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.
Next time I'll go to a bank and ask for a loan I'll ask them for 'free stuff'… What nonsense.
You're really struggling with the idea that a 'special arrangement' by whatever name you want to call it is by definition NOT a free market, it is a form of welfare.
I'd rather banks be saved
And you are entitled to your opinion. But at least recognise that this 'special arrangement' is not capitalism, since capitalism is specifically defined as free markets, not socialising your losses. So it sounds like that you accept that now, but feel the need to argue about something else?
than having a contagion and ending in a great depression
Well interestingly, the great depression was a result of government interference trying to 'save' things, just like the GFC. Under a free market, businesses would be allowed to fail, and there would be losses, but better businesses would eventually replace them. By 'saving' failed businesses you only create an environment for greater failure.
Here's a real word example, when streaming killed VHS did the government need to 'save' anybody? Or did they just let it fail and it sorted itself out?
Sure some people lost out, but some people won, and overall the market got bigger and stronger. The free market was allowed to do its thing and it came back bigger and better. Had the government intervened and said we need to 'save' video rental stores, and we'll give them special loans to keep their businesses running, the end result would've been a much bigger catastrophe.
People vote to not have a…
Cool story but off topic. The OP comment was that the government giving 'assistance' to failed banks is an example that we aren't living in a fully capitalistic environment. It looks like you accept that now.
We aren't living in Capitalism.
There do seem to be a few companies in private ownership though… ?
Do You Support Capitalism?
Eat the Rich.
That worked out well in Ukraine and Zimbabwe in the past
Not for me.
Compost them, and eat the produce from it.
Eat the Rich.
If you live in Australia you are the rich.
A lot of people don't understand capitalism, or what our current system is. Capitalism is private ownership. The alternative being state monopolies. Of course we have a mixture of the two, as well as various socialism policies like welfare etc.
We all live in a mixed economy which is a mix of socialism and capitalism. I'd say it's working pretty well. Of course there could always be more improvements.
This is like asking should you eat till you need heart surgery or just starve. And people actually argue like as if there's no other option.
The lack of the understanding in economic and political systems the average person has is scary, but if they stick to the news for education instead of actually going through a more objective documentary or history book I guess it doesn't surprise me.
Capitalism is about yourself, communism is about the group, socialism is about others at the cost of yourself. Pick your poison.
Darwinism?
Capitalism is about yourself, communism is about the group, socialism is about others at the cost of yourself. Pick your poison.
Well two of them are poison and one is food.
When you buy or sell something in a free (capitalist) market, both parties have self-interest, but both get want they want. ie the buyer gets an item, the seller gets some cash, and the transaction only occurs if they both agree to it. It is literally win win.
But apparently some people think this could be improved if we asked the government to step in an manage the transaction and control as much of the process as possible. Imagine being that guy…
both parties have self-interest, but both get want they want. ie the buyer gets an item, the seller gets some cash, and the transaction only occurs if they both agree to it. It is literally win win.
But turns out the item the buyer bought was faulty and/or was scammed. Who to go to? How to make seller accountable?
But turns out the item the buyer bought was faulty and/or was scammed. Who to go to? How to make seller accountable?
Have you heard of laws? They are still a thing.
I don't think you do though.
Cool story. What else do you think that I think? What number am I thinking of right now?
@1st-Amendment: Right, clearly this topic is too complex for you.
Over 80 comments on this thread. Holy hell. You clearly care what people think.
clearly this topic is too complex for you.
Another cool story. Did you have a point, or did you just want to socialise whatever thoughts pop into your head at any given time?
I found this that might help you out: https://www.wordy.com/writers-workshop/basic-english-sentenc…
@1st-Amendment: The point was made before you started to be childish, and now a nazi.
Take a nap dude, may I suggest better help for you? .
Lol I had fun though. Keep coming.
The point was made before
Where exactly?
