Is Capitalism Good Or Bad?

[Spurtacular]

You guys really buying this AOC / Bernie sh**?

[FrostKing]

Multiculturalism + Capitalism

Homogeneous + Socialism

[Psychopav Chump]

I'm filling in the bubbles; but I won't be pulling the lever. Just so you guys know.

[Blake]

Aw look who's trying to get an economics 101 topic going here. That's just really neat.

[spurraider21]

capitalism being good doesnt in and of itself invalidate those two politicians' ideals

[SpursforSix]

I think it can be good. Unfortunately, the big corps are so powerful that they can get away with unethical practices.

[Spurminator]

Concepts like capitalism and socialism are too broad and complex to be reduced to a binary "good or bad" conversation.

[SpursforSix]

Concepts like capitalism and socialism are too broad and complex to be reduced to a binary "good or bad" conversation.

This is SpursTalk. Pick a side.

[diego]

If free markets could actually exist, capitalism might be perfect, too bad we'll never know

[spurraider21]

as far as i'm aware neither bernie or cortez have advocated for government ownership of all businesses

[Millennial_Messiah]

as far as i'm aware neither bernie or cortez have advocated for government ownership of all businesses
90% tax over a certain amount is pretty close.

[spurraider21]

90% tax over a certain amount is pretty close.
show me where they advocated for a 90% tax and at what amount that was

[Millennial_Messiah]

show me where they advocated for a 90% tax and at what amount that was

I think AOC formally advocated for 70%, but still, it's a slippery slope.

[spurraider21]

I think AOC formally advocated for 70%, but still, it's a slippery slope.
a) so you pulled a strawman out of your ass
b) :lol slippery slope
c) was that a tax on businesses/corporations?

[Will Hunting]

I think AOC formally advocated for 70%, but still, it's a slippery slope.
If it’s a slippery slope then we shouldn’t be taxing income at all, right? Before we know it a 1% tax will lead us to straight up Marxism!

[Millennial_Messiah]

a) so you pulled a strawman out of your ass
b) :lol slippery slope
c) was that a tax on businesses/corporations?
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/01/ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-redistribution-wealth

Good article from les Jacobins (far left). But I don't get why not tax rich businesses as well?

[spurraider21]

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/01/ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-redistribution-wealth

Good article from les Jacobins (far left). But I don't get why not tax rich businesses as well?
that article doesn't change anything.

neither ever called for a 90% tax. that was your strawman. you've mentioned a 70% tax proposal (for people making over 10 mil :lol) which isn't in any bill, one that was made off-hand in an interview, and not one that hits businesses (so you cant say "its basically them taking over businesses!)

[Spurminator]

I hear AOC and Bernie called for white people's homes to be taken from them and given to illegals. Something to that effect. Or maybe it was something completely different. Still, slippery slope!

[ElNono]

Concepts like capitalism and socialism are too broad and complex to be reduced to a binary "good or bad" conversation.

This basically. Neither Capitalism nor Socialism are the only recipe for every economic or social problem. They're really good at some things and really bad at others. Finding what works and in what realms are part of the day to day challenge.

[ElNono]

I voted yes. I think for the issues that it generally addresses, it is very good. It's obviously very bad at addressing other problems where profit-driven motive isn't the goal.

I would also probably vote yes for a "Is Socialism Good Or Bad?" poll, with the same caveats...

[koriwhat]

You guys really buying this AOC / Bernie sh**?

everyone who answers or lurks is on a fucking computer so capitalism obviously works. if it didn't then everyone would be watching a gov't official on a computer while standing in line for bread.

[koriwhat]

You guys really buying this AOC / Bernie sh**?

btw, nice dresses & new apartment... plus 3 houses, gov't medcare, etc...

both are fucking pathetic trying to act so oppressed while whining and dining on our dime!

[midnightpulp]

It's good, and better than actual socialism where every industry is state owned and run. But capitalism does need fail-safes in certain areas to prevent worker exploitation, wealth inequality, cronyism, and price gouging.

