capitalism
capitalism
- Started
- Last post
- 1,312 Responses
- yuekit1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/b…
The average net worth of Americans 35 and younger is less than $8,000, down one third vs. 22 years ago.
During that time the cost of everything (food, education, healthcare, housing) has increased by as much as 65% while income has stayed the same.
- Yes well 35 year olds better realize their parents aren't dying anytime soon, as well, so they still have a nice place to crash for some years...robotron3k
- you know all about that, huh?monospaced
- America's future looks bright.utopian
- did 22 years ago they have access to what they do now? which is more important measure of successdeathboy
- planned 2% inflation does no favors to savings or costs.deathboy
- but we do know todays wages seem to buy more than 22 years ago despite the inflation.deathboy
- as far as healthcare and education those 2 are on gov made inflationary scales that will never work outdeathboy
- The life expectancy curve is dropping. So smartphones and the illusion of healthcare access does not a better people make.imbecile
- Dropping or peaking? Tech also is a cultural thing. Look at india. Healthcare access... well lets just say nothing clear there. Im not big on the dying homesdeathboy
- that cost a fortune and milk every cent pumping enough drugs into the walking dead that can curb averages. but also culturaldeathboy
- Wages today doNOT buy more than 22 years ago. Who told you this nonsense and why are you spreading the lie?monospaced
- Sure technology is better now, but does having access to Facebook and Tinder make up for not most people having enough saving to afford a single doctor's visit?yuekit
- What's the relationship between these things anyway? Most of these services and technologies were invented by small group of people, not having much to do withyuekit
- the overall economy.yuekit
- The idea that you the system couldn't possibly be tweaked to work better, and that $8k in average savings is the best you can hope for in the world's leadingyuekit
- economy seems slightly ridiculous.yuekit
- i think todays wages buy way more. even despite inflation do to technological advances. its a broad generalizationdeathboy
- flat screen tvs are super cheap, clothes, tech, etc.. but if like what ukit looks at is healthcare costs those have risen a tondeathboy
- a large part do to being regulated systems outside laissez faire capitalism. if we introduce 700 billion of funding into a market (medicare) + take consumersdeathboy
- out of the market through third parties, effectively undermining the mechanics that make capitalism work. the WHOLE mechanisms of price discoverydeathboy
- and stipulating and controlling medical economies through regulations and poor incentives, not surprising it doesnt workdeathboy
- but back to the point of ukit. a large part of savings is due to young people is YOLO. why fuckin save?deathboy
- interest rates are at record levels low. savings is uncool, and consumerism is popular. i have friends who think if you can afford the monthly payment who caresdeathboy
- they dont look at interest payments or even calculate the amount paid over the loan duration. to them its only about a monthly inflow/outlfowdeathboy
- second i'd probably blame higher edu in the current age demographic. if they have 8K id be surprised. right now theyre being groomed to be debt slavesdeathboy
- where higher education really probably only matters for like 10-15%. Also with super low interest rates we have mal investmentdeathboy
- or not mal since it pays but cheap money for the few to buy up assets and drive up costs for rent, where younger people with nothing get fucked.deathboy
- and now even added healthcare costs (no fine anymore) obamacare for those that werent on paretns insurancesdeathboy
- it was like a 1-1.5K cost per year for uninsured young people.deathboy
- but i never read the link due to paywall, adblocker wall. but I am curious if the figure mentioned takes in inflation or even considersdeathboy
- todays bullshit inflationary measures where we haven't seen "much" inflation from so called QE and interest rates?deathboy
- all of it though you should be able to admit has nothing to do with a failure of capitalism ukit. and more laissez faire systems could help a ton.deathboy
- You can buy a better TV today than you could in the 90s, true...but you would almost certainly also be able to do so if wages had not stagnated. That was myyuekit
- point -- technological advancement was going happen regardless, it's not really an excuse or justification for shit wages.yuekit
- but more ppl can buy a lot better quality of life directly from capitalism right? what demographics feel about wage levels may differ and central control ofdeathboy
- such thing might be dictated by a trump flunkie with "bright ideas" nut i stick with free markets in there are so many more objective (true democracy) opinionsdeathboy
- than i can quantify or try to think i can. however your wealth point and idea of stagnation is not capitalism fault. and id say we havent seen stagnationdeathboy
- where i beleive it was coined in the 70s. we have central contrl. the bernie sanders promised type of economiesdeathboy
- and technology is justification for shit wages. when automated systems cost less and function better than human. humans can only gain a wagedeathboy
- relative to ability and long term employability. technology is going to make the lower "class" far more uselessdeathboy
- this is where a cashless society and full on money manipulation can come in handy for controlling the people, full blown socialism in modern formdeathboy
- being in a capitalism thread you seem to suggest these thing are a failure of capitalism. can you really say that is true and back it up?deathboy
