Capitalism sounds great on paper

>failed
Meanwhile, I'm enjoying indoor plumbing, electricity, internet, cheap food...

national, ethnostate, limited sized government socialism is the only way.

Lasts longer and better than the others but yeah your right it’s gone to shit

>Capitalism
>failed

...

None of this shit would've gotten produced if it weren't for the incentive of profit

I will assume you are talking about nigger/spic land countries because every European or East Asian country capitalism is used in is successful with almost all of them being considered 1st world and having standards that match closely to those of America.
Now, form this assumption, I will answer you.
The main problem with most ideologies that end up failing is that they are implemented by shitskins. We like to shitpost that commies always cause failed states, but to be fair, most of them are in nigger/spic land. Every state run by niggers or spics fails or is borderline failing because no matter what the ideology is, they are simply incapable of forming functional societies.
Communism is still garbage of course considering it turned the two non shitskin countries who have used it into nightmarishly corrupt hellholes who plundered their entire population's wealth and gave it to jews, but it did manage to make a somewhat stable country with all the fearmongering and propaganda to the point where it could take on the US in a limited capacity during the cold war in the case of russia and now with the rise of China. They were moderately successful, which is still better than most nigger/spic run countries using any ideology.

It's free market capitalism that doesnt work. Free market capitalism includes movement of workforce along with goods therefore outsourcing and shitty immigration/globalism.

Now it’s peaked and we’ve stagnated. Time to try something new.

That shit is all so minor that is barely noticeable for all but the most incompetent and lazy in society. 99.9% of homeless are drug addict criminal retards who couldn't keep a home if it was given to them. The economy has never failed in any meaniful sense, when was the last time a capitalist society left people starving in the streets? How is it that commies are always so critical of "monopolies" when the whole fucking commie system is one big fucking monopoly.

>when was the last time a capitalist society left people starving in the streets?
happens literally every day

acsh.org/news/2019/03/19/seattle-dying-hundreds-homeless-dead-due-failed-public-health-policy-13896

>That shit is all so minor that is barely noticeable for all but the most incompetent and lazy in society.
pic related

>99.9% of homeless are drug addict criminal retards who couldn't keep a home if it was given to them
funny you should say that
npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how

>when the whole fucking commie system is one big fucking monopoly.
literally not the case.

Attached: saupload_wage-disparity3-17.jpg (550x379, 31K)

Free market capitalism is not capitalism. This is not something that happens organically. As a small infuriating example: to send a package from China to the US costs the Chinaman around $2. The other way round is in the $20 ballpark. 1st world citizens basically pay more postage to subsidise Chinks.

I love capitalism.

Capitalism always works retard. Capital = merit. Merit = scientific basis. The strategy with scientific basis will generally work better. Capitalism IS that basis, which is why we evolve to use it from the societal level down to the genetic level. The markets here are not free, and you're retarded for thinking that they are. sage.

>capitalism sounds great on paper
No, it does not. Capitalism is an economic system that prioritizes the accumulation of capital above all else. Under a purely capitalistic system, the only thing that a business is required to do is make a profit. Therefore, if there is anything that is more important to you than the accumulation of profit, capitalism is not a perfect system, even on paper. Capitalism has many good effects, exempli gratia encouraging entrepreneurship. However, if capitalism is not significantly curtailed or abandoned altogether, a capitalistic society will inevitably abandon everything not essential to maintaining the economic system itself, up to and including family values, the existence of the middle class, etc. etc. Make no mistake, I'm not advocating for communism or anything, merely pointing out the flaws that *do* exist in capitalism.
>inb4 muh middle class is a product of capitalism
No it's not, economic stratification has existed since time immemorial. The ancient Romans had a middle class between plebeians and patricians develop, and the ancient Athenians had 5 distinct economic classes. These are just two examples.

Attached: 1460373398029.jpg (295x165, 22K)

in what way has it failed for you?

You wrong. Capitalism at its core is 2 people engaging in trade without any coercion. Willing buyer, willing seller. A classic win-win. Both profit. Buyer values the product more than the money. And seller values the money more than his product. The whole thing gets distorted by government interference. The fact that there are 'businesses' or 'companies' that are in principle owned anonymously and are 'born' in a lawyer's office but enjoy the same rights as a normal person, is an example of this interference and distortion.

read the thread before replying braindead frog

Haha. :) How do I know about the site? My grandson Michael told me about it after seeing me looking through The_Donald. I tried making an account there, but couldn't find the Login button. The site is confusing to me. It's a lot different from facebook. I'm still trying to get a hang of it. Apparently, real white house insiders are active in this place, so it's definitely to be a good idea to be informed on there. I asked my grandson to bookmark that site so I can practice reading it. He told me not to go on /b/ but I'm not clear on what that is. I told him "I won't go on /b/. I am confused enough!" Haha.

