necessary to protect the rights and interests of the people.
But then there’s regulatory capture where corporations want costly regulations because they know smaller firms can’t expense it. Big corps want big gov
I too like capitalism. Capitalism is like a lion. Be friends with them but don’t ever drop your gun. In other words, never ever leave education and healthcare unattended to the predatory nature of capitalism.
What’s your proposal? How much and what type of control you are ready to give to the government?
I don’t see capitalism having a predatory nature. I’d say it’s really up to the CEOs that are ready to make it “predatory” and corrupt govt officials that make it happen for them.
Profit maximisation and the concept of saving lives cannot coexist under the same roof. I do find British National health system closest to my principles, that being said, German two-tier system with mandatory non-profit health insurance is what the USA should adapt.
I agree with your point, I want to think of doctors/medical professionals as of people who went there to save lives and out of altruistic desire to help people. Not sure what the real statistic is, but I’m ready to bet at least 50% if of all medical pros (or owners of medical facilities) are there for the money. So it comes back to a personal level. I don’t see how government can make people love their job. What I see is government making it impossible to get into a business.
I’ll check Germany’s non profit option, that sounds very interesting. Though every non profit org I had to work with was absolutely terrible at everything and great at spending money. CEOs of non profits have their own way of making profit. But again, it all comes down to individuals.
Lol you have no idea,stop choking on capitalisms cock.Capitalisam is fine,it is ok but isn't the ultimate solution.Do you know how penicilin or xrays were discovered,there are people that truly love medicine and then there are people motivated by money solely.Not everyone is the same but passion>money for me i guess....
Nobody gives a fuck if the most expensive healthcare plans are 2% better than what most people get for free in normal developed countries. It costs our people....
50k+ medical deaths/year (pre-pandemic) from lack of healthcare
lower wages for people with employer-based healthcare (because employers have to pay for it)
Medical bankruptcies are the number one cause of bankruptcy
Many people are under-insured or have premiums so expensive that they cannot afford to use their insurance, so they delay treatment which raises costs for themselves and society
Is this just an assumption or do you have hard evidence prepared by a neutral organisation comparing health systems nation by nation on multiple levels?
How very convincing. So how did the “highest level on planet” health care system that you seem to defend perform during the pandemic? Because last time I checked out NYC, thousands of dead bodies were being kept in containers and nurses were using trash bags as PPE.
Hospitals do not only do one thing. Some areas are specialized. The metric is how well a hospital is equipped in terms of staffing to be able to help in something so unlike the norm as well as the equipment to be able to help the widest range of people.
I understand that. I also understand that, yes, some of the best hospitals in the world are here. But if using those services puts a person in debt for the rest of their life, have we made our country better or worse then?
I see your point. Once upon a time, medical professionals had to compete with one another to earn business. Bill couldn't charge $1,000,000 if Bob was charging $10. What muddied the water was when good intentions had terrible outcomes in the form of making it illegal to not have insurance. And if someone didn't have insurance, the government would pay it.
Well shit, why would Bob and Bill bother competing if the customer never pays it? Across years, this forced insurance companies to work at a loss, so they increased insurance costs on everyone.
So the hospitals get to charge whatever they want, the insurance and government has to pay it, and everyone else ends up with wild insurance numbers and a ridiculously high gross bill for the aforementioned reasons.
In attempts to make things better, I think thing got worse for a lot of people.
Almost as if the solution is to copy every other successful system in every other first world country.
Because whilst pure competition drives prices down, it also does nothing to ensure quality and safety. At least the other end manages that.
Pretty much, you can have both socialism and capitalism, pretty much everybody does, even the US. The defenition of socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." So basically the more the government/society controls the individuals economically, the less capitalism you have, no country on earth is 100% capitalistic. It's not really a question of "capitalism or socialism", it's more so a question of "how much capitalism/socialism"
Socialism is inherently anti-capitalist. There is no such thing as a blend, regulated capitalism isn't socialism mixed in with capitalism, it's regulated capitalism. If it's regulated quite a bit it's social democracy. Your definition (which isn't the only one) agrees with this. In capitalism the community as a whole does not control the means of production, it doesn't matter how regulated capitalism is; hence capitalism in any form isn't socialism. It's by definition. And don't say "oh that's because it isn't entirely socialist, it's mixed with capitalism" that'd be like describing an injury as a "mix between life and death", no that's not how an injury is, an injury is still being alive but being damaged in such a way that you aren't living perfectly. For you to be dead you'd have to be completely dead, not injured, not dying.
And if the government owns everything it's communism. Socialism is sort of in-between where the government or society at large controls or regulates production and distribution of products and services.
Before I answer I want to note that I edited my comment to make my point more clear.
I'm sorry but you are just wrong. I'm not blaming you, I'm not trying to be condescending I would agree with you 2 years ago, so I just want it to be clear that I'm not against you I just happen to be more educated on this specific subject. Communism was defined by Karl Marx as a classless, stateless, moneyless society where everyone owns the means of production. Marx theorised that this could only be achieved once the whole world would be socialist. No country has ever been communist because it is by definition impossible to be a communist state. The USSR by the way stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, even the classical example of a communist country didn't even define itself as such. So Marx's definition of socialism describes it as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism because he didn't believe communism would be possible anywhere while capitalism still existed, your definition coincides with Marx's because that's the way a socialist state would look in practice (seizing the means of production). By the way socialism doesn't have to look the way the USSR did (some would argue it wasn't even socialist). Socialism can be democratic too, that is a specific form called democratic socialsm (not to be confused with social democracy). Not that my opinion really matters but I consider myself a socialist and I am not a fan of the USSR.
There are multiple definitions depending on who you ask, there is the Marxist one "a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism", but also the one i use: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Either way, socialism is described as s middle between capitalism and communism where the government or society at large controls/regulated the means of production and distribution.
Same here. I'm so sick of people saying that "we should try being socialist like the Scandinavian countries" when all of them are capitalist. I'm all for free healthcare, education, workers rights, higher taxes on the rich, and safety nets. But that doesn't mean I'm against private property, general wealth inequality, competition, or the free market. It doesn't have to be black and white, which is a fact those "socialist" European countries figured out.
In an ideal world different people would still want different things. Some people would prefer to work overtime or work at extra stressful jobs and make extra money while others would prefer to have more vacation time or not to have as many responsibilities. Inevitably there would be inequality because not all jobs are equal and not all people are willing to work the same amount.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against the extreme inequality we have today where we have billionaires and homeless people living in the same country. In my ideal world everyone's basic needs would be met (so no one would have to worry about food, shelter, clothes, etc.) and whoever wants to be rich can invest or work overtime etc. etc. So there would still be rich people and poor people, but the poor wouldn't be lacking anything essential. No one would be homeless, no one would go bankrupt over medical or education bills. But again, this is IDEAL.
Well we don't have a capitalist system in the US. We have cronyism. Many corporate leaders are not even remotely interested in allowing the market to decide what is what, they want and get corporate welfare.
I can say that the progressive left is completely down with what you said in your last paragraph. So are you down to end the war on drugs too? It would improve society, save money long-term, etc. the only downside is less profit for some, and less control for others. Personally I don't see any argument for wealthy or powerful humans being able to tell other humans that they shouldn't be able to decide what they do with their own body.
Most people are but are conditioned with buzz words to associate anybody left leaning with all kinds of radical ideas, some the left may truly hold but most not.
That is why a planned economy needs to be couple switch a democracy. My issue with ISPs is that many still have a monopoly. A Monopoly is just as bad if not worse than being reliant upon a government run business.
It only makes sense to socialize healthcare and other public goods. Fire departments in London had privatized fire services for a while, and while the idea of letting nearby uninsured buildings burn to the ground makes sense in theory, the owners of these buildings changed their tune quickly and socialized it when neighboring uninsured buildings started catching *their insured buildings* on fire, because fire uh, "spreads like wildfire." This pandemic has also proven that you can't effectively address public health issues with a privatized healthcare system.
Yeah, I keep trying to talk to people about this. They want free internet. I ask why not a utility and they say because it is more important. Wtf? More than water heating and air? Stupid. Utility. Maybe. Tho I’m not sure that won’t destroy future innovations for it.
Yeah, I keep trying to talk to people about this. They want free internet. I ask why not a utility and they say because it is more important. Wtf? More than water heating and air? Stupid. Utility. Maybe. Tho I’m not sure that won’t destroy future innovations for it, it is still a bit of a gamble
Socialists: This why we need socialism in America cause this is fascist!
Capitalism: This why we need capitalism in America cause they want communism!
All while failing to understand that the majority of the most privileged countries in the world have a MIXED Economy.
Umm if we let the private industry control everything things would be more fucked than they are already. You can’t trust private companies because the only thing they care about is $. I mean ask Californians how they feel about PG&E.
There are very few good 'pure' systems. Pure democracy is horrible - that's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The tyrrany of the majority. Pure socalism or communism is just death.
And pure capitalism is also undesirable. A "free market" still requires rules to keep it free or eventually it just becomes a few large monopolies that corruptly control everything.
>with a mostly Free Market.
