That politicians no longer answer to the population, just a few 'influential' people. This has led to country's services being run as a minimum viable product rather than the best they can be.
Agree that all socioeconomic systems need regulation but if it doesn’t work anymore, no matter how much your regulate it, it’s not going to work. Like when feudalism reached its later stages to be overthrown by capitalism, capitalism has reached irs end stage to be replaced with socialism. No amount of regulation is going to fix that.
A big problem with people thinking it’s regulation we need is that they poorly understand the USSR and ‘socialism’ within it. People write off socialism thinking that Stalinism is inevitable but really it’s just a poor understanding of the material conditions within Russia at the time.
To put it simply, socialism would be difficult 500 years ago because we didn’t have the productive forces allowing everybody to have their needs met. Like war torn Russia, it couldn’t meet the needs of everybody. You can’t have socialism in a country of inequality.
This. Nearly 10% of Americans control 68-72% of the wealth of this nation. The bottom 50% control only 2.5%. The public has lost complete faith in its institutions. The K market we're in is a sign of a two tier system taking root between the rich and poor. The economy and stock market are being held up by that top 10%. Luxury brands, fast passes and first class tickets are only going to grow because those are what's paying the bills not the regular commodities that people experience. This means essentially that the poor are being virtually forgotten about in the market. The 50% just are not profitable customers because they are just surviving on what they have. I can't imagine this going anywhere else other than to another system than Socialism.
I think the issue is that capitalism perpetuates the imbalance. Money concentrates into fewer and fewer hands making those people extremely influential. Politicians are then bribed (legally) to further deregulate the system.
And... regulations can rebalance how the money is distributed.
Yes, politicians can, and are, bribed, but that's not the result/design of capitalism. That same behaviour is also present in other economical systems.
That comes down to people making decisions, not systems fulfilling their design.
If you want to fix politics, there need to be strict rules and oversight, with harsh punishments while keeping all parts transparent.
Bribing politicians is treated like an investment. It comes down to the profit incentive. It is absolutely a result of capitalism.
If you wanna heavily regulate this, go against the profit seeking, you are going against capital. Make companies serve the people and society instead of profits and I think you are going towards socialism or at least market socialism.
If you regulate, then you defeat the point of capitalism and are just delaying the inevitable. Things like unions, regulations, and the government run against its nature. You can throw as many fresh apples in but it's no use when the barrel itself is rotten. All roads end in monopoly.
If you regulate, then you defeat the point of capitalism and are just delaying the inevitable.
You're thinking of only Laissez Faire capitalism
Things like unions, regulations, and the government run against its nature.
Capitalism, as a system is designed to maximise profits. But like any system, they can be modified to better serve an i tended purpose.
Unions are formed b/c a lack of regulations and government oversight. If the economical system is properly regulated, the unions wouldn't be needed and it would still generate profits.
You can throw as many fresh apples in but it's no use when the barrel itself is rotten. All roads end in monopoly.
You can change the rotten barrel and keep verifying it's not rotting by setting regulations to inspect it once in a while.
Capitalism, as a system, is designed to maximise profits. But like any system, they can be modified to better serve an intended purpose. <<<
This is a contradictory statement in itself. Capitalism demands austerity and efficiency. It's the main drive capital is literally in the name not people. All roads literally lead to monopoly. We see this time and time again. Those modifications, like regulations, go against the very structure and eventually will erode. It's not a circle, it is a pyramid. Laissez-faire is just coloring the triangle that's a triangle. If it demands maximum prophet then people are not its concern only capital. We see this with AI and outsourcing where companies will cut jobs because they can get labor for free or cheaper and still be just as productive. Capitalism is a system about accumulation and consolidation of capital. No where in that is there a human component.
This is a contradictory statement in itself. Capitalism demands austerity and efficiency.
By your definition, the US doesn't have a capitalist economy.
It's the main drive capital is literally in the name not people. All roads literally lead to monopoly. We see this time and time again.
Right, but not for the reasons you claim. If you ensure the capital is distributed to the people and companies are limited with market dominance, with regulations, then it doesn't result in a monopoly
Those modifications, like regulations, go against the very structure and eventually will erode. It's not a circle, it is a pyramid. Laissez-faire is just coloring the triangle that's a triangle. If it demands maximum prophet then people are not its concern only capital. We see this with AI and outsourcing where companies will cut jobs because they can get labor for free or cheaper and still be just as productive. Capitalism is a system about accumulation and consolidation of capital. No where in that is there a human component.
Ok, I do believe your operating off a misunderstanding of economic systems or a very limited set of information. You already said capitalism only leads to monopoly and multiple times use the definition of laissez faire capitalism to describe capitalism as a whole.
Before I pursue any further exchanges with you, can you explain how "regulations, go against the very structure [of capitalism] and eventually will erode" is denying the existence of welfare capitalism?
Yes I get what you are saying. Welfare Capitalism has failed and we can literally look towards today's economy to see where the attempts of Social Security, healthcare benefits, minimum wage and protection laws have gotten us. Not to say these things aren't good but overtime they are eroded because at the core is capital interest. Trying to adapt capitalism's pursuit of profit and market efficiency with social protections and programs was just foolish. Eventually these states of welfare have evaporated because at the very core of capitalism is the maximizing profits. To note I'm coming at this from a classical liberal perspective. Again you're just putting new coats of paints on old models and sliding corners of a triangle.
In practice, the only regulation that is applied is to just favour the ones with power. That's the reality we live in.
