Why does everyone rip into capitalism when capitalism is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions...

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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

>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.

But ultimately the winners invent Cars and Computers and the losers get them..

That isn't true. Computers may have started for the military but what propelled their development was clearly business and competition, such as Microsoft.

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

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.

>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

>. 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.

>Rich People will have access to the rest of the universe
>and have easy control of the human creation process and population
NO PROBLEM

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

And?

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.

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

> is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions

when will this meme die?

Nice trips

mfw a communist country went into space first

>Every westerner, in fact most people on earth now, get to go to school, for free.

hello , from what alternate world you came from?

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.

They had competition pushing from outside.

yfw a capitalist country went to Mars first

RED ROCKS

but you said that only capitalism fuels competition
a communist country can't be fueled can it

Yeah but Americunts wouldn't have tried anything if the russians didn't go to space first

They create competing sub companies within themselves.

What part of 'from outside' don't you understand

>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.

If socialists would know economy, then they would not be socialists...

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.

So capitalism is the source of communism's technological success yet it brought forth such success long before that systems popularity

>buy linux

what?

people push back against established norms.

> 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.

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

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.

you can't buy gnu-linux rights.

>Why does everyone rip into capitalism...

Because they're ignorant, jealous, children that buy into the "gibme dats" concept pushed by the commies.

?

Then buy the company. Ergo, the rights are yours to not sell the product so it won't be in competition with windows.

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.

Earth? Almost all kids go to school now

And how long did that take, compared to the flurry of endless inventions in the 19th and 20th centuries in capitalist economy driven countries?

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.

No sub companies that do the same thing and compete with eachother. An obvious example would be Pixar and Disney animation.

Right, I wonder how the Soviets got to space first.

>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.

>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.

MS faced lots of antitrust charges.

capitalism as we know it favours monopolies and oligopolies.

Every honest socialist accepts that capitalism is very good at innovation and technology. Its not the part people object to.

People were like Kleenex to the Soviets.

t. works for a wage and thinks himself part of the winners

None of these are monopolies. Are they oligopolies though? Yeah definitely.

kek I've seen wage cucks that think they are part of the "bourgeoise"

is there anyother big player aginst kelloggs?

General Mills is literally right next to it.

What is one qualitative innovation produced under Capitalism?

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzz

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.

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.

This is why we see new models of phones every year, right?

The "positive trend" means inequality is increasing, and the image I provided clearly shows the increasing inequality in the UK.

OP here I'm actually surprised most people agree with me. All i ever see around here is communists and others bashing capitalism.

>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.

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.

>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

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

>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

forgot pic for china developing economy

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.

NEETs are the worst

>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

>pic related

the only problem I see in that structure is all the fatties not contributing anything.

>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

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.

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

>innovation

Sure.

>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.

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

>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.

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'

How do you measure that? By rising incomes.

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.

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.

*relative to other incomes.

Which--whoa, no way, look what's happening here-------->

What economic class you fall into for example 'Upper class' and how different this was to your former class or your parents.

If you don't innovate people eventually ceasue buying your products.

See: Gaming rigs

i.e. a rise in your income relative to others in your 'class', above, and below.

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.

pic related

>equality
>desirable