[DMC]

Capitalism is good if I profit from it. Bad if I don't.

[Nbadan]

its easy to make money when you have money.....derps

[boutons_deux]

socialism where every industry is state owned and run.

you're full of shit, go take a dump

[Blake]

everyone who answers or lurks is on a fucking computer so capitalism obviously works. if it didn't then everyone would be watching a gov't official on a computer while standing in line for bread.

It would surprise no one if you posted this from a public library

[Winehole23]

it's amoral, like most things that are customary.

[RandomGuy]

Better than the alternatives, but failures like monopolies are inevitable.

It takes a fine balance between decent regulation and a free hand. Total lassez-faire is a proven failure, and over-regulation is almost as bad.

[RandomGuy]

it's amoral, like most things that are customary.

+1

It is a tool, no more no less. Many on the right treat it like some infallible deity, and many of the left treat it like a irredeemable devil. It is neither.

[koriwhat]

It would surprise no one if you posted this from a public library

and why's that? your make believe world is one i'm glad i don't live in.

[ElNono]

it's amoral, like most things that are customary.

I don't know about that. In concept, I don't think it is. Once it passed through the hands of the interpreters, however, it can look and feel pretty much that way.

[Winehole23]

Action talks bullshit walks.

[Spurtacular]

:lol blakehole23

[Winehole23]

Everything comes back to Blake for you.

What’s the obsession with Blake?

[Winehole23]

And how does my take relate?

[DMC]

Better than the alternatives, but failures like monopolies are inevitable.

It takes a fine balance between decent regulation and a free hand. Total lassez-faire is a proven failure, and over-regulation is almost as bad.

I wouldn't call a monopoly a failure. It's simply running the table. Just as the Warriors aren't a failure if they run off 6 in a row by severe stacking of the deck. It might be bad for the NBA overall, but that doesn't make the team or monopoly a failure. I've never seen a failed business that's cornered the market well enough to have a monopoly.

[Winehole23]

I wouldn't call a monopoly a failure. It's simply running the table. Just as the Warriors aren't a failure if they run off 6 in a row by severe stacking of the deck. It might be bad for the NBA overall, but that doesn't make the team or monopoly a failure. I've never seen a failed business that's cornered the market well enough to have a monopoly.What if one does and abuses the market position?

Who can kick em in the nuts?

[Winehole23]

In b4 fucked and unfuckable

[Spurtacular]

:cry Blake :cry

What do you honestly expect when the cuck in your coalition is in high voice?

[DMC]

What if one does and abuses the market position?

Who can kick em in the nuts?

So protecting yourself from being kicked in the nuts is failing? It's not the monopoly that fails, it's the competition that either sold out to them or made shitty business decisions that caused them to go under. Look at Microsoft, for example. What operating system even comes close to competing with Windows in the market? Is that the fault of Microsoft that no other company has refused to be bought out by them, or that their anti-trust practices where they do things like give away software packages other companies were trying to sell, are those somehow signs of failure? An overpowering entity isn't a failure. The failure is the people who allowed themselves to be put into that position. Then again sometimes something comes along and it becomes a necessity (like a telephone) and the company that created it doesn't want to share the technology or their infrastructure. So they can price fix and do other nasty things and you can do nothing about it, but you still have the ability to go start your own company.

So yeah, some regulation is fine if it means a healthier economy overall, but that doesn't make the regulated "failures".

[Winehole23]

The competition that failed is the definition of monopoly, silly.

oh, and we’re to blame for everything leading up to and after that. And there’s nothing to be done about it.

Good story. Are you familiar with the first half of the 20th century? Anti-trust law?

Thamks in advance for your non-response so far.

[Blake]

What do you honestly expect when the cuck in your coalition is in high voice?

Lol "coalition"

Derrrrrp

[Spurtacular]

Lol "coalition"

Derrrrrp

You're not part of a coalition? Show us the post from the last two weeks in which you took on chump, lite, tranny, kidnapper, fluffer, etc.?