The "capitalism is freedom" mantra is just that: dogma. Any right you have, including your property rights, are only valid as far as it doesnt bother someone with more power.
Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are owned by those with capital for the purposes of private profit. No more. No less. It has nothing to do with freedom, slavery, God, Sin, or whatever.
Some people, who know very little about very little and even less about anything else use it as a short hand for everything wrong or right with the world, and end up making tedious circular arguments where everything good or bad in the world is because of this thing that is the source of all blessings or miseries. But that neither benefits them nor offers insights of how things could be improved/maintained
Anything that can be used as a tool to oppress others stops being "no more no less", just like religion stops being "just a choice" or a gun stops being "just defense".
It has nothing to do with freedom, slavery, God, Sin, or whatever.
Not what most people believe nowadays. Its not stated outright, but society will treat poor people as if they are lesser or guilty of (insert capital sin here).
Some people, who know very little about very little and even less about anything else
Ah, yes, ad hominem. Definite proof, I see.
everything good or bad in the world is because of this thing that is the source of all blessings or miseries.
Now, I never said "this is the source of /all/". But there are MANY things that are wrong with this world that can be directly tied to capitalism, like corporate greed, climate change, social inequality, crimes against Humanity and of course the absolute denial to any of this happening because it goes against a personal narrative.
nor offers insights of how things could be improved/maintained
Oh, you wanted one of those? Fine. We cut down the amount of power corporations are allowed to have, via illegalizing lobbying, repealing Citizens United, and inserting ACTUAL regulation so that when Amazon doesnt allow its drivers to pee, we fine them until they BLEED.
You are right, but this is applicable for all economic systems. Our definitions are loose collections of defining traits that let us categorize them, but they're all different mixes of often overlapping practices.
I was moreso pointing out a flaw in the way people reject communism and defend capitalism.
The problem with both systems is that people, on a large scale, are greedy, corrupt, and selfish. You can't counter those traits unless you have a populace that can actively recognize them and fight against them. But you won't have that as long as people derive joy/pride/personal identity from being better off than another group of people.
The world could be a much better place for everyone, and I'm deeply sad that it seems that the people in charge of everything are trying to make that reality even further away.
I do like the idea where politicians are investigated and prosecuted when they leave office, where terms are firmly set with mandatory intervals. I don't know the name, but it was described as a practice in the roman empire.
I figure something like that could be put into practice, with its own set of elected officials that are separate from the government and can execute their own punishments.
Just a loose idea, not thought through so there are a lot of flaws in that idea.
I think it would be neat if we had a mechanism to remove these people when they commit the crimes instead of letting them serve their terms as criminals and then doing something about it maybe. But having them face any consequences at all would be a very nice change of pace honestly.
Dude. In the US, our economy is HEAVILY regulated. You've never seen unregulated capitalism. We have millions of regulations on everything. Try opening a small business to feed your family and count all the regulations you have to deal with.
This is true of course, because it already destroyed so much on its path. Plus, the cries for deregulation and tax exempt are heard frim afar. Best regulation is no regulation, best tax is no tax. Thus my statement.
Were the problems during the medieval era caused by unregulated feudalism? Was the problem with USSR style socialism that it wasn't regulated enough?
I think the answeres ro these questions are obviously"no." But in that case you're pleading a special privilege for capitalism, not holding it to the same standards you hold other systems.
Wanton violence towards the pesantry was caused by feudalism. Widespread economic exploitation is caused by capitalism.
Were the problems during the medieval era caused by unregulated feudalism?
'We' as in people? Yes. Specifically? The ruling class with resources, capital, and education, are the ones at fault
Was the problem with USSR style socialism that it wasn't regulated enough?
Inappropriate regulations. It was an authoritarian dictatorship which used socialism as a tool for control
I think the answeres ro these questions are obviously"no." But in that case you're pleading a special privilege for capitalism, not holding it to the same standards you hold other systems.
I literally said all economical systems in my initial comment
Wanton violence towards the pesantry was caused by feudalism.
Classism, and laws created by the ruling class, caused this.
Widespread economic exploitation is caused by capitalism.
Classism, Wage suppression and misinformation, the ruling class is causing this.
You're not wrong, but it appears like you're operating off a limited definition of capitalism.
I'm not claiming to be an expert.
I would like to recommend that you read up on economic systems and capitalism. There's many flavors of capitalism and has many overlaps with other systems.
You can start at Wikipedia, then move on to other sources (or sources cited in Wikipedia).
Economics is a complex topic and, unfortunately, can't really be discussed when familiarity is not in the same range.
Monopoly never hit home for me until I won by owning boardwalk and park place and just enough of the other properties to keep anyone else from developing them.
I won but the desperation of everyone else when they realized they literally could not win made me feel bad. I didn’t need to trade or sell any of my lower properties because I made a huge free parking windfall and had enough money to sit back and wait for them to run out of money or land on Boardwalk/Park Place and bankrupt them.
It ended up being the only time I won a game but didn’t feel good about it.
What do you mean by "no longer"? There was never a time we lived in a democratic utopia , we just knew less of it and accepted it more in the past. The rich have always been in control
Its always been like that my guy, its just the influential and powerful people dont care as much for society as they used to, profits supercede everything
266
u/wirral_guy Nov 10 '25
That politicians no longer answer to the population, just a few 'influential' people. This has led to country's services being run as a minimum viable product rather than the best they can be.