Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Estro Felino]

When your perception is at odds with reality,
tis the former that must be cured, because
the latter rules the day.

It's a problem when government uses its authority
to create an environment that creates financial
instability, eg, incentivizing risky borrowing,
requiring risky lending, imposing high real estate
transfer costs, taxing people on phantom income
when they lose their homes (kicking''m when they're
down), & refusing to negotiate with troubled borrowers.

The market exists in this environment. Blame the
environment that government creates...not responses
to it.

Maybe it would be better if there were no Government at all...
Right?

 

[Estro Felino]

If government is creating the problem, then it's their responsibility to fix it, no?

winner frubal

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that crises are avoidable.

I think in terms of reducing risk.

 

[Revoltingest]

If government is creating the problem, then it's their responsibility to fix it, no?

Yes.
But I cringe at thought that incompetent politicians
creating solutions to problems they've caused.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe it would be better if there were no Government at all...
Right?

Wrong.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes.
But I cringe at thought that incompetent politicians
creating solutions to problems they've caused.

That would also fall on the voters who elect these incompetent politicians.

If it's really so important to capitalists that government be competent and avoid creating the kinds of risky situations and environment which leads to the problems under discussion, then maybe they could use some of their vast wealth towards educating the public so they'll make wiser choices at the ballot box.

 

[Revoltingest]

That would also fall on the voters who elect these incompetent politicians.

True dat.

If it's really so important to capitalists that government be competent and avoid creating the kinds of risky situations and environment which leads to the problems under discussion, then maybe they could use some of their vast wealth towards educating the public so they'll make wiser choices at the ballot box.

It's important to any "ist" group that government be competent.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a way for commies (including socialists) &
liberals to sanitize their beliefs by making any
discomforting word inapplicable.

Do you really think Fascism is right-wing? To me it's 100% left-wing.

Read what Quilici, an Italian intellectual said in 1942 about Fascism:

Mussolini didn't make the revolution to take Italy back to the political and economic schemes of the period before WW1. What he wants is the opposite (the antithesis) of the liberal-bourgeois system: an authoritarian and hierarchical political regime, and he is creating the economy of corporativism. The Bourgeoisie preserves the principle of private property, but must accept not to use it at will: the Bourgeoisie must renounce, without protesting, the economic freedom that has dragged the country into the abyss. Mussolini, during the speech of Pesaro about target 90, gives the final hammer blow: the prideful and refractory survivors of war capitalism or the big landowners that were trying to sabotage the new social policy are forced to fall into their knees: the Fascist State is their master; It can make them go bankrupt if they don't obey, and It can rescue them, if they get back in line. The deflation policy is a terrible machine smashing individualistic selfishness. It's the steam roller which undoes the extreme bourgeois resistances.

Mussolini non ha fatto la rivoluzione per riportare l’Italia alle forme politiche ed economiche dell’anteguerra […] Quello che egli vuole è proprio l’antitesi del sistema liberal-borghese […] un regime politico autoritario e gerarchico e crea l’economia corporativa. La borghesia salva bensì il principio di proprietà […] ma deve consentire a non esercitarla a suo libito: […] deve rinunciare, senza proteste, alla libertà economica, che ha trascinato il paese presso l’abisso. […] Mussolini, con il discorso di Pesaro, su quota novanta, dà l’ultimo colpo di maglio [… gli] orgogliosi e refrattari superstiti del capitalismo di guerra o grossi proprietari terrieri, che tentano il sabotaggio della nuova politica sociale, sono obbligati a cadere in ginocchio: lo Stato fascista è padrone di loro, può farli fallire se non ubbidiscono, o salvarli se rientrano nei ranghi. La politica della deflazione è una terribile macchina stritolatrice di egoismo individuali. E’ il rullo compressore delle estreme resistenze borghesi.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you really think Fascism is right-wing? To me it's 100% left-wing.

