Why do people in capitalist countries complain about capitalism

Are they complaining that they are in richest 3% of the entire world?

Are they complaining that they enjoy many luxuries that could not have been possible without innovation and motivation for profit?

Are they complaining about the amount of choice and number of options they have in the things they buy?

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than its alternatives!

 

You've been living off the third world countries, but they are pretty much developed enough now to go on without you.

 

for many, the high levels of economic equality cause great offence

 

What makes you think people complaining about capitalism necessarily want to get rid of it? There are flaws and negatives as there are with any social system but you can make changes to improve and mitigate them.

 

Those who complain about capitalism are doing so because they are too dumb and/or lazy to apply themselves to the best of their ability. So they want what other people work hard for without contributing to it.

The Democrats see this and have no problem buying their votes every 2-4 years. While not caring about the inevitable end result one day. Its a mathematical and historic certainty. One day the left will run out of other peoples money.

 

Because capitalist societies are rich enough that people holding such stupid views are allowed to survive.

 

If you were not so ignorant of economics you would not be saying such stupid things. I complain about capitalism because it is destroying productivity and will eventually destroy the country, the process is already well underway. The reason capitalism is so destructive is because it puts property in “legal privileges” above property in the products of labor, and corruption of government is the result. Maximizing production requires maximizing the rewards for labor, but capitalism allows non-producers to capture a large – and growing – share of production, thereby reducing the rewards of productive labor. In a nut-shell, capitalism encourages rent-seeking, and rent-seeking is very destructive to the economy.

Of course you don't know what rent-seeking is … because you are ignorant of economics. Fortunately, you can cure your ignorance by reading, you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

 

because we have become a nation of the offended the entitled and the lazy and none of that works well with capitalism
but very accommodating with socialism

 

Joseph Schumpeter thought that the modern mass societies created by capitalism would undermine their own success, because they would produce a large class of intellectuals who make a living by attacking capitalism. Schumpeter said that they would "nibble" away at the foundations of capitalism because they thrive on criticism and cannot help themselves. If you agree with Schumpeter then you also have a long history of dictators "dealing" with intellectuals that you may find appealing.

I don't agree that capitalism "doesn't exist in any form" today; what a stupid opinion. How can you say that capitalism doesn't exist? The rate of return on capital has exceeded economic growth since at least 2011.

 

You don't even have a remote clue of what you're talking about. Please go take a basic econ 101 course and come back.... actually, just go take an Econ 101 course

 

The whole purpose of capitalism is to provide a life of idle luxury to landowners … that is not sustainable, hence the welfare state is born.

- - - Updated - - -

So is that a good thing?

 

Never said that, I'm just saying it's clear evidence that the fools who say "we have no capitalism today" are wrong.

 

That has NOTHING to do with capitalism. This is what I meant. Please go read an econ 101 textbook.

There is no "purpose" behind capitalism. Unlike socialism or communism it isn't a manufactured system put in place. Capitalism is NOTHING more than the observation of the workings of a free and fair market. Capitalism is not a system that is put into place. It is simply the market (ie the population) dictating what it does and what it does not want.

And it sure as hell isn't to provide landowners everything. Go take your LVT redistribution of wealth scheme to some other dumbass. Cause this one ain't buying.

 

Good.

I was just curious, because it is mathematically impossible for capital markets to continue to outperform GDP.

 

Don't look at me I was born here, and am a card carrying member of one of the socialist parties. And I'd happily reduce choices and some luxuries to be sure every citizen was taken care of under a central government where at least essential needs were sure to be met.

 

Capitalism doesn't exist in today's world. Whoever said that is 100% correct.

We have mixed economies. The largest type of institution is the corporation, which is a government granted privilege that limits liability. Then we have patents, which protect inventors from competition for a specific time period. Then we have, of course, a government monopoly on infrastructure, roads, etc. Finally, we have the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, and the state government to regulate inner-state commerce.

All of these facts demonstrate irrefutably that our societies are not capitalist, but mixed. And thank god for that.

 

No, capitalism requires the force of government. Private ownership of natural resources is a state granted privilege, an appropriation … without the state to issue and protect the titles, landownership – which is central to capitalism – is impossible. Capitalism was the whole purpose of creating a government in the first place, so that land could be appropriated, and the owners could get rich by charging others for access to the land that nature provided.

“AFTER conquest and confiscation have been effected, and the State set up, its first concern is with the land.... In its capacity as ultimate landlord, the State distributes the land among its beneficiaries on its own terms”. --Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy the State
-------------------------------------------
A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment.... He who plants a field keeps possession of it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of the nation. --Thomas Jefferson

 

Why would you thank God for a system that is more costly, less efficient and far less effective than capitalism?

