5 ms·

No Capitalism is the greatest force for the improvement of the human condition known. That’s a fact and the problem is you have somehow been taught it’s only an

No Capitalism is the greatest force for the improvement of the human condition known. That’s a fact and the problem is you have somehow been taught it’s only an opinion. It’s not, it’s an unambiguous empirical fact.

andrewstuart 2y ago
It's the socialism for the rich that ruins it. Tax breaks for property investors, tax incentives for property developers, handing large swatches of public owned land over the mates of the politicians for virtually nothing, selling houses to foreign buyers, selling houses to global money laundering criminal. All to pump up the value of the housing portfolios owned by the politicians. Whenever anyone says "let the market sort it out" I cheer and say "finally, the rich will stop getting their socialist handouts". If that is your capitalist market economics then you might need to rethink how pure it is.
- rokkitmensch 2y ago
  People love to blame "capitalism" because they've never learned about "regulatory capture". There's a missing perspective on the global governance bodies, that everything is born, matures, ossifies, is outcompeted, and dies. Alligators and cockroaches perhaps the exception, but are those models for a life well lived?
  - toastercat 2y ago
    To be fair, people blame "socialism", and "communism" for similar reasons.
    - rokkitmensch 2y ago
      To be fair (to be faairrrrr), Communism's embedded contradictions flamed it out significantly faster than capitalisms has.
      - toastercat 2y ago
        To be fair, (to be faaaaiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrr) that's besides the point, and every successful capitalist nation routinely contradicts free-market principles anyway.
greenie_beans 2y ago
prove that it's a fact? you aren't making a convincing case.
- alchemist1e9 2y ago
  Speech worth fully listening to: https://youtu.be/h8s_z-jaexk https://youtu.be/h8s_z-jaexk And also we can look at the cases where collectivism replaces capitalism and the catastrophic consequences that inevitably occur: https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never-dies/ https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-th...
  - greenie_beans 2y ago
    i'll check out and will consider it in good faith, thanks for sharing. my knee jerk reaction: > And also we can look at the cases where collectivism replaces capitalism and the catastrophic consequences that inevitably occur: at a glance, that book ignores the role the US played in these country's downfalls, particularly in south and central america. why is the US so afraid of a different system that they interfere with cuba and venezuela — i thought capitalism was the greatest system and could never be beat? oh that's right, it needs to kill any dissent in order to survive. do you ever consider all of the suffering that the US inflicts on other countries in the name of freedom and capitalism, to this very day, happening right this very minute? it's true, the USSR created a lot of suffering, but looking at the chapter intros, that book doesn't seem to consider the contribution of the authoritarian governments had in the suffering. instead it blames the economic system. nor does it cover the diversity of political opinion that led to the establishment of the USSR, most of which was quickly silenced (aka executed). imo, the USSR's problems were much like what's happening in the developed capitalist countries right now. american capitalism is a centralized economy controlled by few people with the power of the government, just like the USSR. i'm not talking about small business here, i'm talking about corporate capitalism that controls the federal government and all of the commerce, what we eat, where we get our energy, etc. very centralized. (aside, wouldn't it be amazing if the small businesses had as much power?) and regardless of how you define the USSR's economic system (an authoritarian government can never be socialist, as socialism is a democratic system by definition), we can agree that the USSR was not capitalism, yet it's responsible for some of the technological gains of the 20th century. capitalist dogma lead us to believe that the 20th century changes were only because of capitalism, but that's simply untrue. if capitalism is responsible for all of the technological changes, then how were the soviets able to reach space first? lastly, neoliberal propaganda from the world economic forum isn't a good source for an argument imo. and who said that socialism is the only alternative? regardless, your sources conveniently ignore countries with democratic socialism that are thriving. (queue: "tHaT'S nOt SoCiAlIsM!!!!" arguments...)

andrewstuart 2y ago

It's the socialism for the rich that ruins it. Tax breaks for property investors, tax incentives for property developers, handing large swatches of public owned land over the mates of the politicians for virtually nothing, selling houses to foreign buyers, selling houses to global money laundering criminal. All to pump up the value of the housing portfolios owned by the politicians. Whenever anyone says "let the market sort it out" I cheer and say "finally, the rich will stop getting their socialist handouts". If that is your capitalist market economics then you might need to rethink how pure it is.

rokkitmensch 2y ago
People love to blame "capitalism" because they've never learned about "regulatory capture". There's a missing perspective on the global governance bodies, that everything is born, matures, ossifies, is outcompeted, and dies. Alligators and cockroaches perhaps the exception, but are those models for a life well lived?
- toastercat 2y ago
  To be fair, people blame "socialism", and "communism" for similar reasons.
  - rokkitmensch 2y ago
    To be fair (to be faairrrrr), Communism's embedded contradictions flamed it out significantly faster than capitalisms has.
    - toastercat 2y ago
      To be fair, (to be faaaaiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrr) that's besides the point, and every successful capitalist nation routinely contradicts free-market principles anyway.

greenie_beans 2y ago

prove that it's a fact? you aren't making a convincing case.

alchemist1e9 2y ago
Speech worth fully listening to: https://youtu.be/h8s_z-jaexk https://youtu.be/h8s_z-jaexk And also we can look at the cases where collectivism replaces capitalism and the catastrophic consequences that inevitably occur: https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never-dies/ https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-th...
- greenie_beans 2y ago
  i'll check out and will consider it in good faith, thanks for sharing. my knee jerk reaction: > And also we can look at the cases where collectivism replaces capitalism and the catastrophic consequences that inevitably occur: at a glance, that book ignores the role the US played in these country's downfalls, particularly in south and central america. why is the US so afraid of a different system that they interfere with cuba and venezuela — i thought capitalism was the greatest system and could never be beat? oh that's right, it needs to kill any dissent in order to survive. do you ever consider all of the suffering that the US inflicts on other countries in the name of freedom and capitalism, to this very day, happening right this very minute? it's true, the USSR created a lot of suffering, but looking at the chapter intros, that book doesn't seem to consider the contribution of the authoritarian governments had in the suffering. instead it blames the economic system. nor does it cover the diversity of political opinion that led to the establishment of the USSR, most of which was quickly silenced (aka executed). imo, the USSR's problems were much like what's happening in the developed capitalist countries right now. american capitalism is a centralized economy controlled by few people with the power of the government, just like the USSR. i'm not talking about small business here, i'm talking about corporate capitalism that controls the federal government and all of the commerce, what we eat, where we get our energy, etc. very centralized. (aside, wouldn't it be amazing if the small businesses had as much power?) and regardless of how you define the USSR's economic system (an authoritarian government can never be socialist, as socialism is a democratic system by definition), we can agree that the USSR was not capitalism, yet it's responsible for some of the technological gains of the 20th century. capitalist dogma lead us to believe that the 20th century changes were only because of capitalism, but that's simply untrue. if capitalism is responsible for all of the technological changes, then how were the soviets able to reach space first? lastly, neoliberal propaganda from the world economic forum isn't a good source for an argument imo. and who said that socialism is the only alternative? regardless, your sources conveniently ignore countries with democratic socialism that are thriving. (queue: "tHaT'S nOt SoCiAlIsM!!!!" arguments...)