Where is there capitalism?

Can anyone give me one single example of capitalism in todays world, or in the recent past, going by googles definition of capitalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf
knoema.com/HFWSJIEF2015/index-of-economic-freedom-2016?country=1001820-somalia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Pretty much every 1st world nation

Name one.

Denmark

All business is coercively controlled by the state in Denmark.

Sure whatever.

Then if you want a stronger example, NZ, America, Australia.

Fact is even Denmark is fundamentally capitalistic, it's just has quite a few socialist policies on top of it. Capitalism needs to have at least a few socialist policies to function properly and be sensible.

taxing some of the profit =/= fundamentally not capitalistic
I mean I agree with what I suspect are your political leanings but trying to be an absolute purist here on what defines capitalism is a bit strange

>it's just has quite a few socialist policies on top of it.

Why call it capitalism then?

>Capitalism needs to have at least a few socialist policies to function properly and be sensible.

Like what?

>capitalism

Probably Zimbabwe. The entire population is surviving in a black market using foreign currencies and barter. The government is incapable of affecting economic policy through anything but direct violence.

It's sorta like Chernobyl. After everything' artificial is abandoned, the natural order takes hold again.

What should we call the pure form then?

>The government is incapable of affecting economic policy through anything but direct violence.

You mean like any other country?

>like what
Taxes to fund law enforcement, government and self defence (military). Other sensible things are hospitals, infrastructure, water treatment, schools, fire department and in my opinion, space exploration/research

>what call it capitalism then?
Because that's what it fundamentally is.

All of this could be supplied by a free market.

But isn't that socialism?

Possibly, but it's a terrible idea

Especially when you consider the production of currency

>Especially when you consider the production of currency

What about it would be terrible?

>Voluntarisn
Holy divine KeK!

Libtards are fucking funny.

No. It's not a one drop rule.

So long as private ownership exist, it isn't socialism

Just think for a few seconds before posting

but there is no private ownership. The state owns it all, and noone owns the state.

Just tell me.

Not until you lower your Lego prices Denmark

> (You)
>You mean like any other country?

No, I mean like I said. In other countries the policies are affected voluntarily or by the subtle, implied threat of violence. And even that tends to stop at incarceration. Words affect policy.

In Zimbabwe, words have no effect. The economic ministry can say and do anything it wants, but it won't accomplish anything. The knobs and levers aren't connected anymore. The only way for Harare to assert itself is to hold people at literal gunpoint. Once the physical gun in someone's face goes away, that policy disappears and the natural order reasserts itself.

freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf

page 18. your welcome

Well, we can't do much about it when the taxes are above 67% plus 25% salestax.

going by a kikes definition of capitalism. fuck off. use a proper dictionary.

Thread of violence is considered violence.
If violence is used, then it can't be voluntary.

>Once the physical gun in someone's face goes away, that policy disappears and the natural order reasserts itself.
This is what a free market would be like.
Natural order.

I consider it more correct to state how capitalist to socialist a country is based on the amount of private control versus government control. However, it's not something which can be exactly quantified.

A bank in the United States has easily in excess of 80% or 90% of what they do already determined by the government. The bank has very little control beyond defining the terms of their services within the very narrow ranges government allows.

On the other hand, someone who runs a small lawn care business has a lot (but not total) control. The only regulations from government which affect them are those outlawing particularly "unsafe" equipment, taxes on payroll and profit, and a handful of mandates as to how to treat coworkers and employees. Most mandates kick in for medium and large businesses, leaving the local lawn care business largely unscathed.

In total and including the redirected use of profit via taxes, I would guess around 50% of everything all business together do in the United States is narrowly defined or explicitly required by government. This is purely a guess I'm pulling out of my ass based on total tax burden and total regulatory burden, but if such a number could be reasonably calculated, it would be the way I would measure capitalism to socialism.

The question is not, "Is it capitalist?" The question is "How capitalist is it?"

Pick one then, and lets take it from there.

Either you have control, or you don't. there is no middlepoint.

You have control over some things but not everything. Even under the most oppressive regimes, an individual has control over anything which escapes the attention of the state.