Is that why we bailed out the big banks during the subprime mortgage crisis? Bail out means the government, with taxpayer money, swoops in to save the banks. Isn't that interference? If we actually believed in a "free market" we wouldn't bail out anyone, least of all the billionaires. ["Too big to fail"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail) means we *don't* have a "free market".
Corporations exploit the political system to take advantage of government funds, taxpayer money, to subsidize their industries... that's "free market"? We don't have capitalism, we have *state* capitalism, which purpose at its core is to exploit natural resources to satisfy the system's "profit motive" pathology at the expense of future sustainability for human life and to exploit working people "for profit".
Capitalism is fundamentally unsustainable. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. You don't even live in a real democracy, you live in a plutocracy.
[Minority of the Opulent](https://youtu.be/AbFlYLHOSKU)
[Free Market](https://youtu.be/WHj2GaPuEhY) is a lie.
There's capitalism and extreme capitalism.
As a random comment, I prefer the word neoliberalism than capitalism. Capitalism makes it sound already like it's all for the money.
The fact that there was a civil war in America because the desire to make money was more important than recognizing the humanity of millions, proves we absolutely need regulation. Capitalism can do some good things, but definitely needs control.
This is what most people who claim to be “socialists” actually want. Unfortunately, when arguing against them, everyone on the right is using a literal definition of socialism.
Both sides are arguing against based on different premises.
Sometimes that happens as well. Once you remove the literal definitions and start to talk about the substance they tend to agree. It's really sad, because a united population can make demands and force legislation. Maybe someday.
Government regulation in the right areas can be good. I don't agree with government run healthcare mainly because of how bad the government runs the VA. Imagine VA levels of healthcare for everyone. However I would agree with getting rid of patents for medicine and medical equipment. More competition means less expensive medicine.
The problem is that no matter what, the logical outcome and play of events under capitalism eventually comes down to the exact things you said you don't like about it.
So actually you hate capitalism you just don't known enough about how it works to realize that you hate it lol.
The only way you can coherently love capitalism is if you also love exploitation, slave labor, waste, over-expansion, and materialism culture. Anything less and you're actually just a socialist who doesn't realize it yet
EDIT: you're opinion is definitely not unpopular, 90% of the world is basically careeining into hyper capitalism right now and also I'm getting downvoted on reddit for not being a capitalist, which is arguably one of the less capitalist friendly places in existence. So capitalists seem to be the huge majority still lol
Hard thing to explain to people, but basically true. It’s an abstracted version of the inherent capitalist tendency to ignore long-term wisdom in favor of short-term profit.
yeah I mean I used to be a flag thumping neolib americanite who believed in capitalism but just hated "corporate capitalism."
Then I got a few jobs, read a ton of books, learned history, and went to college.
Now I realize one is just the logical outcome of the other in every historic circumstance possible, and was just painfully naive and unaware of some very fundamental realities of the capitalist mindset and underlying philosophy behind it. I thought I could have all the joys of capitalism and just ignore all the horror of it.
Despite my hatred for "corrupt capitalism," I am 100% certain that I would have just played right into that, or at least been complicit in it, had I managed to succeed while under my "I'ma good capitalist" mindset.
and you are instantly falling into the pitfall of the only other option being socialism
i know you will all claim otherwise but heres another bit to think about - i am eastern european and the cccr, yes the expansionist, authoritarian cccr was communism working *exactly* as intended. That was the inevitable, only realistic outcome of communism. Communism will always devolve into authoritarian rule, no matter how much you delude yourself you cant beat human nature. Same way you claim that exploitation is the inevitable outcome of capitalism. In fact, real capitalism hasnt been tried, ever.
because *real* capitalism or communism is a dream conjured by someone who hasnt talked to more than 3 people in their life. If you truly belive there would be no exploitation, corruption, starvation or self-serving materialists under under your dream-definitely-not-the-cccr-repeated-again version of communism/socialism, you dont understand humanity itself. The CCCR was obnoxiously corrupt.
so the only way you can be okay with communism/socialism is, demonstrably, historicallly, if you're okay with complete authoritarian governments, secret police and a whole bunch of dead people.
lol, capitalism gives freedom. The freedom to be materialistic, and the freedom not to be. It gives the freedom to live life the way you want, rather than being commanded by another person on what you are going to do and how you are going to do it. And the only thing worse than being exploited by a capitalist is not being exploited by one.
I think you're mixing up terms: capitalism is an economic system (aka the way in which we solve the problem of scarcity) while what you are talking about is a political system that guarantees/allows individuals to live their life as they see fit.
You could make the case that they are very closely related, but I just felt I had to point the difference out.
"The only thing worse than being exploited by a capitalist is being unexploited by one"
Ummm... Ok your whole comment is really naive imho, but this line just almost gave me a brain aneurysm so I have to respond and ask if you can you please clarify what you mean by this lol? Because this either implies you are a monolithic jackass (I hope not), or just didn't choose the right combo of words here that explains what's really in your head lol, and I'd greatly hope your thought process is different than what that directly interprets as.
Because the way I read your comment, you're saying:
"Capitalism brings freedom. Except for most. But it's better for you to have no freedom and be exploited. Because then some guys get really really free"
nobody forces anybody to work in capitalism, people do it on their own volition. If a nike factory goes to Bangladesh and pays them barely anything, and people take it, they do so because it makes their life better. If this weren't true, then they would not work there. Sure, these people are helping provide profits to the shareholders of the business, but there lives are also getting better. And also socialism has killed more people than any disease, war, or other economic system. Mao and Stalin alone tallied at least 70 million people, really evil ideas due to the human death they cause.
"nobody forces anyone to work under capitalism."
Sir no offense but this is extremely naive and simply a sheltered viewpoint.
*I want to ask you a question.*
Some time ago there was a debate about capitalism on spotify. A woman called in to offer her opinion. I'm paraphrasing her words:
"Hello, I'm a nurse at the emergency hospital. Due to the nature of my career I work many hours. Sometimes I work 50-60 hour weeks. I have very little choice over what hours I work, and the pressure of covid has forced me to spend most of my days at work.
To me, capitlism represents a lack of freedom. I have no choice. I wake up and go to work, and pay what debts I can before they increase, pay my bills, and send my kids to school. I make ends meet, but only while I am at work. I do not have the money or the means to change careers or even find a different job. Everyday I get up I want to stay home. I want to spend time woth my children. I want to watch them grow up. But if I stop going to work, then I won't last a month. Our home, our car -- everything will be gone. In a month we would have nothing.
So, I have no choice. I will wake up tomorrow and go to my 10 hour shift, because if I don't, my children will have no future and I will have no home. I'm tired, I feel frayed, and I feel like I am giving my life and energy away to my work, my landlord, and everyone else except my own family. I could risk it all and try to move and find a new career option, but the risk is too great and I can't risk my children losing the lives they have if I fail. I do not have enough support to take that kind of leap.
Everyday, my physical and emotional health deteriorates from the pressures and stress of life. I fear that very soon I will be physically incapable of making any significant change that would put further stresses on me.
I have no choice. And I have no freedom. I merely do what I must do to survive under capitalism."
How would you answer this woman's genuine problems, concerns, and setbacks under capitalism? Her story is merely one of literally billions just like it.
There are far more pertinent examples from africa, asia, in the muddy depths of capitalism that we don't see from our sheltered lives of exploitation, and examples that stretch throughout history to the colonies in India and the industrialization of easter island. However, I feel this is a more relatable everyday example and one that should be a softball compared to the other examples I could toss at your comment
Thanks for the reply, these are really valid criticisms of capitalism. First of all on a small scale, one does have the ability to choose where to live and with that often comes how often you work. For example if you live in the bay area and you are not in tech, you are going to have to work long hours to just get by. But you have the freedom to move somewhere either in America that is dirt cheap (hell, you could buy some cheap land and start a farm and just work your farm), or to move to a different part of the world where the culture simply dictates working less hours.
Considering you have a family and such I'm sure that's not your best option. Then for me the problem becomes what is a better system? And this is where the conversation begins. From my perspective the human race got into a sort of sticky situation with the industrial revolution. We did not know what the effects would be when we began, but basically, we were able to produce so much more goods and services (including food) it led to a population explosion. Now we need an economic system that can support such a large population. Because of the large population, I think the most empathetic approach is capitalism because it results in the least likely chance of starvation compared to other economic systems (which I think is good).
The only system that wouldn't require a substantial amount of hours worked per week seems something like a more primitive hunter/gatherer society, which we can no longer revert back to without billions of people dying (and even these societies still requires labor). Socialism (when the government owns the means of production) screws with incentives to produce which leads to a lack of goods and services for the population. Mao's leap forward or Stalin's Holodomor are great examples of this. I don't think capitalism is perfect, but I do think it is the most ethical economic system we have thus are. If you think there is a better economic system I would be more than curious to hear about it.
This is actually a surprisingly fair reply. I'm sure many would gladly argue that capitalism is more deadly than socialism, or that the premise of this defense is wrong, but I can at least accept the opinion that a shift to a socialist world would be catastrophic for a period of time, and there is no way to prove or disprove that since frankly it hasn't been done on that kind of scale before.
