Support NeoGAF

[thehypocrite]

Nobody remembers the gulags...

Or the prison system.
Or the wars for capitalist exploitation of resources.
Or the child labor.
Or the slaves in the middle east.
Or the human trafficking.
Or the lead poisoning.
Or the global warming.
Or the ecological disasters.
Or the famine & malnutrition.

I could continue.

 

[dreamlongdead]

Overall nay. I was put into this system against my will, and I can't say I'm fond it.

Even though I expect to do decent in life, I wouldn't really want people to generally go through the capitalist/corporatist rat race. Our way of life is really silly.

 

[prag16]

Pure capitalism obviously has problems (no country in the world has seen "pure" capitalism in a very long time though at best we're talking about corporatism which isn't the same thing at all).

But going too far towards socialism can be very dangerous. Without perfectly altruistic and perfectly wise government, allocation of resources under socialism will always be less efficient than capitalism.

And there's always the old adage... any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.

Before we get cute talking about universal health care and housing and basic income and so forth, we need to find a way to reduce the crony corruption bullshit that pervades government. How is lobbying as a concept allowed to be a thing? It's sad that the chicanery seen in something like House of Cards probably is a very tame depiction about the type of nonsense that goes on behind the curtain. There are probably limits on what can be done, but there's enormous room for improvement there.

Your system assumes that everyone has good intentions and that no one would be good at manipulating others and getting themselves put on top.

Look, no system is perfect. There is always a way to exploit it. Which is why it's ridiculous to think that we should all go one system or other for everything. Use what works in the area it works in. use something different in a different area. Our system already shows you can have different systems working with each other (our system is definitely not pure capitalist).

Yes, capitalism does need checks. But honestly, of all the systems, the ideas behind it are probably the best to keep human nature in check. But we do need regulations on it because there are definitely ways to still exploit it. And it's not good for everything (stuff like health insurance or stuff like roads just don't work so well that way).

Pure capitalism would probably work fine if everyone was good natured and wanted the best for everyone. But they don't. And that's the same problem with going to your system. Except that your proposal has even less balances to keep these people from finding ways to abuse/exploit it.

Excellent post.

 

[ThusZarathustra]

Or the prison system.
Or the wars for capitalist exploitation of resources.
Or the child labor.
Or the slaves in the middle east.
Or the human trafficking.
Or the lead poisoning.
Or the global warming.
Or the ecological disasters.
Or the famine & malnutrition.

I could continue.

I'm fairly sure all of that is at the feet of human nature more broadly, not capitalism specifically. Capitalism was just the late-stage enzyme that vastly scaled up the process. We've always done horrible things and any process that organizes human endeavor at a large scale will lead to similar things. It was fascism and religion before it was capitalism.

 

[injurai]

Or the prison system.
Or the wars for capitalist exploitation of resources.
Or the child labor.
Or the slaves in the middle east.
Or the human trafficking.
Or the lead poisoning.
Or the global warming.
Or the ecological disasters.
Or the famine & malnutrition.

I could continue.

Yet, the whole point is that these things don't drop away with communism and socialism.

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm fairly sure all of that is at the feet of human nature more broadly, not capitalism specifically. Capitalism was just the late-stage enzyme that vastly scaled up the process. We've always done horrible things and any process that organizes human endeavor at a large scale will lead to similar things. It was fascism and religion before it was capitalism.

Fascism came after capitalism and is political in nature. I think you mean feudalism.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

Capitalism is only passable when regulated to prevent market domination and unfair wages. Social programs help balance that out.

 

[Dice]

Rhetorical question I assume as that's impossible to answer. In any event, capitalism was not to blame for that, so I'm not sure what you're getting at?

And yet Friedman market exploitation wonderlands were set up in place of everything usurped unto the pure benefit of America while they crashed into poverty or inequality and crime. How mysterious. Regardless, the point was that communism is not solely to blame for the failure of every communist state, so overgeneralized statements that try to convey such are weak.

 

[mkenyon]

I'm fairly sure all of that is at the feet of human nature more broadly, not capitalism specifically. Capitalism was just the late-stage enzyme that vastly scaled up the process. We've always done horrible things and any process that organizes human endeavor at a large scale will lead to similar things. It was fascism and religion before it was capitalism.

If you've found the key to human nature, you might want to let philosophy know that it can just go ahead and stop.

