/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.954858]

How can someone actually argue that capitalism is a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.954866]

>>954858
Cause Bernie is the shit

[Anonymous No.954873]

>infinite growth
>finite planet

[Anonymous No.954875]

>>954858

Envy of the parasites.

>>954873

If we had unrestrained capitalism rather than this watered down quasi-socialist shit our technology would be advancing so fast we'd have multiple planets by now.

[Anonymous No.954879]

>>954875
>we'd have multiple planets
>all efforts for space exploration thus far have been government subsidized
>space exploration isnt profitable in the foreseeable future

if we had unrestrained capitalism we would all be working for literally 0 wage to support the 10%, we would be the modern day equivalent of black slaves and/or medieval peasant dirt farmers

[Anonymous No.954881]

Capitalism favors winners, socialism, losers.

Everyone wants to leech, no one wants to provide. But in order for there to be leeching there must be a provider.

[Anonymous No.954882]

>>954858
When your life sucks and you're a failure it's easier to complain about >muh capitalism and >muh greed than better yourself. Now, that's not to say that unbridled greed isn't a problem--it is--but when it's edgy socialists/commies whining, the problem isn't capitalists' greed but their own indolence.

[Anonymous No.954884]

>>954879
How is working equal to slavery exactly? No one forces you to work, starve if you want. But this earth owes you nothing and there is no handouts.

[Anonymous No.954885]

>>954879
>if we had unrestrained capitalism we would all be working for literally 0 wage

Why do you try to discuss topics which you clearly don't understand? Literally nothing in your post is true.

[Anonymous No.954887]

It just seems that it comes down to differing ideas about the role of the individual in society and what a company is for.

Capitalism: a person takes care of himself, and a company is made for a purpose (I make roads! I make computers!)
Socialism: a person provides for others (?) and a company is there to provide jobs.

I just don't really see how socialism can be considered a legit alternative. Like, yeah destroying the environment sucks. I like backpacking. So cool: EPA. And fraud and corruption sucks. So cool: SEC and such. Also, police and military or whatever else. But just like most all the banks are just filled with people working REALLY FUCKING HARD, and aren't just all corrupt thieves, companies like Walmart exist in the space between customer wants and government regulations. Change the regulations, change the customer wants, and boom, the system adapts. There's no moralizing or anything else necessary -- why call Walmart an evil company? Wtf, how is that even a thing that people consider?

I can't just say "I think polar bears should die" and expect everyone else in the country to help pay for that because goddamnit they should die. I mean, that's just crazy. How can someone logically believe in the gib me dats?

[Anonymous No.954895]

>>954884
retarded
>>954885
retarded
>>954875
retarded


Jesus, I thought I was a right winger, but you guys are in another dimension.

At what point does economics fail to teach beyond theory in your curriculum?

[Anonymous No.954899]

>>954887
>How can someone logically believe in the gib me dats?


They're illogical, that's why.

They interject their opinions and angst into the public sphere based on muh feels and other delusional sources.

That's why you can't engage them. Some may see the light, but you're probably best trying to gently guide them towards utility, if they're your prospective workers.

[Anonymous No.954900]

>>954895
Cool, but we're trying to have an intelligent conversation here and I'd recommend eliminating the name calling. Are you going to contribute anything substantive to the discussion?

[Anonymous No.954901]

>>954895
Nice argument.

Calling people retarded instead of refuting is very good debate skills.

[Anonymous No.954903]

>>954884
>>954885

real wage will fall to levels at below the market clearing wage due to 'sticky' wagies
people will either choose not to work or will attempt to unionize radically -> both of which can lead to market failure.

either that or unregulated corporations will become insanely powerful, monopolies will develop as firms eventually buy eachover out in particular industries, (at which point capitalism seizes to function). due to the falling real wage, supply of labor falls, at which point corporations become modern day equivalent of plantation owners, capturing them and forcing them to work to keep up with demand. (there is no reason they wouldnt be able too if we had 'unrestrained' capitalism with no government intervention)

eventually firms will become more powerful than government institutions.