As an individual, how do you have control over yourself if the state controls any aspect of your life?

Now you're just lying. The means of production is firmly in private hands in Denmark. Some entities, such as your public TV channel, are owned and operated by the government, but by and large the private sector is alive and well,

The private sector is owned by the state. If you do not pay the state for what you make, it will ultimakely kill you if you defend yourself.

>This is what a free market would be like.
>Natural order.

And that's what I'm trying to argue, i.e.: that when a state losses control of its economic policy, it must resort to that actual, physical violence. In any place that violence isn't immediately present, the economy reverts to a natural, capitalistic state.

The quality of that capitalism (devoid of property protections, etc.) is another question. And yes, I'm indulging in the irony of Zimbabwe a bit. But consider Haiti. Or any other third world shit hole with barely functioning governance. The people survive SOMEHOW. Their various needs are met SOMEHOW. That somehow is organic capitalism.

ROADS

>Capitalism needs to have at least a few socialist policies to function properly and be sensible.

Translation: capitalism isn't sensible and doesn't exist.

>muh taxes are theft

>devoid of property protections, etc.

With a somewhat intelligent population, there would be property protection etc.

Would be very possible.

>by jewgle definition
Yes.....yes good goy

You have control over some things but not everything. I can't go out and murder someone without running afoul with the state, for example. The state has control over me murdering them. I choose to sacrifice the ability to legally murder in exchange for the protection that others, too, cannot legally murder me.

By consent of the governed, we choose as majorities or supermajorities to give up some things. This is not the same as giving up everything. The fact I cannot legally murder someone does not make me a slave of the state.

That the state eliminates a limited set of my options is not the same as the state defining a limited set of options. We have infinitely many options. If the state proscribes a finite number, we still have infinitely many options. "You may not do this." If the state prescribes a finite number, we have finitely many options. "You may only do this."

>Look, another "Hi, I am an ancap. Capitalism is the best thing ever but I keep moving the goal post of what it really is to make any true assessment of it impossible and make the assertions of my views unfalsifiable" episode

The problem with free market is that the weak won't die off.
See, in a savage naturalistic system, you have the strong doing well, and the weak dying off.
With capitalism though, the strong do well, and the weak become mad, angry, unhappy and generally not okay with the situation, but don't die off. In fact their group tends to increase in size.
So you end up in a situation where the vast majority of people don't like how things are done, and don't have much to lose.
That is why a hypothetical clean capitalism situation would result in a bloody revolution, and an end to that clean capitalism situation.

The state is in control of your behavior if it controls your laws.
refute this.

There are no countries with completely deregulated markets. It is next to impossible to maintain this state.

How is any of my points unfalsifiable?

It is incumbent upon you to make the argument for your position. Your post is a "prove me wrong" post, which is in the garbage bin of rhetoric.

>and the weak become mad, angry, unhappy and generally not okay with the situation, but don't die off.
Why would this happen?

Because in a capitalist society money flows to the rich, and away from the poor.
You need to have money to effectively make money, and you need to have enough money to suffer a failed business to be able to properly invest.
An elite ruling class forms in a capitalist society, and the state counteracts the serfs hating on it by dishing out social benefits, which we don't include in this experiment, since they'd require heavy taxation, not a capitalistic view.

Capitalism can only exist with heavy social programs to counteract the unhappiness it creates. And to pay for them, the state needs to tax heavy, thus to meddle in the market, thus its no longer clean capitalism.

But how is it not controlling your behavior if it controls your laws?

Try making an argument for your position. Then I will respond.

If anyone/anything controls what you can and cannot do, then you can not have that control yourself.

>Because in a capitalist society money flows to the rich, and away from the poor.
How would this happen?

Capitalism can only exist with heavy social programs to counteract the unhappiness it creates.
What unhappiness does it create and how?

This is a statement of your beliefs, not an argument for them. Try again.

You see it happening in the US. And pretty much everywhere around the world.

If you keep on saying it has never been tried, it becomes unfalsifiable. There will always be some bullshit you can raise to say it is not true capitalism. You sound like the communists.

It is an argument.
If it is not, why not argue for why it is not?

