Name one bad thing about capitalism

Name one bad thing about capitalism

Pro-Tip: You can't.

Name one bad thing about socialism.

Pro-Tip: you're fat.

Sweatshops/child labour

Niggers are allowed to live

It always leads to marxism when things get a little bad.

Why is that a bad thing?

Is it true gypsy women shit themselves if you rape them?

That only happens in communist gook countries

waste

that was easy

Crime, degeneracy, dehumanization, destruction of nature to name a few.

It assumes everyone has the capacity to succeed and leaves those who don't in poverty.

Name one point in history before the industrial revolution where children were not used as labor.

The fact is capitalism across the board has raised the standard of living for society as a whole, and made it possible for children to not work until adulthood.

Money isn't a intrinsic good and shouldn't be treated as one.

...

Money is just a commodity, it's not intrinsically anything. Money is used as a store of value so that we do not have to use the barter system to trade goods

They would be used as an apprentice or learner until they are old or skilled enough to work on their profession, sweatshops didn't exist before the industrialization. No comparison.

Rich asses can use money to keep you away from the money.

Political insiders using government to enrich themselves through eliminating competition with taxation and regulation is not capitalism

How is that wrong? Everyone does have the capacity to succeed

Bumping for interest

No, they would be serfs before mercantilism. What you are referring to is indeed capitalism. You have to remember people voluntarily decided to leave the harsh conditions of agricultural farming and moved into the cities to work for higher wages in factories.

Why should I have to share my wealth with some worthless dindu who sits at home, smokes weed, and collects welfare?

Socialism makes 0 sense and the only people who believe it would work are numale neckbeards in mommys basement

Reminder that if any criticism of capitalism violates the NAP or property rights, you're simply attacking a strawman. I'm not claiming libertarian or minarchist or whatever you wanna call it capitalism is perfect. For example I can't think of a reason why some dumb ass parents wouldn't send their kid to go work, nor can I think of a reason why every inch of nature wouldn't be used because it's "more efficient", even though I live in a place where there's barely any (non-agriculture) nature left and it's a nightmare.

That being said, I'm sick of hearing things like
>le warlord will take your stuff xddd
>companies will pollute your soil xddd
it's bullshit, that's violating property rights and inherently anti-capitalist.

Jew will dominate and collude to eliminate fair competition

[pic related]

Do you even know what a serf is, fucking moron? It's a man tied to his profession, which is exactly what i described.

no.
that's due to global corporations. No fault of capitalism.

forces people to consume your product and everyone who does not get eliminated

always attempts to take control of the masses at the end, because some people are that vile

Children did not labour in medieval or pre-industrial Europe. But its a negative statement: it can be scarsely proven. What you have to do is to find a research paper that points out to widespread use of child labour.

One has to understand that before industrialization, there literally wasnt enough work to do. Agricultural workers, be it serfs or free farmers, had perhaps 20 hours of work a week. Only 5-8% of population was made up of craftsmen, and their work required years of practise. Children were only useful in odd jobs and situations, e.g harvest and delivering goods in tight mine shafts. But the conditions for child labour did not exist: there were no physically light jobs with high scalability and little to no skills requirements. Those developed only in proto-industrial 1700s economies with developement of cottage industry for weaving cloth (which could be learnt in weeks, was scalable and physically light.)

Yeah, no. That is simply wrong, and part of the reason why Trump has done so well is because so many formerly successful people have been permanently moved into the loser column.

Why is it wrong?

Can a person born in poverty not be successful?

People are only interested in capital which leads to individualism,therefore egoism and the death of the nation.
Also infinite growth on a ressource-limited planet leads to destruction.

Sounded like you were talking about mercantilism where induviduals were able to choose a profession
Sure that's a fair argument. There was a period of industrial capitalism where children worked in sub par conditions, but this was voluntary, for their families own benifit.

It's a fact that western countries founded on capitalism have surpassed the need for child labor. The child labor seen across the world now is due to government-corporation collusion where native populations have no right to unionize. And where they are taxed into oblivion

Obesity

Its not national socialism

Kikes

/thread

Define success. There has to be a bottom in order for there to be a top, buy our bottom is very well off. I know """poor""" people with two cars, a computer, cellphones and small homes. That's wealthy in most countries.

Breadlines.