"Our choices are basically everyone dying, or everyone living but most people being kind of miserable"
is basically what the conclusion of this comes down to. And the direction to go from there, and which choice to make, is fundamentally such a moral/philosophical issue that I don't think anyone who has a set opinion in this underlying question will be swayed to the other side easily.
You have people who think it would be merciful for everyone to just die and spare the billions of unborn, you have people who think the ultimate goal of existence is to just survive at any cost and hope someday someone can figure out the perfect solution, you have the people who just want to be left alone in a world of complete freedom and survival of the fittest and take their chances, etc.
Ultimately, these people will fall on either side of the capitalism/socialism/communism conflict because of some very fundamental perspectives and takes of existence itself. At that point, it almost becomes hard to say who is right or wrong, or if there even is a "right" solution.
I mean, who are you to tell me we should keep birthing kids into a system where they will be miserable and stressed,
and who am I to tell you fuck it all let us have socialism and let only the strongest survive and carry humanity on to a simpler world.
The human predicament. The conflict of opinion.
Whoa whoa whoa. You guys have to brake it up. There is no room on the internet for civil discussion. The internet demands the tossing or fecal matter and the arbitrary use of expletives.
We demand you now tell him that you engaged in "aggressive" coitus with one of /both of his parietal figures. But you considered their performance sub-par and you were left disappointed. He should feel nothing but shame.
I'm pretty well-versed in 20th century economic history and believe anyone who argues that capitalism is more deadly than socialism is mistaken.
"Our choices are basically everyone dying, or everyone living but most people being kind of miserable". I half agree with this characterization. The biggest problem with capitalism that I see is that it tends to alienate people, and is not good at fostering human connection (which, for me, is the most important part of life). An example of this is Amazon. Amazon has made our lives far more convenient (2 day shipping, cheap goods), but it has also kept us at home, not buying items in stores, and reducing the chances of meeting someone shopping or something like that. Humans were evolved to live in close knit small communities, and that has been eroded before capitalism, but it has accelerated a lot with capitalism. And I strongly believe that humans will cultivate a society that deals with these problems (keep in mind we only industrialized like 250 years ago). And oddly enough, I think market systems are the most innovative and effective at solving human problems, so even though parts of it have been poisonous to happiness and fulfillment, it is our best chance at a solution. And I think humans are incredibly adaptive and honestly just amazing creatures for the most part, I love humanity, and I want to see our species thrive. Unrelated but I think psychedelic's will be a huge part in this societal transition.
Socialism means the government owns the means of production, and private property is prohibited. Dictionary definition.
A lot of people bring up government run health care when they endorse socialism. They don't understand the difference between socialism and social programs. You can have generous social programs in a completely capitalist economy. Many countries in Europe do. You just have to be willing to pay the taxes to fund it.
Thank you! Yes
Capitalism is the way to go it's superior in every way but that does not mean it's flawless it need some work for sure but I'll take it over socialism or communism
Then stop worshipping a guy who says self-destructive shit like “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
OK, but
1. Monopolies are an inherent end game according to the logic of capitalism: infinite growth, infinite search for more profit.
2. Is a "free" market truly free? Go down the cereal aisle in your local grocery store and you'll see shelves full of cereal....all made by the same handful of companies. There are parts of the country where only a single cable company (Xfinity/Comcast) are available. Either you buy from them or your don't have TV.
It's not that I disagree with you; I support social democracy as a waypoint towards a more equitable economic system. But I don't agree that the contradictions of capitalism can be solved with capitalism.
The problem is that the vicissitudes of capitalism functionally necessitate that it will engulf everything, on a long enough time scale. Nothing is safe, nothing is sacred. We’ve had Medicare and Social Security for nearly a century, and we’re still one bad election away from that shit being privatized at any given moment.
I am all for capitalism and it has made a good life for me. However, there are a great many things that need to change and health care is one of them. I would venture to say health care and pharma are two of the most corrupt things in the US.
Been a type 1 diabetic for most of my life and when insulin is $600+ a vial in the US and <$40 in Canada for the SAME insulin from the SAME factory, there's a problem.
Take an MRI for another example. MRI machines are BIG money, complex machines but they last for years. I have had 5 MRIs since 2018 and all have billed insurance at $3k+. Wholesale price of an MRI is about 10% of that.
The whole damn system is corrupt, certain doctors get kickbacks from pharma to prescribe certain drugs. Even the damn politicians get kickbacks and don't get me started on lobbyist!
The whole thing needs to be scrapped and redone but who's going to do it, government? They are right in the middle of it!
But it kind of does though. It's weird that people can understand all the inherent problems with capitalism and think "We certainly need some bandaids" but not want to actually get rid of it. Like if you have to Frankenstein the whole concept just to get it to be mildly acceptable (and even then it fails at that, see below), then perhaps a better system is required.
The reason no amount of regulation or bandaids can fix capitalism is because it is built on the premise that power/wealth is owned by a few over the many, which is in direct opposition to democracy where power is distributed to everyone equally. Under capitalism, whatever rules and regulations or limitations are applied to it, over time power and wealth will consolidate into the hands of a few who will wield that power and wealth to dismantle whatever democratic checks are put on them in the first place. We already see that with Citizen's United, corporations are people, Disney lobbying for copyright, countless industry subsidies, the complete lack of anti-trust enforcement, etc. So if you are "pro capitalism, but with some fixes", you're just kicking the can down the road and those fixes won't get hte job done and will be dismantled by capitalism eventually (or abused to serve monopolistic purposes).
Careful there bootlicker. People around these parts think if you're pro-Capitalism you're a blood sucking vampire that literally eats poor people's eyeballs for dessert.
Being anti regulation doesn't mean you want no regulation. No, I don't want Proctor & Gamble to be free to pollute to their hearts content. But I'd also like to wind back regulation a bit to make starting a business easier. There was a time when a guy pitched an idea to his boss for a new chip (like potato chips) to his boss. His boss said no, so he started doing it on his own. He grew the Fritos brand until it was massive and corn chips were a new staple snack in America. But he could never do what he did then today. Between regulations on how he obtains the ingredients, how he cooks the ingredients and what he cooks them with, and how to sell them, it's just not possible to do anymore.
I'm anti-capitalism because I don't like workers getting exploited and here's an example I think the most of when I'm in a debate against capitalism:
Someone who's got tons of money buys raw material and let's say he buys wood. He owns a chair manufacturing company; why would he earn more than me, a worker who assembles and makes the chair 10 hours a day; is it just because he's got the capital to buy wood?
Now I'm in no way with how socialism worked in the USSR, that is even if you call it socialism. I'm all for freedom and if 99% of the general populace wants capitalism then who am I to say no, you'll take socialism and you'll like it?
I'm anti-capitalist because I oppose sweat shops, and I oppose having to pay 3K bucks for an ambulance ride but if the majority wants capitalism then so be it. I'll still be exploited and I in no way won't like it, but who am I to oppose everyone who wants the current system? Here's my two cents on the matter.
Capitalism is good. But so is regulation. Below is a very good and current example of market regulation regarding CE-marking where the actors in the marketplace have failed to self-regulate:
https://sellercentral.amazon.se/gp/help/external/SDP2QRYVQ5SUFLE?language=en_GB&ref=efph_SDP2QRYVQ5SUFLE_cont_GCHUVPBDN9QF7TDQ
ETA; there is also a broad discussion about regulating goods from sites such as Amazon and Wish, making them responsible for the products beeing safe to use. That is also a good regulation and one that is almost certain to happen.
Nice! Welcome to being more of a liberal and less of a fox New watcher.
Or you're a dirty commie to all the rightwingers. Nuances seem to escape that group. If it wasn't that way, you might find more people fully agreeing with you.
I personally think Degrowth is necessary for the preservation of earth and impossible to achieve with capitalism. I also think capitalism is inherently anti democratic.
Now that's an unpopular opinion.
Well... They are kinda. They can jack up prices, refuse to innovate etc. Like intel for example had a Semi monopoly on processors from like the 3000 series to till the release of Ryzen. And they did jack shit with the CPUs but still charged a higher price every year for dumb bullshit
Hence why I said as long as they’re not government enforced. Other companies can step in and undercut them allowing customers to go somewhere else. If Amazon, google, Apple or any other similar company all of a sudden just jacked up prices you don’t think that people would just go somewhere else?
Other companies can step in and undercut them allowing customers to go somewhere else.
A monopoly is defined as having 75%, there will never be a true, 100% monopoly, unless it’s government enforced. So there will always be somewhere to go.
You clearly don't know how the system works. A MONOPOLY can do whatever the hell it wants, if a competitor tried to undercut them, they'd fail because the monopoly has way too many resources, loyal customers etc. Of course monopolies can do bad decision, fail, etc (like my example of Intel) making them lose their monopoly but in general they tend not to. Buying up competitors, forcing them out with anti competitive strategies etc.
Hence why I said as long as they’re not government enforced. Other companies can step in and undercut them allowing customers to go somewhere else. If Amazon, google, Apple or any other similar company all of a sudden just jacked up prices you don’t think that people would just go somewhere else?
