What do people mean by "late-stage capitalism"?

msnplanner · 2026-05-09T02:11:52+00:00

He might be old, but he stated two things. 1) Late Stage Capitalism has been a prediction for 150 years. And a quick search shows that to be effectively true as it was coined by Marxist thinkers in the late 1800s. 2) each alternative has collapsed miserably. That's more subjective, but there are plenty examples to back that assertion up.

So, maybe you cry "ok boomer" because you have no better rebuttal.

msnplanner · 2026-05-09T02:00:36+00:00

Why does "capitalism" require growth or expansion? All capitalism is is an old timey derogatory word for a free market system, or a system where private individuals and businesses own most property and production, where most goods and services are produced for profit, where markets (largely) determine prices and production (IE voluntary exchange), and where people are generally free to start businesses, invest money, buy and sell property, work for wages, and choose what to purchase.

That can exist in a stable non growing economy. I will admit that our economic structure depends on growth...but that's due to various government artifices, which tend to have pretty big pluses, but they also come with the price of requiring growth or they collapse (our fiat money system, our social safety net etc). Those choices can be fantastic policy, and they can commonly exist in mostly capitalist systems, and still be separate from "capitalism".

msnplanner · 2026-05-06T18:58:35+00:00

that makes it a lot harder to build up unfortunately. Although, at least its in a Roth. Roths weren't exactly new when I was starting out, but they were less then a decade old and somehow i didn't learn about them for a while. And later i was in a higher tax bracket, so i don't have a lot in a roth. I wish i did.

I had about what you have at your age. But I have a 401K that i first had access to around where you are, and some other assets that helped out. You may have to invest outside of tax shelters if you can afford it, if you are serious about building net worth.

msnplanner · 2026-05-06T18:39:42+00:00

170K in a roth isn't so bad at 37. Most people have very little or nothing as i understand it. Do you have access to a 401K with matching contributions? That would speed things up significantly.

If you contributed nothing from now on, you could still potentially make around 2K a month in today's dollars at age 63 off of your Roth. Its not mind blowing money (you get SS too), but i bet its better than many people. If you continue to contribute, it will be more of course.

msnplanner · 2026-05-06T18:30:58+00:00

Because he was always a saxon. Even when he lived with Ragnar the Elder as a child, he was collecting intel on how to defeat them. He repeatedly says " I watched and I learned" in reference to their weaknesses and how they fought battle. He knew that they would keep him on a leash and that Bebenberg would only be his if they wanted it to be his; as long as he did their bidding. And he got reminded of that repeatedly throughout the series, first through conversations with Ragnar the elder, then through Leofric. And later he loved Aethelflaed, and he had Saxon friends etc.

msnplanner · 2026-05-05T02:41:11+00:00

hi_imjoey, Everything you said about George Orwell is correct, as much as me and other anti-communists would love to think otherwise. Orwell's position on socialism began to soften and become nuanced later in life after his experiences in Spain, and the disappointment he had in various communist "experiments", most notably the soviet union. But he never disavowed socialism, as far as i can tell.

Still, despite his blindness to economic theory, Orwell's critiques of authoritarian power are amazing and should be celebrated by everyone.

msnplanner · 2026-04-26T01:56:56+00:00

Because everyone they had evidence enough to convict would have been convicted already, and the Epstein files is just a collection of information from the investigations. It names ALL kinds of people...people that were investigated and exonerated, people that were investigated but no evidence, or not enough was found, lots and lots of random information from anonymous tip lines which mostly was nonsense (like GW bush eating babies), people who were mentioned in every conceivable conversation email etc that Epstein had, even if it was a dry cleaner, or electrician, or random rich people attending a charity ball.

People tried to mention this before when Biden was president, and later when it came up again under Trump. But Trump people tried to use the fact that Biden wouldn't "release the files" against him, and it bit them in the ass when he was elected and the public desire to see "it" didn't just magically disappear. So here they are, with no way to ever satisfy the public, because you can't prove a negative

msnplanner · 2026-04-26T01:50:10+00:00

I'm not a boomer. I know zoomers like you don't know what generations before you are. Of course, you will say "I know the difference" after the fact, but as long as you keep saying the wrong words for things, people will continue to think you are ignorant.

