Does anyone else think that both modern capitalism AND socialism is fucking ridiculous?
Either you are "right" and believe in unsustainable capitalism, or "left" and believe in unsustainable communism. They are both bad systems.
The only alternative is stupid viking/nazi fantasies where we all run around naked in the woods and create the next Reich or whatever it is you Cletuses believe in.
Is there a style of government that makes SENSE?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
You’ll never find a perfect system. Capitalism created much of what you enjoy today.
>every system is broken by design
What did god mean by this?
>implying national socialism isn't an attempt at exactly what you're asking for
>unsustainable capitalism,
Modern central bank-driven and government regulated "capitalism" is indeed unsustainable. Laissez faire capitalism is not. The only alternative top capitalism is socialism, or some fruity unworkable gift economy.
>inb4 natsocs whining about muh third position
Survival of the fittest.
What did Darwin mean by this?
The only workable anarcho-capitalist "state" is akin to fascism.
What did user mean by this?
wow yeah people exchanging money and goods is totally unsustainable
A reminder that capitalism is the justest and most moral system ever devised.
The reason capitalism is so just and moral is because it is VOLUNTARY.
No one gets to steal your shit.
You don't have to pay for anything you don't want to.
You don't have to work for any price you don't want to.
Capitalism incentivises people to work harder and produce more than any other system.
Capitalism elevates the community because more products and services are made than any other system could produce voluntarily.
Constant renewal of the best system by removing its bad parts and adding new necessities is better than a permanent "perfect" system. You're welcome.
There will never be an all-encompassing system that is perfect and infallible. It's impossible by definition. However, the closest thing you could achieve (to the best of my knowledge) is free-market capitalism.
If a system can only stand up through authoritarianism, it won't last, as you've seen with both the far "left" authoritarianism, as well as the far "right" authoritarianism. However, if a system is based entirely on contractual obligations and willing participation, it'll sort itself out, for the most part.
What's so necessarily moral about that? I'd argue it obfuscates natural will to power and gives unnatural power to those who otherwise would not be possessors.
Nope. More akin to absolute monarchy than anything else. There is still "public" property in fascism.
I'm not following Britanon.
Are you saying capitalism gives power to people who would otherwise not own property?
What do you mean by possessors?
And are you arguing that's more moral to force others to bend to will?
(cont'd.)
Most of the issues that people bring up about free-market capitalism either don't happen, or are the product of state intervention in the free market (thereby making it not free, so also doesn't happen). There are a few valid criticisms, but they are too minor to be worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
>muh monopolies
Monopolies can only be propped up through force (i.e. state intervention). Natural monopolies are only theoretical, because in order for there to be a free-market monopoly, they have to satisfy 100% of the market, with 100% satisfaction, with no other competitor able to produce a comparable product. If they can do this, where is the problem?
>And are you arguing that's more moral to force others to bend to will?
I'm saying I'm not sure it's immoral.
My other point was i suppose that capitalism has a tendency to turn vice in to virtue - there are no real great men.
What "makes sense" to you? Seems like you just have a poor grasp on actual reality. Human empathy probably eludes you. You may be trying too hard to be human. You may just have gotten your personality from other people.
(3/3?)
On the positive side, technological advancement and the quality of living will reach currently unimaginable heights, because the very nature of the market dictates that there is infinite competition (by economist terms). Every company is in direct competition with each other to satisfy the market, driving costs down to near-zero profitability for the producers in the long run. For the consumers, you get amazingly cheap products at the best possible quality.
That doesn't mean everything will be super cheap though, there is always the high-end markets to provide a greater window of profitability. However, just like ghetto niggers vs. upper-middle class white families, different strokes for different folks.
Everybody is happy under capitalism, which is why I believe it's the best system. I'm happy to talk about other systems, because I don't know everything, and I'd be happy to adopt a new system if it is objectively superior.
Stealing is just as prevalent in Capitalism as in any other ism. Stealing is just using force as the arbitrageur of who gets what.
this is the stance of the Catholic Church.