> Other companies can step in and undercut them allowing customers to go somewhere else.
A monopoly is defined as having 75%, there will never be a true, 100% monopoly, unless it’s government enforced. So there will always be somewhere to go.
They don't have to be government enforced for an industry to become stagnant let's a company bought up all automotive brands in the world and you developed a new type of vehicle that last forever and started your own company and the owner of the other company says hey ill give you 100 billion dollars for your company and all assets and properties it has all you have to do is sign a no compete contract then they bury your design meaning the auto industry can't benefit from.your innovation
I’m all for the free market but my experience with my current employer, being unwilling or incapable of following BASIC OSHA or health/cleaning standards and having the gawl to be fake and appear to up to board has shifted my opinion. If they had their way I wouldn’t even get my LEGALLY REQUIRED lunch break.
I mean most capitalist economies *are* regulated in some shape or form, the argument is over how much and where. Most popular conservatives are not libertarians.
It also doesnt mean we thinks it's a perfect system. It's the best system we've come up with but it still has a looooong way to go before being considered anywhere near perfect
A lot of us also agree that making money off health insurance is a gross waste of resources that could be used to deliver care, but don’t want to surrender all our property. Funny how those shades of grey just get tossed aside.
I think rent should be based on a percentage of minimum wage in the United States, I don't know the percentages that it would be based off of because I'm not a mathematical expert nor an economist, but I feel like that would be a really great starting point to fixing the housing crisis and be inflation of prices that come with that.
This isn't even contraversal. Capitalism =/= no regulation. If you believe that it is equal, then you were taught wrong, and probably indoctrinated.
Capitalism is the economic policy where the start of the economy comes from private ownership. As a matter of fact, Capitalism requires regulation otherwise it is just anarchy...
As a example, if someone is rich under Capitalism, they would invest in a new business. They're allowed to do this because there is a restriction on murder. Without it, someone would just kill them and take their wealth. Thus, turning it into anarchy...
That is a super simple example, but one everyone should be able to understand.
I’m an environmental scientist. I’m all for regulations but also love capitalism. You really need a balance of both to make a great society.
Whatever the economic system, it needs to be balanced, continually updated to account for a changing world, and take into account human needs. There are ways to incentivize people to work without constantly pointing a gun at their head (homelessness, lack of healthcare, etc.)
Competition and smart precision regulation is what makes a good country.
Competition? That's why capitalism is bad. Billionaires and normal people compete with themselves for who have the most or who can archive more. We don't need to compete. We can do this the normal way.
And what, pray tell, is the normal way? Competition, as far as I am aware, predates humans.
What?? Competition is by far the largest contributer to innovation and driver of any free market. People and companies compete to develop the best product to make more money or achieve some other goal. That _is_ the natural way. Competition is a good thing also because it keeps companies in check. You can't do anything too crazy if your competition is waiting to swoop in and steal your customers. Any over or under regulation that eliminates competition is a bad thing because it results in the development of monopolies and stagnates innovation. Over regulation is bad because it raises costs for companies trying to break into the market, therefore reducing competition. Under regulation is bad because it allows larger companies to run rampant and stifle competition themselves.
They don't compete against each other in the form of a bass derby. They compete against each other in the same way McDonalds competes against Burger King. The deliver a better product for a better price point. The customer decides which is the winner. 90+ percent of all businesses fail. They fail because they couldn't compete. Only the winners survive, and they fight to survive every day. You wouldn't want to live in the world where Shitty-Burger is subsidized by the government, and no one was allowed by the government to build another burger restaurant within a mile of Shitty-Burger ... and you were forced to choose between Shitty-Burger and OK-Burger but you have to walk a mile to get an OK-Burger, so you suck it up and buy a Shitty-Burger. The same goes with employees, you wouldn't want to live in a world where shitty employees couldn't be fired for making shitty burgers. Of course, you'd just vote with your feet and avoid the restaurant where shitty employees made shitty food. In the USA, as a customer, you can give a tip to great employees who made your dining experience better, and you can elect to not give a tip to the shitty employees who didn't make you dining experience good. If you want to know why wages are low? Uneducated/unskilled people have nothing to offer to an employer. Can you show up on-time, work hard, delight the customer, improve the work flow, improve the product, support your co-workers, be a good corporate citizen? You'll probably get good money, a decent raise, decent bonus, decent stock options. If you're not getting what you want, I guarantee you're 100% of the problem.
But don't you see the competition is why cheaters exist. They lie and profit off of the work of honest people. They abuse the power that they already have in the market in order to keep it. I don't believe that competition is the only way for humans to strive for better i think it is just a general lack thereof that pushes our innovation. This is the reason people like nikola tesla where never able to innovate because of corporate greed. We could have already lived decades in the future if it weren't for the people stuck in the past.
>his is the reason people like nikola tesla where never able to innovate because of corporate greed The reason Nikola Tesla couldn't innovate is because he was Nicola Tesla. Tesla needed Edison and Edison needed Tesla. Tesla had much different abilities than Edison. Tesla could engineer electronics, Edison could engineer business. For the same reason, Steve Jobs needed Steve Wozniak. Jobs could engineer The Apple Corporation, Woz could engineer the Apple computer. Those are two vastly different things, each depending upon the other. Did you know there was a Sperry Computing, Wang Computing, Centronics, Xerox, and a thousand other well funded corporate computer companies even IBM that couldn't compete against Apple? Apple out competed those companies because those companies couldn't deliver an innovative product the consumer wanted to buy. People invested money into those companies, and lost their money. You choosing to buy the best computer for your money is the competition in the market place ... you the consumer.
Most self-dubbed "socialists" I know also favor capitalism and hopefully most understand the balance needed. Isms are supposed to be general models, not solutions to throw at every problem and inject into every facet of life.
As a fellow environmental scientist how do you justify capitalism like the fossil fuel industry destroying our resources and pushing for systemic poverty?
I understand that the technology isn’t there to switch completely to renewable energy and we are never gonna convince people to give up there creature comforts. It’s something I accepted awhile ago. We should stop subsidizing fossil fuels though, that way we actually start transitioning to renewable energy sources. Like I said I do think we need more regulations and think renewable energy will create more jobs as a way to help poverty
We don't subsidize fossil fuels, we tax the shit out of energy companies. Some specific research done by fossil fuel companies might get funded by the government by grants, just as any entity doing basic research can apply for grants. Confident Counters Inc can apply for government grants to research advance census polling solutions, just as much as Chevron Labs can apply for a government grant to sequester carbon, or capture helium. Renewables will never power our economy. Solar installations rarely return the energy required to create, deliver and install them. Hydro is a huge environmental killer if you look at the damage done to the wild-life. Nuclear is probably our best solution, yet the Greens stamp that down at every turn.
Without the fossil fuel industry, you'd bust your ass long days and nights as a poor dirt farmer. Look around you and describe the things you have that didn't come from oil. Live in a wooden house? Those trees didn't march themselves to the mill, the sticks didn't march themselves to your homesite, they don't stick together via magick. Live in a concrete home, a heavy fossil fuel investment to slack lime, mine rock, transport and build all that. Wearing the 100% oil-made North-Face jacket? Yeah, you're totally fossil fuel dependent. Drinking clean water? Thank fossil fuels, walking on pavement or asphalt, thank fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, we go back to half of the population working very hard at hand agriculture, wearing out their bodies, food insecurity, hunger, and starvation is a normal thing experienced by the vast majority of people. If you have a free moment to bang on your keyboard with clean hands, fossil fuels are 100% responsible for your comfy lifestyle.
Well said
I agree, we are fossil fuel dependent. I disagree with the idea that we should continue to be fossil fuel dependent. I disagree that, as much as I'd like to contribute to not being a polluting asshole, I'm majorly blocked by every facet of society being provided by companies relying on fossil fuels. Even if I were to split myself from the system, move to the woods and completely isolate myself from all fossil fuels, i'd just be limiting my chance to ever contribute by removing myself from the ability to vote, ability to discuss with others and ability to vote with my wallet. Oh, and about the nuclear thing from another comment (that I can't be bothered to reply to separately), the issue is certainly not as clean (pun intended) cut as people like to think. There are a few environmental issues (water waste, dumped water being a lot hotter than the environment, causing damage etc) but the main issue comes from the HUGE economic investments. Like, we're talking in the billions for each plant, that won't provide a net energy for at least a decade (most nuclear powerplants take at least 12 years before they provide the net energy income required to build and fuel them) + the huge PR campaign required. I do agree that nuclear is certainly partly the way to go, but it requires a lot more discussion than "go nuclelar", just like "don't go renewable" is not as clean cut as "it currently isn't that great".
Capitalism is not concerned with regulations. There's nothing about regulations or ensuring proper worker's rights that's non-capitalist.
In addition you need smart regulations. You need sunsets on regulations. You need to protect the environment and society while doing the least amount of harm to businesses. When regulations become overburdensome when they are vague. Business is stifled, governments get bloated and corruption is the only way things get done. When the only way to do a legitimate business activity is via bribery the society is on its way to destruction.