:lmao Today's cuck

[Th'Pusher]

I wouldn't call a monopoly a failure. It's simply running the table. Just as the Warriors aren't a failure if they run off 6 in a row by severe stacking of the deck. It might be bad for the NBA overall, but that doesn't make the team or monopoly a failure. I've never seen a failed business that's cornered the market well enough to have a monopoly.

The failure is not with the company but with the system that allows monopolies to form.

[Blake]

You're not part of a coalition? Show us the post from the last two weeks in which you took on chump, lite, tranny, kidnapper, fluffer, etc.?

:lmao Today's cuck

Lol "coalition"

Derrrrrp

[Spurtacular]

Lol "coalition"

Derrrrrp

Did you prefer the douche gang?

I agree that coalition almost grants you an undeserved heir of dignity.

[Pavlov]

lol heir

[Blake]

lol heir

:lol derp

[Blake]

Did you prefer the douche gang?

I agree that coalition almost grants you an undeserved heir of dignity.

Lol "coalition"

Lol derp feels ganged up on.

Derrrrrp

[Spurtacular]

Lol "coalition"

Lol derp feels ganged up on.

Derrrrrp

:lol Cuck thinks it's about safety in numbers.

[Winehole23]

Only took one page for Deptacular to make an abstract political thread all about himself and his imaginary trans/cuck/gimp coterie.

Nice work!

[Blake]

:lol Cuck thinks it's about safety in numbers.

Derp thinks there's numbers.

Derrrrrp

[Spurtacular]

Derp thinks there's numbers.

Derrrrrp

:lol You're not an autonomous cuck.

[Blake]

derrrrrp

[Winehole23]

market concentration leads to anti-competitive outcomes and also tends to concentrate political power. it might also be a drag on growth at this point.

the solutions are political and legal: anti-trust regs with real teeth.


The policies for combating economically damaging power imbalances are straightforward. Over the past half-century, Chicago School economists (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-automation-and-unemployment-policies-by-robert-skidelsky-2018-04), acting on the assumption that markets are generally competitive, narrowed the focus of competition policy solely to economic efficiency, rather than broader concerns about power and inequality. The irony is that this assumption became dominant in policymaking circles just when economists were beginning to reveal its flaws. The development of game theory and new models of imperfect and asymmetric information laid bare the profound limitations of the competition model.


(https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/united-states-economy-rising-market-power-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2019-03##)
The law needs to catch up. Anti-competitive practices should be illegal, period. And beyond that, there are a host of other changes needed to modernize US antitrust legislation. Americans’ need the same resolve in fighting for competition that their corporations have shown in fighting against it.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/united-states-economy-rising-market-power-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2019-03

[vy65]

Just out of curiosity, what anti-trust regs don't exist now that you'd recommend?

[Winehole23]

In principle the ones we already have would work if there were the political will to enforce them as we did until the 1950s or so.

[boutons_deux]

In principle the ones we already have would work if there were the political will to enforce them as we did until the 1950s or so.

anti-trust prosecutions are political, not economic

[SpursforSix]

anti-trust prosecutions are political, not economic

this is only your second post in here...both one liners.
Your right clicker must be broken.

[vy65]

In principle the ones we already have would work if there were the political will to enforce them as we did until the 1950s or so.

Fair enough. Interestingly, out of all the genres of commercial litigation, anti-trust cases usually are 1a/1b with securities class actions (in terms of dollar amounts). Possible incentive, but also possible abuse.

[RandomGuy]

I wouldn't call a monopoly a failure. It's simply running the table. Just as the Warriors aren't a failure if they run off 6 in a row by severe stacking of the deck. It might be bad for the NBA overall, but that doesn't make the team or monopoly a failure. I've never seen a failed business that's cornered the market well enough to have a monopoly.

A monopoly decreases overall economy has it leaves all involved, except for the monopolist, which earns rent. Monopolies are, by nature, anti-competitive, and anti innovative.

If the goal of a free market is the efficient distribution of goods, it is an inefficient distribution of goods.

