Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
View 24 more replies »
Pherick · 41-45, M
@redredred LOL I do love when someone can't handle their shit and has to resort to insults.
Here is a brush-up on Louis XIV, https://www.history.com/topics/france/louis-xiv who build Versailles and then moved his government and court there.
It may not have had modern flush toilets, but jesus christ Louis XIV was at the top of European royalty, power and fashion. None of that crap you mentioned has any basis in reality. Even the poor didn't eat rotten meat, let alone the most powerful king in Europe.
Fuck me, read a book sometime. Start here ...
https://www.biography.com/news/louis-xiv-biography-facts
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France
https://www.livescience.com/38903-palace-of-versailles-facts-history.html
Here is a brush-up on Louis XIV, https://www.history.com/topics/france/louis-xiv who build Versailles and then moved his government and court there.
It may not have had modern flush toilets, but jesus christ Louis XIV was at the top of European royalty, power and fashion. None of that crap you mentioned has any basis in reality. Even the poor didn't eat rotten meat, let alone the most powerful king in Europe.
Fuck me, read a book sometime. Start here ...
https://www.biography.com/news/louis-xiv-biography-facts
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France
https://www.livescience.com/38903-palace-of-versailles-facts-history.html
It's what smart people do to make money. If you have two cows, sell one and buy a bull. Capitalism encourages competition which results in better quality work and products. Anything other than capitalism is unintelligent as far as economic systems are concerned.
Come to think of it......
What else is there? You basically have two models. Capitalism and failure.
Come to think of it......
What else is there? You basically have two models. Capitalism and failure.
plungesponge · 41-45, M
The example that is always trotted out in support of capitalism is where one person who is good at producing an item voluntarily trades it with someone else who is good at producing another item and everyone's standard of living improves.
I can totally see how this is a far superior system to any centrally planned economy, where essentially some group decides how much an item should be, trying to keep up with the infinite variables that play out in every interaction, an impossible exercise that usually results in huge waste and the central planners having to impose societal behaviour controls to make people conform to the economic model.
The part I'm sketchy about is whether capitalism inevitably ends up with crony capitalism, where some group gets so big they essentially rewrite the rules to create a monopoly. A few things are clear though: Companies should not have the power to buy politicians, and politicians should not have to rely on corporate money just to exist. Fractional reserve banking should not exist, and fiat currency should not exist.
I can totally see how this is a far superior system to any centrally planned economy, where essentially some group decides how much an item should be, trying to keep up with the infinite variables that play out in every interaction, an impossible exercise that usually results in huge waste and the central planners having to impose societal behaviour controls to make people conform to the economic model.
The part I'm sketchy about is whether capitalism inevitably ends up with crony capitalism, where some group gets so big they essentially rewrite the rules to create a monopoly. A few things are clear though: Companies should not have the power to buy politicians, and politicians should not have to rely on corporate money just to exist. Fractional reserve banking should not exist, and fiat currency should not exist.
CopperCicada · M
Love von Mises, Hayek, Friedman.
If I evoke them to question policies of tariffs, taxation, corporate incentives, etc., the Trump supporters call me a libtard.
Von Mises has probably the most clear illustration of how free markets express cultural values. Market as articulation of non-economic values.
If I evoke them to question policies of tariffs, taxation, corporate incentives, etc., the Trump supporters call me a libtard.
Von Mises has probably the most clear illustration of how free markets express cultural values. Market as articulation of non-economic values.
CopperCicada · M
@cultofaction What about them?
cultofaction · 26-30, M
@CopperCicada Can't leave them out 🤣 Rothbard laid out so much of the ethical theory that you'd need for a pure capitalist society.
CopperCicada · M
@cultofaction OK.
fun4us2b · M
Pure anything won't work - there needs to be a moderating factor to allow for harmonious society, Democracy is a good balance - the Founding Fathers were definitely onto something - China has shown capitalism can thrive under Communism - starting the The Birdcage economy which Deng reformed - and will probably sustain itself as long as everyone keeps buying the stuff they produce...what was the question?
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
Capitalism is NOT a way of running a nation.. It is a way of running an economy. To run a nation it has to be balanced and regulated by a government that actively protects the land and the people from illegal or damaging acts. and ensures that business behaves ethically. Now do you see where things went wrong?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
Xuan12 · 31-35, M
You mean unbridled, no regulation? Eventually one exo omic entity becomes too powerful and controls society.
