Is capitalism ruining society or lifting it up? Vote now and let your voice be heard!
✍️ Share your thoughts in the comments, but remember to keep it civil, no matter how heated the debate gets! Let's hear your opinions!
Yes, capitalism is the engine of progress that has created wealth and improved lives around the globe.
No, capitalism exploits the masses, concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, and causes social and environmental destruction.
Without Capitalism, we'll still be pushing plows, eating basic foods, likely Australia and Americas would still not be discovered.
Without Capitalism there will be no innovation or improvements to life.
So what?
But atleast we’ll all be equally as poor and miserable.
— Libs (probably)
with socialism you eventually run out of other people's money.
But then atleast we would all be equally poor.
It’s almost like you don’t even care about equality and would rather talk about some fascist ideas like meritocracy and fairness.
@jazinger23: lol I know and I fully agree with you.
Was just being playful about the whole thing. Just ignore me, Sorry.
@Gervais fanboy: All of those far right ideas like
The value of ones own individualism over group identity
The importance of having a close and functioning family
Giving people choice in what they want to do in life rather than forcing quota based putcomes.
Using scientific research without already having the end result in mind.
Maths
The natives must hate capitalism
They were probably happy about it when the Japanese were on the way here?
For sure. They were also thrilled when aliens were coming to rob their land
"Without Capitalism there will be no innovation or improvements to life."
Nope. The same outcome would just take a lot longer without capitalism. Aka 'closer to sustainable'
I want it all / now has wrecked the 'capitalism model' train.
Capitalism is flawed. Overpopulation (growth) has filled our nest with human guano.
Denial and apathy give us the ability to sleep right through the mess
Population growth is about to go negative in a large way ..
Good. That's great news.
The planet sighs. We passed a sustainable population level long ago. The economic irrationalists snake oilers are the jobs and growth magicians. Yet to quantify their impossible dream.
You don't measure sustainability and survivability with economic goals. We have outlived the capacity of natural systems for way too long.
Even a pandemic failed to wake up the masses. It just regurgitated terminally intellectually bent minded cookers on top of the apathetic stockpile.
@Protractor: What do you mean by sustainable population? What level of population do you suggest is sustainable?
@jazinger23: One that is proactively and sympathetically inclined to the capacity of the natural systems around them. And lives within the means of that in the first place. Rather than racing to regulate or undo deliberate catastrophic stupidity
It's already almost a moot point or lost cause in many corners of the world.
Honestly, if in 2023 ppl think things are going 'swimmingly' outside their cocoon, I have no answers, you would contemplate.
@Protractor: The problem with that is that Australia has no native crop/seeds capable of yielding enough for farming nor local animals capable of being farmed for food. Everything we farm here has been brought in.
With improvements in technology we have been able to produce more food from the same land area that could only support less than 1/20th of the population decades before.
@jazinger23: If we were not just simplistic, bash it all into OUR shape lazy invaders, the fauna and flora existing here could easily be a mainstay. It worked for millennia.
Look up weeping rice grass. Microlaena stipoides .
(One species almost wiped out by imported meat animals. )
Dare I mention kangaroos in the context of this Utopian hindsight impossibility. There. I did.
Basically hoofed animals on this ancient rock are the worst thing that ever happened to the fragile soils here.
Not sure where you got the info to say "Australia has no native crop/seeds capable of yielding enough for farming nor local animals capable of being farmed for food".
Food doesn't 'need' to be farmed to be eaten.
Looks like we are narrowing in on what a sustainable population looks like.
@jazinger23: Life expectancy VS the western paradigm of 'time' and in a world of completely different quality of life and social structure?
You have some reading to do.
@Protractor: Without killing 80% of the current population you need to be able to farm at the scale we do now. Nothing local gives us that capability.
@jazinger23: We were talking about a sustainable population through the prism of hindsight.
The trains off the rails dude.
There is no answer I could give that will satisfy your rusted on mono goggles.
Killing 80% of the population? Haha. That sounds familiar. Got a reo mirror?