Attached: 1553832982131.png (674x893, 1.2M)

You have described a transaction, not capitalism. Capitalism, like socialism, communism, protectionism, imperialism, et cetera is an economic system. These systems may or may not be mutually exclusive depending on which are in question, but none of them can be boiled down to a simple description of a transaction. This is prescriptively true because economic systems are methods of managing many transactions on a large scale.

Attached: 20429904_319984288445229_1183303016219706187_n.png (640x640, 523K)

you never answered that question, retard
In what way has it failed FOR YOU?

why should that matter

/thread

Capitalism is what develops naturally when there is no system.

A system is what develops naturally when there is no system. Capitalism is one of the possible systems.

Attached: 1477434319647.jpg (600x600, 53K)

Capitalism is good unless you're a worthless lazy dumbass.

That's Corporatism not Real Capitalism

how are they different

lolbertarians and anarcho-capitalists were a mistake

all the homeless degenerates are living in the most heavily regulated cities in the country. You think you know more about homeless people in Seattle than Americans? Incompetent leftist city councils/mayors attract massive companies who build an HQ with 10k high paying jobs, they gentrify large portions of the city, massively inflate housing prices, and so on. Needlessly restrictive zoning laws and bureaucratic mediocrity ensure that housing won't catch up with demand, and the long record of government-directed "affordable housing" projects is abysmal. This isn't capitalism's fault, it's with the government being selective with its interference into the economy. Regulation and government involvement is fine, but it needs to exist in a cohesive vision, whether it's a mostly free market approach or something more like national capitalism, which is effectively what was practiced in 1930s and 40s Germany

It's obviously not a system. A system implies coercion. Because it requires an agency or force to implement and run 'the system'. Capitalism only requires freedom and an absence of coercion.

Capitalism only fails when people choose failure. Whereas communism fails because it breeds and encourages failure.

nationalism is where it's really at, planned economy

Follow the German model, they turned the German state into an absolute economic powerhouse before WW1 (which may be why WW1 actually happened, they were eager to expand since they had advantage)

These are trends that can be reversed using capitalism. In fact half of those are legal problems, especially the housing one. A lot of empty homes are still owned by people. They just might not know it, or refuse to sell the property.

>Incompetent leftist city councils/mayors attract massive companies who build an HQ with 10k high paying jobs, they gentrify large portions of the city, massively inflate housing prices, and so on.
That doesn't sound very leftist to me

>housing won't catch up with demand,
As I said, there are 6 empty houses for every homeless persen. Supply is really not the problem.

>A lot of empty homes are still owned by people.
Isn't that a direct consequence of capitalism?

Out of all the people in this thread, your position comes the closest to mine. There is no possible economic system that can exist without lagging behind in at least one area to another potential system simply because of the nature of humanity. Every economic system is simply an attempt to minimize the number and scope of opportunity costs that the system in use has, trying to manage human transactions in the most cohesive and efficient manner possible. It can never be 100% cohesive and efficient, but the goal is to get as close to this as possible.

Attached: 17426410_1676967379271213_1392532471552951521_n.png (226x301, 129K)

>It can never be 100% cohesive and efficient, but the goal is to get as close to this as possible.
Then why do economic trends seem to stray away from cohesiveness and efficiency?

No, capitalism is most assuredly a system. Pic related.
>Capitalism only requires freedom and an absence of coercion.
You are describing anarchy, not capitalism. Anarchy cannot last for any extended period of time (or at least not with a large population) and will give way to a system such as capitalism.

Attached: for swissbro.jpg (629x312, 32K)

Because humans are imperfect creatures and we do not form a hivemind like ants. It's really that simple.

Attached: 3H5kUuH.jpg (320x240, 14K)

is that really the cause for stagnant wages?

Attached: declining-wages1.jpg (1540x800, 71K)

I'll explain so even a brainlet like you will understand. There are some basic things, first.
1: the default is failure.
2: capitalism isn't a system. Ideally it is the lack of a system.

People fear freedome inherently. People also are mostly total dogshit. Including you. Very likely you are utterly incapable of independemt thought and you absolutely demand micromanagement in your day to day life. Capitalism works because rather than catering to you, the lowest common denominator, it unshackles the best of humanity more than other " system" and gives them a chance to carry the rest of us kicking and screaming into the future without even forcing us to do things. And it even leaves us options of how we want to fail. Because we will fail. Because we are shit. Some of us are just smart enough to know that people can barely plan for their own lives, there's absolutely no reason to think a group of aristocrats with absolute power can plan for everyone's lives. "Capitalism" is the best " system" there is that exists as an alternative to slavery.