[Anonymous No.954905]

>>954903
excuse spelling english is not my mother tounge

[Anonymous No.954906]

>>954901
>>954900
Oh my bad. I didn't realize you both were actually trying to base a discussion on

>we'd have planets
When there's no value in space travel
>unrestricted capitalism is never not evil
When the pre-industrial revolution era of labor abuse was the norm.

[Anonymous No.954908]

>>954906
so glad not everyone on this board is from /pol/

you dont have to be a fucking moron to be right winged

[Anonymous No.954911]

>>954903
>real wage will fall to levels at below the market clearing wage due to 'sticky' wagies
What mechanism would cause declining wages?

>>954906
>unrestricted capitalism is never not evil
I don't know about other posters but I never argued that and in fact admitted in my first post that uncurbed greed/capitalism is a problem. Nicely built straw man, though.

[Anonymous No.954914]

>>954903
>real wage will fall to levels at below the market clearing wage due to 'sticky' wagies
What mechanism would cause declining wages?

>>954906
>unrestricted capitalism is never not evil
I don't know about other posters but I admitted in my first post that uncurbed greed/capitalism is a problem. Nicely built straw man, though.

[Anonymous No.954915]

>>954911
currently wages are above the market clearing price, thts why they want to drop the minimum wage in the US, naturally as inflation increases, firms will be reluctant to give pay rises to their employees every year to match inflation especially in unregulated capitalism. (the only reason they do currently is because of the government maintaining a minimum wage.)

do you even basic macro-economics bro?

[Anonymous No.954916]

>>954915
>>954914

[Anonymous No.954917]

capitalism lacks recursion

the wealth gap, for instance, does eventually cause more harm than good and there is no mechanism to compensate for this. The markets climb relentlessly until they don't, and no one knows when this reversal will occur, yet they were previously ostensibly correct in their bullishness.

Economics in general does not represent reality well because people are like a flock of birds and they can change direction quickly and unpredictably. Economics is also blind to that which it cannot factor or include.

[Anonymous No.954919]

>>954914
>>954885
>>if we had unrestrained capitalism we would all be working for literally 0 wage

Was obvious hyperbole

Which you countered with

>Why do you try to discuss topics which you clearly don't understand? Literally nothing in your post is true.

Then contradicted with:

> Now, that's not to say that unbridled greed isn't a problem--it is--

So you were misleading to me, but at the very least we can agree on the last point.

[Anonymous No.954928]

>>954915
This entire post is pseudo-intellectual economic mumbo-jumbo.

>currently wages are above the market clearing price, thts why they want to drop the minimum wage in the US
This is hardly true. Only a small fraction of workers make minimum wage. For most occupations wages are set not by price floors but by the market.

>naturally as inflation increases, firms will be reluctant to give pay rises to their employees every year to match inflation especially in unregulated capitalism.
There's nothing "natural" about what you're saying. In a growing economy most workers receive nominal pay raises every year. And at least in the US, real wages have not been falling over the last 20 years but have kept in line with inflation.

>(the only reason they do currently is because of the government maintaining a minimum wage.)
Again, this is patently false. The vast majority of people make over minimum wage where wages are determined by firms and workers in a relatively free market and not by a price floor.

>do you even basic macro-economics bro?
Yes, I have a BA Economics.

[Anonymous No.954934]

>>954928
t. american version of economics
yes, i am an undergrad but i like to think I have a good idea

[Anonymous No.954937]

>>954875
You seem to unaware of the social climate surrounding world class scientists. For the most part they couldn't care less about financial gain. In fact literally all the greatest scientists that I can think of have voluntarily given up fortunes in favor of science. E.g.(in recent history) Kurt Godel, Alexander Grothendiek, Saul Kripke, Alfred Tarski, Girgori Perelman, etc. could all easily have gotten at least decent jobs making a few mil year if they wanted to, but instead they were all literally upper-middle class at best.

