Topic: Capitalism is destroying us. - page 3. (Read 1398 times)

You're not addressing any of the points I've made.

That doesn't mean anything. Capitalists  (as in, the people who owns the capital) rewards smart people as a master rewards the good slave. They still have 100% of the power but that's ok because you're a slave living a good life? If that's ok for you then continue living like this...
If you want to discuss socialism let's go but stop avoiding real arguments.
See above
The best that we've got doesn't mean it's a good system. Capitalism won the system wars after the cold war because URSS collapsed faster but capitalism is collapsing currently just at a slower pace.

So either you try to think a bit outside the box or you continue living in a collapsing society saying "It'S ThE bESt we'VE gOt". That's not an argument that's just an excuse to stop thinking by yourself.
Yeah that tells me that capitalism is great at producing things. Does it mean it allocates ressources well? That it answers to human needs? That it supports an ethical society? That it's a long term solution? That it addresses major problems coming ahead?

I don't think so.

Capitalists hire the smartest people they can find.  I can tell you from my personal experience that capitalism rewards smart people handsomely and punishes mediocre workers.  Socialism does the opposite, smart people end up in jails or mental hospitals.

Capitalism is strong and confident, socialism is weak and insecure.

Unless you come up with a system that does not use capital (money), I am afraid capitalism is the best system we've got.

BTW, best products are designed in the capitalist, not the socialist systems.  That should tell you something.

What you fail to understands:

-Capitalism means capital is rewarded. Not skills or abilities, capital. At equal abilities, the bigger capital is more rewarded than the smaller. The bigger the capital gap, the bigger can be the abilities gap.

-It means that rich people become more and more rich. So few people accumulate more and more wealth and that's EXACTLY what has happens for the last 70 years.

-It means few people gain more and more POWER because there is a direct link between capital and power as it is capitalism.

The intervention of governments is PART of the capitalist system. It's linked to power being in the hands of a few.

A simple example: when a company like Google who pays millions in local taxes and employs thousands of people want something from the state they're established in, do you think they have the same weight and power than a new business? Even if this new business is objectively better?


Capitalism rewards not the abilities, the skills, the innovativeness, the social use, the ethical respect. Capitalism rewards capital and that's all. There is a reason for the name.

Today's capitalism violates primitive capitalism. Initial capitalism can only be achieved with cryptocurrencies. Capitalism is now the fuse of class unity, and there is almost no chance for young people other than cryptocurrencies.

In a true capitalist system, free market controls the economy.  If you inherited a large fortune, and you are stupid and lazy, you'll lose it all, eventually.

That is a problem.  The government should have never stepped in to bail those "too big to fail".  That was very socialist of them.

In the capitalist system, failures are punished and the system cleans itself.  The cost of those failures should have not been passed on to taxpayers.

Lol, if only... You're missing the big picture here which is that capitalism doesn't hand out enough work for everyone and number of jobs is only decreasing. This means it's not a question of skills only, but mainly a question of luck and being known by the right person.

You talk about capitalism as if it was able to allocate ressources and work in an efficient way while our world is showing it is NOT the case, not AT ALL.

Mobility is determined by your skill set.  If one company dies, you go and work for a competitor, or change the industries.

Your goal should be to improve your financial position and move up on the social ladder.

In the capitalist system, your success is only limited by your ambition and your abilities.

In the socialist system, your success is limited no matter your ambition or your abilities.

BTW, you don't need to get to the top to be financially independent.  Many small business owners are financially independent.  So are their children and grandchildren.

In the socialist system, you cannot achieve this.  You and your descendants will always be poor.

This is true right up to the point when those same conglomerates become "too big to fail"...  At which point the capitalist solution is to turn to the state and the people to be bailed out.!.!...

And here you get the two factors that make capitalism a complete and utter failure.

1/ Conglomerated eventually fall under their own weight. That was right and that might still be although internet is really making it difficult to see if this logic will continue. But the problem is that if the company fails, the individuals behind wown't fail.
When a company collapses what happens? First ones to run and take their toll are the shareholders. Shareholders don't fail, when the company collapses they take everything they can, sell everything and after they secured their benefits then the company collapses.

Collapses of big companies is NOT the collapse of the people behind, which means you have a society with 0 or nearly 0 economic mobility. And the more capitalist a country is, the less economic mobility they have...

2/ Legal system is decided by who? By the people in power. Who are the people in power? Those who are currently the shareholders of all major companies... So don't you think there is a problem here?

Best example would be EU which is just a creation of big companies and is clearly an abuse of power from there side. Yet governments encourage it simply because they're owned by big companies.

System is rigged and the winner is clearly identified.

Why says the competition should be easy?

You don't go into the lion's den when you are hungry!

IBM ignored Microsoft and Apple.  K-mart and Sears ignored Amazon, Home Depot and Walmart.  Time Warner did not care about Facebook.
Banks are still ignoring cryptocurrencies.  Most companies completely ignore AI.  You get the picture.

Capitalism is natural as it mimics nature.  Big conglomerates eventually fall under their own weight as smaller, nimble competitors come from behind and cut their Achilles tendons, then private equity firms move in to feed on their carcasses.

The legal system should take care of any illegal actions by any business or individuals.

If competition would be easy it would not be competition.

