Question: Are there any legitimate criticisms of Capitalism and the free market?

None of that is proof for the need of government micromanagement since you assume fallaciously that solutions to those problems could not have occurred without govenment regulation.

Liberals exist to criticize freedom and beg for boots on their chicken necks. That's because liberals are eternal children looking for a daddy and they've found it in government. A welfare state will protect them from themselves and the consequences of their actions. There's nothing more terrifying to a liberal than freedom, adulthood, consequences and realizing that their conditions are their own doing.

Which is why you get this double think issue with the term "liberal" itself, which manifests as the exact opposite of the dictionary definition.

Capitalism isn't very good with shared resources eg Air & Water polution, overfishing.

This is known as "tragedy of the commons".

interesting; do you have any reading recommendations on this subject matter?
This seems like a critique of how technology will enslave the populace than just the free market in general, but I guess technological innovations as such are a byproduct of a capitalistic environment.

Government intervention is necessary. See the TARP bailout for an example.

When you let corporations do whatever they want they pollute, fuck over workers and destroy the environment.

Every major economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism. There is no pure capitalist economy on Earth. They are all mixed market economies.

hyperallergic.com/313435/an-illustrated-guide-to-guy-debords-the-society-of-the-spectacle/

I've heard this argument before, but isn't this just a criticism of companies on an individual case, and not one on capitalism? Disney has been using environmentally friendly energy sources like solar energy, for example.

The colonials literally tried communism when first settling in America. White Brits. It still didn’t work. Its just a bad system that breeds dissatisfaction.

>but what about capitalism?
(((Capitalism))) & (((Communism)))
BOTH with Jewish roots
BOTH Jewish tools of social control.

Capitalism leads to MONOPOLIES & a Corotocracy Running Government.
>youtu.be/WaNW8O_9J8A
Communism is the Government & Corotocracy being one in the same.

Either way your being ruled by a small number of Elites.

Attached: ancap jew.png (501x585, 60K)

*corporatocracy

Capitalism is just a tool. Its similar to science, it doesn't have any inherent morality. It can be used for good and evil, and right now its being used for both. Harnessing that good is the question, but it is undoubtedly the best system out there.

Uncommon belief, I think national socialism and capitalism can blend together well. Capitalism is only a fucking nightmare right now because its all about keep consumption up. White men don't consume enough, we're frugal and we're financially responsible for the most part, so the government taxes us and in transfer payments they funnel money to people who aren't financially responsible via welfare and other transfer payment programs. Black people, single moms, women in general spend alot more than they make and women especially tend to put themselves in debt to (((travel))) and for other shallow, fleeting highs.

I think a libertarian or small government is far more possible in a nationalistic setting. Having pavement apes, welfare queens and (((liberated))) women means that the country will be easy to subvert, or you can say there will be a market for kikes to come in and subvert. A blend of 1960's Urban USA and post Weimar Republic Germany. Not sure of the exact mixture, but I think true capitalism is harnessed when men behave like men, because a government isn't necessary when white men work together.

Yeah, you're a newfag.

Free markets are unsustainable. Inevitably, there will be collusion/price-fixing, monopolies, or both. Once that happens the market isn’t fucking free. So, you either go to the courts or regulation which also isn’t free. Further the idea that competition produces superior products is not just retarded, it’s demonstrably wrong: The Tucker, Amigas, Betamax, etc etc etc are all vastly superior products that got killed by inferior ones. Lastly, for things like military hardware, commercial aircraft, public works projects, etc, competition is fucking wasteful. Take the Airbus 380: Airbus and Boeing played chicken about a superjumbo. jet because every single analysis showed that if both companies tried to develop one they both would fail. Boeing blinked and went with a totally different strategy.

Solar power makes sense now because it's cheaper then other sources.

The problem with the tragedy of the commons is that is your company wants "to do the right thing" there is cost involved. It is possible for Businesses to come together to "limit themselves". There are some real world examples of crab fishermen doing this. It does become very hard with big corporations because of several layers of abstraction.

capitalism is bad because I don't get free shit and have to work

What do you say to the argument by ancaps that monopolies are created by government assistance?
I think Hitler allowed some competition between german corporations, but provided benefits to ones that encouraged family-building

How can capitalism be used for evil? just wondering.
I don't deny this
What do you say to the argument that free market capitalism encourages corporations to hire lower IQ 3rd world immigrants into the country for jobs that countrymen could have had, but cannot because 3rd worlders can work in very low wages?

