I cannot come up with a positive end-game scenario for free market capitalism, amirite?

I would have to think the idea is that it doesn't end…

by Bruentoney 2 weeks ago

Yeah, I don't understand what "endgame" OP is talking about. Capitalism is an economic system, it's not designed to have an end.

by SportSouthern7554 2 weeks ago

Capitalism is a fine system as long as you have some level of talent and a good work ethic. Hell you can probably get by with one of those. If you have neither then you might have a problem.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

No talent or work ethic? Sounds like management material to me.

by Bruentoney 2 weeks ago

In a finite system, unlimited growth is impossible. We do not have infinite space or resources, and capitalism is based on perpetual growth - where does that lead us?

by Breitenbergartu 2 weeks ago

value growth does not necessitates material expendure growth.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

I agree, but crucially you also said "I don't have a better idea", no-one does! Until we do, Capitalism it is.

by AgitatedMaximum713 2 weeks ago

Endgame? Do you understand that there is NOT supposed to be an end….. I mean….. lololololo

by stanlowe 2 weeks ago

My even more unpopular opinion is that the problem is that we haven't privatized enough. Essentially all real problems (where the situation really sucks, and not "X controls too much of the market while simultaneously prices and quality are at around all time highs") are due to the restrictions on ownership. Most regulation protects the incumbent businesses from real competition. Education and healthcare are crap and overpriced precisely because of gov't involvement. Or desire to protect idiots from their own bad choices is screwing us all.

by kellysmith 2 weeks ago

The end game is either fascism or socialism. Take your pick. Right now the trend is toward fascism, and no, voting will not make a difference.

by jeramierodrigue 2 weeks ago

o7

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Putin politics? I'm not in favour of making people oligarchs for political favours. What I'm advocating for is the complete opposite of that. There are organisations like the IMF that could set financial regulations. There are independent bodies that hold no political power and have no political agenda. You can say "what if they are corrupt" about literally anyone in a position of authority, doesn't mean everyone will be corrupt, its paranoia to an extent. I agree with your competence point though, that's why I'm not in favour of scrapping capitalism all together, just reforming it to make it much fairer and to try and decentralise the distribution of capital and shorten the gap between rich and poor, we need a middle class and the way things are going with free market capitalism we won't have one soon.

by Icy_Moment 2 weeks ago

China and Russia are not communist countries. Communism is not capitalist with regulations, it's completely different to capitalism. I'm not advocating for complete government control over the economy like in Russia or China. I'm just against the idea of a completely free market. There's more than two options, it's just not free market and complete state control, there is a middle ground.

by Icy_Moment 2 weeks ago

If you're going to continue to centralise power in this middle ground I believe the same issues will persist. There is no reason to think they won't.

by AgitatedMaximum713 2 weeks ago

You need government inspection agencies and they need the mandate to be able to shut a factory/company down. Maybe it's a US thing. Why do they want to remove government from all aspects of life.

by Every-Werewolf3842 2 weeks ago

If you start out by thinking that agencies are corrupt, you cannot start anything. Companies won't solve anything on their own.

by Every-Werewolf3842 2 weeks ago

But capitalism didn't start corrupt, it was free trade, open competition, best man win. But over time the bad apples get involved, deals are made, alliances and enemies form. Also agencies, we KNOW they are at least partially corrupt in the western world. Regulation will not solve the problems capitalism causes, only likely bring more problems. Like China has now.

by AgitatedMaximum713 2 weeks ago

But capitalism destroys the environment. Sick/old/very young people also need protection from capitalism. The government needs to be that barrier. Companies don't look ahead 10 years from now.

by Every-Werewolf3842 2 weeks ago

If we take a look at the U.S system, some of the most powerful people are congressmen, who are often funded by large defence contractors, who in turn get lucrative defence contracts. How is voting for a different political party going to change that?

by AgitatedMaximum713 2 weeks ago

That is indeed a problem. But you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

by Every-Werewolf3842 2 weeks ago

The point is, any replacement system to the one we have now would succumb to the same corruption, I haven't heard anyone say a solution that doesn't just take power from one area to another (I.e government "regulators"), thinking there would be a different answer

by AgitatedMaximum713 2 weeks ago

Unionize!

by EffectiveSilver134 2 weeks ago

You would have to get everyone across the world to agree to unionise otherwise businesses will just move country, and due to the imbalance in living standards across the world you'll never get agreement on that

by AgitatedMaximum713 2 weeks ago