Can capitalism survive without stealing tax payers money to cover up failures of corporations?

>What about Hong Kong?
you mean that place that used to have one of the most corrupt economies in the world?

Hong Kong is one of the least corrupt countries in the world

A corporatist dystopia?

Corruption stats ate a total joke because they ignore a fucktin of hidden and socially sanctioned corruption in the stats.

No

So, if you do not trust corruption stats, how do you know that Hong Kong is one of the most corrupt countries in the world?

I never said Hong Kong was one of the most corrupt buy it's not a nice place to live in.

Why not?

Indeed. There have been several high profile scandals in Singapore (another of those "least corrupt countries in the world") such as when they found that one of the top brass at their anti-corruption bureau was a gambling addict. Beyond that, they consider that "conflicts of interests" don't exist as long as government officials privately inform the PM of any potential conflicts of interests. So proposing to fund your personal project or subsidize your former company is not corruption as long as you don't try to hide that fact from the prime minister.

Corruption stats typically look at how many people have to pay bribes to get medical treatment and third-world shit like that.

Singapore is the best country on Earth though

That says a lot more about Earth than about Singapore.

>Hong Kong is one of the least corrupt countries in the world
i would like a source on this claim

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Also thist.Singaporean

>Can corps that survive off gov cronyism survive without taxpayers?
Fuck yes.

Name a single country that is better than Singapore

Malasya

:))0)0))0

For the record, I'm not even Singaporean but I googled your country after seeing it mentioned repeatedly by libertarians and neoreactionaries who clearly only know about it because it tops some international rankings, and it was painfully easy to find a million articles and comments from angry Singaporeans pointing out all the problems and shitting on PAP (which is pretty impressive considering bloggers occasionally get jailed for too much bantz)
Singapore really feels like a Western country in that it has a segment of the population that is deeply bitter and disillusioned with the establishment.

In fact Singapore seems even more Western than the West, it has all the qualities and flaws of modernity cranked up to 11.

Literally any other first world country

Nigga what? Explain

The only first world countries that have a higher real GDP per capita than Singapore are Luxembourg and Qatar.

>Can socialism survive without stealing tax payers money to cover up failures of government?

Jokes on you, there is no money too still under socialism.

>GDP

So do you think Luxembourg and Qatar are better than Singapore or what the fuck were you hoping to prove with that factoid?
>yes
Then Luxembourg is a better country than Singapore (and frankly, I'd prefer to live in Luxembourg)
>no
Then why mention GDP per capita?

Instead of corporations hunting down and murdering whistleblowers? It'll never work.

That's what brought it closer to free capitalism. A disregard for regulation. Which others called corruption. And now it has some of the highest real estate in the world. Thanks for proving a point.

No it can't.

>people who think capitalism means the free market

Capitalism would prosper, creative destruction is healthy.

Also corporations pay around $400 billion in taxes a year plus a proportion of income and payroll taxes indirectly so the bailouts are basically just them taking back what was stolen.

So you say capitalism has never ever existed?

The free market would prosper. It wouldn't make sense to call it capitalism, since that term refers to the dominant economic paradigm that has existed since the industrial revolution, and that system involves state support of businesses.

so you b sayin' citizens pay taxes to fund a social safety in case they're down and out, corporations pay taxes to fund a bailout in case they're down and out as well?

The bailouts were not very safe. The government shouldn't get their hands too into corporations, especially buying off large amounts of MBS trading through Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or clearing the debt of AIG, for instance.

Corporations pay taxes because they rely on government services to survive.

Citizens pay taxes because the people who own corporations don't think it's fair that only the people who demand a service of the government should pay for it.

....what?!

The government exists for the protection of you and your private property? Why should you not pay taxes for the administration of the justice system???

But oh no it has to do with corporations right...jeez sometimes economists can be out of touch with reality.

That's the primary function of the state. It's a record of legitimate ownership, and it judges on behalf of legitimate ownership when there is a dispute.

Businesses cost the government far more than citizens. Heck, citizens own the government, so any profits from dealing with businesses ought to go straight to citizens. Any other structure runs into the tragedy of the commons.

In most first world countries, even those tax-exempted benefit of government services, like education and healthcare.

>Businesses cost the government far more than citizens.
Only if they keep on rewarding businesses for taking large amounts of risk.

Of course. Even those who don't pay taxes own the state they live in.

The closest the world got to free market capitalism was the British Empire.

Yes but all political scientists would argue that the administration of justice is closer to the formation of a state than the institutions of education and healthcare.

Hahaha. Did you think mercantilism was free market at all? Not for anyone who participated and 5% of the fucking population participated.

