How do we fix capitalism Sup Forums?

How do we fix capitalism Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
economist.com/news/briefing/21697845-gross-domestic-product-gdp-increasingly-poor-measure-prosperity-it-not-even
thefiscaltimes.com/2015/06/10/Rise-New-Economic-Underclass-Millennial-Men
independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-developing-nation-regressing-economy-poverty-donald-trump-mit-economist-peter-temin-a7694726.html
archive.is/Qpmod
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Remove the crony elements of it.

Checked. What crony elements and how would you remove them? What caused them in the first place?

So you're just going to ignore that the red line shows a steadily increasing trend while the gray one a decreasing trend because the of the fact that one group is more successful than the others

why would you want to fix a midrange system?
it's time to move into endgame systems, op.
midrange ended about 21 years ago.

Replace it with National Socialism. 1488.

>inb4 "socialist" uhmm no sweetie
Neck yourself

Kill free trade, kill immigration, enforce anti Monopoly and anti trust legislation, and bring back labor unions

We remove the government.

by removing regulations which create barriers to competition

>one group is more successful than the others
Define successful. Also read the graph again, only the 99.999th percentile are growing, everyone else is getting left behind.

What's the endgame system :^)

remove the jew

The state is the method through which all corruption and cronyism comes. Destroy as much of the state as you can, all of it if possible.

The answer is simple, when you're taking the most heat, that's when you're above your target
Janet Yellen shits bricks when anyone mentions raising interest rates
When the economies doing good, nobody thinks about it, when it's not, they're all wishing we'd done it sooner
It's now or never, this is our window, raise interest rates now or face the consequences

This.

Ok let's say we remove as much as the state as we can. In a capitalism system, you still need a state to enforce private property rights. But then what's to stop monopolies from forming? Who will protect the workers from companies?

Start with banning 3D porn

>But then what's to stop monopolies from forming?
Monopolies are not a natural phenomenon. Corporate personhood, limited liability, eminent domain, copyright, bailouts, business licenses, tariffs, taxes and regulations are all inventions of the state that ensure that the company that gets to the top can eliminate all competition and thus allows it to abuse its position through the state.

No the chart very clearly shoes that most people are seeing increase, but the only notable one being in the 99th percentile.

>But then what's to stop monopolies from forming?
You have it backwards, monopolies form through cartelization, when regulation bottlenecks competition. This is why the big guys are never free market types, they're mostly center left Keynesian types. Because when you're on top, restricting the market helps you by making yourself the only game in town, complying with the department of labor is worth it to them.

if you want capitalism to be a good thing for everyone (it doesn't have to be to be "true capitalism", capitalism just means you operate and make business based on property), then the parties need to be able to have negotiating power.

It needs to be possible to survive without supporting a trend that will inevitably kill the ability to assert your interests.

As long as people have the CHOICE to enrich the rich - because they get a better deal out of it - there is nothing to fix. It needs fixing if you would starve or lose all medicaid, did you not participate in the system that is known to enrich the rich more and more.

Then why was it the government that had to step in and break monopolies up

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

It is in a companies best interest to have the least competition possible. Thus, it is in a companies interest to buy out all the smaller industries. In the wild west, this is how these big capitalists made their money, from steel, rail, and oil monopolies. 50 years ago we had many domestic auto manufacturers. Now we're down to the big three.

It used to be 3.33% but now it's down to 1.33%. Compared to the increased cost of living from technology and increased cost of houses, it may as well be negative.

>What's to stop monopolies from forming?
The state not being able to subsidize specific companies, meaning smaller, more agile companies can adapt to new and changing market demands faster than massive multinational conglomerates.

See: the state selling most of the US's publicly paid for broadband cable lines to 3 companies, subsidizing sub-standard private health and education, and of course, the Wallstreet bailouts after several banks made terrible investments of their own volition and would have been replaced with new blood and more conservative investment paradigms, should they had been allowed to fail.

Eat shit, statist.

then keep anti trust laws, those aren't what we're talking about, even so they tend to be applied in a way that breaks companies up regionally, which actually hurts the economy, but as long as we got a guy that isn't like you in office then they're not a bad thing per say

So big successful companies are able to manipulate the government into serving their corporate interests? A smaller government would have an easier time resisting big corporations? Also, once these companies start to outsource and automate more with no state in their way, who is going to help the jobless workers that would normally fall on social safety nets from the former government.