Hong Kong and Singapore are probably closest to capitalist societies.

Bussiness in Denmark are privately owned, are explored for profit, the markets set up the prices. Private property is protected. I don't know what you are trying to say.

>All business is coercively controlled by the state in Denmark.

One could easily claim the opposite

Present your definition

Ideas are falsifiable.
I'm just saying that by the definition I use, it has never been tried, as far as i know.
if it has been tried, please let me know. I would be very interested.

Victorian area England, kaiser willhelms germany, austria-hungarian empire and pre federal reserve USA is quite close

You are gay for Muslim men. Prove me wrong.

This is my argument. If it is not an argument, prove me wrong.

This is your current level of discourse. If it is not your current level of discourse, prove me wrong.

>>it's just has quite a few socialist policies on top of it.
This is retarded to say. When retards talk about "socialist policies" they talk about collectivist policies and wealth redistribution schemes, wich by no means are anti-capitalist measures.

To answer your OP, pretty much every country today

>muh taxation is theft

kek

>muh state boogeyman!!!!!!

Denmark has one of the healthiest private sectors in the world. You are just making shit up to fit your world view

Literally OP

ultimately every ancap argument devolves into this. It's just arguing with ideology

>hospitals, infrastructure, water treatment, schools, fire departmen
many of these things are paid for by the private sector. Nice try.

...

Ok, first of all, anyone living in Denmark do not control their own behavior. That behavior is controlled by the state, which controls the laws.
these laws are backed by violence.
The state owns all the land and bears all responsibility. this renders my responsibility void, as I have no means of aquire ownership of any land.

>How would this happen?
To create great wealth, you need to invest. To invest, you need money.
So money goes to people who have money.
Further, to invest effectively, you should be able to survive failed businesses and market fluctuations.
Thus any people who have some money to invest risk losing it all, and over time this means that small investors go extinct, and only big investors remain to create wealth for themselves.

>What unhappiness does it create and how?
When a small number of people control most of the resources and wealth, the rest notice it, and are unhappy about it.
This has been the case every time there is a ruling class, and in a clean capitalist society the rich are a ruling class.
Once rich it is unlikely you will become poor, and if poor it is unlikely you will become rich, very akin to royal aristocracy. Money stays in the family. \
Non-aristocrats will always be unhappy about it, and rebel, as we know from the past. History teaches us the ruling class will be overthrown by the oppressed majority and the cycle will continue in some other form.

Income tax is theft though. They take it under threat of violence.

>How would this happen?
No money redistribution schemes like taxation or welfare.

>Capitalism can only exist with heavy social programs to counteract the unhappiness it creates.
Here, i will point it out simply for you

CApitalism =============================================== state

got it? One can't live without the other

Who would enforce your dear private property rights?

...

taxation and capitalism aren't the same subjects...they are different subjects.

please see definition of capitalism and stop inventing a new definition of it.

The USA is currently not capitalism.

Shadowrun comes to mind when I think about the USA

>All business is coercively controlled by the state in Denmark.

>Who would enforce your dear private property rights?
I would.

>without the state money flows to the rich
hahahah oh goy read a fucking book

Impressive.

It's capitalism for the oligarchy.

Say why. then you have an argument.
else I can't prove it wrong.

I said why, so I have an argument.

That is my definition.

What is your definition of an argument?

there isn't one, because there is no sound money.

US or England around 1850, maybe. That's the best I can do

>Ok, first of all, anyone living in Denmark do not control their own behavior
So Danish people have microships installed by government to control their moves?

What part don't you understand about the social contract?

>The state owns all the land
This is outright lie. What is private property?

>as I have no means of aquire ownership of any land.

Another lie. You can buy land if you have money.

Also you completely ignored my points and failed to produce your definition of capitalism. Are you a ancap for how long?

>Denmark has one of the healthiest private sectors in the world.

Oh man. I don't know where to begin.

Why do you believe that?

>>The state owns all the land
>This is outright lie. What is private property?
Try not to pay property taxes and you will see who TRULY owns that land.

Because it's not Somalia.

>I said why
Except you didn't.

>The USA is currently not capitalism.
source? Where do you guys get your definitions?