@Protractor: You keep talking about a sustainable population and im asking what we have to give up currently to get there…
@jazinger23: IF (big IF) we wanted to even dream of a achievable target we would simply (how fkn easy) need to BREED less humans and grow more trees ( obviously stop wiping out forests). But that is NOT going to happen. The end.
We literally give up nada, except personal entitlement and commodifying kids.
A bridge too far for capitalism
@Protractor: What if through technology we found a way of being able to fuel ourselves ( human version of photosynthesis )? Could we then have more people?
@jazinger23: Why would you EVEN want to reinvent the perfect ecological cyclic system ?
Those 2 simple components are minor adjustments, not major upheavals.
(Answer > ? capitalism)
It's about exploitation.Pure and simple. Labour,resources,nature other players.
It doesn't take prisoners.
It has to have a "bottom line" to get the gig.
You need to write scifi. Make some (more) money
@Protractor: You look at how more advanced shelter has become over the millenia to allow people to live in harsher climates. Its technology that has enabled us to progress
@jazinger23: You can't even see the collateral damage you stumble over on your way to the next bargain
This convo aint going anywhere but circles.Find another footy.Enjoy the ride ahead.
@Protractor: Every single system we have tried in the past takes advantage of resources .. nothing to do with capitalism
@jazinger23: Nah not me, I'll happily leave that to the clearly trolling capabilities of people who would throw a toddler comment like that out there. Be gone
@jazinger23: Not my ideology, moonbeam..
You regurgitated an irrelevant cannibalism smoke bomb into the mix. Must be magic mushroom season again.
@Protractor: You still haven't said how many people could be supported and what the life expectancy would be to live you ideal way.
You can say what you want about capitalism but capitalism has reduced the amount of abject poverty in the world and over the last 100 years enabled life expectancy to grow about 25 years from what it was in the early 1900s. It has also enabled technology and science to progress in the last 100 years far beyond what we did in the previous millennia. Through improved nourishment people are also 15cm taller on average than what they were in the early 1900s.
Capitalism makes everyone wealthier by increasing supply, but it also increases demand, which destroys the natural environment, leads to shortages of resources, and can cause conflict between nations.
Advances in technology and healthcare are certainly produced by massive private investment in R&D (capitalism), but they are also the product of government-funded research (socialism).
Australians have access to both private healthcare (capitalism) and public healthcare (socialism).
Unemployed and poorer Australians are supported by welfare (socialism).
Tertiary education used to be free in Australia, but I think it is gradually moving toward a capitalist model.
Agree - we always have to have a mix
Capitalism in it pure form delivers, Crony Capitalism destroys !!
Perfectly put
Nobody offered monarchy as an alternative.
I didn't say it was a good alternative, mind you
Would take anarchy over monarchy :)
Not a lot of difference to some countries who's leaders seem to be able to stay in forever… is there?
Serf me harder Lord-daddy
No, capitalism exploits the masses, concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, and causes social and environmental destruction.
It's not just capitalism that explots masses, concentrates wealth and causes destruction. I think its silly to make this an aspect of capitalism.
Our currently capitalism is definitely broken and needs fixing. And I do think trashing capitalism will do grossly more harm than good.
I found "Redeeming Capitalism" by Kenneth Barnes helpful.
Why don't we mention say something against the leader's of those 2 countries and spend a decade in jail ( free housing ).
Nothing beats Freedom .
And the standard of living suxs in both of those countries.
What are the two countries?
Does that mean all but 2 are free?
you need to head back to r/australia and r/friendliegorgies they're all communist their
honestly speaking i am 100 percent capitalist i support a system in which if you do the work you are rewarded and if you dont or can't you miss out - it sounds harsh but it is essentially 'evolution' the best/brightest/strongest etc these ppl thrive they make the most of what they got
we have become incredibly socialist in Australia and propaganda spinners the ABC will never say it but everything has gotten worse the more socialist we have gotten….
in the long run socialism is only good until you run out of other peoples money then socialism essentially turns you a 3rd world nation - which is the way Australia is heading due to the a left wing bias education system teaching kids to be idiots
i do think 'unchecked' capitalism is an issue ie people with billions hording wealth is 'also' unsustainable it is why a actually support a 'death' tax and think we need to have almost no income tax, a high consumption tax and some form of wealth tax/death tax
lets people working benefit, people with wealth not contributing pay and force spending on all Australians opposed to the bottom 5-10 percent asit just drags you lower over the long term
So you advocate just taking anyone disabled, injured, infirm, different behind the back shed and topping them?
