What's wrong with capitalism?

I'm starting to get redpilled on capitalism

>more money for business
>less unemployment
>less taxes

What's wrong with capitalism Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/UssCqO8N8wE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

capitalism is a means to a end. but it's treated as a end goal.

this is the modern day problem which as screwed everyone over.

When communism actually has an end goal, which is actually the abolition of all private property, how can the preservation of private property not became an end goal in and of itself?

You can't just pretend the Hegelian dialectic doesn't exist.

It creates losers and nobody wants to be a loser. That's it. Anti-capitalism is the "every team gets a trophy" mentality.

Jews

>Private central banking the national political landscape
>Media oligarchies defining culture and morals
>Lobbies owning political class

Banks

This. When the system became the goal, we lost our way.

simply preserving something does not make a very good goal. It doesn't give you anything to be moving towards. This is why the "conservatives" in America have been losing ground for 60 years, they have only fought for the status quo, and when the status quo moves they move with it.

Greed
It embraces a core problem in the hearts of all humanity.
Thats why it works.
However we should never have a population size that allows capitalism to exist.
Humanity works well under tribalism and small versions of feudalism and monarchism.
Everything else is folly.
The problem is that there are 6 billion humans too many.
Capitalism destroys the family aspect and the love for ones people and country and replaces it with the love and worship of money and material goods.
Communism is the same but instead of being fed you're starving.

nothing is wrong with capitalism

the smart people benefit while the dumb people complain

basically, capitalism caters to the successful high IQ people while people who want communism only want it because they suck at making money with capitalism

anyone who's ever been successful loves capitalism cause without it they would never have gotten to where they are

all the communists you see are poor losers

Join the tribe! Be a part of us! (did you sign up? it's only $300.) (Want a patch like the rest of the team? That's $20) (The cool kids here wear these... only $100) You can't expect any coaching or advice without being a part of the team dude.

Capitalism is objectively better than socialism insny of its forms.

*in any

>Basing your life around currency
Lul

Capitalism is flawed but by far the best type of economic system.

Capitalism fails to distribute wealth rationally and thus it leads to rampant inequality and a stagnant society. There are a whole host of other problems like the degradation of culture and increased globalization as capitalists seek to tap into new markets for labor.

Nothing at all.
It's the principle that, combined with the industrial revolutions in a sweet union of reciprocity, FINALLY lifted us up from pre-industrial living standards.
Even without all the government regulation we got today to "make it better", whoda thunk.

The wealth distribution you mention here is jews using goverment for investments, mainly national banking.
Capitalism never did nothing wrong, it just shows what is wrong with a society. Capitalism is the natural state of the world, socialism tried to hide away some aspects of society, like poor people, and fails horribly.

Truth. DESU we never should have left the garden of Eden but too late for that.

>What's wrong with capitalism Sup Forums?
Exploitation if not regulated. You will eventually get an uber rich oligarchy and a permanent underclass working for next to nothing.

Prove it, the only exploitation that arrises is thanks to today's goverment intervention.

>Prove it
Look at America dumbass. Funny people from other countries telling Americans living under hyper-capitalism about their system.

>America is capitalist
Oh boy.

PS. Check what the United States has and also add the ZOG, the FED.

>Healthcare.
Hopefully Trump solving this now.
>Debt
No need to say anything.
>Gun Control
Thank God for your constitution.
>Welfare
Welfare state.
>Education
Common Core but I still think your private school system is pretty good if I'm not mistaken
>Religion
Demorats working on cracking that one
>Class Welfare
Replaced by cultural marxism with intersectionality.
My addition:

Your goverment is shills for Israel, even Trump.
The FED controls your money and sends it to the owners of the central bankers.
Also your media, the 4th branch of goverment, is basically owned by jews.

