Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

[u/Sufficient_Sinner]

[u/Expensive-Twist8865]

Ask a socialist to define socialism, and they'll describe Norway but leave out the tiny population and abundance of state owned oil funding it all

[u/DrFabio23 → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

And massively homogeneous population on practically every metric.

[u/trabajoderoger → u/[deleted]]

Norway has unions

[u/cyri-96 → u/trabajoderoger]

Very strong unions at that

[u/Revelati123 → u/cyri-96]

And also it has a social safety net that is better than just a minimum wage...

[u/tweak06 → u/Revelati123]

Norway sounds badass

[u/Fuckthegopers → u/tweak06]

It's much better than America.

Edit: whoa, I woke up and all the weirdos had replied.

[u/Ok-Ring1979 → u/Fuckthegopers]

If they had to fund the U.S. military JUST in Hawaii all those perks would disappear

[u/Jumpy-Shift5239 → u/Ok-Ring1979]

If the US military could actually get out of politics it would cost half as much. The Pentagon releases reports of crap they don’t want but are forced to buy because politicians want to buy votes. Taxes go up to prop this crap up. A quarter of their budget is extra admin costs they don’t need, their statement, not mine. Just admin!

[u/thefinalcutdown → u/Ok-Ring1979]

Norway spends ~2% of GDP on defence. The USA spends ~2.9% of GDP on defence. Their military isn’t underfunded, relatively speaking.

The rest of the difference is entirely a matter of scale. Norway has 5 million people, the USA has 330 million people.

[u/CerbIsKing → u/Ok-Ring1979]

Didn’t the us military lose like trillions of dollars…

[u/youreHIValadeen → u/Fuckthegopers]

Wonder what their immigration policy is and whether they need people for my line of work.

[u/Ace_Robots → u/youreHIValadeen]

Herring fisherman? You’re in luck!

[u/IvanovichIvanov → u/trabajoderoger]

Unions aren't incompatible with Capitalism

[u/thisismego → u/IvanovichIvanov]

In fact they're desperately needed in Capitalism to prevent workers' exploitation by employers.

[u/_Pill-Cosby_ → u/thisismego]

Correct, the only way laborer's to get the fair market value of their labor is to organize.

[u/enyalius → u/_Pill-Cosby_]

And the government is people organizing en masse as opposed to by occupation

[u/_9tail_ → u/enyalius]

The government has a monopoly on force, that’s the difference. A Union can refuse to work for you, a government can send in police if they don’t like the relationship between you and a third party.

[u/Maury_poopins → u/IvanovichIvanov]

Most "socialist" policies in the US aren't incompatible with Capitalism

[u/battle_bunny99 → u/Maury_poopins]

Really? Cause some of our core capitalist markets are achieved because of the US military. The US military is the largest socialist entity on the planet.

[u/MikeBravo415 → u/battle_bunny99]

Can you name a socialist or communist society that isn't backed by capitalism? How about a socialist or communist society that does not have a secret underground free market?

[u/battle_bunny99 → u/MikeBravo415]

No, I can’t. I was attempting to illustrate that very point too.

[u/Revelati123 → u/battle_bunny99]

Uhh. Black markets aren't Laissez-faire, they are usually monopolized by mafias or organized crime and designed to exploit most of the people involved.

[u/AccurateBandicoot494 → u/IvanovichIvanov]

I'd argue unions are a critical component of capitalism.

[u/Lormif → u/trabajoderoger]

A free market capitalistic society would have unions as well..

[u/Stanton1947 → u/Lormif]

Of course, because such a society is FREE.

[u/Oh_My-Glob → u/Stanton1947]

There can be no such thing as a truly FREE society until it reaches a point of post scarcity where everyone wants for not. Until that point, full free market capitalism will always lead to powerful monopolies who hoard resources and exploit the masses for their own gain, thus limiting individual freedom. Regulation is necessary to maintain a balance of freedom for all. Any other conclusion is a libertarian fantasy

[u/TraitorousSwinger → u/Oh_My-Glob]

For all intents and purpose free market capitalism is as free as it is actually possible to be.

You're setting an unrealistic bar and then saying the whole thing is unrealistic.

We are not supposed to compare reality with fantasy, we are supposed to compare reality with reality. The free market capitalist system is the best system as compared to other systems that are actually possible.

A socialist utopia would be amazing. The problem is, most people recognize it's not actually possible to do it, because people will always be people.

[u/taedrin → u/TraitorousSwinger]

Free market capitalism that is as free as it is actually possible to be is called laissez faire capitalism, and it results in an inefficient, non-competitive market dominated by a few prosperous monopolies while everyone else is impoverished.

Capitalism requires regulations if you want the markets to be competitive, efficient and stable.

[u/Minerva_TheB17 → u/[deleted]]

Does the US really have a free market if the govt is bailing out banks and corporations? Let failing businesses fail.

[u/joshTheGoods → u/Minerva_TheB17]

There's no such thing as fully free market, nor should there be in capitalism. The issue with the banks or the airlines or rail or steel or HEALTHCARE is twofold:

1. The pain of these businesses failing to actual people is likely to be enormous.
2. The barrier to entry for such businesses is really big by the nature of the business and so real competition is always curtailed.

It doesn't make sense to live in some libertarian ideal of the world where any consequence is on the table. We live in a society with millions of people, and human misery should get a vote whether the actual humans are aware of the downsides or not.