>A smaller government would have an easier time resisting big corporations?
a smaller government would have less to give them dumbass

Trust-busting only serves to ensure that either the most efficient businesses are destroyed or that competition does not arise against monopolies.

>A smaller government would have an easier time resisting big corporations?
Yes, since the corporations would have less incentive to buy out the government, and the government would have less ability to ensure that the corporations stay a monopoly/oligarchy.

Envy is a sin.

>Also read the graph agai
I guess it's you who have to read the chart again

It's already too late, she should've done it at least a year ago.

Tax structure.

Free trade agreements etc.

Of course your graph is irrelevant because it doesn't show the absolute amount of growth.

I'd rather have 1% of 10 than 10% of 1.

how does anarcho capitalism prevent the formation of monopolies? What stops all of the rich people from buying everything out and returning us to corporatism?

Enforcement of antitrust laws.

Tax investment income at the same level as wage income.

Impose a per transaction tax on the stock market to stop high frequency trading manipulating the market.

60% estate tax on all estates over $50 million, indexed to inflation.

Refer to

we're trying to fix capitalism not become Greece

Tax imported products at the same level our products are taxed in the country of origin.

Lower corporate taxes.

Fewer regulations.

More tax brackets and higher rates for the highest earners.

Remove the mortgage interest tax deduction.

Oh cool so a company under a smaller government could also do whatever the fuck they want. Thanks for clearing that up numbnuts.

No it's ok I read the chart. Did you read the chart though?

refer to

Ok then. Just reset all the tax rates back to where they were in 1959, back when America was great.

Oh boy, that sounds like a quick trip to becoming a hellhole. Can't wait to either turn into Venezuela or fucking China with that kind of plan.

Okay, but this doesn't explain how the absolute richest people can't just work together with each other and form a monopoly anyways. It would be just like the Rothschilds and royal families basically, which is not a liberation of the common individual at all.
Also, how would anarcho-capitalism solve the problem of credit and debt? More money is "created" than actually exists, and our system is built upon that principle. Our money isn't worth anything and neither are we.

I vote this

How do we stop the capitalist-driven dumbing down of America?

>Nuke the commies!!
>North Korea? Isn't that by Vietnam?
American education

see pic

>hating Beavis and Butthead
This person's opinion is invalid.

Lol it's actually by Carl Sagan, he predicted a lot in this paragraph

>refer to
>
refer to >this doesn't explain how the absolute richest people can't just work together with each other and form a monopoly anyways
Let's take the automotive industry for example. There are currently 14 big car companies, not including the smaller less important ones. In order for these businesses to form a cartel, they would have to all agree to have the same high prices, and if any one of them betrayed the others and went for a lower price the others would all get fucked over while the company that did the betraying would make an enormous profit. Now, I said that there are 14 car companies, but in reality they would have to include basically EVERY car company, and then try to somehow get every car company that is created as a result of the high prices to join them, otherwise the whole cartel system would come collapsing down. It would be almost impossible to sustain for any serious amount of time.

>Also, how would anarcho-capitalism solve the problem of credit and debt?
We'd probably use crypto-currency, like Bitcoin, which is a fairly stable currency.

Just rise the to tax rate by 10 pp.

I agree with him to be honest.
>14 big car companies
And what I'm saying is that they'd combine into 7 big companies, and then 3, and then 2, and then there's only "one" true car company that owns 14 brands. Referring to what I said about royal families, although there were wars and occasional infighting, the royals remained royal and in charge (and in bed with bankers) until the commoners took away their power one way or another.
Cryptocurrency sounds like a good deal, though.

*top tax rate

>Trust-busting only serves to ensure that either the most efficient businesses are destroyed or that competition does not arise against monopolies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

>Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power.[1]
Looks like promoting competition to me

>Yes, since the corporations would have less incentive to buy out the government, and the government would have less ability to ensure that the corporations stay a monopoly/oligarchy.
That comes with it's own host of problems. They could use that money instead to actually buy out the competition. It would also mean the government has less power to break up monopolies. It would also mean things like minimum wage, overtime pay, 40 hour work weeks, and workers rights would be destroyed. Why would you want this?

Similar to what comrade Bannon wants to do, raise the marginal tax rate for the richest by 44% or something.