Capitalism turned women into worker drones instead of being family caregivers and it also turns them into equals leading to low birth rates and feminism. Eventually the birth rates get so low that foreigners must be imported to replace the dying population. The rich get richer and races kill themselves just to create productivity.

Yes, one way or another all human problems result from humans being imperfect. This seems like common sense to me. Humans are imperfect and liable to pick bad economic systems, or operate good ones poorly.

>2: capitalism isn't a system. Ideally it is the lack of a system.
Why do lolbertarians keep spouting this meme?
See and

Attached: 852238904_1979.jpg (761x563, 43K)

Attached: 1547880769851.jpg (850x400, 57K)

>capitalism is a system because this definition Marx made up that his peers laughed at openly got posted on an online source created by capitalists that is run by Marxists says it's a system.

Capitalism is the only ism that isn’t an ism. It did not plan to become this way, nobody came forth with a paper that said: this is capitalism. It’s something that has developed over time.

A purely “capitalistic” society isn’t even a real thing. It’s simply the society without values, and fortunately we are far from being a valueless society. This enough can be seen by how much we debate, reason, romanticize and legally enforce our values. Forcing our values too heavily in the system isn’t a very good idea though, as people often hold a variety of different beliefs. Prohibition being one example of forcing values into the system that ended disastrously. Another being communism, that promised to provide for all, but couldn’t keep up a complex system of supply and beuracracy under a shifting global market (see: the light industry of the USSR)

I am not a lolbertarian.
Capitalism is a made up phrase to try to demonize the concept of free markets and nothing else.

marx was not opposed to markets

Capitalism is a system because it meets the criteria necessary to be labeled a system. An economic system is a method by which people manage many transactions on a large scale. It is an attempt by people to come as close to being perfectly cohesive and perfectly efficient as possible. These are the criteria for a system. Knowing this, we can plot a few contingencies then.
1 - Capitalism is not a system as you say, and thus does not meet these criteria. If it does not try to maximize efficiency and cohesion, then why would you use it? That sounds like an extremely shitty way of conducting business.
2 - Capitalism is a system as I point out, and therefore must meet, to some degree or other, these criteria.

Attached: 28379607_679776035480026_4237008669236589966_n.png (960x776, 385K)

Capitalism, nor socialism, have failed entirely. They're just not perfect answers either. One needs the other.

Let's talk about what they share in common: large bureaucracies, both capitalist and socialist. Both require centralized power. Both require the state to have a monopoly on violence. Both encourage large militaries and expenditures.

>One needs the other.
they are literally mutually exclusive

you think Seattle's city council are anarcho-capitalists?
>As I said, there are 6 empty houses for every homeless persen. Supply is really not the problem.
I assume these houses must be both in the same locations, and not just in the process of changing hands, which usually takes months. My city doesn't have a homeless problem, and it is far less restrictive than Seattle or San Francisco. Much better place to do business, yet we have unusually low unemployment and homelessness

also, retard, the "leftist" is
>the needlessly restrictive zoning laws and bureaucratic mediocrity
if having companies move into a city was the problem, every American city would be as fucked up as the Bay Area. It's that plus a local government incapable of coping with the challenges it represents, which have an overwhelming tendency to be leftist

yup, you get it. People don't understand that you will never actually implement an ideology in a pure way, nor would it even work. It's a sliding scale in which you can have an infinite number of combinations in terms of policy or organization. I think it's blatantly obvious that markets usually create more efficient outcomes when mostly left to their own devices, but certain areas clearly don't follow that trend. Any industry with high barriers to entry for instance. Think telecommunications, or auto manufacturing. The best you'll get in terms of new competition is a giant from a different sector getting a foot in the door (Tesla, Apple, and Google's attempts at getting into autos for instance) Capitalism's truest form is monopoly, so it should be obvious that it would be terrible if completely unfettered. People point out its flaws and all I can think is "yeah, no shit". Hardly means that we should all embrace communism and give up the very concept of private property

Bullshit. Wake the fuck up.

Capitalism is an attempt at efficiency? How do you arrive at this conclusion? It's baffling.

Capitalism isn’t a system because nobody ever assembled a bunch of farmers together and developed the way we buy, trade, and sell goods as we do today. They just added to what was already there, and started from local markets, before that from farms and churches, and before then the ancient civilizations before them. Nobody ever said: let’s try this new thing called capitalism, they said: I want this and I’ll give you that for it.