>success is defined by my perception of the people around me

I also know people in bum fuck arkansaw who wash their clothes in tub basins and read by candle light

Not everyone in america lives in the fucking city and drink starbucks everyday retard

Get off the internet

>"lel le real gommunism hasnt been tried stupid argument"
>"bu-but is not real capitalism"
Evry fucken time
>"b-build wall"
Daily remainder trump is 10 points below shitllary

taxation and regulation are antithesis to capitalism
any bad outcomes due to either cannot be ascribed to capitalism

moral hazard
wealth concentration
economic slavery

And those are just the ones I learned from Adam Smith

>It assumes everyone has the capacity to succeed
Literally the core belief of communism.

Capitalism just means you are only responsible for yourself. It has nothing to do with assumption of outcome.

The polls poll 10% more dems then repubs.

Stay on your side of the wall Paco

sure there is some deadweight loss in capitalism but in every other form of economics deadweight loss has been alot higher in that regard capitalism is the most efficient

The sweatshops and child labour is in communist and socialist countries.

Socialists, name a socialist country you want to live in. I could name five capitalist ones easily.

Let's make an enormous new level in your scheme that redistributes all the value without actually creating any and takes from the middle levels and gives it to the lowest so they will never get the incentive to climb that ladder and regulate all aspects of life so everyone in the middle drops to the lowest.

>Capitalism giving rise to corporations and the demand to use cheap foreign labor is not the fault of capitalism.
K

Capitalists love to bemoan all the lazy people in America, but have little to say of others who do not labor, such as those who invest or those who inherit their wealth, but that is another point for another time.

A worker is only hired because he makes more profit for others than he does for himself. The boss makes a dime while he makes a nickel. How does that make any sense? But how did he get it? Well, he had more access to wealth to start off with, either having been born with it or having access to those who were born with it. How did those people get it? Violence, of course, which is to say aggressing against others. Every decision concerning what to do with property legitimizes the first instance of violence further and further, rendering the NAP appallingly facile.

Socialist countries:
Marxist-Leninist: Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam.
Ones where socialism is mentioned in the constitution: Bangladesh, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, North Korea, Nepal, Portugal, Sao Tome, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania.
The ONLY one of those I would live in is Portugal.

Meanwhile:
Capitalist countries: Bahrain, Georgia, Hong Kong, Isreal, Japan, Kuwait, Macau, Mauritius, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and United Arab Emirates, Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxemborg, Macedonia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, United States of America, Cape Verde, South Africa, Uganda, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and Peru.

Tell me:
If capitalism doesn't work why every decent country on Earth do it? And what socialist country would you actually want to live in?
>inb4 they don't practice real socialism
Then it isn't real capitalism that you're whining about either, fags.

>if feudalism doesn't work why does every decent country on Earth do it?
Do you believe that would be a cogent argument should we find ourselves in the year 1250?

Secondly, if you think Georgia, Bahrain, Mauritius, Thailand, the UAE, Albania, Haiti, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, El Salvador, Uganda, or Uganda are desirable places to live, you're an idiot.

Ceausescu

So you prefer North Korea, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam? Or India, maybe? Those are shitty countries. The percentage of counties who are good in terms of GDP or happiness and practice capitalism is higher than that of those who practice socialism.
Second - yes it wouldn't be a cogent argument then. But there were no other forms of leadership being tested then. We have examples of shitty countries that practice socialism, we have examples of good (and shitty) countries that practice capitalism. We can infer that distribution of power in a meritocratic way (i.e. in capitalist societies) is better than distribution of power to the government and no one else (i.e. in socialist societies).

With constant evolution of industry due to the goal of increased profits there will be fewer jobs available.

Modern western economy (tech/service based) relies on having a larger independent to dependent ratio in order to keep the country afloat.

There are many things wrong with western democratic capitalism, but it's the only system that 'works'.

No, but not every country that is nominally capitalist operates under the Platonic ideal of capitalism. The internet was developed by the government, largely independent of the market, for example. Socialism and capitalism is a scale, it isn't a binary system.

Secondly, wow you suck at history. Do you acknowledge that the Soviet Union raised the standard of living during its course? What of Cuba? Why would you assume capitalism is a meritocracy, when tall people get paid more than short people, pretty people get paid more than ugly people, and white people get paid more than black people? The government can be voted on- the new CEO cannot be. Do you acknowledge that?

Protip: technological unemployment has never existed in history, and basing your argument off of that is woefully specious.

And it seems to be 'working' pretty well for only a tiny minority of the people.

>factories
>mining
>telemarketing