Is Capitalism Dying?Posted by: Capitalist123
92 Total Votes
Capitalism is bigger than it's ever been before, even if also more unpopular than ever before.
@Vox_Vertias "more unpopular than ever before" True, as evident by USA's rising socialist left, *cough cough* Bernie Sanders.
@bsh1 I disagree, although I admire the position you're coming from. Can we all agree the full globalization of humanity is inevitable (because of the ever increasing complexity of social networks)? How about the fourth industrial revolution? You know, which will lead to post-scarcity. If anything, we need to learn how to keep minds peacefully occupied for when even less labor is needed.
Capitalism needs to keep incentivising corruption if it's to survive. It always has. Planned obsolescence is one example. Another is buying and renewing patents just so they can stay in the basement.... It's just at a breaking point now with the amount of hacking/leaks happening.
Capitalism wouldn't/can't keep up with a rapidly evolving Society.
With your first comment, full globalization of humanity is évitable and would be a total nightmare. So many different places in the world have their own unique way of living and doing things. Globalism remains a plague attempting to collectivize the world.
You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth Triangle. Come on now.
@triangle.128k dissing spelling is fallacious to the idea a person is trying to convey. I won't stoop to your level. Plus, I've said repeatedly that i'm dyslexic.
@reece It's not your spelling, I just have no clue where you're getting your statements from.
@triangle.128k It just takes time. Culture spreads....
Not if nationalism can preserve culture...
@triangle.128k You can look them up for yourself. You'd just end up cherry picking my links.
@triangle.128k At the end of the day, culture gets persevered in museums.
Preserved* That would of been an awesome quote if i didn't f#%$ up.
Triangle, You are one of the most liberal people on here and have even stated your support for globalization in the recent past. So you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
@haroush Globalization is apart of capitalism which isn't supported by modern liberals. Also, you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth because a mouth only has one side.
Themightyindividual, Despite many liberals say they want liberty and freedom they want to create laws that are not only meant for specific states but for the United States and the entire world. Hence the human's right organization is a leftist special interest group directly involved with the United Nations pulling many strings in the world today. By the way, your last statement was beyond moronic. Lastly, this is why the left leads in Nazi like experiments except on a massive scale with all of the populations with their social engineering ideas straight out of Nazi Germany.
@Haroush Are you too retarded to pick up the difference between absolute globalism and globalization?
@Haroush Reductio ad hitlerium, really? I can't take you seriously anymore.
The only people confused here are libtards themselves which includes you and TMI.
So in your eyes, anybody you dislike is a liberal? Get some fucking common sense for once Haroush.
Even though you pretty much agree with neo-cons, and you support a neo-con presidential candidate?
Ted Cruz is far from neocon buddy. Neocon is more like Trump. Cruz is a pure conservative.
Melted Candle Face seems pretty neocon to me. The whole republican party is neocon. The only true conservative is Hillary, and even that's stretching it.
By the way, i'm talking within the context of the candidates.
Hillary isn't a conservative, she's a center-left statist/authoritarian.
@triangle.128k The republican party has become radical. The democratic party has turned conservative. She's in fact a center-right statist/authoritarian. This is what big money has done. The only rational choice we (well, you guys) have now is to pick a lesser of two evils.
Capitalism+Socialism= Great things (Democracy/Republic) Capitalism-Socialism= Fascism Socialism-Capitalism= Communism
Lest we forget, corporate entities are not by their nature a capitalist creation, far from it. They were made to be temporary. They could only come to exist due to a pressing need that regular discourse of an economy could not cater to (such as natural disaster, severe food shortage , etc.) , and could be ended under a number of conditions, and were usually under extraordinary pressure to maintain legal and moral character. (This is because the rise of corporations in the revolutionary era were already becoming an object of loathing, even for many founders of our country.) If presented any evidence that such a corporation had committed a "wrong" as defined by the clause governing its creation, it would be effectively disbanded. This worked exceedingly well for such events that a corporation was meant to deal with. The permanent status held today by corporations IS a problem in society, one that has had lasting impact. The corporations of today are beloved, not by capitalists, but rather by socialists who are enamored by the concept of having everlasting supply side monopoly of production, and by the social elite who used it to propel themselves into the current upper-class society. Both classes then work together to distort the market and bring about restricted access to resources, for "The Good Of Community". Through the securing of these resources, anti-monopoly laws are mostly meaningless; for how can one compete in selling furniture, if the business that provides lumber will not sell to you, for fear of sponsoring "competition" to its larger, more affluent provider? One could easily infer by virtue of how common incorporation is that it equates to capitalism, yet this is simply not the case. Most corporations dodge taxs through capital gains and market share ownership, as well as tax loopholes and government aid and lobbying. The statement that "Many a CEO and investor pay less in taxs than their secretary" is demonstrably true. In this structure, it is not uncommon for workers to be paid the bare minimum that will ensure their continued presence at the start of that individual's shift (and sometimes, not even that much). They are told there simply "is not enough money to go around for better wages", yet untold millions and billions of dollars end up in investors bank accounts and CEO's pockets. Where did this money come from, if not labor? (mental or physical) The real elephant in the room is that this system is working as intended. It redistributes the assets, capital, and power of process to a place outside of the influence of citizens. To work for a man, obfuscated by protocol from your eyes and touch, whose process you cannot effect, who from you garnishes wealth, who from you creates his assets, with no promise or reward. This is quite literally slavery. This is the reason people see government as the solution to this, it is the only power they see to stand separate from it. Yet it is not: government is what allows corporations to exist for mutual benefit. There is no clear path out of this. The idea of select wealth for a few, whilst paying no heed to the majority, seems to be the order of the day in every marketplace due to incorporation. Money, and the accumulation of it, is the primary goal of seemingly everyone in society: It has become nothing short of the American Religion. Only by changing the order of priorities, not in society, but in ourselves, can we escape this nightmare back to the realm of individual freedom and responsibility. That is where people yearn to be, in truth. A world where actions are not devorced from consequence, and an individual can feel what it is like to be their own source of production...For themselves.
Capitalism as it is in America is an epic failure.
Instead over the past 25 years it has been the left’s project that has collapsed. The market destroyed the plan; individualism replaced collectivism and solidarity; the hugely expanded workforce of the world looks like a “proletariat”, but no longer thinks or behaves as it once did.
Capitalism is actually rather fluid. It has adapted within multiple economic paradigms since inception (the last big paradigm shift came in the 70's and was put into policy in the 80's with Reagan and Thatcher, others after them in different countries), and within those paradigms there have been seismic shifts in thinking such as the death of Friedman's strict monetarism and birth of 'New-Keynesian' economics in the early 90's. Capitalism needs to adapt to assure people remain prosperous, otherwise I think it would die. Fortunately there's a lot of new economic thinking happening right now that I think can lead to a new adaption as the middle class seems to be dying and wealth distribution becomes 'U-shaped' given the current structure. That will not be tolerated for too long, and we can already disgruntled masses resulting from it, voting for anti-establishment candidates all over the world.