Post a link
a nazi
You are a walking meme…
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/818/hit…
Read Ayn Rand and forget the rest. I drop the mic and walk away
ITT: No one knows what capitalism, socialism or communism is. Also everyone is suffering from Capitalist Realism, where "the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it."
Do I support trade and industry having private owners for profit?
Yes. (As I think profit is a useful tool that can drive innovation and technology).
But I also support regulation.
Study some history. Humankind has always advanced over the entire history. People naturally want the better of everything in life. So capitalism is what is available best.
Yes, it works well in most cases. But I think that the extremes of capitalism, like those which try to commodify every human need and impulse, are detrimental to society as a whole.
The issue with capitalism right now is the government gets involved with lobbyists and make rules that favour some companies. Governments will also sometimes bail out companies. That's not capitalism.
I think capitalism is a good system but shouldn't be the only mechanism for actual need like housing.
What's the alternative that has been proven to work better and by what measure?
The ultimate evidence that Capitalism can work is China.
Although a communist country, they adopted capitalism because their economy wasn’t faring well under communist economics.
They have since pulled over 500 million people out of poverty while being one of the worlds strongest economies. Their application of capitalism often enrages us, but there’s no denying it is really working for Chinese people.
Capitalism has, and can work well for western countries, but it needs strong, focussed government to prevent monopolies etc. Which we currently do not have….
Some argue it isn’t capitalism that ‘pulls people out of poverty’ but things like technology and education.
The difference between tactics and strategy.
Some argue it isn’t capitalism that ‘pulls people out of poverty’ but things like technology and education.
And that would be trivial to debunk. Care to try it out?
Bit of both.
Capitalism is a poison. When it's unchecked it produces only a wealthy few and leaves everyone else at rock bottom. That's how it always, always works. The game of Monopoly was invented to demonstrate this. There's a reason every game of Monopoly has always ended with the table being flipped and friendships being ruined.
Socialism is a poison. When unchecked, it has always failed and the reasons for that are varied. There needs to be a way for hard work to be rewarded and in the pure socialist economic approach that doesn't happen properly.
Socialism and capitalism need to exist side by side. Our models we work with today are great, they just need to be tuned properly so that corporate interests aren't so heavily favoured. Ramp up tax rates the more you earn so that once you're above X dollars your tax rate is 99% and those taxes to go improving schools, hospitals, roads, energy etc.
We'd end up with a happier lower class, a MUCH happier middle class and the top end of town would just cry into their millions about how they're not billions.
Capitalism is a poison. When it's unchecked it produces only a wealthy few and leaves everyone else at rock bottom
Yet all the data says the opposite: https://shortfall.blog/the-deep-optimism-manifesto-262f273c9…
The game of Monopoly was invented to demonstrate this
Almost all monopolies are the result of a controlled market, the opposite of a free market.
There needs to be a way for hard work to be rewarded
There is. Have you noticed how many wealthy people there are now? Rewards of hard work.
Ramp up tax rates the more you earn so that once you're above X dollars your tax rate is 99%
And all the rich people leave and all rest the people starve. Look up 'Laffer Curve'. Raising taxes doesn't work how you think it works.
We'd end up with a happier lower class
No, you'd end up with a famine and millions of dead. Some countries already tried your suggestions, so we know how it plays out.
My god, are you a meme?
Your source on the 'capitalism is good' argument is a BLOG written by a guy who has spent 30 years attempting to debunk the mainstream climate change argument. Who's a more reliable source? Some crackpot blogger or thousands of scientists all over the world? I know what you're going to say, and you can save your breath. I don't take you seriously.
As far as the rest of your BS, I know the laffer curve and I know it's a laff-riot of a joke because it's a failed theory. It's been disproven, debunked and debated a lot. Using it as some kind of gotcha moment is ridiculous. Again, you're not real, I'm sure of it.
Rich people won't leave and even if they did, good riddance. We don't need CEO's making 200, 300, 400 million a year. If they left, someone would gladly step into their shoes for half, a third, a quarter of that pay. Cap CEO pay at a percentage of the lowest workers pay. Force companies to profit share with workers alongside shareholders.
