>tfw out of all the ideologies competing for world domination

>>3231494
>capitalism can be summarized as "dude just buy shit"

Look, I'm not a gay anarcho-capitalist, Mises cocksucking fuccboi, but can we stop with the oversimplifications?

>at least... nationalism socialism had a purpose

What's its purpose? Killing Jews?

>>3231507
I think the op is referring to Keynesian economics

>>3231494
>At least communism or national socialism had a purpose
That's one of the reasons they failed. Only weak men want ready-made purpose handed to them. Capitalism creates conditions of prosperity in which every strong man has the opportunity to choose his own purpose. When combined with decent social safety nets, it's also not a bad system for weak men to live in.
Note: I'm not using weak and strong as moralistic value judgments. For the most part, the strong are just lucky enough to have been born with certain gifts or have had certain opportunities growing up. Nonetheless...

>>3231537
Cont. When strong men can choose their own purpose and direct their focus based on their own perceptions, they usually make society as a whole stronger than if purpose is handed down from the top.

>>3231514

I threw Mises' name in there because his followers are the most zealous defenders of capitalism, but OP implying Keynesian economics is some nihilist dogma is stupid. Government spending brought about cycles of spending that increased employment and prosperity regardless of the form of the spending. For example, a $100 million government project, whether to build a dam or dig and refill a giant hole, might pay $50 million in pure labor costs. The workers then take that $50 million and, minus the average saving rate, spend it at various businesses. These businesses now have more money to hire more people to make more products, leading to another round of spending. This idea was at the core of the New Deal and the growth of the welfare state.

Hardly the "purposeless" pursuit OP thinks it is.

File: 1468020120668.png (1MB, 1440x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x1440px

>>3231541
>Cont.
>when you're not even close to the char limit

>>3231545

>2017 and people still fall for the "government creates jobs" meme

File: b66065f2368f5a900514ff0c4b6a247ce8fe9894a4ed65ce5bc69fefaf3079b3.jpg (48KB, 500x351px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x351px

>>3231545
You do realize that that 100 million that the government spent on the project was taxed from the people, right? Like it was money that they already had and, as you specified in your scenario, half of it was lost in material costs. In effect the government just threw away half of the money that they taxed from the citizens and then turned around and gave the other half back just so that they could look like heros.

>>3231545

t. Keynesian """"economist""""

>>3231700
The definition of a recession is that there is productive capacity that is not being used.

The opportunity cost from having able bodied, qualified people out of work is higher than the bureaucratic cost of giving them money to get them spending again

The real secret is to do all of your infrastructure work during recessions, so that you get shit done that needed to be done anyway.

File: 1472224818604.jpg (64KB, 720x552px)

64KB, 720x552px

>>3231537

>>3231757

American here, can confirm. This is why Obama building roads helped boom the economy overnight

File: 1491854101053.jpg (23KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x640px

>>3231757
But why does it need to be government spending though? Wouldn't the costs of having businesses going back to production once they have deemed the risks of operation less discouraging than the potential rewards offered be empirically cheaper and more efficient? Governments used to let the the market correct itself without digging itself, and its taxable citizens, into debt by trying to artificially stimulate it. No matter how you look at it, the recession will kick everybody in the teeth so why do you need to guarantee that the public will be paying of its debts for generations to come? The fault of Keynesian economics is that it is myoptic and relies WAAAY too much on the govenment to be both investor and central planner despite the overwhelming evidence that the government acting as either is inefficient and harmful, assuming that the government is already both competent and benevolent.

There are better ways out of debt and setting precedences where the government is the highest authority on the distribution of resources while at the same spending so recklessly that it could be believed that the state is TRYING to put us in debt is one option that pretty much everyone with a lick of forsight is wholeheartedly against.

The secret is that big "economic crisis'" are just an opportunity for the state to step in and act like a hero while at the same time tightening the noose around our necks.