ITT: Problems with capitalism

Even though I support free markets, I also believe that the current paradigm traps us in wage slavery necessary to continue our existence.
I think we'd do much better to pursue a model where everybody was relatively taken care of and didn't have to worry about surviving so that they could focus on self-realization and self-actualization.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk
youtube.com/watch?v=x6e8Pa6-IZU
youtube.com/watch?v=l2BH8eNj2Aw
youtube.com/watch?v=RUBK9_4OQIs
youtube.com/watch?v=6TGkfjaxFWs
youtube.com/watch?v=r4SIEl1j8e4
youtube.com/watch?v=b4Ubp7U9Dq4
youtube.com/watch?v=rqZPMfxFj5M
who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf
pnhp.org/blog/2016/03/16/kenneth-arrow-says-single-payer-is-better-than-any-other-system/
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
youtube.com/watch?v=fFoXyFmmGBQ
cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cambie-surgeries-healthcare-canada-public-vs-private-system-bc-dr-brian-day-1.3977566
cbc
archive.is/Q2qjQ
youtu.be/16WF1jLLyik?t=47m55s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>if we combine our forces we can create a fist big enough to fist OP's mom

>current paradigm is clearly lmao Keynesianism
>wants people to be taken care of
>be taken care of
Fuck off you're not a baby anymore

>Disincentives more sustainable means of production in favor of efficiency and volume.

>Relies on overt consumerism and materialism to provide a means of employment for a sizeable amount of the populace.

All I can think of honestly.

the most basic problem with Capitalism is the tendency for monopolies to form

When you have large monopolies in place things can "look" like capitalism, people are buying and selling goods, but it is missing a key component for capitalism to work, competition

Adam Smith even lays out this problem in wealth of nations, you need government to regulate markets and prevent/break up monopolies which is counter intuitive because government is not a market force

It also works against national interests and the health/protections of the working class by sending tons of jobs like manufacturing overseas to benefit solely capitalists, overall it benefits a select few VERY disproportionately, it's resulted in things like planned obsolescence, and if unchecked leads to your society being run/controlled by large capitalist companies for their own benefit.

I agree. Staunch capitalists are like spoiled teenagers- no perspective, disgracefully wasteful, utterly unconcerned with cultural traditions, selfish, short-sighted, and exploitative.

>working class by sending tons of jobs like manufacturing overseas to benefit solely capitalists

well but on the other hand we wouldnt have all these cheap things if they werent produced like that.

>nd if unchecked leads to your society being run/controlled by large capitalist companies for their own benefit
in economic theory this has happened and rarely happens. All monopolies were formed with the government. in a free market the most you would get is an oligopol.

Syndicalism, not even once

The most significant problem with today's iteration of "capitalism" is socialism.

Or I should say, "crony socialism" and its monopolies

Yes and no. Competition will arise naturally as an answer to monopolies if the following occurs:

1) the monopoly starts to lower the quality of their goods and services

2) the monopoly doesn't innovate or adapt to changes in the market place in relation to movement of people and their needs

For instance, A&P held majority of the market share for a long period of time. They were hit with anti-trust laws even though shortly after (not because of the anti-trust laws) they low majority of market share.

Why did they lose their monopoly? They didn't adapt to the increase of sub-urban living. The competitors did and stole the market share away from A&P. Also, A&P were only able to be relevant due to the family that started A&P. Once the last family member passed on (newer generations were not interested in continuing the business, as it was the first generations of owners who remained interested in it) the company couldn't stay afloat. As the company was quite literally being run by the founders of the company. Without proper direction they crashed and burned.

If you ever get the chance check out the book "Good to Great", it illustrates why a lot of companies are just good and don't really become great companies. While showing what makes those companies they have found to be great.

Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics also covers the monopoly structure as well within a free market/capitalist society. Even Milton Friedman had stated that if a single company were to hold a monopoly you'd almost guarantee that someone would compete with them within about 5 years. That is if government isn't backing the monopoly, as a true monopoly can only occur if the government protects it. With over-regulation and creating barriers of entry into an industry beyond the capital and labour/skill required.