[Winehole23]

Fair enough. Interestingly, out of all the genres of commercial litigation, anti-trust cases usually are 1a/1b with securities class actions (in terms of dollar amounts). Possible incentive, but also possible abuse.there's a recent Elizabeth Warren policy related to platform monopolies I've not reviewed, but appears to be directly aimed at Amazon, FB and Google.

[Winehole23]

Related:

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/06/30/elizabeth-warrens-consolidation-speech-could-change-the-election/

[DMC]

A monopoly decreases overall economy has it leaves all involved, except for the monopolist, which earns rent. Monopolies are, by nature, anti-competitive, and anti innovative.

If the goal of a free market is the efficient distribution of goods, it is an inefficient distribution of goods.

If you're trying to say monopolies are bad for startup companies trying to suckle at the teat someone else discovered, you could have said it better. What you posted doesn't make a lot of sense tbh.

[Winehole23]

Price to the consumer isn't everything. Monopolies hurt competition -- freedom of enterprise, to use a somewhat quaint phrase.




“Antitrust Dilemma.” “The Antitrust Impulse.” “Antitrust in an Expanding Economy.” Shelf after shelf of volumes ignored for decades. There are a dozen fat tomes with transcripts of the congressional hearings on monopoly power in 1949, when the world was in ruins and the Soviets on the march. Lawmakers believed economic concentration would make America more vulnerable.

At the end of the antitrust stacks is a table near the window. “This is my command post,” said Lina Khan.

It’s nothing, really. A few books are piled up haphazardly next to a bottle with water and another with tea. Ms. Khan was in Dallas quite a bit over the last year, refining an argument about monopoly power that takes aim at one of the most admired, secretive and feared companies of our era: Amazon.

The retailer overwhelmingly dominates online commerce, employs more than half a million people and powers much of the internet itself through its cloud computing division. On Tuesday, it briefly became the second company to be worth a trillion dollars.


If competitors tremble at Amazon’s ambitions, consumers are mostly delighted by its speedy delivery and low prices. They stream its Oscar-winning movies and clamor for the company to build a second headquarters in their hometowns. Few of Amazon’s customers, it is safe to say, spend much time thinking they need to be protected from it.

But then, until recently, no one worried about Facebook, Google or Twitter either. Now politicians, the media, academics and regulators are kicking around ideas that would, metaphorically or literally, cut them down to size. Members of Congress grilled social media executives on Wednesday in yet another round of hearings on Capitol Hill. Not since the Department of Justice took on Microsoft in the mid-1990s has Big Tech been scrutinized like this.

Amazon has more revenue than Facebook, Google and Twitter put together, but it has largely escaped sustained examination. That is beginning to change, and one significant reason is Ms. Khan.

At the S.M.U. library in Dallas, Ms. Khan was finding inspiration from books that predated the price-based era of monopoly law.

In early 2017, when she was an unknown law student, Ms. Khan published “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” in the Yale Law Journal. Her argument went against a consensus in antitrust circles that dates back to the 1970s — the moment when regulation was redefined to focus on consumer welfare, which is to say price. Since Amazon is renowned for its cut-rate deals, it would seem safe from federal intervention.

Ms. Khan disagreed. Over 93 heavily footnoted pages, she presented the case that the company should not get a pass on anticompetitive behavior just because it makes customers happy. Once-robust monopoly laws have been marginalized, Ms. Khan wrote, and consequently Amazon is amassing structural power that lets it exert increasing control over many parts of the economy.

Amazon has so much data on so many customers, it is so willing to forgo profits, it is so aggressive and has so many advantages from its shipping and warehouse infrastructure that it exerts an influence much broader than its market share. It resembles the all-powerful railroads of the Progressive Era, Ms. Khan wrote: “The thousands of retailers and independent businesses that must ride Amazon’s rails to reach market are increasingly dependent on their biggest competitor.”https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/technology/monopoly-antitrust-lina-khan-amazon.html

[RandomGuy]

If you're trying to say monopolies are bad for startup companies trying to suckle at the teat someone else discovered, you could have said it better. What you posted doesn't make a lot of sense tbh.

