Economy The Capitalism Crumble

[Croaker]

"Because you criticize my religion, I'm going to assume you're a colossal failure. And then I'm going to make the same dumb ANCAP anti-Government argument that people in my religion always make."

They don't sucker working class people into paying them you moron. They threaten direct violence. This is a systemic critique, I didnt even bring up any specific rich people, just that wealthy classes of people almost always do this whether they're monarchs, or oligarchs, if their wealth-hoarding remains unchecked. The system has the flaws it has BECAUSE of the wealthy class. Why do we have Government bailouts now? Because they were lobbied for. Why do we have corporate concentration? Because they pay for the gutting of the agencies responsible for preventing that. It always makes me laugh when people contend that our Government magically got bad at these things or came up with bad policies. These politicians farm out their policy proposal writing to private interest groups and "think tanks." lol

I didnt say that, but thats cute you have to re-frame what I said in order to appeal to your lack of understanding.

They don't though, you can find ways around taxes. Working class people aren't just people who get a 9-5. You can do your own thing and get around taxes and utilize that money to acquire capital. Wealth hording isn't really an issue, its government monetary policy. There is no reason for companies to go through a bank or government institution when they can just trade assets on debts or failure to deliver. The system has its flaws because every system has flaws. There is no Utopian system. You sit here and criticize capitalism and don't have a concept of how you can benefit, or an alternative system that would actually fix it. The obvious counter is communism or socialism which is proven to actually use violence to force you to do your labor.

The government agencies obviously didn't work if they could just be removed by lobbyists. Maybe try that again instead of assuming it was the correct response in the first place.

Also why do you think you should determine what someone does with the wealth they have acquired? Because you couldn't do it?

You should be laughing at your idea of 1900s America when its 2025.

 

[AWilder]

Did you think of that all by yourself?

 

[Cid]

Draw me the lines, numerically, oh wise one…

Edit - make sure to clearly state your solution for unrealized gains homie!

Personally I don't see a dire need to solve it.

Progressive capital gains tax and cutting loopholes around wealth transfer is much, much easier from a government tax perspective.

I posted that a flat 1% on people over 100m would be better than trying to tax unrealized gains but I wouldn't be implementing any big singular changes to the tax code personally.



Real solutions are implemented in the dozens over various different areas of taxation after reading comprehensive reviews and hundred page documents produced by multiple people who know much more about this than you or I.

Tax code is incredibly complicated and the follow on effects certain taxes and tax cuts even more complicated and honestly I don't care enough to fully educate myself on America's taxes because I'm not American.

Even if I were American their tax code is a cluster fuck...

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Personally I don't see a dire need to solve it.

Progressive capital gains tax and cutting loopholes around wealth transfer is much, much easier from a government tax perspective.

I posted that a flat 1% on people over 100m would be better than trying to tax unrealized gains but I wouldn't be implementing any big singular changes to the tax code personally.



Real solutions are implemented in the dozens over various different areas of taxation after reading comprehensive reviews and hundred page documents produced by multiple people who know much more about this than you or I.

Tax code is incredibly complicated and the follow on effects certain taxes and tax cuts even more complicated and honestly I don't care enough to fully educate myself on America's taxes because I'm not American.

Even if I were American their tax code is a cluster fuck...

easy doesn't matter. force asset sales per time period and tax said sales. oh you have $300M in shares for under armour? you have to sell $1M per year, by law, and you are taxed at the $1M income bracket.

 

[Cid]

easy doesn't matter. force asset sales per time period and tax said sales. oh you have $300M in shares for under armour? you have to sell $1M per year, by law, and you are taxed at the $1M income bracket.

Easy matters. The more complicated the easier it is to avoid taxation in most cases particularly if you're trying to tax the wealthy.

Like I said 1% is easier and has precedence with countries like Norway but kinda meh on the idea myself. Sweden, German and France tried it will little success and my government ditched the idea just recently for superannuation (think 401k but mandatory)

Rich people do what you're saying all the time. Individually selling and transferring wealth is avoided but for a government the citizens do it all the time because there's millions of them and they live lives. Get married, divorced, have kids, die etc.

Governments have different time scales for their economic problems than humans do.

