Current Events > Do you like capitalism?

(+) Yeah! (+)

what an awful topic

everyones lazily arguing against the most extreme version of capitalism/socialism because thats easy

Regulated capitalism with social safety nets has worked very well, but theres room to debate if the pendulum has swung too far to one side

---

FursonaNonGrata posted...

Broseph_Stalin posted...

This is a cool strawman but the actual point is that capitalism is the only system that creates enough wealth and technological innovation to actually fight climate change.

Do you have hard evidence? Not trying to argue, just genuinely curious because I'm willing to change my mind on this. I just don't get why so many pro-capitalists on CE get so fucking angry about things like universal healthcare and free/affordable college.

first of all: wealth doesn't help fight climate change. lol

second: there is absolutely no hard evidence to support that claim
---

FursonaNonGrata posted...

Do you have hard evidence?

Of what? Communism collapsing because their economies stagnated from a lack of technological innovation? Or their environmental policies?

FursonaNonGrata posted...

I just don't get why so many pro-capitalists on CE get so fucking angry about things like universal healthcare and free/affordable college.

There's a difference between opposing any kind of government policy and opposing bad public policy. UHC isn't incompatible with capitalism for example, and some kind of government intervention in healthcare is necessary to address the low price elasticity . But too often policies gain support from voters purely because they sound nice on paper (tax cuts for "job creators", rent control, etc) when in reality they're extremely counterproductive.

averagejoel posted...

first of all: wealth doesn't help fight climate change. lol

Even by your standards, this is stupid.

"wealth doesn't help fight climate change"

Lmfao what a fucking loon

thank you for indirectly answering my question, proudclad. back on the block list you go
---

averagejoel posted...

thank you for indirectly answering my question, proudclad. back on the block list you go

Loud_Pipes is Proudclod?
@Doom_Art

Ethosian posted...

averagejoel posted...

thank you for indirectly answering my question, proudclad. back on the block list you go

Loud_Pipes is Proudclod?
@Doom_Art

the tone and content of his posts are virtually identical
---

averagejoel posted...

thank you for indirectly answering my question, proudclad. back on the block list you go

Oof

I thought he was gone for good this time
---

HellRatUFO posted...

Lanzol posted...

They wouldn't need that in a better society

The biggest complaint about a lot of bands and people from bands is them being whored out by a greedy record business

https://babylonbee.com/news/millennial-wishes-there-were-previous-examples-of-socialism-we-could-look-at-to-have-some-idea-how-it-might-turn-out

Ya Wikipedia has an article on successful socialist Latin American countries being overthrown by the US govt

Lanzol posted...

successful socialist Latin American countries

Like capitalism? I love capitalism, I kneel before the altar of wealth and power.
---

averagejoel posted...

thank you for indirectly answering my question, proudclad. back on the block list you go

Man, that was a quick surrender. Must be a new record. Nice proactive measure though, it's good to spare yourself the pain of getting slaughtered in every argument you'll ever have with him.

We need to reign it in a bit, as we need to get to the point where no job should pay so little that a 40 hour work week won't force someone to choose rent, medicine, food, reliable transportation, or other basic necessities.

Still infinitely better than full on communism, tbf.
---

Annihilated posted...

averagejoel posted...

thank you for indirectly answering my question, proudclad. back on the block list you go

Man, that was a quick surrender. Must be a new record. Nice proactive measure though, it's good to spare yourself the pain of getting slaughtered in every argument you'll ever have with him.

so are you an alt of his too or are you a satire account
---

HellRatUFO posted...

Capitalism is the private ownership of goods and services and the free and voluntary exchange of those said goods and services. When you make any good or service universal you are increasing the costs of said good or service by rationing it and ultimately paving the way for longer waiting periods and shortages. Universal free anything tramples on the rights of the person that happens to be providing the good or service as youre essentially forcing them to provide a good or service at their expense to an unlimited amount of people with their limited finite amount of resources. It also makes the industry they work in an undesirable one that will have less people trying to pursue that career path. So not only are you going to get rationing and shortages, youre also gonna get a continued decline of quality as less people wanna strive for a career in that industry. Scarcity doesnt cease to exist simply because your preferred politician got elected.

wew

---

I like free market capitalism. I don't like the mixed economy we currently have.

darkstar4221 posted...