- Yeah I don't have much patience for people who blame "capitalism" as a general abstract thing for all the world's problems.yuekit
- You have to look at the specific economic system and flavor of capitalism in order to say anything meaningful. And it doesn't always fall neatly into theseyuekit
- "muh free market" vs. "big government" categories that people seem to want to argue over. Look at China for instance, they have a heavily state-controlledyuekit
- economy but on the local level, probably less protections for workers and the environment than the U.S.yuekit
- Now most people would agree -- you might try to argue against it, but it seems kind of obvious -- that the U.S. over the past 30 years has been moving in theyuekit
- direction of weakening the power of labor, greater privatization, and basically handing corporations more control over the economy.yuekit
- And it's against that backdrop that the stagnating wages and increased costs have occurred. Now at the same time, did government also grow in power? I'm sureyuekit
- in some ways it did, but I think it's fair to say that the overall dynamics have been in favor of empowering the capitalist class vs. the working class.yuekit
- i think you are correct except in the last part of the captialistic class v working class. htere is no capitalistic class. and in our hope of westernizing chindeathboy
- a we have actually gone more chinese in trying to control. than pushing the western traditions.deathboy
- but the largest part is on control of capital. shadow banking, devaluation, interest rates are foundational econimical thingsdeathboy
- the structures of power are without a doubt gov controlled. In china in us. again not capitalism but ppl pursuing inherent self interests as liesdeathboy
- I think what you are trying to say is you havent foudn the right god/pres/controller of things yet, but woudl very much like someone to figure it outdeathboy
- ... and of course the outcome preferably be in your favor right? would you support any state control tha chose rules that didnt benefit you?deathboy
- Agree and disagree...I think one of the differences between the U.S. and Chinese model is that in China, businesses are subservient to the government/ Communistyuekit
- Party whereas in the U.S., corporations very much are their own power centers and sometimes more powerful than the government itself. There are stories aboutyuekit
- how when the CCP didn't like the performance of a business leader in China they simply replaced him with CEO of another company. Meanwhile in the U.S.,yuekit
- when was the last time Congress passed a single law that went against the interests of major corporations? Now ironically the U.S. may be moving towards theyuekit
- Chinese model and state capitalism more recently under Trump, out of desperation to compete with the Chinese. But the idea that a capitalist class doesn't existyuekit
- in the U.S. seems wrong and very easy to disprove -- there absolutely is an ultra- wealthy elite that has a lot more power and influence than everyone else, andyuekit
- which acts as the gatekeepers of what is possible in society. Even liberal politicians like Obama feel the need to get the ultra-wealthy and big corporationsyuekit
- on their side in order to achieve anything in politics. So yeah capitalist class is very real and has benefited greatly over the past decades, there are manyyuekit
- numbers you can point to which back this up. You might even say this is the logical endgame of neoliberal system advocated by the likes of Milton Friedman etc.yuekit
- haha i would never think milton friedman so small of confidence to need such an end game to make him feel gooddeathboy
- i get this impression you hate corporation control but applaud gov control? even your outlook of obama pedaling to globalization corps as an altruisitic thingdeathboy
- i think you show an irrational bias in thinking a omnipotent dictator may make things work well/ especially under the guiese of equalitydeathboy
- i cant dunk a basketball... should all peopel be outlawed t dunk a basketball in the name of equalitydeathboy
- a thign in life in knowing capable differences. some ppl may even suck a good dick to get aheaddeathboy
- and chasing equality is like chasing death. those few who offer a product that benefits all who use it.. how do you try to control value of it?deathboy
- and back to capitalist class... do you define that as merely successful people? If you do you see the obvious mis grouping right? hell obama was a successful cadeathboy
- pitalist playing the game. the funds he has secured for his library. the guy is a chump change jayzdeathboy
- Seems like you are still thinking in very simplistic black and white terms. Need to embrace the contradictions...som... like Milton Friedman might think he wasyuekit
- advocating one thing, in fact the end game of his policies (which were largely the foundation of U.S. economic policy over the past 30 years) ended up beingyuekit
- completely different and in fact contradictory to his own philosophical principles in many ways.yuekit
- I dont think milton friedman per se choice of economic policy was that of the last 30 years.. knowing what he valued being primarily focused on decentivizingdeathboy
- central control and giving choice to individuals. hard to state any policy has gone that way... now how his political intentions for stuff have been warped.deathboy
- look at negative income tax, being sold as base living. to think that policy relates to friedman, well is silly.deathboy
- without a doubt his end game was about powering the individual through freemarkets, letting them be the democratic rule vs king on high tower.deathboy