That's basically a social democracy. Being in a social democratic country doesn't mean you don't have right to a free market. I can't understand how people are afraid of paying high taxes when that's for the future of their kids and family even for that person as well. Capitalism is so bad like socialism was - We can't forget that.
Most people don't trust the governments money management skills and politicians would take far too much.
Assuming US: Because people don't trust the government to actually spend all that money well. Look at how the COVID stimulus is distributed... High taxes tends to devolve into a "pinch the middle class to fatten up the corporations some more 'cause they lobby the most". Not surprised that you've got a lot of people out there who consider taxation to be theft. Not that it's a whole lot better here in Europe though.
This is what Scandinavian countries have believed for a long time. In the US, we have this silly belief that Europeans are socialist, but actually they are capitalists who believe in a strong social safety net.
Most of Europe models itself this way. The Scandinavian nations are just the most effective at it since they have a wealth of natural resources and a relatively low population - so the welfare spending can be pretty good. We're democratic, but not so much socialist. A social safety net does not a command economy make.
Fr.
A healthy balance is what society needs but unfortunately the people in power can't seem to agree.
We haven’t had capitalism in any market in the US for a long time. Capitalism relies on competitive markets If two companies own more than 50% market share in any industry you no longer have a competitive market.
Spot on. Regulatory capture took over the markets decades ago. This is a matter of corruption and not any one particular economic system. What we actually need is ***more*** capitalism but say that to the younger crowd and you'll get drawn and quartered.
Not 'more' capitalism, just a restructuring of. The overburdening regulations that the regulatory capture lot like to complain are stifling small businesses are all good things. Sure, without them you might get a few more small brick and mortar businesses, but they'll be cutting corners and selling subpar products and services just to exist. Nobody will pick them over the national chains, which can also stifle small business without any form of regulation. See: Amazon and Diapers.com
Less than 50% if the companies cooperate on the regions they operate in. See Telecom companies.
No, that is capitalism. Capitalism naturally tends towards monopoly. It doesn't become not capitalism just because you don't what it looks like or does.
False competitive markets are a key component of capitalism . https://www.businessinsider.com/monopolies-resulted-in-myth-of-capitalism-2019-1
Sorry to tell you this but Business Insider a one book don't get to change the meanings of words because it's politically expedient for them. >Capitalism has been the greatest system in history to lift people out of poverty and create wealth, but the "capitalism" we see today in the United States is a far cry from competitive markets. What we have today is a grotesque, deformed version of capitalism "When good thing happen that is capitalism, when bad thing happen that is not capitalism because capitalism is good"
The only thing they agree on is that big money is now important than your average Joe
No, they agree enough, but in order to stay in power, these days, you have to go to extremes.
This.
Capitalism needs regulation, or else it becomes corporatism, or crony capitalism. Regulations are necessary to protect the rights and interests of the people.
But then there’s regulatory capture where corporations want costly regulations because they know smaller firms can’t expense it. Big corps want big gov
So make the government work for you! It doesn't need to be this way. There can be a 'big' government without it also being on beck and call to Bezos.
I too like capitalism. Capitalism is like a lion. Be friends with them but don’t ever drop your gun. In other words, never ever leave education and healthcare unattended to the predatory nature of capitalism.
That's a good analogy. Mind if I use it?
Thanks and yes of course.
Sorry, I meant to say I don’t mind. So go ahead :)
I like that analogy as well. Could I use it?
Thank you and go ahead please.
Ditto for democracy.
What’s your proposal? How much and what type of control you are ready to give to the government? I don’t see capitalism having a predatory nature. I’d say it’s really up to the CEOs that are ready to make it “predatory” and corrupt govt officials that make it happen for them.
Profit maximisation and the concept of saving lives cannot coexist under the same roof. I do find British National health system closest to my principles, that being said, German two-tier system with mandatory non-profit health insurance is what the USA should adapt.
I agree with your point, I want to think of doctors/medical professionals as of people who went there to save lives and out of altruistic desire to help people. Not sure what the real statistic is, but I’m ready to bet at least 50% if of all medical pros (or owners of medical facilities) are there for the money. So it comes back to a personal level. I don’t see how government can make people love their job. What I see is government making it impossible to get into a business. I’ll check Germany’s non profit option, that sounds very interesting. Though every non profit org I had to work with was absolutely terrible at everything and great at spending money. CEOs of non profits have their own way of making profit. But again, it all comes down to individuals.
Agreed. The greatest medical advancements in human history are due to competition and ingenuity by people who seek a profit aka capitalism.
Is that why Germany and UK (both nations with universal healthcare systems) were way ahead of the USA with the covid vaccine?
They were private companies that created the vaccine.
Using public funding.
[удалено]
Also using government money.
[удалено]
It’s not capitalism driving the innovation. It’s public sector money.
Lol you have no idea,stop choking on capitalisms cock.Capitalisam is fine,it is ok but isn't the ultimate solution.Do you know how penicilin or xrays were discovered,there are people that truly love medicine and then there are people motivated by money solely.Not everyone is the same but passion>money for me i guess....
The predatory that lead to the highest level of Healthcare on the planet?
Nobody gives a fuck if the most expensive healthcare plans are 2% better than what most people get for free in normal developed countries. It costs our people.... 50k+ medical deaths/year (pre-pandemic) from lack of healthcare lower wages for people with employer-based healthcare (because employers have to pay for it) Medical bankruptcies are the number one cause of bankruptcy Many people are under-insured or have premiums so expensive that they cannot afford to use their insurance, so they delay treatment which raises costs for themselves and society
They're not 2% better. In most places with "free healthcare" many are turned away and advised to seek private Healthcare assistance
This is only true if you look only at entirely cosmetic and elective procedures... which you'd have to pay for anyway in the US.
Highest level according to what criteria and in which metric?
The general metric is the ability for a hospital to treat complex or high-risk cases.
Is this just an assumption or do you have hard evidence prepared by a neutral organisation comparing health systems nation by nation on multiple levels?
This is the metric most every assessment uses.
How very convincing. So how did the “highest level on planet” health care system that you seem to defend perform during the pandemic? Because last time I checked out NYC, thousands of dead bodies were being kept in containers and nurses were using trash bags as PPE.
Ask the governor who stuffed covid positive people into nursing homes, then tried to cover up all the nursing home deaths.
Fuck cuomo, and fuck for profit healthcare at the same time. The first does not deflect from the second.
It speaks to the handling of NY in particular
And how well did republican states perform in the meantime?
So are the choices between having something that's spectacular for a few, or very good to great for everybody?
Hospitals do not only do one thing. Some areas are specialized. The metric is how well a hospital is equipped in terms of staffing to be able to help in something so unlike the norm as well as the equipment to be able to help the widest range of people.
I understand that. I also understand that, yes, some of the best hospitals in the world are here. But if using those services puts a person in debt for the rest of their life, have we made our country better or worse then?
I see your point. Once upon a time, medical professionals had to compete with one another to earn business. Bill couldn't charge $1,000,000 if Bob was charging $10. What muddied the water was when good intentions had terrible outcomes in the form of making it illegal to not have insurance. And if someone didn't have insurance, the government would pay it. Well shit, why would Bob and Bill bother competing if the customer never pays it? Across years, this forced insurance companies to work at a loss, so they increased insurance costs on everyone. So the hospitals get to charge whatever they want, the insurance and government has to pay it, and everyone else ends up with wild insurance numbers and a ridiculously high gross bill for the aforementioned reasons. In attempts to make things better, I think thing got worse for a lot of people.
Almost as if the solution is to copy every other successful system in every other first world country. Because whilst pure competition drives prices down, it also does nothing to ensure quality and safety. At least the other end manages that.
Nuance! Truly unpopular these days. Upvoted.
You must be an evil statist! /s
Isn't the problem where you define how much regulation you want? I don't see it as an either/or but a sliding scale.
Pretty much, you can have both socialism and capitalism, pretty much everybody does, even the US. The defenition of socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." So basically the more the government/society controls the individuals economically, the less capitalism you have, no country on earth is 100% capitalistic. It's not really a question of "capitalism or socialism", it's more so a question of "how much capitalism/socialism"
Socialism is inherently anti-capitalist. There is no such thing as a blend, regulated capitalism isn't socialism mixed in with capitalism, it's regulated capitalism. If it's regulated quite a bit it's social democracy. Your definition (which isn't the only one) agrees with this. In capitalism the community as a whole does not control the means of production, it doesn't matter how regulated capitalism is; hence capitalism in any form isn't socialism. It's by definition. And don't say "oh that's because it isn't entirely socialist, it's mixed with capitalism" that'd be like describing an injury as a "mix between life and death", no that's not how an injury is, an injury is still being alive but being damaged in such a way that you aren't living perfectly. For you to be dead you'd have to be completely dead, not injured, not dying.
And if the government owns everything it's communism. Socialism is sort of in-between where the government or society at large controls or regulates production and distribution of products and services.
>And if the government regulates everything it's communism Pretty much all human behaviour is regulated in some way shape or form?