Corporate greed is driving inflation. It's a fact. Don't even think about retorting with "HURRR DUR THE UKRAINE WAR" or any of that because whilst it's a factor, it's not the main driving factor. Corporations in this country don't pay NEARLY enough tax (and don't accuse me of not understanding tax, I work in tax you dip).
Your entire reply is a joke and you reek of libertarian whack-jobbery. Don't reply, I won't read it.
EDIT: I just saw your username, go cuddle your guns in the US.
Your source on the 'capitalism is good' argument is a BLOG written by a guy who
The data is cited from reliable sources, which datasets did you not agree with? Do you even know how that works?
It's been disproven, debunked and debated a lot
Well you'll be able to easily post link to this? Or is your thing like every other lefty to just say stuff then believe it, because it's starting to look that way…
Rich people won't leave
Easily disproven because they already do. eg Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk, Sundar Pincahi, Satya Nadella all left their native countries to pursue better opportunity. But what is actual data when you have your opinion!
and even if they did, good riddance
Lol… this is you counter argument? Are you 12?
We don't need CEO's making 200, 300, 400 million a year. If they left, someone would gladly step into their shoes for half, a third, a quarter of that pay
I detect a tiny brain in action here. Apply your same logic to you favourite sports team. Get rid of all the highly paid players and only pay for players from the B grade. Then act surprised when they can't win any games and the club goes bankrupt. This is you great idea?
Your entire reply is a joke and you reek of libertarian whack-jobbery. Don't reply, I won't read it.
Cool story. I'm now living rent free in your head.
Capitalism ? You're soaking in it …!!
I like what we have in Australia. Mostly capitalism but with medicare, centrelink, public schools, roads/trains, etc
Democratic Socialism.
yes some social democratic element… another way to define it would probably be a Democratic Capitalist Welfare State ?
i.e. from a system of government perspective, yes it's a representative democracy (but with a mix of constitutional monarchy, but which in practice is semi-defunct in real exercise of day to day power, especially since our independence on 3 March 1986 Australia Act/s);
However from a financial system perspective, it definitely has a capitalist element, but also has social/welfare systems.
We have a mix of private owned capitalist corporate / asset structures, and state owned organisations to achieve specific things in a mixed economy.
I like what we have in Australia. Mostly capitalism but with medicare, centrelink, public schools, roads/trains, etc
Which we can't afford. What is your solution to this?
We can afford it if we stop subsidising oil, coal and gas by 10's of billions a year (which is exported with profits going to those companies and not back into government coffers) and instead, invest that money intooooooo…. schools? roads? medicare?
Or should we just spend it on buying guns for everyone and distributing them so we can live in the dystopic reality of the united states of mass shootings?
We can afford it if we stop subsidising oil, coal and gas by 10's of billions a year
The growth alone of super was $300B last year. Even though you completely misunderstand what a subsidy is, assuming it is true (which it isn't), how does '10's of billions' pay for 300billion? Feel free to show your working if you know what arithmetic is lol…
For bonus points, you are free to stop using coal gas and oil if you feel so strongly about it, why aren't you doing that today?
What a bizarre question. No, I support no economic system. None are perfect. And the idea that the West is capitalist and China and Russia are communist is GROSSLY over-simplistic.
Any economic system unchecked ends up in a terrible mess. See: Russia at the end of the last century, and the USA now.
What I DO support is intervention in any economic system to ensure that it is producing the best outcomes for PEOPLE.
communism is a political model
capitalism is the financial model
China is a communist country but has capitalism model, China tried pure socialism and it end up starving millions of people and killing their best and brightest so now they embrace their own version of capitalism (you are free to make as much money as you want, just dont throw mud at the party or you in the dog house and disappeared)
If what you say is true about china then why are so many people especially those with alot of wealth leaving the country?
https://www.economist.com/china/2023/03/30/many-wealthy-peop…
Because your reading Western propoganda?
@nightmarez3k: Do you have any Eastern propaganda that says the opposite?
