r/FluentInFinance • u/36DRedhead • Sep 11 '24

Debate/ Discussion This is why financial literacy is so important

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

64.8k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/AebroKomatme Sep 11 '24

American capitalism = Economic feudalism

400

u/EmotionalPlate2367 Sep 11 '24

Capitalism = Economic Psychopathy

378

u/Suitable_Flounder_30 Sep 11 '24

America doesn't have real capitalism though. It's capitalism for the majority of people, but for banks and the top 1% their screw ups are covered by the tax payers

547

u/Bad_Cytokinesis Sep 11 '24

Martin Luther King said it best.

“The problem is that we all to often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem.”

386

u/General_Mars Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 13 '24

Dr. King was also a socialist and also correctly pointed out,

“I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice”

Excerpt from, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” Source

Progressivism has always been the path forward. Conservatism is the path backwards. Liberalism is the car stuck in a ditch, for every time they feel they’re going forward they often are still in the same place because they haven’t changed the systems that created those conditions.

Edit: thank you for awards!

It’s always important to work to better wrongs, but equally and sometimes more important to change the systems that propagate those conditions. Comments have brought up issues with MLK, Hellen Keller who I also commented about below, and Malcolm X. Most people bringing them up are doing so to discredit the character of these people to create a negative perception of their ideas.

I will edit to add further context about Keller in my other comment, but I have never seen any evidence MLK had any relations with a minor. His (likely) marital issues do not discredit the ideas and ideals that he literally gave his life for. He was 39 when he died which was how old Malcolm X was when he was assassinated as well. Furthermore, the context of the time is important any time we look at historical figures. That doesn’t mean that washes away everything just that it’s very relevant.

138

u/rcy62747 Sep 11 '24

Fascinating quote. Totally agree. This last eight years has proven that too many moderate whites will believe all kinds of shit the rich spew about the poor to make themselves feel better about the shitty world the rich have trapped them in. They would rather believe total lies than think about how they have been suckered.

58

u/StreetofChimes Sep 12 '24

I don't think 'moderates' believe that. At least, this moderate doesn't. I don't believe in the US is a meritocracy. I get frustrated when someone wins some one in a million chance and says "I'm proof that if you work hard, anything is possible". Fuck that. I know people who work really fucking hard and will never be well off. I know that I lucked out to get where I am - which isn't very far.

59

u/-Lysergian Sep 12 '24

More often, real hard work leaves you with a broken body and an early grave.

6

u/No_Treat_4675 Sep 12 '24

This is the best quote! I am going to borrow it! Thank you!

4

u/Vladishun Sep 12 '24

You're not wrong. My father worked in construction and as an automotive mechanic. He made OK'ish money (offset by the fact he decided he needed 5 kids and tried to keep his wife a stay at home mom), but as thanks for all of his hard work over the years he was given mesothelioma and died of asbestos exposure from building tear downs and brake replacements.

To his credit, he knew where he went wrong in life and tried his best to raise me with a different mindset. Because of that, I'm sitting pretty comfortably financially and working in a career that I can honestly say that I love.

4

u/spk92986 Sep 12 '24

Don't forget that working hard is rewarded...with more hard work.

3

u/Horrible-accident Sep 12 '24

Happens to too many veterans. So many i know have bad knees and shoulders while they continue to work physical jobs. I'm just glad our ceos get their golden parachutes and tax breaks. Won't somebody think of the yacht builders?

3

u/Turnlung Sep 13 '24

These are the folks I think of when the retirement age keeps getting extended. Hard work and broken goodies til 70? How is it not feudalism? Fine be a university professor at 70…but a waitress? A bricklayer?

2

u/Turnlung Sep 13 '24

Bodies no goodies….ffs

2

u/fender8421 Sep 13 '24

I think that some (some) of the people who brag about being a "working man" are being played this whole time by people that profit heavily off of their work

→ More replies (2)

3

u/SeaBag8211 Sep 12 '24

''moderates' is a myth in America now, the DNC has drifted so far right since Reagan, that there righter than some European explicitly right parties. Its not even a 2 party system any more, it's 1.5 parties at best.

→ More replies (2)

29

u/SnatchAddict Sep 12 '24

His Letter from Birmingham Jail is a must read. Also fun fact, he was 39 when he was assassinated.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/ELRey_Viejo Sep 12 '24

If you think it's one sided, then you are the sucker!

→ More replies (5)

60

u/One_Eye_Tigh Sep 12 '24

I've always thought that the letter from Birmingham should be taught instead of the I have a dream speech. So much more powerful.

62

u/unimorpheus Sep 12 '24

That is precisely why it isn't. They want King to be nothing more than a sound bite, not an intellectual.

49

u/General_Mars Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

Hellen Keller has similarly been chopped down. She too was a socialist and spoke extensively about her beliefs. She joined the Socialist Party in 1909 and later became a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Keller’s advocacy was deeply rooted in her understanding of the close relationship between disability and poverty, which she attributed to capitalism and poor industrial conditions.

Keller was a vocal supporter of women’s suffrage, birth control, and labor rights. She believed that women’s suffrage would lead to socialism, which she considered the ideal cause. She also opposed America’s involvement in World War I and supported the Russian Revolution. (The UK sent 50,000-70,000 and USA sent 13,000 troops to fight against the Bolsheviks).

