Capitalism Is Collapsing -- and Nothing Is Rising to Replace It

[Theinquisition]

That good old uncle milt was supportive of chiles pinochet is fact and yes you are ignorant if you deny this. That the chicago school boys who were his intellectual disciples ran the show is also fact. You can run to daddy small hands as a safe space but it doesnt change the fact. The harsh truth is that chile was a feee market dream and it turned into a nightmare exactly as predicted by left intellectuals amd economists. Again

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionC11

Do a page search for kaldor

Lol, did you really link me a anarchist website as a source?

Of course when you take any economic system to an extreme bad things will happen. I can play this game too, Venezuela is a perfect reason why socialism is fail.

Seriously, if conservatives get laughed at for using Breitbart as a source that you deserve the same here.

[Raskayz]

Lol

Here we go.

My views are infallable and opinions are fact, if you don't agree with me you are ignorant, and if you ask me for evidence you're stupid.

I'll listen to the lectures of Milton Friedman over the rantings of a internet poster with a Picard avatar

Here goes the straw man and "ad homonyms"

Then you'll get bullied and play victim until someone comes to your aid saying how little tony is getting shit from teh evil sjws that got trump elected

[Zmaniac17]

I think people are just rattled because the populist rabble got their candidates in some countries. As long as people respond appropriately in the next election, the normal order of things will largely be restored. In the mean time, I wouldn't anticipate the likes of Trump really destroying capitalism other than accidentally due to incompetence (and even that's unlikely, even if he damages the economy). Trump deliberately killing capitalism would be like you shooting your best friend.

My view on this is that Trump and others like him have no idea how or why capitalism actually works. They view the regulations and strong institutions of the state as an obstacle to capitalism rather than the foundation on which it is built. Without strong institutions that can regulate markets people cannot trust each other enough to do business.

Think about how difficult it is to start businesses in third world countries. You have none of the protections or guarantees of stability that you do in the United States. That is the major reason we've failed to export our brand of capitalism to many areas of the world. The legal framework is absent in those areas. And there's no legal recourse. Ironically for someone as litigious as Trump he doesn't seem to understand this.

So I think Trump and others like him would, as you put it shoot their best friend, thinking that friend was plotting against them by not letting them do whatever they want. When in reality that friend was just concerned about Trumps well being. They are like kids who hate their parents for not letting them do whatever they want.

[downnola]

You must be joking. Seriously. How ignorant of history can you be?

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionC11

It is when the same fucking chicago school.boys (HIS.FUCKING DISCIPLES) are setting up shop

If you took the time to read the following text, instead of cutting it out of your response, you'd know I'm not disputing that Chile's economy went through a series of economic reforms influenced by the chicago school; I'm taking issue with the lazy wording of your argument.

Thanks for being a perfect example of my earlier post; complete with a followup link to a left-anarchist ideology pushing website as support for your argument while simultaneously complaining about idealogues. Well done.

[Glorious Leader]

Lol, did you really link me a anarchist website as a source?

Of course when you take any economic system to an extreme bad things will happen. I can play this game too, Venezuela is a perfect reason why socialism is fail.

Seriously, if conservatives get laughed at for using Breitbart as a source that you deserve the same here.

The anarchist faq is quite thorough in sourcing documents and citations from a range of sources. Breitbart is less so.

[Theinquisition]

If you took the time to read the following text, instead of cutting it out of your response, you'd know I'm not disputing that Chile's economy went through a series of economic reforms influenced by the chicago school; I'm taking issue with the lazy wording of your argument.

Thanks for being a perfect example of my earlier post; complete with a followup link to a left-anarchist ideology pushing website as support for your argument while simultaneously complaining about idealogues. Well done.

Damn, better give him some aloe for that burn.

Folks like that are why I post seldomly these days.

- - - Updated - - -

The anarchist faq is quite thorough in sourcing documents and citations from a range of sources. Breitbart is less so.

Yeah no.

They cherry pick information that supports their argument while ignoring information that doesn't.