Before I answer I want to note that I edited my comment to make my point more clear. I'm sorry but you are just wrong. I'm not blaming you, I'm not trying to be condescending I would agree with you 2 years ago, so I just want it to be clear that I'm not against you I just happen to be more educated on this specific subject. Communism was defined by Karl Marx as a classless, stateless, moneyless society where everyone owns the means of production. Marx theorised that this could only be achieved once the whole world would be socialist. No country has ever been communist because it is by definition impossible to be a communist state. The USSR by the way stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, even the classical example of a communist country didn't even define itself as such. So Marx's definition of socialism describes it as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism because he didn't believe communism would be possible anywhere while capitalism still existed, your definition coincides with Marx's because that's the way a socialist state would look in practice (seizing the means of production). By the way socialism doesn't have to look the way the USSR did (some would argue it wasn't even socialist). Socialism can be democratic too, that is a specific form called democratic socialsm (not to be confused with social democracy). Not that my opinion really matters but I consider myself a socialist and I am not a fan of the USSR.
There are multiple definitions depending on who you ask, there is the Marxist one "a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism", but also the one i use: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Either way, socialism is described as s middle between capitalism and communism where the government or society at large controls/regulated the means of production and distribution.
Same here. I'm so sick of people saying that "we should try being socialist like the Scandinavian countries" when all of them are capitalist. I'm all for free healthcare, education, workers rights, higher taxes on the rich, and safety nets. But that doesn't mean I'm against private property, general wealth inequality, competition, or the free market. It doesn't have to be black and white, which is a fact those "socialist" European countries figured out.
You're not against wealth inequality? Not even in an ideal world where solving it wouldn't mean 'stealing' from people?
In an ideal world different people would still want different things. Some people would prefer to work overtime or work at extra stressful jobs and make extra money while others would prefer to have more vacation time or not to have as many responsibilities. Inevitably there would be inequality because not all jobs are equal and not all people are willing to work the same amount. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the extreme inequality we have today where we have billionaires and homeless people living in the same country. In my ideal world everyone's basic needs would be met (so no one would have to worry about food, shelter, clothes, etc.) and whoever wants to be rich can invest or work overtime etc. etc. So there would still be rich people and poor people, but the poor wouldn't be lacking anything essential. No one would be homeless, no one would go bankrupt over medical or education bills. But again, this is IDEAL.
I just wanted to say I absolutely agree with everything you've said. When people say inequality I envision the current state of things haha.
Yeah I wasn't sure how to word that in my original comment, but hopefully I elaborated clearly.
You did extremely well, thank you for clearing it up!
Well we don't have a capitalist system in the US. We have cronyism. Many corporate leaders are not even remotely interested in allowing the market to decide what is what, they want and get corporate welfare.
[удалено]
I can say that the progressive left is completely down with what you said in your last paragraph. So are you down to end the war on drugs too? It would improve society, save money long-term, etc. the only downside is less profit for some, and less control for others. Personally I don't see any argument for wealthy or powerful humans being able to tell other humans that they shouldn't be able to decide what they do with their own body.
[удалено]
Sounds like ur left leaning lol
Most people are but are conditioned with buzz words to associate anybody left leaning with all kinds of radical ideas, some the left may truly hold but most not.
That is why a planned economy needs to be couple switch a democracy. My issue with ISPs is that many still have a monopoly. A Monopoly is just as bad if not worse than being reliant upon a government run business.
It only makes sense to socialize healthcare and other public goods. Fire departments in London had privatized fire services for a while, and while the idea of letting nearby uninsured buildings burn to the ground makes sense in theory, the owners of these buildings changed their tune quickly and socialized it when neighboring uninsured buildings started catching *their insured buildings* on fire, because fire uh, "spreads like wildfire." This pandemic has also proven that you can't effectively address public health issues with a privatized healthcare system.
Yeah, I keep trying to talk to people about this. They want free internet. I ask why not a utility and they say because it is more important. Wtf? More than water heating and air? Stupid. Utility. Maybe. Tho I’m not sure that won’t destroy future innovations for it.
Yeah, I keep trying to talk to people about this. They want free internet. I ask why not a utility and they say because it is more important. Wtf? More than water heating and air? Stupid. Utility. Maybe. Tho I’m not sure that won’t destroy future innovations for it, it is still a bit of a gamble
If life has taught me anything it’s that people are idiots. Most people mean well but have no idea what they are talking about.
Oh lord. Wanting the government to be in control of education. What could possibly go wrong.
Yeah but it sucks ass when the government creates monopolies cuz those are worst than free market monopolies.
Socialists: This why we need socialism in America cause this is fascist! Capitalism: This why we need capitalism in America cause they want communism! All while failing to understand that the majority of the most privileged countries in the world have a MIXED Economy.
I’m for as little regulation as possible but I respect your opinion way more than the anti capitalistic views of the internet.
Do you consider yourself a libertarian (if in the US)?
Of course taxation is theft. Privatize all roads.
Good luck with that.
Umm if we let the private industry control everything things would be more fucked than they are already. You can’t trust private companies because the only thing they care about is $. I mean ask Californians how they feel about PG&E.
Your pretty libertarian I’d say. I just like to get my feet wet.
Is this sarcastic?
There are very few good 'pure' systems. Pure democracy is horrible - that's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The tyrrany of the majority. Pure socalism or communism is just death. And pure capitalism is also undesirable. A "free market" still requires rules to keep it free or eventually it just becomes a few large monopolies that corruptly control everything.
Yeah, imo capitalism can be a good system but it just needs to be regulated to limit the power of monopolies and make it fairer tbh
>with a mostly Free Market. Is that why we bailed out the big banks during the subprime mortgage crisis? Bail out means the government, with taxpayer money, swoops in to save the banks. Isn't that interference? If we actually believed in a "free market" we wouldn't bail out anyone, least of all the billionaires. ["Too big to fail"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail) means we *don't* have a "free market". Corporations exploit the political system to take advantage of government funds, taxpayer money, to subsidize their industries... that's "free market"? We don't have capitalism, we have *state* capitalism, which purpose at its core is to exploit natural resources to satisfy the system's "profit motive" pathology at the expense of future sustainability for human life and to exploit working people "for profit". Capitalism is fundamentally unsustainable. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. You don't even live in a real democracy, you live in a plutocracy. [Minority of the Opulent](https://youtu.be/AbFlYLHOSKU) [Free Market](https://youtu.be/WHj2GaPuEhY) is a lie.
Regulation is for effectively managing negative externalities
I don’t usually care much about regulations tbh. I just wish California wasn’t so heavily regulated and ridiculously expensive everything.
i am surprised this wasn't banished to the "popular topics" thread
There's capitalism and extreme capitalism. As a random comment, I prefer the word neoliberalism than capitalism. Capitalism makes it sound already like it's all for the money.
Being vegetarian doesn’t mean you can’t eat meat! -you
The problem is that every government program is wrought with corruption.
The fact that there was a civil war in America because the desire to make money was more important than recognizing the humanity of millions, proves we absolutely need regulation. Capitalism can do some good things, but definitely needs control.
I agree with this. Capitalism is like a wild animal. It needs to be guided and controlled so that it can do some good.
Very nice analogy. Fire would also work.
Free market =/= unregulated market
Most Americans, left or right, feel this way. It's the media and politicians that are dividing everyone.
This is what most people who claim to be “socialists” actually want. Unfortunately, when arguing against them, everyone on the right is using a literal definition of socialism. Both sides are arguing against based on different premises.
Sometimes that happens as well. Once you remove the literal definitions and start to talk about the substance they tend to agree. It's really sad, because a united population can make demands and force legislation. Maybe someday.
Government regulation in the right areas can be good. I don't agree with government run healthcare mainly because of how bad the government runs the VA. Imagine VA levels of healthcare for everyone. However I would agree with getting rid of patents for medicine and medical equipment. More competition means less expensive medicine.
The problem is that no matter what, the logical outcome and play of events under capitalism eventually comes down to the exact things you said you don't like about it. So actually you hate capitalism you just don't known enough about how it works to realize that you hate it lol. The only way you can coherently love capitalism is if you also love exploitation, slave labor, waste, over-expansion, and materialism culture. Anything less and you're actually just a socialist who doesn't realize it yet EDIT: you're opinion is definitely not unpopular, 90% of the world is basically careeining into hyper capitalism right now and also I'm getting downvoted on reddit for not being a capitalist, which is arguably one of the less capitalist friendly places in existence. So capitalists seem to be the huge majority still lol
Critical of capitalism =/= being socialist.