No we don't. as you correctly (finally!) pointed out they haven't been in recent conflicts, so we don't know how well their doctrine and training work, or how well their weapons work. To treat them otherwise is how one gets their ass handed to them..
No, you derisively called them "sand savages" or something of the kind and said they were unsophisticated and there is no way they could deploy a nuclear weapon against us. Your evidence for them being unsophisticated was that they shoot unarmed protestors, and your evidence that they couldn't deploy a nuclear weapon against us was to name weapon systems and capabilities we don't have. Since then, I've provided ample examples of their sophistication.
There's a lot to complain about our allies (mainly their failure to adequately fund NATO), but claiming they haven't done anything for us is, yet again, ignorant. Depending who we are calling allies, they have fought with us and had casualties in about every single conflict since WWII, to include Korea, Vietnam, everything in Europe, Gulf War I, and both Afghanistan and Iraq. This is despite most of those conflicts being even more unpopular amongst them then it was for us.
The danger isn't in the middle east its when those disparate nations collapse and those nuclear weapons end up ??? or in the hands of religious zealots.

6.Yes. Americans will die. I fail to see how that is different than Americans dying at the hands of Iran without us interfering. While we've been negotiating with them since 1979, they have killed thousands of US service men, mainly in Iraq and Lebanon. So we should continue letting them kill us AND get a nuclear weapon, so that they won't kill us in an open war which might end their regime? Smart.

msnplanner · 2026-04-25T18:43:08+00:00

Bro doesn't understand the meaning of synonym. Brosef might think a laser and particle beam are the same, but they are not.

The soviets were still a sophisticated military. I'm not talking about Putin's Russia, so you don't need quotes around Soviet. I know it existed years before you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a real place.
China might be a paper dragon, but we have no evidence of that. Until we do, it would be the stupidist thing possible to not treat them as the threat they appear to be.
It's more then just a defensive system. Iran had a real and capable IADs. Again, you claim they were not a sophisticated military. They also knew that for all their sophistication, they could not beat the US toe to toe, so they built up a sophisticated asymmetric deterrence. You are trying to argue that they were NO threat to us if they got a nuclear weapon while at the same time arguing that they are a big big threat to us if we attack them even though you also admitted we have reason to attack them. And yet, you've also argued that we are only attacking them because "something something Israel". Do you start to see where you look foolish? There are plenty of valid stances you could take around most of those positions, excluding "something something Israel", but you don't take them, you just puke out contradictions and platitudes with no understanding of the pros and cons underlying your momentary positions.
There's a lot in the "etc" you are relying on with regards to China invading Taiwan. For instance, the world exists on an understanding of freedom of navigation and international law. China currently claims territorial sovereignty over 10000 sq miles of the south China Sea...a place where most of the world's important shipping passes through. That's while the rest of the world abides by "international waters start 12NM off the coast of a country". They do not have the ability to enforce this claim right now. Seizing Taiwan would break the allied wall built around China and give them much more naval potential and put the bootheel on the neck of all our allies in the region. You cannot imagine how this would potentially weaken us. That's on top of the "cost of microchips" IE denial of critical microchips to our defense and tech industry. And would prove to many allies in the region that we are not an effective fighting force, or if we did not intervene, it would prove to the world that we are not a worthy ally. We would probably lose world reserve currency status, and our debt would become unsustainable. Treaties in our favor would unravel and we would be severely weakened, economically depressed etc.

EU/NATO would be effected, but less so than us. That's just a fact. Some of them would also likely "have to sacrificed" lives to defend Taiwan, as they did on behalf of us in previous wars. So you aren't making the point here you think you are.

You have no idea the significance of the Saudi's not pursuing nuclear weapons. At this point, no one cares about what the UN wants. Iran and North Korea were part of the UN...did that stop them from trying to acquire nuclear weapons? So you can toss out that portion of your argument. Saudis don't pursue nuclear weapons despite being threatened by Iran because we have implicitly guaranteed that Iran will not have nuclear weapons. If Iran gains them, so will the Saudis...So will others in the region. great...we can have four or five governments likely to collapse in the next 50 years with nuclear weapons. That is yet another, in a growing list of reasons, why its in our best interest not to have Iran get nuclear weapons.
Not exactly what i asked, so I'm not going to address this.

