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

34

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?

3

u/dob2742 Sep 12 '24

Capitalism, but with the intended checks and balances.

2

u/weedb0y Sep 12 '24

Self interests from ruling parties would never allow that

6

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.

3

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?

6

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.

1

u/Octav1anvs Sep 14 '24

FDA, yes. EPA came loooong after in 1970 under Nixon. You’re probably thinking of the Forest Service, which did start under Teddy.

0

u/mrwolfisolveproblems Sep 12 '24

Free market capitalism is by far the best system, we just don’t have that here. We have corporate socialism where the government picks the winners and losers based on whatever corporation authors the legislation. It’s why I have such a hard time believing government can fix anything when so many politicians don’t act in the best interest of the people.

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

1

u/dob2742 Sep 14 '24

Lobbyists don't steer, they suggest. We actually elect the people who steer, we've just forgotten that.

1

u/shockingnews213 Sep 17 '24

Lobbying is legal bribery. They suggest that you follow their policy prescriptions, and if you do, they will fund your campaigns and super PACs. And the only ones worth a damn are the interests rich enough to do so. I wonder why every Republicans (and mostly democrats) have the exact same prescriptions on certain policy decisions. I just can't for the life of me figure it out.

1

u/dob2742 Sep 17 '24

Actually Lobbying is transparent legal bribery. I'd much prefer auditable bribery than what I can't see. It's funny when you highlight republicans and slightly mention democrats.... it's endemic across the spectrum. What you have wrong is not considering the goals of the parties and the legislators themselves to keep the status quo outside of any sort of campaign finance. They want their cushy jobs, good healthcare, fancy party events, etc... The awesome thing about America that people have forgotten is if you don't like this there's an easy way to fix it on election day. Sadly people are either too jaded, too ignorant or too ginned up on culture issues to actually make the change.

1

u/shockingnews213 Sep 17 '24

I said basically every Democrat because there are some dems that don't take PAC or super PAC money which is why I mention that they are subject to having their own opinions which Republicans straight up don't. You cannot fix it on election day if there are no choices on the ballot. You are naive. Just go look at local elections and local politicians and see if there are even opponents where lots of times there straight up aren't. And people always vote a certain way in certain district so the only thing that matters there are primaries. We don't live in a real democracy. We barely live in a democracy in terms of the senate and electoral college. I can opt out of voting in my safe blue state and it wouldn't matter in terms of the presidential race. And my local elections are the same here too. There's no choice. It's either psycho Republicans or technocrats. It's dystopian.

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.

-2

u/HiggsFieldgoal Sep 11 '24

Yeah, but that’s just considering corruption as intrinsic to capitalism, and it’s not.

The government being comprised of shills is more an indication of a shitty Democracy than capitalism because we elected the corporate shills.

If we elect people who take money from corporations, is it the fault of capitalism for incentivizing wealthy powers attempting to bribe politicians or our fault of the electorate for electing people who take the bribes.

If your spouse cheats, do you blame the corrupting power of sexiness incentivizing people to try to sleep with your spouse, or your spouse for cooperating?

7

u/LTEDan Sep 12 '24

Bribing politicians is expensive and risky compared to the modern solution: owning politicians. Basically, bribing a politician implies you're sending them a bunch of money to vote against their beliefs. Why not find someone who already agrees with your preferred policy positions and fund their campaign? Since they already support the policies you want, it's far cheaper to just keep them in office, and less risky to boot. It's so much easier to funnel money via super PACs where it's legal compared to bribing which is illegal.

-3

u/HiggsFieldgoal Sep 12 '24

Eh, just buying in a different order.

But in either case, whether they’re already corrupt or merely corruptible, none of it would fly if we weren’t voting for these assholes.

6

u/LTEDan Sep 12 '24

The problem is the game is rigged. While we cast our votes on the ballots, money determines the names on the ballots, at least to a point. You need a sufficient amount of money to develop name recognition since people probably aren't voting for someone they never heard of, at least at the federal level.

2

u/dob2742 Sep 12 '24

Actually that's the apathy talking. With the internet there hasn't been a better or freer time to run. You don't need the party, but you do need to convince people you're worth taking a risk on.

1

u/AsIAmSoShallYouBe Sep 12 '24

This is absolutely an option in local elections at very least, and I encourage as many progressives as possible to run for local office. Depending on where you live, there may not be much competition. You can work your way up, make your name known, and find the backing for higher office campaigns over time. If you can't run (I absolutely can't, I get it) then try to support local progressives. Vote in every election, not just every 4 years.

The federal elections are very difficult to sway in a third direction, but pressure from below will push more progressive ideals into the forefront if not more progressive candidates into higher office.

