The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

Capitalism has always been reliant on government. Can government be eliminated? Could we achieve an anarchist outcome? I don't believe so. Even within market socialism where government action is necessarily restricted, there is still the need for public and merit good delivery

 

I didn't realise you were a left wing plant, so I apologise. You should be free to provide evidence such as an example of 'cross the board' economic contempt for austerity. God bless!!

 

If it was cross the board obviously there would have been no austerity. Isn't thinking fun?

 

so? Friedman agreed with that back in the 1940's. And? Do you know what a straw man is ?

 

hate to be the one to tell you but conservatives are not anarchists. And now you know too!

 

Sweden and Denmark were monocultural. I doubt it could work in a multicultural society and the immigrant problem in Sweden and Denmark confirm this. Multicultural societies lack the necessary social cohesion to allow socialism to work.

 

It could always be modified to work in a multicultural society by working to modify the social cohesion.

 

And how to you plan to do that?

Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education and the schools are more segregated than ever.

 

Overall, no socialist nation has surpassed the achievements of capitalist USA. And before you bring up the current socialist aspects of the USA, the USA is now no longer actually capitalist and free market. The USA is living off its past success - success brought on by capitalism.

The idea that all it takes is for people to believe in order for communism/socialism to work on a large scale is a pipe dream. In practical implementation, they are top down systems which on a large scale require a huge bureaucracy and severe concentration of power, and that always means tyranny.

 

Of course the US is capitalist. To suggest anything else would be quite ridiculous. The problem though is that market fundamentalism has led to assorted social ills, eliminating entrepreneurial spirit and ensuring workers are increasingly underpaid. Imagine how more successful it would be if it adopted the rational economics associated with social democracy?

 

Capitalism is based on private property rights. There are no longer true private property rights - businesses cannot operate as the owners desire, they must meet all kinds of local, state and federal regulations dealing with finance, social issues, hiring and firing, even limiting what products they can build and buy and sell.

And the USA is now an oligarchy.

 

Capitalism has always involved government regulation. Indeed, new trade theory shows that such regulation is needed for economies to develop. The US is, without any doubt, capitalist. You'll struggle to find rational economists who suggest otherwise. Indeed, the real problem is its market fundamentalism. This has generated severe inequalities that harm growth. It has reduced self-employment opportunities. It has magnified the productivity gap.

 

Do you truly believe own your property? If you don't pay your property and income taxes every year, do you continue to own your property? If you engage in a criminal act - or are even accused of engaging in a criminal act, or are even thought to have engaged in a criminal act by a cop - can your property be seized? Can you do with your property whatever you want without interference from the government? Does the value of money and interest rates and inflation reflect true economic conditions so that people can make efficient capital decisions, or has the govt manipulated all 3 to bias economic decisions?

For capitalism to operate, it requires property rights, honest economics, and it requires the rule of law. The USA has neither. Capitalism cannot operate in the USA.

 

Ironically, it was Marx himself who did a lot of ground work into the economics of property rights. Your position, given government coercion has always been part of capitalism, is essentially 'capitalism cannot exist'. It is not consistent with any respectable political economic approach. But I'm happy for you to try and prove me wrong. Refer me to one credible economic source that states the US is not capitalist.

 

0) it goes without saying that socialism which encourages everyone to leech and no one to work is a bad idea
1) if it worked well wanabe socialist neighbors like England France Spain Italy would copy and do well too
2) Sweds do much better in USA than Sweden thanks to Germanic monocultured self-disciplined population
3) USA has higher corporate tax and more dependence on 1% for govt revenue so is more socialist than Sweden is some key ways
4) no American would work if they lived in a system such as the Swedish welfare state, where government is "generous" with benefits to the unemployed, those on sick leave and those that have retired.
5) most importantly, the world needs American cut throat capitalism to provide the world's best military defense and constant innovations so dead little countries like Sweden and France can have modern lifestyles.

 

USA has what we call a mixed economy ie elements of capitalism and socialism. Obamacare is a good example of not capitalism.

 

you mean when people shop for best product at lowest price in order to raise their standard of living and when workers shop for best job in world to raise their standard of living? How is that a real problem?

 

you mean liberalism has generated sever inequalities by waging war on our families, schools and religion thus rendering many Americans unfit for work and equality?

 

since 1994 self employed has decreased from 12 to 10%
.. No big deal and most of it is loss of small family farms to big farm technology!

 

Capitalism can and did exist. The USA was capitalist in the late 1700's, when the federal govt has extremely limited power and state govts were very restrained in their activity. Since that time, the nation has slowly moved away from capitalism as political and economic power has concentrated in the federal govt. Look up the definition of capitalism, and then pretend to believe that it describes the 21st century USA.

Why? Don't you have a brain and an education and the resources to determine it for yourself? Or do you need someone to tell you what to think?

 

Not sure England, France , Spain or Italy are wanabe socialists. Furthermore I don't think it encourages "no one to work" Most people want to be productive members of society as opposed to being a slave to society.

No reason why we cannot fashion ourselves to something similar to Sweden that works for us.

I believe with the overhaul of the tax code, businesses now have a lower tax rate.