You got it backwards.
The rich use the state to reach that uber rich oligarchy.
The very same regulations and laws that would seem to stifle huge corporations are used as barriers to entry.
The big ones can easily keep lobbying and fighting off most negative consequences to themselves with armies of lawyers.
The problem isn't capitalism in itself, since the only way to get rich then is to serve consumer needs better than others.
The problem is that the return-on-investment from political favors is larger than anything you can achieve in the market alone.

>private owned
>central bank
Pick one. Only government can operate a central bank.
>media oligarchs defining culture
Which is paid for by political parties, with money stolen via taxation
>lobbies owning political class
Strip the power from government and then lobbying is pointless.

All of the problems you've named with "capitalism" are problems arising from socialism and government control.

Money is more powerful than the state

There is no way to make the state more powerful than money other than establishing horrible totalitarian states.

But what if the state knows what he's doing?

The state owns the money through central banking these days.
When the state owns the money it owns everything.

So you might be right, but the state owns its weakness, using the economic freedoms of its citizenry to bloat it's own size.

Same thing that's wrong with every other ideology...greed...no outright free distribution of land ownership for all humans. Secure land base is the root of security not biased distribution of wealth.

Capitalism itself neither good nor evi. It can be used well to benefit many, or it could be used badly to benefit few.

Capitalism is subject to many different kinds of regulations in the word, so the word itself is extremely generic and can mean different things.

I would say capitalism is good if it is regulated and manipulated in a way that creates a large middle class and avoids perpetual wealth, where generations of people are doing nothing but sitting on a pile of cash and earning interest (for example, I believe there should be limits to how much you could inherit without significant tax).

At the same time, it should also prevent perpetual poverty. I don't mean handouts, but opportunities in education/training.

I think Swedish way is a good model in this, if you put all the ooga boogas aside. Inequality is a big catalyst for conflict and even revolutions.

What's Real? Wrong? Right? 1% Capitalism for the rich...99% basic poor socialism for the rest.

Nothing is wrong with capitalism as long as the state isn't large/powerful. That leads to chrony capitalism and that leads to the destruction of the middle class. Free market capitalism is the best system in the world. Industrial age america is a good example. 80% of the population lived in the middle class by world standards..

Compared to what?
Even the poorest man in the capitalist west is richer than the richest king before the pre-industrial revolution.

Crony-capitalism is the problem if you're worried about the extent of the inequalities in the west as they stand today.

But on the whole, if you prefer modern living standards, there has to be inequality so that the incentives are there for the most capable people to make the most of the scarce resources we have.

Furthermore, if a bunch of rich bastards a couple of decades ago hadn't made the choice to purchase the most primitive cell phones for 10 000 dollaridoos, we wouldn't be able to purchase them for 50 dollaridoos today.

capitalism = free people cooperation freely

it's only (((wrong))) if you're a leftist and want to steal and enslave everybody.

Capitalism is fundamentally flawed in that it promotes the accumulation of value in the hands of the few. Ultimately this means that the freedom of the mass of people is inhibited. There is nothing wrong with a market based system per say, however, society and the state must guard against outside elements gaining economic control, and then from economic control, political control. National Socialism does this.

youtu.be/UssCqO8N8wE

>A rootless international clique

This, everyone needs to grasp the principle.
aka
Keep your word, keep your money.

With the state present to hand out political favors, the first part of the equation need not apply.
In the form of the legal fictions called Corporations, for example.

Two issues, which are connected.
Crony-capitalism, government heavily subsidize various industries and in the context of globalization, one nations government compete against other nations governments in providing special laws for select companies.
Think of the whole Apple-Ireland-EU shenanigan..
This is especially true in finance, which is the second issue I have with capitalism. The financial crisis in 08, taught us that big banks essentially don't take risk - which are a primary component of investment. Because if they fail, if thy have taken in to many risky investments and it collapse on them, then the government will just bail them out.
So if a private investor, invest 1 mio € in SpaceX, and the company fails and goes bankrupt, you have lost your money.. If it was a private own bank over a certain size that had invested 1 mio €, the tax payers will loose the money. It's a little simplified, but it's the truth in broad strokes.

