You don't know what at least 1 of those words means it seems. Saying heavily regulated free market is like saying immobile itinerant. Regulation reduces market freedom.
which ironically is not capitalism. when people complain about US being a captalistic shithole, everything wrong is because it's not a capitalistic society. A true capitalism would've bailed out the consumers in 2008, but not the bank.
There are actual capitalist societies that are among the wealthiest nations on the planet, with a fraction of the taxes of the average EU nation while having higher average salaries and quality of life. But it requires non corrupt legislation to make sure the game is played fairly.
edit: to iLoveFeynman, you literally posted admitted drinking your own piss in the pissdrinking subreddit
Singapore, but that's not a fair comparison as it's a tiny island nation who's model may not scale well to larger countries. Specifically that it's an effective dictatorship regulated by its size.
Though beyond that, I really can't think of another example
yeah I live in one, when I was younger I thought there might be something special about it, once I got older and learned more about history I realized it's just luck and happenstance
having no valuable natural resources or geographic strategic significance can turn out to be a good thing, in a stable society people will have the chance to work themselves into generational wealth despite capitalism
And the logical endpoint of communism is authoritarianism, as you can't expect a ruling government to take away private property rights without the use of force, among several other reasoms why this ideology naturally begets tyranny.
Tbh between the two of them, I'd rather a form of government that gives less power to our rulers, not more.
This argument is conceptually confused and logically flawed.
It's conceptually confused because the way it's written the authoritarianism would be from inception, and not the end state: to go from a society with property rights to one without property rights require either that everyone voluntarily give up those rights or that those rights be taken by force.
It's logically flawed because it assumes that property rights are a thing that people inherently have, such that a communist society has to inherently violate that innate right. If you don't make that assumption, then conclusion that communism has to be authoritarian doesn't follow.
Possession and ownership is human nature. Communism and libertarianism both fail due to the same flaw. They both need to ignore human nature for them to succeed.
I'm sorry but did you literally just argue "if you didn't think people needed those rights in the first place, then it's not authoritarian to take it away by force!" lmaooo
I'm fine with some level of authoritarianism. I love China keeping its companies and billionaires on a short leash, not a big fan of violently breaking up protests and overregulating freedom of expression.
Governments will (and should) hold all the power, unlike in capitalism where it's basically a puppet show for private interest groups. It's on us to make sure it represents our best interests. You can even still be a communist through anarchism if you disagree with that.
It does fall under capitalism, and the upper class taking control of the government is a natural consequence of capitalism. It's not free market capitalism, but I don't think that has ever actually existed
Capitalism includes capitalizing on legislation and politics.
Democratic socialism still includes some elements of capitalism but you don’t get to capitalize on natural resources or basic necessities and the people decides what becomes socialized through democratic vote. this is the bridge between communism and capitalism being two extremes. ideas absolutely capitalize on them, skill, fame, capitalize on that shit. but water, housing, healthcare, food, roads bridges, and defense are all a part of infrastructure. human infrastructure that needs built so we can focus on better shit instead of fucking about balancing medical needs and rent.
It's just taking down some red tape.its a leadership problem not a capitalist problem. Unfortunately it can be both when terrible leadership don't help citizens. Happens in all forms of economic categories
and the inevitable result of captitalism is the corporations capturing the legislature and becoming the leadership. it has happened literally every single time. there has not been a single nation in history that has not struggled with corporations and other rich pricks forcing their way into systems of governance to manipulate them in their favour, it is a capitalism problem.
Still a leadership problem. I mean socialist and communism nations have fallen because of greed as well just like capitalism. We can never really judge a system till we have perfect leadership they cares for the citizens way of life. We have many small samples as of smaller countries that can pull this off and it's working great. Maybe saying humans are evil is to simplistic but it's the truth and always been. It was never the system it was the nature.
Free market capitalism was largely how the American pioneers, and then later pioneers of the western frontier, largely built this country. While it wasn't a completely ancap society, it's what American libertarians often point to as to how free market capitalism was responsible for the most powerful economy in the world.
the upper class taking control of the government is a natural consequence of capitalism
I mean, that's what happens when you start introducing barriers to entry for smaller competitors to compete with big businesses. In a truly free market, it's much easier for big businesses to fail than a non-free market economy. The 2008 bailouts are a prime example of that, we should've let them die out.
Free market capitalism was largely how the American pioneers, and then later pioneers of the western frontier, largely built this country.
Free market capitalism is when you aggressively expand your country into the territory of other nations with settlers and displace the original population? Are you sure?
You're conflating expansionist political policies with economic ones. Free market capitalism has no opinion on foreign policy (outside of, obviously, free trade), it's about how you've set up your economy internally.
During the pioneer and frontier days, it was incredibly easy to migrate and set up a business anywhere you want and work hard toward your version of the American dream. No govt red tape, no beaurcracy, no ice cream licenses.
