Why do you support capitalism?

[msc545]

Capitalism inevitably concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few individuals while rendering the rest, if not poor, certainly lacking. As those few individuals accumulate more power and wealth, they also gain political power. That political power lets them make or change the legal system to favor themselves and disfavor everyone else. The results are like living in a casino for most people. A casino is a place where a few people win, and everybody else loses. The ultimate outcome in many societies has been, as Corey Doctorow puts it, "poor people building guillotines on the front lawns of the homes of the rich." I have no interest in supporting somebody who supports capitalism in any form. It is a vile and evil economic system that rewards greed and immorality more than anything else. The wealthiest, greediest capitalists are also society's most psychiatrically ill corrupt and dangerous people.

[ChiTown33]

I feel like if i answer this i'll be repeating myself.🤣

As i've said before, i believe in the free market EXCEPT where the market has been proven unable or unwilling to regulate itself. That's where gov't comes in. I still believe Capitalism is the best system so far. Far from perfect, needing vigilence. But still the best system so far.

Humans are evil by nature. We're greedy, we're lustful, we're envious. But Capitalism unlocks the entrprenuerial spirit of humans when managed right. There will always be winners and losers in every system. It's gov'ts job to ensure that it works for most possible.

[msc545]

Except as you may have noticed, when the corporations and the government are the same people, there is no regulation. That is why we have the situation we have now, thanks to the Citizens United decision. Capitalism is an evil economic system that concentrates wealth in the hands of a few people and makes everybody else relatively poor. This is the exact same situation that, in other countries, has led to violent revolutions over and over again for many years into the past. We Run that risk now.

[ChiTown33]

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. We've had a gilded age before. It didn't last.

[msc545]

Nothing good ever lasts.

[ChiTown33]

Well if that's your take than why worry about anything ever, including Capitalism.

I understand your frustration man. But evil exist. It tries to gain a foothold everyday. That's why each one of us mucst fight the good fight every day.
We're a better society than we were a 100 years. Ago, 200 years. Ago. Etc. I refuse to believe otherwise.

[msc545]

I wasn't alive 100 or 200 years ago. I have absolutely no idea what it was like.

[ChiTown33]

Touchè man.

[Ill_made_Knight]

Anyone who's ever played a game of "Monopoly" knows how capitalism plays out in the end. The game was designed as a cautionary tale about it I believe.

[msc545]

It's an interesting point that it might have been designed as a cautionary tale. I never thought of that before. I do know that the winning strategy in capitalism is to simply buy up as much property as you possibly can right there at the beginning. For that, of course, you need money. If your family gives it to you as a gift, such as what happened with Trump, it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to borrow it from a bank when you have no credit.

[Ill_made_Knight]

Yes. So privilege is huge

[msc545]

Indeed it is.

[Ill_made_Knight]

Thank you kindly sir.

[purplepoppy]

I've nothing against capitalism as long as it's conducted fairly and ethically. Once you go down the line of profit at any cost and justifying exploitation then there's a problem.

Think about this, we've become more and more automated, computers faster and more powerful. We were told decades ago all this would mean we'd work less but earn more? But people today are still working 8 hour+ shifts and for less money in real terms than past generations. Someone's profiting and its not you.

[jamesgoldman]

Soon will come the mass executions because they can't hide it anymore

[msc545]

People that benefit from capitalism are the the people who go down what you refer to as the line of profit at any cost and justification of exploitation. Capitalism ultimately results in terrible social and economic problems. You are seeing those now in the United States. Capitalism, by its very nature, cannot be conducted ethically or fairly. It Is an inherently unfair and corrupt system

[Ill_made_Knight]

It is essentially a system that is based on competition rather than cooperation towards a collective good... self serving. The most aggressive and unethical will eventually gain advantage, and once they do the arithmetic soon becomes inescapable short of some sort of intervention.

[Iron_Man]

There is nothing wrong with working in your own business self-employed instead of working for the man. Working for the man nowadays Gets you minimum wage. People can do a lot better by being self-employed charging the customers a certain fair price for their work. What’s wrong with that or owning a family campground and making money that’s what we’ve always done. I don’t like working for them man they’re cheap. They’re hard they control your schedule and your hours and your days and you’re never free. They have you working on Christmas Day instead of being off that’s how they are the managers.

