Let us not forget that America is all about capitalism.

[theeedude]

lol +1
I applaud the OP's sentiment, but Trump started with a great education, great connections, the strength of his father's reputation, and a couple million dollars, with the near certainty that many more millions would follow should he fail. He's an excellent businessman, but not exactly a rags to riches story for the silver screen.

He's excellent businessman for himself, not other people who put their trust into his business acumen. They tend to end up in bankruptcy court and get screwed.

 

[agent00f]

Ok dummy, tell me a system that stops the problems you list? Monopolizing and rigging prices are not free markets, but give me a system that stops that.

Marginally educated folks are at least aware gubmints have laws to stop that. Also, just a heads up that one of them calling you dumb is not the same as you trying to call any of them dumb.

 

[realibrad]

Thats not entirely true. That doesnt mean capitalism is a exceptionally horrendous system. Unlike "faux communists", many Marxists, and those who have been influenced by Marxism, actually sing praises of capitalism. And in fact it is Karl Marx himself who has said some good things about capitalism, and he believed it was a necessary step from older more ancient societies before they could move on to communism. "Capitalism" has been great for expanding the economy and even lifting the masses into a nicer place than they were before, and its a far better system than many others, particularly many of those that have come before in world history, but its still a problematic system, and one that has mass inequality, and one that is also very unstable.

@3:00
Incorrect, Capitalism is not about gaining capital inherently. As there are agents in the system which have desires, it would be incorrect to say the system is about gaining capital. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production.
The reason for profits is to reward and signal market approval. Those firms that can sell something that benefit people and those people are willing to pay for allow for profits.

@4:00
He does not seem to take into account innovation and the marketing of free goods to sell products that still have a profit. We currently see goods/services give away for free to market goods/services that have profits. His presumption is that because the curve eventually gets very close to zero, that ownership of capital stops and thus capitalism stops is incorrect. So long as there is entertainment there will be individual ownership of capital. Unless his argument is that society can eventually get to a level where resources are never scarce there will always be a benefit to private ownership.


In about 15min now and getting bored.

Let me point this out. His world system theory seems to believe that countries are stagnant and for that you simply have to look at China and South Korea. The fact that countries can shift their position seems to show that the theory is incorrect. Throughout history, countries have risen and fallen.

I see nothing that makes me believe that Capitalism will be replaced.

 

[realibrad]

Marginally educated folks are at least aware gubmints have laws to stop that. Also, just a heads up that one of them calling you dumb is not the same as you trying to call any of them dumb.

The US has laws to stop it, yet it happens. China has laws to stop it, yet it happens. The EU has laws to stop it, yet it happens.

So again, what system do you think does a better job at stopping the issue you brought up when compared to capitalism.

 

[norseamd]

Do you mind telling me what you disagree with? You linked a vid but its almost 30min long and will take a while to go through.

Capitalism isnt the most absolutely horrendous system the world has ever seen, but it certainly isnt the best system the world has ever seen either.

 

[agent00f]

The US has laws to stop it, yet it happens. China has laws to stop it, yet it happens. The EU has laws to stop it, yet it happens.

So again, what system do you think does a better job at stopping the issue you brought up when compared to capitalism.

LOL @ too dumb to realize laws to stop murder don't stop all murder yet are hardly ineffective.

Makes sense it takes a brain that simple to believe it is not.

 

[norseamd]

The US has laws to stop it, yet it happens. China has laws to stop it, yet it happens. The EU has laws to stop it, yet it happens.

So again, what system do you think does a better job at stopping the issue you brought up when compared to capitalism.

Social democracy seems to do it a lot better than neoliberalism, or rather the form of society/government that is practiced in America.

 

[realibrad]

Capitalism isnt the most absolutely horrendous system the world has ever seen, but it certainly isnt the best system the world has ever seen either.

So what is a better system?

 

[realibrad]

LOL @ too dumb to realize laws to stop murder don't stop all murder yet are hardly ineffective.

Makes sense it takes a brain that simple to believe it is not.

So again, give me a system that does a better job. I know you dont like to read, but at some point you have to read that question.

 

[agent00f]

So again, give me a system that does a better job. I know you dont like to read, but at some point you have to read that question.

Laws that prevent the natural tendency for monopolies & corruption does a better job than the "free market", aka the regulated market common to the west. Rather expected someone that dumb won't understand it the 3rd time it's been said either, or the 4th or 5th.

 

[realibrad]

Social democracy seems to do it a lot better than neoliberalism, or rather the form of society/government that is practiced in America.

The reason Capitalism has been so effective is the reason Socialism has been so ineffective. Every time socialism builds central power, it gets corrupted for the benefit of the elite. Look at every country that has continued to increase the strength of its state powers and you will see ever growing inequality.

The reason is simple. In free markets, firms have to compete by making things people want. In socialism, large firms can simply use the central powers to gain wealth.

 

[realibrad]

Laws that prevent the natural tendency for monopolies & corruption does a better job than the "free market", aka the regulated market common to the west. Rather expected someone that dumb won't understand it the 3rd time it's been said either, or the 4th or 5th.

Again, corruption is not part of capitalism so regulating and trying to prevent corruption is fully part of capitalism. Super dumb to think otherwise.

As for stopping monopolies, give me any natural monopoly that has not use the government to create its monopoly. That word gets thrown around quite a bit, and I bet you cant think of one.

Also dummy, you have still not given me a better system. That makes 4 times you have responded to my question without giving an answer.

 

[fskimospy]

The reason Capitalism has been so effective is the reason Socialism has been so ineffective. Every time socialism builds central power, it gets corrupted for the benefit of the elite. Look at every country that has continued to increase the strength of its state powers and you will see ever growing inequality.