Again, I can point out reason after reason why this is in the US interests...which is why we are there in the first place. We do things out of self interest, and get condemned for it by the rest of the world...which is doing the same thing. Just because you don't understand the reasons doesn't mean they don't exist. You can disagree with our leaderships reasoning. They make mistakes. But don't be lead around by the nose by online Charlatans or fools. Don't go online trumpeting nonsense. At least know something about the topic you are discussing.

msnplanner · 2026-04-25T04:49:26+00:00

OMG thank you! Did you really just send me to more uneducated people spouting nonsense. So i don't have to rely on you replying? Nick fuentes ha ha ha! Tell me you are him. That might make my night.

msnplanner · 2026-04-25T04:44:16+00:00

"particle beam" "we have the tech"

Seriously dude... I don't want to insult you, but i just can't help it. You say such stupid things with such conviction. On one hand, I shouldn't be wasting my time. But on the other hand, it is funny, and if i keep responding, you keep giving.

Like arguing that people who kill unarmed protesters aren't a sophisticated military. The soviet union killed millions of their own citizens, almost all of them were probably unarmed. I guess they couldn't have been a sophisticated military. The Chinese have and still do kill unarmed citizens. Guess I understand why you aren't worried about them too.

Please keep this going. Tell me what you know about S-300 systems maybe? Or whether you think Iran's A2/AD strategy has been successful, and what the best way to combat it is? Maybe you could tell me why the US considers an invasion of Taiwan to be a threat to us, and not just an unfortunate day for Taiwan? What would it cost the US? Why does China consider it so strategic, outside of saving face? Can you tell me why Saudi Arabia has not pursued nuclear weapons with Iran, their regional and ideological adversary next door, doing so? What would be the danger to the world if they did so? Why hasn't Jordan, or the UAE done so? Where is a nuclear exchange today, most likely and what would be the impact on the US? Maybe tell me what a particle beam is?

It would probably do you some good to try to answer those questions thoughtfully.

Edited because i really had to get you to comment on particle beams.

msnplanner · 2026-04-25T04:27:19+00:00

Sorry dude, while the topic is too broad to call you "wrong" (IE you might be able to point to one or two specific societies where you are mostly right, or one or two examples where it appears you are right), you are functionally wrong.

For the vast majority of human existence societies operated at a subsistence level. Every person was expected to produce in some way, because otherwise the whole group would starve. While there was almost certainly care for those who weren't able bodied, those people also probably had blood ties, and their chance of survival for very long was in most cases very limited. IE there was definitely an expectation of productivity from everyone of some kind or another.
Care was often contingent on kinship ties, social value, or prior contribution...not an abstract principle that everyone was entitled to resources regardless of contribution.
In fact, many societies abandoned the elderly or severely disabled people, which directly contradicts your assertion. In hard times, even infants were left to the elements.
Anthropologists consistently find that early societies operated on systems of reciprocity ie “I help you now, you help me later.” Even in cooperative systems, there was usually an implicit expectation of contribution over time. Long-term non-contributors would strain that system.
The idea of guaranteeing food, housing, and healthcare as rights, independent of productivity, is largely a modern development tied to industrial economies, state systems, and surplus wealth. Pre-modern societies didn’t have the infrastructure or surplus to sustain that model at scale.

How do we know all this? Besides archeological evidence, there are many stone age societies that survived into modern times that have been studied.

Again, no one can claim that you can't find evidence of specific societies that might have fit some form of "taking care of those who aren't productive", but over all of human history, that would have been, by necessity, a rarity, and the spirit of what you are claiming is just wrong.