Read what Nitti, an Italian intellectual said in 1942 about Fascism:

Mussolini didn't make the revolution to take Italy back to the political and economic schemes of the period before WW1. What he wants is the opposite (the antithesis) of the liberal-bourgeois system: an authoritarian and hierarchical political regime, and he is creating the economy of corporativism. The Bourgeoisie preserves the principle of private property, but must accept not to use it at will: the Bourgeoisie must renounce, without protesting, the economic freedom that has dragged the country into the abyss. Mussolini, during the speech of Pesaro about quote 90, gives the final hammer blow: the prideful and refractory remnants of war capitalism or the big landowners that were trying to sabotage the new social policy are forced to fall into their knees: the Fascist State is their master; It can make them go bankrupt if they don't obey, and It can rescue them, if they get back in line. The deflation policy is a terrible machine smashing individualistic selfishness. It's the steam roller which undoes the extreme bourgeois resistances.

I would say that the right-wing is more nationalistic while the left-wing is more internationalistic.

Bourgeois classical liberalism and nationalism went hand in hand during much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, with the central idea being that the government would take care of the homeland folks with social welfare programs, while aggressively conquering and exploiting outside territories. It's no coincidence that Britain and France could support liberal social programs for the lower classes in their own countries, while squeezing their colonies for everything they could get.

In many ways, it was similar to socialism in that it helped the lower classes, but it was designed to woo the masses away from socialism. That's why socialist revolutionaries never really gained much of a foothold in the West, since liberal policies appeased the masses and took the wind out of their sails.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would say that the right-wing is more nationalistic while the left-wing is more internationalistic.

Bourgeois classical liberalism and nationalism went hand in hand during much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, with the central idea being that the government would take care of the homeland folks with social welfare programs, while aggressively conquering and exploiting outside territories. It's no coincidence that Britain and France could support liberal social programs for the lower classes in their own countries, while squeezing their colonies for everything they could get.

In many ways, it was similar to socialism in that it helped the lower classes, but it was designed to woo the masses away from socialism. That's why socialist revolutionaries never really gained much of a foothold in the West, since liberal policies appeased the masses and took the wind out of their sails.

Mussolini exploited the right-wing nationalists, that would call themselves fascists.
He turned them into his personal militia, in order to make that coup d'état that was supported by the great banking, industrial and financial élites. Why? Because a Bolshevik revolution would have taken place sooner or later, in Italy. In 1920-1921, many factories were occupied by the workers. And the Government told the factory owners to give in. To satisfy their requests.

Mussolini promised these élites he would prevent a Bolshevik revolution from breaking out, and this was guaranteed until 1926.
Then the anti-capitalistic turn, that was gradual, so the élites were not even aware of what was happening.
Lands were expropriated, and the Central Bank was nationalized.

The élites couldn't even react, because the fascist militias were very violent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Adam Smith used to say there was an invisible hand monitoring, tweaking, and adjusting.
Magic.
Fairy-tales applied to macroeconomics.

Whilst I don't agree with him in many ways, he didn't mean a literal invisible hand.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So? Capitalism doesn't claim to be perfect. It is simply the best economic system yet developed. Your "monitoring" and "tweaking" are plastic euphemisms. Too often they really mean attempts to circumvent it or attack it. Capitalism has withstood the vagaries of time and assaults by many who thought themselves wise in their own eyes. Capitalism works.

I agree that it works. But in no county where it works is it unfettered. So it is reasonable to assess which version of it works best, and how various fetters either provide better outcomes or negatively impact.

 

[Estro Felino]

Whilst I don't agree with him in many ways, he didn't mean a literal invisible hand.

After the laissez-faire ideology (here we call it liberism), the XX century was chracterized by the fight between Keynesians and Monetarists, and unfortunately the latter prevailed. They have prevailed with the ideology which we call neo-liberism, and Stiglitz, Hayek, and others are the great ideologues. They still consider such invisible hand exists. That's why they believe that the marketplace is self-adjusting.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Not only Christians but also atheists (thinkers, mainly) have reached the awareness that the 20th century (and this 21st) have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that economic growth is a good thing. But it cannot be restless and infinite, because we are mortal beings and because we live in a finite world.
So it's like applying limitless and restless criteria on a limited, finite world.
It's absolutely contradictory: unbridled Capitalism benefits from eternal, restless and continuous growth. More people are on Earth, more customers will buy Capitalists' products, and more profit will be made.
But, the more world population grows, the more we need to increase the production of goods and services. The more we need to exploit waters, to raise farm animals, to grow plants, to cut down trees, to deplete seas.
And the more we will increase the production, the more workers we will need, so more and more workforce. More and more millions and millions of workers.
And more and more people on Earth, more and more Capitalism. It's a vicious cycle. A self-destructive vicious cycle because sooner or later all petroleum, all resources, all trees will run out.

