Is capitalism overrated or underappreciated?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

boards.Sup
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#People.27s_Republic_of_China
fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/changes-econ-freedom-chapters.pdf
bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-10-14/private-companies-are-driving-china-s-growth
economist.com/node/21543160
dictionary.com/browse/state-capitalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Largely misunderstood, just like other (((isms)))

capitalism is the least shit option.

Underappreciated and misunderstood

Overrated. People see things like the miracles in Japan and Hong Kong and think that they're due to Capitalism and not the US pumping massive amounts of money in and also giving those countries privileged trade conditions at a time when the US economy was 50% of the world economy.

Basically too many people have a very simple understanding of history and don't understand the behind-the-scenes government work that made economic success possible. Not to mention the retards that show up every thread screaming "CHINA IS CAPITALIST".

I feel like Commies kinda have a point of Capitalism but at least it's better than Communism

If a business integrates either vertically or horizontally, they will become a monopoly (more literally true with horizontal integration, but still inevitable with vertical integration). Near-Monopolies DO NOT need to operate within the free market system, they do not need to compete, they can use unique tactics to keep competition out. Once they are a complete monopoly, then they really do not need to operate in a free market, because consumers can no longer boycott their product, they need it, and only one company makes the product. This allows the company to grow in power. And in a completely free market, this company can just merge more and more. Let's say the first monopoly in the world is a food company - it probably isn't a monopoly on all food at first, just a few things, like bread. Then this super powerful bread company buys out all candy companies, then all beef companies, etc etc. Soon enough all food is in the control of this company. Why stop there? The Food company buys out more construction businesses, buys out healthcare businesses, etc. Fundamentally, completely free market economies allow for one business to continually grow and control more things.

Eventually there would need to be a government which makes it illegal for large companies to merge. Which is why it is illegal right now, why Windows and Apple don't merge together, even though they would make more money merged than un-merged. Because capitalism is NOT about competition, it is about making money, and competition is something which prevents you from making money, competition is a waste of money.

k

keep me posted

Underrated, people never ask why is capitalism around right now. They would just rather point out the faults.

I don't understand why leftists, socialist and communist always bash on capitalism, they give a way for people to come out of poverty

Capitalism is about two basic tenets: freedom of association and respect of private property.
Do you find these two bad?

China is very capitalist now you leftist fucking idiot.

>competition is a waste of money
boards.Sup Forums.org/r/eddit

Because (((literally the jews))) paid (((literally the other jews))) to come up with this theory where (((capitalism))) eventually leads to (((communism))).

nobody ever called it (((capitalism))) before.

Not an argument. Explain how it would not be more profitable for windows and apple to merge.

>Not an argument

>they can use unique tactics to keep competition out

Like?

All you're claiming it's they can become a monopoly but how can they be one if I can create a OS and put it on github for free?

>China
>capitalist
Go back to your fucking swamp, cretin.

At the recent party conference Li Keqiang announced a new wave of privatisation exactly because too much of the economy is still owned by the state. Even the so-called """private""" companies still either have most of their shares owned by the state or their board is state officials.

As someone who actually lives in the fucking region and studied China in university from a security perspective, they're not fucking capitalist.

trade is the only path to everlasting peace

They are not capitalist but their growth is, curiously, parallel to the number of capitalist policies (special economic zones and general liberalization of their economy) they adopted.

My reason for bringing up windows and apple is specifically focusing on how mergers are more profitable than competition.

But Linux isn't going to get big in the world very easily, especially if we had a free market right now instead of government regulations on business. The average person has no idea about OS. So Microsoft-Apple, in a free market, can just lie about the other OS', say that they'll cause viruses, etc etc. And prevent anyone from speaking up the truth. Afterall, horizontal integration can go further, Why not have google join Microsoft-Apple? And then more and more tech companies will profit from merging with Microsoft-Apple-Google.

Also, on the subject of how companies can prevent competition, he's another quote I made hours earlier:
"The vertical integration. They don't just own the farms, they own the plants, they own the seeds, they've done the research to make seeds cheaper, plants grow better, etc. Once a company grows so large, it becomes nigh impossible to compete. You cannot make a mainframe that out-competes with IBM, because IBM owns all the infrastructure that surrounds a mainframe, if you make a better Mainframe than IBM, they will make it so their software and hardware does not work with your mainframe. This is why after a certain point, you cannot compete anymore, when capitalism stops being meritocratic. The company that is a monopoly DID make the best food with the best quality, that is why they became powerful."

But huge portions of their growth is fake growth underpinned by massive infrastructure spending directed by the state...

