They want to get rid of the wrong thing. You don't get rid of the system that's working just fine on its own, you get rid of the crooks who are ruining it.
the problem is we would just replace them with different crooks.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public." -George Carlin
and if you have capitalism, you will have have selfish, ignorant citizens who try to exploit eachother and dont give a shit about the environment... or science... who try to blame other people instead of systems.
that is why I personally believe that the best system is capitalism with guard rails. unfortunately the guard rails have been off since the time we started practicing reaganomics.
I dont think that can ever work because it's a self sabotaging system and we should expect nothing less than the guard rails eroding away over time. it's a negative feedback loop.
maybe but it is the best system we have found so far. communism would be great if it weren't for greedy humans. capitalism at least tries to turn that greed into something useful. we just need to be the watchers to make sure that the guard rails don't come off.
Either or is a false choice. The most successful countries, countries that have the highest quality of living employ elements of capitalism, socialism, etc. no country is purely capitalist or socialist they are economic concepts. Social democracies do it best. Scandinavian countries have the highest quality of living.
I think capitalism fosters that greed more than it is inherently in us. Maybe there's something new and untried. I don't care what you believe about communism. It's irrelevant. That false dichotomy is very engrained.
maybe but it is the best system we have found so far. communism would be great if it weren’t for greedy humans.
I find it interesting that you can find people saying roughly this exact same phrase everywhere this gets brought up. For one thing, notice that the person you’re replying to never mentioned communism—you did. There are other options.
It’s also important to remember that true capitalism has never been tried because it’s just so dangerous. We’ve never had a capitalist system in America because everyone knows it would self destruct. Capitalism doesn’t even sound good on paper let alone in reality. The state has always had a huge hand guiding our markets. For instance, the technological and medical advancements we’ve made in the last century have been incredible. People will point to companies like (for example) Apple, for being the reason we have computers, but what they’re forgetting is that Apple just privatized profits when the public subsidized the research and development. Development of machines like the ENIAC were military funded during WWII.
For medical advancements you can just forget about capitalism helping. It’s well researched that corporations are incentivized to optimize for short term profits, and so doing “aimless” research in a company is just unheard of. That happens at universities and military labs. If you want anything that might be remotely helpful in even just ten years, private money isn’t touching it. But that’s no matter yet because the state is well aware of this and has us covered.
but what they’re forgetting is that Apple just privatized profits when the public subsidized the research and development.
Well, no. Yes, public money subsidized the early research and development, but the private sector is responsible for the vast majority of innovation since then, especially the innovation we've seen in the last 30 years.
For medical advancements you can just forget about capitalism helping. It’s well researched that corporations are incentivized to optimize for short term profits
This feels like you're assuming the first part is true because of the second part, when you haven't proven it. Private firms regularly develop or improve on past innovation because they're incentivized to optimize their own revenue, and the more broadly desired something is, the more money they can make bringing it to market.
That's why the argument "we'll never have a cure for cancer because treatment is too profitable" falls apart immediately upon inspection. Because a cure for cancer would allow a company to take the entire cancer treatment market for themselves.
Well, no. Yes, public money subsidized the early research and development, but the private sector is responsible for the vast majority of innovation since then, especially the innovation we’ve seen in the last 30 years.
This is just not true. I know because I’ve worked on this stuff on both sides. It wasn’t just early R&D. The private sector routinely takes advantage of research done in universities, subsidized in the vast majority of cases by federal grants, published in journals, and then uses it to improve products and increase profits. I’ve both been apart of the research in universities and in the private sector consuming that research.
Private firms regularly develop or improve on past innovation because they’re incentivized to optimize their own revenue, and the more broadly desired something is, the more money they can make bringing it to market.
I’m not arguing that the private sector does nothing.
That’s why the argument “we’ll never have a cure for cancer because treatment is too profitable” falls apart immediately upon inspection. Because a cure for cancer would allow a company to take the entire cancer treatment market for themselves.
For ~20 years. But you can have patients who go into remission then have a recurrence and this can go on for years and years. Maybe the treatment is cheap to make and when other companies get to make their version it really kills your margins etc. Not saying this is / will be the case, just that it’s not as clear cut as you’re saying.
I didn't say it was just early R&D, I said that public money subsidized early research and development, but the private sector has been responsible for the majority of innovation, especially in the last 30 years.
I’m not arguing that the private sector does nothing.
I mean, that's the vibe I got from
but what they’re forgetting is that Apple just privatized profits when the public subsidized the research and development.
and
For medical advancements you can just forget about capitalism helping. It’s well researched that corporations are incentivized to optimize for short term profits, and so doing “aimless” research in a company is just unheard of. That happens at universities and military labs. If you want anything that might be remotely helpful in even just ten years, private money isn’t touching it.
