The 20th century proved that capitalist free market economies are superior to planned socialist economies:

The 20th century proved that capitalist free market economies are superior to planned socialist economies:

>A difference is also obvious between North and South Korean children. "The height gap is approximately 4cm (1.6in) among pre-school boys and 3cm (1.2in) among pre-school girls, and again the South Koreans would be taller."

>At the time of reunification the gross domestic product per capita in the east [Germany] was €9,400 ($11,800), as opposed to €22,000 in the west.

>Mr. Ceausescu, who was executed in December after the overthrow of his Communist Government, transformed Romania from its reputation as ''breadbasket of the Balkans'' into the pauper of Europe.

>During the 1930s, the Soviet Union was dominated by Joseph Stalin, who sought to reshape Soviet society with aggressive economic planning. As the leader of the Soviet Union, he constructed a totalitarian state whose policies have been blamed for millions of deaths. During his time as leader of the Soviet Union, Stalin made frequent use of his secret police, prisons, and nearly unlimited power to reshape Soviet society.

>Vietnam's shift from a centrally planned to a market economy has transformed the country from one of the poorest in the world into a lower middle-income country. Vietnam now is one of the most dynamic emerging countries in East Asia region.

>At least 45 million people died unnecessary deaths during China's Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1962, including 2.5 million tortured or summarily killed.

>Since initiating market reforms in 1978, China has shifted from a centrally-planned to a market-based economy and has experienced rapid economic and social development. GDP growth has averaged nearly 10 percent a year—the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history—and has lifted more than 800 million people out of poverty.

So then why is laissez-faire capitalism still considered a fringe movement?

Why are there still no anarcho-capitalist countries?

Attached: anarcho-capitalism.jpg (1280x720, 89K)

Now list the deaths caused by capitalism, you dumb fuck.

Eat a tide pod.

Thats real cute

Well I don't know of any cases of private businesses engaging in mass murder.

Governments on the other hand...

Err like your penis and brainsize, a microsized drop compared to democide, let alone the quality of death (demo kills good people, market cap deaths kill more undesirables)

Attached: 1518687348855.jpg (236x236, 10K)

Free markets are a fairy tale and you are a child for believing in them.

communism=/= socialism
laissez-faire economics always results in sector consolidation, crony capitalism and monopolies which are intrinsically negative for a capitalism system.

Regulated, demand sided economics works. Supply side doesn't. We have 40 years of economic data showing this.

Nice try though.

Lmao American fruit companies and Coca-Cola have historically engaged in the murder of Union members. United Fruit literally had governments overthrown.

The only reason why crony capitalism exists is because of government.

>laissez-faire capitalism
thats the worst kind of capitalism.
Literally the only reason capitalism works so smoothly is the planned economies, rates, currencies, policies, etc that massive governments prop up to create a stable backbone. The entire movement of capital is predicated on government policies.

/thread

"no"

Name one empire that didn't collapse off debasement of the fiatised currency I'll wait

Jesus Christ. How do you people reconcile the fact that the most free market economies (e.g. Hong Kong, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea) tend to be the most prosperous?

Name one empire that had the global clout, military might, and political and financial power of contemporary America. I'll wait.

The Sassanids, Assyrian, French, German and British empires

Over me they are powerless, name one argument where equality is right, I'll wait. Still writing on the currency as well.

Those economies are in fact heavily regulated. Switzerland particularly so.

Literally hundreds of empires collapse for completely different reasons retard. Just because a succession of Roman emperors devalued silver coins, Zimbabwe made 100 billion dollar bills worth about 20USD, and Germany used Marks for wallpaper doesn't mean central banks don't work. Modern governments that aren't shitholes don't callously devalue their own currency.
FYI economic growth naturally devalues currency over time regardless.

Latter 3 all collapsed into fiat fractional reserve debt whores and were vanquished by such fuck off

Comparing the US' socioeconomic diversity and included sectors to nations that are smaller than single US states.

Make a better comparison.

Yes it does

Lmao you are historically illiterate but even if that was the case the first two didn't. Gimme my prize, fag

>moves goalposts

Strategy recognized. (You)'s revoked.

Ancaps and "sound money" toes are like peasants at the end of the feudal period trying to go back to the good old days. Your economic system is obsolete, crushed by the power of mixed economies.

Switzerland and Hong Kong are financial centers, not a great economies. South Korea has an extremely domineering and corrupt government and isn't really that prosperous atm, although it was over 2 decades ago, Taiwan is a fucking shithole lol. Countries that have populations they have to feed and people they have to put to work actually have to have some stability and economic activity outside of financial centers.

Riddle me this faggot, then why is California the 5th largest economy on earth?

Attached: 1438159503011.jpg (600x600, 44K)

If laissez-faire is so goddamn good why is China one of the world's powerhouses? From agrarian shithole to industrial shithole and centre of global manufacturing in a couple of decades.

Hollywood and Silicon Valley?

The British empire didn't collapse at all though. They still have a political and cultural continuum. The German Empire ended after losing WW1, which had nothing to do with currency, and the French empire collapse because of massive war spending building up after Louis XIV.
And even then, the free market doesn't prevent the government from fucking up a currency.

So two prosperous enterprises exist within the most "socialist" state in the US? hmmmm.

Population.

None of those 3 exist as economic empires.