I like free market capitalism. I don't like the mixed economy we currently have.

correction: the existence of some social programs does not make an economy "mixed." socialism and capitalism are fundamentally different economic systems. they are mutually exclusive.

tax-funded social programs tend to be supported by socialists, but they are not what defines the ideology or the economic system
---

averagejoel posted...

darkstar4221 posted...

I like free market capitalism. I don't like the mixed economy we currently have.

correction: the existence of some social programs does not make an economy "mixed." socialism and capitalism are fundamentally different economic systems. they are mutually exclusive.

tax-funded social programs tend to be supported by socialists, but they are not what defines the ideology or the economic system

No we have a mixed economy.
Definition taking from wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.

The government still controls a business indirectly through minimum wage laws, employee based healthcare, an income tax, environmental regulations, child labor laws, workmans comp, etc. None of that is capitalism. A person still owns the business, they do most of the operations that is the capitalistic part, but they are heavy regulated by the government.

darkstar4221 posted...

No we have a mixed economy.

incorrect. I have already explained why

darkstar4221 posted...

Definition taking from wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

you might be better off trying to define what you mean by a "mixed economy"

darkstar4221 posted...

The government still controls a business indirectly through minimum wage laws, employee based healthcare, an income tax, environmental regulations, child labor laws, workmans comp, anti-discrimination laws, etc. None of that is capitalism. A person still owns the business, they do most of the operations that is the capitalistic part, but they are heavy regulated by the government.

none of that is inherent to capitalism, but it can all coexist with capitalism, because those characteristics are not exclusive to socialism. neither is government regulation
---

One on the definitions of mixed economy is having a free market as well as state interventionism, so yes we do have a mixed economy.

The only thing that makes you right is by that definition, basically every economy ever tried is a mixed economy so it shouldn't be considered a mixed economy unless there are very strong signs of a planned economy. But how do you define "very strong signs"?
---

Lanzol posted...

They wouldn't need that in a better society

The biggest complaint about a lot of bands and people from bands is them being whored out by a greedy record business

Why do they need a record label in our current society?
Seems more or less they sign record labels because they want more money as well.
Right?

Damn_Underscore posted...

One on the definitions of mixed economy is having a free market as well as state interventionism, so yes we do have a mixed economy.

The only thing that makes you right is by that definition, basically every economy ever tried is a mixed economy so it shouldn't be considered a mixed economy unless there are very strong signs of a planned economy. But how do you define "very strong signs"?

usually by "mixed" economy, people mean that it's a mix of capitalism and socialism, which the US, objectively and with zero ambiguity, is not.

as I said:
averagejoel posted...

socialism and capitalism are fundamentally different economic systems. they are mutually exclusive.

tax-funded social programs tend to be supported by socialists, but they are not what defines the ideology or the economic system

---

averagejoel posted...

none of that is inherent to capitalism, but it can all coexist with capitalism, because those characteristics are not exclusive to socialism. neither is government regulation

Taken from wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy#Typology
This meaning of a mixed economy refers to a combination of market forces with state intervention in the form of regulations, macroeconomic policies and social welfare interventions aimed at improving market outcomes. As such, this type of mixed economy falls under the framework of a capitalistic market economy, with macroeconomic interventions aimed at promoting the stability of capitalism.[30] Other examples of common government activity in this form of mixed economy include environmental protection, maintenance of employment standards, a standardized welfare system and maintenance of competition.

Also capitalism is based on voluntarism, minimum wage laws and regulations that artificially increase the cost of hiring an employee is compulsory. The business owner does not have full control over their business because of regulations, that is anti-capitalism. Because capitalism means private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

darkstar4221 posted...

averagejoel posted...

none of that is inherent to capitalism, but it can all coexist with capitalism, because those characteristics are not exclusive to socialism. neither is government regulation

Taken from wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy#Typology
This meaning of a mixed economy refers to a combination of market forces with state intervention in the form of regulations, macroeconomic policies and social welfare interventions aimed at improving market outcomes. As such, this type of mixed economy falls under the framework of a capitalistic market economy, with macroeconomic interventions aimed at promoting the stability of capitalism.[30] Other examples of common government activity in this form of mixed economy include environmental protection, maintenance of employment standards, a standardized welfare system and maintenance of competition.