[msc545]

@Ill_made_Knight, that's exactly correct. I wish more people realized the truth of what you just wrote.

[msc545]

@Iron_Man you are certainly not wrong by any means, but I question whether or not your understanding of our general problem with capitalism. This is a problem that applies to all of us, both those who are employed by big companies and those who run their own businesses, such as you and I.

[Iron_Man]

We did run a big business, but it wasn’t like $1 million business. It was a family campground. We just paid the people a fair price.

[Iron_Man]

My father ran it, and yet he still flew plane for the airlines he was the captain

[purplepoppy]

@ironman exactly. If an employer pays minimum wage he's saying if he was allowed to pay you less he would. Same as companies that only give you the legal bear minimum workers rights. People are finding themselves having to sell skills they went on long training courses to gain for the same wage as shelf stackers. We tell people they're lazy if they don't work for peanuts and label them commies if they ask not to be treated like shit.

[Iron_Man]

That’s not right to be treated like that and work for that kind of money and criticize them and tell them that they’re lazy that’s like cotton pickers Keep them down and drive them hard into the ground. I know that you’re a good hard worker with your animals poppy and you deserve top dollar. I understand it can be very difficult. I’m on your side with that.

[msc545]

@Iron_Man if you were practicing fairness, and I'm sure you were, then I commend you and your family for that. Unfortunately, a lot of other people, including big corporations, do not practice any fairness at all, and the whole system of capitalism promotes unfairness. If it didn't do that, I would not be so much against it, but it does do that. I am lucky. I am able to avoid it by being self-employed.

[msc545]

@purplepoppy That is exactly what happens. Your last sentence is really evocative, and I wish more people realized the truth of it.

[Iron_Man]

I had no control. I was a child. There was nothing I could do, but I know that my dad was fair because they stayed there for years and they lived there the workers. My brother worked there too as a manager.

[msc545]

@Iron_Man thank you. I am fortunate that in my profession, just about everybody is an independent contractor. There are a few people that think that I'm going to be their employee and offer me employment, and they soon learn that I have absolutely no intention of ever doing that.

[Iron_Man]

You’re very welcome so you work for yourself?

[msc545]

@Iron_Man yes, I refuse to work for other people, and actually, in my profession, there are very few of us that work for other people. There are actually some laws against it in some cases.

[Iron_Man]

I’m glad you work for yourself. Good job. 👍🏻

[Iron_Man]

Poppy is a good woman. She deserves great treatment.

[Ill_made_Knight]

As someone who began work in the 70's I can tell a long tale about how the employer is showing the employee far less value and loyalty over that time. The decline, and crushing of unions has had a big impact on their ability to crush people as well. @Iron_Man your point about self employment is well taken, but if your best skills don't lend themselves to that very well, or you find yourself in competition with the big boys it's tough. We must break up the monopolies, and get labor back on track. Everyone will benefit. In the meantime running your own is probably, as you said, the most viable solution

[msc545]

@Iron_Man she absolutely is a good one.

[Iron_Man]

Yes 🤭👍

[lilBigPotato]

The problem isn't necessarily capitalism, but unregulated capitalism.

[msc545]

Well, the problem is a little bit different than that. With all due respect, capitalism concentrates wealth in the hands of a few people, who then use that wealth to purchase politicians and other persons who would otherwise be regulating them. This is called regulatory capture. A captured regulator is the same thing as a corporate employee in many cases. A good example of this would be Boeing, which now regulates itself relative to inspecting airplanes that they build. We know how well this has been turning out. Actual people who worked for the government and that would have otherwise inspected new airplanes now work essentially for Boeing, and they inspect airplanes that are made by Boeing.

The point is that capitalism is only regulated to the extent that the regulators are independent of the capitalists. When the capitalists capture the regulators using money, which is what normally happens, the regulators are no longer independent.

[slatyb]

I support social democracy. Obviously we need regulations to mitigate the problems with unregulated capitalism. But if people aren't allowed to profit from their effort, everyone does the minimum and no one is has anything except the politicos.