I say that anarcho-anything, especially anarchocapitalists, are delusional idiots.

That is not pure Capitalism. Just like Communism or Socialism can be diluted (though Socialism is mostly diluted Communism, but that is a simplification), so can Capitalism. It can also be corrupted by Socialism, which is what bailouts are. Cronyism is merely a dilution of Capitalism by ole time Feudalism. Instead of allowing the market or pure financial gain determine worth of a venture or individual, you give personal attachments and bribery the center stage.

It isn't Capitalism, it is an older system that fails in the modern world as much as Communism did against Feudalism in medieval Europe.

Yes. Communism is so bad at actually working that it even fails against Feudalism. Just ask the old Communes of Italy. Where the words for Communism come from. The idea is way older then Marx.

These people have a fundamental lack of knowledge when it comes to the free market, name a single corporation that has attained a monopoly without government assistance
"A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance in the form of a tariff or some other device. It is close to impossible to do so on a world scale. The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded (and even De Beers are protected by various laws against so called "illicit" diamond trade)" -Friedman
>inb4 muh kike said it therefore invalid

Attached: wearenotlivingincapitalism.png (1359x964, 250K)

Jesus H. Corbett. Novody has ever managed to achieve a communist society. Everything you’re talking about is/was a socialist country run by a communist party. Not a fucking one of them succeeded in making the transition (probably becaue it’s fucking impossible).

Milton fucking Friedman?!? If after 2008 you believe anything those Chicago School fucksticks say you’re dumber than they are.

Im not a Chicagoan but the point still stands, monopolies cannot and have not existed without coercion

Attached: aDonDoesntWearShorts.jpg (634x1244, 222K)

Yes. Usually it involves the tendency of society to devolve into crony capitalism.

youtube.com/watch?v=mSuQ-AyiicA

Attached: 06e.jpg (1181x897, 108K)

Free market: no
Capitalism: yes, because it includes wage labor, which is theft against the worker and therefore authoritarian

You’re quoting one of the most famous Chicago School wankers so, bullshit. You even mention de Beers, so we know it happened. You’re also forgetting US Steel an Ma fucking Bell. Both of whom were targetted by the US government with the latter being broken up.

Ok idiot, I will bite.

Communism is a ECONOMIC model. It has been achieved, repeatedly. You are just a moron with little education or understanding of history.

Multiple societies have tried to use Authoritarian means to scale up the Communist economic model to large nation scale. That fails. Every time. It is unsustainable.

Capitalism works at that scale. It is the best economic model we have for that scale. Global society can only currently exist with Capitalism. Any attempt to move the economic model to Communism, crashes the economy. Feudalism, simply cannot work at that scale. It has to give way to Capitalism. You cannot control enough people to operate at the world level, therefore you cannot employ Feudalism.

So, in conclusion, you are a faggot and need to be burned.

Attached: 1516941928539.jpg (566x480, 54K)

But is there any criticism on the actual idea of capitalism itself? For example, it encouraging lower IQ immigration

>Question: Are there any legitimate criticisms of Capitalism and the free market?
Market equilibrium break down under conditions of asymmetrical information.
Also maybe the existence of natural monopolies can be a criticism.
This is only really a criticism for autistic Austrian-tier theories though, where the free market is basically god.

If you’re going to correct someone, it helps to be right you improbably distended anus. Communism, by fucking Marx’s definition is the final stage of a progression from capitalism to socialism to a moneyless, classless society where each gives according to his ability and receives according to his need. This has clearly never fucking happened anywhwre you mong. What the fuck do think all those old Soviet jokes about “not us, not our children, but maybe our children’s children” were on about. You’re absolutely fucking wrong. If you weren’t such a spunk junkie you’d admit it.

Just watch the vid. Capitalism is a tool, it can be good or bad depending on how its used. Theres no hard and fast rule that capitalism must include mass immigration from Mexico or any immigration for that matter. Thats all politicians pushing agendas beneficial to some.

