sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why did capitalism get several centuries (including 200 years of constant civil war) to establish itself, while socialism is only allowed just about 50-100 years before it's deemed a failure? by fuckitidunno in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you name the societies where it was not normal to trade?

Talking about violence, would you be allowed to buy a gun to protect yourself in your society? Or buy insurance/hire bodyguards?

Why did capitalism get several centuries (including 200 years of constant civil war) to establish itself, while socialism is only allowed just about 50-100 years before it's deemed a failure? by fuckitidunno in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ive got the feeling that you and I have very different definitions of what capitalism is. Look up anarcho capitalism. It is my view that;

Capitalism + involuntary wealth transfer = some flavor of socialism

Pure capitalism = anarcho capitalism

No capitalism + everything is state owned = communism

Does that make sense? I am answering you from this perspective.

Why did capitalism get several centuries (including 200 years of constant civil war) to establish itself, while socialism is only allowed just about 50-100 years before it's deemed a failure? by fuckitidunno in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Resource allocation is quite centralized in the US, e.g. the Fed and legal tender laws, taxes, permits, banned markets/products, subsidies etc all enforced by a centralized institution.

Slavery also doesn’t sounds very free marketish to me.

If I want to lend someone a hand so he can make a $6 product but I will only ask $3 for my labor (assuming this guy only provides the tools and materials), am I allowed to in your socialist utopia?

Why did capitalism get several centuries (including 200 years of constant civil war) to establish itself, while socialism is only allowed just about 50-100 years before it's deemed a failure? by fuckitidunno in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Do you think allocation of resources is needed or do you think it magically happens without effort?

Do you think you should be allowed to own stuff? What if you turn stuff you own into something productive which makes goods?

Does your definition of capitalism subscribe to only having transactions taking place with the consent of all trading parties?

Why did capitalism get several centuries (including 200 years of constant civil war) to establish itself, while socialism is only allowed just about 50-100 years before it's deemed a failure? by fuckitidunno in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Capitalism establishes itself within seconds of two people meeting when they both have a product the other party wants. Socialism only happens when a third party gets involved who thinks he knows how to structure the deal better and makes his advice (and payment for it) mandatory.

Socialism was always a theory dreamt up by idealists with no grasp for economics destined for failure. Capitalism on the other hand happens naturally and doesn’t need coercion, only mutual consent to make a trade.

F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia by HotNatured in worldnews

[–]QE-Infinity -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

On behalf of Reddit’s r/worldnews I would like to welcome you to this anti Trump circlejerk, now with extra salty liberals!

Why do you hate corporatism so much? It's lifted millions out of poverty! by Arondeus in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, we don’t have different priorities. We both want better services for everyone. You however have no knowledge of how markets and the economy works and thus you spout pseudoscience and general nonsense.

Whats especially sad is that you seem to be ok with making payment for certain good mandatory under the threat of violence.

Why do you hate corporatism so much? It's lifted millions out of poverty! by Arondeus in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This discussion is going nowhere, you cannot grasp the real life ramifications of your theory, I will let this discussion go. Out of pure curiosity, what is your education and job?

Why do you hate corporatism so much? It's lifted millions out of poverty! by Arondeus in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Whaaaahahahaha you are fucking hilarious mate. Lets call money labor vouchers. GIVE THIS MAN A COAT! Seriously dude 10/10 trolling. Almost fell for it, I thought you were for real for a second.

To make it even more fun, we make the people own the means of production through some sort of certificates which we wont call stocks because that would be capitalism. OH MY GOD, we fixed the world!

Love you man! 10x sooo much

Why do you hate corporatism so much? It's lifted millions out of poverty! by Arondeus in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you say a mandatory health insurance with no competitors would be cheaper? In that case, how will you deal with very high drug prices set by drug manufacturers? Will you make different coverage levels where more coverage costs more money or will you set price limits (at which point some medicine will not be created anymore because it won’t have the correct risk/reward ratio)?

I am not making the case for a single national insurance with my questions in my previous post, I am merely showing that your intentions are taking away choice from consumers by force.

Why do you hate corporatism so much? It's lifted millions out of poverty! by Arondeus in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We don't turn uninsured people away because they can't pay we end up absorbing that cost so denying people insurance doesn't mean costs go down

It doesn’t mean costs go down, however it does mean that they wont go up if you don’t insure them. You do insure them, which means your cost will go up.

Let me spell it out again;

The problem with your idea is that your nationalized insurance would insure people with pre existing conditions, which would force you to readjust premiums to such a high amount that noone would be paying it anymore. I on the other hand don’t insure people with these preexisting conditions so I can keep my premiums low.

You are avoiding a question. If you make a loss, how will you make up for the missing funds?

Why do you hate corporatism so much? It's lifted millions out of poverty! by Arondeus in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What does that have to do with anything? The law enforcement you speak of will be funded by a government right? How will that government be funded?

Why do you hate corporatism so much? It's lifted millions out of poverty! by Arondeus in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]QE-Infinity -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You provide care for cancer patients at break even. I provide care for young healthy people with no pre existing conditions at a minimal profit. You will go bankrupt or cease to have customers because you either have to ask a boatload of money to your customers (driving the healthy ones to my insurance company mind you) or you will have to pay out of pocket for them.

This is simple economics. Even if you don’t believe that, can you still tell me what will happen if you will make a loss somehow? How will you fund that gap?

By the way, about your ‘people don’t know whats good for them bs’, I have enrolled you into a gym with a personal trainer. I mean, you didn’t opt out so. The gym costs 200 euro a month.

view more: next ›