I'm walking along a footpath and you hit me with your 100k Mercedes. I'm crippled and can never work again. Why are you rewarded?
So you advocate just taking anyone disabled, injured, infirm, different behind the back shed and topping them?
topping them no [maybe serious criminals it cost 100k pa to keep one in jail for a year]
but the current system is 'not sustainable' - what socialist dont 'realise' is all you are doing is snowballing an issue for future generations
ill use the giant waste of money that is the NDIS i know a 60 y.o lady who has 160k worth of funding via NDIS she has no kids, her husband openly admits to using NDIS funding for a taxi for non-health related or care related issue ie picking up friends from the airport etc - 'he needs to max out the funding so they dont lose it' [this is the bane of socialism people take advantage of it]
this 60 y.o lady 'does' have a disability but she offers society no benefit and chances are she will still live till 80 y.o or so and thus will cost the tax payers 4-5million dollars in just NDIS…add in additional hospital care etc
this seems humane in some ways but long term the system won sustain this the population is 'growing' not just on the planet but in Australia eventually we wont have NDIS at all or free health care etc
dont believe me when Tony Abbott was PM he wanted to introduce a co-payment for getting to a GP the outrage was beyond measure at a 7 dollars payment for 'something that has always been free'
fast forward today and 65 percent of doctors do no bulk bill and that number is climbing, now a 7 dollar gap was 'reasonable' but average gap around me is between 20-50 dollars i know some a lot more then that….
socialism is only good in the short term eventually you run out of money NDIS is a prime example of something that sounds great but is unsustainable
weather it be us, our children, or our childrens children the standard of living will only go backwards - im not 'saying' all socialism should be removed society has a 'level' that we can sustain long term but we are miles past that and a essentially screwing ourselves in the long term
it is the issue with 'Democracy' to some extent we vote ppl in for 3-4 years so all the policy is about the here and now and very little about the future our current PM is an example of a PM with no forward thinking just letting the flood gates of immigration essentially continue to add fire to Australias problems
but the current system is 'not sustainable' - what socialist dont 'realise' is all you are doing is snowballing an issue for future generations
ill use the giant waste of money that is the NDIS i know a 60 y.o lady who has 160k worth of funding via NDIS she has no kids, her husband openly admits to using NDIS funding for a taxi for non-health related or care related issue ie picking up friends from the airport etc - 'he needs to max out the funding so they dont lose it' [this is the bane of socialism people take advantage of it]
tbh, this sounds like an example of an implementation issue which could be fixed.
tbh, this sounds like an example of an implementation issue which could be fixed.
fair point….do you trust the LNP/Green/ALP to fix it? - i certainly dont
@Trying2SaveABuck: I don't trust any of them, out of those 3, I guess ALP are most likely to fix or at least improve it.
Again I'm not sure what you mean by run out of peoples money. The money doesn't disappear. And the government net debt was only 18% precovid. One of the lowest in the developed world. And before that when we had better coverage of Medicare and education per capita it was much less than 18%. Sounds sustainable to me. Only in the last 3 years has the debt gotten out of hand due to mismanagement and it only stands at around 30% net debt which is still way under the global average.
Again I'm not sure what you mean by run out of peoples money. The money doesn't disappear. And the government net debt was only 18% precovid. One of the lowest in the developed world. And before that when we had better coverage of Medicare and education per capita it was much less than 18%. Sounds sustainable to me. Only in the last 3 years has the debt gotten out of hand due to mismanagement and it only stands at around 30% net debt which is still way under the global average.