OSX is based on BSD you retarded faggot.

Smart move considering serious computing is done with linux so that all the macfags with their fagbooks and fagphones don't have to leave the hugchamber to make things work on big-boy computers.

Make up your own mind.

>freedom causes success
>could just easily be interpreted as success causes freedom
Really makes you think.

You fail to understand what monopoly is, providing a product so superior that you can impose draconian policies such as the one you're describing is only possible by providing superior products to the competition, in which case, well granted dominant position (which is the term you were looking for, not monopoly).

I assume you're speaking about Monsanto, Monstanto is a heavily subsidized company (by the government you claim will defend us from them) that releases products superior to the competition and which reach is bigger. This is not a monopoly, I have an open market with fruit next to my house right now.

Claiming Linux, or any other OS that spurs from Windows and Apple becoming increasingly inefficient through merging is not going to get big and that people are so retarded that they will buy into lies about virus is just so presumptuous I'm not even going to address it.

>go back to your fucking swamp cretin

You're fucking retarded as fuck.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#People.27s_Republic_of_China

China is the prime definition of state capitalism, furthermore private corporations operating for private profit exist heavily, and China has the most billionaires. It is not socialist or communist, but capitalism with heavy state involvement.

Capitalism kills Nationalism desu

80% of China was living in extreme poverty (under 2$ per month) just 50 years ago.

Yes, they manipulate their currency and economy and they're not a free market, but huge portion of their growth is certainly not fake as you claim.

Indeed. However when the data is analysed further the former hypothesis becomes more likely.

fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/changes-econ-freedom-chapters.pdf

>implying competition won't lead to an efficient outcome
Invisible Hand you stupid faggot cunt.

t. 101 econometrics professor

...

member that time IBM and Microsoft combined powers AGAIN for OS/2 and it was actually better but then they couldn't get along and it lead to some very juicy USENET rants from the insiders and the Microsoft decided it would be better off trying to corner the market differently?

funny dance this

I don't know why these faggots are trying to use Jew Magic to try to explain and mandate standard human behavior. I guess they're probably fucking kikes.

>Wikipedia

>You fail to understand what monopoly is, providing a product so superior that you can impose draconian policies such as the one you're describing is only possible by providing superior products to the competition, in which case, well granted dominant position
Yes, once you become a monopoly from providing the best product at the cheapest price, you no longer need to do that anymore. Capitalism is only competitive until someone wins the race, and then things change dramatically. The only provided solutions are to make the race continuously longer and the runners slower (liberalism) or change the game entirely (socialism).

>I assume you're speaking about Monsanto
Sorry, I took this from another thread without giving context, I'm starting to get tired. I'm trying to point out this concept of vertical integration and how it makes it impossible for others to just "join in the market with a better product"

>Claiming Linux, or any other OS that spurs from Windows and Apple becoming increasingly inefficient through merging is not going to get big and that people are so retarded that they will buy into lies about virus is just so presumptuous I'm not even going to address it.
How do you prevent people from buying into lies? If they own all media, due to continuous merging and control, how is this prevented?


Ignore everything I posted above, just answer this question:
What is the free market solution to vertical and horizontal integration?

Fascism is superior to both.

>capitalism
>when the state exercises total control over the economy and property rights don't exist because although they are there in law they are abrogated at a whim

Huge portions of their growth are fake. There is real growth underpinning it, but how many of those workers with the better-paid jobs are working for SOEs or for """private""" companies with party officials on the board.

Protip: almost all of them, because you will never be allowed to have a big business in China without co-operating with the party.

Hell, fucking McDonald's and KFC exist in China every where. So do other foreign companies. To claim it is communist or socialist is beyond retarded.


Even with SOEs, it's private companies that are driving most of the Chinese economic growth, not private.


bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-10-14/private-companies-are-driving-china-s-growth

Only absolute retards who want to think that China is a communist or socialist success, when the gdp per capita and economy didn't really take off until the Demg capitalist reforms call it communist or socialist. It has a ton of private companies operating for private profit and the most private billionaires. It's a capitalist success story. But it isn't free market capitalism.

Read advanced economics you fuckwit. How do freemarkets prevent vertical and horizontal integration.

Shit in its "muh free market" form because it inevitably leads to globalisation and (((corporations))) pushing laws which destroys nations.

this

Fun fact (((Rothschilds))) also funded guys like Mises.

>gee I wonder if (((they))) are playing both sides again to achieve the (((Jew World Order)))

What, you reset your router you allah-nigger?