OggggO · 36-40, M
Burn it to the ground.
swirlie · 31-35, F
Capitalism is a theory. It is not a true state of affairs. The problem with Capitalism is that the premise that someone must lose in order for someone else to gain is what lies at the heart of the Capitalistic theory. That is why 'true Capitalism' does not work. It doesn't work because it's own theory of evolution runs contrary to how the universe itself actually functions.
In the universe, there is plenty for everyone. No one ever loses for the benefit of others. All players benefit equally because there is SO much to go around. Hoarding assets therefore, is purely an act of ego in a Capitalistic society.
In the universe, there is plenty for everyone. No one ever loses for the benefit of others. All players benefit equally because there is SO much to go around. Hoarding assets therefore, is purely an act of ego in a Capitalistic society.
cultofaction · 26-30, M
@swirlie [quote]the premise that someone must lose in order for someone else to gain is what lies at the heart of the Capitalistic theory[/quote]
No. Free markets are all about benefitting everyone through commerce. It's socialism that is zero-sum. They believe that the poor are poor because the wealthy have stolen from them.
No. Free markets are all about benefitting everyone through commerce. It's socialism that is zero-sum. They believe that the poor are poor because the wealthy have stolen from them.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@cultofaction
Capitalism cannot benefit everyone through commerce. That is not how the Stock Market functions. That is not how Mutual Funds function. We are not talking about zero-sum here... we are talking about nobody losing, which Capitalism does not support nor does it guarantee.
Capitalism cannot benefit everyone through commerce. That is not how the Stock Market functions. That is not how Mutual Funds function. We are not talking about zero-sum here... we are talking about nobody losing, which Capitalism does not support nor does it guarantee.
cultofaction · 26-30, M
@swirlie No, it does, and I'll give you an example!
Let's say we have two countries, A and B. Country A can produce five units of lumber per capita and B can only produce two. Country A can produce ten units of wheat per capita and B can only produce two.
Country A seems like they have nothing to gain from B, yes? Here's the beauty of free trade: even though A does everything better than B, they can still both benefit through trade.
Let's say that each country has ten people, so each year if they both split their population equally among the two resources (five generating wheat and five generating lumber in each country). Country A would end up with 5*5=25 units of lumber and 5*10=50 units of wheat. Country B would end up with 5*2=10 units of lumber and 5*2=10 units of wheat.
Country A
5*5=25 lumber
5*10=50 wheat
Country B
5*2=10 lumber
5*2=10 wheat
But what if country A did more of what they're good at, and country B did more of the opposite? Let's say country A has six people generate wheat and four people generate lumber, and country B has nine people generate lumber and one generate wheat. This gives us:
Country A
4*5=20 lumber
6*10=60 wheat
Country B
9*2=18 lumber
1*2=2 wheat
And suppose that they exchange 3 wheat for 2 lumber. At the end, you might have country A with 26 lumber and 51 wheat and country B with 12 lumber and 11 wheat.
[b]Notice how everyone stood to gain.[/b] This is the benefit of capitalism. Genuine free trade brings everyone up. We don't see that in the real world anymore, unfortunately.
Let's say we have two countries, A and B. Country A can produce five units of lumber per capita and B can only produce two. Country A can produce ten units of wheat per capita and B can only produce two.
Country A seems like they have nothing to gain from B, yes? Here's the beauty of free trade: even though A does everything better than B, they can still both benefit through trade.
Let's say that each country has ten people, so each year if they both split their population equally among the two resources (five generating wheat and five generating lumber in each country). Country A would end up with 5*5=25 units of lumber and 5*10=50 units of wheat. Country B would end up with 5*2=10 units of lumber and 5*2=10 units of wheat.
Country A
5*5=25 lumber
5*10=50 wheat
Country B
5*2=10 lumber
5*2=10 wheat
But what if country A did more of what they're good at, and country B did more of the opposite? Let's say country A has six people generate wheat and four people generate lumber, and country B has nine people generate lumber and one generate wheat. This gives us:
Country A
4*5=20 lumber
6*10=60 wheat
Country B
9*2=18 lumber
1*2=2 wheat
And suppose that they exchange 3 wheat for 2 lumber. At the end, you might have country A with 26 lumber and 51 wheat and country B with 12 lumber and 11 wheat.
[b]Notice how everyone stood to gain.[/b] This is the benefit of capitalism. Genuine free trade brings everyone up. We don't see that in the real world anymore, unfortunately.