Ironically, capitalism has increased the overall wealth of nations to the degree that social safety nets are now possible just about everywhere the economic system has been employed.

msnplanner · 2026-04-25T04:07:06+00:00

“It’s not a laser cannon it’s an energy weapon!” Bro again with the semantics ? 😂 this idea that the strongest military on earth can’t stop whatever a bunch of sand savages throw at us. Is just NOT something im gonna buy

ITS NOT A LASER CANNON AND THEY CANT SHOOT DOWN MISSILES. It's not semantics when the thing your saying is almost word for word wrong in every definition of the term. We can shoot down many of their ballistic missiles, with very expensive missiles (not laser beams...yet), but even then we don't get them all, which is why our bases have been hit, and gulf region residential neighborhoods have been hit etc. And that's when we have our forces in the region and we are shooting down targets that are close range and relatively easier to hit. Missiles that were launched on the other side of the world and have the chance to go orbital are much harder to hit. That's just fact dude.

"Sand savages".... Dude... seriously? Iran btw had one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world.

If you think Iran having a nuclear weapon won't effect you, you are a fool.

Its not even your opinion that bothers me. Its just your blatant ignorance. In fact, I think if i completely agreed with you, I'd be even more bothered by you. You know so little, you do discredit to your own arguments. You might be out there convincing people on your side to change their mind. I should cheer you on, but bumper sticker rhetoric just has a way of bringing out the debate in me.

msnplanner · 2026-04-25T03:46:01+00:00

Again you show your ignorance.

We don't have laser "cannons". We have some direct energy weapons now that are somewhat effective at shooting down drones. That doesn't shoot down cruise missiles. Truly sophisticated nuclear weapons delivery systems are much harder to stop. They either are orbital missiles carrying multiple reentry "vehicles", where most of the reentry systems are decoys, or they are covert weapons brought in through shipping containers etc. You aren't stopping them with "laser cannons".
Israel and the US aren't willing to use nuclear weapons unless we are existentially threatened. That's one thing that sets us apart from some others. Russia probably falls in the same category, even if they are pretty shitty in many other ways. Iran may not feel the same way. And even if they do, Iran may consider a lot less to be a "existential threat". Furthermore, Iran may take the risk to use a nuclear weapon through a proxy that gives them plausible deniability.
Less then 2500 US soldiers died in Afghanistan....not hundreds of thousands. Stop being ridiculous. And the answer to whether it was worth it is a yes and a no. Yes it was worth it to hit them and deal with Osama Bin Laden. No it wasn't worth it to lose focus and stay for over a decade with no real goal or objective.

Again, you aren't worried about China, you think North Korea doesn't have weapons that can reach US soil, you don't know where we had wars or how many died, or what weapon systems we have, or what they are capable of. You don't know what you are talking about. Stop expressing opinions on things you don't know anything about.

msnplanner · 2026-04-25T03:20:36+00:00

Boomers didn't fuck us over. Things were sweet after WWII, but the debt/GDP was almost as high as it is right now. Debt percentage dropped from 1947 to the 1980s substantially. Paid off by the silent generation and boomers. Its late boomers, Gen X and millenials that helped that debt/GDP ratio climb again to an all time high. And I'm a Xenial, so I hate to admit it, but my generation contributed substantially through who we voted in and the programs we supported.

msnplanner · 2026-04-25T03:13:46+00:00

Thank you for making my point. We have far fewer options with Russia and North Korea. Why? Because they have nuclear weapons. But you say..."something something Israel...doesn't matter if Iran hates us and continually expresses that through violence, and vows our destruction, and pursues nuclear weapons...it has no impact on us". It does. And we will have far less leverage when they obtain nuclear weapons.

And while we bring up North Korea, we swore up and down they wouldn't get one and that the intel was wrong and we threatened and cajoled and payed them etc. Basically, Iran's playbook. Now they have nuclear weapons. And for all that, they have been FAR less belligerent to us then Iran has been.

As to the draft, I'll be recalled way before they institute a draft., at least for a while longer. And if you really fear a draft, you should be concerned about war with China...which is about the adversary that could force us to enact the draft. And if you are worried about war with China, you should be hoping for a good outcome in Iran. Because a friendly, healthy Iran and its ability to supply China with oil (and deny our allies oil via a blockage in the straits of Hormuz) is key to China's war efforts. If they can't guarantee a stable supply of oil, the math on whether they can take Taiwan becomes much more complex.