Another noted example is Montgomery Ward and Sears. With MW being taken down by JC Penny. Who taught and trained Sam Walton who made Walmart.

The death of the American Dream coincides with the death of the free market.

how much are you focusing on your so-called "self-realization" after you're done with your job for the day?

no really, how much self improvement do you actively pursue with the little free time you have when you're not working at your job

because that's about as much self improvement you're going to pursue when you don't have to work
it's not that you don't have time
it's that that's not actually something you truly want

what you want is eat the cake without having to bake it

you'll be just as miserable without a job as you would be with a job

just look yourself properly, this goes for me, too
we'd spend all day shitposting on Sup Forums

>I support free markets
>Let's not pursue free markets

Just admit your a communist, nothing's worse than communists pretending to hold liberal values.

So Sears goes down because Amazon out maneuvered them

But now Amazon is the monopoly, the problem has not been solved, it has been shifted to a new company, what you need to do is break up Amazon into several competing companies so that the consumer has choice

> Americans in charge of understanding free markets and concepts like communism
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and maybe Finland all have economies as free as, if not freer than the US's, while still providing a generous safety net and welfare state to provide for people. The two aren't even necessarily contradictory to each other or anything, I never advocated for banning private property.

Being a wage cuck is the most soul crushing experience in the modern era. We don't even get capitalism like it was intended. We get crony capitalism which prevents average people from living a comfortable life even if they work hard.

>the most basic problem with Capitalism is the tendency for monopolies to form
Bullshit. Monopolies form solely through the intervention of government and it's regulations, and anyone claiming otherwise is a keynisian faggot who is no better than a socialist about the absolute failure of their stupid ideology.

>the monopoly lowers quality of goods or services
>monopoly doesn't innovate or adapt to market changes
One of the reasons De Beers (diamonds) is such a successful monopoly relates to:

1. Manufactured demand.
"Quality" is a matter of perception--as is known by anyone in the medical field familiar with the Placebo effect. A commercial for a meal doesn't raise the quality of the meal, but it creates demand for it. Your BELIEF is more powerful than any objective quality. Why do you think pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than R&D?

2. Monopolies (that control the supply and manufacture their own demand) DON'T have to adapt or change to serve "needs."
Compared to perceived needs, real needs barely exist. No one on Earth "needs" a diamond to live their life. You perceive a need for one when a commercial tells you that it's what you need to get married. In reality, a diamond won't make a marriage lasting/healthy. It's a manufactured "need" that pervades American society, coinciding with a rising divorce rate.

>Adam Smith was a Kenysian faggot

really makes you think

You don't break up Amazon. Other companies rise up to answer the needs and desires of Amazon customers.

At some point Amazon is going to alienate customers (if it hasn't already). People will lose trust in Amazon and will want to go to other companies that provide the same services.

It doesn't happen overnight, but it does occur. So long as government doesn't create arbitrary barriers for others to start up their company in competing with Amazon.

If Amazon maintains a high standard of treatment of their customers, providing good products/services than it isn't a problem. If a company does good by their consumers and by their suppliers/sellers (in Amazon's case) they'll have a stronger hold without the need of government intervention.

However people are inherently flawed and it isn't a matter of if, but a matter of when they'll start to slide. As a company is not a person, it is run by people. People who come and go and have various values. Unless the values that make a company great are cultivated and maintained those companies that are great will eventually just become good at best.

Monopolies are more than just corporate monopolies however. You also have wage monopoly with things like union wage laws, and minimum wage laws (pushed by unions).

youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

youtube.com/watch?v=x6e8Pa6-IZU

youtube.com/watch?v=l2BH8eNj2Aw

youtube.com/watch?v=RUBK9_4OQIs

youtube.com/watch?v=6TGkfjaxFWs

youtube.com/watch?v=r4SIEl1j8e4

youtube.com/watch?v=b4Ubp7U9Dq4

youtube.com/watch?v=rqZPMfxFj5M

>But now Amazon is the monopoly
Is Amazon preventing you from buying from anyone else? Do you as a consumer have the ability to pay just about anyone else for the products you need?