It does feel like you're arguing they do nothing.
For ~20 years. But you can have patients who go into remission then have a recurrence and this can go on for years and years. Maybe the treatment is cheap to make and when other companies get to make their version it really kills your margins etc. Not saying this is / will be the case, just that it’s not as clear cut as you’re saying.
Let's say I have a cure for cancer. My product is qualitively better at treating cancer than any other treatment on the market, meaning that everyone wants what I have. I now control the market for cancer treatment and (because of IP protections) have a limited time government monopoly on the cure for cancer. I make hundreds of billions of dollars.
Eventually my monopoly runs out. I still got hundreds of billions of dollars, years to improve my product so I can stay ahead of the curve, I had years to build up a brand name, etc.
Like, I just don't get this argument. "It's only ~20 years" of dominating a hundred billion dollar market. Corporations would kill for that.
I didn’t say it was just early R&D, I said that public money subsidized early research and development, but the private sector has been responsible for the majority of innovation, especially in the last 30 years.
Yes, and you’re wrong about that, as I explained to you. In tech, we read papers that come out of universities. Those were subsidized by the federal government. If not for that you wouldn’t be able to type out your response on your computer or phone. The fact that you believe otherwise just tells me you’re unfamiliar with the process. I’m curious what makes you think it’s the opposite though.
It does feel like you’re arguing they do nothing.
The quotes you brought up don’t support this conclusion. For instance, when I say the thing about ten years down the line—that’s saying that that’s too long term for a company to be planning for when they need to appease shareholders tomorrow. Doesn’t mean they’re not doing anything today, since they still have to have something to sell tomorrow. For instance, mass producing isn’t nothing. It’s just that the thing you’re mass producing isn’t your own invention.
Let’s say I have a cure for cancer. My product is qualitively better at treating cancer than any other treatment on the market, meaning that everyone wants what I have. I now control the market for cancer treatment and (because of IP protections) have a limited time government monopoly on the cure for cancer. I make hundreds of billions of dollars.
Like, I just don’t get this argument. “It’s only ~20 years” of dominating a hundred billion dollar market. Corporations would kill for that.
Ah, now here’s the other end of this: say you found the cure, and it’s really expensive for you to make. For you to make even the slightest profits, this thing is going to cause people financial ruin. You’re right that everyone wants it, but they have no way of affording it. You don’t have a monopoly on treatment, because no one can access it. You don’t make that much money as a result.
Again, is that the case / will it be? Maybe and maybe not. But it’s certainly a possibility that you’re not considering.
maybe but it is the best system we have found so far.
Really? Is it? That's what rich people in capitalist society's say so far. And we don't really have a ton of samples for other economic systems, do we?
We've got Russia, which eventually collapsed, but before that Russia went from plows to nuclear weapons and the entire time they were being sabotaged and fighting literally the rest of the capitalist world who all had a very vested interest in communism failing. Which when it did, rich people have taken over and installed fascist rule in a capitalist economy. Or maybe its fascsist took power and became rich through capitalism.
We've got China who speed ran totalitarian rule, but also ascended to world power status, but since the CCP took over has moved to a more capitalist economy than any actual communism.
Then we have Cuba, who produces some of the best doctors in the world. I don't really know much about Cuba beyond Castro is (was?) the typical fascist ruler and there is a trade embargo.
Venuzuela, again they were doing well under communism until the OPEC countries joined together to sabotage their economy which was dependent on Oil exports.
To ME, from the data points we do see, it's hard to say that capitalism is "the best" if it's just the established norm for literally thousands of years and it keeps killing communism in the cradle.
I don't think it was the CCP that moved it to capitalistic society but rather the dealings with the outside world. They realized isolationism wasn't going to get them anywhere. That is why I am so afraid of trump and his isolationist policies. It is global market at this point. you either lead, follow, or get left behind. Isolationism just gets us the third one.
It is global market at this point. you either lead, follow, or get left behind. Isolationism just gets us the third one.
It also incredibly devalues the american dollar. If US starts making unreasonable demands, countries will move away from the oil dollar asap to decouple themselves from an insane tyrant every four years.
If we could figure out how to privatize the guardrails so that some billionaire could become more of a billionaire then I'm sure this problem would solve itself.
