What's up with the recent popular backlash to capitalism?

>>1798703
edgy kids with hippie boomer professors

capitalism beginning to fail

>>1798703
>recent

i dunno man it's almost as if there was a massive bank crash in 2008 that many economies still haven't recovered from and growth remains anemic even in countries that have nowhere to go but up or something

>>1798703
>>1798715

File: last supper.jpg (121KB, 1366x738px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1366x738px

>>1798703
its not recent

>>1798703
Capitalism sucks

2008 recession mostly
it'll keep happening until the proles finally wake the fuck up

File: original.jpg (795KB, 2400x1507px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 2400x1507px

>>1798703
absurds levels of capital concentration

>>1798703
Linked with the anti-globalisation sentiment. Although other suggestions made in this thread are also true.

File: 121212.jpg (220KB, 650x552px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 650x552px

What's up with the """"recent"""" popular backlash to (((jewish))) financial hegemony?

>>1799374
"Globalism" is just basically code for "capitalism when it severely effects me negatively" and all of the idiots on /pol/ and infowars who get riled up against it don't even realize it.

>>1798728
This

>>1799409

Pretty much everyone on /pol/ is in favour of Capitalism with Protectionist policies, which is perfectly reasonable.

File: Take the über pill.jpg (21KB, 442x383px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 442x383px

If anything, I've noticed a large backlash against Marxism in general, and all the forms of ressentiment contained therein: Socialism/etc.

File: 2ec.png (208KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 327x316px

>>1799933
>Protectionism
>Reasonable

>>1799254
>the last supper before the food runs out and everyone starves to death

>>1799409
Not really. Globalisation negates cultural identity, and (increasingly) state sovereignty.
Capitalism promotes the free-market as an economic system.

File: REEEEEE.gif (483KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 785x757px

>>1799936

>Protectionism
>Unreasonable

>>1799936
>he actually fell for the free trade meme

> Have economy with high industrial production and high growth
> Gradually switch into service economy
> Everyone starts working as consultants, sales people, marketers and writers
> Nobody is producing anything, just a bunch of fake-it-till-you-make-it service sector faggots talking out of their ass and jerking each other off
> Lol why is the economy stagnant

>protectionism

socialism for right-wingers :^)

>>1799340
This. Literally <70 individual people hold more than 50% of the world's entire wealth. It's getting increasingly difficult to defend this nonsense.

File: annoyed pepe.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>1799952
>>1799958
>He fell for the disagreeing with universal economic consensus meme

>>1799993
>Protectionism
>Right wing

>>1798703
Just like all systems it has reached its peak with a few people spoiling it for everyone. So a chaotic restructuring will have to happen.

>>1800034
It isn't right wing... but modern right-wingers think populist protectionism i.e. Front National is, just because it has 'lower immigration'. They are lefties who hate brown people.

>>1800034
So why does /pol/ like Trump?

>>1799969
Not sure if correct but interesting comment nontheless.

>>1799254
I see nothing but Judases.

>>1799993
>socialism
>bad

>>1800212
>So why does /pol/ like Trump?

He's an IRL shitposter.

File: seccturk.jpg (34KB, 443x380px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 443x380px

>>1798703
poorfag community growing and growing while thinking their opinions matter

just ignore it by taking a hot bath in your solid gold jacuzzi while listening to some bach and sippin that chateau d’yquem

>>1800775
It was a rhetorical question. Trump IS protectionist and /pol/ does consider themselves rightwing.
Correct me if wrong. Maybe some of them consider themselves Third Position.

Even /pol/ is ideologically diverse.

>>1800032
>universal economic consensus
Heh. You actually believe we live in a world that practices full free trade?

Hint: global trade =/= free trade

>>1800807
>It was a rhetorical question.

Well I gave the real answer.

>>1800813
> You actually believe we live in a world that practices full free trade?
No. I want us too.

>>1798703
>recent

Also, there has always been backlash against any system of hierarchy, ever. It's called "sore loser."

Before the fall of the Soviet Union capitalism had to appear a perfect system that benefit society so people wouldn't turn to communism. After The soviets fell it was pure savagery

>>1798710
And Communism has never been really tried right?.......

>>1800840
A fully free trade world would impode on itself in a few generations.