[msc545]

In socialism, everyone profits from the labor of everyone. In capitalism, only a few people profit from the labor of everyone.

[msc545]

Also, in capitalism, the motivating force is homelessness and starvation. You either do the work, or you are homeless and you starve. Capitalists always oppose anything that even has the potential of replacing hard, cheap labor because this is how they get their money. With socialism, the motivating force is social, in the sense that if you don't do the work, you literally will not have any friends, and people will look down upon you. If you do the work, people will care about you, and they will treat you with respect. This is again because in socialism, everybody benefits from the labor of everybody.

[msc545]

In capitalism, people compete with each other and literally steal from each other for what they have been told by the people in charge are limited resources. Socialism: People group together to cooperate with each other, to make the best of what they have, and to create more.

[slatyb]

What is your definition of socialism?

[msc545]

I think there are different incarnations of it in it that there is no single word that describes it adequately.

[msc545]

I can describe in several different manifestations, but I can't think of a single word or phrase that would define it. Maybe something like people cooperating and helping each other as opposed to being fearful and competing with each other.

[slatyb]

Here's a definition: "Socialism is an economic and political philosophy characterized by the social, collective, or public ownership and control of the means of production—such as factories, tools, raw materials, and land—rather than private ownership."

Is that what you advocate?

[msc545]

I think you are confusing. Socialism and communism.

[slatyb]

I didn't pull it out of my ass. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

If that's not what you meant, could you clarify?

Do you have a different definition?

[msc545]

Who do you think owns the equipment that the fire department uses to extinguish the fire that is threatening your home?

[goaded]

It's not inevitable. You "just" need a government that is willing to tax the wealthy so that there's a smaller gap between rich and poor. Think Scandinavia.

[Ill_made_Knight]

I agree in pricipal. The minute the oligarchs manage to slip the regulatory shield and become capable of buying laws and lawmakers that willingness is lost. We will have one hell of a fight re-establishing that here.

[msc545]

The problem with that solution is that often the wealthy are also the same people who are the government. In that case, they're certainly not going to tax themselves to fill that gap and, in fact, will do everything they can to disadvantage the poor so as to put more money in their own pockets. Think Trump.

[msc545]

@Ill_made_Knight yes, you are again referring, I believe, to the not-so-well-known but hopefully getting better-known principle of regulatory capture, where the regulators and the industries that regulate them are the same people.

[Ill_made_Knight]

In this specific case that is true. The final nail was put in the coffin of regulation of the American capitalism was the "Citizens United Decision" in which corporations were found to be people (granting them first amendment rights) and that speech is the same thing as money (allowing said corporations to use their "free speech" (money) to influence politicians with virtually no guard rails. At this point it became literally true that the wealthy literally write their own laws... game over... That decision was handed down during Obama I believe, so Trump is the first R to have had a crack at using it to it's fullest

[goaded]

Well, it's possible to elect non-wealthy candidates and change the laws about campaign finance. It's just not easy. The blatant corruption of the current administration makes that more likely to happen.

But it's essential to "look back", not just forward. That's when the crimes were committed.

[Ill_made_Knight]

@goaded absolutely and it's what must be done here, thus the focus on candidates who take no PAC money and are funded by small public donations. Have a look at the attacks this gets from the rich. Talarico in Texas is a good example. Elon Musk is pouring money into Ken Paxton at a crazy rate to try and make sure this doesn't happen. Musk has his SpaceX launch and Tesla headquarters in Texas and is PAID in subsisies by Greg Abbott. He can throw boatloads of money at Paxton and still make bank on his investment if Republicans keep control. If Hinojosa beats Abbott his free money may be in jeapordy as well as his control of that public beach in Texas.

[msc545]

@Ill_made_Knight, absolutely accurate and true. Thank you. I was not aware of the historical antecedents of Citizens United, but what you said explains a lot.

[msc545]

I don't think that punishing past crimes is nearly as important as preventing future crimes. Looking forward to me is a much more viable strategy and much more rewarding. The idea that punishing past crimes will prevent future crimes has unfortunately proven to be false for the most part.