Are you a little faggot who is bitching that being a company that offers overwhelming more value is somehow monopolistic?

Free markets are based. Capitalism is a jewish trick based on leveraging lawyers and politicians to define "property" in increasingly arbitrary ways for the benefit of the already-entrenched elite.

>Even though I support free markets, I also believe that the current paradigm traps us in wage slavery necessary to continue our existence.
>I think we'd do much better to pursue a model where everybody was relatively taken care of and didn't have to worry about surviving so that they could focus on self-realization and self-actualization.

fucking kek'd

Fuck off commie

Just like the early pilgrims were communist idiots even before Marx dumbed down Engels.

The lefty/pol/ commiecuck shills have really rumped up their shilling and propaganda lately. What are they planning?

>ctrl+f land
nothing

what do you think of syndicalism?

>but BUT thats not treu capitalism!!!

Please cite this. Smith discussed how markets reach equilibrium through competition.

Amazon is the archetypal example of a monopoly, they don't even make any money, they lose money ever year, they are propped up by investors

Their model is to undercut everyone and push out the competition, no one can reasonably compete with a business that is not even trying to make a profit

When anyone attempts to compete Amazon will undercut until they are gone then they will hold the monopoly and rape consumers at will

Starting a competitor would take billions of dollars, not anyone can do it, that is the simple reality of life, so when you say "a competitor will come along and..." just neck yourself

The biggest problem with Capitalism is that it depends on competition to be effective, but it naturally trends towards monopoly.

The sweet spot for capitalism is when there are many companies competing for the consumer $$$. When you file down to just a few companies pretending to compete you start to have real problems.

Just enough government to ensure that we stay in that sweet spot is, in my opinion, the best option.

...

Not all monopolies are inherently bad, in some instances natural monopolies are a necessity, or they actually facilitate common trade, etc., for example, you wouldn't want a non-monopoly on the legitimately seen or recognized use of force because it would greatly impede the normal functioning of a society.
There are also things like public goods which should arguably at least have a publicly-provided alternative to private providers, and then there are economic factors beyond just simplistic analysis, like in healthcare, where larger organizations or collectives have greater bargaining power, which is seen in countries with have nationalized/collective healthcare systems.
On the healthcare note, you should look into economist Kenneth Arrow and his ideas regarding the economics of health care.
who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf
pnhp.org/blog/2016/03/16/kenneth-arrow-says-single-payer-is-better-than-any-other-system/
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

If there's a monopoly, it's not capitalism as it necessitates competition

What you are taught as "capitalism" results in inequality and inefficiency because it lacks a theory to manage common resources.
It doesn't even recognize that there is such a thing as common resources.

A man named Henry George corrected this flaw in his book "Progress and Poverty".

George not only recognized common resources like land, minerals, water, fish stocks as such, but adds that by managing these resources with user fees, you can get rid of all other taxation and remove impediments to economic development.

So under Georgist system, regular folk are mostly taxed in proportion to the value of any land they may possess. The vast majority of people would pay a lot less than they currently pay in income, payroll and consumption taxes, but absentee landlords would pay a lot more, and the mortgage business of banks would be an order of magnitude smaller, because land taxes cancel the benefits of homeownership as an investment.

The system also discourages the inefficient use of land, controlling sprawl and inefficient farming practices. Housing and transportation costs would be greatly reduced, thus allowing for a greater equality of opportunity

Tax land not man

weed d00d XD

>pol loves capitalism
>pol hates illegal immigrants
>capitalism is the reason why migrant workers came here illegally to work
>pol supports illegal immigrants without even realizing it

Hilarious.

De Beers goes farther than that in their quest for monopolization. This is a case where monopoly structures do go too far, but at the same time they are playing the game based on economic principles that inherit to supply and demand. As they'll only release supply in accordance to what is out there thus inflating the price. The same occurs with oil, gold, etc. They are not drilling all of the oil in the world and will stop drilling when prices get too low. They will begin drilling for oil once more when the price goes up.