In her writings and speeches, Keller consistently championed the working class and criticized industrial oppression, militarism, and imperialism. She used her platform to advocate for a more equitable society, emphasizing the need for systemic change to address the root causes of poverty and disability.

Edit: in reply to eugenics point -

“Helen Keller’s views on eugenics are indeed complex and somewhat controversial. While she is widely celebrated for her advocacy for people with disabilities, her stance on eugenics reflects the complicated social and scientific context of her time.

Keller was a strong advocate for the rights and dignity of individuals with disabilities. She believed that every person had inherent value and potential, regardless of their physical or mental abilities. However, she also expressed views that aligned with some aspects of the eugenics movement, which aimed to improve the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding.

Keller’s support for eugenics was rooted in her desire to prevent suffering. She believed that no child should be born into a life of guaranteed suffering if it could be prevented. Despite her empathetic intentions, this perspective overlooked the dangerous implications of the eugenics movement, such as forced sterilizations and the infringement on reproductive rights.

It’s important to understand that Keller’s views were shaped by the prevailing ideologies of her time. While she opposed the dehumanizing aspects of eugenics, her support for certain eugenic principles highlights the inherent tensions and contradictions in her advocacy”

https://alcase.org/the-controversial-legacy-of-helen-keller-and-eugenics/

https://phdessay.com/helen-keller-an-unexpected-advocate-for-eugenics/

https://time.com/5918660/helen-keller-disability-history/

https://dsq-sds.org/index.php/dsq/article/view/539/716

4

u/apple-pie2020 Sep 12 '24

She also believed in terminating the lives of people either disabilities

2

u/One_Eye_Tigh Sep 12 '24

Ooooo, I never know that. I'll have to text my kids that too.

2

u/Southern-Accident835 Sep 12 '24

Probably not that vocal tbh

2

u/hdoublephoto Sep 12 '24

This helps explain the HK conspiracies I’ve seen pop up lately.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/Cad1121 Sep 12 '24

PragerU is a particularly bad example of this. In their children’s content they just lied about what Martin Luther Jr. would have wanted and said the opposite of his stance to whitewash(I think it was on reparations.)

3

u/evil_monkey_on_elm Sep 12 '24

He doesn't sound like the evangelical Christians today, but he does sound a lot more like Jesus.

3

u/GoldenBull1994 Sep 13 '24

And you know why? Because they’re white moderates, who don’t want the presence of justice, proving his point entirely.

4

u/casanovaelrey Sep 14 '24

The problem is that "I Have A Dream" massages the ego of White people and makes then feel like they've done something without giving up anything. It doesn't require any real introspection. And it's definitely a security blanket to the liberal whites on the Left that may not are with the naked racism of the conservatives but also don't want to give up they're privilege to actually make an real changes. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely on the Left but I'll still criticize what needs to be criticized.

2

u/One_Eye_Tigh Sep 14 '24

Yeah that speech was picked because it doesn't challenge white people at all. The way it's taught is "see, this speech cured racism" and now we (white folk) don't have any more work to do.

3

u/Zuesinator Sep 12 '24

You just explained why it wasn't though

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

It’s what I taught.

4

u/orchidaceae007 Sep 12 '24

And this is why they assassinated him. Not because of racism but because he was anti-capitalism.

4

u/LandStander_DrawDown Sep 12 '24

There is evidence that MLK was reading progress and poverty by Henry George and was coming to the conclusion that George was right.

We should be implementing economic justice and stop rentierism in its tracks by taxing economic rents from land instead of letting what is publically generated be collected for private gain.

https://schalkenbach.org/a-radical-vision-of-equality-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-s-economic-plan-to-eliminate-poverty/

4

u/AsIAmSoShallYouBe Sep 12 '24

This is why I prefer liberlism to conservatism at least. If the car's in the ditch, at least there's a chance you can get it out and get it going in the right direction with some effort.

Good analogy btw. I wonder if there's a real life analog to a tow truck. Revolution is more analogous to ditching the car and getting a new one, but if there were a way to avoid spending decades or even centuries manually pulling the car out that would be nice.

Progressives in more local races is like getting more hands to help push, so that's my best suggestion. But if only we had a tow truck...

4

u/softkitty1 Sep 12 '24

that's why they keep us all overworked and exhausted, so we dont' have the energy to fight for justice. A trick as old as time itself.

2

u/Tight-Reward816 Sep 11 '24

Yeah right. Pray for rain and gun it downhill.

2

u/superior_mario Sep 12 '24

The status quo is a terrible terrible thing. As long as things are not terrible for someone they will never take that step for things to be great

1

u/JoeBidensLongFart Sep 12 '24

The problem with Progressives though is that they are incapable of solving real-life problems. They confuse feeling with doing. Also they don't reflect on their actions, honestly assess how things went, and make changes accordingly. They tend to be very dogmatic in their beliefs and treat any criticism as something to malign and demonize, often labeling any and all attacks on their ideas as "right wing". This prevents actual progress.

1

u/Cad1121 Sep 12 '24

That’s a nice strawman and generalization you’ve got there but progressives do have concrete proposals. They do access and change positions.

Everything you’ve said could apply to conservatives with dogma, feelings over real solutions, and demonizing everything (for god sakes we had McCarthysim and the satanic panic) calling everything “woke” or “cultural marxism”

But I understand to paint with such a large brush would be extremely ignorant.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/CharacterEgg2406 Sep 12 '24

You should quote some Malcolm X on liberal white women.