Communism gets so much shit because it’s planning an entire society from the ground up to work effectively instead of relying on the millions to go out and conduct business for themselves. Communism is ok when you make everything really easy for the planners to understand. Like steel work for food and wood, etc.

Attached: 58856E15-28C7-4DEA-90D1-A29527266E05.jpg (640x794, 79K)

which meme definition of capitlism and socialism are you using? Let me guess:
socialism is when the government does stuff
capitalism is markets!

>everything left of anarchocapitalism is communism
No. Democrats still are very much neoliberal capitalists.

I technically agree with what you say but I feel I should address this point:
>nobody came forth with a paper that said: this is capitalism.
Well yeah but that doesn't mean that this isn't what capitalism is. This is how language works. People use a word a certain way and this usage dictates meaning. People use capitalism to fill this linguistic niche and thus that is what it means, regardless of whether someone prescribed the definition at some point or not. This is why trannies encounter difficulty in saying that "there is a difference between male and man, and female and woman," because essentially everyone uses these words synonymously. But I digress. I agree with the basics of what you are saying.
>Capitalism is a made up phrase to try to demonize the concept of free markets and nothing else.
I don't know where you got that. Capitalism as a concept has existed for centuries. It wasn't established my Marx as a pariah or anything. Dutch merchants in the 1700's were calling themselves capitalists, for example.

Attached: 1513570455421.jpg (499x582, 44K)

That's a really stupid and irrelevant argument. Systems don't require concious design, merely practical operation.

What system do you follow? Is it a church or are you actually out there for someone else’s interests? Your stance confuses me.

Attached: 20B1A111-CC93-43E4-ABF4-06ABCE09B1DF.png (936x894, 812K)

It’s not if you want to blame someone when it fails.

he's talking about policy characterizing capitalism and socialism, not a fully realized vision of each you peanut-brained Marx fanboy

to be fair many of the structures (like equity) characterizing capitalist economies didn't really exist if you go far enough back, like a few centuries. You're thinking of markets, not capitalism necessarily

>everything left of anarchocapitalism is communism
yeah, this is clearly what I was implying, not a hyperbolic statement intended to make a point. Fantastic job, my room-temperature IQ friend

And let's be clear. I'm not attacking communism, I'm defending a mixed capitalist system. We're not having this pretend argument that you seem to think we are

isn't that sort of what he said?

I mean if it's not then why the fuck do you want to use it? Are you actually advocating for an ineffective concept to be put into place?
I pretty much agree with you 100%. Glad to actually find common ground with someone for a change, lmao.

Attached: 1513179758154.jpg (900x975, 315K)

sorry, I realize you were arguing over definitions, ignore me

The guilds back then in a lot of ways were more free than we are now. Interesting time period for trade in certain places. The modern meaning " capitalism" is a distinctly derogatory term. Capital as in "accruing capital" has existed for centuries but not the concept that it is itself distinctly a "system."

I genuinely don't have the energy to tell you how many ways you are incorrect.

Attached: 1531283932631.jpg (1200x638, 143K)

>he's talking about policy characterizing capitalism and socialism, not a fully realized vision of each you peanut-brained Marx fanboy
words have meanings retard

>The modern meaning " capitalism" is a distinctly derogatory term. Capital as in "accruing capital" has existed for centuries but not the concept that it is itself distinctly a "system."
This is factually incorrect. I don't know what else to tell you. If you want to force yourself to believe this I can't stop you, but capitalism is in no way a necessarily derogatory term. People advocate for capitalism all the time. This is a mainstream opinion.

Is there a difference between a market of individuals lightly regulated by the state and capitalism?
I’d prefer you tell me instead of dismissing me.

Attached: 24D2F2BE-BAF0-41D3-9824-8EC263C819C0.png (404x404, 118K)

worked for me
25 and own my own house
I have to work 6 days a week for it but it’s my own business and I’m paying off the loans fast

I dunno man, seems like a really great mainstream opinion.

anime poster gtfo to /a/

Capitalism works because the weak people die of disease leaving only the strong. It hasn't worked recently and won't work in the future because modern medicine is keepin everyone alive

Based and Antimaterialismpilled

>Capitalism isn’t a system because nobody ever assembled a bunch of farmers together and developed the way we buy, trade, and sell goods as we do today.
This isn't a necessary qualification for status as an economic system. Nobody rounded up all the niggers in Africa and asked them their opinion about imperialism. It's still an economic system though.
>They just added to what was already there, and started from local markets, before that from farms and churches, and before then the ancient civilizations before them. Nobody ever said: let’s try this new thing called capitalism, they said: I want this and I’ll give you that for it.
This is also not a qualification for status as an economic system. I do not understand why you believe that systems must have an abrupt beginning and cannot gradually develop over time, even using elements from other systems. Economic system status and gradual development are not mutually exclusive and I do not know why you assume that they are.
>Communism gets so much shit because it’s planning an entire society from the ground up to work effectively instead of relying on the millions to go out and conduct business for themselves. Communism is ok when you make everything really easy for the planners to understand. Like steel work for food and wood, etc.
Now you are just unironically advocating for communism.