De Beers was protected by laws in the diamond trade
U.S Steel was never a monopoly, it controlled, at it's peak, about 60% of the market and their market share dropped to 50% in 4 years without any government measures against them such as trust busting

What fucking laws are you on about? It’s a South African company with ties to Belgium and the UK whose officers never travel to the US because of antiteust laws. US Steel was sued all tje way up to SCOTUS for anticompetitive practices. Let’s throw in Standard Oil while we’re at it. The idea that governments cause monopolies is only spouted by wannabe anarchists that don’t know shit about what was happening from the late 1800s to the early 1900s.

Yes. The whole thing is bullshit and only exists in textbooks. It is just better than governments running everything.

As an example, there is virtually no real competition in most industries. My hospital doesn't compete with any other hospital because of government laws and location monopolies. Apple and Google don't compete on phones, Apple just takes the high end, google the low end. Apple and Microsoft never competed on computers. Microsoft is for excel/office people, gamers, and a couple of other areas, while Apple is for various productivity situations.

There is no real incentive for established companies to compete with each other. It is like going to war. Instead, they just hold their markets and buy out or kill off any small players.

Pure capitalism doesn't account for things like the current housing crisis in various countries. It has to be combined with government regulation, the same with wages and so on. Otherwise, government can just flood their country with immigrants.

Then there are things like rent seeking, where investors exploit asset differences between them and poor people and pretty much just steal their money without contributing anything to society.

There are thousands of flaws of capitalism.

do you have any reading recommendations on the matter?

Not really, I just accumulated knowledge over time.

This.
Capitalism unlike socialism or communism doesn't try to control things and is just an unbiased tool... think of capitalism like a hammer and communism like a holographic representation of what a hammer builds

If government is picking corporate winners and losers then what you have is no longer capitalism, so it's not really a criticism of capitalism but rather a criticism of government.

The only real criticism of capitalism I can think of is people not making smart market choices can lead to some pretty dire situations. Not everyone can function well in a capitalistic society because some people are just severely disadvantaged due to physical or mental illness or are unlucky enough to be born with a shit tier IQ.

Capitalism lets the Pareto distribution run amok unchecked and we know that when inequality grows to be too large in any given region that violence and homicide start to spike, there's really no free market capitalism solution to that other than to have the market respond by providing things like insurance and protection services which mitigate the problem but don't solve it. Charity can help prevent it but capitalism doesn't have great ways of dealing with the free rider problem.

It encourages people selling themselves and their country out for short term gain.

Say there is two equally sized apple farms.

One hires migrants to pick the apples for much cheaper. The other farm refuses to hire non citizens on moral grounds.

The migrants employing farm has much lower costs and can undercut the other farm , putting it out of buissness and forcing him to sell his land. The other farmer buys his land and imports even more migrants.
It doesn't matter if the migrants end up killing the land over in 5 years times , farmers are forced to use them in order to not be pushed out and displaced by compitition.

My only real beef with this is that people buying apples themselves can make a moral choice about where they buy their apples on moral grounds, the same way that some people buy free range eggs for more expensive to give chickens a slightly better quality of life.

But what you find a lot of the time is that people simply prefer the cheaper goods over the moral principle. Is that a failing of capitalism or is that a failing of moral principles? I'd argue the latter.

Given the history of this country for the last 100 years, people WILL sacrifice their long term best interests for short term happiness.
Hence every day kebab shops being full of white people, despite most people actually being against Muslim immigration when polled

People need controlling or they will inevitably self destruct themselves

Additionally unless the consumer can individually check each farm , they can never be certain if they employ migrant labour or not

When you say people need controlling do you mean that you simply want to impose your morality onto their behaviour, or that their behaviour is inconsistent with what they say?

This is why I like Petersons work a lot because he talks about these kind of performative contradictions. What do people REALLY believe if they will abandon what they claim are their principles to forgo some minor inconvenience. Or maybe it's just that they don't think supporting kebab shops is a big enough of a deal to the overall problem (it probably isn't)

That's what auditing and regulation is for, a lot of people don't understand that you can have free market regulation and free market auditing, I've given real life examples of this before on Jow Forums. I used to work for a print mag, we voluntarily audited our audience because our advertisers wanted to know our readership and didn't want to try and verify that for themselves, so we pay to be audited by a reputatble 3rd party which takes action to ensure our aduience are who they say they are, and then simply slap a sticker on our product that says we've passed audiitng. It's 100% voluntary in the free market.