I live in the Balt/DC metropolitain area, and therefore I live in an area filled with both world-class scientists and fuck loads of millionaires (I live in range of both UMD and Johns Hopkins and DC). Living here you naturally run into prominent people in science. I personally know an Engineer who works for NASA who is the director of his department and MD working for Johns Hopkins who does groundbreaking medical research, goes to conferences, publishes in journals, etc. Both of them make right around 200k a year. (I've also run into other people, including a Noble laureate in physics as well as mathematicians, biologists, etc., almost all of whom have little financial ambition, so to speak).

Moreover, the scientists making 200k a year are the smart ones. The "stupid" ones end up becoming accountants or physicians or computer programmers and can easily make millions per year in this area, especially if they own their own business.

Money provides little motivation for scientists.

Not only that, but extraterrestrial travel provides little incentive for capitalists, since its not likely to produce any immediate economic gains. It would simply be a waste for any company to pursue large-scale space-exploration for financial gain. The only monetarily rewarding form of space-travel-business (for lack of a better phrase) would be short-term, small-scale flights for recreational purposes.

In short, what you say holds little weight.

[Anonymous No.954938]

>>954919
>Was obvious hyperbole
It's not obvious. It's only obvious hyperbole if we accept the assumption that the poster doesn't understand the true meaning of "literally", in which case what's the point of attempting a reasonable discussion?

[Anonymous No.954940]

>>954928
>>954934
at the very least can we agree that minimum wage earners would be payed significantly less than current living standards would allow? do you not think an unregulated profit maximising institution would take advantage of slavery if it were an option (and it would be if it was completely unregulated)

[Anonymous No.954943]

>>954934
Though it's certainly not flawless, American economics seems to have worked pretty damn well. What country are you from?

>>954940
>at the very least can we agree that minimum wage earners would be payed significantly less than current living standards would allow?
I agree, and this is why I'm an advocate for a negative income tax.

>do you not think an unregulated profit maximising institution would take advantage of slavery if it were an option (and it would be if it was completely unregulated)
They would take advantage of slavery, I agree.

[Anonymous No.954947]

Because capitalism is a perversion of free and competitive markets, where it's all dominated by the rich and powerful, just like Stalinism is a perversion of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.954949]

>>954943
I live in Australia permanently, I dont want to name where im from.

Muh average real wage
Muh Human development index

please no bully

[Anonymous No.954953]

>>954949
>>954943
what does 'murican 'conomist think of this?

[Anonymous No.954957]

>>954943
also, so you are an advocate for slavery then?

[Anonymous No.954958]

>>954858
I'm not one of those manbun-wearing faggots who hands out fliers at Occupy Wallstreet but...

Because of capitalism we eat food that isn't really food. Food companies replace flour with sawdust (cellulose) because it's cheaper than flour and good for profits. They replace sugar with high fructose corn syrup because even though it causes liver damage, bottom line is it's cheaper and good for business. It's the reason why Americans are fat, and the reason why you can't pronounce half the ingredients in your bouritto.

Because of capitalism we have bankers crashing the economy but getting off scot-free because they have all the money to bribe the right people, while police officers shut down little kids' lemonade stands because they don't have a business permit.

Because of capitalism we have a pharmaceutical industry that only cares in curing diseases if there's a profit to be made-- or worse yet, you can't sell drugs to healthy people, so it's better for business to keep people sick or give them ineffective medicine so they have to keep buying more.

Capitalism is the reason why jobs get outsourced to India, and when they start demanding too much money, get outsourced again to a different country. It's bad for employment rates in the motherland, but it's good for profits.

Capitalism can get pretty nightmarish once you reach the tipping point where it's more profitable for everyone to get fucked in the ass.

[Anonymous No.954962]

>>954958
this

unregulated capitalism does not to into account cost to society. please american BA neoclassical economics, tell me why its wrong.

[Anonymous No.954965]

>>954943
>nominal gdp
are you sure your an economics grad brah?


sorry for post spam, i just cant stop thinking about it now....

[Anonymous No.954969]

>>954858
In the early stages of capitalism you would work 15 hours a day Monday-Saturday and 8 hours on Sunday. Hundreds sharing 1 toilet. Dozens sharing one bedroom. The average life expectancy went DOWN in capitalism. That's why capitalism is bad.