I'm all in for "true-capitalism", but the current crony-capitalism system, is a sub-optimal system.

Capitalism is the decentralized socioeconomic system that places increasing amounts of power in the hands of the immoral, greedy and degenerative elements of society. Example: two people who are equal in terms of IQ, home environment, education and work ethic open businesses. The only difference between the two is that one has a code of morals and ethics they won't cross and the other doesn't. In the capitalist system: which one do you think ends up at the top of the money hierarchy out of the two?

It's the opposite side of the same coin of Marxism: centralizing power in the hands of the worst elements of society. It seems to be no coincidence that in both systems Jews rise to the top of both economic/political hierarchies (wherever Jews are present).

National Socialism is market-oriented economics, community-oriented social structure, rejection of degeneracy and profligacy and creating healthy, homogeneous and stable countries that have sovereignty over themselves.

That is being "redpilled on capitalism".

> the accumulation of value in the hands of the few. Ultimately this means that the freedom of the mass of people is inhibited

Sure, the "inhibition" of freedom caused by some people being wealthy is just virtually zero, miniscule, utterly insignificant in size compared to the inhibition of freedom of limiting job creation, working for and saving money.

Don't buy into "wealth distribution", it's misleading AF.
Most people have no wealth, they may have a decent income, and a good chunk of disposable income, but they have no wealth - because the wealth is a measurement of savings and value. If you rent your apartment, you have almost no wealth, compared to a guy that owns a house.

Think of the Tv-series "Friends" compared to the tv-series "king of queens"; whom has the most wealth? the group that sits in a coffee-shop all day and live in rented apartments near central-park. Or the UPS-driver that owns a standard house in Queens.

The reason why the wealth inequality is so skewed, is that most people own nothing of value beside some jewelry and furniture.

So what's the ideal tax for the poor, middle class and the rich in a national socialist state? I'm a NatSoc myself but I don't know much about economics.

It's difficult to key broader tax rates without looking at specific conditions present in each country. Some poorer countries could benefit from a higher tax rate on wealthy interests for a small time, where others may need lower tax rates. Without looking specifically at the demographics of a society, it's difficult to say.

If you have the market be well regulated by the state, but not have the state intervene financially in most economic concerns, your tax rate could be low. The Third Reich had a top personal tax rate of 13.7%. But with the exception of critical war times, there is no reason to have a personal tax rate above 33% at any time.

The corporate tax rate should be high, for other reasons, and should be even higher for foreign corporations. IF you want to create a low-welfare society, you need to free up the lower economic rungs of society to create small businesses, and prevent this consolidation of economic power in the hands of wealthy corporations and big business. Not only does this improve conditions for the middle class and the poor, it makes things more efficient.

Realistically speaking, the tax rate shouldn't be set by government bureaucrats (who are open to corruption and bribery by moneyed interests), but by unions, guilds, syndicates and business groups discussing the issue.

But that's just my personal opinion.

Technically there isn't as long as it is self contained and within a culture that prevents its exploitation. Neither of which we have currently with globalisation and (((international finance))).

>Sweden

You were BORN Capitalist, you Sami fuck. Pull yourself together.

(OP)
You can buy government power with money.
But all others governing and economical systems are not proof against government power abuses. Even more they may encourage it like communism

Lots is wrong with it, but so far it's the best we've got.

It uses the natural force of anarchy to direct natural human greed into a (median) positive outcome resulting in more science, more technology, more advancement, better medicine and less poverty/misery.

The downsides?

>You can still sell people useless shit
>People will buy dietary filth because we're programmed to live in jungles, and our brains still respond overly positively to sugar.
>Big pharma

These failures are no reason to destroy the whole thing.
Some of these require actual willpower on the fucking individual level, and some require stricter laws.