If there was sufficient demand for knowing which farms employed who, then the free market would provide that solution, you could start a company, offer to audit farms and boast to the farms that being audited by you will give them the edge over competitors because people will prefer to buy your products over theirs on moral grounds.

The sustained lack of any such auditing is a market indicator that actually people simply dont care enough on moral grounds, which is probably a better indicator of what they really believe, which is that cheap goods is a fair enough trade off for some immigration.

interesting

Capitalism doesn't encourage low IQ immigration because low IQ individuals won't do better than the rest in a free market. Welfare encourages immigration. We can see this in the voting patterns of low IQ groups/nations. They vote for socialist policies, not for free markets.

Yes. Capitalism is mistaken as a proscriptive solution as opposed to a descriptive evolution.
Capitalism does not produce good men. Morality is not lucrative.

The problem is not "capitalism". Capitalism is simply having an economy.

The problem with the current system is the fiat currencies and centralized banking. These things are not related to capitalism and are more communist in nature. Communism demands centralized banking.

governments need to break up monopolies, oligopolies and defund all unprofitable projects, governments are only there to keep Jews out of business

Can you go into fiat currency and centralized banking and why they're bad? Or some reading recommendations?

Most monopolies are caused by government regulations and anti trust laws are only enforced if there is a public outraged.

>big enough of a deal to the overall problem (it probably isn't
They wouldn't come if their host population isn't supporting them financially

It's more a problem with human nature than capitalism itself, but industrial-capitalism amplifies it.

A similar analogy is there is two tribes in a forest , one tribe who unsustainability cuts down forest, and another who lives with in their means, the tribe that cuts down the forest can grow much larger becuase of more food, so the territories of the other tribe easily get taken over and the other tribe gets wiped out
5 years later they all die of a famine caused by the degrading land

Capitalism, as the world implies is the rule of the capitalist classes. Today's financial markets have a manyfold volume of global GDP, fueled by debt (the origin of Capital). Implications are many, with the main outcome of the many working for the few.

Another example is the global tax competition that has incrementally lowered corporate tax leading to a bigger share of the produced welfare to go to the suppliers of capital, less to the suppliers of labor.

Long story short it fuels social injustice, periodical crises bailed out by the many, and social unrest.

Modern Capitalism relies on a banking system, which relies on central banks to balance and regulate. Capitalism is unthinkable without central banking, as the next crises would lead to the hungry masses seizing the banking system and putting it back to central control, possibly civil war.

The main issue that I have with corporate Capitalism, is demonstrated by the recent Activision Blizzard debacle.

With corporations, a conflict of interest can develop between customers on the one hand, and investors or shareholders on the other. Customers want products which satisfy their (often non-monetary, or at least not directly monetary) needs, while investors want to maximise profits, and do not necessarily perceive a direct link between that and satisfying customer needs.

So you can end up with a scenario, where a corporation will adopt a strategy which *exclusively* focuses on the desire of shareholders and investors to maximise profit, but in so doing, takes measures which directly conflicts (and often impedes and detracts from) the satisfaction of customer needs. The irony is that not only does this make customers unhappy, but because they cease doing business with the corporation, the money stops coming in, and eventually the investors and shareholders no longer get what they want either.

An example of this is the fact that Blizzard are focusing on the mobile platform for Diablo Immortal, because they think mobile is where the money is. However, Blizzard's incumbent user base are personal computer gamers, and they were very unhappy with Blizzard's mobile announcement, because they want a new Diablo game for their platform.

Before you start reading fringe drivel learn the fundamentals.

>They wouldn't come if their host population isn't supporting them financially
Probably not, but the total number of muslims working in kebab shops is fairly small compared to the total, so people don't really care. I think the bottom line here is not necessarily human nature, just that people don't strongly hold the views you do, they might agree on some level that immigration is too high but it's not a severe enough of a problem to them to care. I go back to the free range egg example, it turns out there's enough people who genuinely do care about the treatment of animals to alter a capitalistic market so that it includes products which are produced with less cruelty to animals.