[Glorious Leader]

If you took the time to read the following text, instead of cutting it out of your response, you'd know I'm not disputing that Chile's economy went through a series of economic reforms influenced by the chicago school; I'm taking issue with the lazy wording of your argument.

Thanks for being a perfect example of my earlier post; complete with a followup link to a left-anarchist ideology pushing website as support for your argument while simultaneously complaining about idealogues. Well done.

Oh im only objecting to your false equivelance initially. Socialist and anarchist thinkers are generally quite introspective as witnessed by the stalanists purges and folks like Bakunin. The capatalist ideologues less so. It really isnt people on the left claiming chile was a capitalist miracle uncle milt and hayek did it all themselves.

It wasnt lazing wording in the slightest, rather "influenced by the chicago school" is a clever euphamism for they ran the fucking show which they did and good old uncle milt (the grand daddy of their thinking) had nothing but good things to say. The free market miracle of capitalism. The left doesnt need to argue chile was capitalism. Right wingers did that themselves. Iirc your correct phrasing was something along the lines of people arguing that chile was real capitalism.

Likewise, you'll never get anywhere with a person who believes Chile under Pinochet is the definition of

Uncle fucking milton fucking friedman and his bros sure thought it was.
- - - Updated - - -

Damn, better give him some aloe for that burn.

Folks like that are why I post seldomly these days.

- - - Updated - - -





Yeah no.

They cherry pick information that supports their argument while ignoring information that doesn't.

I doubt youve read any of it to.be honest. Go ahead raise an objection.

If only you really seldomly posted.

[Raskayz]

Thanks for being a perfect example of my earlier post; complete with a followup link to a left-anarchist ideology pushing website as support for your argument while simultaneously complaining about idealogues. Well done.

I guess the solution to counter the rise of an authoritarian right wing emboldened by their anti PC bull shit is to be sweet and gentle moderates and not hurt their fee fees

[downnola]

Oh im only objecting to your false equivelance initially. Socialist and anarchist thinkers are generally quite introspective as witnessed by the stalanists purges and folks like Bakunin. The capatalist ideologues less so. It really isnt people on the left claiming chile was a capitalist miracle uncle milt and hayek did it all themselves.

And yet it was, and still is, common to find USSR sympathizers despite the efforts of Trotskyists and social democrats to make a distinction between ideas. If you care to look hard enough, you might even find market capitalist libertarians that oppose trash like Pinochet as well.

But yeah, go with the false equivalence trope, much easier to convince yourself of peoples motives that way.

[Blayze]

If capitalism falls, capitalism will rise to replace it.

[downnola]

I guess the solution to counter the rise of an authoritarian right wing emboldened by their anti PC bull shit is to be sweet and gentle moderates and not hurt their fee fees

You're free to look at my post history to see how much I care about people's feelings. Some people are more willing to have discussions than others, and I'm more than happy to have a conversation with them. Those who don't deserve condescending replies.

That's not the point I've been making, though. You either care about digging deeper into a subject to find a better understanding on matters, or you can just resort to shit-flinging and surface level arguments. These threads are always filled to the back teeth with the latter.

[Glorious Leader]

And yet it was, and still is, common to find USSR sympathizers despite the efforts of Trotskyists and social democrats to make a distinction between ideas. If you care to look hard enough, you might even find market capitalist libertarians that oppose trash like Pinochet as well.

But yeah, go with the false equivalence trope, much easier to convince yourself of peoples motives that way.

Im sure their might be a handful. It would be impossible to prove their wasnt one i imagine. Having said that its still a falae equivelancy. The soviets were deeply divided before the purge. The mensheviks lost and either had to go into exhile or be killed. Furthermore.the anarchist socialist tradition has actually stood against the marxist tradition. I know it offends you but ill cite the anarchist faq again.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...faq-09-17#toc3

Bakunin and marx had bitter disputes. The only example on the right that i can think of even comparative is von mises walking out of mt pelerin calling them socialists which is a joke to be frank.