>le """private""" companies myth
You mean the companies where half the board are party members and who know that the second they step out of line they'll start going down in """scandals""" until they're replaced.

Shitty yankees who are a thousand miles away having opinions on countries they know nothing about will be the fucking death of me.

>mfw it took american foreign policy 50 years to realise that China and the USSR hated each other

Read the link and citations you mong.

>what is state capitalism with cities that shanghai and shenzhen which are more free market


economist.com/node/21543160

Please my bogan friend. Read on what state capitalism is. The workers do not own shit in China. The government essentially acts as one huge corporation while allowing private ones to exist in tandem in SEZs.

t. zhang

I recall some board members at Penn State who didn't get their asses served up in prison despite being up to their eyeballs in child sex trafficking. Perhaps the state has yet to intercede.

Capitalism (competition) is a driving force that can result in good and bad. It's idiotic to fight against it like communists or let it run rampant like ancaps and whatnot want it to. It needs to be harnessed and redirected for the good of the nation.

>"state capitalism is still capitalism!!! suck it commies!!!"
Jesus Christ shut the fuck up.

I'm not saying China is communist or socialist. It's none of those things and it's not capitalist either. It's a uniquely Chinese economy that runs on corruption and party games.

What is the free market solution to vertical and horizontal integration?

For it to need a solution first it has to be a problem, a dominant position is not necessarily a bad thing.

Second, syndication, strikes, inefficiency, all these are way more frequent in bigger companies, which will inevitably cause a loss in competitive edginess.

The main problem of your argument is that you're thinking people who have to compete against Microsoft are people whose current wealth is 0, but if Microsoft actually started providing shitty services as the result of a dominant position, there's hundreds of big companies with lots of resources that would love to invest into dethroning Microsoft.

In a free market you can dominate, but you won't do it by being inefficient.

But remember if we can get a GDP increase by opening our borders up completely with (((trade deals))), it'll be good for everyone and Mr Shekelstein might give you a $1 raise because his corporation made record profits

Anything for a (((GDP))) increase! The love of meaningless numbers is the root of all good!

If one company has a monopoly on food, how do you compete against it in a free market?

You don't understand what state capitalism is. You're retarded as fuck because virtually every economist gives the modern Chinese econony that label. It's like Russia in which the state involves itself with private companies and keeps a leash on them. This is a hallmark of state capitalism.

How do you get a monopoly on food? I can plant potatoes and put an open market tomorrow if I want to.

It's almost like you can't easily condense political ideologies into generic terms or compare them to the US Republican and Democrat Party

Why doesn't Sup Forums understand this? Is it retards who just bandwagoned?

>state capitalism isn't a form of a capitalism

You are truly fucking retarded. Kill yourself and read up on what state capitalism is.

Create seeds which cannot be replanted, and own all the farms that produce food, eventually you're not going to be able to plant potatoes anymore.

How would you make it to acquire all farmable land in the world if people are boycotting your products and if competing against you, because of your huge maintenance expenses, is so easy and profitable?

You understand that as a resource runs scarce, it becomes more and more expensive, right? How the fuck can you buy all land without ruining yourself in the process.

>it's state capitalism
I.E. not fucking capitalism.

State capitalism is a meme where private business exists at the sufferance of the central authority which is not bound by any laws and routinely abrogates property rights, which are essential to real capitalism.

It's not capitalism if the state can roll up and confiscate your factory for no reason other than that they don't like what you're doing when you haven't broken any laws.

China has no rule of law, and so its economy is just a pile of corrupt old fucks lining their own pockets and a communist party desperately trying to keep ahead of the revolt. That's all China's economy is. If you want to understand it, that's the lens to use. A combination of theft and suppression and bribes-to-the-people.

>Why doesn't Sup Forums understand this?
I don't know. I don't understand how other people can be so shit. Granted I have a degree in PolSci and focused heavily on China in my major, but still. This shit is so blatantly obvious.

>capitalism is private individuals owning productive enterprises and operating in a free market
>china's market isn't free and private individuals never really own anything because the government can do whatever the fuck it wants
>"IT'S STILL CAPITALISM"
H O W

But it's not. If state capitalism was capitalism it would just be called fucking capitalism.

State capitalism is different from capitalism and THAT'S WHY IT HAS A DIFFERENT NAME.

And then patent the seeds so that no matter which way the wind blows you can claim patent infringement for the guy who tried to grow his own. Oh, also, the UN owns the water, so those are the UN's potatoes.