/sarcasm

@ thread in general: C'mon with the "Human Nature" argument. It's like 5 different logical fallacies all rolled up into one.

 

[Muffdraul]

In one of the documentaries about the 2008 meltdown, I forget which one, (EDIT: it was Inside Job) someone said that during the meeting between the Fed and all of the heads of the banks, early on before they had seen the bottom yet and there was real fear that they had literally destroyed Western civilization, one of the bank heads tearfully said "You never, never should have let them deregulate us... we can't control ourselves, we can't help it, this is what we do..."

Whether or not that actually happened, it's what I've believed for a long time. These fuckers have demonstrated again and again that to them it's all just numbers on a spreadsheet, not people getting hurt. So I'm in favor of Capitalism only with the caveat that it absolutely has to be extremely regulated.

 

[ThusZarathustra]

Fascism came after capitalism and is political in nature. I think you mean feudalism.

Yeah my bad. My point is that the emergence of hierarchical control happens almost always and horrible behavior is then excused through its tenets, whatever those may be. It's human, you won't get rid of it, you can only harness and mitigate it as best as possible.

 

[Oersted]

Most entertaining way to screw up the world beyond repair.

 

[mkenyon]

Yeah my bad. My point is that the emergence of hierarchical control happens almost always and horrible behavior is then excused through its tenets, whatever those may be. It's human, you won't get rid of it, you can only harness and mitigate it as best as possible.

So creating a system that gives exploitative people power naturally is the best way to mitigate it?

 

[The Albatross]

Or the prison system.
Or the wars for capitalist exploitation of resources.
Or the child labor.
Or the slaves in the middle east.
Or the human trafficking.
Or the lead poisoning.
Or the global warming.
Or the ecological disasters.
Or the famine & malnutrition.

I could continue.

I think that all of these items were appreciably worse under the Communist regimes of the 20th century than any Western regulated Capitalist county. I mean, at least child labor, wars for exploitation of resources, slave labor, human trafficking, global warming, ecological disasters, and especially famine and malnutrition. Maybe you're right about lead poisoning though... The Western democratic capitalist societies probably had worse lead poisoning than, say, the USSR, where millions of people turned to cannibalism to feed their families.

Although even regardless I'll re-iterate my point about Capitalism from earlier that you cannot have free markets without free peoples. If people are held in slave labor or child labor, or what have you, that is by definition not a free market.

 

[Tiops]

It's funny how every failed communist state example just isn't the "right kind" of communism.

It's always this same argument.

 

[Mecha]

Yet, the whole point is that these things don't drop away with communism and socialism.

A lot of those issues are the symptoms of capitalism, it would be interesting to hear why you think those issues wouldn't disappear without capitalism.

It's funny how every failed communist state example just isn't the "right kind" of communism.

People (generally I) have been saying that these states weren't communist. Look up what communism is:

"Communism: A term describing a stateless, classless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production. "Communism" can also describe the revolutionary movement to create such a society."

They weren't communist, they were trying to reach communism.

I'm fairly sure all of that is at the feet of human nature more broadly, not capitalism specifically. Capitalism was just the late-stage enzyme that vastly scaled up the process. We've always done horrible things and any process that organizes human endeavor at a large scale will lead to similar things. It was fascism and religion before it was capitalism.

I hate to respond with a quote, but I think it applies here:

"To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough." - Andrew Collier, Marx: A Beginner’s Guide

It's always this same argument.

I would love for you to explain to me how these countries actually reached communism.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Does anyone have any good articles or anything about Allende’s Presidency of Chile? Particularly from people who lived through it.

 

[ThusZarathustra]

So creating a system that gives exploitative people power naturally is the best way to mitigate it?

Only horrifically unregulated capitalism does that. Which is really the only form that we've ever seen. Also, exploitative, ambitious, manipulative people have gotten into power since always, it's human nature. I think we all agree on that bit.

We seem to disagree on what to do about it and I don't think we've come up with anything better than heavily-regulated free markets with massive social programs. And I think the ideal outcome of that situation is closer to the best of what all the systems provide.

 

[mkenyon]

I think that all of these items were appreciably worse under the Communist regimes of the 20th century than any Western regulated Capitalist county. I mean, at least child labor, wars for exploitation of resources, slave labor, human trafficking, global warming, ecological disasters, and especially famine and malnutrition. Maybe you're right about lead poisoning though... The Western democratic capitalist societies probably had worse lead poisoning than, say, the USSR, where millions of people turned to cannibalism to feed their families.

Although even regardless I'll re-iterate my point about Capitalism from earlier that you cannot have free markets without free peoples. If people are held in slave labor or child labor, or what have you, that is by definition not a free market.

What's interesting, is that one could argue China most closely resembles as Fascist State, not a Communist State.

Using the Soviet Union as an example of what socialism is, is like stating that capitalism is best represented by debt-prisons and unfettered exploitation of the 1800s. But almost worse, because capitalism didn't have half of the world trying to extinguish it through economic and military pressure.

My point is, you won't find a socialist who disagrees with you in the horrors that happened in the Soviet Union.

Alternatively, you could look at Tito's Yugoslavia with a mixed-market economy, which existed during the same time frame.

Only horrifically unregulated capitalism does that. Which is really the only form that we've ever seen. Also, exploitative, ambitious, manipulative people have gotten into power since always, it's human nature. I think we all agree on that bit.

We seem to disagree on what to do about it and I don't think we've come up with anything better than heavily-regulated free markets with massive social programs. And I think the ideal outcome of that situation is closer to the best of what all the systems provide.

You're thinking I'm using the word exploitative in a pejorative manner. I'm not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation

 

[ThusZarathustra]

"To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough." - Andrew Collier, Marx: A Beginner’s Guide.

I've not read the book, but I think you could look at just about any society and conclude that human nature is egoism. Again, I don't think it's about capitalism, really, capitalism is an outgrowth of other, deeper, impulses.

 

[prag16]

I don't think we've come up with anything better than heavily-regulated free markets with massive social programs. And I think the ideal outcome of that situation is closer to the best of what all the systems provide.

So about these "massive social programs".

What do you see as the endgame for this? Of course ideally we wouldn't need "massive social programs". We'd only need programs for those who are disabled, mentally handicapped, or otherwise disadvantage. "Helping people who can't help themselves."

But even in the U.S. today the "safety net" is many orders of magnitude broader than that. It may just be a fact of life, but what do you see as the way forward? Spending in these areas just keeps expanding and expanding endlessly, without things really seeming to get any better.

How do we lift people out of poverty and end the cycle of dependency so many millions are locked into? Capitalism is the only system that has ever really done that, so moving towards more socialism doesn't really seem like the answer.

 

[ThusZarathustra]

So about these "massive social programs".

What do you see as the endgame for this? Of course ideally we wouldn't need "massive social programs". We'd only need programs for those who are disabled, mentally handicapped, or otherwise disadvantage. "Helping people who can't help themselves."

But even in the U.S. today the "safety net" is many orders of magnitude broader than that. It may just be a fact of life, but what do you see as the way forward? Spending in these areas just keeps expanding and expanding endlessly, without things really seeming to get any better.

How do we lift people out of poverty and end the cycle of dependency so many millions are locked into? Capitalism is the only system that has ever really done that, so moving towards more socialism doesn't really seem like the answer.

I'm not a cutting edge theoretical economist, but as far as I understand it the eventual endgame is universal/basic income.

 

[mkenyon]

I've not read the book, but I think you could look at just about any society and conclude that human nature is egoism. Again, I don't think it's about capitalism, really, capitalism is an outgrowth of other, deeper, impulses.

That's honestly ludicrous.

Capitalism just happened to come about by the Burghers gaining extensive power throughout Renaissance Europe, and allowed them to control most of the world. The world adapted to the market system brought to them.

Due to the ability to produce things and generally improve the standard of living, as a system, it was able to sustain itself despite the waning and falling of specific empires. This is one of the neat features of capitalism, it's crowd sourced and not reliant on a specific body in order to continually perpetuate and grow.

To claim that the world moved into capitalism because of human nature is akin to attributing lightning to Thor.

 

[ThusZarathustra]

That's honestly ludicrous.

Capitalism just happened to come about by the Burghers gaining extensive power throughout Renaissance Europe, and allowed them to control most of the world. The world adapted to the market system brought to them.

Due to the ability to produce things and generally improve the standard of living, as a system, it was able to sustain itself despite the waning and falling of specific empires. This is one of the neat features of capitalism, it's crowd sourced and not reliant on a specific body in order to continually perpetuate and grow.

To claim that the world moved into capitalism because of human nature is akin to attributing lightning to Thor.

No it's the same thing as attributing failing economies to basic greed. You might disagree but to me capitalism is just another closed system case study from Jared Diamond about mismanaged resources due to short-sighted values, which we've done since time immemorial.

 

[Giant Panda]

Well, I like the types of questions he presents in regards to the sustainability of capitalism in the current world. If possible you can watch some these here

I'll give this a watch. Thanks.

man the number of people who think socialism = government control is quite something

Isn't that what is though? The government forbidding private ownership of the means of production sounds like government control to me.

In one of the documentaries about the 2008 meltdown, I forget which one, someone said that during the meeting between the Fed and all of the heads of the banks, early on before they had seen the bottom yet and there was real fear that they had literally destroyed Western civilization, one of the bank heads tearfully said "You never, never should have let them deregulate us... we can't control ourselves, we can't help it, this is what we do..."

Whether or not that actually happened, it's what I've believed for a long time. These fuckers have demonstrated again and again that to them it's all just numbers on a spreadsheet, not people getting hurt. So I'm in favor of Capitalism only with the caveat that it absolutely has to be extremely regulated.

I'm not sure if I buy the argument in full, but there are whole branches of economics (Austrian School) that believe that Central Bank interference is what allowed banks to go crazy and over-leverage themselves. They believe that the Fed was keeping the interest rate lower than it would have otherwise been naturally, and low interest rates make debt more attractive. So while the jury is still out on that case in particular, you have to be careful with government regulation, because many of the current injustices that people complain about and assign to capitalism are actually due to the government.

 

[Fenderputty]

Yeah my bad. My point is that the emergence of hierarchical control happens almost always and horrible behavior is then excused through its tenets, whatever those may be. It's human, you won't get rid of it, you can only harness and mitigate it as best as possible.

This is part of Marx's criticism of capital. It never stopped the heirarchy in feudalism, just blurred the definitions of each level within.

IMO those levels can be blurred more. Based on the below link I think most Americans agree even if they don't realize it

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/wealth-inequality-video_n_2805811.html

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

I feel like raw materials should be state owned while production side should be privately operated. This would make regulation of resources much easier, but still allow for capitalism to work on the whole. Thoughts?

 

[gondwana]

At the risk of reifying it, capitalism, stripped of bias and political bullshit, is concerned with absolutely nothing but growth and profit. If you can't see how a growth-based (required) economy is untenable in a planet of impermanent and finite natural resources, then you're dishonest. If you can't see how the profit-motive engenders shitty behavior, then you're delusional.

Right. So in what ways does capitalism differ from feudalism? People with Capital are the lords and people without are the serfs. The illusion of upward mobility (I say illusion because it's not exactly common) that one can become a lord from a serf is just more present in capitalism where in feudalism the illusion of upward mobility never existed.

I've actually caught myself pining for the golden days of feudalism lately. At least the kings and queens had mercy on the peasantry and declared the occasional debt jubilee. At least a family could live in almost complete self-sufficiency with nature and without recourse to wage labor.

That being said, I have no clue what form a decent post-capitalist economy would take... but I know everything wrong with capitalism! I expect nothing more than planetary destruction at this point. Maybe because I'm a rare breed of religious anti-capitalist, but I truly believe small acts of compassion count for far more than anything politics could hope to solve. I liked David Graeber's concept of "everyday communism", which is probably completely heretical to today's Marxist youths, hot off the college conveyor belt.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

You might enjoy Das Kapital too. If nothing else as a unique critique of capitalism. I've read Kapital but I need to read The Wealth of Nations.

I've read excerpts of Das Kapital, and of course, the Communist Manifesto among Marx's other writings. Some stuff is really useful for Marxist literary critiques (base and superstructure, alienation from one's job because workers don't use what they produce, etc.).

Marx is pretty spot on about many of the worker issues that arise as a result of a capitalist economy, but it's hard to talk about that with people because the general public's idea of "Marxism" has been tainted by its connection with the not-very-communist Communist Russians.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Isn't that what is though? The government forbidding private ownership of the means of production sounds like government control to me.

Nope. Socialism means the people own the means of production. not the government. Think worker co-ops. The private ownership means that one sole person cannot own the means of production

I've read excerpts of Das Kapital, and of course, the Communist Manifesto among Marx's other writings. Some stuff is really useful for Marxist literary critiques (base and superstructure, alienation from one's job because workers don't use what they produce, etc.).

Marx is pretty spot on about many of the worker issues that arise as a result of a capitalist economy, but it's hard to talk about that with people because the general public's idea of "Marxism" has been tainted by its connection with the not-very-communist Communist Russians.

ah cool. okay. Ive always figured that The Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital are good starters for stuff like this. gonna get my hands on the wealth of nations someday.

 

[Izuna]

You know, NeoGAF is a product of capitalism. To root for anything else would mean you wouldn't want GAF to exist. =( Or rather, Tyler couldn't make a living from providing this please.

The thing is, capitalism really benefits creativity and diversity. The only bad thing is when people don't have the opportunity to use tools for creating stuff should they wish to invent, or people who simply go hungry and can't clean themselves. Poverty is seriously the only big issue. But that's only if you look a single country and not international trade, where big cooperations undermine government.

 

[Opto]

Fuck you capitalism but also thanks for the vidya games

 

[Orthogonal]

At the risk of reifying it, capitalism, stripped of bias and political bullshit, is concerned with absolutely nothing but growth and profit. If you can't see how a growth-based (required) economy is untenable in a planet of impermanent and finite natural resources, then you're dishonest. If you can't see how the profit-motive engenders shitty behavior, then you're delusional.

I would amend this a bit and say that in its purest form, Capitalism is about wealth generation, not necessarily growth.

True wealth, (ie. Creating something that is more valuable than the resources used to make it), is what Capitalism strives to do. This can be done in both a growth and declining economy.

Certain schools of thought within Capitalism, like Keynesianism, certainly focus on growth as the primary driver, but other schools of thought like Austrian Economics are agnostic to growth and attempt to explain economic phenomena holistically.

 

[Giant Panda]

At the risk of reifying it, capitalism, stripped of bias and political bullshit, is concerned with absolutely nothing but growth and profit. If you can't see how a growth-based (required) economy is untenable in a planet of impermanent and finite natural resources, then you're dishonest. If you can't see how the profit-motive engenders shitty behavior, then you're delusional.


I've actually caught myself pining for the golden days of feudalism lately. At least the kings and queens had mercy on the peasantry and declared the occasional debt jubilee. At least a family could live in almost complete self-sufficiency with nature and without recourse to wage labor.

That being said, I have no clue what form a decent post-capitalist economy would take... but I know everything wrong with capitalism! I expect nothing more than planetary destruction at this point. Maybe because I'm a rare breed of religious anti-capitalist, but I truly believe small acts of compassion count for far more than anything politics could hope to solve. I liked David Graeber's concept of "everyday communism", which is probably completely heretical to today's Marxist youths, hot off the college conveyor belt.

What?! Living standards are much much higher now under capitalism than feudalism. Not to mention people also have a lot more freedom under capitalism than feudalism. Also, it is entirely false than capitalism requires constant growth. I mean in Econ 101 they teach you that the equilibrium in capitalist economies works and has zero economic profits. Capitalism is the most efficient system for distributing scarce goods even when there is no growth.

 

[params7]

Yay for another couple of decades, or until most of the world can be automated.

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm not sure if I buy the argument in full, but there are whole branches of economics (Austrian School) that believe that Central Bank interference is what allowed banks to go crazy and over-leverage themselves. They believe that the Fed was keeping the interest rate lower than it would have otherwise been naturally, and low interest rates make debt more attractive. So while the jury is still out on that case in particular, you have to be careful with government regulation, because many of the current injustices that people complain about and assign to capitalism are actually due to the government.

The Fed setting interest rates isn't government regulation. It's monitary economic policy. The government failed to regulate the banks after the Feds created a market that encouraged people take on debt.

 

[FiggyCal]

I'll give this a watch. Thanks.


Isn't that what is though? The government forbidding private ownership of the means of production sounds like government control to me.

What is anarchism?

 

[Giant Panda]

Nope. Socialism means the people own the means of production. not the government. Think worker co-ops. The private ownership means that one sole person cannot own the means of production

Telling people they can't own the means of production by themselves sounds like authoritarianism and government control to me. Socialism, as I understand it, would prevent a worker co-op from selling their capital to an individual, for that individual to use to seek his or her own profit. A system like that prevents resources from shifting to their best use.

 

[Orthogonal]

The Fed setting interest rates isn't government regulation. It's monitary economic policy. The government failed to regulate the banks after the Feds created a market that encouraged people take on debt.

Setting interest rates absolutely is a regulation. Banks are not allowed to charge at a rate different than the overnight rate set by the Fed.

 

[injurai]

I've actually caught myself pining for the golden days of feudalism lately. At least the kings and queens had mercy on the peasantry and declared the occasional debt jubilee. At least a family could live in almost complete self-sufficiency with nature and without recourse to wage labor.

I think you might be idealizing that a bit much.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

Telling people they can't own the means of production by themselves sounds like authoritarianism and government control to me. Socialism, as I understand it, would prevent a worker co-op from selling their capital to an individual, for that individual to use to seek his or her own profit. A system like that prevents resources from shifting to their best use.

Capitalism doesn't inherently let resources shift to their best use, either. Should roads be privatized? We've seen time and time again that making public systems of transportation privately owned has actually made a lot of them much worse and cost more than when they were government run/owned.

Healthcare is another one that is subjectively worse when privateized... Lists could go on for days.

 

[Fenderputty]

Setting interest rates absolutely is a regulation. Banks are not allowed to charge at a rate different than the overnight rate set by the Fed.

I probably didn't word this correctly. That regulation is used to control monitary policy. It's not a a regulation in the sense that it's not a protection from the negative effects of capitalism.

 

[Giant Panda]

Capitalism doesn't inherently let resources shift to their best use, either. Should roads be privatized? We've seen time and time again that making public systems of transportation privately owned has actually made a lot of them much worse and cost more than when they were government run/owned.

I would contend that is not always the case. Roads specifically has positive externalities, to get an efficient allocation in that case proper private property rights would have to be created. By being publicly owned it is likely the roads will be better, but not guaranteed as the government could just as easily muck it up.

Healthcare is another one that is subjectively worse when privateized... Lists could go on for days.

There may be a case for insurance, but for the actual provision of health care, you would not want that publicly done.

 

[Orthogonal]

I probably didn't word this correctly. That regulation is used to control monitary policy. It's not a a regulation in the sense that it's not a protection from the negative effects of capitalism.

Yet it indirectly is the root cause of the ill effects of Capitalism. At least in the Banking/monetary world.

 

[prag16]

I would amend this a bit and say that in its purest form, Capitalism is about wealth generation, not necessarily growth.

True wealth, (ie. Creating something that is more valuable than the resources used to make it), is what Capitalism strives to do. This can be done in both a growth and declining economy.

Certain schools of thought within Capitalism, like Keynesianism, certainly focus on growth as the primary driver, but other schools of thought like Austrian Economics are agnostic to growth and attempt to explain economic phenomena holistically.

Did somebody say Austrian vs. Keynesian?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Good point though. When people thing capitalism these days, they think Keynes. Keynes needs infinite perpetual growth to work. It's not the only route.

 

[Fenderputty]

By the way: I believe capitalism is the most efficient way for a market to assess demand and allocate resources to meet this demand. I don't believe consumer goods should ever be centrally ran.

 

[injurai]

Capitalism doesn't inherently let resources shift to their best use, either. Should roads be privatized? We've seen time and time again that making public systems of transportation privately owned has actually made a lot of them much worse and cost more than when they were government run/owned.

Healthcare is another one that is subjectively worse when privateized... Lists could go on for days.

This is why unbridled capitalism doesn't work. Because the alpha-capital shuts down all competition and seeks to maximize profit and minimize responsibility. For anything that you only need one set (shared) of, it should be socialized. We have never had pure capitalism in the US, and capitalism never spoke to universally unregulated system without an overarching representational government.

 

[KevinCow]

I just don't see how pure capitalism can lead to anything but greedy, evil motherfuckers at the top taking advantage of the poor and underprivileged.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

There may be a case for insurance, but for the actual provision of health care, you would not want that publicly done.

...no I'm pretty happy with the NHS thanks

 

[Orthogonal]

Did somebody say Austrian vs. Keynesian?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Good point though. When people thing capitalism these days, they think Keynes. Keynes needs infinite perpetual growth to work. It's not the only route.

Lol, I forgot about this one. Thanks for reminding me.