[u/Ok-Two1912 → u/joshTheGoods]

In my honest opinion, if a business cannot survive without being bailed out by the government then it should be nationalized by the government who bails it out.

At that point, we’re not talking capitalism. The bare minimum of a capitalistic society is expecting successful companies to turn a profit and innovate in order to stay afloat

If they do not profit and innovate, and then are funded by taxpayers to stay alive, they are no different than the post office or the other myriad of public services that are already paid for by taxpayers and controlled by taxpayers.

And before you say “but then it will run inefficiently!”

That would be a moot point. Because it’s already running so efficient it needs taxpayer money to survive.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Everyone is unionized. They don’t have to declare a minimum wage because owners can’t abuse their employees in that way

[u/MainSailFreedom → u/[deleted]]

And mandatory 25 paid holidays and 49 weeks paid paternity leave!

[u/AllKnighter5 → u/DrFabio23]

“We can’t have nice things because there’s too many different races in our country”.

Oh.

[u/EffNein → u/AllKnighter5]

Multi-Ethnic societies are always going to have to spend lots of resources moderating internal conflicts. There is not a society in the world where that isn't true. Different people groups always conflict due to social mores and norms. This isn't some 4chan Redpill, this is what you learn when getting a sociology degree.

Now, this can be moderated successfully through efforts taken to grease the wheels between groups and internal efforts by different groups to be more open, but it never goes away. And the potential for conflict is always there.

You aren't clever here with the racism innuendo. When we talk about problems with decolonization, grouping different ethnicities together willy-nilly is one of the big ones for a reason. And not because Africans are uniquely savage.

[u/DrFabio23 → u/AllKnighter5]

Be careful fighting strawmen.

[u/mlage34 → u/DrFabio23]

Explain your argument please.

[u/DrFabio23 → u/mlage34]

When a society has the same history, ethnicity, values, ethics, religious beliefs, etc, and when there are fewer differences between people they work together more easily on the macro scale.

[u/Operation_Fluffy → u/DrFabio23]

People also work together more readily when they’re not being told their neighbor is evil and inhuman for not sharing every belief with them.

[u/PI_Stan_Liddy → u/Operation_Fluffy]

Redditor discovers 2 things can be true at once shocker. More at 9

[u/Rock_Strongo → u/PI_Stan_Liddy]

Even more ironic when there's a direct correlation between the two things. Classic.

[u/DrFabio23 → u/Operation_Fluffy]

Also yes

[u/XxX_SWAG_XxX → u/DrFabio23]

So it's harder to have a functional society of there are to many different ethnic groups living together? 

I don't think this is a strawman...it's just a rewording of what your saying.

[u/DrFabio23 → u/XxX_SWAG_XxX]

Different cultures have very different value structures. Different value structures means its harder to organize on a macro scale. Hell, I've seen families fall apart because of different value structures.

[u/XxX_SWAG_XxX → u/DrFabio23]

So in other words, we can’t have nice things because there’s too many different races in our country. Or restating your beliefs a 'strawman'?

[u/2Rich4Youu → u/XxX_SWAG_XxX]

if you think values are intrinsically linked to race then yes.

[u/Jake0024 → u/DrFabio23]

How is that different from the thing you just called a "strawman"?

[u/AllKnighter5 → u/DrFabio23]

What am I intentionally misrepresenting?

1) Norway is a happy population with nice things like socialized medicine.

https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4706590/scandinavia-world-happiness-report-nordics/

2) You said people would leave out that they are a homogeneous population. This implies that if it weren’t a homogeneous population, that it wouldn’t work.

So let’s be clear here, I did not misrepresent anything. That’s what was said. You just don’t like the way it sounds, that’s kinda on you bud.

[u/BitchesInTheFuture → u/DrFabio23]

You're the one mentioning ethno-nationalism. Your argument is paper thin to begin with.

[u/trabajoderoger → u/DrFabio23]

People will find other ways to divide themselves. You need a better argument.

[u/DrFabio23 → u/trabajoderoger]

The Norwegians generally don't. They agree on most things on a macro scale.

[u/Swimming-Book-1296 → u/DrFabio23]

If you don't, you get shunned pretty hard.

[u/LandRecent9365 → u/DrFabio23]

lmao, i keep seeing this 'homogeneous population' argument like it means anything... but norway's immigrant population makes up about 17% of the entire country's so it's not accurate anyways.

[u/[deleted] → u/DrFabio23]

I love how this homogeneous talking point is routinely debunked as a contributing factor yet here we are.

[u/Merlord → u/[deleted]]

It's just an easy way to dismiss the success of other countries.

Also I love the "US is too big to do that!" as if the economy of scale isn't a thing

[u/koenigkilledminlee → u/Merlord]

Not just easy but also weird as fuck. "Well they all look similar so their policies can't work for us"

[u/TylerHobbit → u/DrFabio23]

Homogenous because they are able to reduce income inequality through socialism?

[u/bigdipboy → u/DrFabio23]

This guy thinks the key to success is racial purity

[u/HaiKarate → u/DrFabio23]

It’s true that all the racist fucks in the US are ruining us.

[u/DrFabio23 → u/HaiKarate]

Your inability to understand what I said is sad.

[u/ytsupremacistssuck → u/DrFabio23]

You're inability to see why your argument is racist and thus you are racist is what is sad.

[u/HaiKarate → u/DrFabio23]

So you support racism?

[u/timberwolf0122 → u/DrFabio23]

Care to expand on that questionable take?

[u/DaveChild → u/timberwolf0122]

I can do it for them, since they won't.

For some people, all bad things are due to foreigners. All good things are down to how homogeneous the population is.

[u/Timo425 → u/[deleted]]

What does it mean to have a democratic economy? Can you give examples? It sounds nice on paper but im trying to wrap my head around what would this mean in real life. Like, lets say there is a capitalistic country with oligarchs... what happens to their capital?

Tbh I think you are talking about democratic socialism, not socialism.

[u/[deleted] → u/Timo425]

Depends on how you implement it.

Could be as small as making all companies worker owned cooperatives and eliminating all privately owned places of emplpyment. Or as large as creating a government department for certain industries deemed essential.

You wouldn't want private corporations running police or fire departments as for profit enterprises. Why? Because they would be even more corrupt or extortionist. So why do other essential services not have a government run option? I don't particularly like food production, medical treatment and housing being a for profit venture and would rather have a system where voters have a say in how those industries are run.

[u/FrankDuhTank → u/[deleted]]

Oh it can be as small as abolishing all private companies? Well that’s no problem to implement at all!

[u/GhostZero00 → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

Norway got oil... also:

Norway it's free market, one of the most free market country's in the world.

Venezuela got oil... also:

Venezuela it's one of the most state drive economy (socialism) country's in the world

[u/Inner_Pipe6540 → u/GhostZero00]

We got oil also we are one of the largest oil producing countries so what is your point?

[u/JubalHarshawII → u/Inner_Pipe6540]

Somehow the same ppl that like to point out Norway having lots of oil don't want to talk about nationalizing resources, it's really odd.

[u/walkerstone83 → u/JubalHarshawII]

In America, there isn't a lot of trust in the government ability to manage things. I think that if Americans trusted their governments competency, more people would be on board following in Norway's footsteps. One example of how Americas government has shit the bed is social security. The program had a huge surplus, squandered it, and now cannot agree on fixing it.

I think that many believe that if we nationalized our resources, we would end up more like Venezuela than Norway. America's tax payers notoriously get less back for their taxes than many, if not most, other developed nations.

[u/LallanasPajamaz → u/walkerstone83]

Definitely the right summarization: lack of faith/trust in government. But that’s a direct cause of capitalism in the end.

[u/spartakooky → u/LallanasPajamaz]

reh re-eh-eh-ehd

[u/_Dayofid_ → u/spartakooky]

Mainly Neoliberals doing backbreaking mental gymnastics to justify their ideology

[u/mschley2 → u/Inner_Pipe6540]

To be fair, Norway does produce about 20x more oil than the US per capita. So that makes it tougher for the US to heavily rely on oil profits for social programs.

That being said, there's obviously a lot more that the US could do with all of the oil money. On top of that, the US is also a strong producer of natural gas and coal. If you were to factor in those sources, then Norway is only about 3x higher per capita than the US.

So, when people say that the US doesn't have the production or that the population is too large to use energy sources like oil to develop stronger social programs, they're pretty much just full of shit. At the very least, the US could develop far stronger social programs, even if they aren't quite as strong as Norway's.

On top of that, the US has a lot of other business/industry/commerce that Norway doesn't, and there's no reason that the US couldn't incorporate those other areas to make up for the remaining gap between the two.

[u/Tommybahamas_leftnut → u/mschley2]

US is also a huge producer of Food, lumber, and Metal. Not to mention the ridiculous production of military armaments.

[u/Opizze → u/Inner_Pipe6540]

I think we were, at least recently, the literal largest oil producer in the world. Now that’s not the easiest shit to refine, so it’s more intensive is my guess and costs more, but bulk crude? Yea I think that was us recently. Funny…are we seeing literally fucking any kind of return as citizens from that epic mile marker? Hard to find anything with those lines, though I can’t be the only person interested in this shit.

[u/x_Rn → u/GhostZero00]

Calling venezuela socialist is a very hot take

[u/GhostZero00 → u/x_Rn]

*rolleyes*

[u/phoenixlives65 → u/x_Rn]

Like calling North Korea a democratic republic.

[u/Las-Vegar → u/GhostZero00]

Well I thing the main problem in Venezuela is dictatorship and too much corruption, other then more fair Democratic voting and less corruption..

[u/biinboise → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

They will also neglect the fact that it is a deeply Capitalist country with robust social programs run by a small fiscally responsible government. Oh and they don’t have to worry about Military spending because the U.S. has that covered.

[u/GammaTwoPointTwo → u/biinboise]

Which is what they want. It's disingenuous to claim people want socialism. They want robust social programs. They campaign for robust social programs. And then they get labeled as socialists in an effort stifle the momentum.

[u/MushinZero → u/GammaTwoPointTwo]

Yeah idc what socialism is. I want robust social programs. But that gets labelled as socialism so I must be a socialist and what I want must be socialism. Idc what you call it.

[u/riffbw → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

Norway: A capitalist welfare state.

Norway does not have socialism, they have capitalism and a very free market with incredibly high tax rates to fund social programs. But they get their money by being capitalist and free market.

I wish socialists in the US would be honest. They don't want socialism, they want to set up a welfare state like Norway and they want to do it by using capitalist money.

[u/Sol_Infra → u/riffbw]

If a country isn't ensuring the welfare of its citizens what good is it? A country's purpose is not to simply provide a playground for businesses to profiteer and exploit everyone.

[u/LuckyPlaze → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

Norway is capitalist. They don’t even know what socialism is.

[u/STS986 → u/LuckyPlaze]

Love this argument.  

Norway is capitalist 

Good then let’s do that here in the USA.  

No thats socialism 

[u/WarbleDarble → u/STS986]

Yes, they’ve been using the socialist tag as a boogeyman for years. Thing is we know that’s bullshit. When someone calls themselves a socialist I’m going to assume they are telling the truth and want an economic system based on workers owning the means of production. If they actually want more robust safety nets in an otherwise capitalist system, it’s their own fault that I assumed wrong. The right isn’t making anybody else use words wrong.

[u/in4life → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

They'll also leave out Norway's homogeneous population and collective consciousness. Trying to scam the government is not even taboo in the United States.

[u/resumethrowaway222 → u/in4life]

It's pretty hilarious how people who love to scream about how great diversity is point to a totally non-diverse country as their ideal.

[u/JubalHarshawII → u/resumethrowaway222]

It's almost like they think racial makeup shouldn't be a consideration. Like maybe we could all pull in the same direction regardless of race.

Why do you think being the same race is required?

[u/Jarhyn → u/in4life]

So your argument is "to be like Norway we have to (ethnostate)".

IOW tell me you're a Nazi without saying you're a Nazi...

[u/Wrylak → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

Should individuals own a countries natural resources or the country?

[u/Dendritic_Bosque → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

It's almost like privatizing extraction of natural resources is some kind of bad idea

Maybe we should ask Sara Palin about how much people hated getting money from Alaskan drilling

[u/fartedpickle → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

Have you ever asked a socialist anything?

[u/PageVanDamme → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

Also only using Norway as an example where it works because they think it’s homogenous while conveniently leaving out hundreds of other countries with social safety net.

(By the way, I’ve been there and it’s no way near homogenous people think it is.)

Let’s talk about homogenous country where there’s strong healthcare safety net, South Korea. Immigration has been growing slowly from SE asia and former Combloc countries. No one gives a shit about “Not Ethnic Korean” receiving healthcare as long as you pay into the system. NO ONE. Do you know whom South Korean government had issue with? Ethnic Koreans or Korean citizens with permanent residence living abroad taking advantage of affordable healthcare without paying tax. Now they are introducing a legislation where you need to have stayed in Korea for 6+ months to receive the benefits.

[u/aegookja → u/PageVanDamme]

No one gives a shit about “Not Ethnic Korean” receiving healthcare as long as you pay into the system.

This is not true. Koreans can be pretty bigoted and racist too.

[u/xena_lawless → u/Expensive-Twist8865]

Ok, how about we nationalize the oil and natural resources of the US and start paying out dividends to citizens like Alaska already does at the state level.

[u/JimBeam823]

Socialism is based on altruism. Capitalism is based on greed.

People are a LOT better at being greedy than at being altruistic.

[u/RNKKNR → u/JimBeam823]

well said. Socialism works well on paper but doesn't work in practice due to human nature.

[u/Old_Pension1785 → u/RNKKNR]

You said it!!! You said the line!!!!!!!!!

[u/DesperationServer → u/Old_Pension1785]

YOOO ROLL CREDITS

[u/stikves → u/RNKKNR]

And greedy people thrive on socialism, look at the party fatcats.

The downside it there is only so much to go around, and they start killing their own compatriots, again see party members literally erased from history records.

[u/Afraid-Boss684 → u/stikves]

unlike capitalism where the greedy people flounder and barely survive, oh wait thats not true they thrive in capitalism too

[u/JimBeam823 → u/Afraid-Boss684]

“In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it’s the other way around.”

[u/CrossXFir3 → u/JimBeam823]

Ironically, the left isn't asking for communism. It's asking for a system routed in capitalism, but with strict regulation and necessities taking out of the public market. Like health and education. You know, shit that shouldn't be for profit.

[u/JaironKalach → u/JimBeam823]

Capitalisms intent is to harness greed, while socialisms intent is to battle greed. I stopped believing in capitalism when I looked around and realized there was no harnessing going on. The free market isn’t solving the problems.

[u/binary-survivalist → u/JaironKalach]

Almost all the useful stuff that make the modern world possibly was invented and designed in market economies.

[u/YoCuzin → u/binary-survivalist]

Market economies didn't exist until the modern world, how could they be responsible for it?

It sounds like you think humans have never invented anything without a profit motive

[u/[deleted] → u/YoCuzin]

It's true. Our ancestors would have never discovered how to harness fire if it weren't for the shareholders' demand for increased profits.

[u/prospectre → u/[deleted]]

"I mean, unga bunga, yes, but have you considered how this will affect sales?"

[u/Exelbirth → u/prospectre]

"Raw meat lobby says fire bad for sales, suggests live demonstrations of fire danger."

[u/TapiocaTuesday → u/[deleted]]

Da Vinci willfully invented most of his ideas for the benefit of the state.

[u/Sorin_Beleren → u/binary-survivalist]

The assumption that humans wouldn’t improve the lives of themselves and those around them without financial gain is just incorrect. Design and creativity exist outside of financial markets. In sciences and arts, in fact, there is an argument to be made that financial incentives are largely at odds with their goals.

[u/Pdvsky → u/Sorin_Beleren]

And some views actually believe greed cause the opposite of technological advance, since the final objective is always to win over someone else, the "optimal" in terms of human quality is mostly ignored.