DON'T STEAL THE UN'S POTATOES YOU FILTHY CAPITALIST WRECKER

>the US economy was 50% of the world economy
and exactly how did they achieve that? huh? tell me, you fucking emu rape baby

If land starts being monopolised by a giant company with huge assets, how can Farmer Joe with a few thousand even hope to buy some land?

Nobody except a corporation or individual with vast resources could enter the market. The setup costs would probably outweigh the benefits so nobody would bother

>and exactly how did they achieve that?
By being too far away for Germany to bomb or occupy while having a population the size of all of Europe combined and an entire continent of natural resources all for themselves, and selling arms to literally the entire planet.

>NO IT WAS CAPITALISM
How "free" do you think the US economy was during fucking wartime production you idiot?

Because land cant be monopolized. If I buy one farm it will cost X, by the time I buy the 6th farm I'm already spending 20 times per farm.

Supply and demand basics.

the bigger the social group, the greater chance of schisms.

And boards of executives are fuckhueg in multinational conglomerates

Dude all you have to do is be a central banker and issue loans for people to buy land and then bankrupt them and keep the land. It's the easiest thing in the world to monopolize.

cf. Greece (and perhaps soon Spain, if anybody really wants it)

>Free market
>Central banker
>People who get loans are all retarded.

If Greece and Spain are in their position is mainly because governments don't care about sustainable practices, this doesn't happen generally with private entities.

Well i guess you could call it state capitalism aka mercantilism

dictionary.com/browse/state-capitalism

>a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.

State capitalism is a form of capitalism you idiot. It just isn't free market capitalism. The state can seize your private property under any system in which private property exists, and private property does exist in China.

They're in that position because the fucking jews in the form of Goldman Sachs (predominantly) jewed your corrupt shitbags to sell out your countries. How's that for private?

And now China (CHYNA) is recycling the US's jewed out debt to buy up and repopulate as much of the world as possible.

Its still a kind of capitalism, in that it tries to create profit by leveraging capital which is mostly controlled by the state.
Its definitely not communism or socialism though

>a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.
So it's a meaningless term whose specificity is limited to "the government owns things?"

Top kek.

State capitalism is a meme.

>The state can seize your private property under any system in which private property exists, and private property does exist in China.
Shut up you moron. In Australia - and America - resumption is bounded by laws and indeed here it's bounded by the constitution. If you can't see how this distinguishes it from China's complete lack of rule of law you're retarded.

You can't even own a house in China. Just a 99-year lease.

Outdated, user. The age of robots and AI demands a more efficient system.

>implying usa economy wasnt already huge before the war

>Its still a kind of capitalism
Only in the senses that don't matter.

>BUT IT'S NOT SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM REEEE
I DON'T CARE YOU STUPID FUCK.

I never said it was. I just said it's not fucking capitalism.

Even if it IS state capitalism - even if you construct a broad and pointless definition that is broad and pointless enough to apply - it's still not capitalism. How? Because capitalism and state capitalism are not the same fucking thing, which is why they're different fucking words.

>but state capitalism is a kind of capitalism
No it's not, they're direct opposites.

>capitalism
Private individuals hold capital.
>state capitalism
The state holds capital.

O P P O S I T E S.

What is "The Great Depression" for the Falkland Islands, Jerome?

No, they're in this position because democracy is a fucking cancer and because central bankers, by pressure from the government, created an environment of low interest rates and loan populism which obviously leads to massive malinvestments. Also doesn't help that in order to hire someone you need to literally marry them, government regulations in Greece and Spain are prohibitive against firing workers and minimum wages are way out of their companies capabilities.

But its easier to blame the joos I guess, you don't need to think, you just need to repeat.

The US economy was however better than the rest to the point where we scooped up European gold in return for the Breton Woods system and mobilized our renewed productive capacity to loan script out to Europe and rebuild it while simultaneously keeping our domestic economy juiced.

>muh definitions only

Capitalism is nature itself; survival of the fittest, compete and adapt or get left behind and go instinct.

That's all because of the Jews, man. You might not like to hear it, but it's true.

Don't forget the Inquisition.

capitalism and (((economic growth))) is what's holding humans back

if we didn't have some "people" that are hyped about owning gorillions of subhuman slaves and pretty much turning the planet into one big slave-pen, whites could have probably removed everyone else the fuck off this planet, and focused on things that are important

science and exploration

Correct, because the US is the size of the entirety of Europe and has an entire continent's worth of resources to itself and whose closest competitors are fucking Canada and Mexico.

>when even the language you speak proves you wrong

I don't care to hear it, I don't have special sympathy for their lobbyist culture, it's just that it's not really a very compelling argument,

FUCK CAPITALISM!!!!