Profit-inflation = true profit. True profit/years = annual "income" then tax it at the appropriate income rate.

Given we've also given a tax cut by factoring inflation on people's investments we can also adjust tax breaks around losses pretty severely.

You could look at the efficiency of tax incentives around 401k. Progressive Corporate tax policy.... I dunno... like I said tax systems are very complicated.

American capitalism has more problems than just tax code though.

 

[IanEdwards]

"Because you criticize my religion, I'm going to assume you're a colossal failure. And then I'm going to make the same dumb ANCAP anti-Government argument that people in my religion always make."

They don't sucker working class people into paying them you moron. They threaten direct violence. This is a systemic critique, I didnt even bring up any specific rich people, just that wealthy classes of people almost always do this whether they're monarchs, or oligarchs, if their wealth-hoarding remains unchecked. The system has the flaws it has BECAUSE of the wealthy class. Why do we have Government bailouts now? Because they were lobbied for. Why do we have corporate concentration? Because they pay for the gutting of the agencies responsible for preventing that. It always makes me laugh when people contend that our Government magically got bad at these things or came up with bad policies. These politicians farm out their policy proposal writing to private interest groups and "think tanks." lol

I remember one time a dude on the internet, this is a working dude, very average job, he tried to explain to me, in all bloody seriousness, that 'the problem with taxing rich people more is that studies have shown that taxing the rich more actually ends up affecting poor people most of all'.

'Leave aside that you don't know the 'studies', you haven't read those 'studies', you don't know who wrote those 'studies' and you have only seen them referred to, in the media, by politicians advocating on behalf of rich people, but bro, who do you think commissioned those 'studies'? Think there's a chance they were maybe commissioned by, uh, rich people?'

 

[IanEdwards]

Just wanna say this discussion has gone WAY better than I anticipated. Good work everyone.

Yeah its amazing how much good-faith, and nuanced dialogue, you can get when you essay a subject that most MAGAts basically don't want a part of***. What am I saying, it isn't amazing in the slightest.


*** I'll leave it to reader's imaginations as to whether the loatheness to participate has its roots in unwillingness, or an inability to deal in nuance and have extended dialogue around more complex topics involving relatively sophisticated concepts, or maybe both.

 

[BigDeadFreak]

The problem is that real capitalism has never been tried.

 

[Mock Artwork]

Yes In aware of what Marx said. Just as Adam Smith said Government intervention was necessary in market capitalism to establish parameters and provide public works and services.

I'm not a Communist. I do believe that a mixed system works best. I just dont think we need to continue with all these myths about how amazing capitalism is that blinded us from ending up where we are.

Also no one has yet to justify to me the privatization of resources like water. I dont see any real net benefit of that sh*t. Private ownership that excuses that sort of thing will always be ridiculous IMO. Someone pointing at a f*ckin mountain and telling me they bought it lol I told this story in another thread but in Virginia I did landscaping (heavy stuff, not cutting grass, we were replanting trees) for a Dentist who was very investment-wealthy. Dude "owned" a portion of a river. He also had a lake, where he paid to have imported fish, dropped in by helicopter, so he could...go fishing.

Dumbest sh*t I've ever seen. And they call me irresponsible with money if I buy me some rims.

I don’t think we’re off here and I’m absolutely not advocating for that. Try to look at it in the macro environment though. These are problems that can be fixed and that’s obviously not how capitalism works. I’ve spent multiple quotes tryin to explain the difference between markets, exchange, capital ans the conglomeration of assets and the hoarding of capital which, in itself, is antiethical to capitalism. You are describing a symptom of those who are gaming the system. The system itself isn’t all flawed. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the politicians who sold all of it downriver for the “shareholder”. If you have a 401k you should dissolve it because you are passively contributing to the shit you are upset over. Im not saying it’s right to own streams, water. That doesn’t mean that capitalism is a failed system that needs replaced. Any governance or system can be corrupted.

 

[Mock Artwork]

Im not entirely sure why this is becoming about me, specifically. I don't require agreement. But if someone responds in my thread I'm going to address it unless its disingenuous trolling.