What I am saying requires a framework of basic macro-micro economics. "Rent" and "decreased utility" are specific to those fields.

[DMC]

What I am saying requires a framework of basic macro-micro economics. "Rent" and "decreased utility" are specific to those fields.

Did you actually read the post before you submitted it?

[DMC]

A monopoly decreases overall economy has it leaves all involved, except for the monopolist, which earns rent. This makes no sense.

Monopolies are, by nature, anti-competitive, and anti innovative.
Misuse of commas creates a mess instead of a message.


If the goal of a free market is the efficient distribution of goods, it is an inefficient distribution of goods.
This is non sequitur. If monopolies lead to inefficient distribution of goods, it has nothing to do with the goal of a free market.

From Wiki:

In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, or by other authority.

So a monopoly that arises from the most efficient distribution of goods and services, one that consumers were free to choose, is indeed the most efficient distribution of goods and services. It's certainly not the federal government.

Once the monopoly is established however (they don't just rise from nothing overnight) of course innovation stagnates because they naturally have no competition, so they would only innovate to cut their own costs. This is how all business operates. The goal of business is to capture marketshare. Capturing all of it denotes a highly successful business. It brings with it some concerns because some of the things that private industry controls are considered basic needs to Americans. Ergo the federal government steps in and forces these companies to break apart to provide the appearance of competition. I'm ok with that. It shows success for the company that they got that big and powerful to begin with. It's certainly a better model than having the federal government be the monopoly for all resources.

[ElNono]

Just out of curiosity, what anti-trust regs don't exist now that you'd recommend?

I think there's indirect regulations that could also prevent too-big-to-fail scenarios building up, which a lot of times end up with monopolies or monopolist/duopolist behaviors.

Things like the Glass-Steagall Act didn't directly address anti-trust, but the firewall it imposed on banking institutions reduced greatly the ability of banks to over leverage themselves in pursuit of market dominance.

America loves the free market, but there's nothing more sought after by the market than monopolies.

[vy65]

Related:

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/06/30/elizabeth-warrens-consolidation-speech-could-change-the-election/


Thank you, thank you. As Barry mentioned, before I was a Senator, I was a law professor. What he didn’t say is that I taught contracts, secured transactions, and bankruptcy – all courses related to the functioning of competitive markets. I love markets! Strong, healthy markets are the key to a strong, healthy America.

My Secured Credit Textbook was written by her. I hadn't thought about it, but it's funny that she gets some flack for being a "communist"

[Winehole23]

My Secured Credit Textbook was written by her. I hadn't thought about it, but it's funny that she gets some flack for being a "communist"Clearly not a commie, but her anti-trust and financial policies, low key as they're meant to sound, are some of the most radical ideas out there right now.

[Winehole23]

While other Dem candidates primp and preen, Sen. Warren is busy making policies.

For better and for worse, her policy shop is putting more meat on the bone than anyone else out there so far.

[Chris]

Great read.

https://twitter.com/JoshJPhilipp/status/1113861640552951808
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1113861640552951808.html

[Blake]

You probably didn't read it.

Looking at the website I don't think anyone else will waste their time reading it either

[UnWantedTheory]

as far as i'm aware neither bernie or cortez have advocated for government ownership of all businessesFor starters, some of these fucking morons think it as simple as capitalism vs socialism. It comes down to what is red vs blue to them, which makes it impossible to explain it isn't a black and white topic. That pretty much eliminates the possibility of talking about the degrees of socialism, mixed economies, etc.

[UnWantedTheory]

I voted yes. I think for the issues that it generally addresses, it is very good. It's obviously very bad at addressing other problems where profit-driven motive isn't the goal.

I would also probably vote yes for a "Is Socialism Good Or Bad?" poll, with the same caveats...This.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao @ ChumpDumper too scared to even vote present.