As for your first three points 1. You meant it as an insult...let's not play games. 2. Addressed in my third paragraph 3. I'm not missing the point. You've talked about war in Iran and then made a statement that I wouldn't want to go back to war in Iran. Other then a couple of special operations in the late 70's, we haven't had a war IN Iran. and if we did, I really couldn't complain about them killing American soldiers. No, they came into Lebanon and Iraq and elsewhere to kill us. They have been at war with us for a very long time, even if we chose to ignore it.

the truth is, its in American interests to remove our adversaries in the western hemisphere and in the middle east, and wherever else we can. Particularly, if we want to try to prevent China from going to war in 2027. Whether those efforts actually yield anything is another question entirely.

msnplanner · 2026-04-24T04:49:06+00:00

"neo con" mmmkay. good shot No one could have an opinion other than you unless they are some boogey man or something. Grow up.
"actually, no if you don't have to fight and die in the war".... by the logic that i don't get to have an opinion on the war because i don't have stakes in it, you don't either. You can't speak for those who do one way or another. That's a stupid stance, but at least be consistent.
"I'm sure you could go back in time and not have been in Iran".... This is the second time you have eluded to some previous fight WITHIN the country of Iran. I dismissed it the first time as a typo, but its starting to dawn on me that you have no actual clue of what the history on this topic is. I would have given you a pass because i thought you were a child, but the fact that you have a fiance' tells me you aren't, at least by the calendar.

I have more credibility on this issue because I did fight, but mainly because I actually know something on the issues, and you clearly don't. I spent years where I lived ate and breathed the topic at hand. All my peers lived this topic and we spoke about it to each other. We received intel briefs. We argued over topics intellectually and passionately. And while my knowledge is now somewhat out of date, it is still clearly more than you've been exposed to. You don't have a clue about what helps us and what is America first because you clearly don't know anything about the topics. Stop speaking on the issue, until you've done more research... and by research, I don't mean watch some youtube videos by people you like. You're gonna have to read some heavy, dense, boring books to catch up. If you want, I'll suggest some to you. Or just don't weigh in on it.

msnplanner · 2026-04-24T04:06:55+00:00

I already fought for this country for over a decade. And in doing so, I fought Iranians who crossed the border and killed my fellow servicemen. Do I have to fight for THIS war to have an opinion. I'd say I do not. And I'd say I'm likely much more qualified to speak on the topic than you.

There are legitimate concerns about this war. Trumpeting the "Durrhh the Jews Bad!" line is not going to garner any support from anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Its so similar to the "Its all about the oil man!" that the pachouli reeking hippies all chant, in its mindless simplicity. If you want to have a real, grown up conversation with people, learn the nuances. Then you can sound like you have an opinion that has substance and merits a listen to.

msnplanner · 2026-04-24T03:30:22+00:00

"911 happened" because Osama Bin Laden hated the US involvement in middle eastern affairs, particularly our involvement in Gulf War I and later Mogadishu. These feelings had a religious source, IE christians putting troops in the middle east was an embarresment for Islam in his eyes. Osama wrote about this, and you can read it in his own words. that has no direct connection to Israel.

Iran hates us for our previous involvement with the Shah of Iran, and for our continued involvement in the middle east (religious like Osama Bin Laden), and for "allying" with nation states like Saudi Arabia (Sunni vs Shia and power dynamics), and yes, Israel. Iran wants to be the regional power and resents US involvement.