Highly unlikely since Sweden, has government employees and also private businesses as well. Would you be happy sitting home full time or want to work full time?? Those on sick leave have no choice so why should they suffer financially?? Those who've retired have done their part in making the country successful, so why deny them a living wage and benefits? Or do you propose to throw them out with the trash now that they serve no useful purpose??

The world can take care of themselves; let's take care of the American people first.

 

This is the main point isn't it? You have an opinion. Fair enough. Its simply not an opinion that you can support with any relevant political economy, be it orthodox or heterodox school of thought. That you cannot refer to one credible economic resource in support of your position merely informs us that your opinion is not supported by the available study of economic reality.

 

I'm sorry but this is a systemic problem, not just a Democrat problem.
As I said in a previous post, today the democrat voters are much much worse than the republican voters. They support the poor leeches and the super-rich looters. And the mass immigration. In the same time, even though they style themselves 'leftists', they are actually against cheap public housing and cheap public education. Some leftism! The democrats were sympathetic with USSR? Well, even the USSR was much, much better than the leftist system of the Democrats. The 'leftism' of the Democrats reduce to transforming the USA into another drug lords-controlled Mexico.
But the corruption problem is much deeper than the Democrat party. The corruption is grown by the super-rich who are sponsoring both political parties. Bush is also very corrupt. Cheney (who was the real president) is an absolute terrorist. The Bush administration is famous in Romania for leeching the taxpayer's money through one of their pet companies - Bechtel. How can such a disgusting chimp like Bush become the president of the USA if the Republican party is not corrupt and controlled by the super-rich? The Reagan administration supported Saddam when he was committing genocide against the Kurdish people. Bush installed an ultra-corrupt regime in Iraq. And the list can continue.

Trump doesn't really represent any political party. He was using the Republican party in order to be able to be a candidate. Both political parties are against him. The Republican top politicians don't want to show it, but they disagree with Trump, and the Republican media is not really warm with Trump - because he doesn't follow the orders of the super-rich.

Trump wants peace with Russia. The military-industrial complex that is controlling both political parties is against peace, and that's why both the Democrats and Republicans are against Trump on this topic. Trump wants to solve the ISIS issue in Syria but the corrupt army generals are fooling him. He should start a real anti-corruption effort ASAP, but he doesn't even realize how deep the problems are.

The real problem is in the absolute power of the super-rich. They control both political parties and they want a dystopian new world order where the population live terrorized by poverty, corruption and criminal gangs. The USA interfered many times in Latin America "in order to protect the people against the communists". And then, why the American administrations (Republican or Democrat) are not pressuring the Latin American countries to keep the situation under control (the drug dealers terrorize entire countries)? The life in the Eastern European communist countries was heaven comparing to the life in the countries of the USA's sphere of influence and that tells a lot about the true nature of the masters of the USA, and it reveals their true intentions regarding freedom, democracy, human rights and prosperity.

As long as you only blame the Democrats, you are helping the super-rich who are only interested to divide and rule. The people can't do a better job for the super-rich than supporting one party and blaming the other. The good old "Divide an rule" principle at work.

 

Obamacare is bad because the corrupt administration officers are siphoning the money, not because of implementing public health. Check the Western Europe - it has a wonderful public health care, at a decent cost. In the USA, the public health system is a black hole because of the corruption.
This system doesn't really have capitalist elements - it has crony capitalism elements - like you said.

The libcommies support the super-rich (for example the Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros). How can the liberal commies blame the super-rich when their candidate is a puppet of the super-rich? Everyone knows that then the Clintons open their mouths, it's George Soros speaking.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...oros-order-polish-democracy-remarks-says-mep/
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-Soross-campaign-of-global-chaos-464770
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/20/hillary-clinton-embraces-george-soros-radical-visi/
The Rothschild - Clinton connection - http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/...y-mega-backer-urges-republicans-vote-clinton/

The Amish people can prosper while your system can only make more and more debts. They are much better without the banking and new technologies of Buffet, Brin and Bezos.

The super-rich people are sucking the blood of the people from all over the world, in countries where the police don't care about such things and where they can't find jobs.
Even in the West, the police doesn't care about such things. And on top of that, you can't find another job since the jobs are exported to China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Thailand etc.
Check the situation of the 5,000+ Romanian woman farm workers in Italy who are not only working and living in dreadful conditions, but they are also getting raped. Because the Western economic system is nothing else than an economic terrorist system. It's strongest point is in the marketing. It is a putrid and rotten system covered with a nice packaging.

 

As long as you make more than an average income from the patents, that means you are overpricing the consumers. If you need a lot of money for investing in production or in research, then it's ok to charge more for your patents. But that's revenue for your company and it creates jobs, that's not an income for yourself. Get rich by selling a company that the public supports by buying shares (because they trust the company and they like it's products), a company that promotes innovation and creates jobs.
The administration/judiciary decided many times that Microsoft abused their clients using their dominant market position/monopoly. The patent monopolies can also be overpriced and the administration can and should interfere to prevent it. The threshold for deciding if the patents are overpriced is the income.