Eventually mining will dry up either we will run out of stuff to dig up and sell or what we are seeing is China is starting their own mines in Africa which will come online around 2028 thus a greatly reduced need for our Iron and other resources
Just becuz you dont understand 'where' our money comes from and why it isnt a sustainable source doesnt mean it 'isnt an issue'
As for mismanagement i agree but what would you have done in the COVID situation? all 'handouts' had bipartisan support it is pretty one-eyed to not admit that….but the last government was overally generous however nothing this government has done has made me think they are any better if not they are probably worse…
As for the globe average - this is a pretty low measure we have the 2nd worst education system in OECD nations suggesting the future is 'not bright' - but the 'world standards' are fairly low we have a 'higher' standard and expectation of living then most other nations we should be looking at the top 5-10% esp with our vast resource wealth
Dont ever 'mistake' luck for good economic management - i feel like a lot of people dont realise that we are not a 'rich' country we are a country rich in resources that happens to make us rich but long term this will not be the case and we have done 'zero' to stop the eventual car crash that is coming
@Trying2SaveABuck: You're not really substantiating anything I countered with. It's waffle. We're talking political systems, not who's running for this specific country. Stick to the topic. OECD ranks are based on now after all the cutting. And are a measure of ranking, not a score that you can see.
And also FYI, Africa doesn't have anything near the FE grade in iron ore and they aren't next to China, same reason they buy us over buying from Brazil. And iron is what we make money off and that isn't disappearing. Exploration starts, they do a few drills and test soil quality and repeat. You speak as if we have open pit mines across the entire landscape. Same reason the claims of peak oil never reached when people screamed about it back in the 2000s and they are pumping as much oil as ever.
@Conformist: You have cancer but your cancer is less bad than someone else's cancer so you should be happy about it.
Makes sense.
I'm not sure what you mean by run out of peoples money. The money doesn't disappear.
Well it does. How do you think poor countries become poor?
When your spending outstrips your earnings, your wealth disappears.
Sounds sustainable to me.
Well what something sounds like and what some thing actually is are two different things.
Let me give you an example to demonstrate:
When the welfare state was introduced in the mid 20th century the ratio of workers/taxpayers to beneficiaries was about 9:1 (can't remember exact figures but it was something like this).
By the 1980's it was down to 4:1, and the forecasting is expected to see it reduce to 2:1 very soon. Do the maths, at that trajectory it is not sustainable. You simply can't raise enough tax revenue to cover the cost of welfare if less than 50% have to provided to over 50%. If you tried it you would bankrupt the country, ie run out of it.
Both Libs and Labor know this, hence why both are baulking at the Medicare overhaul that has to happen. It's only ABC crowd that think money grows on trees that can't grasp this basic concept.
I'm not sure how you're claiming we are becoming more communist when Medicare is being butchered in funding and so is education and unions have been dead since the 90s with the exception of a few industries.
If anything it's more capitalist than ever.
Also I don't know what you mean by run out of everyone else's money, like as if the cash disappears into thin air. The money circulates in the economy into the very own businesses consumers believe are worth paying for. It doesn't disappear.
Also the ABC is far more right (many of which are originally from Sky news) than left. All you can point to is some woke content. And I'm not sure how that's even considered left when former communist countries and even current ones are actually anti-woke. So I'm not sure how you reconcile that.
None of your points are unique, they are just echo chamber points.
Careful, they might not be used to hearing conflicting opinions
I'm not sure how you're claiming we are becoming more communist when Medicare is being butchered in funding and so is education and unions have been dead since the 90s with the exception of a few industries.
i agree - what makes more sence putting 50bn in NDIS or 50bn in to medicare help 3-4 percent of the population or help 100 percent but perhaps not the 3-4 percent enough
Also I don't know what you mean by run out of everyone else's money, like as if the cash disappears into thin air. The money circulates in the economy into the very own businesses consumers believe are worth paying for. It doesn't disappear.
maybe learn what inflation does to money and its buying power…
Also the ABC is far more right (many of which are originally from Sky news) than left. All you can point to is some woke content. And I'm not sure how that's even considered left when former communist countries and even current ones are actually anti-woke. So I'm not sure how you reconcile that.
you cant seriously believe this the ABC is hard left probably more then ever im disguised by ABC and how rubbish it is - i agree Sky is 'right wing' - ABC they have sold out to the left for 'more funding' [11 percent pay rises] which the ALP and Greens are pushing for - we have privatised energy and public trasport why do we have a publicmedia company that offers no benefit
also being woke isnt socialist, being woke is just mostly stupid it benefits no one but the small number of people who have 'hurt feelings' pro-nouns arent going to help when you cant afford a place to rent
Inflation is a monetary policy issue not a fiscal policy issue. Has nothing to do with politics, a government can print regardless of politics and is normally done via a separate entity that is independent of government.