You only enjoy the "benefits" of capitalism because of the rise of socialism (trade unions, councils, workers movements etc.). Without socialism, you wouldn't have a pot to piss in. You don't realise why you are actually privileged. This is because you have no clue about the history of capitalism and erroneously assume that capital wants to voluntarily shares it's profits with labour.

[Anonymous No.954971]

>>954875
>If we had unrestrained capitalism rather than this watered down quasi-socialist shit our technology would be advancing so fast we'd have multiple planets by now.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Literally all technological innovation is done through the state, mostly through defense spending. The "market" just repackages up shit the taxpayers paid for and sells it to the taxpayers for huge profits. By itself, the market could never ever afford to spend trillions on R&D like the Pentagon.

[Anonymous No.954972]

>>954953
Real GDP fell during the financial crisis and has been slow to accelerate during the recovery. What point are you trying to make?

>>954957
>also, so you are an advocate for slavery then?
No, and I don't understand how you inferred this. Literally nothing I've posted could be construed as support for slavery.

>>954965
>are you sure your an economics grad brah?
Yes. Again, what point are you trying to make? The posting of various graphs, data sets and snarky comments does not constitute a compelling or clear argument.

[Anonymous No.954975]

>>954885
That's right. In unrestrained capitalist, capital just says "Hey, let's give our workers a big portion of the profits because in our heart it seems like the right thing to do".

Go look at the countries in the world today without worker movements. They work in sweat shops for nothing. That would be your life too under unrestrained capitalism.

Useful idiot.

[Anonymous No.954976]

>>954958

You don't understand markets.

>Food companies replace flour with sawdust (cellulose) because it's cheaper than flour and good for profits. They replace sugar with high fructose corn syrup because even though it causes liver damage, bottom line is it's cheaper and good for business.

Wrong, wrong. They do it because:
THAT'S
WHAT
PEOPLE
WANT

People WANT cheap shit. Real sugar is still available to buy. Real flour is still out there. Go buy it. Let the suckers buy the cheap shit and get liver damage.

If anything is 'immoral' about capitalism it's that it createst an environment where the fittest thrive, and the unfit flounder. Maybe the unfit don't like that, but it's good for a society overall.

[Anonymous No.954980]

>>954972
>america, uk and japan performing poorly in comparison with other economies as far as real wage is considered up to 2011
>american economisits MUST be doing something right!

>They would take advantage of slavery, I agree.
>suggests you are for slavery not against it given your argument is for a unregulated capitalist position

>using nominal data instead of real data
>doesnt see problem with this

you know im beginning to think you arnt a economics graduate at all...

[Anonymous No.954983]

>>954928
>this whole post

>I have a BA Economics.
Well that would explain your derision for the real world.

[Anonymous No.954993]

>>954958
>>954962

It's funny, seems like you guys just skipped the details when learning about economics from Wikipedia. Pure capitalism requires efficient markets. Efficient markets must, by definition, have all players operating under the same information.

If a company is putting sawdust in their products and nobody knows, then that is not an efficient market. If everyone knew, they would spend their money differently.

It is true the world is getting more complex, so an argument can be made that we need the FDA to regulate the food industry, but the world getting more complex in itself is not a valid complaint against capitalism. Many "healthy organic" companies are doing great by labeling themselves as such.

I also like how >>954958 got so damn close to pointing out an actual, real, despicable flaw of capitalism, but he ended up just shy of hitting the mark. India was the right direction, but you just aren't educated enough to finish the thought. It starts with a "B" if you want to try and figure it out. Also, maybe you should go back to school and do something with your passion instead of just using it just to pretend that you're smart

[Anonymous No.954996]

>>954980
>>america, uk and japan performing poorly in comparison with other economies as far as real wage is considered up to 2011
You seriously think the performance of an economy over 5 years, particularly when those 5 years included a severe recession, is indicative of the overall long-run strength of an economy? Get the fuck out of here.

>suggests you are for slavery not against it given your argument is for a unregulated capitalist position
I never argued for unregulated capitalism you dingus. You seem to be conflating a market-leaning mixed economy with unregulated capitalism. The two are not the same. Work on your reading comprehension.

>>954983
How does that graph invalidate anything I stated?
Protip: it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.955028]

>>954996
>pro tip it doesnt
how doesnt it?

[Anonymous No.955029]

>>954993
A complaint against capitalism, then, would be that because markets are not efficient, capitalism is arguably ineffective.

For some reason the nerds in economics are different from those in science or maths - they're much more 'survival of the fittest', more bloodthirsty, more elitist. They get this inflated belief that they know how the world works, they're right, wealth is the only imperative.


As far as capitalism goes, I'd say it was useful for a while to build industries, but society has advanced beyond need for it (in a pure, or even at its current, form). It no longer ensures the best quality of life for society as a whole. We're finding out about the dark side of it and all the econ nerds who wank over their shekels can say is 'muh free market' and 'Darwin'.
It doesn't account for common good and will hold back automation. The last point seems counterintuitive, but it isn't. Sure, there will be an initial rush to automation as soon as it becomes feasible for industries, but once the workers are gone the majority of people will starve because the company's won't give out money for free. Maybe the world is a little populated at the moment, but fuck it if the survivors of automation are the upper crust.

[Anonymous No.955038]

>>955028
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension aussiebro.

>>955029
>Sure, there will be an initial rush to automation as soon as it becomes feasible for industries, but once the workers are gone the majority of people will starve because the company's won't give out money for free.
This has been the de rigueur siren of the Luddites for over 200 years and it still hasn't happened. Automation will destroy jobs, yes, but it will create jobs too.

[Anonymous No.955039]

>>955038
god damn you neoclassics are ridiculous.

>'you need to brush up on reading comprehension' =/= providing a solid case for an argument.

[Anonymous No.955040]

>>955029

Most markets are efficient enough, just like how the simplified formulas for Newton's Laws of Motion are generally accepted as "efficient enough" when you're not modeling objects moving near the speed of light. Me pointing out that those examples were shit doesn't open the door for you to just say "I'm right haha!"

Funny though, that you don't seem to know what "markets" refer to, as you extrapolated a statement against one specific market and applied it to all of them. How do you fools even get the gall to post on a business board with no business education?

[Anonymous No.955042]

>>955039
You must be trolling right now. I asked how this graph >>954983 had invalidated ANYTHING that I've stated in this thread. You refuse to answer me because that graph has literally invalidated NOTHING that I've said.

Fuck off troll.

[Anonymous No.955043]

>>>955029
why do you feel the need to be so arrogant?
> "muh education"

[Anonymous No.955045]

>>955042
>using meme arguments to deflect points you know you cant win

[Anonymous No.955048]

>>955045
Again, you're refusing to answer, because you know you're wrong. Why don't you sit down like a good boy and do your econ homework? Maybe you'll actually learn something.

[Anonymous No.955050]

>>955048
and you are also refusing to answer, i didnt even post the graph, but your refusal to explain your opinion makes you sound like a fucking moron so im pushing it.

[Anonymous No.955053]

>>955050
I don't even know what you're trying to prove. I acknowledged the graph in >>954928
BEFORE the graph was even posted. Do I have to fucking spell out the precise sentence for you?
>And at least in the US, real wages have not been falling over the last 20 years but have kept in line with inflation.
You're acting like you've made some argument-winning point, and that I'm not responding, when literally I made the same point first.

Reading comprehension. Work on it.

[Anonymous No.955058]

>>955050
>but your refusal to explain your opinion makes you sound like a fucking moron so im pushing it.
I explained the fact--not opinion--that real wages have kept in line with inflation before the graph was even posted. If you had a modicum of reading comprehension ability, you would have realized this.

[Anonymous No.955062]

>>955050
>>955045
>>955039
>>955028

At this point I don't even think you're a troll; I think you're genuinely a moron.

[Anonymous No.955063]

>>955058
dude, you have some pretty advanced autism there.
check the graph. it is not ment as a comparison of wages to inflation, rather comparison of wages and productivity.

while productivity has increased steadily since WW2 era, real wages seem to have flattened out since the early 70's in the lead up too the modern era.

ok now that you understand the contents of the graph, have another try at analyzing it and please, take as long as you need.

>inb4 meme response because has no way of comprehending anything that goes against what his neoclassical education has taught.

[Anonymous No.955068]

>>955063
>check the graph. it is not ment as a comparison of wages to inflation, rather comparison of wages and productivity.
So a graph of real wages is not meant as a comparison of nominal wages to inflation? Okay....

>real wages seem to have flattened out since the early 70's in the lead up too the modern era.
I acknowledged this over an hour ago. Try reading for once.

>ok now that you understand the contents of the graph, have another try at analyzing it and please, take as long as you need.
Real wages haven't kept up with productivity over the last few decades. Perhaps we should increase the EITC or establish a better negative income tax, something that I, once again, argued for well over an hour ago.

Why are you in college? I think you'd be better suited for a trade.

[Anonymous No.955069]

>>955068
you are a walking meme. its a shame because I was enjoying discussing the topic before you came and memed it all up.

[Anonymous No.955070]

>>955069
This is a clear and compelling response. Do you even know what a meme is? Because I didn't even "meme" once.

[Anonymous No.955076]

>>955070
everything you say is a meme

[Anonymous No.955079]

>>955069
>its a shame because I was enjoying discussing the topic before you came and memed it all up.
>it's a shame because I was enjoying discussing the topic until some big bad meanie came and disagreed with me and my opinions!

>>955076
Keep crying, kid.

[Anonymous No.955080]

>>955079
heh nice meme BA Econ chan!

[Anonymous No.955087]

>>954943

Reagonomics cannot take credit for the American Superpower. Our entire system was built by Hamilton, then fucked in the 80's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

>American economics works great
>Let's contradict every tenet of it.
>Because I'm a conservative, which likes tradition.

[Anonymous No.955116]

How do you define "good" and why is what capitalism achieves considered to be "good"? Do we really need iPhones? Is being able to survive terminal diseases actually "good"? Why is reducing suffering good and at what costs?

[Anonymous No.955117]

>>954976
>THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT
You're wrong because people don't know what they want. That's why advertising exists, to tell people what they want. And they don't tell you that you want bourittos made of sawdust because they're cheap, they tell you to want them because "YOU'RE A HUNGRY MAN AND HUNGRY MEN EAT OUR MACHO BOURITTOS."

There are zero, and I mean absolutely fucking zero food commercials out there that actually advertise their food as having sawdust or partially dehydrated carbozibartonie gum because they know consumers would be scared away like they are with shmeat. They make money off the sheer ineptitude of people and try to cover up what they don't want you to know.

>Let the suckers buy the cheap shit and get liver damage.
Yeah, but then guess what happens when all these dumbasses have failing livers and need to be on dialysis for the rest of their life? I have to pay for their Obamacare. You have to pay for their Obamacare. We're facing an obesity epidemic right now, and the fatter people are the more their healthcare is going to cost, and we are going to be the ones who pay for it.

>>954993
You almost made an actual rebuttal there, but you got so upset that you just resorted to petty insults.

You say there are many "healthy organic" companies that are doing great, but in fact they're just preying on consumers. Look at nutella and pom wonderful, who outright lied about how healthy their products were. Capitalism doesn't support survival of the fittest, it's survival of the company who doesn't get caught lying their ass off.

[Anonymous No.955125]

>Haves
>Capitalism is good is because I have more stuff and I don't want you to have any of it. I deserve it because I got lucky.

>Have nots
>Capitalism is bad because you have all the stuff and I want some of it. I deserve it because I got unlucky.

People are self-serving pigs that will choose based on perspective. Arguments will always boil down to "this way benefits me" sprinkled with a bunch of cherry picked points to make ones stance seem just, logical and valid.