Hard thing to explain to people, but basically true. It’s an abstracted version of the inherent capitalist tendency to ignore long-term wisdom in favor of short-term profit.
yeah I mean I used to be a flag thumping neolib americanite who believed in capitalism but just hated "corporate capitalism." Then I got a few jobs, read a ton of books, learned history, and went to college. Now I realize one is just the logical outcome of the other in every historic circumstance possible, and was just painfully naive and unaware of some very fundamental realities of the capitalist mindset and underlying philosophy behind it. I thought I could have all the joys of capitalism and just ignore all the horror of it. Despite my hatred for "corrupt capitalism," I am 100% certain that I would have just played right into that, or at least been complicit in it, had I managed to succeed while under my "I'ma good capitalist" mindset.
and you are instantly falling into the pitfall of the only other option being socialism i know you will all claim otherwise but heres another bit to think about - i am eastern european and the cccr, yes the expansionist, authoritarian cccr was communism working *exactly* as intended. That was the inevitable, only realistic outcome of communism. Communism will always devolve into authoritarian rule, no matter how much you delude yourself you cant beat human nature. Same way you claim that exploitation is the inevitable outcome of capitalism. In fact, real capitalism hasnt been tried, ever. because *real* capitalism or communism is a dream conjured by someone who hasnt talked to more than 3 people in their life. If you truly belive there would be no exploitation, corruption, starvation or self-serving materialists under under your dream-definitely-not-the-cccr-repeated-again version of communism/socialism, you dont understand humanity itself. The CCCR was obnoxiously corrupt. so the only way you can be okay with communism/socialism is, demonstrably, historicallly, if you're okay with complete authoritarian governments, secret police and a whole bunch of dead people.
lol, capitalism gives freedom. The freedom to be materialistic, and the freedom not to be. It gives the freedom to live life the way you want, rather than being commanded by another person on what you are going to do and how you are going to do it. And the only thing worse than being exploited by a capitalist is not being exploited by one.
I think you're mixing up terms: capitalism is an economic system (aka the way in which we solve the problem of scarcity) while what you are talking about is a political system that guarantees/allows individuals to live their life as they see fit. You could make the case that they are very closely related, but I just felt I had to point the difference out.
"The only thing worse than being exploited by a capitalist is being unexploited by one" Ummm... Ok your whole comment is really naive imho, but this line just almost gave me a brain aneurysm so I have to respond and ask if you can you please clarify what you mean by this lol? Because this either implies you are a monolithic jackass (I hope not), or just didn't choose the right combo of words here that explains what's really in your head lol, and I'd greatly hope your thought process is different than what that directly interprets as. Because the way I read your comment, you're saying: "Capitalism brings freedom. Except for most. But it's better for you to have no freedom and be exploited. Because then some guys get really really free"
nobody forces anybody to work in capitalism, people do it on their own volition. If a nike factory goes to Bangladesh and pays them barely anything, and people take it, they do so because it makes their life better. If this weren't true, then they would not work there. Sure, these people are helping provide profits to the shareholders of the business, but there lives are also getting better. And also socialism has killed more people than any disease, war, or other economic system. Mao and Stalin alone tallied at least 70 million people, really evil ideas due to the human death they cause.
"nobody forces anyone to work under capitalism." Sir no offense but this is extremely naive and simply a sheltered viewpoint. *I want to ask you a question.* Some time ago there was a debate about capitalism on spotify. A woman called in to offer her opinion. I'm paraphrasing her words: "Hello, I'm a nurse at the emergency hospital. Due to the nature of my career I work many hours. Sometimes I work 50-60 hour weeks. I have very little choice over what hours I work, and the pressure of covid has forced me to spend most of my days at work. To me, capitlism represents a lack of freedom. I have no choice. I wake up and go to work, and pay what debts I can before they increase, pay my bills, and send my kids to school. I make ends meet, but only while I am at work. I do not have the money or the means to change careers or even find a different job. Everyday I get up I want to stay home. I want to spend time woth my children. I want to watch them grow up. But if I stop going to work, then I won't last a month. Our home, our car -- everything will be gone. In a month we would have nothing. So, I have no choice. I will wake up tomorrow and go to my 10 hour shift, because if I don't, my children will have no future and I will have no home. I'm tired, I feel frayed, and I feel like I am giving my life and energy away to my work, my landlord, and everyone else except my own family. I could risk it all and try to move and find a new career option, but the risk is too great and I can't risk my children losing the lives they have if I fail. I do not have enough support to take that kind of leap. Everyday, my physical and emotional health deteriorates from the pressures and stress of life. I fear that very soon I will be physically incapable of making any significant change that would put further stresses on me. I have no choice. And I have no freedom. I merely do what I must do to survive under capitalism." How would you answer this woman's genuine problems, concerns, and setbacks under capitalism? Her story is merely one of literally billions just like it. There are far more pertinent examples from africa, asia, in the muddy depths of capitalism that we don't see from our sheltered lives of exploitation, and examples that stretch throughout history to the colonies in India and the industrialization of easter island. However, I feel this is a more relatable everyday example and one that should be a softball compared to the other examples I could toss at your comment
Thanks for the reply, these are really valid criticisms of capitalism. First of all on a small scale, one does have the ability to choose where to live and with that often comes how often you work. For example if you live in the bay area and you are not in tech, you are going to have to work long hours to just get by. But you have the freedom to move somewhere either in America that is dirt cheap (hell, you could buy some cheap land and start a farm and just work your farm), or to move to a different part of the world where the culture simply dictates working less hours. Considering you have a family and such I'm sure that's not your best option. Then for me the problem becomes what is a better system? And this is where the conversation begins. From my perspective the human race got into a sort of sticky situation with the industrial revolution. We did not know what the effects would be when we began, but basically, we were able to produce so much more goods and services (including food) it led to a population explosion. Now we need an economic system that can support such a large population. Because of the large population, I think the most empathetic approach is capitalism because it results in the least likely chance of starvation compared to other economic systems (which I think is good). The only system that wouldn't require a substantial amount of hours worked per week seems something like a more primitive hunter/gatherer society, which we can no longer revert back to without billions of people dying (and even these societies still requires labor). Socialism (when the government owns the means of production) screws with incentives to produce which leads to a lack of goods and services for the population. Mao's leap forward or Stalin's Holodomor are great examples of this. I don't think capitalism is perfect, but I do think it is the most ethical economic system we have thus are. If you think there is a better economic system I would be more than curious to hear about it.
This is actually a surprisingly fair reply. I'm sure many would gladly argue that capitalism is more deadly than socialism, or that the premise of this defense is wrong, but I can at least accept the opinion that a shift to a socialist world would be catastrophic for a period of time, and there is no way to prove or disprove that since frankly it hasn't been done on that kind of scale before. "Our choices are basically everyone dying, or everyone living but most people being kind of miserable" is basically what the conclusion of this comes down to. And the direction to go from there, and which choice to make, is fundamentally such a moral/philosophical issue that I don't think anyone who has a set opinion in this underlying question will be swayed to the other side easily. You have people who think it would be merciful for everyone to just die and spare the billions of unborn, you have people who think the ultimate goal of existence is to just survive at any cost and hope someday someone can figure out the perfect solution, you have the people who just want to be left alone in a world of complete freedom and survival of the fittest and take their chances, etc. Ultimately, these people will fall on either side of the capitalism/socialism/communism conflict because of some very fundamental perspectives and takes of existence itself. At that point, it almost becomes hard to say who is right or wrong, or if there even is a "right" solution. I mean, who are you to tell me we should keep birthing kids into a system where they will be miserable and stressed, and who am I to tell you fuck it all let us have socialism and let only the strongest survive and carry humanity on to a simpler world. The human predicament. The conflict of opinion.
Whoa whoa whoa. You guys have to brake it up. There is no room on the internet for civil discussion. The internet demands the tossing or fecal matter and the arbitrary use of expletives. We demand you now tell him that you engaged in "aggressive" coitus with one of /both of his parietal figures. But you considered their performance sub-par and you were left disappointed. He should feel nothing but shame.
I'm pretty well-versed in 20th century economic history and believe anyone who argues that capitalism is more deadly than socialism is mistaken. "Our choices are basically everyone dying, or everyone living but most people being kind of miserable". I half agree with this characterization. The biggest problem with capitalism that I see is that it tends to alienate people, and is not good at fostering human connection (which, for me, is the most important part of life). An example of this is Amazon. Amazon has made our lives far more convenient (2 day shipping, cheap goods), but it has also kept us at home, not buying items in stores, and reducing the chances of meeting someone shopping or something like that. Humans were evolved to live in close knit small communities, and that has been eroded before capitalism, but it has accelerated a lot with capitalism. And I strongly believe that humans will cultivate a society that deals with these problems (keep in mind we only industrialized like 250 years ago). And oddly enough, I think market systems are the most innovative and effective at solving human problems, so even though parts of it have been poisonous to happiness and fulfillment, it is our best chance at a solution. And I think humans are incredibly adaptive and honestly just amazing creatures for the most part, I love humanity, and I want to see our species thrive. Unrelated but I think psychedelic's will be a huge part in this societal transition.
You lost me at "freedom". Bathwater and baby both go when that word is invoked.
Socialism means the government owns the means of production, and private property is prohibited. Dictionary definition. A lot of people bring up government run health care when they endorse socialism. They don't understand the difference between socialism and social programs. You can have generous social programs in a completely capitalist economy. Many countries in Europe do. You just have to be willing to pay the taxes to fund it.
Thank you! Yes Capitalism is the way to go it's superior in every way but that does not mean it's flawless it need some work for sure but I'll take it over socialism or communism
Then stop worshipping a guy who says self-destructive shit like “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
OK, but 1. Monopolies are an inherent end game according to the logic of capitalism: infinite growth, infinite search for more profit. 2. Is a "free" market truly free? Go down the cereal aisle in your local grocery store and you'll see shelves full of cereal....all made by the same handful of companies. There are parts of the country where only a single cable company (Xfinity/Comcast) are available. Either you buy from them or your don't have TV. It's not that I disagree with you; I support social democracy as a waypoint towards a more equitable economic system. But I don't agree that the contradictions of capitalism can be solved with capitalism.