>>1798703

its a shitty system that people are forced to live and work in, and for the majority this sucks in many ways

but the answer youre looking for is something like liberal academia brainwashing naive western students or something

you sound like some contrarian 12 year old that never worked a day in his life

Capitalism isn't a terrible idea if it's actually managed... and there has been no management. It's been a more of "meh, it'll work itself out" kind of stance.

>>1801052

last 20+ years it was more of a ''push problems under the rug and fire the ones that know too much'' kind of stance

>>1799995

We latifundia now.

>>1798703
Economic stagnation, rightward shift in Western politics, and a decline in Cold War propagandizing.

We'll probably seen a popular communist movement in America by the 2030s.

>>1799391
Quick question, would you be fine with financial hegemony if the 70 people who controlled half our wealth were entirely Protestant?

>>1801212
>Communist uprising
You know they said that a hundred years ago

>>1801230
Not a revolution, but organization comparable to what existed in America during the 30s

>>1800944
Not an argument.

/his/- History and politics

>>1799969
anything i can read/watch that explores this concept

>>1799934
>and all the forms of ressentiment contained therein: Socialism/etc.
collectivism, identitypolitics, mulitculturialism, its retarded, thats why, its worse than 1930s "racical science"

>>1799969
kekxzor, u rite, those big companies is what make peoples lifes go around actually lol, if they didnt create value the west would starve to death...
>dem ebil kapitalistz

>>1801395
>investment banking makes my life go round
Yeah right.

>>1798703
there's been backlash against capitalism from its inception

cant we just say "stable" instead of "stagnant" and recognize constant growth is not sustainable?

>>1799409
>/pol/ is one person

>>1801438
I always hear something about how capitalism requires constant growth, and I wonder why that would be.

>>1798703
>What's up with the recent popular backlash to capitalism?
Where? Backlash against neoliberalism maybe

Communism and Socialism is dead

>>1801448
Lotta layers of irony between these posts

>>1798703
>recent

File: old-man-showing-disgust-closeup-portrait-senior-mature-unhappy-annoyed-sick-business-putting-finger-mouth-something-sucks-40113721.jpg (25KB, 400x275px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x275px

>>1801452
>socialism and communism are the only alternatives to capitalism

>>1801461
?

File: TRUMP background.jpg (46KB, 300x297px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 300x297px

>recent

>>1799946
If your government regulates migrantion, the market isn't really free. Meanwhile, multinationals grow in power putting more and more pressure on governments. And capitalism is about profit, not about cultural identity and state sovereignity so capitalistic interests won't always align with nationalistic interests.

My point is that globalism is capitalism in a small world. Erosion of national identities is the result of a freer global market.

Morons who don't understand economics but pretend that they do understand economics got access to social media

>>1801533
>muh constant growth

>>1798703

>recent

>>1801547
Never said constant growth, nor did I imply it.

If this isn't proof that capitalism is the only way forward, I don't know what is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

Notice all the non-capitalist countries lag behind the capitalist countries, and as those countries start to become capitalistic (see: China) they become wealthier and healthier.

>>1801573
china is more close to facism then capitalism

>>1801481
What do you want? Fucking feudalism?

Distributism is not fundamentally distinct from the tradition of libertarian socialism.

>>1801557
>based as always

>>1801667
>libertarian socialism
why do socialists do this? why do they cling to ideologies that are in no way related to theirs and try to wring from it any kind of support they could muster for their parent ideology? they are like ideological parasites, poisoning and diluting an ideology's message, views, and goals until it's just a lifeless husk.

>>1801730
what the fuck are you even talking about?

>>1801730
Socialists invented the word libertarian you piece of shit

>>1800032

>he unironically believes that there is such a thing as 'consensus of opinion' in economics, let alone one that favors his own bias

top fucking cunt, kiddo.

>>1801730
Why are rightists incapable of reading a fucking book?

>>1801667
facism

>>1801730
Libertarianism originally referred to socialism you retard. Literally the opposite of what you're saying.

File: Screenshot_20161009-142059_1.jpg (234KB, 1066x1331px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1066x1331px

>>1801730
>>1801787

>>1801833
If the means of production are held by private capitalists, it's still capitalism.

I guess it's possible for a fascist to desire full stare control of industry, but why should citizens be so alienated from their own economy?