- - - Updated - - -

That's patently absurd. There's no need for government establishment of private property. A capitalist country could run perfectly fine without a centralized government. All people need to do is protect their own interests. You're just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up because you're jealous of the landowners and want what they have. Like most socialists.

Again, take your LVT redistribution of wealth scheme to someone else.

 

It really all depends on how you define those terms.

Saying socialism is more costly is true in some senses, but not others. Maybe goods get produced less efficiently, due to labour standards, driving their cost up. Of course were you to remove those labour standards, as well as all laws that shield businesses from lawsuits and remove liability from owners, you'd see a lot more lawsuits... And the damages would apply to an owners personal assets instead of simply the value of their shares.

This ties in nicely with efficiency - is it better to have clear legal requirements, or to simply go about your business and hope your lawyer is able to find relevant precedence, after the damage is done?

The simple truth you seem to be ignoring, probably for ideological reasons, is that a mixed economy is a good thing, and that means aspects of both socialism and capitalism. In fact, the Western economy was far less efficient and productive when it didn't have environmental or labour standards in place.

 

So you think the 40 people who hold more than 70% of the wealth than the rest of the country combined, are are that much more productive than everyone else?


Fact. We despise labor, and love capitol. We often forget that without labor, there is no capital.

 

No it can't. The only way for capitalism to exist is for government to use force to appropriate land, otherwise there is no way for land to become privately owned. And we need government to secure property rights, because without government, bullets are the cheapest way to acquire property.

Capitalism is the “redistribution of wealth” scheme … that is why the landowner gets richer and richer while he sleeps, while the landless working people get poorer no matter how hard they work. If the lowest paid workers worked even harder and longer hours, so as to have a little money left over, their landlords would soon see this and increase their rent demands.

Adam Smith wrote about how landowners are economic parasites over 200 years ago, in 'The Wealth of Nations', but this is unknown to you, because you don't know any economics.

The original constitution of the U.S. called for all federal revenue to be collected by land value taxation … but this is unknown to you, because you don't know any economics.

 

LoL They're still being secured by threat of harm whether it's by the government or private enterprise. The method of securing private property is the same regardless. That's true for ANY law. The only thing that validates the law is the threat of harm whether it be physical, financial, emotional or some other type.

You want to claim that the government would be better at doing so because you naively think the government has your best intentions in mind, which it does not. The bureaucrats have THEIR best interests in mind. While this is true for a business as well (they have their best interests in mind), a side effect of a businesses best interests is to have the consumers best interests in mind. If they screw their consumers, the consumers will tell the business to go (*)(*)(*)(*) itself and partake in the businesses competitor who DOES have their best interests in mind. Forcing the first business to either go out of business or conform to what the consumers want.

OTOH government has no competition and government has no need to have the people's best interests in mind because if the people don't like what the government does, the government has the ability to put them in jail, fine them, punish them and in some cases even take their life. This is not a power a business would ever have and even if they did have the power to take lives (ie they were protecting their personal property) they would do so only sparingly and when required because it's not good for business. Government has no concerns like that.

That's ludicrous. Landowners got CRUSHED in this latest economic collapse. To claim that landowners simply get "richer and richer" is an absolute joke. Landowners take risks just like everybody else. The "working people" get poorer and poorer because of any number of a plethora of reasons, ranging from incompetence to acts of nature to a lack of ambition to an unwillingness to take risks etc etc etc. However to simply blame it on landowners who are doing nothing more than profiting off of a resource like EVERY other resource nature has to offer while refusing to acknowledge that those "poor" people have every ability to save up and buy those assets to become "landowners" as well is preposterous

Everybody makes mistakes.

That's because the ONLY people who were considered citizens were landowners. No need to be dishonest. If you can't make your point without doing so, you probably shouldn't try to make your point.

 

Adam Smith's philosophy, just like John Locke's revolved around the rightful ownership of property, which did not include the ownership of property without use, but like Thomas Paine he also believed that property owners owed a ground rent to the public

As for the original US constitution.. it granted voting as an exclusive right of the property owners themselves... this was a form of protecting the rights of the property owner from the non-property owners, because the authors of it believed just as Adam Smith and John Locke did, that property was a vital pillar of the civilized life

 

Says the guy who doesn't understand tax incidence!

 

geofree was referring to the Articles of Confederation with "original constitution".

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

"All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled."