Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Heyo]

I can assure you (as one who has businesses)
that things are "bridled" here. You just want
more "bridling" than we have.

A lot more.

That is an issue separate from "bridling" because
it's about the extent to which society & government
want social services.

*

And that's a straw man, which demands addressing
the real issues. There is no "unbridled capitalism"
that anyone has presented.

There is no unbridled capitalism existing today. "Unbridled capitalism" is the theoretical idea of capitalism and it is the theoretical idea that has inherent flaws which would lead to self destruction if not restraint.

* Accumulation (as Marx called it) is one of those theoretical flaws. It's not just about how much social service we want, it's that, if not tackled systemically, no amount of social service can prevent it.
In capitalism, wealth always gets redistributed to the top.

 

[Stevicus]

A lot more.

*

There is no unbridled capitalism existing today. "Unbridled capitalism" is the theoretical idea of capitalism and it is the theoretical idea that has inherent flaws which would lead to self destruction if not restraint.

* Accumulation (as Marx called it) is one of those theoretical flaws. It's not just about how much social service we want, it's that, if not tackled systemically, no amount of social service can prevent it.
In capitalism, wealth always gets redistributed to the top.

Perhaps "unbridled capitalism" may be a misnomer. Under the capitalist-friendly government in the U.S., we might call it "enabled capitalism." Considering how much capitalists take a dim view of government and endlessly complain about "Big Gov" interfering with their profits, they demonstrate such incredible ingratitude towards their primary benefactor in America.

Capitalists: Hey, government, we need more land and resources to increase our profits.
Government: No problem! We just sent some troops to clear some land for you out west, removing those pesky squatters who actually thought the land was theirs. What gall!

Capitalists: Hey, government, we can make a lot of money in cotton. Can you help us?
Government: Sure thing! Whatever you want, you got. We cleared out some more squatters down south and sent them to Oklahoma. You can now get more slaves who will build your plantations for you and make you tons of money.

Capitalists: Hey U.S. government, we're Americans and we illegally crossed over into Mexico, and the Mexican government is being mean to us and telling us we can't own slaves. Can you help us?
Government: You bet! We'll be sending more troops and teach those impudent Mexicans a lesson they'll never forget!

(Of course, by the time of the Civil War, the government was in a pickle, since it was stuck in the middle between two extremely powerful rival gangs of capitalists. The industrial capitalists won out over the plantation capitalists.)

Capitalists: Hey, government, we're being bothered by these horrible union leaders who are riling up our workers who are now demanding more money and better working conditions. We'll lose money if we do that! Can you help us?
Government: Sure, we'll send in cops to break the strikers and discredit their leaders by calling them socialists, communists, wobblies, or whatever it takes to turn public opinion against them.

Capitalists: Hey, government, we think we can make even more money if we grab Cuba from the Spanish, who really shouldn't have any colonies left around here anyway, since this is all our hemisphere now.
Government: Well, okay, sounds ambitious. Let's do it. We might as well take the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam, too.

Capitalists: Hey government, a canal across the Panama isthmus would save us tons of money and increase our profits even more.
Government: Well, then, we'll have to liberate the Panamanian people from their Colombian oppressors, and they'll be so grateful to us that they'll build our canal for us.

Teddy Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's more progressive policies started to gain traction, and then the government slowly started to change, as the political landscape of America was changing, until FDR rose to power and made some monumental changes.

Capitalists: Government...what are you doing? I thought we were friends!
Government: We're still friends - very good friends, but you guys screwed up by causing the Great Depression, so we're just trying to help.

But ever since then, capitalist rhetoric has tended to present government as some kind of soft adversary, but which became too big and unwieldy for their taste. So, it's never been "unbridled capitalism," but there's been an ebb and flow in how much government is willing to enable capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

A lot more.

Well, that's how you Eurostanians are, ie,
lust for security provided by Big Brother.
Although you'd likely describe this using
different words.

There is no unbridled capitalism existing today. "Unbridled capitalism" is the theoretical idea of capitalism and it is the theoretical idea that has inherent flaws which would lead to self destruction if not restraint.

Evidence for the claim of "self destruction"?
That sounds rather sky-would-fall.
I think you'd have better luck supporting a
claim that having no governmental regulation
at all would have more dysfunction.

* Accumulation (as Marx called it) is one of those theoretical flaws. It's not just about how much social service we want, it's that, if not tackled systemically, no amount of social service can prevent it.
In capitalism, wealth always gets redistributed to the top.

Like the puritan who worries that someone somewhere
might be having fun, the socialist worries that someone
might have too much money. That seems to be about
class warfare.
Rather than opposing some being too rich, I prefer that
government ensure the masses don't have too little.

 

[Heyo]

Perhaps "unbridled capitalism" may be a misnomer. Under the capitalist-friendly government in the U.S., we might call it "enabled capitalism." Considering how much capitalists take a dim view of government and endlessly complain about "Big Gov" interfering with their profits, they demonstrate such incredible ingratitude towards their primary benefactor in America.

Capitalists: Hey, government, we need more land and resources to increase our profits.
Government: No problem! We just sent some troops to clear some land for you out west, removing those pesky squatters who actually thought the land was theirs. What gall!

Capitalists: Hey, government, we can make a lot of money in cotton. Can you help us?
Government: Sure thing! Whatever you want, you got. We cleared out some more squatters down south and sent them to Oklahoma. You can now get more slaves who will build your plantations for you and make you tons of money.

Capitalists: Hey U.S. government, we're Americans and we illegally crossed over into Mexico, and the Mexican government is being mean to us and telling us we can't own slaves. Can you help us?
Government: You bet! We'll be sending more troops and teach those impudent Mexicans a lesson they'll never forget!

(Of course, by the time of the Civil War, the government was in a pickle, since it was stuck in the middle between two extremely powerful rival gangs of capitalists. The industrial capitalists won out over the plantation capitalists.)

Capitalists: Hey, government, we're being bothered by these horrible union leaders who are riling up our workers who are now demanding more money and better working conditions. We'll lose money if we do that! Can you help us?
Government: Sure, we'll send in cops to break the strikers and discredit their leaders by calling them socialists, communists, wobblies, or whatever it takes to turn public opinion against them.

Capitalists: Hey, government, we think we can make even more money if we grab Cuba from the Spanish, who really shouldn't have any colonies left around here anyway, since this is all our hemisphere now.
Government: Well, okay, sounds ambitious. Let's do it. We might as well take the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam, too.

Capitalists: Hey government, a canal across the Panama isthmus would save us tons of money and increase our profits even more.
Government: Well, then, we'll have to liberate the Panamanian people from their Colombian oppressors, and they'll be so grateful to us that they'll build our canal for us.

Teddy Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's more progressive policies started to gain traction, and then the government slowly started to change, as the political landscape of America was changing, until FDR rose to power and made some monumental changes.

Capitalists: Government...what are you doing? I thought we were friends!
Government: We're still friends - very good friends, but you guys screwed up by causing the Great Depression, so we're just trying to help.

But ever since then, capitalist rhetoric has tended to present government as some kind of soft adversary, but which became too big and unwieldy for their taste. So, it's never been "unbridled capitalism," but there's been an ebb and flow in how much government is willing to enable capitalism.

:winner:

 

[Heyo]

Like the puritan who worries that someone somewhere
might be having fun, the socialist worries that someone
might have too much money. That seems to be about
class warfare.
Rather than opposing some being too rich, I prefer that
government ensure the masses don't have too little.

We had that discussion a few pages back (or was that in the other thread?). Some people being rich is the reason that other people are poor.
Add to that that "money talks" and you get a plutocracy. That is also clear to see when comparing Europe to the US. When politicians here get caught taking bribes, they have to go. In the US it is legal and commonplace.
You definitively have too much capitalism.

And for being self destructive: isn't capitalism said to being build on market competition? Yeah, in reality that's what capitalists hate and what is being eliminated by the aforementioned accumulation, in business talk called "consolidation". Bigger companies swallow smaller companies, bribe politicians to enact "regulations" that raises the bar for entry and then cooperate to dictate prices.
Guess who pays higher prices on products like drugs and internet services. That's the power of the market.

 

[Revoltingest]

We had that discussion a few pages back (or was that in the other thread?). Some people being rich is the reason that other people are poor.

What an unfortunate belief you have.

Add to that that "money talks" and you get a plutocracy. That is also clear to see when comparing Europe to the US. When politicians here get caught taking bribes, they have to go. In the US it is legal and commonplace.
You definitively have too much capitalism.

And for being self destructive: isn't capitalism said to being build on market competition? Yeah, in reality that's what capitalists hate and what is being eliminated by the aforementioned accumulation, in business talk called "consolidation". Bigger companies swallow smaller companies, bribe politicians to enact "regulations" that raises the bar for entry and then cooperate to dictate prices.
Guess who pays higher prices on products like drugs and internet services. That's the power of the market.

Your argument lacks evidence that the real world
results in concentration of wealth causing those
problems. There is vibrant competition in many
areas....except where government controls them.
We do have useful regulation against monopolies
& anti-competitive practices.