>>1801878
third positionism isn't capitalistic or socialist

>>1800214
>>1801352

I'm actually not sure.

It's a hypothesis I've been playing around with for the last few months as I've been trying to convert my English degree into a job and noticing that everything the world seems to offer me is an opportunity to exploit; if I turned off the voice in my head expecting me to contribute, I could make decent money working as a 'cultural marketing consultant', whatever that is.

It's almost like there's an inverse correlation between wealth and old-fashioned productivity nowadays; the country I live in has some of the best universities in Europe and almost no unemployment, yet we barely have any industrial production and our economy is sluggish. Everyone I know who is anything appears to be playing into the pyramid scheme; speculating in housing or 'consulting' companies on things like CSR or cultural sensivity, things that might be useful for one person in a million to do but cannot be helpful to have an entire economy revolve around.

I think it would be fascinating for someone to run the hard numbers on it.

>>1799946
>the free market doesn't negate cultural identity
m-muh capitalism dindu nuffin!

>>1801484
Anons who don't like /pol/ for generalizing, generalize /pol/ and anons point out they aren't all like that.

>>1802023

I think whats keeping modern countries afloat is largely the countries being so stable and safe and perceived wealth that they act like giant country sized banks/safe investments.

In short, the countries gets money because its perceived as a safe investment, countries with 'safe investment potential' just keep money flowing between them. Its not factory jobs that keep a country rich, its just that the middle class are all bank employees in these country sized banks, more-or-less.

One war between first world nations and the money dynamic of the world would change overnight. Stock market will crash and suddenly its Brazil and whoever who is on top of the world. Basically who is first world and who is 2nd world is a meme, and who the economic super powers are is based on how many people believe in the meme.

Its all so fucking fragile.

Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

>>1801557
Feels>Reals

t. Evola

>>1798703

I personally was jewed pretty hard by capitalism, the lower-class will always experience the worst parts of capitalism. I can safely say capitalism did in fact ruin my life.

>>1798703
It keeps people poor

>>1799946

in the free market you've fetishized (no one has ever seen it) your identity is just one more fungible commodity

>>1804073

Though I'll admit, I'm probably just 1% of people in capitalist society that get completely screwed over, it's 99% in a communist country.

>>1804098
collective ownership of the means of production has never been achieved

>>1798703

The last "big" productivity boost was computers, but those gains petered out in the mid nineties.

We've just been fighting over an ever shrinking economic pie since then.

>>1798703
Edgy kids discovering the internet and thinking that shitty stuff like communism could work irl

>>1798703
I think in terms of "recent", it's not just "Commies" who are against capitalism, but other groups. There are modern Feudalists who are against capitalism, National Socialists, etc. I think we need to have a discussion on capitalism again, because people aren't happy. Capitalism always inevitably becomes progressive in a utilitarian sense, and people get pissed off and call it unfair and become egalitarians. Each liberty movement in history always devolves into an egalitarian movement.

Not good for bush clinton soros and banks to make a long story short.

Long story short^<

>>1801230
And there was one, anon. There were multiple.
Russia, Germany, Hungary, Yugoslavia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua...

>>1801730
>/pol/ in charge of understanding politics

>>1801223
change protestant to catholic and ye

>>1798703
>What's up with the recent popular backlash to capitalism?
>>1804074
>It keeps people poor
WINRAR

It's an institutionalized system of inequality.

It's just modern feudalism.

The rich are kept rich.

The poor are kept poor.

The poor are kept duped and fooled by some goofy fairy tale about working their asses off and then they can be rich too.

>>1806178
http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/
>70% of Rich Families Lose Their Wealth by the Second Generation


www.fa-mag.com/news/why-wealth-disappears-8227.html
>97% of family businesses do not survive past the third generation, according to the Family Business Institute.

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/family-wealth-heir-children/2014/06/25/id/579236/
> Family Wealth Is 90 Percent Gone By Third Generation

>In 1990, more than 60% of people in East Asia were in extreme poverty. Now only 3.5% are.
http://www.vox.com/world/2016/10/2/13123980/extreme-poverty-world-bank

I fucking despise every single one of you commie retards

What's with the bias against populism and communism? Why can't we all just sit down and discuss these things and their intricacies like educated grown ups do?