Quality has a tangible aspect as well as illusionary. That is correct. What one person views as high quality may not be seen as high quality to another. That doesn't take away the need of quality as a value. If the majority of a companies customers no longer value the product and view it as a lower quality to what it once was they'll look for that which is a better quality. This can occur if the consumer becomes educated on the goods/services they were receiving or if they themselves have seen a decline in quality. Sometimes this occurs because the marketing has been too aggressive in their desire to make sales thus training their customers incorrectly to purchase only when the price is dropped in a "discount sale event".

While that quality may be perceived it is still important, and there isn't anything wrong with companies trying to market quality to people. As they are not twisting people's arm to make the purchase with a gun to their head. Are they manipulating them? Certainly, but it still is in the hand of the consumer as to whether or not they'll pay for that service or good.

Marketing is important, but Adam Smith also pushed for consumer education. Consumers should most certainly do all that they can to be informed. However, "consumer reporting" should not be solely relied on for this education. John Stossel will tell you that.

Capitalism is soul crushing by itself
There was never been such a system where the slaves fight to find a master willing to exploit them

Open borders are an ideological project of the left and various jewish "intellectuals" it has little to do with economics.

land is the mother of all monopolies and until we address that nothing else really matters

Subsidizing agribusiness, oil, and healthcare is a good idea though. Banks not so much since it's their job to be responsible with money, but it's hard to fault subsidizing businesses essential to transportation, quality of life, and food.

I'm not opposed to Georgism and find it interesting and would be interested to see an experiment in which it was tried but IMO it isn't even necessary, the current model + greater workers' protections, more guarantees of provision of basic public goods like healthcare, etc., greater vacation time, lower work weeks, etc. would probably be close to enough for me.

How do you think the illegals got jobs here then? It was greedy ass business owners and farmers that hired them to save a few bucks.

Liberals had nothing to do with it. Just capitalists selling out their country as always like the fucking judases they are.

wrong
capitalists love open borders so they don't need to raise wages anymore

>capitalism
>central bank

That's from removing the gold standard and central banking.

Sounds like commie bs to me. You can't be free market if you insist on being cared for by some pre-constructed organization (i.e. Government).

Your post is a giant contradiction.

So your argument is that amazon defies the laws of economics and can somehow keep losing money forever without anyone ever being able to compete with it?

You are no different from the faggots who have made the same claims of IBM, Walmart, and Apple, and never been right. Even the massive Standard Oil company, with its 50% market share, had more competitors than its subsequent break off components that were made into actual monopolies and went on to control 90% of the market share and nearly double the prices under standard and it's panoply of competitors.

In short, bullshit.

Wrong the main impetus behind open borders is marxism and the jewish socialist drive to eliminate nation states and replace white people with a brown proletariat. That explains why Trump who is pro business supports lower immigration while (((Bernie))) and other left wing politicians and intellectuals want more immigration

Who issues the money has nothing to do with it. Capitalism is defined as "private ownership of the means of production and property". It would still be capitalism if the tooth fairy issued the money.

Adam Smith stated that if no private person, enterprise, organization, corporation was able (or willing) to provide a good or service than having the public provide that service was a good alternative.

However, if people wish to provide that good or service in the private sector it shouldn't be impeded.

In terms of healthcare I'd rather we went back to mutual aid societies.

youtube.com/watch?v=fFoXyFmmGBQ

Which were ultimately shut down due to public healthcare, doctors complaining of too low cost of healthcare, raising the barrier of entry for doctors themselves, threatening doctors from lodge practice, and the mutual aid societies themselves lobbying for cartel pricing when those policies were put forth.

Healthcare can be provided privately while being affordable. I'd rather voluntary socialism, than mandatory socialism. Even worse is when government forces private providers to not be able to charge for services provided by the public system. This has resulted in the death of people in BC for example.

cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cambie-surgeries-healthcare-canada-public-vs-private-system-bc-dr-brian-day-1.3977566

The people that died in particular were co-plantiffs and patients of the doctor in question.

How exactly is a central bank opposed to capitalism? If anything the central banks are made to reinforce or help capitalism function more efficiently by more finely measuring or controlling the money supply.
Do you know anything about central banking other than stuff you 'learned' from Sup Forums infographics and quote mining?