Remember back a few years when the left predicted
the end of internet access due to lack of regulation?

Net Neutrality, good bye internet.

So the greedy corporations have won, and successfully repealed net neutrality. Net neutrality repeal means your internet may never be the same Which means endless paywalls and micro transactions just to access what had been free. Does this mean the end of the internet age? Will people go back...

www.religiousforums.com

The internet survived.

I recommend that the left stop living in an imagined
world of worst case scenarios. That leads to extreme
& unrealistic beliefs & agendas. Tis better to survey
the real world, & see what policies have the best
results. Capitalism combined with democracy &
good regulation is the best tool ever devised.

Edit:
Before the whataboutists arrive, I'll add that the
right has its worst-case-scenario fear mongers too.
Their fear of gay marriage, sex transition, wokism,
etc is also harmful.

 

[Audie]

:winner:

As if

 

[Audie]

We had that discussion a few pages back (or was that in the other thread?). Some people being rich is the reason that other people are poor.
Add to that that "money talks" and you get a plutocracy. That is also clear to see when comparing Europe to the US. When politicians here get caught taking bribes, they have to go. In the US it is legal and commonplace.
You definitively have too much capitalism.

And for being self destructive: isn't capitalism said to being build on market competition? Yeah, in reality that's what capitalists hate and what is being eliminated by the aforementioned accumulation, in business talk called "consolidation". Bigger companies swallow smaller companies, bribe politicians to enact "regulations" that raises the bar for entry and then cooperate to dictate prices.
Guess who pays higher prices on products like drugs and internet services. That's the power of the market.

Guess who ignores that competition is real.
(Note how japanese cars proved better than
American ones.

Are you against capitalism of any kind, on
any level, and see all profit is bad ?

Where / if there is an anticompetitive arrangement
it's failure of govt to enforce regulations.

Like with any crime. ( see drugs. Immigration)

You get the level of crime your society is willing to
to tolerate.

That includes govt corruption, the biggest
organized crime, ever.

 

[Stevicus]

 

[Heyo]

What an unfortunate belief you have.

No belief, just maths skills.

Your argument lacks evidence that the real world
results in concentration of wealth causing those
problems. There is vibrant competition in many
areas....except where government controls them.
We do have useful regulation against monopolies
& anti-competitive practices.

Do you? How many internet providers do you have in your corner of the woods? How are your plans?

Remember back a few years when the left predicted
the end of internet access due to lack of regulation?

Net Neutrality, good bye internet.

So the greedy corporations have won, and successfully repealed net neutrality. Net neutrality repeal means your internet may never be the same Which means endless paywalls and micro transactions just to access what had been free. Does this mean the end of the internet age? Will people go back...

www.religiousforums.com

The internet survived.

I must have missed something. You don't have net neutrality in the US?

I recommend that the left stop living in an imagined
world of worst case scenarios. That leads to extreme
& unrealistic beliefs & agendas. Tis better to survey
the real world, & see what policies have the best
results.

Didn't I do that?

Capitalism combined with democracy &
good regulation is the best tool ever devised.

Only that you don't have good regulations and calling your system of government "democracy" is a euphemism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Notice how well dressed, peaceful, & healthy those capitalists are.
Contrast them with socialists in N Korea...

Oh, wait....that was a scene from Casino.
Here's N Korea...

 

[Estro Felino]

What an unfortunate belief you have.

Your argument lacks evidence that the real world
results in concentration of wealth causing those
problems. There is vibrant competition in many
areas....except where government controls them.
We do have useful regulation against monopolies
& anti-competitive practices.

I guess I have pointed out several times that the theory of the monetary circuit says that the money was meant to circulate. Money cannot end up entirely in the hands of very few oligarchs. What will circulate? Nothing.
Also because the wealthy will keep it, and will not invest it.
Concentration of wealth in the State's hands is fruitful, since the State will build motorways, railways, hospitals.

 

[Revoltingest]

Money cannot end up entirely in the hands of very few oligarchs. What will circulate? Nothing.

Obviously, that dint happen.
I have money.

Also because the wealthy will keep it, and will not invest it.

Perhaps it is so on your planet.
But here on Earth, we know that money cannot
sit idle, lest inflation reduce its value to zero.
I even borrow other people's money to lend
to others. (I charge more interest than I pay.)

 

[Heyo]

Guess who ignores that competition is real.
(Note how japanese cars proved better than
American ones.

