Where do capitalism and free market really fail? Is there are country where capitalism works flawlessly?

Where do capitalism and free market really fail? Is there are country where capitalism works flawlessly?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe_African_National_Union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_state
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Everywhere.

No.

Capitalism isn't meant to be a flawless system, that's why it fucking works.

The third world in particular, everywhere in general.

No.

KEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKEEKEKEEKKEKEEK POsting from a 3rd wold commie country now check em Faggot

No country runs flawlessly regardless of system, and it never will

KEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKEEKEKEEKKEKEEK POsting from a pisspoor commie country now check em Faggot

Capitalism = Democracy
Only works if it's true like after world war 2 where there actually was an open market. You could see that not only the rich people profited but that in the US and Europe the middle class and lower class as well rose. Everyone their lifestyle improved. Then the federal reserve and the arms industry put a monopoly on it and destroyed everything basically. After JFK was assasinated their coup was completed

Maybe not, but some are a lot less flawed than others.

>Capitalism = democracy

There is a country where it works flawlessly.
A great and mighty land.

Sure, but the answer to OP:s question is no

Capitalism still beats the commies though

In western imperialist nations, kind of.

Everywhere else, lmao no they'd be better off with socialism. But of course that would our profits so the western world can't have that.

Why did you post twice? Guess the first time you posted as a Flemish, and the second -- as a Walloon. Such is life with a split personality.

POLAN!

VE STRONK! VE SUPERPOWER NAU! LITERALLY BEST 25 YEARS IN THE LAST 1000!!!!!!111jedenjedenjedenascie

> just 2 mln left the country
> just 1.2 children per family
> press owned by Germany
> indigenous industry literally BTFOed
> predicted retirement money REALLY small (ever heard about 50 euro?)


BUT THESE FUCKING SMALL INCONVENIENCES!!!! VE NEED EBEN MORE CAPITALISM AND SHIT!!!! VE WANT LITERALLY A COLONY ON MARS, VENUS, MOON AND ON PLUTO AT LEAST!

>socialism has anything to do with freedom

>Some inbred Muslim replies to me

One of the main problems with capitalism is the tendency for globalism and the hindrance of autarky, Advertisements are also extremely dangerous, Bezmenov spoke about the evil of advertisements.

I've always been leaning towards a "National Capitalism" type ideology. That means, there are limits on what corporations can do, but we won't tax them at 50-100% like socialists do. Like, for example, you can't promote drugs or junk food in advertisements, whatever you put out has to follow a moral code. Shit like FCKH8 and McDonalds would be banned from my Whitetopia.

>The means of production, and thus everything else that matters, are controlled privately rather than democratically.
>Capitalism is freedom

LOL mate at least everything's cheaper in your country. That's why Lithuanians craving for cheaper toilet paper are flowing to your Northeast towns.

>you can't promote drugs or junk food in advertisements
Why not?

exactly.

You shouldn't be surprised. Socialism is pretty popular out in Bangladesh.

Because fat drug addicts aren't good for anyone, least of all themselves.

They harm the healthiness of the people, they kill the population in exchange for shekels.

How are you so sure of that? Many former socialist countries are and were thirld world countries because of their previous system

A lot of eastern Europe is still recovering from the past

Who are you to tell others what they can or can't ingest?

Wait so who's gonna clean the streets when everyone is "liberated"?

>be American
>be afraid to go to the doctor's because you can't pay the bills

On the contrary eastern Europe is only half-way decent because of socialism. Were places like the former USSR and the Balkans to be capitalist they would be third-world tier.

>be European
>go to doctor
>die waiting in line
Rather be in debt than dead ngl

People, they just get paid an acceptable amount.

A society based on pure individualism and "well if it doesn't harm me, I don't care" is not a strong society, it cannot defend itself coherently because everyone thinks for themselves, and not for the good of the people.

If you think only for yourself and your own survival then you will confront an external threat with more animosity than a man who is fighting only for duty and a paycheck.

fuckin rare

Capitalism fails when monopoly and profits get in the way of customer satisfaction. Free market fails when there are too many negative externalities

>>die waiting in line

This is what rareflags actually believe.

The man must not fight for duty and a paycheck, he must fight to defend his homeland, culture, language and people.

Capitalism and free markets do a lot of good things, but they have huge downsides.

1. As Keynes noted in opposition to orthodox economics, capitalist economies can enter a steady-state of secular stagnation and relatively high unemployment
2. As Piketty shows, capitalism tends towards rising inequality as a feature.
3. The demands of capitalists for sound money, no deficit spending, super low inflation almost always clash with the democratic desires.

How would it be thirld world without socialism?

Do you believe that's why most people sign up for the military? If that were the case, those best suited to combat would not be confined to a desk sorting through inane paperwork. We would have more specialized elite units, not a conglomerate of grunt units to use as fodder and then bomb the location of once we find the enemy.

Capitalism fails in countries that are below sea level.

Everybody has to chip in to protect muh dykes.

He has a point, actually. Drugs and junk food could be put into the same category with tobacco and alcohol. But it's more a question of ethics though.

>Where do capitalism and free market really fail?

Nowhere.

>Is there any country where capitalism works flawlessly?

Yes. All of them. All incidents of so-called "flaws of capitalism" in predominantly free markets are caused by state intervention. The 2008 recession, for instance, was an exceptionally strong downturn in the business cycle because of legislation passed by Bill Clinton that intervened in the housing market.

Isn't that what the comic is trying to fix?

Wasn't the 2008 crisis mainly a 'muh greedy bankers' thing?

Because they were horrendously underdeveloped, then socialism came along and with it education, healthcare, literacy and infrastructure skyrocketed.

The only possible exceptions to this are Slovenia and the Czech Republic which are perfectly nice places.

No, the comic is trying to fix the proletariat having their labour exploited by capitalists.

Everyone who is employed is being paid an acceptable amount. If the amount offered to them in compensation for their labour was not acceptable, they wouldn't take the job. It is impossible for a voluntary transaction, such as labour for wages, to be 'unfair'. If one side or the other held that position, the transaction would not take place.

>mfw an actual commie labour voter posted in my presence

Capitalism fails when you have an uneducated citizenry or excessively repressive government. They are unable to utilize their existing natural resources or come up with an alternative source of revenue such as banking (Barbados and Switzerland) or high-end manufacturing (Israel) are naturally taken advantage by more powerful countries.

Of course this happens under Socialism too, but don't tell the Marxists that or they'll get triggered.

Slovenia is doing well because it was already the leading country during the Cold War. Starting positions matter a lot.

>If the pittance offered to them to compensate for their labour was not acceptable, they wouldn't take the job
Yes, and they subsequently be homeless.

Glorious capitalism at work.

what about you become our colony and ve give you cheap toilet paper, huh?

deal?

I mean, leading in the context of other Yugoslavian state

When America and Britain had a free market they failed. Look at the British Empire.

How's the commie block treating ya, Jonas?

Just get rid of PiS and we can bring back the Commonwealth

>whatever you put out has to follow a moral code

forcing someone to do stuff you want him to do is immoral though. (provided the person wasn't gonna break any moral side constraints, like kill another human bean)

Authoritarians shouldn't use words they don't understand, like morality and ethics. just stick to arguing with feelings, like women, we like you more that way.

Is there even one wealthy country that doesn't have extremely high tax and hands out money to fat cunts?

>Yes, and they subsequently be homeless.

No. They would subsequently get a different job. If every job's pay was too little, no one would be employed and every enterprise would be out of business. Before that would happen, though, business that would rather make a profit than not (read: every business ever) would raise their wages so that they could hire the workers they needed. Economic equilibrium is always maintained in a free market. The reason this do not occur in the real world, and we have allocative inefficiency, is because of state intervention (and to a lesser extent externalities).

When did the British Empire's economy ever remotely resemble a free market? The economic theory that was practised by imperialists in Great Britain was mercantilism—that is, a combination of protectionism and bullionism.

do you think PiS is eternal?

>They would subsequently get a different job
No, you see there's a surplus of unskilled labourers relative to the jobs available thus they would either get another job for equally terrible pay or simply remain unemployed facing homelessness because the job-market is so competitive.

> If every job's pay was too little, no one would be employed and every enterprise would be out of business
You do realize people need to feed themselves and pay rent? They simply can't afford to go "fuck this job" and leave because as I've mentioned they would subsequently be homeless, thus why capitalists always have a constant supply of wage slaves.

The thing you don't appear to understand is that economic equilibrium cannot exist in a free market because it assumes equal power on either side. The side of the proletariat simply have no bargaining power, if they refuse the job it will be easier for someone to replace them than for them to find a better one and this is the only option they have on the account that they do not control any private property - the source of all power. Capitalists on the other hand have all the negotiating power in this arrangement, for the same reason previously mentioned that when choosing employees there is no lack of unskilled labourers so it makes no odds to them if someone refuses.

During the 1800s when they let over a million Irish people starve to death for the sole explanation that it's just the free market at work.