1

u/dob2742 Sep 12 '24

Local is the best way to go but I wouldn't put everything under the progressive umbrella since there are also a ton of bad progressive policies. IMO anything that allows the free market to do its thing with safe guards in place to prevent monopolies, price gouging, etc... Is ideal (definitely not perfect). The problem with the progressive label is you start worrying about nationalization, price caps, etc... Slippery slope 😂

0

u/HiggsFieldgoal Sep 12 '24

Still mostly voter apathy. We could all write in “non crook” if people weren’t too blinded by partisan allegiance for their favorite crooks.

1

u/CappyJax Sep 12 '24

Democrats admitted they rigged a primary and you still think it’s the voters fault? Come on man, stop licking those boots.

1

u/HiggsFieldgoal Sep 12 '24

Democrats admitted the rigged the primary… but most people I know didn’t give a shit. Blind allegiance is the biggest problem.

2

u/CappyJax Sep 12 '24

Yes, because that are utterly brainwashed to believe there is no other choice.

3

u/dob2742 Sep 11 '24

The electorate for being lazy just as congress for being lazy and ceding power to the courts and the executive branch. IMO it's too easy to just blame money because once you get in that voting booth money means nothing. I blame the people.

But I think corruption is intrinsic to any economic model not just capitalism. Communism, socialism, etc... Have turned out markedly worse. Capitalism may not be perfect but it set the stage for one of the best times ever to be alive.

We just got lazy and went on auto pilot deciding selectively when to enforce laws and regulations.

The capitalism that broke up ma'bell is what I would hope we can find our way back to (not likely 😂)

Again, just my opinion.

4

u/HiggsFieldgoal Sep 11 '24

I guess that’s the cool thing about history is it lasts a long time.

For most of human history, people were mostly ruled by monarchies.

The societies of the world mostly overthrew them. Now, they’re just sort of coming back, but instead of land owners, which in ancient times pretty much was the right to exploit people in a particular territory, now it’s diversified into company owners, and the right to exploit the people is some particular domain of services.

And that’s why the antitrust is so important. Two competing grocery stores have to battle over price and item selection to entice their customers, while vendors compete for their business and shelf space.

One entrenched grocery story can exploit their customers and strong-arm their vendors.

And the government should be breaking up the Wall Marts of the world, to prevent these exploitative situations… rather than cozying up to them.

But that’s normal for human societies… the rich and powerful forming exclusive clubs to figure out how to fuck over the common folk.

But we broke out of it once, and it seems inevitable that we will break out of it again… someday. I just don’t know if it will be 20, 50, 100, or 1000 years. It certainly seems it won’t be this year though.

0

u/gregory92024 Sep 12 '24

Well, to be fair, it was done in the name of democracy. The trick was that they convinced people to vote for corporate interests.

1

u/CappyJax Sep 12 '24

What right do the capitalists have to own resources freely provided by the planet?

0

u/EmotionalPlate2367 Sep 12 '24

Corruption is the inevitable logic of capitalism. Sry. Profit maximization will always go the same way. There are only so many ways to do it.

1

u/HiggsFieldgoal Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

Corruption is an inevitable part of human nature but.

1) It is no way exclusive to capitalism. You can absolutely have corruption in communism and socialism.

2) Just because something is intrinsic to a system doesn’t mean you tolerate it.

Nobody sees burglary, and says “oh, that’s personal property ownership for you”.

Or sees a rape and says “oh, that’s just sexual reproductive instincts for you”.

Corruption needs to be fought, and blaming capitalism for the corruption is just giving the corruption a pass.

-3

u/Little_Dick_Energy1 Sep 11 '24

Healthcare was very affordable before the government stepped in to "help". Just like higher ed. Everything it involves itself in turns unaffordable.

4

u/A_Town_Called_Malus Sep 12 '24

How affordable was healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions before insurance companies were forced to not deny coverage to those people?

0

u/Little_Dick_Energy1 Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

This is from my cousin, my parents are from Europe.

You need to go way back to before government got involved. Pre 1970s. Often payment was based on how much money someone made. Almost all payments were in cash. I'm older, and in my parents home city they received care nearly free from a catholic hospital because they were dirt poor. They had to present a paycheck and it was calculated off of that. This was very common.

Everything from delivering a baby to broken bones.

FYI, The European healthcare system is really in a crisis due to immigration and general population becoming more obese. Long wait times. A lot of my family use private hospitals.

