Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "Capitalism Isn't Cool | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report" video.
-
36
-
33
-
10
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Josh Hiebert
Seems like I misread your comment about depression. I assumed you wanted sources for that.
1. No, but Myspace used to be gigantic and people couldn't believe that it could ever fall down. People leave companies the moment they see some one offering better service.
2. Regional monopolies? Just because certain area has only one shop. That doesn't mean that would be the case for rest of the eternity. In fact... Funny fact. According to you it should be illegal that one area in middle of nowhere would have only one service provider. Regardless that companies would bankrupt in certain regions if there was extra provider.
The moment they "abuse" the prices, is the moment when the competition arrives. Not only that... no, there isn't monopolies in real sense. Let's give an example...
You own all the cows in the USA. Now you have "monopoly over cows and milk". You raise price of 1kg beef and 1l milk to 1 000 dollars.
As result... No one would buy your products. They are overpriced, so instead they will buy beer, pig meat etc.... You see, companies aren't just competing with people who provide same services. They compete with other service providers as well.
"and of course there aren't any real monopolies, they're against the law."
Fun fact that is a lie. Government takes bribery money from other companies in order to prevent competition. With these lobby money they will create regulations that makes it near impossible for new competition to arrive. Which means, that there will be one or two mega corporations and couple very small ones that are barely hanging there. This way they achieve "monopoly", while ensuring that free market won't do it's job to defeat monopoly.
3. You sure as hell seem to love it. How about instead of being vague, you would actually make it clear what you are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
+Vantahawk
"A bit of history would tell you that capitalism was a nightmare for the vast majority of western populations during the Gilded Age"
It takes time to build up wealth in society. Even marx himself admitted that capitalist system was best system to achieve this. Even in his life time he was able to see the rapid growth caused by capitalism.
"nothing short of corporate feudalism."
Funny that you mentioned feudalism. Since socialism is feudalism in disguise. Political elite controlling all means of productions and every aspect of your life. Even who you can vote.
"It was only in the 20th century when the infusion of strong social democracy into most western societies (New Deal and general reforms in Europe) basically 'tamed' capitalism through regulations, worker rights and major wealth distribution, single handedly creating the middle class."
Worker's rights were granted by corporations who figured out that dissatisfied workers do worse job. Major wealth distribution? What have you been smoking? You clearly aren't living in reality.
Let's give example of nordic countries. They are all free market capitalist countries. They simply provide extented welfare. Now you are probably stupid enough by thinking that this tax money comes by taxing the rich. But in reality corporate tax rate is around 20-25% in each nordic country.
Taxes are directly added to the products. Which ends up hurting the poor the most.
Not only that but they have small population, which allows them to sustain such welfare system, due law of supply and demand. With bigger population it would be unsustainable. All of this have literally nothing to do with creating middle-class. Giving welfare to people who don't have jobs, doesn't turn them in to middle-class. They are still lower class.
What created middle-class was capitalism, and this was true even in marx's opinion.
"not at distribution and creating effective liberty for the lower and working class."
False, in capitalist countries the lower and working class have never been better. In fact under capitalism they all have change to increase their "class". Also classes don't exists in modern west. It's purely social construct based on your income level. In the past class was based on where you were born.
"Just odd that, if you are right, the vast majority of adults don't all turn libertarian eventually. "
Fast majority of people don't put any thoughts on politics, economics and history. Humanity by their nature is authoritarian. However fast majority of older generation ends up being capitalists. This has been the case since forever.
"Maybe it has to do with American libertarianism being some religious idealism that is devoid of any and all empirical considerations."
Greatest country on the planet was originally founded on libertarian ideals. Switzerland is also highly libertarian society and is very successful even though it's landlocked. New Zealand after embracing libertarianism became economic power in the east. Not to mention that more free the economy and the people is, the better the country is doing and having less corruption (look up into corruption index and economic freedom index).
All this points out that empirically, libertarianism is actually strongest form of governance if you truly wish to have happy population.
"At least socialism tries to address the real human condition instead of pontificating on idealised naturalistic concepts."
Religion tries as well. In fact every system tries. Including libertarianism. Difference is... Libertarians take realistic approach and doesn't try to change society against human nature. But to take human nature into account. Socialism has single handedly caused more misery on the planet than any other system.
"And lastly regarding the old Nazi Germany=socialism trope: Yes, Hitler made use of nationalisation and generally somewhat social democratic means, never abandoning capitalism however."
Germany was democratic socialist country. Also he did abandon capitalism. He created new kind of socialism. Where instead of government owning means of productions, they instead control it.
"Virtually everyone accepts that Hitler was not that horrible because of what he did on economic issues but what he did on social issues (for obvious reasons)."
Expect the power he had over economics allowed him to cause the social issues. If you understood anything over politics and history you would've realized this.
"Germany had barely anything to do with economic policy but everything to do with 'Arian' supremacy."
Once again another falsehood. It wasn't about Arian supremacy. It was about securing future of german people. You are historically most illiterate person I have ever met. You clearly didn't even know what caused Hitler to end up in power in the first place. You have no clear idea of context what German people went through before it. Nor you have any ideas of his campaign promises and his personal speeches. You probably didn't even know that he tried to do peace with Britain several times.
Did you even know that jews declared war on him before he started to lynch them? Yes look it up, there are old newspaper articles about it.
Whole idea of him was to ensure that German would be independent from foreign forces. He saw capitalism as weapon used by jews against germany.
1
-
+Vantahawk
"I never argued against capitalism being good at creating wealth, I explicitly pointed that out."
Then you should understand why it takes while for country to grow to the state where all people are well off?
In comparison north korea and south korea. You probably didn't know that North-Korea after the war was better off than South-Korea. But thanks to Capitalism that South-Korea adopted, they became wealthy country where citizens were far better off than in North-Korea. Of course it took couple decades to build the wealth to that level.
"Yet you didn't address the Gilded Age being a needlessly shitty time nonetheless. "
I precisely did address it. You simply weren't smart enough to get it. I pointed out that it takes time to build up wealth. If country is poor, it cannot afford welfare state. It's precisely only possible through capitalist economic system after it's wealth level has increased to that point. You say that it was a cruel time. While ignoring that during communism people constantly suffered from shortages and famines. Gilged Age was still better in comparison to the socialist countries.
"Capitalism could already have been reformed a lot earlier to make things better for lower classes and still retain its productivity but that didn't happen, wonder why..."
You cannot reform things to make it better for others if you lack wealth to do so. Also welfare is not sustainable. Especially if you have high population. It only works in nordic countries precisely because they have less than 10 million people living in huge territory. Anyone with working brains should understand that less population there is and more resources they have access... The easier time they will have.
Poverty generally happens when there isn't enough resources in the territory. Third world countries will always be poor as long as they have higher amount of population than their territory can sustain.
"You are describing authoritarian state socialism,"
That is the inevitable destiny that happens under socialism.
" something virtually nobody advocates for anymore. "
Literally most socialists on the planet.
"No mention of democracy, remaining liberal social policy or market socialism."
What does democracy has to do with this? Soviets started as democracy. Nazi germany started as democracy. Social policies are not socialism, and market socialism is just idiotic.
" Ahh sure, unions, worker activism and mass strikes never played any role in persuading those corporations, right?.."
Not really, already forgot ford? In fact it has been well proven that unions were one of the lead causes why Detroit became ghost city. Also there is nothing inherently bad in unions. That is simply collective bargaining. You can take them as mercenary group.
"Pointing out the corporate tax of nordic countries turns out to be rather mute."
Not at all, since it points out that nordic countries doesn't punish the rich like you people want them to. In fact they favor them greatly.
"The US has the highest corporate tax rate of all western countries yet it is the shittiest at wealth distribution."
This is where your lack of knowledge comes in. The taxation doesn't work as wealth distribution. All you do is that you take all that wealth and give it in hands of corrupted bureaucrats and politicians. It's far more inefficient to let government have tax money to "distribute it" than let people on their own decide how to use them.
"That however has to do with excessive tax loopholes,"
We have exact the same tax loopholes in here.
"The middle class as we know it didn't exist around Marx' times."
Yes middle-class of today's world is doing better than in marx time. But if you had actually read his literature his work actually perfectly describes modern middle class.
"one that is useful however since it correlates with harsh differences in social life and opportunity."
"Harsh" lol... spoiled western kid thinks that western world is harsh and doesn't provide enough opportunity for talented people. What do you know about harsh? Is it that harsh to save your money for you school? Is it that harsh that your parents pay your school? Is it that harsh that you have freedom to choose the way you live your life? Apparently it's harsh to have responsibility over your own life.