I've already said there are versions of heirarchy that may be used as a tool. If someone is elected into a leadership position others must acquiesce to their leadership at least to some degree, however the mechanism to remove them must remain intact and healthy. I cant think of a single model of capitalism that doesnt eventually start to erode that ability, specifically. And the louder the respective ruling class tells us it's for our own good that we concede rights to them the less we should believe them. Also most capitalist Countries have Historically also been imperialist as huge factors in their development. That's just a fact. If there is one that wasnt I'm happy to consider it. I just won't ignore the imperialism of a Nation to look at the capitalism in a more favorable light.

I just disagree with your view of heirarchies, even if you're not attaching a social prescription to them. What do "dominant" and "recessive" mean when it comes to traits? It just refers to how the alleles work, or don't. Dominant alleles also cause things like dwarfism. Things we class as "disorders." I'm not sure gene function should be used to validate this context. It reminds me of misunderstood metabolic processes and how for years nutritionists told people the human body PREFERS carbohydrate, because they found out the body burns carbohydrate first to achieve homeostasis of blood/sugar. However realistically that's not supposed to take a long time and once that balance is reached the body will begin burning fat as the primary fuel source and in a healthy metabolism it will burn fat for much more time in a day than it will sugar. So which does it prefer?

I never denied the existence of heirarchy, just pointing out that they're not this rigid static thing that never get upset.

I really don’t want to write a book. Don’t take me wrong, I think you are arguing out of anger and bad faith to be honest. You sound like you’re stuck in confirmation bias, like you have encountered something and are looking for information that will advance your ideas regarding capitalism.

And, for what it’s worth again, you are describing corporatism where those with high amounts of capital can saturate markets they are unfamiliar with. This is essentially your argument. Cause you can apply capitalism to a farmers market, right? And it works just fine and healthy.

 

[IanEdwards]

I don’t think we’re off here and I’m absolutely not advocating for that. Try to look at it in the macro environment though. These are problems that can be fixed and that’s obviously not how capitalism works. I’ve spent multiple quotes tryin to explain the difference between markets, exchange, capital ans the conglomeration of assets and the hoarding of capital which, in itself, is antiethical to capitalism. You are describing a symptom of those who are gaming the system. The system itself isn’t all flawed. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the politicians who sold all of it downriver for the “shareholder”. If you have a 401k you should dissolve it because you are passively contributing to the shit you are upset over. Im not saying it’s right to own streams, water. That doesn’t mean that capitalism is a failed system that needs replaced. Any governance or system can be corrupted.

I'm somewhere between the two of you, I think

I agree with you that (EG) 'owning streams' (which is a good example for illustrative purposes) isn't built-in, per se, as part of capitalism, but given the constant tendency within capitalism to exploit absolutely anything possible, not to mention the ceaseless search for new markets, and the very competitive element that is entirely built in to the system ('if 'we' don't exploit this stream/mountain then a competitor will') the tendency to accumulate and hoard resources is, if not a part of the system, then as close as you can get to an inevitable adjunct to it.

I may just be splitting semantic hairs at this point in any case, I guess I'd analogise it by way of looking at the structure of a corporation. I think or say quite frequently, calling out individual corporations for <insert abuse or crime here> is somewhat pointless, it seems to me, given that their entire structure is to maximise profits for shareholders, and that the Board of Directors could be sued if they follow any course that does not maximise profits. In this sense we can attribute human-like qualities to corporations, in the sense that whatever else we expect from them, at least their acting according to self-interest is pretty much predictable, as is a corressponding lack of regard for the 'wider interest'. And seeing as no corporation in existence (AFAIK) has a charter, no Board has a set of responsibilities, to 'maximise profits for shareholders as long as that fits in with the overall social good', then (EG) the behaviours that lead to them 'owning streams' will inevitably be repeated, in multiple contexts.

Where I circle back to a theme i mentioned before and entirely agreeing with you is in saying the name of the game is in preventing the wealthy/corporations from writing the rules to suit themselves. Corporations will inevitably corrupt capitalism the same way any human being will like rig any game to their own benefit as and when they can, if their self-interest is at stake. Clearly, Citizens United and lobbying/funding legislators in general are amongst the most damaging things ever done in terms of corporations rigging capitalism to the detriment of the wider good, but its not as though corporate power in the US was massively hog-tied by legislation in favour of the public good before CU.

And the corporate - human analogy of course extends to the point that, politicians are humans, humans are greedy therefore bribeable, therefore capitalism will corrupt them, therefore we will have 'corporations owning streams'

 

[Cole train]

Btw i think incoming population decline will destroy current economic model since its based on constant growth and something else will take place.

Yes i happen to be watching doc about burth rates at moment lol

 

[IanEdwards]

Btw i think incoming population decline will destroy current economic model since its based on constant growth and something else will take place.

Yes i happen to be watching doc about burth rates at moment lol

I'm not well-informed enough to go much further than brief speculation but it seems to me that the current system is fragile enough that a number of things, population decline and climate change/disasters to name but two, would seem to have the potential to upend the whole bloody lot, if safeguards and guardrails don't get built in soon.

 

[aerius]

I don’t think we’re off here and I’m absolutely not advocating for that. Try to look at it in the macro environment though. These are problems that can be fixed and that’s obviously not how capitalism works. I’ve spent multiple quotes tryin to explain the difference between markets, exchange, capital ans the conglomeration of assets and the hoarding of capital which, in itself, is antiethical to capitalism. You are describing a symptom of those who are gaming the system. The system itself isn’t all flawed. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the politicians who sold all of it downriver for the “shareholder”. If you have a 401k you should dissolve it because you are passively contributing to the shit you are upset over. Im not saying it’s right to own streams, water. That doesn’t mean that capitalism is a failed system that needs replaced. Any governance or system can be corrupted.

You know, this sounds a lot like what the communist apologists would say when their ideology was criticized - it's totally not the fault of the system, it's because people did communism wrong, they were bad people, you don't understand the system, or they weren't really communists.

No judgment, just an observation.

 

[Sinister]

I really don’t want to write a book. Don’t take me wrong, I think you are arguing out of anger and bad faith to be honest. You sound like you’re stuck in confirmation bias, like you have encountered something and are looking for information that will advance your ideas regarding capitalism.

And, for what it’s worth again, you are describing corporatism where those with high amounts of capital can saturate markets they are unfamiliar with. This is essentially your argument. Cause you can apply capitalism to a farmers market, right? And it works just fine and healthy.

Lol, I'd respond to your post above this one but in this one you are essentially addressing me as one would a misguided child. Which that's your prerogative. You keep feeling the need to explain capitalism to me over and over again because you cannot account for its failures, nor for how it almost invariably ends up being what you say it's not.

Bye the way if I were angry, this conversation would sound almost exactly like this:



That's throwing anger into the mix. This isnt anger, this is disappointment. And just like the more vehement poster I responded to before, you want me to blame the Government and not the people who used their capital to exploit the holes in the system BY capturing Government. I blame all of it. Because these systems are people, they are wanted by people. You want to trust the system that allows this, I don't anymore because I can detail how almost everything I have to pay money into, be it Government or private, is a scam and how I am now at the point of choosing the preferable scam. We all are, and we know we are.

 

[Sinister]

I'm not well-informed enough to go much further than brief speculation but it seems to me that the current system is fragile enough that a number of things, population decline and climate change/disasters to name but two, would seem to have the potential to upend the whole bloody lot, if safeguards and guardrails don't get built in soon.

This is a much bigger elephant in the room than I think people give credit for. I was thinking about this last night. What was my main gripe about Vegas? About the toy industry and how I used to spend $2.38 on a metal transformer with actual rubber wheels and now I spend $20.38 on a plastic one half the size? About the video industry?

A lack of market adaptation. It reminds me of constitutional originalism. No one with any sense buys into that horsesh*t. In fact that is a political theory dreamt up BY capitalists lol. And it's a sort of clever step towards fascism because nostalgia and traditionalism are HUGE aspects of fascists constructs. "Let's just go back to how things used to be." Note that I'm not saying I want 2006 Vegas back. I'm saying we need to adapt and move forward. Just as the Constitution was meant to be a living document to adjust to a changing US. Originalists are disgusted by that idea and think we should be stuck in the 1700's udeokigically and socially, because that's when their class and demographic was the most powerful.