The reason is simple. In free markets, firms have to compete by making things people want. In socialism, large firms can simply use the central powers to gain wealth.

Can you explain why inequality dramatically declined in industrialized countries from about 1940 up through the mid 1970's despite vastly increasing levels of socialism? Furthermore, redistributive policy in most (but not all!) cases is associated with declines in income inequality, not increases. How does that square with what you're saying here?

 

[agent00f]

Again, corruption is not part of capitalism so regulating and trying to prevent corruption is fully part of capitalism. Super dumb to think otherwise.

As for stopping monopolies, give me any natural monopoly that has not use the government to create its monopoly. That word gets thrown around quite a bit, and I bet you cant think of one.

Also dummy, you have still not given me a better system. That makes 4 times you have responded to my question without giving an answer.

It's not my role here to answer to people too goddamn stupid to understand the absolute easiest of explanations, just to mock them like how "regulating and trying to prevent corruption is fully part of capitalism" now after just ranting about gubmint regulating jesus's invisible hand.

No great surprise though that someone whose exposure to econ is entirely through right wing blogs thinks they're some kind of expert on the matter.

 

[realibrad]

Can you explain why inequality dramatically declined in industrialized countries from about 1940 up through the mid 1970's despite vastly increasing levels of socialism? Furthermore, redistributive policy in most (but not all!) cases is associated with declines in income inequality, not increases. How does that square with what you're saying here?

Sure. Those in Europe that were at the top had their capital destroyed lowering the top. Wealth destruction played a big part. The war also left many of the government's in shambles so they had to rebuild. The powerful also had to rebuild.

In the US economic growth outpaced government growth. As the global economy shifted from Europe to the US that eventually ended.

As for redistribution of income, larger countries that do it have very slow growth. Do you have data to say otherwise?

Those countries that have moved toward socialism had large existing structures to leverage coming out of WWII.

 

[realibrad]

It's not my role here to answer to people too goddamn stupid to understand the absolute easiest of explanations, just to mock them like how "regulating and trying to prevent corruption is fully part of capitalism" now after just ranting about gubmint regulating jesus's invisible hand.

No great surprise though that someone whose exposure to econ is entirely through right wing blogs thinks they're some kind of expert on the matter.

Oh, so it's your role to respond to me, just not my question. Good on ya.

 

[agent00f]

Oh, so it's your role to respond to me, just not my question. Good on ya.

Your question was already answered even if you'll never come to understand it. This is hardly hyperbole since I imagine someone like you must have great success creating co-morons who've explained all these things in excruciating detail to zero success.

 

[realibrad]

Your question was already answered even if you'll never come to understand it. This is hardly hyperbole since I imagine someone like you must have great success creating co-morons who've explained all these things in excruciating detail to zero success.

Sure thing kiddo.

 

[agent00f]

Sure thing kiddo.

Perfectly exemplifies why you'll never improve above this station.

 

[MajinCry]

Perfectly exemplifies why you'll never improve above this station.

"Name me a better system than capitalism!"

"Regulated capitalism."

"Name me a better system than capitalism!"

He's being dense on purpose.

 

[agent00f]

"Name me a better system than capitalism!"

"Regulated capitalism."

"Name me a better system than capitalism!"

He's being dense on purpose.

Pretty obvious too that robin hooding the rich a la social democracy also produces better results than a free market, but I guess progressive taxation is "fully part of capitalism", which is why all conservatives love those capitalist taxes!

OTOH, not sure he's doing it on purpose. A few are really that thick.

 

[realibrad]

"Name me a better system than capitalism!"

"Regulated capitalism."

"Name me a better system than capitalism!"

He's being dense on purpose.

I'm not against regulated capitalism. The reason I don't think regulated capitalism is his answer is for two reasons. First is that he never said regulated capitalism. 2nd is that regulated capitalism is still capitalism.

His response was to my claim that capitalism is the best system for dealing with corruption and cronyism.

 

[agent00f]

I'm not against regulated capitalism. The reason I don't think regulated capitalism is his answer is for two reasons. First is that he never said regulated capitalism. 2nd is that regulated capitalism is still capitalism.

His response was to my claim that capitalism is the best system for dealing with corruption and cronyism.

Your original claim before weaseling was "free markets". Strictly regulated markets aren't free except to dummies who can't imagine a world where they're objectively dumb.

 

[werepossum]

Do you know what amazes me. That many immigrants who come to America are 3X more likely to be a millionaire than native born Americans. Now, why would that be? Maybe it's because they just know how special we are and that opportunity in this great country still exists.

Go ask any immigrant about America. You'll see his or her eyes light up with the possibilitities of what they can become. Go ask someone who was born here and they'll give you a blank stare. We've gotten too comfortable. That's the issue.

I do agree with what you've said. Wage suppression is real. A normal salary just doesn't cut it today. A $100k a year salary isn't a big deal today. What do we do about it? I'd like to think we still have control. That thru my actions I can still do well financially, and that my goals can become reality. That's my hope.

Well, in fairness to the Democrats they are working as hard as they can to protect us from that most unfair factor, opportunity to succeed through hard work.

Seriously, a big fat +1 for that post!

 

[agent00f]

Well, in fairness to the Democrats they are working as hard as they can to protect us from that most unfair factor, opportunity to succeed through hard work.

Seriously, a big fat +1 for that post!

Or just steal a bunch of valuable land/resources and get lesser people to work it. Literally hard work crackering that whip. In all fairness, the white nationalist types know what's up which is why they try their darndest to keep things from flipping around on them.