Attached: 1478822203495.jpg (632x1024, 79K)

You’re on an anime website’s political board. How are there still morons like you?

Attached: B2A5B207-AFD1-42C4-BB9C-1B78A2C4FDEA.jpg (312x315, 49K)

There are shit loads of ineffective things currently in our trade system, that doesn't mean trade is bad. Is it effective to have centrally run currency? Doesn't seem to be since the value of money has been talking ever since the end of the gold standard for example. And yet here we are.

Further your "defintion" of capitalism had nothing to do with efficiency. There's nothing inherently inefficient or efficient about it. It is supposed to simply be trade. Driving further to buy something is inefficient but sometimes cost effective. I don't understand what you're trying to articulate. It's not like socialism or communism is inherently more efficient either so if you're trying to say that inefficient is bad you're thinking too small. Inefficient CAN equal bad. It doesn't always, though. It would be foolish to claim that state that. Sometimes it is more efficient to do something slowly, correctly, one time. Sometimes you can make improvements to that process. I don't see how efficiency seeking is supposed to be the definition of "capitalism."

>Anime is ghey
>Posts on 4chin

Imperialism isn't an economic system. Imperialism is the act of a nation dominating another nation and absorbing or subjugating it. Often times, yes this is due to resources. But there is no "system" behind imperialism. You can be an imperialist communist nation, for example.

Yeah, China doesn't have any of these problems. Especially not the housing issues.

>Canada tries to think: the post.
Yeah man whatever. Capitalism isn't a system. Definitions mean nothing. Boomer tier economics are great and haven't resulted in a civilizational nosedive for us. I am going to bed now. I hope you have a good night.

Attached: AxFtchFr.jpg (1456x792, 128K)

Communism cannot exist without a capitalist consumer base anymore. I’m not advocating for it.
It’s easier to work with a developed system like capitalism than... what is it you’re peddling?

not an argument

>Imperialism isn't an economic system.
Holy fucking leaf. Once again, goodnight.

Attached: 1529911945380.jpg (612x612, 87K)

All those people risking their lives on rafts made of trash fleeing capitalist countries to escape to socialist countries really opened my eyes.

being able to read in between the lines doesn't make me a retard, fanboy. Have you heard of these things?
>context
>common use
>connotation
Not only do you spectacularly fail to understand economics, you don't even have a decent grasp on language. I'd forgive it since English is unlikely to be your first language but since it is more about the very structure of human communication I don't know what to say

>Is there a difference between a market of individuals lightly regulated by the state and capitalism?
I can't really give a definitive answer, but I WILL say that there is a gradient here. You can have "capitalism", and it could take many forms, some with a little more regulation and intervention, some with less. The current system in the US is not strictly capitalism, but it is "capitalist" imo. It's really hard to pin down when you want to find the boundaries for these definitions. In fact, we would probably start by actually agreeing on a definition in the first place. This whole thread is mostly just people speaking in broad and imprecise terms. This isn't really a medium conducive to having a sophisticated conversation about this, so I'll end my rambling and say idk

tl;dr idk

>You can be an imperialist communist nation, for example.
you probably know a lot about that, right? You poor Canucks are being subjugated by the CCP as we speak

ah man, you got me

Attached: 1551047129131.png (300x250, 43K)

Child traffickers engage in trade without being coerced, so

Let’s just agree that capitalism is any exchange of goods or services where the monetary proceeds end up in the pockets of citizens, and not the government. The Barter system, a system below capitalism being just the exchange of goods and services for goods and services. Any drastic change added onto this system is not capitalism, but as long as capitalism continues to function at a net increase it’s still “mostly capitalism”

Fair?

Attached: 43E3B323-94DA-42DA-A8CB-EFCFE8E5E21D.jpg (259x293, 53K)

>Humans

Additionally this system can become communism by making the store owner a big fan of Karl Marx.

It's supposed to require a workforce that demands wage increases.