Do you really think capitalism is a good idea?

[msc545]

I don't think it is. Here is why:
This is what happens. Capitalism tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of just a few people, and those few people have enough money to literally purchase (bribe) regulators and regulatory agencies through bribery. Once they do that, no regulations are effective because the people they've bribed can't and won't enforce them because they don't want legal trouble and they don't want to give up the extra money.

This is called enshittification or regulatory capture. It is almost an inevitable result of late-stage capitalism, no matter how well regulated people try to make it. Based on this, my argument is that there is no such thing as a safe version of capitalism, because no matter how much you try to regulate it, the money will flow to a few enough people who can then engage in regulatory capture. There is no way to stop it. Bribery is just too attractive. Numerous revolutions, including those in the US, France, and Cuba, have been responses to this situation from people who were hurt badly by capitalism and subsequent regulatory capture.

I would argue that, based on this, there is no safe form of capitalism. Capitalism always evolves into something that hurts the vast majority of people. A mixed economy that incorporates socialism and very closely regulated capitalism is probably the safest economic scheme available at this time, since it also provides a safety net. Something that the United States apparently no longer has and that the right wing doesn't think is necessary and doesn't want because they are all living with the delusion that socialism and communism are equivalent, which of course they certainly are not

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Most of the Millionaires in the USA are actually Democrats, not Republicans. So who's doing the bribing?

Are you just making up more BS now, or do you have real facts to support your claims?

In the Bible, the prophet Samuel condemns the FUTURE kings for charging a 10% tax on Gold, because that was considered borderline slavery, because the Law already had the Year of Jubilee, in which rich people were supposed to give their excess possessions back to the poor to reset the economy every 50 years. Problem: There is no evidence anyone ever obeyed the Year of Jubilee. It's uninforceable.

What are you going to do? Force Intel and Apple and IBM and Google and AT&T and Amazon and Tesla to give away 90% of their shares of stocks to idiots who don't know how to manage money? The way these people became rich in the first place is they invented a solution to real-world problems and they sold it for a profit. Now you want to whine that they've made themselves fortunes.

Here's a hint: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods."

[goaded]

It's not hard to be a millionaire any more. You can earn and save a million dollars over a lifetime.

[msc545]

@goaded yes, but during that lifetime, you have to feed and clothe and shelter yourself.

[MrChinaski]

It depends on (r-g)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

[MrChinaski]

And to answer your lead question. Yes, capitalism is better than every other economic system that has ever been tried.

[msc545]

Better for who?

[MrChinaski]

I don't have time to commit to a multi-page response. What I would say is that diagnosing a problem is vastly different from fixing a problem. Your argument is that they system is broken and not serving the needs of the average person... we can get lost in the details but I agree with some of the points you make. That's very different than building a new system. When your car breaks down the lesson you should draw is that you probably should have changed the oil from time to time and kept up with servicing, not that you should go back to riding horses.

[msc545]

I haven't necessarily disagree with you, but I think more detail would have been helpful. The gist of my argument at this point is the capitalism when it is uncontrolled it's so flawed as to ultimately cause it's own destruction. Moreover, the the known methods for controlling it are temporary at best and ultimately fail and thus inevitably fails even when supposedly well regulated. Basis for that is the fact that capitalism tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of just a few people and those few people ultimately have the ability to engage in regulatory capture, which of course destroys the regulatory systems. Historically, this leads to violent revolution and overthrow of economic systems.

[msc545]

I'm sorry that's sort of a messy response. I'm doing it by talking into my phone because the keyboard of course is too small for my fingers. I trust you hopefully we're able to understand my messy response. Sorry about that.

[itss_lily]

nope. to put it simply, capitalism is profits over people

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Democracy itself is a bad idea. Why should the 50% dumbest and most evil people get to vote?

The founding father's first system of government was not a democracy and the original constitution did not have a popular vote for President, it was the Congress who appointed the President directly, and that was a superior way of doing things.

"Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

[msc545]

@SeekerOfTruth007 That assumes the “dumbest and most evil” half can be reliably identified—and that the people doing the identifying are neither dumb nor evil themselves. History suggests otherwise.

Democracy is not based on the charming fiction that everyone is wise and good. It is based on the far more realistic observation that no person or ruling class is wise and good enough to be trusted with permanent, unaccountable power. The vote is not a prize for intelligence or virtue; it is protection against being governed by people you cannot remove.

The strongest argument for democracy is not that voters make excellent decisions. They often do not. It is that rulers also make terrible decisions, and democracy gives the public a peaceful way to correct them. If your objection is that bad people may vote, your alternative is to give some smaller group of bad people complete control—and call that an improvement.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

IQ test everyone. Anyone below 100 shouldn't be allowed to vote, and anyone below 115 shouldn't be allowed to hold public office.