I'll even take a look at Northern and Southern propaganda.
@nightmarez3k: Apparently only non western countries have propaganda! Didn't you know. Oh wait?
Fox News and Alex Jones are a couple of examples, and plenty more to come. Liars and toxic social engineering campaigns are the norm in the USA now.
Whenever the truth ozzes out half of the USA, the Trump pawns, cry fake news.
The end result is still 'the brainwashed masses', only in the west they call it 'news' and we pay $ for the brainwashing. The NRA has basically been using propaganda since their inception.
what am I saying there that are not true? I am not saying people aren't leaving China
I am saying China is a capitalist country with communist party
you are free to make as much money as you want like Jack Ma, just don't get on stage and said China regulator or government is bad
@Hearthstone: The CCP maintains that despite the co-existence of private capitalists and entrepreneurs with public and collective enterprise, China is not a capitalist country because the party retains control over the direction of the country, maintaining its course of socialist development.
Here is the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#:~:te….
Capitalist countries also have a reasonable degree of economic freedom China is currently ranked 154th out of 180 countries on economic freedom.
@jazinger23: That is because they are a communist country, that how communist state operates, it is totally within their power to dictates whatever go
Capital market wise it operates like a capitalist model
share market, properties market, private capital, lending, finance, people free to open enterprise and get rich
that essential is a capitalist model, people can call whatever they want but if it quacks like duck and walk like a duck then it is a duck
you can call it China version of capitalism
@Hearthstone: China is considered a socialist economy because the government still has a tremendous amount of control over private enterprises. There are private companies that operate in China, and not everything is owned by the government; however, with a single party in power, the government is able to change the direction of the economy significantly with the stroke of a pen. Therefore, there are a lot of companies that are unsure of exactly what will happen in the future because they are at the mercy of the government. Because of this outlook, most people consider China to be a socialist economy, not a capitalist one.
@jazinger23: That the functions of a communist country, they are in control they do whatever suit them, China can't have free market due to the pollical system, you can only get free market in Democracy country
but the model they operate is a capitalist one
Socialism don't have private enterprise and private ownership, when China under Mao, he nationalised industrialisation, collective farming, no one allowed to make a profit, foreign capital is not allowed. That didn't end well, millions end up starving and die, His successor has the smart to see this system is not working,
He starts to embrace capitalism and start allow farmers to make profits, allowed foreigners to trades and make investment
they start making special economic zones or should I call it a capitalist zone, in this zone you are free to make profit, trades good, open up private enterprise, exchange with foreign investors and boy people get rich in these area and poor people from these area and surrounding area start to get out of poverty fast.
Capitalism is well on the way and they start open up more of these special economic zones aka Capitalist zone across the country but of course, they are not allowed to called it capitalism that is the bad bad Western stuff just like Putin special operation in Ukraine not a war ok
@Hearthstone: Under Deng Xiaoping China did open up its economy from 1978 however since Xi Jinping in 2012 it has been going backwards.
China is considered a socialist economy because the government still has a tremendous amount of control over private enterprises. There are private companies that operate in China, and not everything is owned by the government; however, with a single party in power, the government is able to c happen in the future because they are at the mercy of the government. Because of this outlook, most people consider China to be a socialist economy, not a capitalist one.
In a socialist government, there is an economic and political system in place under which the means of production in the country are owned by the public. This means that the government is responsible for production, and consumer prices are generally controlled by the government itself. Prices are adjusted to better meet the needs of the people, but the system is prone to corruption if the government does not have the best interests of the people at heart. In contrast, capitalism is an economic system where all means of production are privately owned. The price of goods and services is largely dictated by the direction of the economy, and supply and demand are responsible for the changes in prices.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-ccp-firms-foreign-investo…
that essential is a capitalist model,
Er no.
The critical part of capitalism is a 'free market'. China is not that. It allows some freedom within some tightly defined guardrails, but just like how a puppet duck quacks like a duck, it is not a real duck.