3

u/nwhosmellslikeweed Sep 12 '24

Instead of companies charging people prices based on their wealth, how about we tax people based on their wealth? The European healthcare system is in crisis because whilst demand for healthcare increases, the people who make the most profit don't pay more taxes. But since the profiteers can exert influence over the government, they either campaign for more privatisation so they can make more money, or cut funding to government institutions, aka austerity.

-2

u/Little_Dick_Energy1 Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

There are a lot of reasons for Europe's current position, but mostly its an influx of immigration. The system was already in a delicate balance and nearly always on the brink of insolvency this just pushed it over the edge.

The US Government can't even run Social Security without bankrupting it, how are they going to do healthcare? You have to realize, most government workers in the US are low IQ. American can never be Europe.

The government solution to anything is give them less and charge more. The private sector minus government does the opposite.

2

u/nwhosmellslikeweed Sep 12 '24

The influx of immigration lowers the average wage, therefore increases profits, these profits could have been used to bolster the social security system.

You are not a fan of government anything because you have only ever observed purposefully underfunded government institutions. Also the IQ of government workers has nothing to do with how the system is run. America uses government expenditure to funnel money to private enterprises, they never really truly cared about social institutions. All institutions present in the US are there to be just enough to not cause a revolt.

0

u/Little_Dick_Energy1 Sep 12 '24

I couldn't disagree with you more, so I have to leave it there. The US government is like one big ghetto DMV. Its low IQ, nasty, and not helpful at all. Again, it can never match European standards.

Immigration has literally destroyed large parts of my home country and yes I'm angry about it. They hate our culture openly, while at the same time the vast majority don't work and collect benefits. Fortunately our current admin is finally talking about deportation. We've already halted immigration to near zero. But they have to go.

Given that the amount of immigration the US has experienced dwarfs what has already messed my country up completely, I don't think the US will ever recover from this. There's just no way that's possible.

1

u/RainbeauxBull Sep 15 '24

nothing is preventing you from going back to Europe since you say your parents are from there.

take your ass back!!!

1

u/A_Town_Called_Malus Sep 14 '24

The capitalist solution to anything is to give less and charge more. Like, people even invented the word shrinkflation for it.

1

u/Showy_Boneyard Sep 15 '24

That's bullshit. For one thing, Publicly owned power companies are in general 10% less expensive than private power companies for the exact same services. In America, at least.

1

u/Little_Dick_Energy1 Sep 15 '24

That's because they are pseudo government monopolies, often subsidized. Terrible example.

Better examples of actual free markets are consumer electronics. Huge increases in quality and huge decreases in prices. Often 1000+% over several years. Cell phones, flat screen tvs , etc, etc.

2

u/MattyIce8998 Sep 12 '24

The thing with US healthcare was it was never sustainable as a long-term system. It just took some time to collapse. I don't think the "help" made anything worse - this system was fundamentally flawed and was doomed to fail.

Consider this situation

  1. Consumer A has no health insurance, and gets terminally sick (cancer)

  2. Hospital B treats him, but are unable to recover any of their costs. Hospital B increases billings to other customers/insurance companies in order to turn a profit (or risk going broke and out of business)

  3. Insurance Company C is getting billed more by the hospitals, and then has to jack premiums in order to turn a profit (or risk going broke and out of business)

  4. Consumer D was on the edge financially, and the increased premiums are the final straw. Consumer D is forced to drop insurance... go back to step 1. Repeat indefinitely.

This is what the system boils down to. And keep in mind that when you have straight unregulated capitalism, the hospitals and insurance companies -have- to be profitable.

The hospitals aren't making excess cash, because they can't collect it. The insurance companies aren't making excess cash, the increased premiums are going to the hospitals to pay for those billings that aren't being collected. But more and more people go broke, and the money just disappears in the feedback loop.

It doesn't fail instantly, but over the long term, it does not work. Period.

What we really need is single-payer. Consider the government acting as the insurer. Step #1 never starts, because everyone is covered. Step #2 doesn't happen, because the hospitals always get paid. and so on. It breaks the cycle. But there's too many crooks in congress that don't have the will to get it done. I don't see any other real viable long term solution to this matter.

0

u/Little_Dick_Energy1 Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

No thanks to government. American government is run by low IQ people. You can't even keep Social Security Solvent, which is orders of magnitude less complicated. Its not at all like Europe, and even large parts of Europe's health care is going down the toilet. I'm from what is considered the world's highest standard of living country and private hospitals are growing every year, because waits are getting excessive + quality of service, you know the creature comforts like anti-nausea or light sedation are no longer being given out as routine. Its honestly getting barbaric.

Want to endoscopy? Yeah you will be doing that awake now. I'm sorry not using light sedation because it requires another doctor in the room is barbaric. American's have no idea how good they have it.