Japanese cars? Cars are a good example for "consolidation". The history of car manufacturers is a history of bankruptcies, buy-outs and mergers. The number of original brands is constantly shrinking. Extrapolate the trend into the future and there will be about 3 conglomerates by 2040.
Examples:
"General Motors owns Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC. Hummer returned as a GMC sub-brand. GM has a formal partnership with Honda to co-develop EVs."
"Stellantis is the corporation formed from the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Peugeot S.A. merger. The name is explained as being rooted in the Latin verb “stello” meaning “to brighten with stars.” The FCA brands sold in the U.S. are now under Stellantis: Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati, and Ram. Overseas, Citroen, DS Automobiles, Opel, Peugeot, and Vauxhall are among the other Stellantis car brands."
"Volkswagen AG owns Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Scout, and Volkswagen." - from Who Owns Which Car Brands? - Consumer Reports

Are you against capitalism of any kind, on
any level, and see all profit is bad ?

Yes and no. In an ideal (i.e. dream) world, capitalism would be eliminated.
In the real world, capitalism will stay for a long, long time. But it is important that people understand how capitalism works and "bridle" it whenever it gets too powerful.

Where / if there is an anticompetitive arrangement
it's failure of govt to enforce regulations.

So, we at least agree that competition isn't inherent to capitalism? It has to be forced by government?

Like with any crime. ( see drugs. Immigration)

You get the level of crime your society is willing to
to tolerate.

Yep. And capitalism is tolerated because it isn't understood.

That includes govt corruption, the biggest
organized crime, ever.

Which is a direct result of capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

No belief, just maths skills.

Math skills are worthless if one begins with faulty premises.
Besides, I too know my guzintas.

Do you? How many internet providers do you have in your corner of the woods? How are your plans?

I've never counted'm all.
Our plans are great.

I must have missed something. You don't have net neutrality in the US?

Nope.

Didn't I do that?

You're trying.
But you've more progress
to make to reach my level.

Only that you don't have good regulations and calling your system of government "democracy" is a euphemism.

Such a deluded cynic.
Partisan politics prevent you from seeing
how great things are here. But we still
have much progress to make. Ain't no
country perfect...especially Doytschland.

 

[Revoltingest]

Japanese cars? Cars are a good example for "consolidation". The history of car manufacturers is a history of bankruptcies, buy-outs and mergers. The number of original brands is constantly shrinking. Extrapolate the trend into the future and there will be about 3 conglomerates by 2040.
Examples:
"General Motors owns Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC. Hummer returned as a GMC sub-brand. GM has a formal partnership with Honda to co-develop EVs."
"Stellantis is the corporation formed from the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Peugeot S.A. merger. The name is explained as being rooted in the Latin verb “stello” meaning “to brighten with stars.” The FCA brands sold in the U.S. are now under Stellantis: Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati, and Ram. Overseas, Citroen, DS Automobiles, Opel, Peugeot, and Vauxhall are among the other Stellantis car brands."
"Volkswagen AG owns Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Scout, and Volkswagen." - from Who Owns Which Car Brands? - Consumer Reports

Your list suggests that there are only 3 companies
owning all brands. Surely, you know otherwise.
I can think of many more, eg, Fort, Hyundai.

 

[Heyo]

I guess I have pointed out several times that the theory of the monetary circuit says that the money was meant to circulate. Money cannot end up entirely in the hands of very few oligarchs. What will circulate? Nothing.
Also because the wealthy will keep it, and will not invest it.

Wrong.
The wealthy invest all their money (so they can get more money that they can invest to make more money).
But they don't consume, that is the problem. And we have a secret inflation. The wealthy have so much money that don't know where to invest. Bankers and brokers have therefore created "derivatives" which aren't shares of companies but just bets on the shares of companies (which should be traded by bookmakers, not at the stock exchange). Thus, the money keeps circulating the casino (stock exchange) and we don't get real inflation which would happen when too much money is in circulation in the real world.

Concentration of wealth in the State's hands is fruitful, since the State will build motorways, railways, hospitals.

I.e. put money in circulation.

 

[Heyo]

Your list suggests that there are only 3 companies
owning all brands. Surely, you know otherwise.

That why I wrote "Examples".

 

[Revoltingest]

That why I wrote "Examples".

The paucity of examples belied the existence
of intense competition between the many
different companies with different owners.

 

[Stevicus]

Notice how well dressed, peaceful, & healthy those capitalists are.
Contrast them with socialists in N Korea...

Oh, wait....that was a scene from Casino.

Those are capitalists doing what capitalists do.

Here's N Korea...

Without any context, it's hard to say what this is - or even what country it is.

Capitalism in America: