So what exactly is wrong with mixed economy with socialism and capitalism combined?

Nobody is asking for full blown socialism. What don't you people understand? Leftist understand Capitalism is fantastic TO AN EXTENT! Regulations and some socialist policies are needed to balance it out.

Full blown socialism is bad. Full blown capitalism is bad.

I disagree with everyone should have equal results. Everyone should have equal opportunity is where it should stand. And, unfortunately the current economic system in the country of America does not abide by that. You're success is pretty much determined by your family's wealth. Rich people usually have children that become rich. Middle class people usually have kids that become middle class. And poor people usually have poor children.

Capitalism doesn't fix this! Socialism can. Everyone should be given the same starting line. Then, your own success determines what you become in this world.
Everyone should have the same ability to access food, water, healthcare, and education. With those basic needs and societal tools you shape your own future. You fail at using those tools and you fail.
But, you should not be discarded. That is another problem with capitalism. It doesn't care about those that are discarded/forgotten. Socialism can also fix this.

So again, capitalism is okay. But adding some socialist ideas to capitalism can make the system run a lot smoother. :)

>punish success
>reward failure
>also somehow we'll force rich people to use the same shitty school and healthcare as poor people

Solid ideas all, can't fail

I agree dont let the poor reproduce

>So what exactly is wrong with socialism

It involves theft.

To be fair, all governments seem to have a time limit. A country can only be as strong as the leadership it represents (as measured over time). Imagine if we kept electing Barack Obama where we'd be. Christ, that'd be scary.

Perhaps socialism just has a higher rate of failure? Maybe I'm taking your animated gif too seriously.

>But adding some socialist ideas to capitalism can make the system run a lot smoother. :)

guess who agreed

Yes. And the U.S. just needs a little push in the socialist direction. Because when says your success is only determined by your own choices, they are completely wrong. People born in poverty are highly more likely to stay in poverty. People born rich are highly more likely to stay rich. I was born into a elite class family. I'm probably gonna remain elite class.

What Socialism in this country needs to do is give everyone an equal starting point. Because right now, that is not equal. After that, it's your own life choices. The only reason I'm successful right now is because of the wealth of my family. That is all. If my family was poor, I wouldn't be in the same situation. That's unfair. That's what Socialism should fix. Capitalism cannot fix that.

That's what we had under Obama though.

>I was born into a elite class family.
>pro socialism

every time

America needs to fix its healthcare and education system. I came here because my family's rich but the price I have to pay for university is still retardedly high. I could've gone to uni back home for like a grand total of 8k dollars a year including housing, other expenses, etc.

>I disagree with everyone should have equal results. Everyone should have equal opportunity is where it should stand. And, unfortunately the current economic system in the country of America does not abide by that.

Correct and collectivists and socialists created that state of being in the country. If govt. offers breaks and freebies to certain people in the market, THEY ARE STUPID NOT TO TAKE THEM, because if they don't, someone else will...and consequently run them out of business.

Education and healthcare are not "inalienable rights" which have been endowed by the Creator. The point behind life, liberty and pursuit of happiness was that government could not take these things away because govt. did not provide them in the first place. It only has the power to take them away.

Socialism can only work without the free market, and the free market can only exist without regulation
Pick one

No country has more socio-economic mobility than the capitalist country. None. It's not even an argument.

Your socialist redistribution of wealth argument is the essence of cruelty and greed. You would make thieves out of most people in the country and then certain people would just get rich all over again...only the rich people would all be in govt.

Socialism/communism didnt work b4 but MY version will work. Lol

...

>free market

Is a concept. Not something that can ever truely exist. The less regulation, the stronger the trend towards cartels and monopolies which create their own de-facto rules.

>monopolies
Can only exist with corporations
Corporations can only exist with regulation

The thing about socialism is that you gotta relize that everyone under the sun is a complete and utter asshole. A capitalism works because it lets people be assholes. That, while a bad thing in most cases, let's people live their lives how they want to. Socialism forces people to be nice, share their wealth, and live peacful lives, something that us dickhole humans are incapable of doing.

The more socialism, the less freedom (better lives/more regulation), the more capitalism, the more freedom (shittier lives/less regulation). It's a guage, and that's the whole thing beetween left and right thinking. You gotta find out where the world works best beetween the two extremes, so imo OP has a point

socialism is a tumor. It grows and will eventually kill the host.