[Ill_made_Knight]

Old men are occasionally useful... lol

[msc545]

@Ill_made_Knight I think this begs an admittedly and perhaps overly controversial question that goes something like this:

Since too much money or power (which, in many cases, are the same thing) in the hands of an individual or a small group often gives that individual or group far too much influence over our political structure, Should It Be prohibited or severely limited in the interest of public safety?

[Ill_made_Knight]

There are people, and I generally agree with them, that argue that no person can actually do the work necessary to produce a billion dollars all by themselves, and that there should be no billionaires. They are usually people that start with daddies money (a LOT of it) and parlay that through shady financial deals, maybe you own Walmart and have more people working in your company collecting SNAP benefits than any other company in the country. Trump himself started with daddies dollers, the logic is that you can'y possibly have actually earned all that legitimately (1 billion equals 50 20 million dollar yachts). So what should be done... Tax.
Fun fact the marginal tax rate on various amounts over a maximum was 90% or more from the 1940's into the 1960's. They began clawing that back in earnest when Reagan was in office... todays marginal tax top bracket is 37% on anything over about 650k. And let's face it a millionaire doesn't eat more food or buy more jeans than other people... you have money stagnating and being warehoused essentially, and that's far more money than they could ever need, short of buying tax law of course

[msc545]

@Ill_made_Knight again, very informative. Thank you. I need to ask you: in your opinion, should we limit the amount of money that people can accumulate, or, for that matter, the amount of money represented by property that people can accumulate? What millionaires do, or what billionaires do, as I understand it, is that they have no earned income whatsoever. They simply borrow against their assets. Money that they borrow is not taxable.

[msc545]

So maybe somehow limiting the amount of money that they can borrow, or limiting the value of their assets, would be the way to proceed with this solution?

[goaded]

"I don't think that punishing past crimes is nearly as important as preventing future crimes."

Really? I think not pardoning Nixon and making it clear that Clinton would be convicted (despite the fact it was an obvious witch hunt) would have prevented a Trump. Clinton's unreasonable impeachment would probably have cost the Republicans and netted the few hundred votes Gore needed to win, so perhaps no 9/11 and massive tax cuts before the debt was almost gone, and the timeline diverges.

[goaded]

On second thoughts, perhaps a pardon could be seen as a reward for stepping down.

[msc545]

I disagree. See my commentary, Patriotic Stockholm syndrome, for a clear rebuttal to this. Frostmage syndrome is incredibly powerful, and I doubt that a conviction Of either Nixon or Clinton would have prevented it unfortunately:

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological phenomenon in which people develop feelings of loyalty, sympathy, or affection toward someone who mistreats or controls them. Instead of recognizing that person as the source of their suffering, they may defend that person's behavior and even become hostile toward anyone who criticizes it. At least one school of thought suggests that people do this unconsciously to essentially psychologically "disarm" people whom they think might otherwise, in some fashion, harm them. Therefore, authoritarian, apparently powerful people tend to attract followers who have Stockholm syndrome.

Patriotic Stockholm syndrome applies this idea to politics. It describes a situation in which citizens become so emotionally attached to their country, government, or political leaders that they continue supporting those leaders even when their policies are clearly harming them.

[msc545]

For example, people may lose economic opportunities, healthcare benefits, or personal freedoms because of government policies, yet continue defending the politicians responsible. Rather than holding those politicians accountable, they blame outsiders, political opponents, or other groups for their difficulties.

This happens partly because people often connect their political loyalties with their personal identities. Admitting that a trusted leader is harming them can feel like admitting that their own beliefs, judgment, or patriotism have been mistaken. Defending the leader becomes psychologically easier than confronting that possibility.

The result is a troubling reversal: People begin protecting those in power instead of demanding that those in power protect them.

Patriotic Stockholm syndrome is not a formal psychological diagnosis. It is an analogy used to describe how emotional loyalty, group identity, and psychological dependence can sometimes override people's recognition of their own interests.

The central problem is that loyalty to a political leader becomes confused with loyalty to one's country, even though the two are not the same thing.