So you could only enforce private property rights in the lands you are currently residing on.
This is awfully similar to socialism

>without the state money flows to the rich

No exactly what i meant. Without the state there is no capitalism, is what i said. Why do bussiness always choose to go to places with strong state authority? Why don't bussiness go to Somalia and african shitholes, if they have much more freedom there? Why do they choose the "tiranical" Sweden, Denmark and USA?

>If anyone/anything controls what you can and cannot do, then you can not have that control yourself.

I still don't see why.
Why would small investors not be able to invest and return a profit?

>The rest notice it, and are unhappy about it.
why would they be unhappy?

Because Scandinavia is considered one of the best places to have a bussiness.

I will have to redirect you to especially to this part
>What part don't you understand about the social contract?

Living in society and enhoying the priviledge of soceity entails a certain deggre of responsability.

>So you could only enforce private property rights in the lands you are currently residing on.
>This is awfully similar to socialism
The fuck you on about?
>Why do bussiness always choose to go to places with strong state authority?
Correlation!=causation
Businesses do business in the BETTER more developed parts of the world.

>Why would small investors not be able to invest and return a profit?
Because they can't take a hit, so it only takes one blunder to ruin them.
Because the same opportunity is better suited for the big investor, and they will be preferred.
Because competition ensures the big investors bully the small ones.

>why would they be unhappy?
I provided historical precedence, and it is also self evident.
In fact it is probably your unhappiness at this same rich elite class that is driving you towards whatever political beliefs you have.

If your next response is still a short "yes but why" I won't reply further, as you clearly don't want to argue, rather just want me to waste time explaining obvious and well known facts and trends.

If I wanted to live out in the middle of no where with no society, I'd still have to pay property taxes. The "social contract" is more of a government contract because it's not to society or the people. It's to the motherfucking government.

>No money redistribution schemes like taxation or welfare.


But why would it happen naturally without taxation or welfare?

>capitalism = state

why can't one live without the other?

>Who would enforce property rights.
Private companies voluntarily bound by contracts.

>why don't you just go to somalia
are you actually using this argument without intending to just meme?

somalia is centuries behind in infrastructure, the average IQ of a somalian citizen is 68 (i.e the average person is literally factually retarded), and also has extremely low economic freedom and huge government corruption

knoema.com/HFWSJIEF2015/index-of-economic-freedom-2016?country=1001820-somalia

>CApitalism =============================================== state
Oops, no that's corporatism

>The fuck you on about?
Learn a bit more about socialism

>Correlation!=causation
And this is not an argument

>Businesses do business in the BETTER more developed parts of the world.

That always coincide with strong state auuthority that enforces the rule of law and, most importantly, enforce the private property rights. That is why no one opens a bussiness in Somalia, because tomorrow some warlord would come in and steal everything the entrepreneur made. Wich is what i have been saying, state lives in symbiosis with capitalism.

You still haven't responded to my question, who would enforce private property rights in a ancap society?

>the social contract
there is no real contract.
it is an imaginary concept, and noone is really bound by it, because it is not a voluntary agreement.

>What is private property?
Private property as property that is owned privately. not by the state, which is not a private company.

>You can buy land if you have money.
Yes, but you can't own it. the state own the rights. the state sets the laws on your land, and thus you do not own it.

>you completely ignored my points.

I didn't, I just pointed out what I think is false claims, trying to explore what you mean by them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Of course the social contract is a government contract.

The point is, if you want to enjoy the benefits of living in X society, you have to put something back. It's a simple concept

>But why would it happen naturally without taxation or welfare?

It wouldn't, that is what i am trying to say.

>why can't one live without the other?

because you don't have a single clue about what capitalism is.

>Private companies voluntarily bound by contracts.

This is pretty much a state by itself. What is the difference betwenn this and the police?

>muh contract

there exists a wide array of contraccts betwenn modern police and the state

I put Somalia in context there. Don'tn act like a retard

>Oops, no that's corporatism

First corporatism IS capitalism. Many would argue that it's the natural evolution of capitalism.

Also there is no single instance where a healthy capitalist society emerged without strong authority, strong enforcement of rule of law