- im actually curious as to how you come to your conclusion. am i blind did i miss something?deathboy
- as far as last 30-50 years i think keynes policy was has and still is applauded over milton who was more a hayek man.deathboy
- i also think friedman was smart like bruce lee. jeet kune do economics. He knew hayek best but real life doesn't portray pure fundamentals. and why he actuallydeathboy
- supported central banking action here and their and some reaganomics but not all. however without a doubt his philosophy was non statist.deathboy
- I don't see how you can seriously try to claim Milton Friedman wasn't hugely influential on today's economic system.yuekit
- Friedman was one of the people advocating for lower taxes and deregulation during the 1970s. Reagan was elected based largely on those same policies, Friedmanyuekit
- was an advisor to his campaign. And same with Thatcher in the UK. The GOP has followed the same course ever since, and even the Democrats have been influencedyuekit
- by it to a large degree. This is the economic system we've been living under for the past half century -- "neoliberalism."yuekit
- https://en.wikipedia…
"Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of Mont Pelerin Society economists Friedrich Hayek, Miltonyuekit - Friedman, and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan."yuekit
- You try to make it sound like this is some radical untried idea, when it's actually the current economic system :) Gotta own the successes as well as failures.yuekit
- haha. really? Wow well enlighten me on such policies and the failures and how they are rooted th friedman and keynes thinkingdeathboy
- but I do believe friedman and hayek are influential, just not popular because they are right which really hurts the sell for politcians.deathboy
- again man jsut read the book. hell for soemone talkign about things as coined neoliberlaism liberalism in the book has a absolutely differetn meaningdeathboy
- than today. which is why i kind of laugh at the wikipedia backlink. i wouldnt worry too much about the names more the substancedeathboy
- There's plenty of substance in the link I posted, explaining how the ideas originated and were incorporated into government policy. I'm not going to repeat allyuekit
- of it in these notes, just read the link :) Main point I was making (and this is hardly controversial, pretty basic history) is that Keynes was more influentialyuekit
- mid 20th century, while Friedman and other neoliberal or Chicago school economists seen as influencing the direction of the past 30-40 years.yuekit
- your link is about origin and definition nothing about the economic philosophy of anything. unless a ton of backlinks...deathboy
- id like to know what policy you see today is more keynes than hayek or freidman? oh and the wikipedia link is liek what 3 pages where road to serfdom is adeathboy
- a bit longer but much more worth it as things are which usually take a bit more time to digest and take in.deathboy
- do you actually believe that wikipedia link is wroth a damn?deathboy
- You're trying to compare two completely different things. One guy's book vs. an overview of how economic ideas were incorporated into the real world.yuekit
- how are those not related when the entire book is based about real world examples of those econimic ideas and he results? With very sound reasoning that hasdeathboy
- only improved with time and shown how much more important it is.deathboy
- you haven't read it, but I'd suggest you do. It is boring but worth it if you are really looking interested in monetary policy and social systemsdeathboy
- PhanLo0
- pistachio industrial complex. facepalm.hotroddy
- https://www.bbc.com/…
https://newfoodecono…imbecile - first Bg Map, now Big NutGnash
- i get it imbecile but blaming it on capitalism is ridiculous. Like socialism is the cure for world peace.hotroddy
- and only heathens put that shit on baklavaGnash
- colin_s1
i cannot understand in this day and age how money and capitalism are lauded, or even defended.
yes it is true no -ism, structure or system of government has ever succeeded past a certain epoch - yet to blame the system itself is to blame the tool and not the carpenter.
to give a single human, or perhaps a small cabal of them, grotesque power over the fates of all others, will introduce god knows what kind of psychological complexes and ideas of self-validation ... that revolting ayn rand piece is a great example of how rich white men pat themselves on the back for their (often un-earned) wealth, because it distances money from negative action or consequence yet still esteems it as a "moral center."
socialism is not the answer, but it is a step in the right direction - capitalism is a system that promotes greed, corruption, envy... it is inherently divisive for the sake of markets instead of supportive of humanism for the sake of society. it is inherently corrupt and deceitful. there is nothing dignified or honorable about capitalism or those who would support it as a proper ideology.
yes power does corrupt and at the upper tiers of all systems there exists a leader gone mad. that is the failure of humans to design and maintain systems of government that can keep pace with the size of empire, and our lack of ability to create and keep in check forms of government from local to international.
the point is that these things take time, and to abandon that effort is the ultimate form of selfish denial; a "take the money and run" mentality that has already lead america to a place of national misery (regardless of political ideology), and the world to the brink of collapse, while the elites will continue to hoard wealth because their capitalist fantasies DO work - just only for them - and the rest obviously are the ones at fault.