[goaded]

Well, you can fool some of the people all of the time... Democracy relies on most of the people working it out.

in my opinion, Democrats in the senate made a mistake allowing the Clinton judgement to become political. Yes, the impeachment should never have happened, but the facts did support conviction. They could have decried the charges, pointed out the obvious bad faith, but remove Clinton from office (or he could have resigned). Not doing so left the door open for the Republicans to basically ignore obvious criminal behaviour from Trump.

That's not to say they wouldn't have done that anyway, but at least it would have been Republicans defying the law, not the Democrats.

[Ill_made_Knight]

@msc545 you are correct to point out that they don't earn in the same way, no paycheck etc.. they'll have to batten down the loopholes, reinstitute the inheritance tax at a healthy rate, find a way to tax existing wealth which will be a tricky thing. Certain any of the luxuries that only people of that status can buy must be hit with luxury taxes. To cap it all off, many say"They'll just leave" Ok, so say they do, before you go you'll ci=ontinue to pay the taxes no matter where you live unless you renounce citizenship and when you do that you'll have to pay a tax on your total valued wealth... I've seen numbers such as 24% of EVERYthing thrown around (there is already something like this in place) NOW you decide if it's worth it to give up 24% of your wealth and the opportunity to do business in the American economy with the rights of a citizen... or pay the new tax which will be quite reasonable by comparison. NO free ways out. The wealthy and corporations are the TRUE recipients of "welfare" in this country. They recieve the benefits of socialism currently while you and I are expected to live within our means... we don't get bailed out. They DO.

[goaded]

@Ill_made_Knight Income tax, when it was proposed, was dismissed as unreasonable. The constitutional amendment allowing it passed in no time. We need the same for wealth.

At least for more wealth than I have! C:

[Ill_made_Knight]

@goaded in the Gore election I believe the Supreme Court made the decision to stop the counting before everything was truly resolved in the interest of expediancy. That pardon might be amenable depending upon who would take his seat, understanding that Trump WILL try to pardon himself before leaving anyway. But I think that with all this clearly visible filth hatred and corruption on the part of the whole administration, his family and him, There are MANY who could never have any real measure of trust in this government again knowing the standard they personally would be held to. We always hear "no man is above the law" right now that looks like a huge lie, and until it is dispelled there will be turmoil I'm afraid.

[Ill_made_Knight]

It is believed by many that Gore would have won if resolved properly by the way... sorry for the skipping about. I hope this is decipherable.

[goaded]

@Ill_made_Knight Believed with evidence, which is important. Gore having had a few months in the job, I suspect, would have made the margin of victory unassailable. 2004 would have been interesting if 9/11 had happened despite not ignoring the threat. Yet another timeline.

[goaded]

I'm sure "no man is above the law" will apply again as soon as there's a Democratic president. Just like "the national debt is a massive threat to the country, we need to cut services".

[Ill_made_Knight]

we can hope... we have to deal with the Schumers and Jeffries then. They are corrupt as well.
Fun thing to look at as another what if scenario. FDR's VP Henry Wallace was kicked off the ticket in 44. The more conservative elements of the party didn't like his progressivism, so we ended up with Harry Truman... another critical juncture.

[goaded]

@Ill_made_Knight I said it wouldn't be easy.

[Ill_made_Knight]

that you did

[AngryCarl3]

Capitalism is how wealth is generated. Socialism is how wealth is distributed. You need a mixture of both for a sustainable functioning society. The mistake of the Monetarists was their idea that the economy could be left to run itself.

[msc545]

That is a good point. The problem is that with capitalism, wealth is often not simply generated but instead is often not distributed but instead is hoarded.

[AngryCarl3]

The greatest achievement of socialism was universal health care paid for by taxation.

[NathanDavis]

what you describe is Consumerism and also, Corporatism... not exactly capitalism

and the problem is not with capitalism itself... it's the lack of regulation, typical of the USA

[DryGermanGuy]

I support a social market economy, like most successful European countries have.

[MrChinaski]

Because it puts nice food in my belly.

[msc545]

There are ways to put food in your belly that don't involve exploiting or harming others.

[MrChinaski]

www.amazon.com/.../