Profit Maximization → More workers needed → Population needs to increase → More and more production to support the population growth → more and more workers → more and more population → more and more production → profit maximization

Imagine another scenario: small communities where all cooperate. There is a very limited and state-controlled capitalism. People invest and make profit for the community's sake, and not for their own personal gain. Since there is not the obsession with profit maximization, people will produce only what they need.
Less and less workers needed. Less and less births. Less and less production.

I think unbridled capitalism and profit maximization are evil concepts. That belong in minds with a very low degree of awareness.

What this post omits is a definition of 'unbridled.' Once that is answered, the next question is 'Where does such a thing exist?'

 

[Estro Felino]

What this post omits is a definition of 'unbridled.' Once that is answered, the next question is 'Where does such a thing exist?'

For example, that the healthcare insurances in the US are free to determine the prices, the contractual conditions of the policies...and the Government won't care and won't bother them.

 

[Stevicus]

Mussolini exploited the right-wing nationalists, that would call themselves fascists.
He turned them into his personal militia, in order to make that coup d'état that was supported by the great banking, industrial and financial élites. Why? Because a Bolshevik revolution would have taken place sooner or later, in Italy. In 1920-1921, many factories were occupied by the workers. And the Government told the factory owners to give in. To satisfy their requests.

Mussolini promised these élites he would prevent a Bolshevik revolution from breaking out, and this was guaranteed until 1926.
Then the anti-capitalistic turn, that was gradual, so the élites were not even aware of what was happening.
Lands were expropriated, and the Central Bank was nationalized.

The élites couldn't even react, because the fascist militias were very violent.

Well, yes, I can see that. As was the case in France and Germany, some measures were implemented to appease the working classes - even if they might have (slightly) impinged upon the capitalists. The elites may have balked about it, but it was a compromise they were willing to make because the alternative would have been much worse. Besides, if Mussolini's military adventurism had paid off, the elites could then get a share of the spoils. So for them, it might have been a matter of paying a small price today in the hopes for a bigger payoff tomorrow.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, yes, I can see that. As was the case in France and Germany, some measures were implemented to appease the working classes - even if they might have (slightly) impinged upon the capitalists. The elites may have balked about it, but it was a compromise they were willing to make because the alternative would have been much worse. Besides, if Mussolini's military adventurism had paid off, the elites could then get a share of the spoils. So for them, it might have been a matter of paying a small price today in the hopes for a bigger payoff tomorrow.

In Italy there was no recession after the Crash because the Fascist State rescued all factories and banks. The State purchased their stakes so they could pay their debts. At the beginning of WW2 the Italian State practically owned a significant portion of the banking system and owned, either directly or indirectly the nearly totality of the industrial complex. Practically the élites had to bow their heads and content themselves with little.

 

[Wandering Monk]

For example, that the healthcare insurances in the US are free to determine the prices, the contractual conditions of the policies...and the Government won't care and won't bother them.

Insurance companies are regulated at the state level, so not an example of unbridled capitalism. But the federal government has also begun regulating insurance in the US.

So again, give me an example of a nation that has unbridled capitalism.

Insurance in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Estro Felino]

Insurance companies are regulated at the state level, so not an example of unbridled capitalism. But the federal government has also begun regulating insurance in the US.

So again, give me an example of a nation that has unbridled capitalism.

Insurance in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the insurance companies can refuse to pay...yes...there is a problem of lack of government, and unbridled capitalism:

Tips for When Your Medical Insurance Won't Pay

If you're having a tough time getting your health insurance company to cover various healthcare treatments, here are some tips to keep in mind.

www.verywellhealth.com

 

[Shaul]

I agree that it works. But in no county where it works is it unfettered. So it is reasonable to assess which version of it works best, and how various fetters either provide better outcomes or negatively impact.

The fetters that fetter best are the fetters that fetter least.