[downnola]

Im sure their might be a handful. It would be impossible to prove their wasnt one i imagine. Having said that its still a falae equivelancy. The soviets were deeply divided before the purge. The mensheviks lost and either had to go into exhile or be killed. Furthermore.the anarchist socialist tradition has actually stood against the marxist tradition. I know it offends you but ill cite the anarchist faq again.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...faq-09-17#toc3

Bakunin and marx had bitter disputes. The only example on the right that i can think of even comparative is von mises walking out of mt pelerin calling them socialists which is a joke to be frank.

You're not going to get an argument out of me that many pro-capitalists lack introspection. Friedman, however, wasn't one of them. I'll say it again just so we're clear: my gripe with your post is the implication that Friedman was implicit in supporting a dictator. He advocated his ideas anywhere people would listen, and that includes communist countries.

That website doesn't "offend" me at all by the way; I'm a huge admirer of not only Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, but also of Rosa Luxemburg and Marx himself. I was only pointing out a contradiction in your behavior.

[Deleted]

Capitalism with light regulations and a system of law that protects property rights has done more to raise the standard of living of people than any other system of economics. Its in part reason that west Germany flourished while eastern Germany stagnated. Hell look at post soviet Poland and how better off they now than before.

Something happening while there is a certain economic system doesn't mean that it is because of this economic system. Again, the main reason the standard of living has improved greatly over the last decades is technology, that is the big contributor. Another big contributor is the consumer society, and even though i have to admit that this has partly formed because of capitalism, capitalism is in no way needed to have a consumer society. This could just as well work within a socialistic economic system.

And concerning Germany, even a small part is a part i guess. But it had very little to do with it. Things as the cold war major trade sanctions and the west trying its best to keep technology from the Soviet Union had much much more to contribute to that. And the Soviet Union had been failing for years, or do you really believe that the Soviet Union fell apart at its hight?

Poland really isn't doing that well, it is still one of the most poor countries in that neighbourhood.

China figured it out and has progressively moved more and more toward did capitialism.

State capitalism is still capitalism, they may have allowed more private stuff going on but it has always been capitalistic by nature. Just because the government is the one profiting from the rest doesn't make it any less capitalism.

Notice that I haven't said that capitalism is perfect, it's not. I would however live under a capitialistic economic system than any other.

You won't hear me say that any from of economic system or system of government is without flaws. It is just that we have tried to solve the problems with capitalism and we have come to find that they really can not be solved. Even if you only look at the problem capitalism has with automation in combination with the consumer society, that alone is enough to have a really good look at the other options.

[Glorious Leader]

You're not going to get an argument out of me that many pro-capitalists lack introspection. Friedman, however, wasn't one of them. I'll say it again just so we're clear: my gripe with your post is the implication that Friedman was implicit in supporting a dictator. He advocated his ideas anywhere people would listen, and that includes communist countries.

That website doesn't "offend" me at all by the way; I'm a huge admirer of not only Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, but also of Rosa Luxemburg and Marx himself. I was only pointing out a contradiction in your behavior.

Im not sure how you can claim that a man who argued that markets were "free" while it was under a brutal dictatorship didnt lack introspection. Freedom except if your some factory worker who tries to organize then fuck you die. For friedman to have praised the chilean economic miracle while ignoring the actual costs and failures is a man who lacks introspection. Never asking once a miracle or whom?. Hell most of what they called a miracle was a bounce back from a depression that came about after the regime took power. He couldnt even make an honest assesment of that.

Marx was fucking dead for god damn centuries before the soviets took power thats his excuse for not decrying what had been done with his work. Uncle milt doesnt have that excuse. Indeed hes on record as praising it.

Theirs really nothing sloppy about what i said. The chicago school dogma that he was a figurehead for and praised in chile was what ran chile. His disciples (Practicing his economic ideology) ran the fucking show. He was absolutely supportive of the regime. They practised his policies. He wrote letters and articles praising the chilean economic miracle. Trying to wash him of his support is just bad history.

My feelings about hayek are less stringent. He did come around to government spending to provide a buffer against secondary deflation. Iirc von misses walked out of mt pelerin because they were discussing progressive taxation and this made them "socialists" according to whacked out ludwig which is another win for hayek. Having said that i dont think he ever really abandoned alot of his crankery even after hicks and srafa his proteges picked apart his work.

Actually as much as im loathe to admit this uncle milt was correct when he pointed out that austrian business cycle theory was fucking retarded. Stopped clock. Man was still a collosal tool.

[Halicia]

My view on this is that Trump and others like him have no idea how or why capitalism actually works. They view the regulations and strong institutions of the state as an obstacle to capitalism rather than the foundation on which it is built. Without strong institutions that can regulate markets people cannot trust each other enough to do business.

Yeah, I came into this thread thinking that the original reference was going to be a detailed piece on the erosion of trust in corporate economics, "credit bubbles", and general public sector woes. Instead it has political party mishmash in speech I don't even understand. WTF is "avocado colored daycares" and how does it bear any relevance to capitalism ?

Capitalism cannot exist on its own. Not only is Trust established by the "powers that be" important, but some markets will *never* be profitable. That doesn't mean they aren't critical to healthy commerce, though.

Clean Water is necessary to the health of the consumer, but left to their own devices no company would care about the !@#$ they pump downstream, nor of the water quality in the cities they sell to. Someone has to foot the bill for that, and "Capitalism" would dictate that it should only be paid if someone is willing to pay for it.

Sure, most sectors probably dont need total government control, but I think pushing a non-profit agenda on several industries would be a big step in the right direction.

[Zmaniac17]

That's really what I was getting at with the bit about incompetence. If Trump doesn't understand capitalism, he can't effectively target it if for some reason he were inclined to deliberately kill it. He can only fuck it up in a haphazard way, essentially shooting blind. If he does understand capitalism, he'll never harm it because it's actually his best friend. Essentially the ignorant situation is the only one we really need to be concerned with and I think we can survive four or even eight years of incompetence, though it probably won't be pleasant, so I'm not super worried. It's really going to be the people who voted for him and others of a similar social class who get fucked so far up the ass they look like a fountain when he cums.

I do think we will, as you put it, survive for the next four years. However, I think all this is headed toward crony capitalism similar to what we see in Russia today. And I think we will be closer to that point by the end of the four years. It will be difficult if not impossible to reverse all the changes. The trend is already in that direction with the consolidation of money and power at the top 1%. The members he chose for his cabinet and refusal to divest or even acknowledge the possibility of conflicts of interest is worrying. His disregard for the integrity of American public institutions is also worrisome. The power of the people relies on those institutions and undermining them diminishes democratic power.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I came into this thread thinking that the original reference was going to be a detailed piece on the erosion of trust in corporate economics, "credit bubbles", and general public sector woes. Instead it has political party mishmash in speech I don't even understand. WTF is "avocado colored daycares" and how does it bear any relevance to capitalism ?

Capitalism cannot exist on its own. Not only is Trust established by the "powers that be" important, but some markets will *never* be profitable. That doesn't mean they aren't critical to healthy commerce, though.

Clean Water is necessary to the health of the consumer, but left to their own devices no company would care about the !@#$ they pump downstream, nor of the water quality in the cities they sell to. Someone has to foot the bill for that, and "Capitalism" would dictate that it should only be paid if someone is willing to pay for it.

Sure, most sectors probably dont need total government control, but I think pushing a non-profit agenda on several industries would be a big step in the right direction.

I had hoped for something a bit more nuanced as well but it was kind of a click bait headline. That's par for the course here. Hopefully there is some interesting discussion non-the-less.

[Mormolyce]

This is wage labor.

Not if all the potteries are state owned.

- - - Updated - - -

No, that has absolutely nothing at all to do with socialism. What you are describing is called "state capitalism", notice how the "precious" term capitalism is in there

"State capitalism" is a form of socialism.

There are a lot of varieties and implementations of socialism.

[Glorious Leader]

Not if all the potteries are state owned.

- - - Updated - - -



"State capitalism" is a form of socialism.

There are a lot of varieties and implementations of socialism.

No it's still wage labor. You are being paid a wage for your labor.

[deklined]

No, the state giving money to a welfare recipient lacks greed as a motivation, the state isn't making a profit.

You're denser than Osmium.

Infracted - Minor Flaming