- "has lead america to a place of national misery" and "the world to the brink of collapse" LOLOL OKnb
- more people are being pulled out of poverty than ever before. So what do you suggest? Until something takes it's place it will continue to evolve like natureIanbolton
- lots of people at the bottom have more faith in capitalism than socialism to get them out of poverty- it works for a lot of people, not all of whom are the 1%Fax_Benson
- I highly recommend you to read the book: Sapiens - the history of humankind. It will give you a glimpse how we got to this point.zaq
- and lots of people see socialism as something that is done to the working class, rather than for them - or more importanly, by them.Fax_Benson
- people need education and work, I don't care how you call the system but to be sustainable it must be productive, if not just look at Venezuelaernexbcn
- they managed to ruin a country in just 20 years, money doesn't come from the trees, an economy needs to be productive in order to sustain itself and a societyernexbcn
- if you could pick and choose policies, it would sell, but it always seems to come with ideological rules and caveats and crazy people attached.Fax_Benson
- working class people don't vote for it, which is a bit of a hindrance.Fax_Benson
- elites hoard wealth in any political system. More so in socialist and authoritarian systems where their creed is "Socialism for you and capitalism for me"hotroddy
- Every man woman and child not only yearns for money and things. But more of them. Always.robthelad
- What I don't get is why the dialogue always attacks the extremes, a mix of both ideologies is an option.T-Dawg
- A regulated market, with support for the proletariat.T-Dawg
- That's prettymuch what progressivism is.T-Dawg
- Yet the media portrays it as "socialism", and basically straw-man attacks the ideology.T-Dawg
- At the same, I find crony capitalism is often mistaken for the same thing as ideological capitalism.T-Dawg
- And maybe some of the issues that we have with the current state of "capitalism" would be improved if we addressed the cronyism.T-Dawg
- socialism is only as good as the people. so inevitably spectrum of how effective social policies can be.hotroddy
- if your citizens are shitty unproductive, unskilled people who feel the gov't owes them something than you'll have shitty socialism.hotroddy
- if society puts pressure on you to work and be productive and social policies are in place as a 'safety net' than social expenditures won't bankrupt the nationhotroddy
- and your country be occupied by complacent, unskilled, uncompetitive and lazy people. You don't have to look very hard to find CONCRETE case studies.hotroddy
- I think it's a mistake to write people off as lazy. There are lots of issues that keep people in states of unemployment. Hopelessness, lack of education, etc.T-Dawg
- I think it's more the fault of the environment than the fault of the individual. The argument is basically nurture vs. tough love.T-Dawg
- if by 'environment' you mean cold northern countries than I agree. The more tropical the climate the lazier the people.hotroddy
- but even then.. west germany had a hard time assimilating eastern germans into society as they were accustomed to 3 hour work days.hotroddy
- but it i think you are talking about individuals and I'm talking about populations.hotroddy
- There was a great comment on here a while back that said essentially, none of these terms...capitalism, socialism, etc...yuekit
- describe what goes on in the real world in any objective way. I don't find them all that helpful to have a debate over.yuekit
- I think when people these days complain about "capitalism", they are mostly critiquing the current economic system and saying something needs to change.yuekit
- Which is a totally fair point...the current system is obviously unsustainable. Look at the stats I posted above about the average people has just a few thousandyuekit
- dollars in net worth while a tiny number of people have more money than god. Meanwhile the government in the U.S. is over $20 trillion in debt which individualyuekit
- citizens are ultimately going to pay the cost of. Things may be buzzing along mostly OK on the surface, but that's a level of instability that is arguably justyuekit
- as bad as governments and systems that ultimately collapsed such as the Soviet Union.yuekit
- capitalism is a system that promotes greed, corruption, envy... haha ignore the nature of man and inherent instincts. a reason church coined original sin asdeathboy
- a control mechanism and pushed guilt. think you may have fallen pray to the trap. ukit you are right. but realizing functioning foundations and weaknesses isdeathboy
- super important. the "isms" are generalizations, but there are foundations to the logic. and humans like to use language to distort reality of things or changedeathboy
- certain truths. its always important to look at the fundemental structures and not ignore them over biased details. it is an absolute if freedom is to be retaindeathboy
- ed it needs to be in capitalistic leaning society. in collectivist societies the individual is not important. ignoring the nature that every individual findsdeathboy
- themselves very important. basic foundation blocksdeathboy
- and as far as the ayn rand piece goes. its solid rationally. you still miss the point of what money is. you assing to many fake values to itdeathboy
- you ignore the words. that money is mean of transferring value in a system, and how it supports individualistic rightsdeathboy
- a great exercise for you is to write a post explaining where it fails in reasoning and why.deathboy
- like in your statement it distance money from negative action or consequences. How so? Money after all is an object with no will but the possessordeathboy
- but your statement seems to assert it has some power in action and desire to avoid consequences, which sounds liek human interestsdeathboy