Fuck am I kidding lol

>>1799936
>yes yes Poland, specialize only in financial services, surely Germany and Russia won't team up to starve you out.

>>1800032
>universal

What? Krugman himself shills about hitting China back everyday on NYT.

File: 21338488836_400b911b6d_z.jpg (192KB, 640x625px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 640x625px

The grass is greener on the other side. People from Eastern European ex-communist countries are very conservative now, but American and Western European kids are the opposite.

Despite capitalism providing the best standard of living for workers for the whole 20th Century, it's still to blame thanks to lefist hegemony in the academia and how university campuses tend to be Marxist safe spaces despite being for the masses. But it's still true problems like student debt in the US will amplify this. If students end up with a massive debt and no job, certainly that will cause significant social movements.

If there will be a significant move to the left in the US, they'll probably end up looking like a Latin American country. Frankly I don't believe Nordic style welfare system (small homogenous, protestant ethic populations) will work in a much larger country that has too many places like Detroit.

>>1801814
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Opinion_of_economists
> Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among economists is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society.[7][8] In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries."

>Quoting Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw, "Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards."

Free trade is one of the few things that has practically universal economic consensus.

People dismiss the idea of Marxism far too easily. It was a threat to the global market for a reason.

A failed freedom from it. With good intentions. The best intentions.

I always find the failures of history with the most altruistic values of mad men, the more sympathetic side of history than those who would do everything in their power to destroy them piece by piece.

I'm definitely a communist sympathizer of sorts, though more of an anarchist.

>>1806249
See
>>1806270

>>1806291
No one cares about your autistic fantasies.

>>1806301
"Anyone who reads a book is autistic"

t. Someone who will argue all day without having read anything about the subject they're arguing on because they got all their political education from contrarian message boards and image boards

Bad form desu

>>1804863
You goddamned cuck

Be poor. You steal shitloads of money. Get expensive layers, get free,no justice at all. People are seeing this shit more and more.

>>1806310
You didn't even bring up any sort of literature. I called you an autist because that's exactly what you are.

>>1806322
>You didn't even bring up any sort of literature

Do I have to bring up literature on the history and humanities board? Shouldn't you, I don't know, be read on history and humanities before you start to argue with them?

I honestly don't know why you're upset. That we have different opinions on how to organize society? That's not something to get upset over since neither of us are going to get what we want in the end.

>>1806270
This should be posted more often.

>>1806331
>Do I have to bring up literature on the history and humanities board?
But.. you literally just did in your last post...

>That's not something to get upset over since neither of us are going to get what we want in the end.
I'm getting exactly what I want though, from an economic perspective

>>1798703
>0.5% interest rate
>Less than 1% inflation
>1% GDP growth

That's what's the matter. There's a collapse imminent. I'm not even a gommunist but you're a tool if you don't see that something serious is going to happen in the next few years. US monetary policy is broken and US government can't enact any fiscal policy due to deadlock. Even if we got some fiscal injection it's likely to lead to massive inflation.

tl;dr capitalism is about to fail stockpile guns and food

>>1806383
Don't be so retarded, nothing so extreme is going to happen in the near future.
Although the "end" is getting near.

The system first showed its flaws in the 80's, then we had that massive bubble pop in the beginning of the milennium, then 2008. The cycles are getting shorter.
And why? because no-one in economics really know how to get us out of the hole we dug and put ourselves in. So they do some last minute emergency heart bypass to the economy and let it continue like this.

People must choose to die the slow death of deflation in hopes of the economy picking itself up eventually, with the right incentive (what Japan has been trying to do, and failing because of that lack of right incentive at the right time) or let it all burn in an hyperinflation episode so the economy resets itself (and the cycle is fully renewed). People just don't want hyperinflation because they're terrified of shot-term problems and no country is going to let a big country go into hyperinflation, because that would fuck the entire world into hyperinflation and shit (that's why they keep propping themselves with debt to each other).

No guns and anarchy will come, though. At least anarchy.