Bad food and drugs harm the mental functioning and stability of a person, as well. How can a democracy function when a large portion of the population is doesn't have a function mind? Not to the mention the massive medical costs to the country. Is Nestle making another 20 billion worth the eventual 100 billion we pay in taxes towards medical expenses for obese diabetics?

His point wasn't even eradicating the products, just making it illegal to advertise harmful products. We basically did it with cigs.

The USA up until 1913 when the jews took over.

This desu. We live in the real world after all.

Worked out so well for socialist Zimbabwe of course. Not like capitalist Rhodesia was the richest country in sub-saharan Africa (and was undermined by both the capitalist west and socialist east while still being a successful nation).

>Socialist Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe was never socialist, not even nominally.

>Capitalism isn't meant to be a flawless system, that's why it fucking works.

FUCKING THIS. Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but it's the best system we got. Capitalism recognizes that there is gonna be suffering in the world and some people are gonna be poor but there isn't really anything that you can do about it and trying to make things better for them ends up fucking everyone else up.

>No, you see there's a surplus of unskilled labourers relative to the jobs available

In which case the necessary portion of those unskilled labourers enter training and become skilled labourers, accommodating to the needs of the market.

>You do realize people need to feed themselves and pay rent? They simply can't afford to go "fuck this job" and leave

Yes, and businesses also can't afford to say "fuck actually running this business" and refuse to hire at the wages demanded by the market. Workers need to work and employers need to employ. The rate at which employers pay these workers should be determined by market factors, like the type of work and the training necessary to accomplish it.

>The side of the proletariat simply have no bargaining power, if they refuse the job it will be easier for someone to replace them than for them to find a better one and this is the only option they have on the account that they do not control any private property - the source of all power.

"Proletariat" don't exist, or at least they don't exist in any significant number in Western countries. The workers of the modern day DO have bargaining power beyond their labour. You and I both have enough disposable income for computers and/or smartphones, and the internet connection to run them. Neither of us are members of the proletariat. There's also a good chance we both have cars, and a reasonably high chance we both have money stored away earning interest in a bank—making us dirty capitalists!

Besides that, there's also the fact that there is more than one prospective employer in the world, making it impossible for employers to pay wages below market equilibrium. If business A's wages are too low, business B offers more and is able to run their business whilst business A is stuck in the mud.

ZANU are hardline Marxist-Leninists, always have been. They have all the typical features of a socialist one party-state.The communist party of Britain (another ML group) has praised them. Land redistribution has been the cornerstone of every single socialist state ever, and it has ended disastrously in Zimbabwe, much to my amusement. Of course, I'm sure this wasn't real socialism, and we'll just have to wait for the next catastrophe.

1. ZANU aren't hardline Marxist-Leninists, they're social democrats.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe_African_National_Union
2. They didn't even claim to be socialist, Marxist-Leninist or otherwise.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_state

Rhodieboos cannot get any stupider.

The goal of capitalism is to destroy itself and be replaced with something better. The process can't be rushed with government intervention because that only serves to slow down production. We cannot surpass capitalism until we are capable of producing massive surpluses of resources that eliminate the need for constant human labor. Pretty much every great mind in economics agreed on this point except Marx and friends because they base their philosophy in the labor theory of value.

This theory by David Ricardo essentially states that the prices of commodities reflect the amount of past human labor that went into making the product. This is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't take into account the present supply and demand relationship of the product at a particular time. Since Marx didn't believe that prices should be dynamic and competitive according to the contemporary market needs, his ideology is incompatible with basic economics as we know them. He actually spent most of his later life and the entire third book of Das Kapital trying to reconcile the labor theory of value with later 19th century economic thought, but ultimately died before he could finish his economic plan. He didn't even get around to explaining what a communist society would LOOK like - what institutions there would be, how people would conduct themselves, who would be in charge of things, etc. He only got as far as the proletariat overthrowing the elite and establishing a classless society. He had no idea what should happen after. This is why the world ultimately rejected Marxism.

No country has a flawless system of capitalism because that is impossible. Capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth as opposed to the equal sharing of misery and mediocrity. It is a necessary evil for humanity until we reach the next singularity (the Industrial Revolution being the most recent singularity).

Nice meme.

Democracy harms the economy by allowing people to form interest groups (unions, lobbyists, black lives matter) so they can strong arm politicians into favoring them over other groups. Capitalism works best under a liberal republic, not necessarily democracy.