Which tells me that people really care more about chickens than they do immigration. People will accept a little bit of immigration for cheaper prices, that's more true than listening to what they claim, which is that they're against immigration. The problem is that people don't actually convey what they believe to others, and its deeper than that, people often dont even understand what they believe. Psychologically that's a well known phenomenon. Peoples actions and behaviour betray what they really believe vs what they say and that's why in some sense capitalism is the best way of running an economy because it responds to market forces outside of ideology or false belief, it only responds to where people put their money.

The tribe analogy is generally not what happens, tribes have always managed to come to some balance in nature with their surroundings. Namely because the ones that abuse their surroundings often wipe themselves out leaving behind the few tribes that don't do this, it's part of natural evolution that guides individual and social behaviour.

The main problem with capitalism is not in competition or lack thereof in the primary markets. They are creating actual value. The problem is the secondary financial markets, the speculation, risk spreading until the whole system is unstable. The investment banks abusing their might, insider knowledge etc. And the investment banks' many conflicts of interest, combined with massive power.

why not try using the definition of capitalism:
>Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.
it is a distortion of reality, an attempt to meme psychotic levels of greed into law using a hyperbolic economic ideology as a proxy substitute.

it is an ideology that ignores reality in a bid to legitimize psychotic sociopathic behavior despite every indication that greed is bad.
it ignores the concepts of morals, ethics, society, government, group-identification, and so on, exactly like communism and socialism do.
they are meme ideologies that do not provide any real-world guidance in real-world situations.
they are too simplistic for that, a sign of bullshit writ large.

Attached: 406840.gif (500x415, 78K)

Capitalism eventually comes to a state where only very few people own all the capital. Like playing monopoly you will always get a winner who has all the money. There is no solution to this

ITT

Attached: 1522006761736.png (1066x600, 239K)

All copyright and patent law is enforced through violence (imprisonment) by the government.

The problem isn't so much with those markets, it's that government covers them financially so if they fail then they're just bailed out with public tax money. What we need is 2ndry markets that are left to fail privately and depositors in those institutions are the ones who lose their money. That creates a demand for stability and reduction in risk. Again this is more of a problem with government interference than it is with capitalism.

Its good for a while until this happens and class divide collapses whatever civilization it was upholding. You cant just cure greed without power.

The mechanism of capitalism is built on exploitation of hierarchies and the proliferation of inequality. Whilst this isn’t that much of a problem on a small scale once you blow it up to global proportions things get really shitty. Capitalism is the reason why Chinese people live insectile little lives in factories and why suicide is becoming more prevalent across the West. It’s behind the drop in white birth rates. It’s why swarms of Africans and Asians are leaving their own countries to crowd into ours.

Definitely underrated are the impacts on society on a social perspective. Capitalism if it was regulated correctly could lead to economic efficiency (prosperity?) it's impact on the social mechanisms, happiness etc. are less talked off.

>out leaving behind the few tribes that don't do this
My point is that these tribes often do get killed off before any disaster happening.
Look at Easter Island , when Europeans first found it, there was nobody living their, despite obvious signs of people living their before

There is no peaceful solution. Without coming across as a raving commie, the prerogative of the worker is to be in a constant state of revolt against the capitalists.

Capitalism is fine up until it allows for the exploitation of the workers to such a point it creates suffering.

Capitalism with relegation will slowly creap into communism or some kind of facist/natsoc system over time as little relegations pile up and get more expensive.

Human nature is flawed , that's why history is cyclical

Have you ever tried corporatism, my dude?

We already are creeping into a form of communism, especially here in Britain with our low wage economy. Effectively all jobs will become minimum wage apart from the few management positions and the capitalist overlords.

It'll be capitalism for them and communism for us

Capitalism leads regulation to prevent civil war. To protect the environment, and thereby secure long term existence of humanity.
Over regulation can be prevented by democratic control in combination with an educated electorate.

You can’t effectively regulate capitalism, it has to self regulate to work efficiently. Catch-22.

The irony is that the larger multinational corporates get, the larger national and supra-national regulators have to be to check them, thus enabling even larger corporate entities and so on. The solution is really to reject internationalism and embrace localism.