>>1800944

>the only possible alternative to capitalism is communism


kek'd and check'd

>>1806270
Pick up an introductory textbook of economics, and your chances of finding an objective assessment of free trade are very low indeed. Instead, what you’ll find between the covers is a ringing endorsement of free trade, usually in the most propagandistic sort of language. Most likely it will rehash the arguments originally made by British economist David Ricardo, in the early 19th century, to prove that free trade inevitably encourages every nation to develop whatever industries are best suited to its circumstances, and so produces more prosperity for everybody. Those arguments will usually be spiced up with whatever more recent additions appeal to the theoretical tastes of the textbook’s author or authors, and will plop the whole discussion into a historical narrative that insists that once upon a time, there were silly people who didn’t like free trade, but now we all know better.

What inevitably gets omitted from the textbook is any discussion, based in actual historical examples, of the way that free trade works out in practice That would be awkward, because in the real world, throughout history, free trade pretty consistently hasn’t done what Ricardo’s rhetoric and today’s economics textbooks claim it will do. Instead, it amplifies the advantages of wealthy nations and the disadvantages of poorer ones, concentrating capital and income in the hands of those who already have plenty of both while squeezing out potential rivals and forcing down wages across the board. This is why every nation in history that’s ever developed a significant industrial sector to its economy has done so by rejecting the ideology of free trade, and building its industries behind a protective wall of tariffs, trade barriers, and capital controls, while those nations that have listened to the advice of the tame economists of the British and American empires have one and all remained mired in poverty and dependence as long as they did so.

>>1798703
The people who want to rule the world are not capitalists in any way, shape or form. I think this list is exhaustive:

1. Communists
2. Catholics
3. Muslims
4. NWO crowd
5. All of the above.

>>1798710
...says increasingly nervous marxist for the uptenth time

>>1798728
fourth post best post?

>>1806520
There’s a rich irony here, because not much more than a century ago, a healthy skepticism toward the claims of free trade ideology used to be standard in the United States. At that time, Britain filled the role in the world system that the United States fills today, complete with the global empire, the gargantuan military with annual budget to match, and the endless drumbeat of brushfire wars across what would one day be called the Third World, and British economists were accordingly the world’s loudest proponents of free trade, while the United States filled the role of rising industrial power that China fills today, complete with sky-high trade barriers that protected its growing industries, not to mention a distinctly cavalier attitude toward intellectual property laws.

One result of that latter detail is that pirate editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica were produced and sold by a number of American firms all through the 19th century. Most of these editions differed from their British originals in an interesting way, though. The entry for “Free Trade” in the original editions repeated standard British free-trade economic theory, repeating Ricardo’s arguments and dismissing criticisms of free trade out of hand; the American editors by and large took the trouble to replace these with entries critiquing free trade ideology in much the same terms I’ve used in this post. The replacement of pro- with anti-free trade arguments in these pirate editions, interestingly enough, attracted far more denunciation in the British press than the piracy itself got, which shows that the real issues were tolerably well understood at the time.

>>1806534
When it comes to free trade and its alternatives, that level of understanding is nowhere near so common these days, at least in the United States—I’ve long suspected that businessmen and officials in Beijing have a very precise understanding of what free trade actually means, though it would hardly be to their advantage just now to talk about that with any degree of candor. On this side of the Pacific, by contrast, even those who speak most enthusiastically about relocalization and the end of corporate globalism apparently haven’t noticed how effectively tariffs, trade barriers, and capital controls foster domestic industries and rebuild national economies—or perhaps it’s just that too many of them aren’t willing to consider paying the kind of prices for their iPods and Xboxes that would follow the enactment of a reasonable tariff, much less the prices that would be required if we had the kind of trade barriers that built the American economy and could build it again, and American workers were paid American wages to make them.

>>1806520
>Breaking news, intro econ books simplify economic models
>every nation in history that’s ever developed a significant industrial sector to its economy has done so by rejecting the ideology of free trade
That's so grossly wrong it edges on willfully spreading malicious information

Thanks to free trade, the last 30 years has seem the steepest decline of extreme poverty ever in all of history. The people today in Africa and Asia live better lives than every before. Sorry for exploiting them though

>>1802023
>>1803902
this is something that I'm also pretty interested too.