- being projected onto money. work it out. throw out your reasoning. dont do the emotional i dont accept thing and shut it downdeathboy
- capitalism is like watching a nat geo show about seeing cute creatures ripped to shreds. the alternative is watching animals in a zoo cages. seeing the confusiodeathboy
- n in the animals base instincts and how they deal with the day to day shit. i always find the latter more so much more cruel nend inhumaedeathboy
- The idea that you can construct a society based on some ivory tower philosophic principle seems very misguided to me.yuekit
- Reminds me of 20th century communists who tried to faithfully implement Marx’s ideas while ignoring real world consequences.yuekit
- exactly yuekit. its principles and foundations. every collectivist throughout history has subjugated invidiualism for the greater gooddeathboy
- if you are familiar with ant colonies you know how socialism works. the majority works for the top percent. kingdoms, even in modern culture slavery is thingdeathboy
- all promoting the same foundations. i simply acknowledge an ideal, never to be practiced 100% because of life, becase promoting the other isdeathboy
- criminal to me. That i may choose who are worthy of slaves, who can rise and be cannon fodder. Mqaybe im pussy but id much rather let natural selection decidedeathboy
- and i trust it more than my own biasdeathboy
- You don't think under capitalism the majority work for the top 1%? lol cmon...this is rather naive isn't it?yuekit
- What system do you imagine not having a top class people work for ukit? but i agree it is naive thinkingdeathboy
- there is a big difference between organic grouping and forcing behaviors. a big part is freedom to choose and to decide individualisticallydeathboy
- not all decisions will work, but millions vs singles are better able to find results that resonate.deathboy
- technically back in the day i'd agree that how people follow corporations or businesses that prop up individuals are solid market mechanismsdeathboy
- i think i understand where you may be coming from even if incorrect in the upper class. that is a charade these days. a gut feelingdeathboy
- and i agree it is. but again not an issue of capitalism.this wealth gap has almost 0 to do with capitalism besides people acting in self interests,deathboy
- its a rigged game fucking people and incentivzing those fucked to fuck themselves for the interests of their influencersdeathboy
- a sad cycle of history.the dumb and idiotic pawns are a majority. all about how using them which resonates with so many wannabe politiciansdeathboy
- which is why im all about decentralizing education and would love to remove dept of edu. edu is a foundation and current foundation is junkdeathboy
- open it up let markets and people decide what works and go from there.. yes scary letting things develop... maybe free edu poipularitydeathboy
- results in nationalism or some sort of religion. i dont know, no one does, but i just trust in life to find the best way. It always hasdeathboy
- or what like to say it is what it is because it cannot be anything but what it is in terms of naturedeathboy
- Exactly 1 dozen consecutive notes. Achievement unlocked.monospaced
- and exactly capt wow counter. did you count the words and figure out if they were quite efficient for the message? or a avg that would be?deathboy
- nothing you write is efficient, or a good use of language, but you seem proud of thatmonospaced
- and that is you just dodging the question. I get it. Lots of words talking about stuff might make those with little feel smaller. So best to try to make itdeathboy
- into an insult and hope you can bring it down to your level of little quips shared from twitter. But I dont think you see it that way. I think you actuallydeathboy
- believe you make sound and reasonable arguments. or that you are contributing. that its the only discourse you know, which is another thing postman feareddeathboy
- tl;drcannonball1978
- dodging a question? No I'm not! No question was posed of me, dumbfuck. I'm just laughing at how many comments you write.monospaced
- if you think I posed any argument here, then you are one confused little bitchmonospaced
- I KNOW I make reasonable arguments, when I choose to. That can't be said of you, though. Just lots of words. Lots and lots of words.monospaced
- did you count the words and figure out if they were quite efficient for the message? or a avg that would be?deathboy
- you are so focused on word counts and not substance I'd like to know what word count works for you?deathboy
- could you say it in less words? If you know better why not help out? Say what I'm trying to say in a more cohesive shortened statement.deathboy
- NBQ000
Here he is again
- deathboy-7
ukit
You should read the road to serfdom. theres a version with intro by milton friedman. So many academical points in it and one the the most poignant ones to me was hayek concern about writing it. Something along his background wasn't economics, and writing it pissed off even people he respected who declared the book rubbish without reading it. It really challenged some concepts that probably could only be seen by those not involved. It probably is still one of the most valuable insights today into state/vs/individual systems and direct reasons for actions involved.
it is boring, especially if you know where it is going but also some sections that reminds you he'd love for some social control a better mechanism. in it all some human condition honestly asking for a lil central control. i dont deny that desire i'd love to be taken care of as much as anyone else. i just understand the involvment, and what it entails and the freedoms needed to check for it . Not my thing. I'll live dangerously without the best buy insurance.
I also think you have to read it to have real understanding of the situation. Well can read and not relate, but its up there with should be mandatory 5th grade stuff.