Yes, if we abolished all regulations we would be all living in free market paradise. Do you seriously not see the hypocrisy?

>And the U.S. just needs a little push in the socialist direction.
>I was born into a elite class family.
trolololol

It's class guilt. A lot of the proponents of Socialism came from the petty bourgeois or upper classes.

Every western country is currently a mix of capitalist economy mixed with socialist bullshit. Guess what? It doesn't fucking work. You can't run an economy with oppressive taxes to pay for muh "free" healthcare/education/welfare".

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that no organisations of any significant size will exist.

Ancaps are incredibly autistic and think any government whatsoever is bad

...that's literally what happens in South American countries that aren't Venezuela. If you want to apply South American shithole policies to become a North American shithole country, it's your problem.

You can have free but it cannot be unconditional.

Corporations are so powerful because their shareholders aren't made personally accountable
Limited liability exists due to government

Seems to be working ok

>It doesn't work

The only reason the economy is bad is because you are currently in the EU and let Germany rape the shit out of you while inviting in millions of blacks and arabs

Nordic countries had some of the highest living standards on earth before mama Merkel brought in the kebab

South America sucks because it is full of non whites

A lack of any government means warlords come and take whatever they want

SHILL THREAD

SAGE AND HIDE

Of course in true free market if company fucks up owners will just pay back their debts and fix their mistakes, they won't hire people to kick out everyone demanding their money back and fly all the way to maledives with stolen money.

You're more than fucked then

Any system that distorts prices will have allocation inefficiency (Source 400 level macro): underproduction of some goods, overproduction of others (vis a vis the sum of people's preferences). Inefficiency doesn't mean collapse. It means people have less welfare than if the price mechanism were allowed to operate. People in a country with the same endowments (call it natural resources) will end up better off in a competitive market than without.

You have to tax to pay the bills sure. The most efficient ways are through land and income taxes (because workers and homeowners are less flexible than employers and home buyers) that minimally distort prices (compared to taxes on consumption, or minimum wages, or tarrifs, or quotas, etc).
If you want to provide a safety net, use a negative income tax (the earned income tax credit) to incentivise more production (more work) instead of less.

Ah, that makes your angle much clearer, but if anti-competitive behaviours are fine then what difference would that even make?

How to spot shills: the post

democracy already is that
homeless / poorfag support and bias for coloreds

>what's wrong with gay night clubs? Let the fags party in peace
>what's wrong with gay relationships? Public affection shouldn't be illegal
>what's wrong with gay marriage? They love each other and are just like you and me
>what's wrong with wanting to be the opposite sex? They should be allowed to mutliate themselves
>what's wrong with beastality? Animals enjoy and it's okay(beastality brothels in Europe)
>what's wrong with fucking inanimate objects? It's not hurting you(also tree and dirt fucking brothels in Europe)
Right now:
>what's wrong with hebephilia? Hormonal kids with barely functioning sex organs can make their own decisions.
Future:???

Slippery slope fallacy is not a fallacy. I have no doubt some socialism can be beneficial.... But I 100% doubt people have the moral integrity to know when to stop.

tfw Canada, your own Country, has more social mobility than the USA and Canada is father left.

Capitalism doesn't work if you allow socialist policies. The moment you allow government to regulate free markets then agents inside the free market spend money into the political system to gain special favours, that leads to unfair market advantage and monopolies.

This is known as crony capitalism, it's what we have now. The 99% protests went to wall street, what they didn't realise is that wall street are just doing what is rational for them, there's an opportunity to buy favours from the white house using large sums of money, so they do it. In fact they HAVE to do it because in publicly traded businesses the shareholders hold the board members responsible for making the most profit possible, which means there's a fiduciary responsibility to actually abuse that system for personal gain.

Where as if you have real true free market capitalism and government isn't allowed to interfere then NO ONE can buy special favours by throwing money into lobbying.

Beisdes the free market can and does provide regulatory bodies, in fact it produces lots of competing bodies and if you try to buy one out then the public can switch to another one, as is their right in a free market. Regulation is BETTER done by the free market than with government,

Not to sound like an ancap meme, but that would either entice people to other businesses or, should they violate a NAP, people have full right to retaliate with force
What sort of anti-competitive behaviors?