It seems were reaching the peak of this 30/40 year old experiment in the west with "service based economies" that are basically completely supported on finance, speculation and credit.
Now, people who were left out of this system are starting to complain via people like Trump, and at the same time the entire structure of this experiment is slowly eroding: 2008 set the warning, but the issues still remain (see:Deutsche Bank for one)

The entire dotcom bubble 2.0 going on right now is also pretty interesting and adds to this whole thing. GoPro or twitter being evaluated as they are is just bonkers

>>1806561
The dot com bubble set the warning, 2008 was a wake up call and the next one is going to be a slap on the face. People won't wake up though.

>>1806570
What could set it off?

>>1806835
At this moment it seems a new dot com bubble might pop.
Right now you have retarded amounts of money being funneled into this social sites companies, and a stacking amount of borrowing and debt accumulating because of that.
Alternatively (if you're american) student debt.

>>1806835
The utter and total collapse of fiat currency.

Duh.

>>1798703
lazy broke people are furious at the results of being a worthless parasite but too irresponsible to acknowledge that its because they are a worthless parasite

>>1801597

the two are not mutualy exclusive

>>1806263

evrerione goes trough a phase in colledge years when he or she is a marxist/anarchist/nihilist/nationalist/atheist/religious/feminist/antifeinist.... whatever quasy intellectual mental masturbation best fits the particular 18-20 year old

it realy means nothing and has little effect on real politics one way or the other

>>1806859
Big leap there

>>1806520
>>1806534
>>1806535
At first I was shocked as to how someone so wrong could have put that amount of effort and praxxing into their posts, but it's just a horrible copypasta.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/structure-of-empires.html

>>1806532
Strawmans only hurt your side.

>>1798728
>>1799340
What these niggas said

>>1807553
everything he said is correct though. economists are historically illiterate

>>1806859
But how will this currency collapse?

>>1798703
Edgy teens from 2nd and 1st world counties who dont know how good they have it is.

See the French and Russian revolutions

>>1808184
But both countries were radically improved by their revolutions

>>1799946
you didn't contradict anything

globalism is capitalism when it doesn't suit you

>>1799969
>>1802023
It's true.

Without manufacturing you have no core supply of profit to leverage into financial gains. Every single piece of profit made pushing paper is just taking a cut of the actual value produced in the factory.

Since the west no longer has any of these things it will stagnate.

Michael Hudson has run the numbers on it already.

>>1801230
The New Deal was actually conservative, it happened to satiate the violent uproars when the Great Depression hit.

>>1804070
>Free-market
>Real

>>1801915
How is it not capitalistic?

communism will win out in the end

>>1798703
>recent
NOT /HIS/ RELATED

captcha: poste NO

>>1806270
Okay, first of all
>economics
>not a pseudo-science

But excusing that for a second, when economists say "free trade is good" they are talking about their special snowflake thought experiment theory trade that is never applied to real life. To believe in the specific type of "free trade" that is always good we have to ASSUME
1. At least two perfectly rational human agents
2. Perfect information
3. A relationship completely devoid of any coercion
4. Everything exchanged is completely self made or universal justice where all "property" is universally agreed upon and non-controversial
5. No externalities
then perfectly voluntary exchange of commodities among the actors. Does that strike you as something that ever happens in reality? This is "free trade" in neoclassical lala land. Of course it's not bad, it's defined in such a tortured way that any real life complication that could be bad is excused away.

If you start talking about real life without the spherical cow "trade" you start getting tons of caveats. Read some of the actual comments by the agrees

>Gains and losses are not spread evenly. Retraining programs are an important part of trade policy
>Economists often understate short-term employment costs, which are significant and unequally distributed
>Note that not everyone is better off.
>General message of trade theory. But the question is how long the "long run" is.
>Do current policies fully compensate displaced workers? Probably not
>Nevertheless, there are winners and losers. Trade does not make everybody better off
>In theory the workers who lose their jobs can be compensated by the consumers who gain. In practice this often does not happen.

>>1809992
this man knows

File: 1472380525946.png (138KB, 640x479px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 640x479px

>>1798710
>>1800944
>>1806516

folk all your ideas are terrible anarcho-primitivism is the way to go

File: 1469041672404.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

>>1809992
As a programmer, I would say that capitalism is a good enough system simply because it works on the principle of "swarm intelligence".