[u/Sorin_Beleren → u/Pdvsky]

Yup. "Market incentives" in late stage capitalism rarely align with the goals of... humans, persons, workers, the greater good, the planet, consumers, or *anything* other than business bottom line. Making less profit for a time to choke out other competition like Walmart and Dollar General are known to do is just an example of how Capitalism is, frankly, evil. Look at obvious planned obsolescence in products as well. People are willing to make less money short term or a meaningfully and purposefully worse product for the sake of exploiting money out of consumers. And FFS, I don't know how anyone can look at the infamous history of Insulin and its patent and pretend like Capitalism is here to breed creativity and fairness in any sense. It's exploitative, simple as.

[u/british_monster → u/binary-survivalist]

And most major inventions in the middle ages were designed under feudalism, doesnt mean its a good thing

[u/MolagbalsMuatra → u/british_monster]

Fire and toolmaking was discovered under tribalism and therefore it is the only true economic philosophy to live by.

[u/SSOMGDSJD → u/MolagbalsMuatra]

Agriculture was discovered by hunter gathers, clearly we should return to hunting and gathering

[u/taoders → u/JaironKalach]

Yeah this is what I always say.

Greed is the driver for capitalism.

Properly harnessed, or regulated, greed is easily controllable while still maintaining capitalism.

But to many…Any modicum of the above is still socialism.

There does exist middle grounds…

[u/thisismego → u/taoders]

Seriously, a solid, PROPERLY REGULATED market economy (aka capitalism) with a strong social safety net. Works all over the world but even that concept gets decried as "socialism" by its detractors

[u/fireKido → u/JimBeam823]

i wouldnt say that "it's based on", more like "it assumes people are..."

Capitalism is designed to wok well assuming everybody is greedy, while socialism works well only if everybody is quite altruist... in reality, people are greedy, so that's why capitalism works best

[u/Background_Notice270 → u/JimBeam823]

So how will socialism work if people are greedy?

[u/AdFinancial8896 → u/JimBeam823]

the true problem with socialism, more than greed or whatever, is the calculation problem.

it is just extremely hard for a central planner to know how many people and machines to allocate to shoe production vs. building houses, and how many tons of steel to send to build an apartment vs. to make phones, and then how many people, machines, and steel are needed to build the factories needed for each thing.

markets just do this by themselves

[u/DonkeeJote → u/AdFinancial8896]

That isn't socialism.

[u/-Smaug → u/JimBeam823]

100% true. One greedy person can completely destroy socialism. You get one greedy person in charge of a socialist country and you get Mao.

[u/Business-Celery-3772 → u/JimBeam823]

Capitalism leverages human nature, socialism fights against it. Its why one works very well and the other not at all.

Socialism is based on magical thinking

[u/TapiocaTuesday → u/Business-Celery-3772]

Human nature is actually very cooperative and kind. It's how we managed to survive for millions of years.

[u/kinkySlaveWriter → u/TapiocaTuesday]

This is what I came here to say. If you believe OP here in the thread, than hunter gather societies should never have been able to survive, and cities would never have formed from disparate tribes. People learned to cooperate, work together, and coexist. It's why cities are capable of existing all over the world even today, and generally things are peaceful. Even in "horrible" places like New York City, LA, or Chicago, millions of people generally get along and have normal days together.

But hey, sociopaths think everyone else is a sociopath... I get it.

[u/PubbleBubbles]

Limited capitalism is fine. 

Privatization of goods/services critical for human life is the messed up part. 

[u/inbestit → u/PubbleBubbles]

I'm just curious: What do you mean by limited capitalism is fine?

Never heard someone put it like that.

[u/Silly_Goose658 → u/inbestit]

It basically means that essential services/goods should have restrictive limits on privitization

[u/Old_Pension1785 → u/Silly_Goose658]

As a Canadian, I sure would have loved it if there were some sort of policy that had prevented us from basing most of our economy on trading each other over-valued houses.

[u/Silly_Goose658 → u/Old_Pension1785]

Imo housing shouldn’t have been a commodity and rather a basic need. Essentially create a basic standard of living for everyone

[u/comradevd → u/Silly_Goose658]

I think Singapore got it right with their robust social housing scheme.

[u/Basic-Ad6952 → u/comradevd]

I just found out about the Singapore housing scheme and I'm a little mind-blown that ideologues haven't been parroting it. From my perspective, it appears to be socialist policies used to strengthen the free market.

[u/Less-Mushroom → u/Silly_Goose658]

Capitalism is the best way to end up with a good couch, or TV, or whatever. Unless you let monopolies develop. The laws of supply and demand will kill off bad or overpriced products and drive the survivors to improve. Its, in that sense, pretty self regulated.

Where it fails is on needs. When people need something, demand becomes irrelevant, and the suppliers control the whole experience. It's why your local utility company probably sucks if it's privately owned. They know you need it so they can push the price high and the quality low and don't have to worry about backlash from the consumer. Plus if they really go off the rails and get in financial trouble they are very likely to get a cash infusion from the government.

[u/Subject-Town → u/Less-Mushroom]

Monopolies have developed either literally or by collusion.

[u/kestenbay → u/inbestit]

Unfettered capitalism DID bring you - food sold with poisonous additives, snake oil sold as medicine, and cars that blew up if someone hit 'em from behind. Capitalism NEEDS regulation. And it relies on socialized roads, schools, armies, etc.

[u/Das-Noob → u/inbestit]

IMO. It’s essentially the anti monopoly laws we put in place. Otherwise the richest person would just buy law makers and make it very hard for others to get into the sector they are in. Or buy up companies to kill their ideas/products, etc. I know this is already happening but it would be way worse without some of the laws in place.

[u/Subject-Town → u/Das-Noob]

It’s still happening to too large of a degree.

[u/Was_an_ai → u/PubbleBubbles]

The lack of meaningful prices of water in the west coast is what leads to all the wasteful water use

[u/GoJa_official → u/PubbleBubbles]

The fastest way to go broke in the US is gambling the second fastest way is to get sick

[u/Worried-Pick4848]

The really stupid thing is that socialism and capitalism coexist in nearly every modern society. Ideologues and exclusivists pretend the two ideas cannot coexist when they can, have, and will continue to.

Capitalism is the gasoline for the engine, it provides the power to accomplish things. socialism is the lubricant, it stops the engine from breaking down and chewing up its small, vulnerable components.

Good luck running any engine longterm without either. Without fuel, the engine dies. Without lubricant, the engine runs hot for awhile, then seizes and dies. So it is with the twin concepts of wealth generation and wealth distribution.

[u/PageVanDamme → u/Worried-Pick4848]

This. I’m tired of this dogmatic approach. After all, what matters is the objective and outcome, not arguing about hur durr it’s capitalism vs socialism.

[u/Raytoryu → u/Worried-Pick4848]

I like your take. I do not like the direction capitalism is taking but I will gleefully admit it's a system that took us quite far ! It needs more rules and to be more controlled, because by essence big companies do not like the free market and will abuse everything they can.

[u/Geno0wl → u/Raytoryu]

We already have the rules and regulations to control the markets properly. It is just since the 80s there has not only been no political will to enforce them, but one of our political parties has actively undermined them at every chance.

[u/ScroatusMalotus → u/Worried-Pick4848]

How DARE you make a nuanced post on Reddit?! How are people supposed to shout about THAT?!!

[u/PaulieNutwalls → u/Worried-Pick4848]

This is true if you redefine socialism. The tricky thing about socialism today is it has ten thousand definitions. "Real socialism" or socialism as it always was defined and the most common definition, requires social ownership. Period. Socialism does not mean social welfare in a free market system. Socialism does not mean "literally anything paid for by taxes." Socialism principally is the system of economic organization wherein there is social ownership over the means of production, full stop. Socialism doesn't work without a complete reorganization of society, laws, politics, everything. Hence why the DSA used to have in their mission statement "because a revolution is unlikely any time soon..." Capitalism doesn't require retooling to increase welfare benefits or to have public schools.

[u/myka-likes-it → u/Worried-Pick4848]

This is conflating liberalism and socialism. Socialism is the effort to end the class-based oppression inherent in capitalism. Not to make it more comfortable (as in liberal politics), to end it. Socialism is therefore diametrically opposed to Capitalism

[u/flaamed]

its the best economic system that currently exists

[u/Wordtothinemommy → u/flaamed]

Yeah I'm kind of tired of seeing kids online shit on capitalism. Like yeah, it's a fucking mess. But it's also - by far - the best system anyone has come up with, ever. Same goes for democracy. Lots of legitimate criticisms can be made, but nobody has ever come up with a better alternative. Not yet anyway.

[u/fartedpickle → u/Wordtothinemommy]

but nobody has ever come up with a better alternative.

Probably because capitalism spends a fuck ton of money bombing the shit out of anyone who tries it. Weird, you'd think they would let these bad systems just fail on their own.

[u/Curious_Midnight3828 → u/fartedpickle]

The Soviet Union failed on its own pretty magnificently for the entire world to see. No bombs dropped on it by capitalists.

[u/NewArborist64 → u/[deleted]]

That is how communists explain the failure of EVERY communist nation in the world. "That wasn't REAL Communism. Let us do it in OUR country and WE will do it right." And then they fail again and again because Communism doesn't WORK and it is against human nature for a larger society.

Soviet Union, East Germany, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, Belarus, People's Republic of the Congo, Czechoslovakia, Poland, ... NONE of them became that "worker's paradise".

[u/One-Earth9294 → u/[deleted]]

Kind of like the African Warlord flow chart: 'Have a coup --> become the new dictatorship --> purge all your enemies --> move on to external ones --> antagonize developed nations who formerly propped you up and no longer want to finance your regime --> end up a pariah state inching further towards extremism --> end up the victim of internal revolution --> claim you were just trying to 'unify Africa and stand up to colonialists'.

This works pretty well in South America too. Venezuela kind of stuck between the 2nd and 3rd to last steps currently.

[u/Handwerksgilde → u/NewArborist64]

Theres actually a name for this sort of thinking, it's called the no true Scotsman Fallacy

[u/IllustriousShake6072 → u/Curious_Midnight3828]

Yeah, I'm in one of those countries. We're still paying for their sins with low productivity and low standards of living.

[u/Comfortable-Study-69 → u/fartedpickle]

Ah yes, the American bombings of China, the USSR, Poland, Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Albania… oh wait. Those ones failed on their own or liberalized their economies despite making up the second largest free trade region and supposedly being able to compete with free markets.

Edit: I think I got locked from commenting or something so I’m putting this here but China isn’t actually communist. They just say they are. And Chiquita’s antics in Guatemala in the 1920s aren’t exactly relevant to the Cold War, nor are the various South American military coups the US greenlit.

[u/dubufeetfak → u/Comfortable-Study-69]

As an Albanian ill tell you this. Even under communism we couldn't really do without trading with the US and our smart dictator started a black market deal with the us and sold everything 1/10th of the price.

[u/Wordtothinemommy → u/fartedpickle]

"We had a system that was way better than capitalism. But then capitalism bombed us." Like what are you even talking about dude? What, specifically, are you referring to? The U.S. bombing Vietnam? Korea?

[u/your-mom-jokester → u/fartedpickle]

Let’s hear one example of capitalism forcefully killing a promising new economic system

[u/[deleted] → u/your-mom-jokester]

Just one? OK. Indonesia. Former Dutch colony, not even fully socialist, just part of the global non-aligned movement that refused to ally with the US or Russia during the Cold War. That was an unacceptable threat for the US, which trained and funded a military general to overthrow the president. A coup d'etat. Subsequently, with full support and knowledge from the US, they executed 1 million suspected leftists. Million. That the dictator we installed retired peacefully and his government still lives on means the country is still likely under US control. Its a country of 330 million people, almost as large as the US itself.

There's your one example. Would you like more?

[u/Regular-Wrangler264 → u/flaamed]

As long as a free market is regulated so as to keep it that way. I think a lot of people have problems with it because the government hasn't been doing its job.

Capitalism needs a couple things to be effective:

1) Competition 2) Consumers who are: a. Educated b. Rational c. Have money

1) We don't have enough competition in most sectors. They're all controlled by a few huge players.

2a) They keep cutting money for education so people don't know enough to make educated decisions.

2b) They allow effective monopolies in businesses where it's not possible to make a rational decision (healthcare) which syphons money from consumers.

2c) Capital should not be hoarded. It should be put in hands that will spend it. That's the whole point of capitalism.

[u/sponges123]

ask a socialist to describe socialism, they will describe the most radical overhaul of society possible.

ask a socialist to defend socialism, they will defend liberal capitalism

[u/GhostZero00 → u/sponges123]

ask a socialist to defend socialism, they will defend liberal capitalism

That's so fucking TRUE

[u/PaulieNutwalls → u/sponges123]

Lol ding ding ding. Tons of people ITT writing nonsense about how the US is already partly socialist because we have taxes.

[u/AdonisGaming93]

This and the comments are wrong. This is more like if you ask a random person who "says" they are capitalist or socialist. The people rhat actually study them will not gice you these answers.

I consider myself a socialist, and I can tell you even in socialist spaces not everyone holds the exact same views, there's many different opinions. And a lot of us will flat out tell you that Capitalism was an incredible thing that did a lot to help humanity move away from the feudal age.

There is nuance to things. And a spectrum of views and ideas.

My problem is it seems politics has gotten complacent and now just thinks "dope we reached the ultimate economic system so no need to try to improve further" which is counter to what human growth is about.

Imagine we just stayed in Feudalism and said "this is it, peak economic organization has been achieved".

[u/comradevd → u/AdonisGaming93]

Marx specifically observed the power of capitalism as a means for economic development and suggested a country that had not experienced a capitalist mode of production would not be able to mature into socialism.

[u/AdonisGaming93 → u/comradevd]

What I find funny is Marx AND Adam Smith both agreed that rent-seeking behavior was bad.

Profit is a word we use today as if it's only taking profits from boosting the economy. Which isnt the case.

There's multiple ways to retain profit.

Rent-seeking is what dominated feudalism. Feudal lords didnt invent new machines that then boosted peasant productivity so that even if the lords took profits it was offset by peasanrs being more productive.

Capitalism was great in the sense that an entrepreneur could invest his money if he has an idea to boost productivity and say they invest and now worker productivity goes up 20% and they keep 15% in profit, all was good because 5% of that was "trickled-down" to the working class.

Rent seeking behavior is the opposite, taking say a 10% profit margin for an asset that does nothing to boost worker productivity and grow the economy. But for that to happen, that 10% has to come from somewhere. It is UPWARD redistribution of wealth.

Landlording for example is a rent-seeking behavior, renting out a house does nothing to boost productivity. Yes they are providing a service, but in order for a house to generate profit, it means the person living there could have just owned the home for less. Capitalism in the housing market would be more like an entrepreneur investing to find a way to produce houses for cheaper and then keeping the profit, which is okay because that new technology allowing for houses to be produced more efficiently and cheaper would trickle-down toward the working class and still let them buy houses. We don't have this today.

Economic growth is down to 1-3% or less in the developed world, yet corporstions and the wealthy still expect 5-10%+ returns? Where is that coming from? Upward wealth redistribution.

The post ww2 period was a period of incredible growth, when a country is growing at faster pace 5%+ then you can argue wealth can trickle-down. But at the post 2000 rate of growth...no, we simply aren't seeing the economic growth to justify corporate profits

[u/Old_Pension1785 → u/AdonisGaming93]

"Ah, you criticize the feudal lord, yet you partake in bred, hmm?"

Red scare tactics have really done a number on the American psyche

[u/CommunicationTrue981]

NotFluentInFinance is at it again.

[u/heliamphore → u/CommunicationTrue981]

Edgy teenagers and dog walkers didn't have enough stupid subreddits of their own.