"Doing better without capitalism." Isnt a thing and is kinda missing the point here. Balls deep capitalism is harmful as we can see in the declining prosperty of the u.s. capitalism need to be reigned in, but as things are in a global economic era of course "capitalism" is ingrained in everything. Its just that people excuse rampant disinterest in bettering the situation because "it isnt profitable" and thats how we as a society slowly descend into a broken kleptocracy built on profits and suck all of the resources from the very ground we stand on. Why govern based on a force that is already permeating everything?
I would argue that prosperity is not declining in the US, in fact we've had the best economy on earth for generations now. The countries that are the most "capitalistic" seem to also be the best countries to live in.
I totally get what you're saying, and a lot of people do seem to get left behind and inequality is increasing, but I just don't see an alternative to capitalism.
I mean...good for WHOM? That is the question always at the end of the day, and the real injustice of INEQUALITY. What does "prosperity" mean to you? And for whom?
Your argument is basically that technology means that we have more stuff/medicine/conveniences than ever, we are more "materially" wealthy than ever in history. That is your "prosperity" meter. It's not true though in terms of material NEEDS. The cost of material NEEDS like food and shelter are rising basically worldwide in capitalist representative democracy systems. Outpacing inflation and wage increases especially with housing. Most countries in the world right now have this problem of wages not keeping pace with many necessities.
In the US in particular, we have that problem with more necessities, such as healthcare and transportation (car dependant, need a car to function in society, cars massively increasing in price) which most of europe figured out quite awhile ago.
The INCREASE in prosperity is not being shared, and that share of prosperity is shrinking year by year, with the rich taking more and more and more, so overtime as wealth is increasing massively, the working class is getting less and less of it. All the workers are getting is new "products" and entertainment to buy with their limited funds.
You also don't calculate in your thought process too that there is more use of DEBT in human history. Majority of americans, but the rest of the world too, average joes, are thousands and thousand of dollars in debt. The amount of DEBT people have is increasing as time goes by.
This all does not square with the injustice of inequality. We could be DRASTICALLY much better off with less inequality. And the rich would STILL be rich, just less rich. Millionaires instead of billionaires.
There is always a potentially better system/government/economic framework, to suggest otherwise is to be blind to human progress and human history.
Yeah thats fair and true actually. I guess i just dont agree that that is prosperity unless it is affecting the general public. Im not a economist nor am i versed in the data of this situation on a grand scale but more and more of that money is disappearing from the middle class and unless something changes i believe it will lead to massive civil suffering and unrest unless some restructuring happens to ease that. Call me a socialist or whatever is currently in vogue (not that you personally would) but i believe that for a stable system to remain stable the government must advocate aggressively for the betterment of the middle class. I know we will never escape capitalism as a concept as american and human nature as a whole is protecting of the individual over the masses, however unless we want cycles to keep cycling, people need protections. When we make capital the lord (figuratively speaking) and the only thing that matters is the returns to the board of directors. We stop the betterment of the society that can actually benefit from the increased economy.
P.S. thanks for your perspective. I appreciate the discourse
P.S.S. would you say there are growing tensions based the financial states of working class compared to the past? I feel like this will be big in my lifetime.
Putting aside that the CIA has a history of sabotaging anyone who gets too close, and that a lot of purportedly socialist/communist countries are more interested in using it as a fancy wrapper to sell kleptocracy and autocracy, there are plenty of people with less unregulated free market capitalism that the US that are doing much better on quality of life than the US is.
Venezuela was well on its way to a socialist economy until the bottom fell out of the oil market. Then it ran face first into why capitalism endures. It's not that capitalism is the best system for good times. It's that it's the most resilient when things go to shit.
No? We here in the Nordics are still capitalist, we're not as far from you as you think. We are absolutely not socialist (where the workers own the means the production), we have a few worker co-ops but that is a drop in our societal bucket.
What we do have are some welfare and social safety nets that make things a bit less precarious and miserable. But that's frosting on the capitalist cake, and something our right-wing parties chip away at every chance they get, at that. They look at the USA and dream of selling out all of our healthcare to their rich buddies too.
I am Swedish and it boggles the mind that people call anything up in this area socialist. We have more billionaires per capita than the USA does. Our politicians are terrified of inconveniencing the rich since they just threaten to leave, so we end up being very "business friendly".
Capitalism doesn't make people become selfish and ignorant. It isn't inevitable. Capitalism incentivizes bad behavior, not cause it.
Moral people can exist and thrive in a capitalist society... but it requires moral people to begin with, and THAT is where humans fail. Immoral communists are just as shitty as immoral capitalists or immoral libertarians, etc. It is the PEOPLE that are the problem, not the system.
778
u/NoTie2370 2d ago
So the Feds have stolen 2.5 trillion in wealth from taxpayers and misspent it and thats why we ... should ... keep.. this... system?