"If you want to go on and tell me that the effective difference between a homeless person and a billionaire is merely 'constructed' then I think I'm done here."
You clearly aren't intelligent enough to figure out how someone ended up being homeless or billionaire in the first place. I bet you believe that neither of them had nothing to do with their own life decisions, flaws and talents. We live under meritocracy. You're not a homeless unless you're mentally so ill that you decided to fuck your own life up. And this comes from a person who had experienced homelessness. You're part of the very class that you want to murder, and I'm part of the class that you wish to put in charge of everything.
"No country "adopted libertarianism" "
New Zealand, Switzerland, Sweden... etc..
"hat is a meaningless phrase given how broad the term is and as it describes minarchist and anarchist concepts."
Whatever you think about it. it's generally linked with freedom of individuals. And more freedom the people have in their country, the more flourishing it's. That is a statistical fact.
"the core criticism that all forms of socialism have in common goes toward the hierarchical structure in private enterprises."
Yes... Apparently it's wrong to decide what to do with your own property that you used your resources to create. Common idiocy of socialists.
" that still does not refute your error of category. "
There was no error. Only you being ignorant. It's precisely because state controlled every aspect of people's lives that they were capable of committing genocide. There is no rebellion when people's livelihood depends on state. There is no rebellion when private industry is controlled by the state and can ensure that you're incapable to fund such thing.
"Just on that thing about jews planning to lynch Hitler"
Never said anything about them planing to lynch Hitler. It's historical fact that they declared war on Germany far before final solution. Google it up.
1
-
Josh Hiebert
1. They were biggest company in said markets. You can be big and even have monopoly without hitting one billion revenue.
" truly big companies don't go under, they ether get bailed out"
Bailouts only happen with government intervention. It's no longer free market capitalism when government intervenes. You actually proved my point. Monopoly can't exists without government.
" or acquired and merged by a competitor on their way down. "
Assuming that competitor will want to merge or sell their company. Not the case every time. And how long can you keep up buying your competition off? It's costly and not profitable.
2. It doesn't make sense to you since you didn't think it through. It seems that you don't understand implications of banning monopoly. It literally makes it illegal to be only one providing service.
" If an area cannot support competition then it will indeed remain a monopoly for eternity."
Seems like you're not the brightest person around. First of all, there is this thing as growth in population. More population there are the more services they need. Not only that, but if you increase the prices of the products to the point that they are too high. Then anyone who appears as new competition. Will outright steal all of your customers. Since now they hate you for making ridiculously high prices. There is no way you can compete with new one anymore. Please never create business or become manager/CEO you're clearly incapable to be good one.
Therefore, the monopoly status can't last forever. There are multiple things that can destroy it. One could also be technological development.
"If I was ever referring to a 'True Monopoly' i would refer to it as such, but I never did, so once again you are putting words in my mouth."
"true monopoly" words in your mouth? You're being vague and moving the goal post. In fact this seems to be "no true Scotsman" argument.
It's impossible there to ever come monopoly so huge that it covers all markets without government assistant. Do you have any idea what sort of management issues they would have? They would collapse due their own inefficiency. Smaller command structures are far better than overly complex and big. It's management nightmare to own monopoly that literally provides every service on the planet. Which is also one of the reasons why socialism fails.
"It's not a lie, read about United States antitrust law. Just because they do a shit job of enforcing it, doesn't mean it's not against the law."
It's a lie if you think that said law prevented anything. I repeat, they simply formed new kind of monopoly that is backed up by the government. Tyranny of regulations.
"Ya, that's a 'pseudo-monopoly', like I said. "
Still doesn't remove the fact that it's monopoly. Your government only pretends to prevent monopolies. While in fact politicians love them just like you do.
"1. You are advocating Laissez-faire economics, which would be the purest form of capitalism."
It's proven to be most efficient and fairest form of economics.
"2. You think I'm advocating Socialism or Communism because I am criticizing the current form of Capitalism, which ISN'T Laissez-faire capitalism; Which I'm not, pure socialism/communism goes against all of human nature. On the other hand, Capitalism is the crystallization of human nature. Neither are "good" or "bad" inherently, one just works far better with our nature than the other."
You are avoiding answering what you are. I take it that this is because you fear of getting harsh criticism toward your naive thinking. Current economic model in USA is Keynisian economics. Which has been debunked decades ago. But politicians and left wing get's their dicks hard over it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1