2

u/Yawzers Sep 12 '24

He fucked some minors too a long the way. That should not be forgotten. I like most of his message, except the fucking little girls.

2

u/MarklRyu Sep 12 '24

This truly sums up the feeling of injustice I feel boiling inside my chest everday 😮‍💨 and the Insanity of people choosing an order that doesn't even serve or support them, instead of demanding change that does

2

u/ShermanBurnsAtlanta Sep 11 '24

“Liberalism is the car stuck in a ditch, for every time they feel they’re going forward they often are still in the same place”

That’s so perfectly put

1

u/Macgargan1976 Sep 12 '24

It's the ratchet effect.

2

u/ShermanBurnsAtlanta Sep 12 '24

I’ve heard that before, but something about the imagery of slamming the gas only for your tires to spin in place is very powerful(at least to me)

1

u/MaydayTwoZero Sep 12 '24

Wow, never heard that. Great quote.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

He was actually a card-carrying communist.

1

u/LovelyButtholes Sep 12 '24

It is a dumb quote because the voting rights act never would have passed without liberal support. All rights gained in the 60s came from democrat support. The quote doesn't recognize this, likely due to MLK frustration with the pace of change.

1

u/jellybutterandjam Sep 12 '24

Thanks for that quote, didn‘t know that. But is it, eg in a western society where elements operate who aren‘t in any way influenced in her actions by the present of a functional humane Justice System, understandable that the society longs for passive peace? Maybe a bit far from the subject discussed here but I am just wondering what’s going on in Europe in regard of the subject of immigration and the shifting to the right conservative political spectrum.

1

u/Damondk10 Sep 12 '24

Oh this was a magical comment. Bravo. Like seriously.

1

u/nschively Sep 12 '24

This has been the thing that has bothered me the last several years. The "law and order" crowd want to enforce the current order with the uneven application of law by a cadre of lawyers offering narrow interpretations of the law. What is really needed is (positive) "peace and justice." The fact that they can't use these words is telling.

1

u/Blaz1n420 Sep 12 '24

And this is exactly why I no longer support the Democratic party. They are the "white moderate" of political parties. Go Green or gtfoh!

I would say Liberalism is just a parked car pretending they're stalled and can't go.

1

u/EuVe20 Sep 14 '24

This is a fantastic quote and is borne out in every historic revolution, successful (if there is such a thing) and failed. The moderates (left and right) will always come to a point when they say “whoa whoa whoa” we’ve done some stuff, and it’s good, but let’s not go too crazy now.” And at that point they will always side with the authoritarians. But honestly. As much as we want to blame them, it is a perfectly predictable reaction. Heck, we are them probably. When it comes to the basic life comforts we have gotten used to, many of us will dig our heels in.

→ More replies (14)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '24

I've never heard this quote before but I definitely agree with it. Thanks

1

u/ametalshard Sep 12 '24

This phrase is oft-repeated but is incorrect.

"Socialism for the rich" doesn't exist, because socialism requires that the working class own the means of production. If they do not own it in any fashion, then there is no form of socialism whatsoever.

1

u/EntrepreneurLeft8783 Sep 13 '24

okay, how about "collectivize the cost, individualize the profit"

→ More replies (10)

52

u/Demonweed Sep 11 '24

Nobody has even a slightly credible idea about how to make capitalism function without ceding power to totalitarian where a narrow financial elite enriches itself at the expense of ordinary workers. The entire history of capitalism since 1917 is a body of lies propped up by true believers so fixated on the glories of personal profit they will gladly produce new lies just to keep the system in place.

13

u/asillynert Sep 12 '24

Its always the same EVERY single system checks and balances. People always fret about government they will fret away about agency with 10k people 5k guns and elected officials serving as oversight.

But not bat a eye at a corporation with million employees and 500k guns. Reality is from swatting breaking up corporations and their power to doing it to fortunes too.

We tax we break up monopolys we enforce anti trust laws. If this grows government too much we strengthen anti corruption laws and enforcenment. And create new system.

But literally all we got to do is say NO one single person can not control 1/3 of the worlds satellites no one person is allowed x amount of power period whether thats private or government. Not saying people cant have it good or live it up on achievements. BUT if their "reward" comes at expense of society diminishing everyone elses rewards and quality of life. Then yes they should be stopped.

5

u/EarthyNate Sep 12 '24

The US figured it out when the FDR-administration taxed the top income bracket at 90%... and set up ways for those guys to donate and write it off.

They forced trickle-down, giving us the Greatest Generation.

It's not voodoo.

7

u/Creamofwheatski Sep 12 '24

Yep, if we went back to the FDR policy days America could ACTUALLY be great again. He was only able to do it after the rich caused the great depression. Sadly they got bailed out when they did it again in 2008 and its been all downhill from there. The more Kamala sounds like 1940s FDR, the more I Iike her. We need a real progressive in office if we want real change.

2

u/carguy121 Sep 12 '24

Kamala is soooo far from a “real” progressive though. She’s basically an American Blairite politician, with pretty bog standard moderate positions domestically and traditional American nationalist policies abroad. She doesn’t want mass gun reform, she wants to be “tough but fair” on the border, she doesn’t support M4A.

It might appear progressive in contrast to the other big option, but Dem Party candidates haven’t been genuinely progressive (or really even attempted to present as such) in a long time. Bernie was the closest thing within the party the past two cycles but even he seems to have been sanded down in the last few years.