The ABC has been against increasing super, pro privatisation, very rarely covered Medicare and education cuts, and would try to cut as much coverage on unionisation as possible. Their arguments have always had a neoliberal tune disguised as left (oh if we do this that would destroy employment) It is more right and left. The only left policy that had been pushed hard is on climate change.
@Conformist: In the last 3 weeks ABC has no covered the Lidia 'small P—is' story
Thrashed the Lathem S—- P—is story
Didnt cover the Pearson Calling all Australian White C—ts story
Failed to mention the changes to super Jim is trying to push in will affected 50% of the population by the time a 20 year old (today) hits retirement at aged 67 - due to a lack of indexation
they also have been against stage 3 tax cuts even though they have no once mentioned the lack of propert indexation in our tax brackets which stage 3 tax cuts are meant to correct (essentially it is not a tax cut it is literally just manual adjustment of bracket creep but the ABC wont tell you that)
They defended the Alice Spring situation in which the sexual assault rate is 5x higher then the nation average
i could go on….i watch ABC literally every day at work and dont get me 'started' on the press club and the abomination of some of the speakers
I can bag out 'sky news' too but i dont have an issue with their bias becuz we are not paying for it and if you are watching their 'version' of the news then you know what you are getting - ABC on the other hand is meant to be media for the people to keep Australians informed but it is clearly bias to those funding them more
Ill contrast you…
Scomo was an idiot sinking beers at the footy but lets be frank Albo sinking beers are the Tennis is not better but not a single 'bad word' against him….
@Conformist: I thought the ABC was just a feminist incubator who liked to back pat for campaigning home grown causes, like helping Follbigg escape justice on a 'rare' gene. I note the judge never ,ever asked for the proof that the background level of the 'gene' in the rest of the population was similar to those 'alleged' samples from the murdered kids. Did the lab have backup samples to retest? Was it peer reviewed independently?
Not once did the ABC side with the 4 lost kids in their scramble to produce the 'she couldn't be guilty , because she;s a woman' spin.
I had to stop reading when u said the ABC is more right than left. That made me laugh out loud.
Give me 5 policies the ABC pushed that were left during the Scott Morrison government.
If you can't read in between the lines during news coverage I can't really help.
@Conformist: I learned long ago not to get into debates with people who are stupid. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
@iCandy: Ad hominem again, also not a very unique one, seen that one on way too many YouTube comments. The fact is you can't even give 15 words for five policies (I can only name maybe one or two, but plenty on the right) which is all that is needed yet have the time to reply with a time wasting comments. Mate, you are using ad hominems on a forum post that is over a week old. Even the ad hominems don't show any level of originality or level of thought. But nice to see the only skill you're proud of is trolling, not great at it but I guess it's something.
@Conformist: I don’t debate people anymore as they have set ideas and will not budge even with evidence. You’re a big boy; I’m sure you know how to Google. Have a GREAT day sunshine!
@iCandy: You made the claim ABC is left. Onus is on you to prove it. I've given several premises that I can show you they aren't. Including the paul Keating interview where the interviewer wasn't was posing anti increasing super questions and also for slanted questions on the merger of nine Fairfax. Providing anti union slants on articles. For AUKUS. Silent on privatisation. Anti rent freezes. And the list goes on.
Now please show me left articles on the ABC. You don't even have to show me links. Tell me them off hand.
@Conformist: ABC has been leaning right politically for ages. The clear support for the war mongering,money wasting, USA enriching,target on our back AUKUS deal should have been forensically eviscerated by even a central national broadcaster, let alone one leaning the the left. People see a few human interest stories or enviro stories, or (how dare they) a few zinger questions to an LNP Muppet and suddenly 'ABC = lefties'.The only thing left issues the ABC pursues are around disability,gender and a few crumbs swept under the carpet at JJJ Hack etc.
The ABC has less ads, and less pointless gossip , less reality TV saccharine. But politically the ABC is trying to impersonate the MSM, not compete by differentiating itself .
Insiders is so ineffectual now they may as well replay Rage. It's like watching a "Plasticine knife" fight
At best the ABC is a right leaning Eunuch.
Also the ABC is far more right
Lol you win retarded comment of the year award.
Feel free to post examples to support this claim, I'm genuinely interested to hear how this bizarre conclusion was made.
All you can point to is some woke content.
So left wing then… did you even think about his before you wrote it?
I'm not sure how that's even considered left when former communist countries and even current ones are actually anti-woke
Because the political spectrum is a spectrum, not a switch. Glad I could help you with that one.
I've given several premises that I can show you they aren't. Including the paul Keating interview where the interviewer wasn't was posing anti increasing super questions and also for slanted questions on the merger of nine Fairfax. Providing anti union slants on articles. For AUKUS. Silent on privatisation. Anti rent freezes. And the list goes on.
Here's a good example of right wing slant. A public broadcaster supporting media landscape oligopolisation, that's a laugh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orA7zSpXX48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98Ex1a8wtkU
They do the same ordinary tactic to look impartial. "what do you say to your critics who say…" it's just right wing slant disguised as impartiality.
A left wing media would be funded by left wing bodies like a union. There aren't.
And the list goes on.
Where is this list?
A public broadcaster supporting media landscape oligopolisation
I only got a few minutes in but couldn't see anything obvious. Perhaps you could give some timestamps or quotes to help clear this up
@1st-Amendment: That's because you have to have some shock jock being a literalist for you to see an obvious slant. I can't teach you to read in between the lines. There's no reason to teach you and it's not worth my time. There's many like you who can't read in between the lines. I have a lot of better things to do than teach every single individual.
I advise you to read Noam Chomsky to make any progress.
That's because you have to have some shock jock being a literalist for you to see an obvious slant
No, I'm asking for specifics and now you can't give me any.
There's many like you who can't read in between the lines
Let's start with the lines first. But you can't even do that.
@1st-Amendment: I gave you content as you asked, you go look through it. I'm not going to spoon feed you like some five year old. I don't do the same for anyone who gives me content, I read through it and try to learn. Again, if you havent majored in economics or finance I can't be bothered with you on these topics.
I'm not going to spoon feed you
You mean you're not going to give any specific examples
Again, if you havent majored in economics or finance I can't be bothered with you
You need an Economics major to cite a YouTube video?
Your attempt at an argument from authority logical fallacy is noted. You must've skipped logic 101…
@1st-Amendment: No it's just when I have these discussions I'm looking to learn something from the other person about a specific topic by opposing their view. If you don't have a degree in that topic there's a very small chance I will learn something. Hence not worth my time. I can have general discussions with friends instead of a random online. You may have a lot of time to spare, I don't.
when I have these discussions I'm looking to learn something from the other person about a specific topic by opposing their view
Same. And I do that by engaging in discussion and scrutinising any claims with rigour, not running away from them with weak excuses.
If you don't have a degree in that topic there's a very small chance I will learn something
Lol, this is probably the most ignorant comment in this thread for multiple reasons:
First is that this is the argument from authority logical fallacy. And you don't need a major in deductive logic to know this…
Second is that it fails a simple test that you think you know more about technology than Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, you know more movies making than Stephen Spielberg, more about music than Lady Gaga or Jay Z, all of which don't have degrees. The list is endless. But there's plenty of Uber drivers with degrees and according to you, you value their opinion more?
Third, if you cannot learn from those around you then it the problem is with you. Einstein said 'The only source of knowledge is experience.' Notice how he didn't say 'Only talk to people with a degree'?
Lastly, you assume I don't have one.
You may have a lot of time to spare, I don't.
Yet here you are posting multiple times in multiple conversations…
You see, I don't need a degree in communications to know that the more times you post with excuses and avoiding the topic, the more likely it is that you are talking out of your hat.
I'm not biting. Bye.
You just did. You avoided the discussion then spent the last four posts telling me how you're not going to respond any more, yet here you are… responding again!
You might need to speak to someone with a degree in what words mean so they you teach you what words mean 🤣
We aren't living in Capitalism. We're in autocracy or meritocracy. It's evident by the fact that the US just bailed out two banks and no one has been punished yet again (the same executives responsible for 2008 are yet again responsible).
Watch how this coming September/October the cracks start to divide economies and the plebs will be blamed because they can't afford their mortgages.
We definitely aren't in a meritocracy .. in a meritocracy you would value merit above all and not have have agencies and companies trying to increase the number of people from xxx group, gender or ethnicity.
meritocracy. It's evident by the fact that the US just bailed out two banks and no one has been punished yet again
Wow, intentionally or not you have quite conveniently just misaligned meritocracy with autocracy.
They are two different things lol.
Meritocracy (focusing on merit) wouldn’t allow the bailing out of the very institutions that were complicit in that whole debacle, they should have rather been audited and sanctioned.
If we had mertiocracy in 2008 then they would have let the collapse happen.
lol but the collapse did happen though.
Just not for the wealthy suits who had been funding the Republican presidential nominee and it’s cabinet of ministers. They became richer than ever by using that government bailout money to buy struggling stocks and foreclosed homes/properties.
The general population suffered the collapse 100%
@Gervais fanboy: The people who still had jobs and didn't need to retire within 5 years of the 2008 were generally ok. Its those that lost their jobs which in turn caused them to default on loans and loose their house that 2008 has had an ever lasting effect on.
They didn't bail the banks though. The shareholders weren't bailed out. The deposit holders were.
Yes they did bail out some of the banks
https://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbail…
That is not a bail out. It's cash being injected by the federal reserve for liquidity. That money is not owned by the bank. Lending someone more money isn't bailing them out.
A bail out is when a company is given the money and they don't have to pay it back, which is what they did in 2008. This is not the case now. The term bailed out in your list instead means banks that were 'saved'
Look up quantative easing on Wikipedia too. That has been happening for decades as well.
That is not a bail out
The headline literally say "Bailed out banks"…
It's not a 'bail out' it's just free cash, which is different… somehow…
Where can I can apply for some of this non-'bailout' free money? Oops I mean 'saviour' money…
For the record, 'saving' banks with free taxpayer money is also not capitalism. Under a free market, these banks would fail and new banks would eventually replace them at no cost to the taxpayer
@1st-Amendment: It's a loan. Not free money. If you don't know the difference do a basic diploma in finance.
Frankly if you haven't majored in economics or finance I can't be bothered discussing with you.
It's a loan. Not free money.
Where can I apply for a 'loan' on the same terms?
If it is not available under normal circumstances then it is equivalent to a 'gift' or 'special favour'. ie free stuff.
If you don't know the difference
The context here is free vs controlled markets. If the gov is giving special treatment not available to all, then it is not an open and free market. Therefore the Bank 'bailout/saving/rescuing/injecting/guarantees' is an example of OP's point.
Quibbling about the nature of the 'special treatment' doesn't change the fact that government giving 'special treatment' to the few is not capitalism.
You could always ask any of the millions of people who escaped these places and you'll struggle to find a single one that has anything nice to say about them. Why do you think that is?
I know a few people that grew up under these regimes and they all think that Western lefty socialists are the biggest retards going around. The living proof is right there in front of them and they pretend it doesn't exist.
Your opinion is not fact.
You have this choice now. Why aren't you doing it?
Define 'better for the planet'? What makes a planet happy scientifically? We seem to be living in an age of 'sciencism' where people pass off their opinion as 'science' without understand the very basics of the scientific method.
I know a bit about science, I have a degree to prove it. Nothing you said is even remotely scientific, it is all just your opinion.