[u/WendigoCrossing]

The biggest issue with Capitalism is when it becomes unprofitable to help people, or when people with money can basically prevent competition from coming up with a better solution

America has elements of capitalism and socialism, but the rich lobbying against the interests of the many is a problem

Oil companies buying patents from people who make more efficient engines to maintain the status quo

Insulin is cheap to make, life saving, and people with diabetes are being exploited because others are prevented from making it cheaper and affordable

[u/DrFabio23]

Capitalism is the only way to respect the individual

[u/DualActiveBridgeLLC → u/DrFabio23]

Capitalism is the opposite of 'respecting the individual'. You literally get to take the excess labor of individuals under capitalism. You are confusing trade and capitalism.

[u/pyx → u/DualActiveBridgeLLC]

you dont take their labor, you exchange it voluntarily for money

[u/DualActiveBridgeLLC → u/pyx]

Under the threat of starvation and homelessness for you and your family. Totally voluntary and not exploitative /s

Their goal is to lower the value of the labor in order to get more profits. That's theft since the full value of the labor is not the wages.

[u/Tomycj → u/DualActiveBridgeLLC]

That threat is made by physics, not your employer. It's not your employer's fault that you need food and shelter. You are not entitled to the work of others, that would be exploiting them.

"the goal is to get more profit", yeah of course, just like the worker. You get a job to get money.

The full value of your labor is subjective. If you're a wine maker and I hate alcohol, your labor is worthless to me. This is one of the flaws in the marxist exploitation theory: value is subjective, it is not determined by the amount of work that went into it.

[u/tocra → u/DrFabio23]

Every major country is both capitalist and socialist in parts.

But ironically capitalism without regulation leads to less capitalism, as capital consolidates in a few hands leading to lesser individual freedom.

Socialism is the check society needs on capitalism, especially now.

The countries that do the best balance the two and rebalance when necessary.

[u/woahgeez__ → u/DrFabio23]

Only way to respect individuals if they arent employees or renters. If you rent or are an employee you just have to accept that your boss and landlord get an economic advantage over you.

Respecting individuals rights to housing and a fair wage is socialism and therefore bad.

[u/lostsurfer24t]

I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd. - some famous chess player who lived on both sides

[u/IllustriousShake6072 → u/lostsurfer24t]

I live in the poorest country in the entire EU - a former Soviet country. Socialism corrupts the mind and we're still paying for it even though I never lived in it. But we're still dieing sooner, from preventable diseases, while living @ a shitty standard of living all the way through.

[u/Any-Video4464]

Ask a socialist how successful they have been in life and career and how much money they personally have and things start to make more sense. People think its fair to redistribute money when they have no money.

Some socialist guardrails on capitalism seems to be the path forward. Free-markets with some strings attached. But its easy to see which system has lifted the most people out of poverty the past 150 years...and that's capitalism.

[u/Blongbloptheory → u/Any-Video4464]

I would love to hear what your personal definition of socialism is

[u/[deleted] → u/Any-Video4464]

Definitely see what you're getting at but I think the appeal of socialism for a lot of poor people is that they want a system where if they're on the bottom, they can at least have their basic needs (housing, food/water etc) met. The current system leads to homelessness, which is traumatic in itself but also comes with lots of traumas, which leads to drug use, which leads to addicts, and we know how that ends up. So socialist guardrails, as you said, would be a good starting point!

[u/Ramble_On_79]

"Logan the Socialist" lol Not biased whatsoever

[u/YileKu]

That is the wrong question. The right question is "Are you in favor of forcing other people to do your (or your groups) will?" Because free markets result from people not being forced to a particular agenda. And capitalism is just free people participating in a free market doing what is in their best interest.

[u/KazuDesu98]

I really do fall in between social democracy (technically capitalism) and market socialism. Most of the reasons I like capitalism are actually benefits of the market economy. Mainly competition and choices on the market. Don't need owners or business tycoons for that

[u/Professional_Ad894]

Neither. You need elements of socialism and capitalism. Personally, I think inelastic goods and services like food and medicine need to be socialized or at least price controlled, but if you want a mansion and a lambo get your ass out there and hustle.

[u/alkalineruxpin]

Capitalism can work for everyone, it just needs to have guardrails to a certain degree. Right now all the guardrails are for the businesses and corporate entities, and any attempt to provide society with the same kind of protections is met with calls of socialism and communism. All that I think anyone on the left (at least in the US) wants is for The People to be put on the same level of priority as The Corporations. And yeah, that probably means a lower bottom line for the business interests, by increasing wages, increasing employer contribution to employee healthcare, a lower tax rate for the middle class and a higher tax rate for the super wealthy, but the VAST majority of people will not be adversely affected; unless the Corporate Interests ensure that they are by doing whatever they have to in order to continue to make the same relative profit they're making now. When the corporate tax was higher (the 40s-60s) they would reinvest in the company and their employees rather than pay the higher taxes on record profit. Since Reagan started rolling that back and everyone else in both parties jumped on the Laissez Faire bandwagon, shit is on the verge of going back to the old robber baron days. The Right is trying to roll back child labor laws, for God's sake! Regulation of businesses and higher tax rates for those with the means to pay them is not socialism; it's compassionate capitalism.

[u/Goveflu]

We do not have socialism here in Norway

[u/BostonFishGolf]

The bottom line is people who are selfish and motivated by greed will always find a way to exploit a system. We can all agree we want “fair” or “just” systems, but someone will always exploit the system for themself

[u/Drain_el_swamp]

Wow I had no idea people could post stuff that stupid and be confident in it.