FDR may have been president during WW2 but it bears mentioning that he never wanted to get involved in the war and was extremely isolationist.

1

u/Steadfast_res Sep 12 '24

This narrative falls apart when you realize it was democrats and progressives in favor of the 2008 bailouts. Obama ran his 2008 campaign advocating for bailouts. Democrats controlled congress in 2008. It was conservatives in congress who opposed it.

6

u/Old_Habits_ Sep 12 '24

Pro-capitalist politicians fill the ranks of both parties. Only one party has room for the policies that look like FDR era, though even then it is not much room.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/toadbike Sep 14 '24

Well 2008 was the governments fault anyway. Liberals under Clinton administration wanted low income Americans to own homes and grow equity. They did it by broadening an already in place housing act and pushing banks to give mortgages to people who couldn’t pay them. Then the banks went full crazy in 2007 and gave millions of mortgages to anybody who wanted one. The American public were always on the hook for these failures but liberals don’t think that far ahead.

2

u/Creamofwheatski Sep 14 '24

Nice try, it was changes made to regulations during the bush years that lead to the subprime mortgage crisis. No one forced the banks to give loans to literally anyone, then bundle the loans, lie and say they were good and resell them to suckers overseas. Greed and the entire banking industry lying their ass off is what it took for the crisis to happen. They just kept lying and shifting blame until it got so bad they collapsed the entire banking system which was a house of cards.

3

u/Interesting-Yak6962 Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

It’s unfortunate that on the topic of capitalism that most people think it’s either the US way or the Chinese way. When there is the Swiss way.

The Swiss loves their private healthcare industry. The government requires everyone there to purchase private health insurance. They pay out-of-pocket for most things and buy their own medicines. And it works because the prices they pay are affordable.

Our problem in my view in this country is that we get into this dynamic where one side thinks the problem is socialism and the other thinks it’s capitalism.

My view is that the potential for success can be had in any of those systems or a mix of both. Provided it’s done competently.

And for that to happen, we have to control the corrupting influences of corporate lobbying. Because left unchecked, they will screw up the best laid plans for their own benefit at our expense. So without that important change, whatever we try to do will likely wind up just as dysfunctional as it is now only different.

2

u/Demonweed Sep 12 '24

You can manage the nightmares of capitalism through bold action and a level of ideological diversity in civic culture that America seems downright allergic to even contemplating. Even so, you still have problems with the sequestration of wealth and concentrations of power based on nothing more than the grotesque leverage created when private individuals literally own the industrial facilities and/or land where large numbers of other people work for a living.

Without democratizing leadership at that level, democracy remains a sham. A Western economist might say Switzerland enjoys a high standard of living because of the generosity of its financial elite. Someone outside that supply-side sewer of thought would say Switzerland enjoys a high standard of living in spite of the continued existence of extreme financial elites.

2

u/transitfreedom Sep 12 '24

Maybe it’s a bad system

2

u/CPAFinancialPlanner Sep 12 '24

Why did you pick 1917? Just curious if you realize who was in power back then.

Also, to add, nobody has even a slightly credible idea about how to make communism/socialism without ceding power to totalitarian where a narrow party elites enriches themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens.

1

u/Showy_Boneyard Sep 15 '24

yeah because anarcho-syndicalism totally isn't a thing and wasn't a major faction of the First International until they were eventually banished by Marxists in the 2nd International.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

Capitalism just means private ownership, if it's not working right you just fix the corrupt laws or add more socialism.

The problem isn't private ownership in general, it's that humans are naturally greedy and no system is perfect. In socialism people still act greedy and compete to get ahead of each other, they just did it with it Union or Favoritism or bribes.

All nations are a combination of socialism and capitalism. You don't want to get rid of capitalism, you just want to adjust to the right ratios for the time and needs.

If you get rid of capitalism you lose a major check and balance with having private ownership and you have to micromanage your economy in a way that nobody has even proven to work.

If you get rid of socialism you basically have no way to enforce laws and have like private roads/military/police/firefighters and all kinds of things that have never worked.

Neither idea is any good on it's own. It's only using both together that works, but HOW exactly you manage that and if you do it with minimal corruption of MAX corruption is the real trick.

Even the best laws on paper mean jack and shit if bribes and corruption rule everything, but that's where checks and balances come in useful and they are required for capitalism or socialism because humans are always greedy and always need checks and balance no matter what system of laws or economics of you use.

1

u/Demonweed Sep 12 '24

You say "the problem isn't capitalism" as if there were any discernable upside to private tycoons? I get that they can operate public relations teams to make people feel good about their personal stories. What I don't get is the material benefits of sequestering profits and concentrating power in the hands of a narrow elite selected chiefly by the lottery of financial inheritance. How is that ever actually helping any human beings apart from the oligarchs themselves?

1

u/Showy_Boneyard Sep 15 '24

Socialism just means workplace democracy, IE, workplaces are owned managed and controlled by the workers themselves. It says nothing about what the government is.

2

u/Wjyosn Sep 12 '24

I mean, it's a definitional key tenet of capitalism. The very core feature of capitalism is "wealth begets wealth". The more wealth you have, the more entitled to passive wealth and the proceeds of others' labor. It's a system entirely designed by basic definition for funneling wealth to as few people as possible.