Also capitalism is based on voluntarism, minimum wage laws and regulations that artificially increase the cost of hiring an employee is compulsory. The business owner does not have full control over their business because of regulations, that is anti-capitalism. Because capitalism means private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

it's not anti-capitalism. a "mixed economy" is just capitalism with some social programs. it's not a fundamentally different economic system
---

averagejoel posted...

darkstar4221 posted...

averagejoel posted...

none of that is inherent to capitalism, but it can all coexist with capitalism, because those characteristics are not exclusive to socialism. neither is government regulation

Taken from wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy#Typology
This meaning of a mixed economy refers to a combination of market forces with state intervention in the form of regulations, macroeconomic policies and social welfare interventions aimed at improving market outcomes. As such, this type of mixed economy falls under the framework of a capitalistic market economy, with macroeconomic interventions aimed at promoting the stability of capitalism.[30] Other examples of common government activity in this form of mixed economy include environmental protection, maintenance of employment standards, a standardized welfare system and maintenance of competition.

Also capitalism is based on voluntarism, minimum wage laws and regulations that artificially increase the cost of hiring an employee is compulsory. The business owner does not have full control over their business because of regulations, that is anti-capitalism. Because capitalism means private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

it's not anti-capitalism. a "mixed economy" is just capitalism with some social programs. it's not a fundamentally different economic system

One of the characteristics of capitalism is voluntary exchange. When the government sets wages for low-skilled workers, that is not a voluntary exchange, it's a form of price control actually.

darkphoenix181 posted...

Lanzol posted...

They wouldn't need that in a better society

The biggest complaint about a lot of bands and people from bands is them being whored out by a greedy record business

Why do they need a record label in our current society?
Seems more or less they sign record labels because they want more money as well.
Right?

television and radio is a cartel controlled government which grants big entertainment a monopoly

the internet far less so, but big entertainment has superior resources at its disposal towards greater reach with respect to giving exposure to their assets

just my two bits worth
---

darkstar4221 posted...

averagejoel posted...

darkstar4221 posted...

averagejoel posted...

none of that is inherent to capitalism, but it can all coexist with capitalism, because those characteristics are not exclusive to socialism. neither is government regulation

Taken from wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy#Typology
This meaning of a mixed economy refers to a combination of market forces with state intervention in the form of regulations, macroeconomic policies and social welfare interventions aimed at improving market outcomes. As such, this type of mixed economy falls under the framework of a capitalistic market economy, with macroeconomic interventions aimed at promoting the stability of capitalism.[30] Other examples of common government activity in this form of mixed economy include environmental protection, maintenance of employment standards, a standardized welfare system and maintenance of competition.

Also capitalism is based on voluntarism, minimum wage laws and regulations that artificially increase the cost of hiring an employee is compulsory. The business owner does not have full control over their business because of regulations, that is anti-capitalism. Because capitalism means private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

it's not anti-capitalism. a "mixed economy" is just capitalism with some social programs. it's not a fundamentally different economic system

One of the characteristics of capitalism is voluntary exchange. When the government sets wages for low-skilled workers, that is not a voluntary exchange, it's a form of price control actually.

under capitalism, the vast majority of exchange is not voluntary.

the vast majority of people have to sell their labour in order to survive. the risk of being unable to pay rent or buy food is a type of coercion. since corporations don't depend on any singular worker to continue, they have significantly more bargaining power in this equation. setting wages is a way of evening the playing field, but it's still heavily weighted in favour of the corporation and against the worker
---

averagejoel posted...

the vast majority of people have to sell their labour in order to survive.

that's how life works you delusional tankie

no one is going to house and feed you for free unless you're advocating in favor of slavery which most socialist inadvertently do

Something I thought was interesting

The cost of manufacturing a vial of insulin is between $2 and $4

https://amp.businessinsider.com/insulin-prices-could-be-much-lower-and-drug-makers-would-still-make-healthy-profits-2018-9

Meanwhile, the lowest cost of a vial (without insurance) on this list is $92/vial, which is a 23x markup

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/how-much-does-insulin-cost-compare-brands/

There are 3 companies that dominate 90% of insulin manufacturing worldwide

Could more companies step in and produce insulin? In theory, yes, but in practice, its not likely.

Getting into the drug manufacturing business is messy with patent laws, which can be abused to disproportionately benefit existing mega corporations. They essentially have a monopoly on insulin production

https://www.t1international.com/blog/2019/01/20/why-insulin-so-expensive/

If you dont want capitalism to turn into a big festering mess, you need an effective government to step in and either enact price controls for these essential products, or have a heavier hand in breaking up monopolies and passing legislation that ensures they dont form in the first place
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

averagejoel posted...

the vast majority of people have to sell their labour in order to survive.

that's how life works you delusional tankie

no one is going to house and feed you for free unless you're advocating in favor of slavery which most socialist inadvertently do

But wouldnt it be better if people could organize and sell the fruits of their labor themselves, without the inefficient capitalist middleman?
---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

without the inefficient capitalist middleman?

lol

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

But wouldnt it be better if people could organize and sell the fruits of their labor themselves

They can, worker ownership isn't illegal in the US. You just don't see a lot of them because private enterprise is so efficient.