Socialism is wrong because it promotes corruption and denies private property.
Capitalism is wrong because it's based on (jewish) usury and denies a necessary cultural morality to govern economic activity.
What's left? Ban usury and leave people alone.
Look at distributism. It evolved from Catholic social teachings early in the twentieth century, and was an attempt to solve precisely this problem - how to avoid the worst aspects of Capitalism without getting into the even worse problem of Communism. Ideas include a focus on the local level and supporting the yeoman tradition. Whether or not it could actually work is another matter.
>leave people alone.
>don't allow them to charge interest on money lent
m8...
The thing is, usury (in the classical definition of the word) is entirely reasonable. It used to mean interest of any kind. However, the definition has been changed for some time to mean unethical interest, which, while still perfectly allowed under capitalism, would be pushed to the fringes as competitors would offer better rates.
But capitalism is specifically about not using force.
I can't force you to work for me.
I can't force you to buy my products.
You can't force me to work for you.
etc.
Capitalism is just the economic system of private ownership and for-profit labor. You're thinking of libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism.
Theft is a thing regardless of what economic system, but the means of handling it varies greatly between systems.
Under a truly capitalistic system, it's my guess that either the government, or private firms would handle punishment for theft.
There is, however, a facet of capitalism that details voluntary exchange.
>as competitors would offer better rates.
Also, a large part of why private loans are readily available is due to fractional reserve banking. Eliminating this fraudulent practice would reduce the number of loans issued, and thereby depress overly inflated prices of goods like real estate.
>But capitalism is specifically about not using force.
>I can't force you to work for me.
>I can't force you to buy my products.
>You can't force me to work for you.
>etc.
Capitalism isn't so far as an ideology as much as it is an economic system. People will steal, cheat, and rob each other in whatever system you apply. Capitalism only states that market forces should dictate how something operates. There is no market for the complete abolishment of theft. On the contrary, there is a market within Capitalism explicietly for theft.
Precisely. Additionally, as the general wealth increases, the need for loans would be mostly for small groups/individuals to make large investments, like purchasing land.
Fraudulent loans caused by fractional reserve banking are the reason why we're about to have a big market correction in the US, because of all of the student and housing loans.
They are both control mechanisms from the same group of people just suited to fit the tastes of different demographics for easier and less resistant control.
The debate between capitalism and communism starts with the prerequisite of
>Yeah, we both want the government to rape us, but let’s talk about which position we wanna get raped in
Brainlet ideologies
You're not very well-versed on capitalism, are you?
Depending on which ideological stance you take, the necessity of the state under capitalism varies from "to stop fraudulent transactions" (minarchism, libertarianism, etc.) to "not existing at all" (anarcho-capitalism)
TL;dr, don’t care to read someone who is too brain dead to realize things on a deeper level then “ooga booga, me like capitalism, you no understand!”
It’s all bullshit
Resorting to ad-hominems? Sad!
What's a better system?
Educate us brain-dead ooga boogas.
The perfect system will never exist because most humans are retarded tribalistic fucks. Maybe we could devise a better system if the right and the left would fucking listen to each other...but that ain't gonna fucking happen.
The right and the left haven't listened to each other in a long time, and look how far we've fallen.
Aren't all decisions made by an individual, by definition, voluntary because you're able to choose between two consumption bundles and you choose the one which maximizes your utility?
There is one scary aspect of capitalism that I don't know how to fix.
We're inventing better technology to replace the lowest IQ jobs.
It won't be long before the average IQ is not good enough to compete in the market.
Once we have a workplace where you can only partake if you have an IQ of 130, this system won't be all sunshine and rainbows anymore.
Maybe we'll be good to each other and take care of people through charity.
Or maybe we'll invent devices to improve our brains and stay competitive.
Not sure.
Yes, if both sides agree to the sale/trade of the consumption bundle. I could decide to rob a bank, but I don't think the bank would agree it's a voluntary exchange.
This
there is no style of government that makes sense, human beings are all tribalistic and terrible by nature. Let's just hope a giant fucking meteor kills us all soon.
