Why does everyone rip into capitalism when capitalism is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions we have as well as the modern lifestyles we live?
Communisms especially never cease to rip into it but it was only through the endless competitive nature of business did invention, patents and discovery lead to the world we live in. The Industrial revolution literally happened because of capitalism, which is why it happened in Britain, not Italy with all its renaissance, because it didn't have a liberal government that encouraged competitive business, Britain did. Germany did, the USA did, these are the countries which flung us into the modern world and they did it through consumer capitalism.
The only way Communism countries every developed is by force, resulting in the deaths of millions every single time. No such thing occurred in Britain or the USA, just poor worker conditions which eventually evened out.
Pic related is just a meme and if anything more accurately represents communist nations than capitalist.
>Why does everyone rip into capitalism when capitalism is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions we have as well as the modern lifestyles we live?
Losers will always rip into existing paradigms as a way of rationalizing their own failures and unhappiness.
Ayden Hall
Capitalism Is highly unequal, to the point of creating a caste system.
Kayden James
You're right, we should make everyone equal by force.
Alexander Rivera
"Equality" in the way you mean is neither possible nor desirable. Capitalism at least allows peaceful social mobility based on merit.
Logan Robinson
Capitalism fosters class warfare. Social mobility is dying in all capitalist societies.
Dominic Morgan
People by and large do not understand economics. Then someone comes along to these people and says: "Capitalism favors those who have more than you, communism is about sharing everything equally so you get your fair share!". Then these people think "well I hate that others have more than me, and I want my 'fair' share!", and the get mad at capitalism.
tl;dr: people dont understand economics.
Luke Cox
It's a system that produces winners and losers. The losers don't like it.
Austin Peterson
> Social mobility is dying in all capitalist societies.
SOURCE PLEASE
seriously, you just pulled this out of your ass. Also, this in no way proves a causation between capitalism and this supposed dying of social mobility.
>capitalism is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions we have as well as the modern lifestyles we live?
Not particularly...
Most technologies we have today such as the Internet/computing systems and aeronautics and appliances such as microwaving and flash-freezing were developed due to highly centralized planning from the military and governmental establishments from both the USSR and the US during their Cold War, each aiming to outdo the other.
Later on (at least in the U.S.), private industry latched on to these new inventions and - at most - modified them, but it did not invent them, and would never have invented them if left alone.
"Capitalism" or "Communism" had really nothing to do with it.
Lucas Phillips
That article: >One study indicates that in this one country within a specific 20 year time span, social mobility has declined
You: >Social mobility is DYING in ALL capitalist societies
And you still haven't in any way indicated any causal relationship between capitalism and this decline in social mobility.
Chase Peterson
Social mobility is declining in all capitalist societies just type a country into google to get results. This covers oecd oecd.org/els/soc/49499779.pdf
don't even know how you can deny this.
Jacob Stewart
Understanding – and Misunderstanding – Social Mobility in Britain: The Entry of the Economists, the Confusion of Politicians and the Limits of Educational Policy JOHN H. GOLDTHORPE
>. This research indicates that the only recent change of note is that the rising rates of upward, absolute mobility of the middle decades of the last century have levelled out.
You actually got me to put effort into disproving your nonsense. Congratulations.
Still waiting for that causal relationship btw.
Easton Myers
The ridiculous amount of abuse that the capitalist system is the problem. Capitalism and Communism come in cycles, there is no way to stop that.
It's natural with the system to have 93% of the wealth on the planet be held by small groups of people/familes while the working class fights over/about the other 7
I believe that the cycle will be having a transition in the next 20-40 years
Nathan Mitchell
>Capitalism Is highly unequal, to the point of creating a caste system. Is it though? Under capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to get higher if they put the work in.
Angel Morgan
But ultimately the winners invent Cars and Computers and the losers get them..
Luis Peterson
That isn't true. Computers may have started for the military but what propelled their development was clearly business and competition, such as Microsoft.
Angel Bennett
my grandfather lived to be 73, he worked every day of his life, fought two wars, and came from a family that drafted some of the first communication lines in the Manhattan area. by the time he was on his death bed he had a small amount of property in his name, and kids that would go down the same path
Lucas Smith
There's no placating losers. They're always going to be losers.
Capitalism is the worst economic system on earth, except for all of the rest of them.
Ryder Ross
>in 50 years plebs will have private planes and robot slaves and complain that rich folks have space ships and clone version of themselves as slaves
Jayden Young
>. This research indicates that the only recent change of note is that the rising rates of upward, absolute mobility of the middle decades of the last century have levelled out.