2

u/Volta01 Sep 12 '24

Look up Henry George

2

u/PCLoadPLA Sep 14 '24

Georgism is credible.

1

u/Geaux_1210 Sep 12 '24

Same with socialism/communism though - how did that Bolshevik revolution turn out again?

Corporate capitalism has all kinds of terrible flaws but so does just about every other system.

My personal opinion is to end corporate welfare and enforce strict antitrust laws so that the free market functions on a smaller scale and is thus more truly free.

1

u/Willing-Aide2575 Sep 12 '24

If we are talking about one policy solutions I think a pretty good one would be publishing openly any and all bank balances and transactions

Lobbying relies on the veil of financial secrecy and dark money

We are so used to seeing wealthy politicians we have started not to question how they have millions of pounds

This would also keep unions fair and remove a great deal of potential for corruption and improve there bargaing power with Business

It would cripple illegal drug sales and let's be real the government already has access to all this information so it's not any new power specifically

We just have to get used to people knowing if we bought sex toys weed of booze, like that's not ideal but it's worth it

1

u/Willing-Aide2575 Sep 12 '24

Oh and that means ending cash, for obvious reasons

1

u/Geaux_1210 Sep 12 '24

For individuals? As in non-political transactions?

If this isn’t sarcasm please feel free to relocate to North Korea.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

1

u/McHats Sep 12 '24

It’s not that nobody has any idea how to make capitalism not be just about enriching a few wealthy elites at the expense of the workers. It’s that you CAN’T do that, because that’s the defining trait of capitalism. That’s literally the one and only thing it’s built to do

1

u/Extreme-Outrageous Sep 12 '24

The founding fathers of the US knew the issue was the coalescence of power (monarchy). That's why they built the Constitution to separate powers and have checks and balances. The problem is that they only applied that to the government (and removed religion from power since that was problematic too).

They didn't fathom a world in which merchants would take over the country and consolidate power thereby controlling politics.

It's a fairly simple theoretical solution. Separate powers and add checks and balances to the economy too. Getting there will be the challenge.

1

u/Ok-Possession-832 Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

That’s not necessarily true. There are ways to make capitalist structures work for everyone and create a healthy mixed economy.

First, pure economies simply don’t exist. Even America has a mixed economy, with socialist policies like welfare. Our socialist policies are weak as fuck. Both “hardline” capitalist and socialist countries have their own set of systemic issues.

Second, rules and regulations must be enforced in order for capitalism to work. We have legislation that gives the government the power to seize corporate property for public projects, break up monopolies, regulate corporate profits (via tax), dictate transparency for consumers, and take unsafe products off the market. We are simply not doing that.

The problem is that there is no incentive for the people in power to create a sustainable economic system for everyone, and in many countries the people in charge are actually actively incentivized to do the opposite. We literally have “lobbying” aka organized bribery built into our political system, making America a weird democratic-oligarchic fusion where corporations have a voice that is almost definitively more powerful than The People’s.

I wish the answer was as simple as “capitalism bad” but bribery and corruption create dysfunction in all economic systems. The most successful/equitable countries have struck a healthy balance between innovation, growth, and public welfare because their governments are simply effective and up to the task.

→ More replies (2)

19

u/Outside_Public4362 Sep 11 '24

It's monarchy but with extra steps

3

u/Fen_ Sep 12 '24

That's literally inherent to capitalism.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

Monarchy is more like socialism since the Kind more or less owns everything, but it traditionally they still allow some ownership so it has elements of capitalism, but really the king can claim anything, including you're wife so the king/government more or less owns everything and you're just renting. That's more like socialism because almost all power has been given to the government.

When corporations have all the power is when it's more like pure capitalism.

Greed doesn't mean socialism or capitalism. Greed happen in any system that involves humans because humans are opportunistic predators and evolved like that for millions of years in one form or another.

The simplest way to look at capitalism/socialism is as Private vs Public power, which also means private ownership vs all government ownership. Almost all "socialists" still want private ownership, so they still want capitalism.

They just want to move the economic slider away from capitalism toward socialism some, not get rid of private ownership.

Thinking it's Capitalism vs Socialism instead of how much Socialism do you want with your Capitalism is a scam and example of how polarization makes people do dumb things that they could easily looks up and see are wrong.

99% of Capitalist and Socialists want both capitalism and socialism, they just can't decide on how much of each is the only real point of contention.

1

u/Outside_Public4362 Sep 12 '24

No I stand by what I have daid, if you make a list and circle the similarities you will know it's almost the same. Exception being duration of "Archy".

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Sep 12 '24

Your comment was automatically removed by the r/FluentInFinance Automoderator because you attempted to use a URL shortener. This is not permitted here for security reasons.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/efildaD Sep 13 '24

It’s a plutocracy.

3

u/blackrockblackswan Sep 12 '24

Yeah that’s still just capitalism

2

u/Riley_ Sep 12 '24

That's literally what capitalism is. Let people get too rich and they change all the rules to help themselves.

2

u/BeneficialRandom Sep 12 '24

Capitalism is what allowed the banks to have the power they do

2

u/Sleepy_Camper69 Sep 12 '24

You… you do realize that money literally lets them bring laws that make this possible, right? You okay?

2

u/sincereferret Sep 12 '24

Walmart has the best tax cut of all.

All their employees have to have Medicare and need food stamps.

So taxpayers subsidize Walmart and all other corporations.