For those who are not familiar with the term, swarm intelligence is a phenomenon, where a huge amount of agents with imperfect information will make the swarm better off by focusing on their own good being. This makes the agents make local decisions depending on their own local circumstances.

Obviously this doesn't apply to every area of life. But it fits capitalism perfectly. In order for an agent to make his life good, that agent must create more "value", by buying existing "value" from other agents and converting that into more "value" and than selling it to someone else. This causes the total value of the system to constantly increase, opening up more and more possibilities.

Of course, the agents can make bad decisions - but the sheer number of agents doing "okay" decision will simply outweigh those bad decisions.

File: leftypol neckberds 3.jpg (184KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 960x720px

>>1798703

What's up with the recent influx of commie neckbeard redditors in this board?

>>1810465
>Of course, the agents can make bad decisions - but the sheer number of agents doing "okay" decision will simply outweigh those bad decisions.

What would even be a "bad" decision in this context?

Simply by buying goods, you are doing something "good" by capitalism's standard, and that's literally irrespective of you buying a car or an ounce of heroin from your dealer.

>>1810478
I meant a "bad" decision from the agent's point of view. An agent buying luxuries when it is struggling with money, is not really the brightest of decisions.

Also, some of the drug cartels are doing a sort of decision that is very for good for them but fucks the system over. They stash their fat stacks of money and never really do anything with it once its amount crosses managable threshold. This is figuratively freezing and/or destroying value of the system. However, the other agents will still be producing more value into the system, so those drug cartels are simply slowing the production of value.

>>1810510
>An agent buying luxuries when it is struggling with money, is not really the brightest of decisions.

For him maybe not, but for the system, it sure is.

>>1810476
Most of the anticapitalists on this board are fascists or """"traditionalists""""" though.

File: leftcuck 11.jpg (103KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1280x720px

>>1810519

But most of the criticisms of capitalism ITT come from a (((marxist))) persepctive

>>1806203
>I fucking despise every single one of you commie retards
Not a commie.

I hate being poor.

I won't commit crimes.

I don't have enough money to make investments and get rich.

No matter how much I work and no matter how much I make it's never enough to pay the bills.

So fuck you rich fuck I'm coming to take your shit.

Fuck this fucking shit.

>>1810476
>Only leftists are against capitalism
kys

>>1798703
Crony capitalism deserves all of the criticism it gets.

>>1806933
>Hundreds of thousands of voters being Marxists has no effect on the economy.

>>1806933
>Hundreds of thousands of voters being Marxists has no effect on the economy. Good goyim.

>>1810824
>Jews dislikes capitalism

>>1798703
Because capitalism a shit.

>>1810476
It's not recent

>>1810809
That's true though

>>1810955
except it isn't

>>1810965
Every movement against capitalism is left-wing, except for Islamism and other neofeudal reactionary movements.

Distributism is very left. Fascism is collaborationist rather than authentically anticapitalist.

>>1798703
Because the rich get richer and work hours increase while wages are stagnant in western world.

There is no trickle down economy, if anything there is trickle up economy, where the profit made from labour of everyone benefits only the uppermost people in the chain of command.

>>1810809
>>1810965
[citation needed]

>>1810990
>labour
kys

>>1810809
>>1810965
"Aryan capitalism" is still capitalist you dumb fucking classcuck

>>1804863
>2016
>being a catholic

File: 1451744888045.jpg (104KB, 449x642px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 449x642px

>>1799340
>>1799995
Can someone please explain the problem with that to me? Redistribution of wealth leads to faster inflation and won't help the poor in the long run. Why don't we focus on making the quality of life for the poor better and not making everyone worse off.

>>1804863
this desu

>>1811040
The global economy is handled by several hundred profit-seekers who take no interest in the welfare of those they dominate.

>>1811079
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americans-are-worlds-most-charitable-top-1-provide-13rd-of-all-donations/article/2580876

>>1811040
Increasing inequality is one of the hallmarks of a declining country. In a country that focuses on being strong and influential, a healthy and burgeoning middle class is essential but now that is shrinking, at least in America.

Oligarchies are always frowned upon because rich people don't necessarily consider the interests of the nation to be important.

>>1804863
>>1811063
Why do you want to be lorded over and oppressed?

Bootlickers are pretty sad, really.