>Literally says upward mobility has stopped >Can't even read
One country doesn't matter what matters is this is a global trend. All nations are heading in the same direction just at different speeds.
Elijah Adams
>Rich People will have access to the rest of the universe >and have easy control of the human creation process and population NO PROBLEM
Ayden Watson
And what is wrong with that.
Equality of Outcome is the most retarded backwards idea I can think of. People should be given Equality of opportunity and then find their own niche, that is a fair system.
Being a lower class =/= being subjugated/opressed
Hunter Davis
And?
Liam Jackson
Capitalism fuels competition, innovation. Communism does not. If the iron curtain was still up they would probably have some shit operating system comparable to windows xp at most. Their microwaves would probably be the same models they were making in the 80s, so on and so forth. When a government runs the economy they have no reason to innovate for the consumer, because they're the only choice.
Ethan Miller
He did well then. But he could have done better.
Every westerner, in fact most people on earth now, get to go to school, for free. If you do extremely well at school, you get to go to college for free through a scholarship. All you have to do is work hard at school, which is well within most peoples abilities.
Think about this for a moment. 99% of wealthy people today are wealthy because they have good jobs, they set up a successful business, they put the work and effort in.
Go back 250 years. 99% of wealthy people are wealthy because they were born into wealthy noble families, which comes from hereditary land holdings which are literally just money farms.
The difference is obvious when you consider that.
But the fact alone that any person can start up a business, and have it be successful, is proof that capitalism works. Wage slaves are only wage slaves because they choose do their shitty low wage job all their life. And don't tell me not everyone can set up a business, banks give loans like candy.
TL;DR rich people are rich because they tried so hard and got so far and it mattered
Anthony Barnes
> is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions
when will this meme die?
Landon Myers
Nice trips
Dylan James
mfw a communist country went into space first
Jacob Torres
>Every westerner, in fact most people on earth now, get to go to school, for free.
hello , from what alternate world you came from?
Logan Jones
Capitalism is not particularly innovative, as once large conglomerates form, these entities will realize they have what is termed a "captive audience". Thus the impetus to innovate also ceases to be, since one is raking in a profit with what is current, and competition can easily be driven out.
Henry Sanders
They had competition pushing from outside.
Parker Adams
yfw a capitalist country went to Mars first
RED ROCKS
Hudson Lewis
but you said that only capitalism fuels competition a communist country can't be fueled can it
Daniel Wright
Yeah but Americunts wouldn't have tried anything if the russians didn't go to space first
Jeremiah Reyes
They create competing sub companies within themselves.
Connor Gutierrez
What part of 'from outside' don't you understand
Nathan Wright
>If the iron curtain was still up they would probably have some shit operating system comparable to windows xp at most.
Actually we have a shit operating system like windows and is a monopoly because of capitalism.
Isaiah Cox
If socialists would know economy, then they would not be socialists...
Dominic Peterson
That may be true, for several markets. But under communism that is the case for EVERY market. Pretty big difference.
And honestly, how many huge conglomerates are there with no competitors? I would say very few.
If it was a monopoly it probably would have bought the mac OS and linux by now.
Connor Gray
So capitalism is the source of communism's technological success yet it brought forth such success long before that systems popularity
Lincoln Jenkins
>buy linux
what?
Sebastian Sullivan
people push back against established norms.
Owen Gomez
> Capitalism is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions we have Surely, wheel and many other major inventions were invented before it was a thing and there is some technology that was created by commies.
Luke King
Sub-companies to handle logistics, others to create advertisements, others to sell products in other areas - in the end, little to no actual technological innovation, either.
Had it not been for very centralized government-directed and -funded research programs during the Cold War, most modern technology would not exist, and the private industry would never have even created them, since no 'need' existed.
This paradigm of "technological innovation is only achievable under capitalism" is blatantly false. There are a number of technological "firsts" achieved under the Communist-led USSR - not particularly because of the merits of Communism per se, but largely due to central government encouragement and direction for these projects.
For one, you have the first artificial satellites, which is a pretty big first... There are other innovations that the West uses and adapted for itself, such as the Autojector and the Ilizarov Apparatus
Aiden Reyes
Buy the rights to the operating system so they can't sell it and be in direct competition with them. That's what monopolies do.
Nathaniel Hernandez
you can't buy gnu-linux rights.
Cooper Jackson
>Why does everyone rip into capitalism...
Because they're ignorant, jealous, children that buy into the "gibme dats" concept pushed by the commies.
Jonathan Kelly
?