It can be as "efficient" as all get out, but if that's not paying the bills because of capitalist theft of wages, then I'd say that makes it supremely inefficient in at least one category. Not to mention it provides free, unearned luxury for the non-working, inefficient capitalist.
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

averagejoel posted...

the vast majority of people have to sell their labour in order to survive.

that's how life works you delusional tankie

no one is going to house and feed you for free unless you're advocating in favor of slavery which most socialist inadvertently do

you should consider addressing the actual point I was making rather than something I was not talking about and have no interest in talking about. this is why I told you I was done talking to you last time
---

Someone needs an economics course!

First of all, efficiency doesn't decrease wages, it's the opposite. You might be thinking of collectivization policies like in the USSR where worker compensation actually declined.

Second, anyone who owns anything is a capitalist. You're thinking of investors, who won't be investors for very long if they're inefficient.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

First of all, efficiency doesn't decrease wages, it's the opposite.

It can. Sometimes the most efficient thing to do is to outsource the work to cheap labor in other countries. That certainly affects wages here in America.

averagejoel posted...

you should consider addressing the actual point I was making

I did, you falsely claimed that exchange isn't voluntary in a free market because you have to work to live.

averagejoel posted...

this is why I told you I was done talking to you last time

Actually, you claimed the average worker in the 1800s had a better quality of life than the modern worker and then fled the topic when you were called out on it. Don't lie about things that are archived.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

anyone who owns anything is a capitalist.

lol

imagine having this statement in the same post as this

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Someone needs an economics course!

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

I did, you falsely claimed that exchange isn't voluntary in a free market because you have to work to live.

no I didn't. you just lack reading comprehension or are deliberately misinterpreting what I said for your own benefit.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Actually, you claimed the average worker in the 1800s had a better quality of life than the modern worker

I did not claim that. I got fed up of dealing with your strawmen and general abrasiveness
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

I did, you falsely claimed that exchange isn't voluntary in a free market because you have to work to live.

averagejoel posted...

no I didn't.

averagejoel posted...

under capitalism, the vast majority of exchange is not voluntary.

the vast majority of people have to sell their labour in order to survive.

averagejoel posted...

I did not claim that. I got fed up of dealing with your strawmen and general abrasiveness

It's nice to know Admiral has a successor in saying stupid shit, fleeing a topic and then claiming you never said it even though it's still on the archive.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

It's nice to know Admiral has a successor in saying stupid shit, fleeing a topic and then claiming you never said it even though it's still on the archive.

please do not lie about me, or compare me to Admiral.

also please do not take what I said out of context in order to further your point. that is a type of lying, but you do it so much that it merits another point.
---

Loud_Pipes posted...

It can. Sometimes the most efficient thing to do is to outsource the work to cheap labor in other countries. That certainly affects wages here in America.

@Broseph_Stalin

Honestly it almost feels bad to do this, you are so hopeless

https://i.imgur.com/qSg9Uej.png

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Honestly it almost feels bad to do this, you are so hopeless

https://i.imgur.com/qSg9Uej.png

that screenshot does not support what you said.

I asked three questions there -- questions which, by the way, you did not satisfactorily answer. questions are not claims.
---

averagejoel posted...

that screenshot does not support what you said.

I asked three questions there. questions are not claims.

You wouldn't have fucking questioned it if you believed it. You got called out, next time don't pull an admiral.

Oh and btw, I did post data, that's when you decided to flee the topic.

Hahahaha imagine bashing averagejoel from running away from something he said only to then be a giant fucking hypocrite and do the same thing. Absolutely pathetic.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

averagejoel posted...

that screenshot does not support what you said.

I asked three questions there. questions are not claims.

You wouldn't have fucking questioned it if you believed it. You got called out, next time don't pull an admiral.

the fact remains that questions are not the same thing as claims. you lied. please stop doing that. please also do not compare me to Admiral.

Oh and btw, I did post data, that's when you decided to flee the topic.

you did not answer all three questions.
---