>Referring to what I said about royal families, although there were wars and occasional infighting, the royals remained royal and in charge (and in bed with bankers) until the commoners took away their power one way or another.
Good point, this also reminded me of European monarchies. At the start there were many different royal lineages. But over time fewer and fewer lineages survived until you had several large ones like the Habsburgs for instance. Similar thing happens in capitalism.

>And what I'm saying is that they'd combine into 7 big companies, and then 3, and then 2, and then there's only "one" true car company that owns 14 brands.
But the principal remains the same. Even if there is only one car company left, if they abuse that position to charge everyone high prices, then other car companies will be created that won't do that, and they will be forced to either lower their prices or lose customers to these rival car companies.

>then other car companies will be created that won't do that
I would hope so, but how could they possibly compete with the monopoly now that is has formed? They can just buy the other companies, or just buy all of the factories. This could happen on a global level as well, so that you couldn't rely on foreign products either.
Yes, this is what I am saying. They would become the new royalty.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
And?

>They could use that money instead to actually buy out the competition
There's nothing wrong with that.

>It would also mean the government has less power to break up monopolies
The power required to break up monopolies also allows the government to set up monopolies.

>It would also mean things like minimum wage, overtime pay, 40 hour work weeks, and workers rights would be destroyed
Fantastic, I don't know why you wouldn't support getting rid of these things.

Easily this.

That's some good shit right there.

So much this

>you still need a state to enforce private property rights
what? The only thing govt. has done to me is tell me shit that is mine isn't mine.

Working fine for most whites in the US, myself included.

Look at the oil, steel, and rail barons of the unrestricted capitalism of the 19th century. No one was able to touch those monopolies for a reason. First of all the amount of capital you would need to start a car company from scratch and start competing with one of the largest companies would be insurmountable. Second, the monopolized car company could just buy out or sabotage the competition. Thirdly, you'll probably counter by saying of course a small business wouldn't be the one competing, it would be another non-car company that would fill the role. You've solved the capital problem however this is a large needless risk in the first place that wouldn't happen. Also, the competing company would still have to try to overcome the industry of scale and experience advantage of the grounded monopoly. It sounds good in theory but practically it doesn't work and it hasn't.

>I would hope so, but how could they possibly compete with the monopoly now that is has formed?
I go to the bank, show them how the high prices that the monopoly has formed mean that the situation is ripe for starting a rival car company, they give me a big loan, I use that loan to build a bunch of factories, I build a bunch of cars and sell them to the people at a much lower price.

They can try to buy me out, but they're gonna have to offer a shit-ton of money, and even then I might just say no, deciding that the future profits from my car company outweighs any short term deals they could offer me.

also,
>implying communism would be even a tiny bit better

>ctrl "fiat"
>no results
And this board calls itself "red pilled".

Ok remove the government and see how fast the workers respect private property rights.

Nope lol, most people have less than 1000 dollars saved in the bank. Most college grads struggle to find minimum wage jobs. Most white men are checking out of society and becoming NEETS. The future is bleak under this capitalist hellhole.

Abolish paper money

>No one was able to touch those monopolies for a reason.
because of corruption on the local, state, and federal levels of government.

>Ok remove the government and see how fast the workers respect private property rights.
This is actually probably one the better arguments commies have, but to be fair once we have automated privatized death squads this will be a non-issue.

Too much capitalism is bad, just like too much socialism is bad. One needs to strike a balance between government and individual. Communists and Libertarians ignore this.

>government is more involved in the us economy than ever before
>wealth inequality is getting progressively worse
Clearly we need more government involvement.

Stupid libertarian/anarchist. Power will always coalesce.

We must remove the jews and seize their wealth.

>How do we fix capitalism Sup Forums?
Fixed supply growth fiat money.
Replace income tax with tariff (before you throw a fit. super rich doesn't pay income tax but they would be paying tariff).

The Nazi is correct.

>but to be fair once we have automated privatized death squads this will be a non-issue.
You're probably not a capitalist. Enjoy being mowed down by the capitalists you've defended.

Less government and more freedom. I thought that was what you snakes wanted.

>Using GDP to measure a socialist economy

economist.com/news/briefing/21697845-gross-domestic-product-gdp-increasingly-poor-measure-prosperity-it-not-even

The solutions are simple, but there is no desire to fix the problem.