Elijah Wilson
Then buy the company. Ergo, the rights are yours to not sell the product so it won't be in competition with windows.
Jacob Bailey
Under the current system you can create a new competitor and innovation whenever you want. Under communism you can not, because the means of production are not allowed to be claimed by an individual.
Thomas Hill
Earth? Almost all kids go to school now
Gavin Long
And how long did that take, compared to the flurry of endless inventions in the 19th and 20th centuries in capitalist economy driven countries?
Easton Roberts
look, if it were a company behind gnu-linux microsoft would've bought it long ago, like Skype, hotmail, or Nokia. But GNU is something beautiful that is over the capitalism logic.
Cooper Jackson
No sub companies that do the same thing and compete with eachother. An obvious example would be Pixar and Disney animation.
Jace Davis
Right, I wonder how the Soviets got to space first.
Liam Cooper
>Had it not been for very centralized government-directed and -funded research programs during the Cold War, most modern technology would not exist, and the private industry would never have even created them, since no 'need' existed. Nigga, what?? I think the word you're looking for is "demand" and hell yes there would be a demand for the internet, computers, microwaves, etc. Dude do you no how many new forms of technology has been made this year alone? Do you know how many innovations were made in EVERY FACET OF LIFE that nobody thought they "needed"? Fucking christ dude, what you said there is just retarded.
So, Microsoft isn't a monopoly then.
Thomas Taylor
>Capitalism fuels competition, innovation Capitalism favors efficiency & profit. Not necessarily innovation. If I can sell a cheaper version of your high end, overengineered, shit, I will win.
t. Henry Ford.
Robert Hernandez
MS faced lots of antitrust charges.
capitalism as we know it favours monopolies and oligopolies.
Nicholas Walker
Every honest socialist accepts that capitalism is very good at innovation and technology. Its not the part people object to.
Leo Bell
People were like Kleenex to the Soviets.
Logan Cook
t. works for a wage and thinks himself part of the winners
Benjamin Gomez
None of these are monopolies. Are they oligopolies though? Yeah definitely.
Ryder Powell
kek I've seen wage cucks that think they are part of the "bourgeoise"
Henry Roberts
is there anyother big player aginst kelloggs?
Andrew Campbell
General Mills is literally right next to it.
Sebastian Johnson
What is one qualitative innovation produced under Capitalism?
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzz
Jacob Collins
Fair and equal competition may spur innovation, but in a lot of US industries, it isn't there.
Right now there are businesses that, rather than compete with other businesses, lobby the American government to make competition impossible.
Jordan Rogers
Poorly worded, but it says the rising rates have leveled out, meaning there's still a positive trend but it's linear and not geometric.
Jeremiah Green
This is why we see new models of phones every year, right?
Elijah Brown
The "positive trend" means inequality is increasing, and the image I provided clearly shows the increasing inequality in the UK.
Aaron Rivera
OP here I'm actually surprised most people agree with me. All i ever see around here is communists and others bashing capitalism.
Ayden Ward
>Capitalism is not particularly innovative It is though, market dominance results in stagnation, sure, but it never lasts. Apple had the Iphone and other smart phones, and dominated, but now they have major competition, so they are forced to actually improve it.
The only capitalist venture which never changes is fucking Nintendo.
Dominic Gray
A 'positive trend in social mobility' does not mean 'rising inequality'. How do you figure? The two can coincide, but one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. And the global trend has been a leveling of middle incomes--meaning a growing middle class in the developing world and a stagnating middle class in the developed one; that's the 'leveling of the rates' you see--with a greater and growing portion of income still going to the top earners.
Chase Wright
>not Italy with all its renaissance, because it didn't have a liberal government that encouraged competitive business reinassance was a cultural movement that ended around 1600 Italy wasn't even a country until 1861
Juan Brooks
people need to understand that economics isn't about ideology current capitalism has problems and they may be fixed, the alternative isn't only socialism
Liam Lewis
>a growing middle class in the developing world and a stagnating middle class in the developed one The reason for the growing middle class in the developing world is due to their rapidly developing economies, yet at the same time inequality rises. China and India both have a larger middle class than a few decades ago but they also have much more inequality as their economies begin to develop. The middle class in the developed world is stagnating because all of the economic growth is going into the top 1% or at most the top few.