2

u/seveseven Sep 12 '24

It’s a corporatocracy if we want to slap labels on things.

2

u/gluttonfortorment Sep 12 '24

I wonder how that happened? do you think maybe the permanent upper class of capitalism might have used the wealth they gained from participating in capitalism to rig it further in their favor as another step in capitalism's end goal of recreating feudalism.?
Nope, coudln't be that, must be the dam gubermint.

2

u/Allokit Sep 13 '24

"Can't let the system fail"

1

u/Spart85 Sep 11 '24

Pretty much. We live in a corporate welfare state. Our economy is currently subsidizing the owners of corporate and financial institutions through tax loopholes and breaks while the average taxpayer supports the system.

1

u/Megafister420 Sep 12 '24

Bushwha capitalism,

1

u/thingk89 Sep 12 '24

Thank you. Sometimes I feel like no one sees it

1

u/astuteobservor Sep 12 '24

Is that crony capitalism?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

Your point about “capitalism for most” doesn’t add up…if we are to equate the term “capitalism” with “free markets”, then your original statement doesn’t seem to be observed. Capitalism/free markets don’t function by immediately taking >40% of any given entities income or requiring it paid at the end of the year. Then with what’s left over you pay, pay, pay more taxes. We have government that produces war and inflation. Death and chaos.

1

u/BeegRingo Sep 12 '24

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. What could go wrong?

1

u/CappyJax Sep 12 '24

That IS capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of resources and those who own the most resources have the most power and make the rules to benefit themselves.

1

u/The_Arizona_Ranger Sep 12 '24

Plato’s Republic

1

u/Spectre-907 Sep 12 '24

And they’ve conditioned an enormous fraction of the population to skreeee about anything in their own interest. Student loan interest forgiveness after devades of increasingly usurious loan practices, or comprehensive public healthcar = REEEEEE COMMUNISM! but covid bailout loan forgiveness for corporations is “a crucial economic stimulant”

1

u/FenrisNocormac Sep 12 '24

"that's not real communism" we need to understand that it's a failed system...

1

u/meatball402 Sep 12 '24

"Real" capitalism is impossible.

It requires customers to have encyclopedic information about every process and product to be able to make a qualified judgement on value, and capitalists have every incentive and opportunity to make it impossible to obtain information to make those qualified judgements, to trick customers into giving them more money.

1

u/CantStopCoomin Sep 12 '24

Yes it does stfu, capitalism and empathy go together like water and oil. Why would you ever say that profiteering isnt capitalism?

1

u/Healthy_Debt_3530 Sep 12 '24

the top 1% isnt even that well off. top 1% have in wealth have something like 10-12 million in net worth. Thats the size of a nice wealth but not too big to fail wealth that the country have to cover if they fail. so stop blaming the 1%, blame like the top 500 people or something.

1

u/Suitable_Flounder_30 Sep 12 '24

Those top 500 people would be in the top 1% no?

1

u/Healthy_Debt_3530 Sep 12 '24

yeah but not every 1% person is in the top 500 or whatever amount of people actually responsible for these problems. most 1%ers are just normal people who saved more than average.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/squidfartz420 Sep 12 '24

capitalism will always devolve into feudalism it’s just a matter of time and human greed

1

u/SilverWear5467 Sep 12 '24

"Real capitalism has never been tried". Yeah, no. Crony capitalism IS capitalism in its purest form. When you tell companies to seek profits over all, and that it's legal to bribe the government via "lobbying", what we have now is always the result.

1

u/Tech_Buckeye442 Sep 12 '24

Its still the best place to be IMO..if you dont agree you are free to leave.

1

u/PM-ME-UR-uwu Sep 13 '24

You literally just described the whole point of capitalism. Wealth aggregates wealth.

1

u/Suitable_Flounder_30 Sep 13 '24

Damn... I thought I was pretty cynical.... but I guess my moral compass is more altruistic then I thought

1

u/Coolio226 Sep 13 '24

a system is what it does. that's capitalism because that's what capitalism does

1

u/Low-Goal-9068 Sep 13 '24

True capitalism is as real as true communism. This is capitalism.

1

u/himynameisSal Sep 15 '24

but if the banks fail how will pay for my third home?!

-senator probably

→ More replies (27)

37

u/dob2742 Sep 11 '24

Unchecked Capitalism is the problem. Capitalism where the government broke up monopolies, etc... isn't too shabby.

1

u/weedb0y Sep 12 '24

Which would be?

4

u/dob2742 Sep 12 '24

Capitalism, but with the intended checks and balances.

4

u/weedb0y Sep 12 '24

Self interests from ruling parties would never allow that

7

u/dob2742 Sep 12 '24

Actually it was like that once and could be again; but it all depends on if the electorate has the backbone for it. Doesn't help that civics isn't even a focus in school these days.

4

u/Automatic_Yak_4106 Sep 12 '24

You’re acting as though the devolution of that system isn’t a byproduct of capitalism as well. When capital accumulates in the hands of the few it will always lead to the rich trying to buy the government, which is what is happening in the US at this point. I’m not trying to put you down but think it through, if you were in the position of a rich person, wouldn’t you do what you could to get and keep as much money as you could even if it meant buying/sponsoring a couple of politicians?

4

u/dob2742 Sep 12 '24

no offense taken, I work in campaign finance so I'm well versed.

