If Not Capitalism, Then What?! #capitalism #technology #progress

[TheCompleteMental]

When people say it has "failed", they mean failed humanity, failed society, not itself

[darkseraph]

Imagine the progress we'd have if rather than struggling to survive, the bottom 90% had their needs met, and could pursue the problems that interest them. Instead, we pursue the problems capitalists think will be profitable.

[vengefulgrape]

People out here with billions and we got people without homes

[jerommeke_T]

First time I heard someone with a fairly similar analysis on the internet

[mathladprotocat]

"Capitalism got us to where we are but capitalism got us to where we are"

[michael_a_]

This is a real conversation we need to have.

[raiisleep]

I love the part where he answered the question he posed

[vadertrap]

The thing is with capitalism is that it feeds on growth, the world and its resources are finite there is no way we can sustain capitalism’s infinite growth

[tobiahrowswell]

This is a great point! One of the ideas behind this is essentially if we make environmentalism profitable or at least make it clear that the alternative is not good for companies, then they will act more in service of the environment rather than against.

[cursedcat]

I would have never expected that coming out of your mouth, very based

[theredknight]

The issue isn’t capitalism, the issue is the centralization of power and globalism. If you want Americans to be paid, don’t ship jobs off to china. And if you want the wealth gap to decrease, we need decentralized communities of government that willl prevent people at the federal level from manipulating the system. So in a sense make states more independent.

[clonescope]

Oh yes the wall cap is never been bigger ignores: Mansa Musa, the man literally crashed several North African economies just from his spending, and people to this day are still trying to calculate his actual wealth

[robertnett]

We had a thing called social economics in Germany a few decades back. Still call it this way, but it's more and more a hollow shell.

And before anyone get's their bowtie in a twist - it's neither dreaded sOcIaLiSm nor communism.

The basic idea is to give everybody money so they can participate in the market. So instead of directly subsidize businesses you give an ammount of tax payers money the unemployed, sick and otherwise inable to maintain themselves.
The easy reason: (relatively) poor people spend most of their money at hand for necessities anyways - thus generating profit for businisses and a part of that money goes back to the state in form of VAT.
Those coorporations pay their workers - who in turn buy stuff, generating tax income and so on and so forth.
After a number of cycles the tax money spent is back in the hand of the state.
Subsidizing large coorporations - well the money just ends up in some off shore account and is gone...

[Caspin_]

Personally, I think the threshold for how big a company can be before it's considered a monopoly should be lowered on a legal level. Like could you imagine if Amazon was split into two different companies or maybe even four? And they all had to compete with each other? Of course this would be hard to do for some companies such as Coca-Cola as their flagship product and building on it is practically is all they have going for them.

[smallsmokecj]

The problem is that money used to be worth some amount of gold. Now money is literally just printed. The problem is that the economy is built on nothing now.

[gabadaba]

The thing with the wealth gap is that everyone is getting richer. The people at the top are getting richer faster, but the people at the bottom, on average, are also getting richer. Worldwide standards have gone up over the past few hundred years, and knowledge of the world has grown with it. We're more exposed to the wealth gap now than ever before, but that doesn't mean that things are getting worse if you aren't rich.

[mrfarlander]

"if not capitalism then what?"
*soviet sounds intensifies*

[CrobinHoodBitGuy]

To make a good society, you need a balanced recipe. I would say one cup of capitalism with a tablespoon of socialism and regulations.

[mrcoder]

A lot of the points here are addressed in Ludwig von Mises's "Socialism: An Economic & Sociological Analysis". One chapter, and expanded upon throughout the book, talks about the Capitalism as an economic theory. Simply, a great misconception present here is the static nature of wealth, when it is the opposite. All the remarks about the environment and the shortfalls of capitalism would only be valid for it not be context being absent.

[tonygrampsamerica]

I like your bits, and this is part right the failure is cronyism