The Case Against Capitalism

Fascinating. Did you have anything that is actually relevant to the discussion?

 

There is no case against capitalism to make.
It's one of the most commonly used and widely effective methods of human co-operation.
I cannot begin to list the number of great human advancements brought to us by capitalism.
Oh, go on then... I'll try a few
The railway. The ship. International trade. Books. Cars. Planes. Food. Drink. Medicines. Explosives! The internet. Electricity. Running water! Computers. Telephones. Mobile Phones. Movies. Video games. S bend toilets.

So pretty much any arguments made against "capitalism" itself is just reactionary. Now that's not to say that people using capitalism can't behave badly.
Cars aren't evil. Bad drivers are.
But most people aren't bad drivers any more than most capitalist enterprises aren't bad businesses.

Some are.
So what do we need to keep them in check? Essentially we need a bigger dog. Someone big enough to take on a multi-national and win. For this we have Socialism.

A government. A larger organisation of people with more money and more power, and critically more guns.
Once we have a strong and powerful government even the biggest of capitalists must bow before it.
And they all do.

The problem then migrates. Where before we had a group of people co-operating to give them a greater power than the individual under capitalism we now have a group of people co-operating to give them a greater power over the individual under socialism.

And indeed the disparity between individual and collective power actually increases under socialism. (As it must to trump/regulate capitalism).

How do I get rid of a mafia boss? Get a bigger mafia boss to take him out.
So for me this is a self defeating exercise. I swap a lesser evil for a greater evil. I go from big mafia boss to bigger mafia boss. Woot.

Socialism just makes the bad parts of capitalism much worse.
Or does it?
If you don't have a top dog, all the other dogs will fight to become top dog.
Anarchy, in practise = war followed by a new order.

Whichever dog is top dog is better than.... a load of dogs fighting.

Capitalism, Socialism. It makes so little difference to me which dog is on top.
If I had any preference at all, I feel I have more control and influence over a private company than I do my state. I can vote if I am shareholder in a capitalist company. I can withhold my money if I do not wish to trade with a capitalist, but not so with a socialist. I must do as I'm told. Or else...

(Also I'm British so I tend to self-identify with the underdog).

So in order to control capitalism we need to become facists. Hmmm. Is it really worth it?
I'm not sure but I suspect in this example the cure is worse than the disease.

 

Exactly the only people who are against it are the ones who do not want to or can't make Capitalism work for them. There are plenty of examples of people who are being successful in Capitalism.

 

No.
Wrong.
We need less Facism and more Capitalism.
The government currently takes about 40% from anyone that produces.
That's not right.
I'm still making it.

 

It must always be worth it, until we solve for simple poverty.

 

The fiat money is the ONLY thing I find wrong with ALL economic systems.

 

Even the several States no longer agree with you.

 

Several - more than two but not many.

 

Several meaning separate, not quantity.

 

Each State a sovereign entity? I like that.

 

Yes; much like the several United States and their FedGov.

 

Let the Federal government deal with international issues and the States deal with issues within their borders, allowing Federal government to assure each State treats the other States fairly and does no harm to another State.

 

There is no case against capitalism. The more capitalist a country is, the better off everyone in that country lives, from top to bottom. I'd much rather be poor in Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark or Canada than well-off in Zimbabwe, North Korea or Cuba. No one takes the Marxist nonsense about capitalism being "exploitative" seriously anymore. That was proven false during Marx's own lifetime, and he died promising to refute it but never did. If you want better results, just roll back the government intervention in the economy and you'll get it.

 

in 1929 we had more socialism than capitalism so your premise is 100% mistaken. Friedman and Bernanke agree that Great Depression was caused by failure of big liberal govt to maintain money supply.

 

No, we didn't have more socialism in 1929. That was when less fettered, laissez-fair capitalism died and had to get bailed out by socialism, like usual. Apparently, we needed quantitative easing back then, too. Yup; no job is too big for socialism.

 

of course you are very very mistaken. Liberal govt had 100% control over monetary policy and it was monetary policy that caused crash and 16 year recession that followed.

 

Fiscal policy is the job of Congress. Monetary policy has to accomplish fiscal policy objectives.

 

you said it was age of Laissez-Faire when in reality govt had huge control over monetary and fiscal policy.

 

Yes, before 1929 there was much less government control. After 1929, there was more regulation and that form of socialism.

 

Yes, there is.
I will accept this case.
I don't like capitalism.

We live in a free society. As such you are free not to use capitalism if you prefer not to.
There are alternatives. You can use them.
I'm not suggesting to you that other alternatives will be better for you. But the choice of who and how you wish to trade with others is your own.

 

That's a personal preference, not an argument. An argument is based upon logical deductions, evidence and axioms. The word "case" is being used in the sense of an argument by this definition: Case: b (1) : the evidence supporting a conclusion or judgment (2) : argument; especially : a convincing argument <makes a good case for adopting the proposal>

 

you don't know that Federal Reserve was formed in 1913? Fed had total control of economy so to say that 1929 was fault of capitalism is silly when govt had total control.

 

when China switched to capitalism from socialism they instantly eliminated 40% of all the poverty on earth. Now do you see why if you are a moral person it should make a huge huge difference to you?

 

Where are you getting your information from? The reason we don't have a "meltdown" like in 1929 is due to the socialism of increased regulation and financial security nets, like FDIC after the bank failures of the Great Depression.

 

you can look it it up the Fed was formed in 1913 and the Depression began in 1929. !913 is long before 1929.