>>1811086
>rich people don't necessarily consider the interests of the nation to be important.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/03/here-are-the-worlds-biggest-charity-donors-were-talking-billions-5276452/

>>1811083
Charity is bullshit. Not only is it a horribly inefficient means of redistribution, but it makes heroes out of people who give back the smallest portion of their wealth that is already extracted from exploitation. Much of the time, charity is just used as a way for the wealthy to avoid paying their share of taxes.

If you want to help the poor, stop robbing them.

>>1811106
>a horribly inefficient means of redistribution
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427891/top-10-wasteful-government-expenses
>$3.1 billion on vacation for federal employees placed on administrative leave
Yeah charity is really inefficient. We need the state to waste our own money.

>>1811091
Catholics are just better people.

>>1811105
See >>1811106

Charity payments almost always have a secondary goal in mind. Not that that's inherently bad, but it's far from some altruistic devotion to society.

To be honest, I'm not against making tons of money. I think in the proper circumstances, it's fine. But when a nation is in trouble, all citizens from every walk of life should feel that it's their duty to assist. Rich people, unlike other people, are given a chance to not have to participate in their country's society. They don't have to pay taxes, which is the unavoidable obligation the rest of us face.

This isn't about right or wrong, or helping the poor or lauding the hard working rich. It's about maintaining the stability of the nation's economy and overall well-being so future generations can continue to enjoy the same or better standard of living which leads to better political stability which in turns fuel economic growth.

>>1811001
>thord position
>capitalism

>>1811134
I 100% agree. But I also believe that generally the rich, as a whole, tend to give their fair share, and it is unfair to generalize a group of people for their income whether large or small. Some of the rich are selfish bastards, some poor people are selfish bastards.

>>1801223
Considering a majority of America considers itself protestant that would make sense.

File: 1285187017469.jpg (46KB, 677x479px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 677x479px

Say what you want about feudalism, but a plot of land, a house, a family, and security are a pretty good deal in exchange for tending your lord's fields and mines and whatnot. Think about the demographic problems in the West. Young adults don't have access to proper family homes, nor are they incentivized to form families. You could look at that from a thousand angles, but really it's just circumstance. People take the path of least resistance, so it's a structural problem. The way we've organized society is obviously wrong. Profits may be up (for some) but is morale? Does anyone in the West care that Africa, India and China went from living on $2 a day to $4 a day, or whatever; does that in any way fundamentally fix our problems? So what if capitalism brought the developing world out of poverty. We're not them. And people like Borlaug contributed to the problem by creating even more competition over resources. If you're just looking at the books, sure, Europe and the Anglosphere are doing fine. Some of the best places on Earth. But just past the surface level, it's all fucked up. A trajectory of non-existence, really. Capitalism and communism work for an elite of stateless, faithless, tribeless people. Lip service and breadcrumbs are paid to the rest.

>>1809890
/his/ isn't exclusively history, history faggot.

>>1806270

>n=83
>only Americans surveyed
>survey issued prior to 2008
>87.5%
>universal consensus

I can see you are just memeing now, my son.

>>1806846
god student debt drives me up the wall, especially because i'm terrified of having to take out loans at some point just to pay for my college

>>1799340
Scweppes is a coca-cola product.

>>1811122
We shouldn't spent any money to repair poverty. We should work to stop poverty from existing.

>>1811131
Judaism is more humanistic than Catholicism imo

Although both blow Prods and Muslims out of the water

>>1811141
If private individuals control industry it's still capitalism my dude

>>1810563
>Anything I don't like is Jewish I'm voting for Trump though

>>1811518
I'm pretty sure it's a Pepsi-co product, the place I work at only stocks Pepsi-co products and that's the Ginger Ale we have.

File: 1476098832467.jpg (80KB, 766x960px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 766x960px

>people can't discuss the merits of communism with nuance at all, both its negatives and its positives, and the red scare is still in full effect
>north korea russia russia north korea china russia death toll black book of communism how dare you

>>1811624
To be fair, Marx was actually a Jew. He was sharply critical of Judaism and had nothing to do with the culture, but he was born a Jew.

>>1811641
And. So are a lot of people. Statistically speaking, one of your childhood friends were. Someone you knew or know was.

I doubt they tried to rub their hands together and say what an awful person you were for being silly goyim.