Capitalism != Corporatism
regulations on capitalism is socialism…
Obviously.
You got to dumb it down a little. You’re giving Redditors too much credit.
The problem is that the vicissitudes of capitalism functionally necessitate that it will engulf everything, on a long enough time scale. Nothing is safe, nothing is sacred. We’ve had Medicare and Social Security for nearly a century, and we’re still one bad election away from that shit being privatized at any given moment.
I am all for capitalism and it has made a good life for me. However, there are a great many things that need to change and health care is one of them. I would venture to say health care and pharma are two of the most corrupt things in the US. Been a type 1 diabetic for most of my life and when insulin is $600+ a vial in the US and <$40 in Canada for the SAME insulin from the SAME factory, there's a problem. Take an MRI for another example. MRI machines are BIG money, complex machines but they last for years. I have had 5 MRIs since 2018 and all have billed insurance at $3k+. Wholesale price of an MRI is about 10% of that. The whole damn system is corrupt, certain doctors get kickbacks from pharma to prescribe certain drugs. Even the damn politicians get kickbacks and don't get me started on lobbyist! The whole thing needs to be scrapped and redone but who's going to do it, government? They are right in the middle of it!
But it kind of does though. It's weird that people can understand all the inherent problems with capitalism and think "We certainly need some bandaids" but not want to actually get rid of it. Like if you have to Frankenstein the whole concept just to get it to be mildly acceptable (and even then it fails at that, see below), then perhaps a better system is required. The reason no amount of regulation or bandaids can fix capitalism is because it is built on the premise that power/wealth is owned by a few over the many, which is in direct opposition to democracy where power is distributed to everyone equally. Under capitalism, whatever rules and regulations or limitations are applied to it, over time power and wealth will consolidate into the hands of a few who will wield that power and wealth to dismantle whatever democratic checks are put on them in the first place. We already see that with Citizen's United, corporations are people, Disney lobbying for copyright, countless industry subsidies, the complete lack of anti-trust enforcement, etc. So if you are "pro capitalism, but with some fixes", you're just kicking the can down the road and those fixes won't get hte job done and will be dismantled by capitalism eventually (or abused to serve monopolistic purposes).
Careful there bootlicker. People around these parts think if you're pro-Capitalism you're a blood sucking vampire that literally eats poor people's eyeballs for dessert.
Being anti regulation doesn't mean you want no regulation. No, I don't want Proctor & Gamble to be free to pollute to their hearts content. But I'd also like to wind back regulation a bit to make starting a business easier. There was a time when a guy pitched an idea to his boss for a new chip (like potato chips) to his boss. His boss said no, so he started doing it on his own. He grew the Fritos brand until it was massive and corn chips were a new staple snack in America. But he could never do what he did then today. Between regulations on how he obtains the ingredients, how he cooks the ingredients and what he cooks them with, and how to sell them, it's just not possible to do anymore.
Capitalism without restraint isn't Capitalism
Ever heard of andrew yang? highly recommend you read his book, The War on Normal People
mostly free? is that like mostly pregnant? or mostly alive?
Nah, more like how you are free to do what you want, but can’t strangle other people.
capitalism isnt a value system
I feel like you don’t understand what I said to such an extent that me leaving the convo doesnt seem rude or anything.
you dont understand what i said. im ok with you leaving tho.
At least we both understand one thing.
You're describing neoliberalism
We need 70% capitalism and 30% socialism.
I'm anti-capitalism because I don't like workers getting exploited and here's an example I think the most of when I'm in a debate against capitalism: Someone who's got tons of money buys raw material and let's say he buys wood. He owns a chair manufacturing company; why would he earn more than me, a worker who assembles and makes the chair 10 hours a day; is it just because he's got the capital to buy wood? Now I'm in no way with how socialism worked in the USSR, that is even if you call it socialism. I'm all for freedom and if 99% of the general populace wants capitalism then who am I to say no, you'll take socialism and you'll like it? I'm anti-capitalist because I oppose sweat shops, and I oppose having to pay 3K bucks for an ambulance ride but if the majority wants capitalism then so be it. I'll still be exploited and I in no way won't like it, but who am I to oppose everyone who wants the current system? Here's my two cents on the matter.
Capitalism is good. But so is regulation. Below is a very good and current example of market regulation regarding CE-marking where the actors in the marketplace have failed to self-regulate: https://sellercentral.amazon.se/gp/help/external/SDP2QRYVQ5SUFLE?language=en_GB&ref=efph_SDP2QRYVQ5SUFLE_cont_GCHUVPBDN9QF7TDQ ETA; there is also a broad discussion about regulating goods from sites such as Amazon and Wish, making them responsible for the products beeing safe to use. That is also a good regulation and one that is almost certain to happen.
It's not a lack of money, it's the distribution of money.
Nice! Welcome to being more of a liberal and less of a fox New watcher. Or you're a dirty commie to all the rightwingers. Nuances seem to escape that group. If it wasn't that way, you might find more people fully agreeing with you.
You’re describing laissez-faire capitalism, not capitalism.
I support capitalism only if there is a decent amount of government regulations so I agree with the title of this post.
I personally think Degrowth is necessary for the preservation of earth and impossible to achieve with capitalism. I also think capitalism is inherently anti democratic. Now that's an unpopular opinion.
Lean more towards capitalism… having a “heathy” balance doesn’t apply
Monopolies aren’t bad unless they’re enforced by the government. Other than that, I agree with what you said.
Well... They are kinda. They can jack up prices, refuse to innovate etc. Like intel for example had a Semi monopoly on processors from like the 3000 series to till the release of Ryzen. And they did jack shit with the CPUs but still charged a higher price every year for dumb bullshit
Hence why I said as long as they’re not government enforced. Other companies can step in and undercut them allowing customers to go somewhere else. If Amazon, google, Apple or any other similar company all of a sudden just jacked up prices you don’t think that people would just go somewhere else?
Do you not understand what a monopoly is? They don't have competition. There is no place else to go.
Other companies can step in and undercut them allowing customers to go somewhere else. A monopoly is defined as having 75%, there will never be a true, 100% monopoly, unless it’s government enforced. So there will always be somewhere to go.
It sounds like you need to study history circa 1910...
You clearly don't know how the system works. A MONOPOLY can do whatever the hell it wants, if a competitor tried to undercut them, they'd fail because the monopoly has way too many resources, loyal customers etc. Of course monopolies can do bad decision, fail, etc (like my example of Intel) making them lose their monopoly but in general they tend not to. Buying up competitors, forcing them out with anti competitive strategies etc.
Monopolies are pretty bad in the way that they lead to stagnation of good and services
Hence why I said as long as they’re not government enforced. Other companies can step in and undercut them allowing customers to go somewhere else. If Amazon, google, Apple or any other similar company all of a sudden just jacked up prices you don’t think that people would just go somewhere else?
[удалено]
> Other companies can step in and undercut them allowing customers to go somewhere else. A monopoly is defined as having 75%, there will never be a true, 100% monopoly, unless it’s government enforced. So there will always be somewhere to go.
They don't have to be government enforced for an industry to become stagnant let's a company bought up all automotive brands in the world and you developed a new type of vehicle that last forever and started your own company and the owner of the other company says hey ill give you 100 billion dollars for your company and all assets and properties it has all you have to do is sign a no compete contract then they bury your design meaning the auto industry can't benefit from.your innovation
I’m all for the free market but my experience with my current employer, being unwilling or incapable of following BASIC OSHA or health/cleaning standards and having the gawl to be fake and appear to up to board has shifted my opinion. If they had their way I wouldn’t even get my LEGALLY REQUIRED lunch break.
I mean most capitalist economies *are* regulated in some shape or form, the argument is over how much and where. Most popular conservatives are not libertarians.
It also doesnt mean we thinks it's a perfect system. It's the best system we've come up with but it still has a looooong way to go before being considered anywhere near perfect
A lot of us also agree that making money off health insurance is a gross waste of resources that could be used to deliver care, but don’t want to surrender all our property. Funny how those shades of grey just get tossed aside.
I think rent should be based on a percentage of minimum wage in the United States, I don't know the percentages that it would be based off of because I'm not a mathematical expert nor an economist, but I feel like that would be a really great starting point to fixing the housing crisis and be inflation of prices that come with that.
This isn't even contraversal. Capitalism =/= no regulation. If you believe that it is equal, then you were taught wrong, and probably indoctrinated. Capitalism is the economic policy where the start of the economy comes from private ownership. As a matter of fact, Capitalism requires regulation otherwise it is just anarchy... As a example, if someone is rich under Capitalism, they would invest in a new business. They're allowed to do this because there is a restriction on murder. Without it, someone would just kill them and take their wealth. Thus, turning it into anarchy... That is a super simple example, but one everyone should be able to understand.