Err, no. Communism is defined as common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society. China has a state-capitalist economy.
Hence the original question is too simplistic to answer in any meaningful way.
China has a state-capitalist economy.
A free market with no free market… sounds legit…
Economic systems are defined by OWNERSHIP, not how markets work.
If 'ownership' requires that you are forced under threat of violence to run your business practices according to the whim of an autocratic government then you are not the true owner.
Does this sound like private ownership to you:
"Chinese state firms have always had a predominant role in the economy, and the Communist party has always maintained direct control over state firms. For more than a decade, the party has also tried to ensure it played a role inside private businesses. But in his first term in office, Xi has overseen a sea change in how the party approaches the economy, dramatically strengthening the party’s role in both government and private businesses."
The law states that “any organisation and citizen” shall “support and cooperate in national intelligence work”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business…
So yes, how the market works is important, especially when the facade of private ownership is quite clearly a facade.
@1st-Amendment: …hence the term State capitalism. Business is owned privately but ultimately controlled by the state.
My point is too many people assume they know what capitalism and communism are, but their definitions are incorrect.
hence the term State capitalism
Which is not capitalism, by definition. Did you know the the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is also not Democratic? And that a Peanut is not a nut?
Don't let the similar sounding words confuse you, it is entirely intentional as part of the propaganda campaign.
My point is too many people assume they know what capitalism and communism are, but their definitions are incorrect.
That is true…
Businesses privately owned? Check. It's capitalism.
Unfortunately you don't get to decide what words mean.
Let's compare with what others think:
Investopedia: "An economic system characterised by private ownership in which the free market alone controls the production of goods and services"
Brittanica: also called free market economy or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.
Miriam Webster: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
None of those definitions fit what is occuring in China.
And a simple test shows your definition to be wrong:
Slavery was privately owned, but quite clearly not capitalist.
A bulk billed GP clinic is privately owned but also not capitalist.
End of discussion.
You mean end of you willing to discuss. Which is the standard pattern when you're ideas are shown up to be wrong…
The funniest part is that this website is a celebration of capitalism, so you will likely be discussing its benefits of capitalism for many years to come without even realising it…
@1st-Amendment: Mate, definitions are not up for crowd-sourcing. You've cherry-picked generalist publications and provided ridiculous examples to "support" your idea of what capitalism is.
Interestingly the first sentence of the capitalism page on investopedia states: "Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods." But you've quoted some other bit somehow because it fits with your generalist definition.
Two posts ago you agreed with my statement on the misunderstanding of the definition of capitalism and other economic systems, and then you demonstrate my exact point. Ridiculous.
definitions are not up for crowd-sourcing
Lol, why use the dictionary definition when some random fool in the comments section says otherwise.
Seriously, this is your argument? 'The dictionary is wrong and I am right'?
Interestingly the first sentence
The key part here the first sentence. This is why they have more than one sentence…
The first five words are 'Capitalism is an economic system" so why most just cherry pick that and go with it?
Or maybe just use the first two words "Capitalism is' then apply that to everything?
This line of argument is beyond ridiculous…
Two posts ago you agreed with my statement on the misunderstanding of the definition of capitalism
Yeah that obviously went over you head. Read this comment carefully and see if you can tell who I was talking about…
If you're not going to accept dictionary definitions for words then this is pointless. If you honestly believe that the a one party autocratic dictatorship in China which requires all businesses to submit by law to the CCP is an example of capitalism then you are beyond help.
@1st-Amendment: I dunno where you're from mate, but you clearly have an agenda here, and I'm not interested.
I dunno where you're from mate, but you clearly have an agenda here,
Yeah it's called an education. You should try it sometime, it comes in really handy.
and I'm not interested.
You came back just to tell me how not interested you are?
What I DO support is intervention in any economic system to ensure that it is producing the best outcomes for PEOPLE.
What if the best outcomes can be shown to be achieved without intervention?
I support capitalism, with regulation and controls. We have never had pure capitalism in Australia. Even the USA has only scant periods of runaway capitalism with no regulation.