Bring back the Gold Standard.

>No the chart very clearly shoes that most people are seeing increase,
Only major expenses vastly outgrow this income growth. "You need to run faster to stay in place". Mots people actually lose wealth despite economy doing well on paper.

>You're probably not a capitalist
Of course I am.

Stop importing new migrants to oversupply the labor market and suppress the unit price of labor.

>Nope lol, most people have less than 1000 dollars saved in the bank
Well, they should stop going out to eat, buying pointless shit, and taking out loans they can only barely afford to repay. Not capitalism's problem, it's a behavioral problem.

>Most college grads struggle to find minimum wage jobs
Not surprising since most college grads graduate with useless or impractical degrees such as history or psychology. There is a huge skill gap that needs to be addressed (thanks to the college meme and shitty new age philosophy and some weird animus towards labor jobs), thank god we have Trump and DeVos working on that.

>Most white men are checking out of society and becoming NEETS.
plain wrong. Millennial unemployment is high (because of the skills gap and psychological issues, mainly), but well below 50% as your post would claim. thefiscaltimes.com/2015/06/10/Rise-New-Economic-Underclass-Millennial-Men
>The future is bleak under this capitalist hellhole.
LOL says the guy who supports the RED economic system in Meanwhile in reality pic related. Despite the above problems we are still an INSANELY prosperous nation compared to the world population now and especially compared to history.

>Let's take the automotive industry for example.
Lets take desktop computing industry for example. There is 2 chip companies, one of them been laughing stock and one operational systems company.

pic related is the problem with Libertarian philosophy. I'm sure you already know the problem with Leftist Authoritarianism.

Get rid of the stock markets and public companies (as a form). Same goes for commodities markets. As a start.

Look like if you increase the welfare state you dont need wages to increase to grow your business

That's still capitalism.

>corruption
>freedom
incompatible.

>muh GDP doesn't work anymore
bullshit. Using any alternative would not even change the rankings of the countries in that chart (by growth in GDP or GNP or GNI).

Which ones? Desktop computing as a whole seems like a dead industry so I don't know all that much about it.

>go to the bank
Here is the crux of the issue- they own the bank. It would take a lot of convincing to get that same loan to compete with the one monopoly that controls every aspect of the industry.

Do you own a business that uses the labor of other people?

I mean are you a capitalist in the definition that you own private property and employ workers, not a capitalist in the definition that you support capitalism.

>Despite the above problems we are still an INSANELY prosperous nation compared to the world population now and especially compared to history.
Lol the US is being deindustrialized. In fact, the US is regressing to a DEVELOPING NATION LOL. Capitalism is not working

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-developing-nation-regressing-economy-poverty-donald-trump-mit-economist-peter-temin-a7694726.html

>Well, they should stop going out to eat, buying pointless shit, and taking out loans they can only barely afford to repay. Not capitalism's problem, it's a behavioral problem.
So capitalism isn't human nature?

>Not surprising since most college grads graduate with useless or impractical degrees such as history or psychology. There is a huge skill gap that needs to be addressed (thanks to the college meme and shitty new age philosophy and some weird animus towards labor jobs), thank god we have Trump and DeVos working on that.
So what would you tell these people who need jobs to survive? What jobs should they take. Let's step back and look at the bigger picture, are there enough well paying jobs for everyone?

>plain wrong. Millennial unemployment is high (because of the skills gap and psychological issues, mainly), but well below 50% as your post would claim
Still a problem. Like I said, many college graduates are thousands of dollars in debt and are expected to pay it off with a minimum wage job.

>LOL says the guy who supports the RED economic system
See

Into archive
archive.is/Qpmod

>Meanwhile in reality pic related. Despite the above problems we are still an INSANELY prosperous nation compared to the world population now and especially compared to history.
Half of all wage earners in USA earn 30k or less.

strawman for most libertarians (that I know)

relevant only to Gary Johnson "Libertarian" Party types

>the railroad company owns the bank too
what a fucking waste of quads

>that get
what

other way around, I should say. The bankers would be in bed with the monopoly. You might say "but how is that profitable in the long run?" but please remember WHY the bankers were in bed with royalty.

>monopolies are not a natural phenomenon

>appeal to nature

>How to fix capitalism

does this graph include blacks and mexicans