Let's archive
>cbc ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cambie-surgeries-healthcare-canada-public-vs-private-system-bc-dr-brian-day-1.3977566
archive.is/Q2qjQ

>you support eating real food
>you hate insects in your house
>your real food is the reason why insects into your house
>you support insects into your house without even realizing it.

You are an idiot.

So your argument is basically just fingers in ears lalala?

Bernie and liberals had nothing to do with business owners hiring illegals.

Your not gonna weasel out of this argument that easily.

Some monopolies are inevitable. The US dollar is a national, currency monopoly. We used to have state/colonial currencies, but it made sense to centralize it. Of course, this was when it was backed by something (gold/silver). Because of this universal system, Spanish gold doubloons were frequently accepted as equal payment alongside anything the central government produced. Gold is gold--nobody cared what nation stamped it. To this day, people would still rather receive a Morgan or Peace dollar for a service than a rapidly devaluing, worthless piece of Fed Reserve paper. The problem here, of course, is supply (or control of supply-- same reason De Beers runs a successful monopoly in diamonds).

Capitalism is just a *nicer* version of slavery.

Why have a slave that you pay to feed, water, and shelter (plus will potentially try and escape) when you can hire a worker who you can pay less than it costs to pay for food, water and shelter and who rather than running from you will run to you when times get hard.

The only fair system is one where workers are fully compensated for their labour rather than have the majority of the value produced by their labour be sucked away as *profit*.

"You have to keep the dominance hierarchy itself in place, because there's no point in destroying what you are trying to climb." youtu.be/16WF1jLLyik?t=47m55s

You don't know what a free market is or means if literally any government involved means that something isn't a free market, you're essentially arguing that only an ancap system would have free markets.
In reality, the government actually needs to play a somewhat active role in the economy to prevent market abuse and actually make sure that markets are free and consumers are protected.
The freest economies in the world have levels of welfare states, publicly provided goods, services, etc.

>wage slavery necessary to continue our existence.
and what else do you expect? we contribute to society so we can continue to live a more comfortable life. Sounnds like your (like most commies) just lazy and want a better quality of life for free.

Business owners hiring illegals is not the cause of illegal immigration.

Border security is the job of the state and Congress creating laws.. Besides most brown subhuman immigrants are on welfare and don't even work. They are the brown proletariat created by jews and the left to replace White people. This is about policy not economics.

>didn't have to worry about surviving
so insted of wage slavery you want govt/automation cuckoldry

“It is not from foreigners that protection preserves and defends us; it is from ourselves. Trade is not invasion. It does not involve aggression on one side and resistance on the other, but mutual consent and gratification . . . what was done was not to force the people to trade, but to force their governments to let them.”

“Civilized nations, however, do not use their armies and fleets to open one another’s ports to trade. What they use their armies and fleets for, is, when they quarrel, to close one another’s ports. . . . Trade does not require force. Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. It is protection that requires force, for it consists in preventing people from doing what they want to do. Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their object is the same—to prevent trade. The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are a means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading. What protection teaches us is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.”

You have a small penis

Only a pampered twat even thinks wage slave is a thing. Would you rather be a subsistence farmer or a starving artist? Those are your options. You weren't born a noble like Marx or Guevara. You can't wax philosophical about the plight of the proletariat all day because your landed and have never needed to support yourself.

Congratulations, your highest aspiration in life is the existence of a plantation slave.

If you live ina poor country like mexico and American business will hire you then there is a clear incentive to cross the border illegally.

Refute this argument or literally shut your god damn mouth.

if people dont have to work to earn a living, you will see even more massive street gangs coz now they dont need to work to be on the street everyday

If you are poor, and other people walk around with a lot of money, there is a clear inventive to steal from the cracka.

> we contribute to society so we can continue to live a more comfortable life.
Except that's largely debatable. There's a lot of evidence at this point that shorter work weeks lead to noticeably higher per-unit-time productivity, and greater off/leisure time leads to greater happiness.
People largely work more so that they can buy more, thinking that this is what will make them happy, but that isn't the case, people are made happier by having more leisure time, spending more time with their families, girlfriends, going for walks, etc. than they are by buying stuff.