- You seem to share the same belief with people on the left that just because something is written down in a book or in an academic paper that it proves somethingyuekit
- only if it makes sense.deathboy
- which is the
big difference.deathboy - but have you read the book?deathboy
- the whole hayek vs keynes economic approach in which best supports middleclassdeathboy
- its wort really looking into if you continue to choose your flavor of beliefdeathboy
- but your approach to written down bullshit is on par to what i think of human climate change. fools write shit your idiots believe itdeathboy
- OMG man made climate change is gonna ruin world, says sponsored academics in academic journals... you see the joke right when ignoring the substancedeathboy
- and if you want to talk the subject material which is so relevant im here.deathboy
- you'll believe a neoliberal propagandist over scientists and peer reviewed journals? i mean, i have my own thoughts on that, but i'm not quoting friedman...kingsteven
- people believe what they want to believe. like how i believe you have no idea what you're talking about.kingsteven
- when you start a sentence with neoliberal propagandist can one expect an unbiased view of the subject?deathboy
- and im cool with your beliefs it doesn't really change anything, but i might suggest you read the book too... think you are reacting to my commentdeathboy
- outside original post intention thoughdeathboy
- utopian1
- a much larger issue than trump. in the scheme of things trump is b stringdeathboy
- Capitalism in a nutshell
https://en.wikipedia…utopian - Lol every time I see this pic. This is the exact face my son made as a bday when he was pooping. I know I have a pic somewhereGnash
- *babyGnash
- haha has nothing to do with capitalism utopian. more a huge mess of gov and monetary policydeathboy
- deathboy-6
I wonder how many people who are not really on board with capitalism is due to a survivor guilt type thing. They have never experienced any hardships, like real hardships not being able to afford a spendy purse doesn't count. Like needing to make your own cloths. 15k for a trailer as super spendy. skipping meals. They just really hop not to experience such things and want to support things that allow them never to have to experience such things.
Without a doubt all these politicians in the big league have never lived in any such fashion. immigrants still see more to this country than its inhabitants trying to change shit.
How many have truely been poor? what did u learn from it? and how did capitalism effect your thinking and life? Lets get some real life home examples of things.
- why the fuck do you associate capitalism with being poor? it's about means of control, compensation for labor and power against privatizationcolin_s
- it isn't about the poor not getting rich it's about the rich using various means of oppression and violence to keep things in their favorcolin_s
- and it's about the fact we're all people and equal and if you think a system should be for creating inequality, then honestly, go fuck yourself.colin_s
- Rich people don't care much about politics, other than taxes etc. True fanatics of captalism/libertaria... who really burn for the ideology, are all bumsdrgs
- poor as a church mouse, A true fact, from which sociologists have yet to find an exception.drgs
- libertarianism/capit... is a cargo cult, ie. if you pretend to be rich, behave the same way, have the same ideology as rich peopledrgs
- and all the things that bums think rich people do, they think they will get closer to the source of money, so to speakdrgs
- i associate it because I find those who have been poor and done well are more likely to be free market capitalists.deathboy
- And the rich doesn't use any means to hold anyone down through capitalism. They do lobby to politicians which make rules to hold people down. But we never blamedeathboy
- the politician or go after the regulations. Going after individual people and rules doenst work for a larger boogieman saledeathboy
- and colin im all about equality. its why i support capitalism because it is the only system that holds individual rights equally.deathboy
- im guessin colin you have never been poordeathboy
- and drgs your points make no sense. or at least your perception of selfish relation and value of rich vs poor has different moral valuedeathboy
- the rich as well as the poor want to hold unearned wealth as much as anyone else. Who turns down a free buffet?deathboy
- shoes0
I feel there's great semantic dissonance in this here thread, people arguing for or against different things using the same term; which is usually a waste of time.
1. capitalism as the concept in the marxist sense, including class theory, materialism according to marx, engels and all its derivatives of the last 150 years
vs.
2. capitalism as a concept in a strictly economical sense, politically neutral
3. capitalism as the libertarian concept, socio-economically
vs.
3. capitalism as pedestrian substitute for the [free market economy] vs [centrally planned economy] binary
vs.
4. capitalism as the assumed political antagonist of democracy and policies of social welfare, redistribution, equality of opportunity (see marxism)
vs.
5. capitalism as simplified and assumed cause of all kinds of selective immoral/excessive exploitations of the economic and political systems by individual or group actors in assumed positions of power (see marxism)
"the rich", kinda assumes poor people are more equal than others
- shoes1
I can't really relate stuff like this to capitalism:
"it's about means of control, compensation for labor and power against privatization, it isn't about the poor not getting rich it's about the rich using various means of oppression and violence to keep things in their favor"
this can basically be said about any political or economic system that has ever been and has ever been imagined. like way way back to pre-sapiens time really. doesn't matter what theory system you apply.
corruption is inherent in the human condition. doesn't mean it can't be adressed in a systematic way, but definitely not by calling it a name ("capitalism", "the devil"). shit's more complex than that.