[msc545]

@SeekerOfTruth007 be careful what you advocate for. If what you said came true, you wouldn't be allowed to vote, and you wouldn't be allowed to hold public office. Arguably, you wouldn't even be allowed to post on there, or at least not on this question.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

lol. I am a member of Mensa. In fact, I'm a member of the special High IQ Society for people with exceptionally high scores. As I said elsewhere, my Mensa score was 187 when I first tested.

I took the WAIS one time and my verbal score was my lowest score and that was 134. I got a perfect score on every other portion of the test, including the Ravens squares portion, which most people can't solve more than the second or third difficulty step in the test. I can solve 200 IQ level Raven's squares puzzles and find that BORING. Pattern finding is probably what makes me so good at strategy games and also very good at test taking in general.

You see, existing IQ tests are flawed anyway. They should be done "fill in the blank" instead of multiple choice.

With multiple choice, you can know nothing at all about the topic and just guess at random and still get full credit.

With fill in the blank, you actually have to know your shit.

[msc545]

@SeekerOfTruth007 that whole rant is just very sad. You know absolutely nothing about what we're talking about.

[Ill_made_Knight]

I tend to agree with you in principal. Adam Smith included a few caveats in his idea of capitalism, which are mostly along the lines of what you described... regulation... monopoly and great concentration of wealth. Essentially it should have a conscience. As you say the corporation has no heart and cares only for profit. We are now looking at the end phases of a board game of monopoly in the US, the part where the winner is a forgone conclusion.
I also agree that there are certain community benefits and services that should never be privatized. Making a profit doesn't really work well with healthcare for example.
Mixed market it is!

[msc545]

Scandinavian countries tend to have mixed markets, and by all the metrics that economists use, they work really well, and people are happy with them. They provide secure opportunities for people, and at the same time, people don't have to worry about losing their homes or their healthcare. They can actually buy groceries and gasoline without difficulty. Wouldn't That be nice for us?

[Ill_made_Knight]

That's the dream. Like to broke my heart when the DNC jobbed Bernie with their superdelegate trick as well as behind the scenes shenanigans by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She even admitted it. All these corporate Dems that are talking trash about folks like El Sayed and Mamdani makes me nervous... the former "vote blue no matter who crowd".

[msc545]

Yes, there are some extremely bad people in the Democratic Party. Schultz is one of them. She is as dirty and corrupt as the day is long.

[lightbulb27]

I think it's all a vicious circle in managing humans. It works for a while then peeters out ike you noted. That ends in revolution and misery. If not, the wealthy pit people against each other and they slaughter each other... because they are told to.

Scotty, beam me up soon...

[slatyb]

The inequalities of capitalism has to be ameliorated with a social safety net -- a social democracy, like the successful Scandinavian nations. If no one is allowed to keep the fruit of their labor, no one will do anything unless forced. Everyone becomes a slave. It's better to let the market allocate goods than having them allocated by an in group of politicians.

[msc545]

Again, a mixed economy has still proven to be the best economy. You can keep the fruit of your labor to some extent. You aren't forced to do anything. There is a social safety net, so you're not going to starve to death or be sleeping on the streets, but you may not get some of the goodies in life if you don't put in some good work.

The inequalities of capitalism inevitably lead to violent revolution if left unchecked.

[CaptainSmartass]

@msc545 The inequalities of communism also lead to violent revolution. Look at Czechoslovakia in the 1950s and Romania in 1989.

[msc545]

@CaptainSmartass yes, that is actually true.

[slatyb]

I agree. Is that not what I said? We have to allow people to prosper from their efforts while taking care of the less fortunate. Allowing people to prosper doesn't mean there should be no taxes. No taxes means no government, and we can see that stateless societies are a disaster. They devolve into fiefdoms ruled by warlords who will seize any wealth created.

[NathanDavis]

it ain't that simple, but to simplify it...

- capitalism towards consumerism = bad

- capitalism towards sustainability = good


- some of the best examples of capitalism done better... Nordic/Scandinavian countries

- worst example of capitalism done wrong... the USA

[canamlusciouslad73]

At one time, before the gangsta capitalists swindled their was to unimaginable fortunes while their compatriots struggle daily to make ends meet.

[CaptainSmartass]

It beats communism, doesn't it? That's got to count.

Simples...

[msc545]

Yeah, but we're not comparing it to communism, which is inaccurate because communism is not really a good comparator. We are instead comparing it to socialism. When you do that, you find capitalism to be very wanting.

[888theGreat]

Yes , minus corruption and Gov't interference

[msc545]

Exactly, those are the things that we need to get rid of, along with the monopolists and the billionaires and all the rest of the corruption and garbage. You are really right about this.

[Kelly6]

@msc545 Nope