A very famous economist named Friedrich Hayek wrote about the danger of democracy up until his death in 1992. He even predicted the modern social justice movement AND coined the term "social justice." He asserts that democracy is one of the greatest threats to capitalism, and the last 8 years have made me inclined to agree. It is tyranny of the retarded majority.

Believe me, the young generations here will bring our economy to its knees by 2030. Too many useless college degrees, too much student debt, no one is marrying, hardly anyone has sex regularly, no one wants kids. Same shit as in Europe, but a couple decades behind you guys.

National Capitalism is called Corporatism, or as you may have heard before, Fascism. It's when the government uses the private sector for its own interests.

Well said.

>complete reversal of reality

Mugabe calls himself a Marxist, but has very little in common with other socialist/communist governments.
>le true socialism strawman
He is literally taking radical departures even from Stalinist policy. He and his wife are filthy rich, the government takes no measures to guarantee employment (unemployment and inflation are among the worst on Earth), and there is no trace of workers' self-management.

m8, you gotta realize what you've been told is the reality of socialist states is not really the reality at all.

dubai, qutar

Nothing works with kikes.

ditto

>that's why it fucking works

>The third world in particular, everywhere in general.

dude since markets have been proposed in the third world, they have seen a growth in IQ, population adn wealth never seen before.

I think you underestimate how africa is poor

Since open-markets have been proposed by the IMF in Africa they've also had a much harder time reacting to famines.

You just can't win with capitalism.

yeah, but then the government gets to decide what is moral or not. And with the SWJs' numbers continuing to rise, that only means that they will ultimately have at least some influence in the government's decisions

>they're social democrats

The constant bickering over what constitutes real socialism is what turned me off the left. All the way to Bakunin and Marx, Kronstadt and Trotsky, the left has constantly used the convenient illusions of state capitalism and social democracy (which was a creation of a Marxist, Bernstein, social democracy is still Marxism.) to deflect any criticism of Marxist theory being put into practice. If your ideology requires shifting the goalposts that much, it's not a particularly good one. As soon as the (((Bolshevik)))) Revolution happened you had the likes of Luxemburg screeching.

>He and his wife are filthy rich
Took a leaf out of Brezhnev's book then

>the government takes no measures to guarantee employment
Thanks to Mugabe's Afrocentric Marxist mismanagement of the last 30 years, there's very little action he could take to change anything.

>workers' self-management
this was a complete farce even in Yugoslavia

nothing is a failure if it is a success by fiat

I'm not shifting the goal-posts, that's simply the idea they subscribe to.

It's absolutely universally agreed that social democracy isn't socialism, its explicit goal is to promote social justice in the framework of a capitalist economy as opposed to socialism's worker control of the means of production.

This is not shifting the goalposts, this is you realizing you're wrong and claiming shifting the goalposts so you don't look like an idiot that doesn't know what social democracy is or even social democracy for that matter.

AMERICA

So you do admit there are flaws in capitalism?

just stop please.

lok up Austria's and Czech Rep's GDP per capita pre communism. or pick up a book.

>Muh GDP
Looking relevant is not as important as not having citizens who are homeless.

That's one definition. Others define it as achieving socialism through gradual means rather than revolution (literally Bernstein's definition, the creator of the term and ideology). Most social-democratic parties remain committed to achieving socialism. Most "social-democratic" parties in the West are riddled with Trotskyists like John McDonnell, so to deny that they want socialism is to deny reality.

"worker control of the means of production" is a totally airy phrase, because the state socialists claim it entails collective ownership through nationalisation, and libertarian socialists say this is actually capitalism, and the left-eating-itself cycle continues.

Like I said, I used be a leftist before realising they're good goys, so I'm well aware of their terminology.

Well said

What do you mean fail? Recessions and depressions are part of the market. Capitalism can't fail until labour is 100% automated.

Capitalism has flaws because it is flawed; not the other way around.

Worker control of the means of production is simply a declarative statement of the socialist state of affairs, if that's not what you're striving for then you're not a socialist. The goal of social democratic parties is social justice, as opposed to the realization of a workers state.

Not to mention the labour party aren't exactly social democrats, many of them are in fact bone fide socialists.

>"worker control of the means of production" is a totally airy phrase, because the state socialists claim it entails collective ownership through nationalisation, and libertarian socialists say this is actually capitalism, and the left-eating-itself cycle continues.
1. It's exactly what it means, worker control of the means of production. This means workers democratically decide on how their workplaces are run. Even nominally this was the purpose of soviets.
2. Libertarian socialists don't say that it is actually capitalism. Like all socialists they're against private property.