- It annoys me when idealisms entirely forget the realities of human nature.Nairn
- Well that description is mostly opinion. Far from textbook definition. People tend to add their bias and blame things that have nothing to do with anythingdeathboy
- it inherently can't be faulted for anything unlike other systems. It is a system of freedom where everyone gets to decide the value.deathboy
- Peopel make dumb decisions but the self correcting chasing self interests finds corrections. Other systems are collective. Meaning no equality. Some are goingdeathboy
- to decide for others. and knowing how fallible humans are without spreading that risk wide you are bound to fail. Society shouldnt be though of as a trump busindeathboy
- ess or some non profit charity church. Where everyone works for someone else.deathboy
- colin_s0
ugh
- "So the comparison is not exactly meaningful"colin_s
- haha, fantastic journalism. $248.5 billion is not more than $0, okayy.kingsteven
- if you adjusted or debt it would be actually what? 66%, 75% of the poorest have wealth of the top 3??kingsteven
- valued wealth is hardly liquid. donating shares make more sense than donating money.deathboy
- voluntarily collectivisation of the means of production? that's the spirit deathboy!kingsteven
- I had a wee look at this report last night, it seems it does take in to consideration that 1/5 american households have no wealth...kingsteven
- and plucks figures from all over the place, but does seem to be quite conservative in its estimations...kingsteven
- to come up with the "3 people have more wealth than the bottom half" soundbite. wp seems to be invalidating it on behalf of the rich on the basis of "yeah, butkingsteven
- what colour are the poorest"... either way it invalidates the idea of liquidity in half of american households, so not sure why that would effect the 3 richestkingsteven
- ha i wouldn't say i suggested such a thing. i was just making a comment on how much wealth illiquid. certain things to borrow agains't or donate shares and notdeathboy
- the whole post is junk and pointless and comparison of people with little wealth means little. after all it doesn't mention how many people there work my employdeathboy
- how many consumers (sadly) lives are made more convenient. hard to say average person even comparesdeathboy
- and a whole nuther issue about monetary olicy driving assets prices higher while driviing savings into the groundeathboy
- part of this wealth creation is due low interest rates, and excess money supply and debt chasing gains at any costs liek letting your kid tell you when and ho.deathboy
- w much ice cream it can havedeathboy
- hah, just kidding about your marxist values db ;-) i do wish more employers would go down that road though (employee ownership)kingsteven
- be neat, but i wouldn't do it as an employer. For one it would change the dynamic of the relationship. 2 i dont think an incentive type program would do well.deathboy
- attract the wrong types probably. a good management who can evaluate and retain talent needs no such thing.deathboy
- actually, it seems to work really well. employees are only awarded shares based on how long they've been at the company... and proven to attract better people.kingsteven
- What example are you referring too? Need to see big picture if just a fad, or a working model. For example public shares or private, dividends and what not.deathboy
- Are shares equal to like inflation or performance of a company. An idea of one person with dividends spread to anyone connected? Maybe more a service industry?deathboy
- not saying it can't work, but what i am saying is a gov model doesnt work for everyone and everything, or a set of models.deathboy
- which is always my issue with forced collectivism (gov), not voluntary collectivism (private), however voluntary collectisim is not unions, more REIdeathboy
- it's big in the UK. search for 'EO', HiFi retailer Richer Sounds is a recent example, John Lewis (department store) would be a classic one.kingsteven
- I looked up EO and instantly sounded like a scam. if this https://www.eonetwor…deathboy
- As far as Richer sounds that looks like a business but i'd have to see it prices outside clubs. US side REI is a business, which im a member, and pay moredeathboy
- for most things but i get a dividend each year as percentage of spent. its a balance of gaming thedeathboy
- system and of what i personally will stomach for community causes. i get to vote to spend extra funds on local bike trails and what not.deathboy
- not that my vote is worth much... but i encourage the spirit and will shop others for better prices on non discount stuff. CO-OP increase pricesdeathboy
- my hope is to identify the sales that are under normal market prices and capitalize on them and still get a dividend, however most of that is game proofdeathboy
- ie rei discount sleeping pad was was about 140, but got same product on backcountry for 89. Discount adn co-op savings not always what they seem to bedeathboy
- hotroddy-3
<thread>socialism cannot exist without capitalism. </thread>
- Oversimplification does quite well on its own, however.MrT
- simplicity is the beauty of it.hotroddy
- because you wants to hear me argue 28 side notes?hotroddy
- no, I wouldn't last that long. It's OK for us to disagree.MrT
- socialism without capitalism is communism you nutjob... i think you mean 'fascism cannot exist without capitalism'kingsteven
- If your claim is that socialism without capitalism is no longer socialism then you are confirming hotroddy's statement.deadsperm