>democratic control

Total pipe dream. Nothing highlights the powerlessness of the proletariat as much as their role in a representative democracy.

It is in the corporations' own interest to pay decent wages. Bigger companies probably won't have any problems with that. Smaller businesses have a limited budget and are forced to go for maximized profit. With that said the small fast food shop around the corner will never pay a sausage flipper more than 10€ an hour. The hair dresser will never earn more either. If you work in a shitty job you can't make big demands because you are not entitled to wealth.

>
>It'll be capitalism for them and communism for us
No it will be capitalism for you, you're just not a capitalist.

There is no logical connection. And regardless, the size of regulation entities is peanuts compared to the economy.

You forgot the education part.

this

National Bolshevism is the future. Capitalism and nationalism are simply incompatible.

No it's not, maybe it's more profitable to exploit the workers, pay the corrupt government to keep it calm, and greenwash your products with some nice marketing story, and plant a tree.

You can educate people as much as you want but how do you set up a fair democratic system?

In the UK we have 650 people to represent the entire population; one person represents the interests of 92,000. And in Europe? 73 MEPs represent the British people in the EUP, or one per 900,000 people, and Britain is one of the better represented member states. The mechanisms of representative democracy are just an illusion of freedom.

>Consumerism, a product of capitalism, is one of the main reasons why our society is fucked up and degenerate (although gomunism wants to maintain this)

>Modern capitalism tends to suck meaning from our lives, since job titles become more and more obscure, and feel less valuable to our society.

>People lose site of what is important in order to pursue money, see career women as the best example.

It's probably the superior economic system, but there are still many problems.

It was in their interest to pay high wages. That would guarantee them the best quality workers would not only come to them but stay with them. The problem today is that, through globalism, big corporations can recruit from all over the world and import a Romanian to do the same job for a fraction of the cost.

The Romanian might be happy to take a lower paid position because after a decade of living in a tiny apartment with a dozen other Romanians they can go back home and retire with what they've earned.

The company can then go and hire another Romanian and are quite happy to get 5-10 years work out of them.

Value is derived through scarcity. If we are all so easily replaceable then we have no value at all.

compare

Attached: russians are niggers tho.jpg (1280x1062, 215K)

This is why cuckservatives love mass immigration. The love of money is the root of all evil, and people who view capitalism as an end in itself rather than a means to an end will always end up destroying society for the sake of some shekels

They have us by the balls. I switched the tv on whilst having breakfast before work and they were discussing Madonna's arse enhancements. Then they discussed some dancing tv shows and a little piece of Iranian boat refugees.

Violence is the only solution and if a few sheep get slaughtered by wolves then so be it. Nothing of value will be lost.

I've seen this before, how is Germany so poor, especially compared to shitholes like Spain, Italy, and even Greece.

People should vote for parties not individuals. Only then maximum quality can be ensured. For the local regions and their interests. there is a second chamber in most places. But suggest a fairer system. If you have 5000 parliamentarians, you won't have a better democracy though. And increasing direct democracy is probably a good idea, but it NEEDS an educated electorate, so it won't be easily manipulated, see Brexit.

Quota of home owners is lower, living conditions are better though.

The worst thing is that even arguing against it just gets branded you a commie. I've no problem with people accumulating wealth, especially of they've worked hard for it. If you start a business and assume all the risk then you deserve the rewards. My friend set up a business class taxi company and shuttles business men from one conference to another and he's doing really well out of it. I'm a little envious, being a spark, that he's doing better than me now but good for him and I wish him all the best. Hell I might join up as a partner if it's so lucrative.

People have a standard of living that should be maintained. It's not unreasonable for people to want a roof over their head the is actually suitable for human occupation so they can raise a family. It's not unreasonable that after working all year they can have a bit of time off to get a break in the sunshine. Apparently there are a great many who think otherwise.

Also it's the median, not the average, which means distribution is quite unequal.

Lack of home ownership perhaps. A lot of wealth is tied up in property. On paper I'm practically penniless but I have great equity in my home. In a few more years I might be able to sell up and fuck off to Bulgaria or somewhere warm and cheap and live out the rest of my days there.