>would be pushed to the finges as competitors
but money conveys power allowing more powerful parties to force their wills on others, subverting the whole system. A system of morality is necessary to govern all involved to ensure wealth doesn't endlessly concentrate in a smaller and smaller group over time.
All interest should be made illegal
Both are flawed.
We have 'globalism' in place of both now.
In that case the robber is exchanging personal safety for a high risk high stakes robbery (wealth).
If a bank is getting robbed, in that case the bank is making a decision to either fight the robbery (risking safety) or give in(giving up wealth)
The exchange that's taking place is one of safety for wealth. The robber gives up safety for wealth. The bank gives up wealth for safety.
In both cases they used their free will and rationality to choose which consumption bundle game them the most utility.
en.wikipedia.org
>unsustainable capitalism
capitalism is not unsustainable. Capitalism is like a forest. Trees are growing, and dying, but the forest remains.
I think we should all be comped
The only way that more powerful parties could force their wills upon people is if they either hire guns to force their will, or through voluntary (emphasis there) exchange.
And the former can be done regardless of system (see: Boleshevik revolution, special interest groups in the US, the EU, etc.)
Wealth can't concentrate in a free-market system, because if you hold on to all your money, you will starve to death, or lose all your customers, or any number of things. To be successful, you have to continuously invest back into the market, making the rest of society better.
It's like wealth distribution, but it actually works.
tfw centrist master race.
No, numale, this won't cause us to "look into" Communism or socialism and suddenly decide it's a great idea. You won't be getting your free stuff, just stop fucking trying. It's pathetic.
>wealth doesn't endlessly concentrate in a smaller and smaller group over time.
It doesn't. There is a wealth gradient for a reason, however. Men are not equal. Some are better, smarter, more productive, etc. Wealth will tend to concentrate among those people absent state violence or legalized fraud. This is an inherent part of humanity whether you like it or not.
As for banning interest, that's absolutely moronic. Interest is what makes giving someone your money worthwhile. A lender not only assumes the risk of never seeing their money again, but they are also that much poorer for the duration of that loan. Without interest, there is no incentive to lend.
I haven't read Von Neumann-Morgenstern's work in a while, thank you for the link!
But you are right. The two parties are choosing which options in that scenario benefit them the most. It's game theory in realistic applications, if I recall correctly.
There is nothing wrong with Modern Capitalism. The problem is government corruption that does nothing with the safeties we have in place to keep it in check. They go further to bail out failing companies. This is anti capitalistic.
>But you are right. The two parties are choosing which options in that scenario benefit them the most.
Well that's my point. There's no such thing as an involuntary decision.
You either decide to choose something or you don't
Yep, my bad. I retract my initial statement.
Sometimes I just get too into the conversation, and don't think things through entirely.
>1 post by this id
>Does anyone else think that both modern capitalism AND socialism is fucking ridiculous?
Yes.
>Is there a style of government that makes SENSE?
Not really, the problem is needing to be governed in the first place, so government is just a bandaid for that.
>1 post by this ID
So if all decisions are fundamentally voluntary
What happens to this argument?
>The reason capitalism is so just and moral is because it is VOLUNTARY.
Well I believe it implies voluntary in the sense that there is no state coersion anywhere in the process. At least, that's the main appeal of non-crony capitalism.
He'd have to clarify if he means otherwise, but that's what I draw from the statement.
Literally the one we have now but with less greedy/incompetent arseholes in charge of the laws. Tinker a bit here and there with tax rates, incentivize the .001% to reinvest in the econom, punish the 'too big to fail' etc etc., raise the floor, promote meritocracy and nationalism more.
>Well I believe it implies voluntary in the sense that there is no state coersion anywhere in the process
Well what makes state coercion so inimical to the voluntary exchange process?
(Note: I'm not against capitalism per say, I just enjoy playing devil's advocate)
Right wing government's are the only ones that work.
Fair enough, but there are different degrees of freedom involved with our voluntary actions.
If I hold a gun to your head, sure, it's possible to choose death over whatever it is I ordered you to do.
But the reductio ad absurdum of this argument would be that slavery was voluntary.
At some point, we have to draw a line and say "alright that doesn't count anymore."
>incentivize the .001% to reinvest in the econom
Virtually all the wealth of the .001% is tied up in investments. The idea that it's stored in a fucking vault like Scrooge McDuck is a retarded meme that unfortunately still hasn't died.
Tied up in investments in the wrong places, IMO.
That's why you use tax laws to incentivise them to reinvest in specific ways, make trickle down actually work.
The problem is that the .001% is already paying the majority of taxes. In the US, any household making $77,000 or more pays 95% of income tax. The rich are the ones who put their money into banks and banks in turn loan that money in the form of business loans to promote new goods and services. Bill Gates has done more good for the entire world than any government in human history, save the founders of the US who allowed him and other successful enterprisors to flourish.
Devil's advocate is the best way to sharpen an argument, so I wholly encourage it. My arguments aren't the best (new to the capitalism meme), so it definitely helps.
A state's coersion during the transaction refers to things like taxation, regulation, banning/illegalization, and monopolization from what I know on the topic. For instance, the FDA's approval process sometimes takes a decade to approve something even for human trials. It often takes just as long to approve it for general use. Or the EPA designating federal land as "too much to handle" because of waste dumps for byproducts instead of spending some extra money cleaning it (See the EPA's Superfund pools all around California, almost all of which were originally created by the government). And while that's not necessarily not possible with capitalism, things like it would be private, and controlled.
For taxation, the average US citizen pays 97 different taxes each year.
There are obviously things that should be "illegal", and most of them are morally-based (child pornography/molestation, etc.) but things outside that sphere (like drugs, prostitution, starting a company in direct competition with a monopoly, et. al.) don't make sense being restricted goods.
I'm not smart enough to know every detail, nor do I know every pro/con of capitalism, but from what I understand and have read of both capitalistic and non-capitalistic systems, it is obvious to me that capitalism trumps them in some way or another.
>wrong places
How do you determine what is the "right" place for someone to spend their money? You realize the Soviets worked on this very principle, and it didn't work so well.
>If I hold a gun to your head, sure, it's possible to choose death over whatever it is I ordered you to do.
Well I guess that's when people decide to revolt. I think categorizing certain actions as voluntary and certain others as involuntary is a dangerous oversimplification of reality.
>But the reductio ad absurdum of this argument would be that slavery was voluntary.
capitalism is not a system of government, capitalism is a state of economic affairs that can appear when economic policies are free enough
communism is an authoritarian post-god religion to organize society around
>Is there a style of government that makes SENSE?
democratic republic with invested interest in the education and brainwash-freedom of its people
>democratic
Inherently decivilizing and promotes capital consumption. Democracy is how we got to this message in the first place.
You can either choose to support the one of your choosing or put forth a new idea for others to consider.
You cannot just complain, otherwise, you're just another little whiney bitch
Not at all, we got to here due to the excesive practice of counterintelligence and Roosevelt's inability to counter PR
The phenomena of "woke"/"redpilled" only exists because of this. We do not live on a decivilizing state promoted by capital consumption, we live on a functioning world that is constantly bombarded by the radical brainwashing of their individuals
The most important factor of why the public is disenchanted with the system is the communicative guerilla we live immersed in.
A state wields considerable power over individuals and it is by nature incredibly bureaucratic
>but from what I understand and have read of both capitalistic and non-capitalistic systems, it is obvious to me that capitalism trumps them in some way or another.
I agree it's better than the alternatives. I think the biggest pro of capitalism is it enables competition between various businesses which does not exist in command/communist economies. If you think an quasi-monopoly like google or amazon are bad, the alternative, under a command economy, would be worse. I think unfortunately at this time government is too friendly with business (ie crony capitalism) and I think an adversarial relationship between large businesses and government is necessary for a healthy capitalist system.
