Capatilism is Objectively Superior to any other form of Governace.

[Ponder]

I simply want someone to challenge this assertion and then I will reply in kind. 
 

I will do my best to keep it civil. 
 

I’ll keep it brief with a short pithy quote I heard somewhere:

capitlism is the worst form of government, other than all the other one’s. 

[Leo Gura]

That is correct. For now.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

meritocraism is bettar

[MightyMind]

The West runs on crony capitalism propped up by the Federal Reserve, a quasi-private central bank that conjures money from nothing through digital creation and bond buying.

So in short we have crony capitalism

A better system would be a capitalistic system with safe guards and mechanisms in place (and evolving as we refine) to deal with crooks and the mafia's of the world.  

[Elliott]

Capitalism is not a form of government

 

 

Anarchy is the best form of government, not joking.

 

 

 

 

[Schizophonia]

It's not a form of government, it's a system of production and distribution.

It creates enormous wealth inequality and essentially benefits only those who are in the right place at the right time.

It inevitably degenerates into crises in the short or long term due to speculative mechanisms, debt, the favoring of monopolies, and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.

Edited 1 hour ago by Schizophonia

[Apparition of Jack]

I find the distinction between “capitalism” and “socialism” to be largely made up.

Ideally, an economy should take elements from each of them in order to achieve its specific goals. 
 

Want to encourage economic growth and stimulate entrepreneurship? Cut taxes and regulations so people have an easier time starting a business. Want to ensure everyone has fair wages and safe working conditions? Implement labour laws and give employees a say in how businesses - especially large businesses - are run.

I will say though, as it currently stands, I think the pendulum has swung a little too far in the direction of “Wild West capitalism.” The fact that healthcare is still a commodity or new housing complexes are bought up by rich investment firms seems ridiculous to me. But even then, something like cutting back red tape on approving new housing developments (so long as they’re not also immediately bought up by these firms) also seems to make sense.

I think we should focus on heavily regulating major businesses (tech, finance, etc.) and ensuring a basic minimum of quality of life (so safe housing, decent wages, national healthcare etc) whilst also encouraging small and medium-sized businesses to stimulate economic activity.

I call it Abundance Populism  the best of both worlds.

[Hafiz]

Does capitalism mean non regulated markets? 
 

 

[Leo Gura]

55 minutes ago, Hafiz said:

Does capitalism mean non regulated markets?

No. Most markets are regulated.

Capitalism means corporations are privately owned and traded on stock markets and their profits go to shareholders.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

16 minutes ago, Hafiz said:

Does capitalism mean non regulated markets? 
 

 

Basically it means a system based on the principle of surplus value; capital is something (a company's cash, means of production...) that is intended to produce surplus value in the end.

In a communist ideal there is no surplus value, and therefore no really economy either, since production and distribution is state-planned "to each their means, to each their needs".

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That is correct. For now.

Would you be able to debate with a solid Marxist intellectual.

 

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Would you be able to debate with a solid Marxist intellectual.

I do not like debating.

[Schizophonia]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

I do not like debating.

But as a result you will not have the opportunity to open up and will continue to tacitly declare that Marxists are wrong here and there because it suits your ego structure.

In a debate, you either shut down and are humiliated, or you incorporate what the other person is proposing.

You said somewhere that Buddhist monks were very exclusionary but that's neurotic projection lol, Buddhism is about inclusion and it's because the monks integrate so much that they find themselves isolated from classic human issues; because taking an interest in them would recreate separation, karma.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

It's not a form of government, it's a system of production and distribution.

It creates enormous wealth inequality and essentially benefits only those who are in the right place at the right time.

It inevitably degenerates into crises in the short or long term due to speculative mechanisms, debt, the favoring of monopolies, and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.

Healthy capitalism will naturally evolves into techno communism.
Otherwise it evolve in what it shall be in his ultimate form : cancer.

[Hojo]

@AerisVahnEphelia to consume for the sake of it even when you don't want it or need it. 700 pound blobs shoving more down their throat because they didn't meet their eating quota.

Edited 52 minutes ago by Hojo

[Daniel Balan]

3 hours ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

meritocraism is bettar

Thats exactly what capitalism is, lol! You can't become sucessful in capitalism by mistake, only the best of the best achieve it. The problem with capitalism is that the winner takes it all, while the losers fight for scraps! A more conscious capitalism will allow the winner to win, but will also make sure that the winner doesn't win it all, so that the losers will also have plenty of resources to share amongst themselves.

[Schizophonia]

15 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

Healthy capitalism will naturally evolves into techno communism.
Otherwise it evolve in what it shall be in his ultimate form : cancer.

There will have to be a shift towards statism

[Schizophonia]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

Thats exactly what capitalism is, lol! You can't become sucessful in capitalism by mistake, only the best of the best achieve it. The problem with capitalism is that the winner takes it all, while the losers fight for scraps! A more conscious capitalism will allow the winner to win, but will also make sure that the winner doesn't win it all, so that the losers will also have plenty of resources to share amongst themselves.

No, capitalism is the least meritocratic system because by definition it favors those who already have capital to begin with and a ludicrous distribution of purchasing power.

 

[Daniel Balan]

8 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

No, capitalism is the least meritocratic system because by definition it favors those who already have capital to begin with and a ludicrous distribution of purchasing power.

 

This has to be wrong, I know countless of people who grew up with me in my village, that were dirt poor when they were young, and now they have successful businesses that they have built across decades. People who were begging me for a cigarette when we were 15 years old, now have successful construction businesses. I am happy for them, they endured sleepless nights, went in Germany to work in agriculture in grueling conditions, they saved all the money, ate the cheapest food available , slept 10 people in the same room etc and now have opened their businesses here back home! They didn't cry and begged for the government to give them free stuff. They rolled up their sleeves and endured work! That's why I hate socialism, all the nobodies and losers from my village are regreting the communist dictatorship from the 20th century, while the winners are working non stop and love capitalism.

Edited 28 minutes ago by Daniel Balan

[Gigsi]

Pure “capitalism” doesn’t really exist anywhere. Every system ends up controlled by whoever has the most money and power. They feed the rest of us whatever narrative keeps them on top.

Yeah, it feels extremely unfair but “fairness” is just a human invention in this case. World doesn’t care about fair; it rewards the strong. The only question is whether the strong choose to restrain themselves with morals… or not.