The capitalistic societies in the western world is what has made big corporations so incredibly powerful that they can have the government by the balls. In what way(s) is that a good thing?
Plutocracy no longer Democracy.
I accidentally read this as "cannibalism"
And what is your opinion on "cannibalism"?
This thread is simply stupid because it paints the issue as black or white. That there is only two choices, capitalism or not.
The societies in the world where the most people are the most happy are the mixed economies of Scandanavia where capitalism and socialism work side by side. Where business looks after business, and government does a lot more to look after people, and protect them from the excesses of capitalism, than is the case in the US or even Australia.
Agree with this. The Government's job is to look after its people - not make it a market for businesses to take advantage of their citizens.
This thread is simply stupid because it paints the issue as black or white. That there is only two choices, capitalism or not.
Well there are only two choices. For each method of production or transaction you either let people do it themselves, or you control it via some central party (ie government). So there is one of two choices.
the most happy are the mixed economies of Scandanavia where capitalism and socialism work side by side
Not really. Name me any Scandinavian product that is made by the government. These countries are all very capitalist: https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
These countries have strong social programs because they are wealthy. And they are wealthy because of their free markets.
The lefties will bristle at this comment, but it is equally true that Scandinavian nations, until very recently were mostly mono-cultural. No discussion would be complete without an analysis of the effects of this, but we live in an environment where we're not allowed to discuss such things….
Can you stop saying free markets? There are no free markets in any of the major economies of the top 50 economies on Earth because almost every tme any major economic crash happens, or a bank fails, or there's economic downturn, the government steps in and issues bailouts. As long as these corporations are operating on a bailout model for their gambling losses, the market is never going to be truly free. If it were truly free, the banking sector in the US in 2008 would have undergone a MASSIVE overhaul, banks would have been disbanded, financial regulation bodies would have been tried, convicted, and jailed for their collusion, executives would have been thrown in the gulag and so on. Instead, they kept their ill-gotten gains and WHO PAID THE BILL? The tax payers. In the land of the free and home of the brave, the citizens got royally f'd and the industry that caused it got away 99.999999% scot free.
Free markets are a scam. It's a buzz word that billionaires and their barnacles spout to espouse their dog eat dog, 'got mine fk you' attitude. Their attitudes stink and the world would be better off without them.
There are no free markets in any of the major economies
You've never been to the supermarket? OZBargain is a free market, you are free to buy and sell without government interference. Do you know what words mean? You posting history makes it sound like that you don't.
the government steps in and issues bailouts.
That's right, so in that case those banks are not operating in a free market, but when I buy my TV at JBHifi I am since the deal is between me and the seller without no interference. Do you see how that works now?
the citizens got royally f'd and the industry that caused it got away 99.999999% scot free
Again you are right but you are missing the obvious. The bailouts are an example of socialised losses and as with almost all socialism it ends up making things worse. You seem to see this but are not joining the dots.
You agree that socialism in the case of bank bailouts is bad, but then somehow equate to capitalism being bad? It really makes no sense.
Free markets are a scam. It's a buzz word that…
A free market is what you engage in every time you buy or sell something without government interference. And as you rightly point out above, when the government's do interfere, they make things worse.
Your choice here is allow people to trade freely on their own terms (capitalism), or force them to trade on the government's terms (socialism). Do you think life would be better if every time you bought a sandwich or a TV or a car, you had to go through the government?
Their attitudes stink and the world would be better off without them.
You don't seem to understand what the words mean, which explains why you are so angry about it.
Next time you buy or sell something ask yourself if that transaction would be better off with the government involved. That's all a free market is.
Socialism, like communism, is stupid and best avoided but they are not the same thing. Many Western countries have been/are socialist - even Australia at times.
Some people on this thread don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two.
Should have made the poll
Capitalist - with regulation and controls
Socialism - with regulation and controls
Democracy like capitalism is the worst form of government, except for all the others
Better than the alternatives…
I'm not a fan of the socialising the losses and privatising the profits though.
