/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>58355223
>>58355202

No it isn't, it's another childish, centrist cop out. "Capitalism" isn't a real thing. Nobody wrote a book on "How to do Capitalism." The word exclusively arose as a counterpart to the construction of Socialism, an actual artificial framework.

Something that never existed can't fail. There only is what there is. The free market exists whether a state does or does not. There is only the free market and the extent to which the state has decided to intervene.

>>53736180

>Capitalism: people being mean and greedy

That's just retarded though. As I said in a later post, the term is basically a pejorative. It describes nothing in reality. No one ever wrote "the Capitalist Manifesto." And it's deliberate: arguing against a made up term that describes nothing is a fool's game as they can endlessly dance around and pretend like nothing you say pertains to what they're criticizing. It's like yelling into a well.

It's better to ask: what specifically are you unhappy with? And then usually the answer is: oh look, the government is actually heavyhandedly fucking that industry up. And then they proceed to say the government should just take it all over then. That's right, let the very people already doing a fucked up job just assume total control.

Nothing because "capitalism" itself isn't a real, man-made economic paradigm, it was created as a term to describe "not-socialism", which is a man-made paradigm

"Late stage capitalism" is just crony statism

There are no "practices" capitalism. It isn't a top down state enforced economic paradigm. There's no manual on "how to setup capitalism" like there is for Marxism. It's just the free market, and the extent to which the state has decided to regulate and intervene in it (where the "crony" starts to happen).

Take a look for yourself the word was only invented alongside the inception of collectivism. They needed a word for "not Marxism" or "not socialism/communism", something to boogeyman. Yes, rich men exist in a competitive free market. That isn't indicative of failure, it's indicative of the system working. Some people are poor in a free market. Everyone is poor in a non free market.

>>49685616

Starting with the fact that "capitalism" isn't some kind of deliberately conceived economic paradigm that requires implementation or state-mandated enforcement. It just is. It's the natural state of an economy. A free market. The word was conceived to describe "not-socialism" as that paradigm, and associated paradigms, were getting developed. They're the ones who cheerlead a broken, manmade theory, the thing they like to boogeyman isn't even real. "Rich people existing" isn't an economic paradigm.