Enough is enough faggots, redpill me on capitalism and overall capitalistic economies

Enough is enough faggots, redpill me on capitalism and overall capitalistic economies

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KbPWi1gshzI
youtube.com/watch?v=_E9YlXoXXdM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Like do you want to know why it's good, or bad?

BOMB NORTH KOREA
THEN YOU WILL SEE

It makes no difference. Either way you'll be a slave to ((( them )))

Come here fagget

both.

Economics major, and so far from what I've seen.

Capitalistic economies create stiff competition between businesses that give the consumers best product possible... or business loophole fraud between companies.

fuck, repaired.
Come here fagget.

The fraud only comes because of goverment. No goverment, no power, no fraud. Or as little goverment as possible.

...

without government though, how do we stop businesses from working together to create a steamline or zero competition and just endless money.

Look at the ISPs over the past few years. They all provide around the same connection speed because they all contracted each other to do so

its bullshit, but better than communism

k here is your gross over-simplification.
with capitalism:
you do some work, you get paid. that money is yours to do with as you see fit, within reason of course.
with communism:
you do some work, you get paid, then you are told to "donate" a large sum of it. what you have left is usually the bare minimum for survival. where that 'donated' money goes, you will never know.

The bigger the firm, the less efficient it is. Same with goverment. If there was no social security, walmart wouldn't exist because it would be finnancialy unsustainable. Also small shops would take over because of better products, service and contact with customer ( community ) .

Basically, the free market will always stop them. If you don't believe so, show me a situation with an argument where the free market fails. I don't think anyone can.
Dunno what ISPs are, but probably because goverment/not enough free market/goverment regulation.

...

Not enough time to read that so:
Wouldn't a goverment publicly owned bank with money based on gold/silver work great for the people and not make us monetary slaves?

BUT BOLSHEVIKS WERE FUCKING JEWS!

the greatest engine for prosperity ever discovered so far.

China was the perfect experiment for its effects, and the results are absolutely clear.

The debate is over.

This.

Other Economics Major here.

Pretty much, the deal is is that a lot of other forms of economies just hard-integrate the loophole fraud corruption crap. One of the main reasons for that isn't just the inherent tendencies of those economies, but the fact that they're the nicest sounding ones to dupe over dumb populations who don't know much about economics.

It's one of those cause and effect differentiation problems. Do corrupt as hell governments promote socialist/communist societies because it makes screwing over the people easy or do socialist/communist policies just facilitate corrupt as fuck rulers? There have been successful socialist societies according to that one image that keeps mentioning it. They just need to be 100% free of leeches or corruption. That type of economy invites them the most though.

Capitalism has mostly worked simply because the US started off well and just kept fucking pushing it while keeping the long degradation all systems suffer(basic structuralist theory) as slow as possible. The US isn't a pure capitalist economy either, it's part welfare-state considering we have welfare as a huge part of the budget. Competition, the main argument behind capitalism has helped immensely, but as entry barriers increase and our industries become more and more oligarchic to monopolistic, the system starts breaking down.

There's not much to redpill about capitalism, it's just what we have. There's a lot of obvious problems with it, but it's clearly been one of the hugest advancers of society and technology as a whole. People argue for other systems all the time, but nearly all attempts have ended badly.

There's very few actually "pure" systems. Pure systems are inherently flawed by the fact everything is complicated and no simple set of rules actually covers everything adequately. There will always be externalities that mess with the system. How well the system handles it is a sign of its robustness.

>They just need to be 100% free of leeches or corruption

this is, and always will be impossible

most people will always prioritize the well being of himself and his family over that of the collective.
Any system that is built on the denial of human nature is just plain stupid - we shouldn't sugar coat it.

They work but they turn people into fags so they should be avoided.

Ameridumbs: the post

guys lets hear the mexican, they know whats up with economic policies

Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same jewish coin.

Actually we do :)

no u, faggot

How about our hybrid of the Nordic model.
A more adversarial than consensual democracy with capitalistic free market elements along with a strong comprehensive welfare system. We're against power-sharing and corporatism, the majority are very eurosceptic but strongly for NATO believing in individuality still being part of a strong community.
The thing is though that we have strong borders, strict integration programs and a strong place for labor so it wouldn't work as well everywhere, if anywhere other than Norway and Japan.

youtube.com/watch?v=KbPWi1gshzI

strong welfare doesn't make the market any less adversarial.
And you are right that it only works for largely homogeneous populations.
Its not a model that would ever work in the US, india, or even china

Your model works because you have a tiny and homogenous population. Economic and political systems need to be designed to reflect the population that they govern. America will never, ever have a european style social democracy. It barely works in most euro countries and it definitely wouldnt work here. We have 330 million people and the most multicultural society on earth.

Wasn't really trying to say that welfare makes us adversarial, what I meant by that was our national parliament The Althing that has well balanced parties opposing each other all day and since they're really the only one in serious power the people also have some control over them, worker groups who are paid by the government go on strikes like fishermen and teachers if they're and others are not happy with how they're being treated.
I'll always be with strong welfare in my country, we put a big effort on education to keep our nation independent, cheap but high quality Universities along with national health care makes that possible. The horrible housing market world wide is enough to worry about.
And yeah, our hybrid Nordic capitalistic model can't really be considered since OP is in America which is far too diverse.

Definitely, I kinda realized that after writing my reply out. The last paragraph stating it somewhat
>The thing is though that we have strong borders, strict integration programs and a strong place for labor so it wouldn't work as well everywhere.

its easy. i got something you want how are you going to get it? BUY IT! how? with things that i feel has value and worth... can you get something out of nothing like with socialism? i dont like not owning shit

the current economy is communist

Capitalism is the worst system, yet it's better than the others.

U guys really need another nuke

how many nukes would it take for us to become like mexico

Capitalism is shit. It tears communities apart and erodes traditional values. Don't listen to the dipshit libertarians, the ability of a person to do well in capitalism depends on the starting conditions being favorable. We live in a society where the elites call all the shots. Anyone who supports capitalism is a classcuck.

>Capitalism is shit
as compared to what?

You would still be able to own things under socialism you fucking mongoloid. Private property is what socialists want to collectivize, not personal property. Private property is things like factories, infrastructure, etc. socialists don't want to take your shit.

National Bolshevism solves the issues inherent to both capitalism and communism.

youtube.com/watch?v=_E9YlXoXXdM

listen to this, its gold and covers everything you gotta know.

...

BS 95% of those in the bottom 20% will no longer be there in 15 years, there is tremendous economic mobility in the US

...

specifically they want social ownership of the means of production.

Here's a question for you, does my 3d printer qualify as means of production? If not, exactly how fancy of a 3d printer would I need before commies came and stole it?

>National Bolshevism solves the issues inherent to both capitalism and communism.
While violating everyones rights under a republic constitution, and simultaneously destroying the economy...real smart.

Well that's the thing, National Bolshevism operates under completely different mode of production than capitalism. So rather than take people's shit the focus of redistribution should be on factories and other productive resources. Then we'd use those factories to manufacture and distribute extra high-quality 3d printers and anything else communities needed to be self-sufficient. It's about putting tools in the hands of regular people.

>Implying I give a shit about a republic that has kept 99% of people in a permanent underclasss.
>Implying I give a shit about an economic system that encourages mass migrations and extreme-poverty
Yeah, fuck off classcuck Hitlerist

What system is capitalism better than?