The system IS fragile, and the less adaptive it is the MORE fragile it becomes. The more terrified of change we are, the more fragile it becomes. And billionaires come off to me as some of the most cowardly among us. Insecure men with Dad-shaped holes in their souls whose only gratification is wealth-hoarding and power-mongering. And because this is our religion, we hand them the keys knowing they aim the National vehicle directly at a cliff. "Surely they cannot want ANOTHER crash" we say, just before impact.

 

[William Huggins]

Lol, I'd respond to your post above this one but in this one you are essentially addressing me as one would a misguided child. Which that's your prerogative. You keep feeling the need to explain capitalism to me over and over again because you cannot account for its failures, nor for how it almost invariably ends up being what you say it's not.

Bye the way if I were angry, this conversation would sound almost exactly like this:



That's throwing anger into the mix. This isnt anger, this is disappointment. And just like the more vehement poster I responded to before, you want me to blame the Government and not the people who used their capital to exploit the holes in the system BY capturing Government. I blame all of it. Because these systems are people, they are wanted by people. You want to trust the system that allows this, I don't anymore because I can detail how almost everything I have to pay money into, be it Government or private, is a scam and how I am now at the point of choosing the preferable scam. We all are, and we know we are.

And please again show me your alternative to capitalism........

One that works,.one that's proven.......

 

[William Huggins]

This is a much bigger elephant in the room than I think people give credit for. I was thinking about this last night. What was my main gripe about Vegas? About the toy industry and how I used to spend $2.38 on a metal transformer with actual rubber wheels and now I spend $20.38 on a plastic one half the size? About the video industry?

A lack of market adaptation. It reminds me of constitutional originalism. No one with any sense buys into that horsesh*t. In fact that is a political theory dreamt up BY capitalists lol. And it's a sort of clever step towards fascism because nostalgia and traditionalism are HUGE aspects of fascists constructs. "Let's just go back to how things used to be." Note that I'm not saying I want 2006 Vegas back. I'm saying we need to adapt and move forward. Just as the Constitution was meant to be a living document to adjust to a changing US. Originalists are disgusted by that idea and think we should be stuck in the 1700's udeokigically and socially, because that's when their class and demographic was the most powerful.

The system IS fragile, and the less adaptive it is the MORE fragile it becomes. The more terrified of change we are, the more fragile it becomes. And billionaires come off to me as some of the most cowardly among us. Insecure men with Dad-shaped holes in their souls whose only gratification is wealth-hoarding and power-mongering. And because this is our religion, we hand them the keys knowing they aim the National vehicle directly at a cliff. "Surely they cannot want ANOTHER crash" we say, just before impact.

I don't think you actually know the meaning of the word fascist.........it's got a very socialist background it's literally in the meaning of the word.......

 

[IanEdwards]

You know, this sounds a lot like what the communist apologists would say when their ideology was criticized - it's totally not the fault of the system, it's because people did communism wrong, they were bad people, you don't understand the system, or they weren't really communists.

No judgment, just an observation.

ha, true enough all the same

Its also slightly ironic that artwork's apparent logic 'its not capitalism at fault, its that people's selfishness ends up corrupting it', which often gets cited by people arguing against communism or in favour of capitalism, because 'communism won't work because people are fundamentally selfish', and arguing that 'capitalism is more realistic' exactly because 'it is in tune with human nature' as it does allow for or incentivise people's (supposedly) fundamental selfishness.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Honestly, I think capitalism vs communism debates are largely incredibly stupid because most (the vast majority) people that participate them take the mental shortcut of economics in practice being a binary instead of a spectrum. As soon as you note that it's beneficial to move from one end of the spectrum, low IQ folks just bark out that you are advocating for the other side of the spectrum. It's beyond ridiculous and juvenile.

Anyhow, the other day I listened to Sam Harris talk about Techno-fascism. And Varoufakis has been going on about Techno-feudalism (saying we are largely moving past capitalism already - and ironically enough the tech explosion was fertilized by government spending not private capital). I find those takes and conversations to be very interesting.

I'll have to take a look at the population Birthgap documentary later, because that's actually something I have vehemently disagreed with - that population decline is gonna be the cause of some massive crash incoming as if everything about the economy is a population ponzi scheme instead of populations being able to self-fund if they have to.