The biggest problem with communism in my eyes is how do you move past the conditions of voluntary servitude under capitalism (with it's extremes of debt slavery and brutal third world exploitation) without returning to the relationship of involuntary servitude?
I believe capitalism is better but the governance and policy in place allows the wealthy to cheat the system.
Because the wealthy end up being in government or their mates.
You are describing every instance of communism ever.
If you want to live in a free country, capitalism will always be there because people naturally like to own things and make their own choices about what to do with them.
The only way to stop that is through forceful and dictatorial methods.
This is why communist nations are always tyrannical one party states or dictatorships. It has to be enforced at gunpoint.
The capitalist way is more subtle, media ownership and mind control to make the average Joe feel like he's part of the gang.
The capitalist way is more subtle, media ownership and mind control to make the average Joe feel like he's part of the gang.
The difference is that the choice to listen that garbage is all yours.
Do you prefer to make your own decisions or have them made for you?
I'm going through these comments and picking yours out on purpose because you're a fool and I enjoy debunking your stupid takes on things.
Cambridge Analytica. The entire western world is media-centric and it's geared to influence you in every way. The ads you see, the things you buy, the content you consume, it's all recorded and managed, profiles are built and sold for advertising. Troll farms are cultivated to manipulate masses of people through media to brainwash people.
It's not the lefty socialists doing it, big surprise, it's the Evil Corps around the world that will stop at nothing to drive up shareholder profits. They will manipulate people, governments, elections, advertisements, media, anything they can get their grubby little hands on to swing the pendulum in their direction and keep it there.
I enjoy debunking
Giving me your uninformed and uneducated opinion isn't debunking anything. The fact that you think this is hilarious though
It's not the lefty socialists doing it,
Whatever that verbal diarrhea was is not debunking anything. Your 'debunking' was to try and convince me that political propaganda is only something that capitalism does by providing one single example? Are you seriously that dumb? Have you heard of Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot or Hillary Clinton?
My point that you quite clearly missed is that propaganda is everywhere, the only difference in free economies is that you have a choice to listen, but in socialist places you are forced to agree with the message under threat of death.
So I ask again, which of those options is least worst to you?
Yes, Singapore is a dictatorship? I guess its not the beacon of prosperity and freedom we though it is.
Simple minded people are easily lead.
went to cuba where i assume everyone gets given jobs to do under their regime
asked lady behind counter for batteries for safe in room. She lit up a smoke and told me to go buy some from shop across the road.
dude buffing the floor was smoking whilst doing it and ashing inadvertently on the floor.
The idea of it is fine, its the execution that goes wrong. The fabled trickle down effect doesn't work due to endless and largely uncontrolled greed at the top and government (through party funding) and media control by self interested parties. The wealth gap is larger than ever and growing, not how its supposed to work.
To take the opposite extreme, communism or socialism, that doesn't work well in practice either for similar reasons. Human nature and greed of those in positions of power and influence.
Around 40 years of capitalist ideals in western nations has led to things like runaway housing prices. Even during periods of Labor (or Labour in the UK) governments they no longer really operate socialist policies. So we see higher asset prices, more borrowing to stay afloat (by individuals, businesses and governments), endless printing of money and kicking the can down the road to support the shaky house of cards that is the global economy.
The best examples I've seen of truly fair societies are in countries like Finland and Denmark where incidentally they also rank amoung the happiest nations on earth.
@1st-Amendment: Next time I'll go to a bank and ask for a loan I'll ask them for 'free stuff'… What nonsense. The money is created by the federal reserve and then that liquidity is taken bank via quantitative tightening. It isn't tax payers money. Couldn't care if it's an anarchocapitalist free market or not. I'd rather banks be saved than having a contagion and ending in a great depression. People vote to not have a free market under our democracy, if you don't like it there's other countries you can live in this paradise of free market capitalism. I'm not going to waste my time on dumb libertarian nonsense. Have better things to do. Ciao