Capitalism Has Failed—What Next?

Very impressive, eccieuser9500.


Very, very impressive!


It's a close call, but I suspect you might have been capable of performing even better than "Wombraider" in the Yale Summer Debate Program.


And one thing I've noticed over the years is that many of the brightest people I know stay informed largely by watching Noam Chomsky videos.

All you folks are missing the issue.
The real issue is that the pure definition of socialism has been corrupted.
The currently existing definition is take from some then give to others. Leads to bankruptcy or other failure as capitalists will not reinvest.

The original definition of socialism is more of a co-op thing where everyones works to support everyone.
Seriously, think co-op organizations

The ongoing dimocrat drive to continue to expand social programs is simply vote buying in disguise.

In short, capitalism has not failed. Folks simply can't see it cause they've forgotten what it looks like, and there's a lot of bs obscuring the view.

Office Depot is still in business. Office Max merged with Office Depot a few years ago. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Yep. Bain Capital invested in Staples, not the other two office supply retailers. I was too busy correcting the rest of Mo's post to mention it.

Staples tried to merge with Office Depot in 2016 but the deal was blocked by the FTC. They went private again in 2017.

And one thing I've noticed over the years is that many of the brightest people I know stay informed largely by watching Noam Chomsky videos. Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

You forgot the (sarcasm alert) - eccieuser9500 will think you mean it!

Get on Topic...

. . . one thing I've noticed over the years is that many of the brightest people I know stay informed largely by watching Noam Chomsky videos.

Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

All you folks are missing the issue.

The original definition of socialism is more of a co-op thing where everyones works to support everyone.
Seriously, think co-op organizations Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Get on Topic... Originally Posted by Danielle Silver

NEXT:













https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...rn-populations

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...005324580.html

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Pedro lucked out because 3 right wing parties split the vote. Vox is what scared most of the moderates to go with other parties. And the PP leader fucked up by going moderate.

Even tho Pedro won, the coalition math is dicey because of the 2 catalan independence groups.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/video...-s-sachs-video

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/video...-s-sachs-video Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Another great video showing that most of the problems in our "capitalist" model at this point are related to policy. However, as usual the presenters of it somehow think more government intervention and regulation will somehow solve the problem.

Get the government out of the way in both fiscal and structural policy rather thank increasing intervention and regulation.

I loved how the video staked it's premise on the 1981 - 2014 timeframe and then grudgingly showed the gains in low to mid worker wages over the last 2 years, which if you haven't been paying attention is when Trump has gutted Obama era regulations to jump started the growth again.

Thank you Trump for getting the government out of our pockets more and more(tax cuts also included).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/video...-s-sachs-video Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

income inequality is a function of people. some people are stupid. some people are smart. now allowing for sheer physical talent and cut out any athletes, who is gonna make more money? a smart person or a dumb one?

so you would fix this inherent biological issue how? genetically enhance everyone to be exactly the same? lol in the future that might happen. for now we aren't all equal. that is a fact.

so what's it gonna be? drag the smart rich successful people down to the lowest common denominator or allow everyone to be as successful as their abilities dictate and leave it at that?

so what's it gonna be? drag the smart rich successful people down to the lowest common denominator or allow everyone to be as successful as their abilities dictate and leave it at that? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

That's their intent with the education system on two fronts. One all students should be the same and two all students should go to college which is a fallacy that is being proven out by that very story where large numbers of students are mired in debt and don't even graduate.

Not everyone is college material, which is something not mentioned in this article that other countries address in different methods. The college for all message is not exactly how it works in those countries.

But it's a great message for the candidates to pander to, especially in trying to downplay capitalism as this thread is totally failing to do.

income inequality is a function of people. some people are stupid. some people are smart. now allowing for sheer physical talent and cut out any athletes, who is gonna make more money? a smart person or a dumb one?
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I don't know if Kim Kardashian is smart but she lives in a $60 million house. If you can't do well in school get on reality TV.

I don't know if Kim Kardashian is smart but she lives in a $60 million house. If you can't do well in school get on reality TV. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Well, that just adds to my point about the "edumacation" system we have and the expectation of school learning. I(and I bet you do too) know many successful hard working "smart" people who were "smart" enough to know they didn't meet your definition of "smart", but set their goals and attained them without miring themselves in college debt.

Well, that just adds to my point about the "edumacation" system we have and the expectation of school learning. I(and I bet you do too) know many successful hard working "smart" people who were "smart" enough to know they didn't meet your definition of "smart", but set their goals and attained them without miring themselves in college debt. Originally Posted by eccielover

You sound like your against going to college. That was not the point I was trying to make. If you want to be an accountant or a nurse you need to go college and get a degree. I was responding to Waco-kid's post about smart people vs not so smart people and financial success. The point I made with the Kim K example was you don't have to smart or be in the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL to live in 60 million dollar house. You just need to be on a TV show that someone will watch.

I don't agree with the OP. Capitalism has not failed. However, you do have wealth consentration and some income inequality. There are elementary school teachers that make $35,000 per year. Should they make more? Probably. I will say this if the cheapest apartment in your city is 2,000 a month for a studio, you will have a very tight monthly budget on that salary.