I agree with your entire post, user. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, because (amongst other things), I realized the only reason why these businesses are buying their way into legislation is because the state allows it. However, I digress. Our current system, while not great, was originally not too shabby. But with things like the Federal Reserve, and the exponential quantity of regulations placed on businesses, it's no wonder to me that things are falling apart.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see which comes first: economic collapse or government de-escalation.
What is unsustainable is when the government subsidizes things instead of allowing the law of supply and demand to raise the prices of scarce resources. The natural tendency of free markets is to apply scarce resources to their most precious uses, not squander them. Sometimes the most precious use of something is just to save it for later, but then the left demonizes you as a speculator.
Look deeply into anarcho-capitalism. I'm serious. It's the best of all worlds. If there is some part you think is lacking, please look into it harder. It takes a while to grasp its intricacies but it's the most sensible thing in the world once you do.
this picture never makes me not laugh..
I'm not really an anarcho-capitalist because I believe governments are a necessary component of our civilization.
That being said governments should have either an adversarial or neutral relationship with large businesses.
The bailouts that occurred since 2008 have wreaked incalculable damage on our capitalist system and our society as a whole.
We'll never solve the problem of corruption without adopting polycentric law.
I think capitalism is pretty darn neat, but obviosuly not perfect. Because nothing is.
No single system, ideology, religion, or idea can be the panacea for all of humanity. If you think there can be such a thing you are deluded. There will never be a sinle school of though that will control all of society and bring in the times of peace, freedom, and plenty. That's a pipe dream.
Humanity, like all fomrs of life, is in contant flux, changing it's genes, changing it's culture, inventing new ideologies. This is why we are so successful as a species, this is why we adapt so well to all environments and situations. Give it up, human society will never achieve perfection, because that is the nature of the world we live in.
All political systems have failed because they do not understand what it means to be human.
Jordan Peterson please go.
Not everything can be solved through dialogue. A compromise is not always what is just, and leaves everyone unsatisfied. In a dialogue, the left-liberals have consistently for the past 100 years, one case at the time. The ''right'' are just left-liberals of yesterday.
Democracy can not be a permanent system. It divides the population by design into many camps and in politics the best liar is the winner. You can not ''fix'' something that by design is flawed.
Feudal Constitutionalism
It's called corporatism you mouth breather. A simple google search will lead you to all the information you need about alternative economic systems. It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about.
capitalism was described in 'the wealth of nations', but the Rothschild arguably created the current UK financial framework in 1694.
not one crash.
to claim communism fails at an equal rate to capitalism is absolute idiocy. communism rarely survives beyond a few decades/
This is you thinking freedom is bad or unsustainable and looking for a third way. Staph Jew
The true postmodern liberal democracies are the very best example of progress never stops, revolution never ends, under a state and the fear of one God.
It doesnt work, but postmodernism is about not making sense.
In the end any system can and will get corrupted due to mere entropy and human madness.
>says the fag with a monarchy
>capitalism is voluntary
kys
>no one gets to steal steal your shit
Not part of capitalism faggot
You don't have to work for any price you don't want to
>just die cause you will not take my slave wage barely above death.
>You don't have to pay for anything you don't want to.
>implying the jew will not take over things that are a basic need that was once free
Victorian age shoes people how shit capitalism can be in a modern society, and how shit is it when corporation just rule over countries aka Latin America
Capitalism is not great, it need government intervention to act as a counter balance.
We could always try technocracy.
>we can always try an oligarchy of a different flavor
And so has feodalism, imperialism, globalism, socialism, etc.
Please give me an example of the laissez fare working better. Every case study that I’ve seen supports socialism.
The only "system" is survival, and what that system consists of changes from day to day. Anything else is a self-propagating abstraction designed to trap autists into replicating it. Ideologies are memes.
Nice post.
What system do you think endures longest, and what is the distinction in between nazbol/natsoc?
(The left literally stealing right-side meme symbols since 1933)
>monarchy created much of what you enjoy today
social anonchy
Mutualism
>capitalism
>government
>britbong
explains so much
>modern capitalism
Socialist shills buying influence is called crony capitalism.