>A 'positive trend in social mobility' does not mean 'rising inequality' What 'positive trend in social mobility' social mobility and inequality are up in the uk. Just look at the image I provided. >Since the 1970s the labour market has increasingly polarised - with a growing number of low-waged jobs and top-end professional roles but falling middle-level positions. Oxford University and London School of Economics found that the number of professional roles is declining resulting in more people experiencing downward mobility. This means that even those that were born in the middle are increasingly unlikely to better the situation of their parents’. neweconomics.org/blog/entry/inequality-in-the-uk-whatever-happened-to-social-mobility also telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11627719/Social-mobility-has-come-to-a-halt.html
Juan Young
forgot pic for china developing economy
Ethan Edwards
Growing inequality at the poles is consistent with social mobility. Your original classroom was that social mobility has FALLEN globally, which is false. The fact of growing inequality doesn't disprove this.
Juan Smith
NEETs are the worst
Easton Rivera
>Growing inequality at the poles is consistent with social mobility. Social mobility is DECLINING globally, especially in the developed world.
How is growing inequality consistent with social mobility??? the Super rich in Brazil were the moderately rich a few decades ago. It's the same people or their children. There is no social mobility. Did you even read the post or links telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11627719/Social-mobility-has-come-to-a-halt.html
Owen Foster
>pic related
the only problem I see in that structure is all the fatties not contributing anything.
Charles Peterson
>How is growing inequality consistent with social mobility???
Take 100 people. 75 of those people are their incomes increase over a 20 year period, 20 see no increase and 5 see a slight decrease. There you have not only social mobility for those lucky 75, but rising inequality between those 75 and the other 25.
Fucking TA DA
Jacob Gray
You are making a classroom about GLOBAL social mobility that is only true for the UK and some other developed countries, using data ON THE UK to prove your GLOBAL claim. This is a firm of the composition fallacy--what is true for a part of the whole is not necessarily true for the whole.
Brandon Phillips
I used to be an edgy anti-capitalist lefty but then I realized that a) the government isn't any more capable of creating opportunity for people than the market is and b) the anti-gov't left who fantasize about "The Revolution" are small minded children. We already had the revolution 250 years ago and it worked out pretty well comparatively
Dominic Butler
>innovation
Sure.
Jose Baker
>Under capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to get higher if they put the work in.
That's not because of capitalism but other regulatory measures by governing bodies.
Why are people so disillusioned by the American dream? That 1% make it and tell the rest to work harder when chance and luck play just as much a part.
Levi Ortiz
I don't think you understand what social mobility is. Brazil is a rapidly developing economy but people don't change in their economic status relative to others. Social stratification remains strong. If you were poor and working on a farm in a rapidly developing country but then as farming become less profitable you switch to a sweatshop as the economy becomes better your social class in the society is no better. The country has just changed.
It's true for developing countries as well like chile, turkey, argentina etc
Joseph Wilson
>99% of wealthy people today are wealthy because they have good jobs, they set up a successful business, they put the work and effort in.
Define wealthy.
We have a greater middle class yes but for the upper classes and such inheritance and the old-boys club plays a massive part in where they get.
Kayden Young
here's a definition
>Social mobility is the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society. It is a change in social status relative to others' social location within a given society.
> It is a change in social status relative to others'
Cooper Campbell
How do you measure that? By rising incomes.
Cooper Mitchell
But despite their market power, these firms always face potential competition unless there are barriers to entry in the market. Because of that, they might not innovate at the same rate as they once did but they definitely have an incentive to avoid complacency because otherwise the firm will fail to compete.
Look at Facebook. It really has no real competition at the moment but the lingering threat of Google Plus and other sites ensures that Facebook has to constantly improve and it also prevents them from exploiting their market power by charging customers or something of the sort.
Joshua Rodriguez
Almost true.
Likely we would see the USSR countries that are closer to west, pirate their software and sell the pirated copies on the black market for dosh.
If you didn't know, USSR was pretty capitalistic when it came to trading stuff that was not produced by the USSR.
Hudson Scott
*relative to other incomes.
Which--whoa, no way, look what's happening here-------->
Aiden Gray
What economic class you fall into for example 'Upper class' and how different this was to your former class or your parents.
Ryan Brown
If you don't innovate people eventually ceasue buying your products.
See: Gaming rigs
Brayden Mitchell
i.e. a rise in your income relative to others in your 'class', above, and below.
Landon Sanders
What happens Is classes remain stagnant meaning the ones who had wealth retain and grow on it. Since the top few gain so much wealth the lower and middle classes are hollowed out and put into poverty. Top 10 Percent increases their status relative to others the rest fall. gonna repost it so you read >Brazil super wealthy were the previous moderately wealthy. >If you were poor and working on a farm in a rapidly developing country but then as farming become less profitable you switch to a sweatshop as the economy becomes better your social class in the society is no better. The country has just changed.