Delet this.

Paris is /ourgrill/ and tried to protect lindsay lohan from the jews. She also publicly said she would never touch a nigger.

Refute the argument that border controls are the sole responsibility of the state and the number of immigrants is entirely determined by legislation in Washington. Also clarify if you support the mass deportation of all illegal immigrants and putting a moratorium on all "legal" immigration.

>Th.Th..Th..Thank you sir m..m..m..may i have another?

ok fine


“Can there be any greater misuse of language than to apply to commerce terms suggesting strife, and to talk of one nation invading, deluging, overwhelming or inundating another with goods? Goods! What are they but good things—things we are all glad to get? Is it not preposterous to talk of one nation forcing its good things upon another nation? Who individually would wish to be preserved from such invasion? Who would object . . . who would take it kindly if any one should assume to protect him by driving off those who wanted to bring him such things?”

“When in the common use of the word we speak of individuals or communities protecting themselves, there is always implied the existence of some external enemy or danger, such as . . . robbers or invaders; something disposed to do what the protected object to. . . . What [systems of restriction] defend a people against is not external enemies or dangers, but what that people themselves want to do.“

Money and human labor are the ultimate "means of production," or capital. Without competing currencies, you cannot have a free market.

TLDR. Lolbertarians get the rope too right after the commies

t. temporarily embarrassed millionaire

Not capitalism, and slaves in America had relatively good lives and worked less than any other farming demographic at the time.

> If you don't want your nation, the inhabitants of whom can vote and influence things, to be flooded by low-IQ retards who haven't properly shown themselves capable of running or creating a nice society independently you're just a poopoo racist and small dick :DD

>this kills the stormfaggot
Are you an original or a useful idiot?

>when I don't have any arguments so I call anything I don't like Jewish

>Not true capitalism

Holy rare flag batman

>weenies

Wow haven't seen that in a while. Why can't you mentally ill redditor freaks use the world faggot does it trigger you?

le epic meme lololol XDDDD!!!!!

Calm down with the autistic screeching commiecuck shitskin

slavery is ultimate capitalism, literally, LITERALLY owning labour

The most important thing is to preserve your family and people. We live in a Capitalist more and more free-market world and it is destroying us.

*economic illiteracy intensifies*

So what are you doing now that your presence is being erased from the internet and your influence here on your containment board is slowly dwindling?

>Slide threads
not real
>cuck threads
you post them
>Liberals on Sup Forums
real people

Ive always woundered why a person who claims to hate Jewishness stoops down to admittedly Jewish techniques to spread his nonsense

face it Cletus you and your shitty ideas are losing the war.

r/socialism isn't sending their best for sure

A key component of supply, demand, and quality that was overlooked by Smith (and relates more to Prospect Theory [Daniel Kahneman]) is the empirically proved "Placebo effect."

The Placebo effect is probably today's best analogy for what you've mentioned.
Take a person with a disease. They have a clear and obvious need for a cure. You have two options:
1. Give them a pill of sugar and water (low quality)
2. Give them a drug that will help alleviate the symptoms (low-moderate quality).
3. Give a drug that will attack the pathogen and eliminate the cause (high quality).
4. Give them something of low quality and tell them it's the high quality one

One can empirically determine that option 4 is superior to opt. 1 (by outcome). Opt. 4, in some cases (like pain killers), can be equal to or superior to Opt. 2. The fact that 4 can be superior to Opt. 2 proves that the entire "quality vs. need" paradigm is thoroughly misunderstood by most people. Including a large number of armchair economists.

...

You can't even use the world faggot without getting panic attacks you mentally ill freak go get help there is something wrong with your brain.

Why are you posting the same thing you said before Hillary got elected?

Open borders liberals are the useful idiots of capitalists. They aren't the ultimate driving force.

swarmfront activate!

>where everybody was relatively taken care of and didn't have to worry about surviving so that they could focus on self-realization and self-actualization.


this statement is self-defeating.

the fundamental problem of ecnomics is value.
value is illusory, subjective. how can you base any analysis on an axiom such as subjective value?