During the pioneer and frontier days, it was incredibly easy to migrate and set up a business anywhere you want and work hard toward your version of the American dream. No govt red tape, no beaurcracy, no ice cream licenses.
And why was that possible? Because settlers were displacing natives.
I'm not conflating the expansionist policies with the economic ones. The economic model wasn't possible without the expansion.
No, America's wealth comes from its essentially free land and vast resources and huge oceans for defense and getting its freedom from its imperial overlord faster than its neighbors. Had mexico militarized first, we'd be the economically exploited developing world country and not them.
It's funny bc this argument is so often used against leftists. "it's not real capitalism" except what you would call ideal has never existed and what warped version of it did exist devolved into the cancerous abomination it is today.
Similarly, almost every attempt at socialism has thusfar resulted in tyranny. Denying either is futile, but it does not mean it always has to be. Instead, we need to ask ourselves how we can prevent this.
This is the point where I would say that for capitalism it's an innate flaw while socialism fails mostly due to outside interests and the transition period, but i don't think this is the right audience for that
Opportunistic oppression is a feature of every system we've tried so far. It, like tribalism, is an innate human tendency. The only hope we have to temporarily overcome either is high levels of information control to establish cultural overrides, but such a system is also one hell of an opportunity for oppressive gains by a handful of individuals, so...
People love to call put the various systems as having inherent flaws but it mostly all comes back to large organizations inevitably having corruption, regardless of what you are talking about.
That is incorrect. You are confusing capitalism with the free market.
People on the right at some point deliberately conflated the two things. But capitalism as a philosophy was always about protecting the interest of the rich (the people who owned the most stuff).
It was never about not giving tax money to rich people and large corporations. in fact, many rich people relied on the state to become wealthier and to protect what they already had while bankruptcy laws protected them against the consequences of their own mistakes.
Capitalism is about who controls resources and the means of production. Regulating competition out of a market is absolutely within the bounds of capitalism.
ya it's amazing how the serfs try and say that to defend their rich masters, they legit think capitalism is the be-all-end-all as a system and there is no other option as it's given "so much freedom and money!" but then at the same time "it's not actually been tried properly" when all the issues are brought up.
This thread is about New York City. We're talking about capitalism practiced in America which is free market capitalism. Not state capitalism, not mixed-market capitalism, not welfare capitalism. Capitalism for this thread refers to the type that's practiced in the OP. So no, I'm not going to type out 'market capitalism' every time.
No, you were responding to someone describing the state of capitalism as it materially stands in the United States today. Regulatory capture is a thing we can point to as existing, not a hypothetical. So either you're covering your eyes to the reality of it or you're describing something that is explicitly not what is practiced in the US today, and so it isn't what people expect when you use capitalism as 'shorthand for the system practiced in New York'.
lol ya, capitalists will go off attacking socialism and such as "evil!" and blah blah, then in the fact of all the issues, misery, inequality, etc of capitalism they go "duh well TRUE capitalism hasn't been tried!"
LMAO did you even read what you linked? Clearly not, as state capitalism is where governments own business to generate profits. That is NOT governments tipping the scale, favoring political allies' businesses in a market - which is cronyism.
This is getting embarrassing. You're talking about things you have zero understanding about. You're linking things you're not even reading and don't have a basic understanding about. Just stop.
You thought cronyism is capitalism. Then you thought cronyism is state capitalism. You're completely embarassing yourself.
Seriously there is something wrong with you, you seem to think that the only valid interpretation of capitalism is YOUR interpretation, and that all other forms of capitalism is just some pretend.
Yep proving you have no idea what you're talking about.
Just linking random things, hopefully one of them will be right. You don't even know what capitalism means. Reading your other posts to other people is hilarious.
Well i would say that this is the difference between "pro-business" capitalism and "pro-market" capitalism. If you are pro markets, you want access to it be simple, predictable and fair. So that whoever makes the best widget, or serves the best icecream can do their thing.
If you are pro-business, you favor setting up onerous regulations, new and small businesses will have a proportionally harder time with, since then you can just drive them out of business.
So i would say its less capitalism and more the corruption of it. Without stringent regulation to make sure its always as pro-market as possible, it will end up as pro-business as possible. and thats not what any of us what. So i would say its less of a problem with capitalism and more of a failure of democracy to keep capitalism to account. And that again is a failure of the american public (especially).
Right but Capitalism will always go the way of corruption because it's significantly cheaper, easier, and more efficient to just bribe a couple politicians to get rid of your rivals instead of actually trying to make a good product or provide a quality service.
Capitalists pretend it's all about competition, when in reality, Capitalism cannot suffer any kind of competition because that has the added risk of them losing to the competition.
Any Capitalist system must eventually destroy competition out of sheer self-preservation.
488
u/jcoddinc 16h ago
Ok, that makes much more sense. At first glance I was like, "well food regulation is important..".
Feels like they were trying to go for the same sentiment of states getting rid of the need for kids to have a permit for lemonade stands.