>The moment you allow government to regulate free markets then agents inside the free market spend money into the political system to gain special favours, that leads to unfair market advantage and monopolies.

This is a result of lack of campaign finance reform and ethics policy, and not a direct result of regulation.

>Beisdes the free market can and does provide regulatory bodies, in fact it produces lots of competing bodies and if you try to buy one out then the public can switch to another one, as is their right in a free market. Regulation is BETTER done by the free market than with government,

Oh, like it was before unionization and government interference? Back when kids were used to clean chimneys a la William Blake, and they died before they hit 16? back when you worked in the coal mine and died when you were 25?

>public can switch to another one

No. If the 'competion' in that particular sector isn't owned by the same actor there will simply be collusion. Competition is expensive. Why compete when you can pretend and charge whatever the hell you want.

>free market can and does provide regulatory bodies

Maybe read that one again. You just wrote that a "free market" (or rather actors participating in that market) will create it's own rules to artificially limit and regulate the "free market". This is the most sensible thing in your post.

>NO ONE can buy special favours

Delusion.

>This is a result of lack of campaign finance reform and ethics policy, and not a direct result of regulation.
No, it's not. Because while there exists control from within the government there exists the temptation to influence them. So you can set all the policy you want but government can UNSET that same policy, so all it takes is someone greedy to get into the system and influence policy again, and boom, you have the same problem. And this is what happens throughout history.

If you actually constitutionally limit the governments power to fiddle with the free market you eliminate all temptation of power and bribery.

>Oh, like it was before unionization and government interference? Back when kids were used to clean chimneys a la William Blake, and they died before they hit 16? back when you worked in the coal mine and died when you were 25?
This is a common argument against capitalism. The broader context this is set in is that back when children were chimney sweeps they were dying in the rural areas at more than 10% per year. They'd just starve to death in the bleak cold of winter.

So when capitalism came along and offered them a way out, which was tough but fundamentally allowed them to feed themselves. They took it, because it was the BEST DEAL they had, otherwise they would have taken a better deal. Capitalism has never ever forced anyone to take a job, the nature of capitalism is voluntary exchange of goods and services, people only ever do the jobs they think are best for them at the time.

This the lie that gets told over and over, that somehow capitalism created a bad situation in the first place, when in fact it offered people something better than the even shittier situation they were forced into simply by the fact that nature is cruel.

If you had the option of starving to death one winter, or someone offers you a hard job but the pay is enough to buy some food and shelter, you're going to take the job because the job is BETTER

>No. If the 'competion' in that particular sector isn't owned by the same actor there will simply be collusion. Competition is expensive. Why compete when you can pretend and charge whatever the hell you want.
No this is wrong.

In a capitalistic market there's no artifical barriers to entry in a market, which means if a specific sector is owned by the same actor and they collude with themselves (or with anyone else for that matter) then competition will simply see the gap in the market and offer the same product or service but at a better rate.

Competition isn't "expensive" competition makes you money! It makes you rich, that's why people do it. If you're some actor in a market and you're colluding with some other idiot to keep prices high, guess what, I'm going to start a business, undercut you both and then take all your business. You cannot control a free market like that because competition is infinite.

>Maybe read that one again. You just wrote that a "free market" (or rather actors participating in that market) will create it's own rules to artificially limit and regulate the "free market".
Yes, this happens all the time. The free market produces a HUGE amount of regulation, because when the customer demands regulation a private body will step in and offer regulation as a service. So the customer says "I want a safe car" or "I want to guarantee the readership of this magazine I advertise in".

And so a private business says "hey i can sell that", so they set up a set of regulations they think their customers might want, they offer to give their seal of approval to cars or magazines, or whatever. The customer then says "hey this car has a seal of approval, this other car doesn't, I'll buy the one with the seal of approval because it's demonstrably safer"

There's no need to artificially limit the economy, there's no violence or coercion needed, the customer demands regulation and gets it as a service.

>Because while there exists control from within the government there exists the temptation to influence them.

Yes, and that is the point of campaign finance law and good ethics policy.