- as far as i'm aware there are no communists on qbn, the thread is 'capitalism' most of the posts relate to inequality within a capitalist systemkingsteven
- some folks advocate social democratic ideas (which is not socialism, not even inherently anti-liberal) and the brainwashed anti-communists chime in with theirkingsteven
- BS like it's unfathomable to be critical of the system you live in while not advocating for the the exact fucking opposite.kingsteven
- yup, any care for other's is "handouts", "free stuff", "socialism". It's pretty lazy how much oversimplified the propaganda is.formed
- But given it's source, not surprising how many latch onto regurgitating, fear mongering "SOCIALISM"!!formed
- there are only a handful of small homogenized countries who can claim to be social democrats.hotroddy
- Most of socialist countries have to resort to becoming anti democratic to remain in power - the population quickly learns the truth.hotroddy
- kingsteven15
- lol. The cubans and venezuelans are the ones burning woodsticks for fuel. the peasants in the USA are driving a 2019 ford focus.hotroddy
- https://i.ibb.co/c2k…pango
- how about forget all the ism and just take care of people?pango
- https://i.imgur.com/…kingsteven
- https://is.gd/NxA1Kv…kingsteven
- < the original of this cartoon is much better tbf, feel bad for modifying it.kingsteven
- norway.. a country that wouldn't exist today without the USAhotroddy
- the soviets liberated Norway you fucking spoon.kingsteven
- and eventually become part of the USSRhotroddy
- or part of the iron curtainhotroddy
- !!!kingsteven
- norway is high on the oil hog with little industry. however there best investments have been in the US tech stocks.deathboy
- see how long it last. without much diversity they are really susceptible to changedeathboy
- remember the great butter crisisdeathboy
- Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway all have comparable life standards. What part does oil play in the economies of Denmark and Sweden. Nonedrgs
- Without oil Norway would be slightly worse off, but still on par with the rest of the Nordics, which are arguably the spearhead of the whole first worlddrgs
- Anyway, socialism works well among like-minded or in groups with shared identity. This is a requirement. US is a pirate wharf of random immigrants, fuck emdrgs
- in other words socialism works within a single like minded tribe with plentiful assets. sweden, denmark, finland wealth was created from somethingdeathboy
- wasn't created on how much it could divide. have their current social systems created growth and even more prosperity? or more dwindling inheritance?deathboy
- for such a diverse nations of pirate wharfs to dominate and elevate the entire human species but not give free healthcare... which is better?deathboy
- what are the large achievements of nordic countries industries in the last 40 years vs freer economic systems?deathboy
- but i do agree socialism works like within an ant colony of drones. I don't see humans as drones, despite social conditioningdeathboy
- biology is so far different and the short sightedness of leaders thinking or trying to control us through media and stimuli will always faildeathboy
- china is a far better examples of success than nordic countries in the model, but success is finite with age, as we even see in nordic countries.deathboy
- its failing system that sucks in resources and brings larger groups down, but think of it as a season and from its ashes more free trade will spring updeathboy
- Not socialism though. Jeezfadein11
- ya... china is not exactly socialism any more. whatever they are...pango
- china is what the future is going to look like:
1 political party that manages a capitalist model in the name of socialismhotroddy - coin a new term for china's new exact ism pango. I have no definition to define its exact changing nature. it highly collective and anti individualdeathboy
- but really want to try and wring any gains it can from individuals in free markets. socialism, fscism, communism of the popular three collective politcial typedeathboy
- are only slightly different in directions but methods all the same. Collective control for a small minorities selfish goals. ppl are merely players on a boarddeathboy
- i_monk-2
- http://reductress.co…imbecile
- well.. in venezuela you can't find any insulin after pharmacies were expropriated by gov't to reduce the prices on medicine.hotroddy
- and now it doesn't matter whether or not you cannot afford bc you cannot find.hotroddy
- Freedom Fighters!utopian
- thats socialism perfectionism. its not in the interests of the town to subsidize one woman. but collectively they could cover her funeral costs for the biggerdeathboy
- ACE socialism example!deathboy
- all for one for the greater good!deathboy
- i mean reductress is satirecolin_s
- Yup, that's the only problem Venezuela has, perfect example. Oh, wait, did you miss the headline on the price gouging of insulin here in the US?!formed
- people who use venezuela as the single defining example of implemented socialism are delusionalmonospaced
- people who use Canada and Scandanavia as an example are equally delusional! AKA Bernie Sanders and Monocluelesshotroddy
- Demographically speaking US is starting to look more like Brazil, Cuba and Venezuela.hotroddy
- ummm ... I've never used Canada or Scandinavia as examples of anything ... delusional much?monospaced
- demographically speaking, no it isnt'monospaced
- lol.. you can't think of any concrete examples bc socialism works best in theory.hotroddy