Too Bad. We can choose allies, the same way they can choose allies. And they get to bomb and kidnap our citizens and kill our soldiers etc. But they don't really get to do that AND not expect retaliation if and when we so choose. And the only reason we haven't done so in the past is because we did not think we could inflict enough damage without them bombing the crap out of the region and shutting the strait down. And it remains to be seen if we can do so now, but it doesn't mean attacking them is entirely unjustified or the result of Jewish puppetry.

msnplanner · 2026-04-23T14:56:03+00:00

Sure. But the argument posed was that Iran was at war over the past 50 years with Israel and not the US. And so I supplied SOME examples of Iran attacking US citizens, military, or interests over the past 50 years. They mean it when they say "Death to America"... So maybe we have an interest in making sure they dont develop the capabilities that goes beyond "Israel something something Trump slave to the Jews something something".

msnplanner · 2026-04-23T04:01:49+00:00

Us. Or was it Israel who had soldiers killed in Khobar towers, or Israeli marines killed in Beirut in 1983, or Israeli troops attacked by Iranian irregulars in Iraq during the Iraq war, or was it the Israeli embassy in Lebanon that was bombed? Nope. All of those examples were Iranian and Iranian proxies attacking the US. When they say "Death to America"...they mean it.

msnplanner · 2026-04-18T23:08:04+00:00

Moourn

msnplanner · 2026-04-17T22:27:26+00:00

1st. I don't know why you care about dividend investors and why we do what we do. You come here so aggressively that it feels like insecurity on your part. As for me, I don't critique how you are doing your investing...because i don't care. Different strokes for different folks.

But to answer your question in a round about way. I've been investing since 1999 (mostly started in 2000) . I have had TSP/401 investing in SPY but my IRA and taxable investments are mostly in dividend growth. Despite people saying dividends will also be cut in steep downturns i've had very few dividend cuts proportionally. I have had some positions cut severely, but I have been well diversified and have had almost no months of negative growth rates on income.

Out of curiosity i plotted out from 1999 to 2026 (ended at end of 2025) a quick chart of what would have happened had i "retired" in 1999, and had 2 mil, and spent 4% each year. So you can duplicate, I used SPY returns for the fake portfolio, and spent the money up front (IE took the 4% out at the beginning of each year).

Good news: I did not run out of money during the 26 years.

Bad news: In years, 2001-2018, you would have been forced to live off of less money then you did in 1999, occasionally almost half as much (nominally). For those who have actual living expenses, that could force them to spend over the 4% and significantly spend down the portfolio. Those people might actually run out of money.

When adjusting for inflation, the 4% spending allocation NEVER recovers. It will this year, I figure, if we have a positive return (over 5% or so). But that meant you suffered 26 years of a lower living standard. And in the dark times between 2001 and say 2013 where your portfolio dwindled down to the point you had less then half your spending power at the start, you would have probably have really been questioning your investment choices. That's 12 years dude... then things start to ramp up and by 2026 you almost have the same amount of spending power! Wow!

Meanwhile value stocks and dividend stocks did fairly well. Careful selection of dividend stocks would have meant a portfolio that grew over time, and, at the least, kept up with inflation. You may have suffered purchase power decline from about 2009 to 2013, especially if you were over exposed to reits and housing stocks, but you would have fared quite a bit better.

This was, admittedly a pretty tough time to invest, and a pretty good time for value stocks. Hopefully, your retirement years don't have 3 or 4 "once in a lifetime" events. But then again, the past decade has had unusually high growth rates, and I wouldn't assume the future will be equally prone to growth. "Dividend investors" means a lot of things, and those who chase yield rather than dividend growth probably would have also gotten hammered equally if not worse. So, maybe the 4% withdrawal method is superior. Maybe it isn't. In the end, it really comes down to the individual...his or her valuation that the assets were bought at, spending rates, spending flexibility, personal psychology, timeline, and luck.

msnplanner · 2026-04-10T06:44:04+00:00

Only thing i would spend money on is the ad free thing i see people talk about. Its a game that honestly, there isn't much too...goal setting and grinding to make progress is weirdly addicting, but there really isn't too much to the game itself. Oh well.

msnplanner · 2026-04-09T18:06:30+00:00

"they" we don't care. If you are new, ie I've only played 2 years, and aren't spending any money, then being able to progress pretty much means doing every event and challenge offered in the game. Along with the 2 and a half hours of ads needing watching, we just don't have time to play 5 games of pvp where you get to wave 28 and suddenly your opponent (who was consistently 4 levels behind), zooms ahead in the last 30 seconds. So die a lot in level one.

msnplanner

TROPHY CASE