>If you actually constitutionally limit the governments power to fiddle with the free market you eliminate all temptation of power and bribery.

And then you get rampant externalities. The free market isn't some infalliable and great being like you seem to think it is. It needs to be checked up on and pushed in the right way

>Capitalism has never ever forced anyone to take a job, the nature of capitalism is voluntary exchange of goods and services, people only ever do the jobs they think are best for them at the time.
Of course capitalism never forced anyone to take a job, but what good job was there that didn't have shit conditions and payed shit? If there was one better, don't you think those chimney sweeping kids would of done that instead?

>This the lie that gets told over and over, that somehow capitalism created a bad situation in the first place, when in fact it offered people something better than the even shittier situation they were forced into simply by the fact that nature is cruel.

Capitalism did indeed create a bad situation. Sure not eating is a worse situation, but buying food with basically nothing and dying young at a job isn't good just because the other is worse.

>If you had the option of starving to death one winter, or someone offers you a hard job but the pay is enough to buy some food and shelter, you're going to take the job because the job is BETTER

Of course, but then in comes unions and government to give you a third option, where the business has to pay you enough to have a survivable living and has to provide decent enough working conditions to where you don't die at 18.

If externalities just weren't that big of a deal, which you seem to be implying, I don't really think William Blake and many other poets would be writing about it.

The problem is that the American public at large is not taught to adopt methods of critical thinking which incorporate nuance and a rejection of absolutism. People are much easier to manage if they are presented with a false moral/social/political/economic duality. It cuts down on the amount of effort put into building the system. Lrn to statecraft and pick a side.

The rich steal from the poor all the time. . .ever heard of a bank? The Great Depression? The Recession a few year ago? Greedy rich bankers and Wall Street playing around with people's money and then they just lose it. The rich are notorious for stealing money. . .Hillary Clinton is a good example of that.

Sure things would be fantastic if I could regulate everything based on my personal opinion. You want socialists making the rules of freedom and regulation? They're freedom despising authoritarians, even if they were wrong they would be holding all the power and we'd be under fascism again.

> I'm going to start a business, undercut you both and then take all your business.

That's not how things work. Large established players will simply undercut you to drive you out of business,or buy up your suppliers and stop supplying you, buy or collude with their distributors to drop your product or otherwise kill your sales channels or simply buy you out and shut you down, or any one of a number of other strategies. Then it's back to business as usual.

>Yes, this happens all the time.

Ok, so there's no "free market" and can never be one except as a concept or ideal. It's good to agree with you user.

lol

you mean fascism? It's great. I loved America when we were still fascist.

Since when America was ever fascist?

>Yes, and that is the point of campaign finance law and good ethics policy.
Except people can reform this, and they have the motivation to do so because people are fundamentally greedy.

>And then you get rampant externalities.
Such as?
>It needs to be checked up on and pushed in the right way
Demonstrate this.

>but what good job was there that didn't have shit conditions and payed shit?
Presumably none, otherwise the would have taken it.
>If there was one better, don't you think those chimney sweeping kids would of done that instead?
RIGHT! So why is anyone complaining that someone came along and gave these people the best possible deal they could get.

>but buying food with basically nothing and dying young at a job isn't good just because the other is worse.
Right and being born on the Savannah in 2000BCE and being eaten by a lion 30 seconds later isn't "good" you're not owed good. Being poor and starving and dying in the cold and the wind and the sleet is the default state of being, so instead of complaining that what you have isn't "good" you should be thankful that some system exists that offers you the best route out of that misery.

Socialists always have the tenacity to ask where does poverty come from, like poverty is created by capitalists. And forget that poverty is the default state of nature and instead should be asking where does value come from, where does food and the things we need come from.>Of course, but then in comes unions and government to give you a third option
Except they don't work and they have never worked. Because the moment you stop trading voluntarily and you add violence and coersion into the mix, and hand that power to government, people try and manipulate government and that's how you end up with wall street today robbing hundreds of millions of people of their money and leaving them in tent cities.

>That's not how things work. Large established players will simply undercut you to drive you out of business,or buy up your suppliers and stop supplying you, buy or collude with their distributors to drop your product or otherwise kill your sales channels or simply buy you out and shut you down, or any one of a number of other strategies. Then it's back to business as usual.
No they can't, for reasons already stated. Because competition is infinite, if they collude and mark up prices then there's an artificial gap which creates the potential for competition.