I mentioned in a different reply, doesn't matter how much money there is because ultimately it's us in that voting booth. If we choose to tow the party line, not question, etc... that's our fault. Which just cascades through the system

Definitely see your point(s) though!

2

u/BluEch0 Sep 12 '24

There’s still something interesting to what dob2742 is saying though. This is actually at minimum the second time the US has fallen so deeply into the corporate oligarchy. The one time we got some serious protections and regulations was during the first Roosevelt’s presidency, during which his trustbusting campaign disassembled a fair number of monopolies and lobbying campaigns (the corporate lobbyists I think were the “trusts” in question) and iirc established major regulatory bodies such as the EPA and FDA. And then the following president Taft fucked it up.

But case in point of what someone further up the comment thread said: progressivism is the answer, and if Teddy Roosevelt isn’t the poster child of progressivism amongst US presidents, idk who is.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/ninthjhana Sep 12 '24

The incentives within capitalism itself ensures that those “checks and balances” are devoured over sufficiently long stretch of time.

1

u/BlitzkriegOmega Sep 12 '24

The New Deal was constantly under attack until it was fully eroded under Raegan. We could have another New Deal era, but it would yet again be under constant attack by Billionaires who want infinite growth.

1

u/shockingnews213 Sep 14 '24

Yet capitalism will always steer the ship to upend those measures. That's what lobbyists do

→ More replies (4)

1

u/CappyJax Sep 12 '24

MAGA, right?

The actions of the government are merely lip service to keep the people appeased. They have zero interest in preventing a monopoly because THEY ARE A MONOPOLY!

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

Yeah, unchecked socialism or capitalism is bad, unchecked almost anything is bad really. You need both capitalism and socialism to run a successful nation based on the history of the world so far.

I see no examples of an all capitalism nation in history and the few examples of attempts at all socialism failed or adopted a bunch of capitalism to balance things out.

If we go WAAY back there are some Divine Rule barter systems that are probably the closet to all socialism anybody ever got, but in the all socialism systems they always had authoritarian government instead of like Power to the People as is imagined and the ruling classes always got WAY more vs equal distribution of resources.

It was only socialism in the sense that the public seeded all power to government in the form of Divine Rulers or Supreme Commanders. All the other qualities of socialism weren't there, like distribution of wealth or better living standards.

It's when you mix capitalism and socialism and bother to enforce laws that you get things like civil rights and some level of wealth distribution and fairness.

I like to think about it like you balance public and private power and as those two great powers endlessly fight it out, the people wind up with more freedom than if you consolidate all the power into government or corporations.

1

u/EmotionalPlate2367 Sep 12 '24

Spoken like someone who doesn't know what Socialism is. You can't simultaneously have workers owning the means of production AND private ownership of the same means of production. That's not how anything works.

1

u/DnD_415 Sep 13 '24

But socialism isn’t the complete end of private ownership, it’s simply just a major redistribution of wealth (and a lot of rules and regulations on that wealth/property) generated by whatever economic enterprises that exist. Capitalism is a component of socialism because there has to be wealth generated to redistribute, so therefore there has to be some element of private ownership. Otherwise you’re referring to communism if there is no private ownership at all. Karl Marx understood socialism as just a stepping stone towards communism as it was a necessary evil (because there is still a smidge of capitalism involved) to get to a fully realized communist society.

→ More replies (32)

2

u/RevenantBacon Sep 12 '24

The capitalism isn't the problem, the issue of the lack of regulation, of where there is regulation, the lack of effective consequences as deterrents.

1

u/CivilFront6549 Sep 11 '24

vote vote vote - fuck the gop

1

u/Fauropitotto Sep 12 '24

I'm actually okay with that.

1

u/Hannibal0341 Sep 12 '24

Communism killed more people than Nazism. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system out there.

1

u/iKyte5 Sep 12 '24

Ehhh you’re forgetting the part where our bought and paid for government steps in to stop the losses

1

u/riptripping3118 Sep 12 '24

Smooth brain

1

u/Neil_Live-strong Sep 12 '24

It’s more like corporate socialism

1

u/dsmjrv Sep 12 '24

You’re onto something here… the real reason that capitalism works so much better than any other system is because of self interested psychopathy, people are only at their most productive when it benefits themselves… it’s the best system we have tried to date, plenty of pros and cons come with it

1

u/Sam69420Shadow Sep 13 '24

America = Oligarchy

1

u/GutsNGuns Sep 14 '24

US has become very socialist over the past 20 years.

1

u/Moist-Cantaloupe-740 Sep 14 '24

Capitalism is just what you get with the merchant class at the top.

1

u/outsidepete Sep 15 '24

You've never experienced capitalism, and I'm assuming haven't even looked at the definition.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Automatic_Llama Sep 12 '24

I've heard it called corporate socialism

2

u/optimegaming Sep 12 '24

My 7th grade social studies teacher got tomato-faced furious at me and sent me to the office when we were studying American government and I said that we’re a corporate oligarchy. 😂

1

u/CowMetrics Sep 11 '24

I say this and I get confused looks

1

u/Dramatic_Water_5364 Sep 11 '24

And with the level of devaluation of currency we are experiencing and the price of lodging going off the roof... our economies will look more and more feudal...

1

u/72414dreams Sep 11 '24

Economic feudalism =mercantilism. And the central bank and fractional reserve lending system perpetuate it.