Don't forget that agriculture, the largest industry in the state, also belongs in the most "socialist" state in the US as well (and to add, it's the main contributor as to why it's the largest economy in the nation, despite what right-wing dipshits think it is).

Not only that, but Silicon Valley changed the world, and Hollywood influences global culture, perceptions, marketing, and tech trends.

They may have the 5th largest economy, but they arguably have the more global influence than Washington does.

Weird how ebil commiefornias outpaces nearly the entire world.

You can't brute force your way into chip fabrication by throwing farmers at it.

You can reverse engineer your way into it though. Also it's bound to happen. Tech diaspora is rampant. Even Pakistan has nukes.

Yes, but as we all know, the deregulated low-tax laissez-faire haven that is Kansas is number 1.

Umm... Facebook didn't overtake Myspace because the government decided to. Google overtook Altavista and Lycos because it provided a better service - not because of any government.

t. non citizen

Pakistan has nukes because the Saudis bought them a nuke program.

Saudi Arabia isn't a nuclear country.

No, but they have a lot of money and financed a lot of gear and expertise with the understanding that if they ever needed a nuke, Pakistan would give them one.

Nice reading comprehension

TIL Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, and Twitter are fairy tales and never actually had to provide a better product/service compared to other private businesses at the time in order to get to where they are now..

>So then why is laissez-faire capitalism still considered a fringe movement?
You stupid nigger, liberal capitalism is what the world currently runs on.
>b-but it's not capitalist enough the state exists
lmao

Attached: [legiunea capitanul plays faintly in the distance].png (484x775, 203K)

>free-market capitalism leads to Google and Facebook
buddy I'm not sure that's an argument you want to make

Attached: 1509115093504.jpg (1024x1020, 132K)

Unlike many people in this thread, I was actually around when Altavista, Lycos, and Dogpile were the main popular search engines. When Google came into the scene, it provided a better service than anyone else at the time. I immediately switched to Google and have never looked back since.

Likewise with Facebook. I was actually around when Friendster, Bebo, and Myspace were popular. Myspace held a virtual monopoly until the late 2000's. But ultimately Facebook came and provided its customers with a better product.

The whole point of the free market is that consumers will gravitate towards whatever business provides the best service or product. Google tried providing a social network (Orkut then Google Plus) but it wasn't as good as Facebook's offering. It deserved to fail and so it did.

That's the whole point of the free market. Whoever provides the best offering wins and society is better for it. And if they start providing a shitty service, then people will switch and they will be out of business. It doesn't matter if they were a respected brand before.

Blockbuster, Kodak, Nokia, and Toys r Us are a shadow of their former selves because Netflix, Samsung, Apple, and Amazon provides a better service to its customers in 2018. In a socialist government, we would still be stuck with them today.

Google and Facebook are not players in the search and social networking businesses, they're horizontally-integrated technofeudalist entities with more power than some states. The conception of corporations as abstract entities that only compete for resources in the area that their mission statement describes, and do not exercise power or create externalities, is a very liberal one and a very very incorrect one.

I don't like Marxists but some days I like liberals even less.

Attached: 1493577060973.jpg (620x494, 59K)

Or, to put it a different way, I understand the constantly-touted benefits of the free market and question whether a) they're actually incumbent upon having a free market considering that liberals tend to flip-flop on the freeness of the modern market depending on what currently suits them in the argument and b) whether many of them are benefits at all. Is Google existing a benefit?

>Is Google existing a benefit?
I would say so. They are definitely a product of the ingenuity of the free market.

>Why are there still no anarcho-capitalist countries?
this is why proof reading to check what you wrote makes sense is important.

I would say that it's not. I think that Google is a negative force overall, and that what good it does do could be accomplished more efficiently by either a collection of smaller entities or the state (depending on the specific good).

Additionally, Facebook's triumph is less a free-market Aesop and more a tale of the network effect, nepotism and state/quasi-state sponsorship coming together to pick one of many mostly-identical social networks as the monopoly holder in that sphere.

utopian ideology, any nation with a standing military could and would seize your land, they will undoubtedly be more capable than whatever shitty volunteer army or mercenary force you could muster

Also, when I say more efficiently, I mean without the negative aspects of Google. I have no data to determine whether the mini-Googles or a nationalized subset of Google would make more money or do their job better but I see no reason why that's not the case.

But didnt Google and Facebook start as simple search and social networking businesses?
For the vast number of businesses, they stay as simple businesses which do stay in their domain.

What exactly do you mean by horizontally integrated?

I get the strange feeling that you are overstating Facebook's "power".
Facebook is just a website that some Jew created and cashes out by selling ads.
I don't doubt that they can reach a huge number of people and in a way that is power, but facebook is just a website that people chat on. The power isnt in facebook, its the capability of virtually meeting, organizing and dispersing messages.

>For the vast number of businesses, they stay as simple businesses which do stay in their domain.
Sure, and I value private enterprise which is why I'm a fascist and not a nazbol.
>What exactly do you mean by horizontally integrated?
I mean they do many things and make money from many places, often creating/maintaining a monopoly or a major stake in whatever field they move into by virtue of their nearly inexhaustible resources. Google outright owns the search business and the video hosting business and maintains oligopolies or large slices of other industries including mobile operating systems, driverless cars, email, etc. Facebook is a smaller conglomerate and mostly centers its operations around farming the goyim that use its social networks but it still wields massive power by being "the" social networking company. It's why getting Zucked is such a big deal.