>be National Socialism
>spend all GDP on the war by the decision of single drug degenerate
>freedom of the mass
>fair income distribution

based poles
also nice get

Private central banking.
Paradox right there. If it's private its not central, if everyone is free to compete in the banking sector there's little chance you'll end up with a monopolistic government approved central banking authority

The problem with "monopolies" arises when big companies seek government to legislate leaner competition out of the market.

And the poor losers are more numerous, thus giving them the edge in any democracy, gradually turning it away from capitalism into socialism/communism/marxism
because they desire the wealth the rich ones have worked hard for.

The only problem with a low tax is that it's going to be harder to keep state financed hospitals and so on. I mean here in Sweden we have a tax up to 60% for the "above average" middle class, but our welfare is still collapsing.

I also don't want to tax private businesses too high aswell since they worked hard to get to where they're at.

Germany spent less than 11% of their GDP on the war until late on.

it works untill you start morphing it into siclalism i.e you start redistribution by retarded social policies

That's because you have hundreds of thousands nig-nogs leeching your system by taking welfare, free apartments, free schooling while contributing nothing.
This calculation is really no mystery Sven.

->

True enough. But this is where the issue with "freedom" arises. Most ilnesses that require a hospital in the modern age are the result of damaging advances made in the modern age.

Ban large swathes of chemicals that have proven or probably carcinogenic effects. Ban obesity by starting forced water fasting camps. Start programs to increase fitness, reduce consumption of processed food, etc. Most health problems go away, meaning you don't need massive state funding of hostpitals.

> I mean here in Sweden we have a tax up to 60% for the "above average" middle class, but our welfare is still collapsing.

That;s because of foreign filth swamping the country and not working. Look at the largest non-european ethnic group in Germany for instance: Turks. A full 50% of all Turks in Germany are unemployed and not seeking work. I assume the same can be said of bottom feeding immigrant scum in Sweden. Expel unemployed foriegn born individuals from the country, institute basic proceedures that ban the use of welfare in non-recession times for more than 12 months (or 18 months or any other time period). You won't need the taxation.

>I also don't want to tax private businesses too high aswell since they worked hard to get to where they're at.

Well as soon as a business becomes owned by several rich interests, they're not "working hard" anymore. Once you surpass a certain number of employees, the "hard work" of said businesses is no longer valid.

that's why yu can't have a democracy
i mean look what it did to USA

>What's wrong with capitalism?
The State and demagogues sucking off other peoples labor.

And what is the rational way to distribute of wealth?

Never thought about it that much desu, I just thought the ooga boogas were raping our women and children. If you think about it it makes sense that they are using the system to gain money.

I mean that they should get rewarded for their hard work to develop their company. The work never goes away either since there's probably always going to be paperwork to be done.

That's why I don't want to spend the same amount of resources on some fuck who didn't give a shit about school and dropped out as someone who worked hard to get good grades and a good education.

The deportations will cost alot of money though :/

Capitalism makes the most sense as a market system IMO, although it does have some flaws that require government intervention to correct them. Monopolies for example, they ruin the point of capitalism, which is competitiveness amongst businesses.

its not implemented enough

thats only thing wrong

hong kong usa sweden now china showing capitalism is only moral system and best

if china regulates

they will fall behind again

they are already only 1/50th of usa gdp per cap ppp

hong kong is only equal to usa

nothing is wrong with making money if you help others with the money you earn...

Nothing. Literally nobody starves in white capitalist countries unless under extreme circumstances such as kidnapping or mental illness. It's statistically negligible. Starvation is a feature of every other system.

nah thats fucked morality
money is fairly earned by capitalists
cronies are function of gov spending and statism
deregualte and compatition get rid of all shortgaes
1800s is what we need again
1800s ended slavery
1900s democracy reinstated it

usa is not a democracy thanks the gods
its a capitalist republic

Ultimately Germany spent all GDP with unconditional surrender.

Capitalism tells us that any person can own land, businesses, goods, whatever, where socialism tells us that the state needs to own those things.

The truth is that any *citizen* should be able to own those things. World of fucking difference.

fascism>capitalism>monarchy>democracy