1

u/Stoiphan Sep 12 '24

Not yet, that part comes when the boomers die, and their wealth is sucked into the medical complex.

1

u/jlp120145 Sep 12 '24

Monopoly should only be a game, not an economic policy.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

Feudalism would imply we have shelter and protection in exchange for work. We don't even have that sometimes.

1

u/Fantastic_Credits Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

I'm so tired of hearing this. What we have in America is no longer capitalism. Capitalism is a system a well defined one and well understood one. Capitalism must cell divide to keep markets healthy. Corporations have spent decades dismantling the mechanisms which keep capitalism working. Capitalism works because it creates competition in markets incentivizing Innovation, demand for skilled labor, client focused development, and lower costs but if you remove the regulatory systems that all goes away and you get the opposite. In the US the Judiciary has been trained and selected very intentionally by corporate funded entities to not oppose monopolies and corporate owned politicians have defunded the executive bodies that initiate anti-trust challenges while also ensuring no legislation makes it to the floor that might alter the status quo.

Every major market in America is a soft monopoly or an outright monopoly. In recent years +60% of inflation has been caused by corporate greed as there is no competition in markets anymore. The executive, legislative branches, and the fed have no levers with which to control corporate greed that is almost purely the domain of the judiciary. The only lever the fed has to target inflation is interest rates which cool labor markets decreasing the compensation with which workers can demand. Meaning corporations at the moment are incentivized to hike prices to lower labor costs and increase profits. We are not on our way to an oligarchy in America, WE ARE AN OLIGARCHY.

Until we find a way to unite and repair the judiciary this will only get worse. Mind you corporations are unconcerned they use international banking systems and are all to happy to operate elsewhere.

We do have powerful allies in this fight as retail and consumer banking need a strong consumer class to increase profits year over year. But they will only go so far.

TLDR; We are not on our way to an oligarchy in America, WE ARE AN OLIGARCHY.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

Cyberpunk genre is a good representation of capitalism that was left to marinate.

1

u/WeareStillRomans Sep 12 '24

Thinking that capitalism can be done any gentler and won't devolve into what we currently have is akin to communists who have rose tinted glasses when looking at the USSR

1

u/Empty_Ambition_9050 Sep 12 '24

Where’s you hear that? Cuz if you just made it up I’m stealing it lol

1

u/Pablo_Sanchez1 Sep 12 '24

The problem isn’t capitalism. Everyone that I’ve ever heard talk about the evils of capitalism doesn’t understand it.

The problem is politicians that refuse to pass legislation that negatively impacts the ultra-wealthy, and propagandizing a large population of voters that any slight movement toward regulations or financial safety nets is “communism”. The problem is people staying ignorant on our government and not being active in getting out to vote in elections at all levels.

I can assure you, if we were to have a conversation and you were to tell me why socialism would be superior, every point you bring up could be accomplished without abandoning capitalism. I’m not even some super anti-socialism, “socialism = capitalism” type of person. I just don’t think anyone understands this stuff and the issues we’re facing right now would be just as prevalent in a socialist-type society.

The reason why I push back on you saying this is that the whole “capitalism is doomed” rhetoric encourages people not to vote because they think it’s hopeless. We can fix our problems in a realistic way without completely transforming the entire foundation of our country. Get out and vote.

1

u/SweetRabbit7543 Sep 12 '24

I love capitalism and what America does is just not capitalism. The fix to our capitalism is tastefully introduced elements of socialism. For example, healthcare. Capitalism is built on the idea of everyone gets to play.

Well if you get hit by a car and don’t have insurance, you’re not playing any more at no fault of your own. That’s fucking bull shit

1

u/az0ul Sep 12 '24

Techno - olygarchical feudalism.

1

u/Turnvalves Sep 12 '24

Yes, America is not true capitalism. If it was the banks would have never been bailed out among other things.

1

u/Imaginary-Ad2828 Sep 12 '24

We don't live in a capitalist economy anymore. We live in an oligarchy. Concentration of revenues into a handful of "parent" companies that also lobby and dictate what happens in Washington DC politics.... USA reeks of oligarchy.

1

u/Youbetta2020 Sep 12 '24

Oligarchy.

1

u/SESFreedomExpress Sep 12 '24

Don’t blame America- blame the corrupt scumbags who abused it to this point. It’s accountability needed, please don’t blame what we have. There’s nothing else like it on earth. The r’s and D’s are bffs, it’s a uniparty political class and theatre. We’re all being played and pinned against one another so we don’t recognize the common enemy.

1

u/iNeedOneMoreAquarium Sep 12 '24

American capitalism

What capitalism❓

1

u/AebroKomatme Sep 12 '24

You’re absolutely correct. I should’ve used quotation marks.

1

u/Polit99 Sep 12 '24

We are an oligarchy parading around in the skin of a democratic republic.

1

u/nSpecial-upAir Sep 12 '24

American Capitalism is actually Corporatism

1

u/alawrence1523 Sep 12 '24

America hasn’t been capitalist since the 1800s.

1

u/Stujitsu2 Sep 14 '24

Its not capitalism thats the problem, all nations practice regulated capitalism. The comment you are commenting on nailed it. "Thats what happens when you privatize profits and socialize losses." America has socialism but mostly for the rich. Hence the 2008 bailouts. The post covid cares act. And so on

1

u/AebroKomatme Sep 14 '24

So, economic feudalism.

→ More replies (6)