We anti-fascists are the revolution!!! Join us and become empowered today!

>so it's a meaningless term whose specificity is limited to "the government owns things"

And essentially acts like a huge corporation but still allows private corporations to exist while maintaining them on a close leash you retarded fuck.

>State capitalism is usually described as an economic system in which commercial (i.e., for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, wage labor, and centralized management), or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business management practices) or publicly listed corporations of which the state has controlling shares.[1]

>or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business management practices) or publicly listed corporations of which the state has controlling shares.[1]


In a socialist economy, private corporations operating for private profit would not exist. China has the most private billionaires of any country that drive luxury vehicles and own luxury homes. You think that because it isn't a free market, it isn't a form of capitalism. You are retarded. Read this and fuck off.

www.ckgsb.edu.cn/uploads/professor/201607/15/DX_IEA_Chapter_4-30-05.pdf

>resumption is bound by laws

Who makes the laws you fucking idiot? I meant that in the sense of if the givernment really wanted to, they can seize your business whenever they want and break the rules.

Its the best thing we currently have with all the horrible and good consequences.
But people that complain about capitalism will get their wish in a couple of generations when 80% of work is automated, then lets looks what alternatives they have and how the average quality of life changes. But as of right now Capitalism is the best S Tier unbeatable.

Then why didn't the Soviet Union do this while they had their chance.

Yeah, and what did we do with that opportunity? Lend-leased the USSR into greatness only to piss it away fighting endless pointless wars against communists (except for China, where we cockblocked the war to initiate Mao lol) and then wound up defaulting on the gold standard to shift to the petrodollar (thanks jews) and toss the whole world into a Trotskyite clusterfuck (thanks again jews)

What a fucking mess. And these assholes argue about
>muh thisism
>muh thatism
>but muh true whateverism has never been tried

By your own definition no country is capitalist

>private individuals don't hold capital in China

You are fucking retarded.

Here's one of the richest Chinese: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma

Both. It's not the only system that works - albeit all of them, including capitalism have flaws. At the same time it's one getting the most flak nowadays from retarded liberals who don't know how much worse they could have.

Did any of you fucktards even pass microeconomics?

I'd your adjuncts are glad you are gone, though.

overrated
it's what the jews want, so that's why you like capitalism as much as you do

>microeconomics
ANTISEMITE

NOW YOU'LL SAY WE HAVE TO ENFORCE OUR OWN LAWS. THEY'RE OUR LAWS GOYIM, YOU DON'T GET TO PLAY BY THEM.

>MUH SOCIALISM
How many times do I have to tell you that I agree, China isn't fucking socialist? Read what I am writing you ignorant enormous fuck.

But it's not a case of "if it's not socialism it's capitalism."

State capitalism is literally the opposite of capitalism.

>capitalism
Private individuals own capital.
>state capitalism
The state owns capitalism.

You cannot simultaneously have capitalism and state capitalism. They are fucking mutually exclusive.

>Who makes the laws you fucking idiot?
An accountable legislature, WHICH CHINA DOESN'T HAVE.

HENCE WHY THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.

HOLY FUCK.

Yep. The US was destroyed from the inside and no matter what ism the country rallies around it will never be fixed until you purge the elites who sold you out for money and power.

There are plenty of capitalist countries. No pure capitalist countries, just like there are no pure anything countries, but certainly there are countries more capitalist than fucking China.

It's a question of proportion and authority you stupid fuck. Jack Ma is in the exact same position as Ping Ling the peasant in the rural interior - at any point, for no legal reason, the Chinese government can accuse him of a crime and take all of his shit. There is no rule of law.

Now, that will never happen to Jack, because through the impenetrable Chinese shadow system he is effectively part of the fucking state. Think Taobao just does whatever the fuck it wants (within the law) and the Chinese government never leans on it?

You think because you can't see the network of control that means it doesn't exist. In the US that's largely true - the US is a functioning, free democracy where the government plays largely by the rules. In China that's not the case. You think you can just walk into Beijing and keep on doing what you did in Washington and be fine, and that's how you end up in a Chinese prison without charge for pissing off the wrong party official.

Man, if there is just one thing I could continue to say, it would be

RULE OF LAW

There is no freedom, there is no prosperity, there is no fucking basis of Western civilization without it.

>western civilisation
>based on rule of law
Wut

>there are many capitalist countries
Name em

You shouldn't give ground in this way. You ought to be able to argue why it's not just better than communism and socialism but the best system we can conceivably have as far as we understand how economics works.