So anyone with startup capital can fill that gap, and they can spend money to buy you out or your suppliers, but then other people see the same gap as a supplier and offer you cheaper supplies because THEY want the same thing as you, to make money.

What you find when you play this all out is that you cannot buy out the whole world, that to stop competition requires some kind of advantage other people cannot obtain, and that in the current marketplace is special favours from government. So large government that can interfere with markets actually cause the very thing you're warning us about. But in a free market there's mechanisms to stop that occurring

>Ok, so there's no "free market"
Currently places like the UK and US operate what is called crony capitalism, the governments and political bodies pretend to the public that what is occuring is capitlaism, but they interfere in the market which CAUSES these problems in the first place, and then they blame the problems on capitalism and use that as a podium to ask for more power.

America had a damn near free market once it declared independence, the USA was one of the freest and most prosperous markets when it had the least government interference.

>Except people can reform this, and they have the motivation to do so because people are fundamentally greedy.
That sentence doesn't make sense.

>Such as?
Read Factory discipline, health and externalities
in the reduction of working time in
nineteenth century France by Jerome Bourdieu and Benedicte Reynaud
>Demonstrate this
The proof is self evident in that we have a federal minimum wage and kids aren't dying at 16 because of lungs being filled with black smoke every day at work.

>RIGHT! So why is anyone complaining that someone came along and gave these people the best possible deal they could get.
Because later on the French government made the employer give them a deal that wasn't metaphorical rape

>ou should be thankful that some system exists that offers you the best route out of that misery.
Yes, and that system is unionization and government moderation.

>poverty is created by capitalists.
poverty is actually, in fact, created by capitalism. The capitalist model is that some will be rich and others poor (in poverty). Before capitalism, there wasn't poverty because most everyone equally had nothing.

>Except they don't work and they have never worked
Compare working conditions and pay of today in France compared to working conditions and pay before 1803.

>Because the moment you stop trading voluntarily and you add violence and coersion into the mix, and hand that power to government, people try and manipulate government and that's how you end up with wall street today robbing hundreds of millions of people of their money and leaving them in tent cities.
Again, in comes campaign finance laws and better ethics policy. The cycle continues

>Full blown capitalism is bad

No.

fascism - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

I would say we are inching closer and closer to authoritarianism, we are already utlra nationalist, and we are very right wing compared to the modern world. The only peg we don't fit into would be intolerant views and practices.
If we aren't fascist, we're more fascist than not.

That sounds lovely. But's it's all fantasy. You seem to assume universally low barrier of entry, that consumers are informed and behave rationally, that established players will not seek to limit market access, that new entrants into the market (if they even survive) will not seek to form cartels with others actors and a whole mess of other junk. Real life never plays out like a textbook. Ever. And every system can be gamed. No exceptions.

100% this.

> Before capitalism, there wasn't poverty because most everyone equally had nothing
5/10, shit bait, but made me reply. Sage

Counter sage!

A lie. I simply do not believe you. Leftists always lie to get compromises and then demand more later. Fuck you. You don't deserve any compromise at all.

Blaming the rich for the Depression and Recession is me just being a "typical leftist?" Lol, read a book Sup Forums. The idiot, greedy bankers caused both of those things to happen. If it wasn't the richs' greed that caused it, then who did? The banks were the ones that were bailed out. Your taxpayer money was used to help crumby businesses with terrible business practices stay afloat. Call me a "typical elitist leftist" all you want. At least I realize when the rich and powerful take advantage of the poor and weak. They failed, so the government helped them. That's pretty leftist to me. Having the government step in to help businesses that are stupid and take advantage of people and the system. So, I guess you are for bailing out the banks.

Capitalism is the exact opposite of altruism. Exchanging goods for objects of equal worth isn't altruism. That is merely trade.

The economy back then in America was drastically different from what it is now. America was the land of jobs and opportunity. Most jobs were low to average pay that required little to no prior education or experience. Now, if you want to be successful, you have to either get an expensive education or get lucky. My parents got their wealth from their parents, and their wealth from theirs.

You've done excellent work user.

I meant you, great work user.