How are entry costs enforced beyond regular market forces? How are monopolies maintained? Government. Monopolies can not exist without government to enforce regulations upon potential competing upstarts, raising the barrier of entry. This is not Capitalist. Capitalism encourages actual competition so that not only are resources used the most efficiently, but accurate price signaling can be created by free markets creating a timely and accurate pricing mechanism for resources.

Capitalism leads to totalitarism does it? Before impugning the system that gives you all of the things you enjoy in your daily life, maybe you want to look up the word totalitarianism, and you know maybe how it is spelled. Big corporations can't take control without the complicity of government. Even under a Socialist system this is still exactly just as much of a problem, so I am not sure what your argument is here. The world isn't perfect therefore Capitalism is a a failure?

You know who does need a centralized entity to regulate their lives for "the common good"? Socialists do. Otherwise how else can you rob people to pay for your handouts unless you have a government powerful enough to take the resources by force?

Capital comes from natural resources brought into the market by the induction of labor, usually by issuing credit. "the reward of capital" That is quite a detailed explanation!

Rich people get richer faster than anyone else because the market is willing to pay them the most for the goods and services they provide, because they have value. If they did not have value no one would pay for it. Now if you are talking about fraud and theft, that is not Capitalism, that is crime.

There is ALWAYS going to be a power hierarchy. It is the way it is in nature, and it is a natural organic structure within human society. Some people are natural leaders some people are natural followers. None of your wishing, praying to the ghost of Karl Marx, or theorizing will ever change that.

Also, the Rick & Morty reference used as if it has academic value gives you loads of credibility. After all, you have to have a high IQ to get most of the jokes in that show right?

Sure. But where does that come from?

It's a systemic problem, it comes from capitalism itself.

What's capitalism? The reward of capital. It means rich people get richer faster than anyone else. It means few individuals get most of what is produced. It means the very rich peopl get more and more power.

Capitalism leads to the power being owned by a small group of people, that's basically dictatoship with more steps xD

You're making one HUGE mistake here. You're forgetting the entry cost in an established market.

Let's take ANY MARKET YOU WANT! Food, distribution, internet, auto, construction... Anything you want. In any country. There are giant corporations that already own the market and are able to spend billions in marketing, adds or just to buy a possible concurrent.

The problem is that capitalism leads to totalitarism... Totalitarism of big corporations.

When you're small you just CAN'T compete with a company that is able to both corrupt/lobby politicians to keep laws and reglementation in their favor and to attract customer from dubious mass manipulation.

So those companies keep growing and keep gaining more power. Making them even more difficult to compete with.

Capitalism is destroying us by making new phones, cars, medicines, computers...
God damn it's bad!

@coins4commies Protip. Can you please learn to prune the quote pyramids a little? I'm sure that we will all get the context of what you are replying to, even with substantial pruning.

All I want to do is allow everyone to have the choice of workplace democracy or not.  I don't want to ban capitalism.  I just want a system where people aren't coerced into it.  I can't trust people who want to prevent democracy from being an option.  

Cooperatives still operate by market forces.  Of course things can function without external shareholders who contribute nothing but money.  It should be obvious that things will not only function, but function better if the surplus value of labor is kept in the system instead of being siphoned off and put into offshore accounts or who knows where.
  
There are organizations who currently work in communities to help people start cooperatives but it is always an uphill battle because cooperatives face more government regulation and tax problems than corporations.    In many states it is basically impossible.  I just want policy that encourages cooperatives instead of discouraging them.  







A lot of questions here.

1. Why do you think the people who work the production line should be poor?  This means you actually want there to be poverty.  I can't relate to the notion that people who work full time SHOULD be poor.   There is no ethical value to a system that insists workers be poor.

2. OK, where is the education being provided for poor, assembly line workers?  Its non-existent in the US and provided by government in more sensible nations.  This is actually one of the great ways worker cooperatives do with their surplus value.  They build worker skills within the company by providing extra training and education to the workers.  

3.  When you make less money, everything becomes "goods you can't afford", so you inevitably take on debt.  People who earn livable wages have disposable income.   Funny how that works.  Who are you to dictate what they "should not be buying"?  You just got done worrying about weather or not people would be able to buy 50 cars.    It is here where you are suggesting people who work certain jobs should not have any freedom, entertainment, or leisure.  These people work all day, have their money robbed, struggle to break even, and then you wonder why they abuse substances.    Then you expect them to magically come up with a fortune to spend on education.  Either you are out of touch or you are being dishonest.  

Drug addiction is not a choice.  Poor people suffer from addiction at a much higher rate which has a lot to do with their lack of healthcare and awful circumstances overall. Gallup poll suggests the poor drink less so there goes that.

It's funny how you mention the following : ''Workers are getting screwed over, the wealth they create is stolen.'' Whilst the opposite is true, ordinary workers keep most of their wealth in a capitalist economy. Do you actually think that in a SOCIALIST system that is implemented in my country : The Netherlands, ordinary workers get to keep more of their wealth? Just in income tax alone the workers here (including me) pay over 52% in taxes. It's over 70% if you include what the employer has to pay.

So what is the answer? People that are criticizing capitalism never have the answer, but are you able to name a single economic system that has been proven to work better than capitalism?