[Anonymous No.955141]

>>954858

Wealth inequity leads to elitism and aristocracy. In capitalistic systems hereditary wealth is passed from parents to children which grows with each generation to encompass more wealth and assets. Before the age of the internet extreme wealth was not possible within a single generation. It was built up generation after generation, just like hereditary rule in Feudal systems.

The issue with hereditary wealth, just like hereditary rule, is inbreeding. Like the kings and queens of France, England, Spain etc. in the middle ages, Nobles had small social circles and bred within those circles, often with close relatives, leading to inferior off-spring. In many cases noble families fell hard due to weakly bred children who couldn't maintain their position by the poor quality of their genes.

Wealthy families associate with each other and there is a real risk of inbreeding. Not because of lack of genetic material, but the social constructs built up around those families.

You could argue that capitalism is the very essence of natural selection. It is true that wealth and privilege, like environmental adaptations, are gifts passed on by previous generations which provide opportunity and a strengthening of the species, however the theory of natural selection does not take human systems into account.

Humans have surpassed the natural world - to a certain extent. As technology becomes more advanced the issue will only grow worse. Once genetic modification becomes wide-spread and cybernetics a day to day technology, the wealthy will acquire it first and the gap between humans and neo-humans will appear.

Add into that spacefaring technologies and human kind spreading into the stars, do you really want wealth and power centred on a select few to kind humanity into a new stage of evolution.

[Anonymous No.955197]

>>954858
Because infinite growth isn't possible on this planet. Though capitalism is still the best way to go right now.

[Anonymous No.955218]

>>954947

>Capitalism is a pervesion of free and competitive markets
>Stalinism was a perversion of marxism

Are people this stupid? Why do communists always twist history, meaning and ideology to fit their propaganda?

[Anonymous No.955225]

>>954858
Capitalism made since until the mid 70s. As productivity rose so did incomes. Real wages kept up with inflation and wealth was being earned by all classes of people.

Now today real wages have stagnated and have not kept up with inflation. The dream of working a regular 9-5 job and working a house which was the reality for baby boomers sounds like fantasy today. Earnings have fallen to a point where a small fraction of the economy is making all the money.

[Anonymous No.955244]

>>954928
>I have a BA in Economics

See, I very much doubt that

[Anonymous No.955245]

>>954976
>THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT
>PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO PERFECT INFORMATION

Ah yes, I remember being a delusional idiot like that. Oh wait, I don't.

[Anonymous No.955248]

>>954947
>Communism is a fantasy and would never work, and you're stupid for spending time thinking about it!
>Now let's discuss how theoretical markets with symmetrical information, no transaction costs, and purely rational players will save the world

I'm not even one of those bearded Marx spouting faggots, but wingnuts these days just keep getting dumber and more ignorant of the double-standards and doublethink in their arguments.

[Anonymous No.955568]

>>954975
>>954969
Why does capitalism automatically equal tyrannical monopoly in your minds? That seems rather silly. As an economic system, what then would be a better alternative to paying people for the value they provide?

[Anonymous No.955588]

>>955029
>society has advanced beyond need for [capitalism]
What? People don't need money anymore? I'm going to assume that's not what you mean, even though that's what you're saying. Rational ignorance and rational irrationality are very real things, and govern mass behavior.
>automation will result in a new aristocracy, and "once the workers are gone the majority of people will starve because the company's won't give out money for free"
I see you don't think that people are intelligent and able to provide for themselves. Companies don't exist to provide jobs to people, they exist for some particular purpose. The labor force, and the individuals who make it up, is flexible. If you free up the need for factory workers through automation, the factory workers aren't just sent to the glue factory and rendered down for raw materials. They'll find something else to do. Entire new markets open up whenever the labor force is freed from prior constraints.

>>955141
I don't really know what your point is. Capitalism > wealth inequality > concentration of wealth > inbreeding > self-referential systems and social constructs > natural selection > future technologies > we shouldn't have a few in charge of many, especially going forward. You're all over the place, man.

[Anonymous No.955589]

>>955568
The problem is in who determines the value.
>I decide that I contribute billions of dollars annually, while you contribute $10K a year.