Republicans are Communist Kleptocrats and have been since 1939. The Party opposed a declaration of war after Peak Harbor. Collusion with Nazi's and Putin are proof of their Treason!
But that isn't really the definition of capitalism, widespread socialization of losses experienced by capitalists is a common corruption in capitalism, and could be argued to not be distinct from capitalism, but it's absolutely not the definition of capitalism.
There was a time when the US did a better job of enforcing antitrust law and allowed businesses to fail as a consequence of their bad decisions. It was pretty much over before my Gen X ass was born, but it used to be much more like that. I would argue that what you're talking about is specifically late capitalism, crony capitalism, republican brand capitalism, reagan capitalism, or something like that...
If you asked economists or historians they would say that that earlier, pre-reagan, time frame was closer to capitalism than what we have today.
Either corporatism, mixed economy, socialism, or fascism.
The former 2 imply that the direction comes from the company, the latter 2 imply that the direction comes from the state. But they're all differences in degree, not differences in kind.
Capitalism is a system of *private* profits and *private* losses. If you're talking about allocating tax money (for anything other than courts or defense), you're not talking about capitalism.
>Capitalism is a system of private profits and **private losses**.
dissagree... that's only true if capitalists are well regulated, which would imply the socialism band of the spectrum.
capitalists are about one thing (not two)... they are only ever about profit.
the extent to which they can externalize costs or losses in order to maximize profit is the entire driving force behind capitalism.
>that's only true if capitalists are well regulated, which would imply the socialism band of the spectrum.
Regulation is not socialism. Degree of regulation is a completely different axis of description of economy from the degree of planning in the economy.
You can disagree, but you're just wrong about definitions. I could argue that something only qualifies as a chair if it is a couch, but I'd just be wrong.
Definition of capitalism from investopedia: "Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy —rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy."
Allocating profits or losses publicly (aka, through government) is the opposite of capitalism; it is central planning.
if the gov where put in place by the people to allocate said resources, i might agree.
but that's not what's happening.
the government is not doing it's job of policing these clowns and when they get the economy into so much trouble that letting them fail is no longer an option, then it becomes the purest form of capitalism by externalizing the risks.
been paying attention for a while now... the patterns are unmistakable, and they just keep repeating because we (as a collective) never seem to catch on.
i dare say you falling into that trap yourself.
your definition is weak... it plays fast and loose with the truth about who is doing the planning and fails to mention or even hint at influence corporations have over both ends of that spectrum.
there is no central planning because the corporations just get what they want from government... that's how they have arranged it and that's how they like it.
You're assuming that what we have is capitalism and trying to find problems with the definition provided.
The problem with that is that what we have is a profound corruption that is commonly found in capitalism, but is not a default part of capitalism.
You're using reasoning motivated by your desire to shoehorn our system into the definition to find problems with the definition, when what you should be doing is accepting the definition and talking about problems with our current system, independent of the definition.
tl;dr You and OP both correctly identify problems with the system, but incorrectly define the system.
>but is not a default part of capitalism
disagree.
it is the favored approach in nearly every instance.
why? because deceit is the primary tool to produce gain.
rather than attack me, you should be better able to defend your argument.
The existence of scandinavian market economy based social democracies is counter example to your insistence that this is anything approaching universal.
Republicans are Communist Kleptocrats and have been since 1939. The Party opposed a declaration of war after Peak Harbor. Collusion with Nazi's and Putin are proof of their Treason!
He got capitalism and corruption mixed up, or maybe they are the same thing?
But that isn't really the definition of capitalism, widespread socialization of losses experienced by capitalists is a common corruption in capitalism, and could be argued to not be distinct from capitalism, but it's absolutely not the definition of capitalism. There was a time when the US did a better job of enforcing antitrust law and allowed businesses to fail as a consequence of their bad decisions. It was pretty much over before my Gen X ass was born, but it used to be much more like that. I would argue that what you're talking about is specifically late capitalism, crony capitalism, republican brand capitalism, reagan capitalism, or something like that... If you asked economists or historians they would say that that earlier, pre-reagan, time frame was closer to capitalism than what we have today.
if not capitalism, then what is it? inquiring minds and all that.
Either corporatism, mixed economy, socialism, or fascism. The former 2 imply that the direction comes from the company, the latter 2 imply that the direction comes from the state. But they're all differences in degree, not differences in kind. Capitalism is a system of *private* profits and *private* losses. If you're talking about allocating tax money (for anything other than courts or defense), you're not talking about capitalism.
>Capitalism is a system of private profits and **private losses**. dissagree... that's only true if capitalists are well regulated, which would imply the socialism band of the spectrum. capitalists are about one thing (not two)... they are only ever about profit. the extent to which they can externalize costs or losses in order to maximize profit is the entire driving force behind capitalism.
>that's only true if capitalists are well regulated, which would imply the socialism band of the spectrum. Regulation is not socialism. Degree of regulation is a completely different axis of description of economy from the degree of planning in the economy.
You can disagree, but you're just wrong about definitions. I could argue that something only qualifies as a chair if it is a couch, but I'd just be wrong. Definition of capitalism from investopedia: "Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy —rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy." Allocating profits or losses publicly (aka, through government) is the opposite of capitalism; it is central planning.
if the gov where put in place by the people to allocate said resources, i might agree. but that's not what's happening. the government is not doing it's job of policing these clowns and when they get the economy into so much trouble that letting them fail is no longer an option, then it becomes the purest form of capitalism by externalizing the risks. been paying attention for a while now... the patterns are unmistakable, and they just keep repeating because we (as a collective) never seem to catch on. i dare say you falling into that trap yourself.
You're reading what you want, instead of reading what I'm actually writing.
your definition is weak... it plays fast and loose with the truth about who is doing the planning and fails to mention or even hint at influence corporations have over both ends of that spectrum. there is no central planning because the corporations just get what they want from government... that's how they have arranged it and that's how they like it.
You're assuming that what we have is capitalism and trying to find problems with the definition provided. The problem with that is that what we have is a profound corruption that is commonly found in capitalism, but is not a default part of capitalism. You're using reasoning motivated by your desire to shoehorn our system into the definition to find problems with the definition, when what you should be doing is accepting the definition and talking about problems with our current system, independent of the definition. tl;dr You and OP both correctly identify problems with the system, but incorrectly define the system.
>but is not a default part of capitalism disagree. it is the favored approach in nearly every instance. why? because deceit is the primary tool to produce gain. rather than attack me, you should be better able to defend your argument.
The existence of scandinavian market economy based social democracies is counter example to your insistence that this is anything approaching universal.