... no?

Do you think something can count as a free market when it's composed of conquered territory, when it imposes massive tariffs, when it's taxing people to literally pay for more conquests?

It may be the CLOSEST EVER, it's still not close to a free market.

So 95% of the population had free markets then?

That's really up to the owners of the state. It can't NOT be a register of property and the arbiter of justice.

So then my claim is right

>pay taxes to fund a bailout in case they're down and out as well
kek. Do you even know what "privatize the gains, socialize the losses" is?

They were as close to the free market as possible, engaged in village economies.

Sure. But the closest thing to a free market on a global scale was not close to a free market at all.

And the people who were closest to a free market were those who were not connected firmly to the British economic system.

Well again I never said the British empire spread the free market to all 4 corners of the world, but that it was be closest we've gotten, which none else seems to disagree with.

Just because the state's ventures were not free market doesn't mean the average citizen living day to day was getting as close as they could to that system.

Closest in terms of a global economic system. Not closer than the basic village economy that it was replacing.

It did not represent a move towards a free market, it was a move away from it.

Indian Ocean per-Portuguese was a better example of a global scale free market, now that I think about it for even a second.

You're never going to see a global free market though. States want their native companies to succeed, and doing so means that they need an edge in competition, hence why we still see tariffs today.

Not so long as people insist capitalism is a free market, no.

How is paying a tribute to China/Indian kingdom to trade any different than a tax on your good for entering the country?

It's closer to free trade than taxing everyone and owning every port of trade.

Do you mind explaining the differences you see between free market ventures and capitalism?
>inb4 Muh crony capitalism

>this fucking thread again
capitalism and communism are equally bad, people suffer at their purest forms but when pieced together some good things of both worlds you will get a system where people are happy and satisfied.

How are taxes anti-free market? Also who is supposed to own th port? Would it be any different if you had to use a private citizens port? Free access to a service like that seems more like communism if you ask me

This.

When the foundation of a building is bad, you gotta knock it down. Corporate welfare is one of the main drivers of American decline.

Crony capitalism is capitalism. Capitalism that isn't crony doesn't exist.

When they're used to support businesses that would fail.

Some bail outs force progressive movements. The government bailed out Chrysler and general motors under contract that they raise mpg and lower emissions on their entire fleets by 2020. Ford didn't accept that offer, powered through and can now raise their middle finger to uncle Sam.

Well okay, the free market doesn't exist either so that's not explaining any difference.
>When they're used to support businesses that would fail
So, your saying only when taxes are used incorrectly they're anti-free market.

>Well okay, the free market doesn't exist either so that's not explaining any difference.

Capitalism does not approach the free market. The economic system known as capitalism, the one whose success is cited in support of capitalism, is not a free market.

Economics 101 says capitalism means a free market, every part of economics education after that adds exceptions.

>So, your saying only when taxes are used incorrectly they're anti-free market.

Yes. When they're levied on citizens and given to private interests they are anti free market.

Is it not possible to levy taxes from citizens and use them to benefit the whole of society?

It is, but it makes less sense than taxing those things that cost the state money.

What are you taxing the citizens for?

No.
Corporate infastructure versus corporate expanded infastructure is a gigantic mess, where it turns out they don't build it.
And historically they haven't either.

Basically companies can't exist without some form of existing trade economy, can't expand without some form of existing infastructure, and won't attempt to build either.

I am not even sure if todays Mega companies is capable of existing without somebody else building parts of their infrastructure.

Idiot here

Should the Fed be audited by Congress or not?

They should give new money to the citizenry, not issue it to banks.

Take money out of the economy by taxing banks, if inflation is a concern.

How would this solve anything? Issuing the money directly to the citizenry makes the problem even worse because the monetary unit is depreciated that much faster. I don't necessarily agree with quantitative easings unless they are necessary. Point being, the financial institutions exist for a reason.

The problem is that they subsidize noncompetitive businesses. If it's issued to citizens, they can support the good financial institutions, and defund the bad ones. Bureaucrats cannot decide this better than citizens. Even if you assume the bureaucrats are not beholden to the businesses that they decide to fund.

Yup. Trump probably won't do it til his second term though, doesn't want to get assassinated before he fixes the trade and immigration issues

Granted you're right, the solution is not as simple as you think. Part of the reason AIG was bailed out was because of it's involvement in the process of insuring financial institutions trading in the derivatives market. Why though? Why was their part in that insurance field so heavy? Why were the companies activities so varied and assets so large?

A lot of what happened after the recession was necessary, but if Glass-Steagall was reinstated, a republican-democratic bill, you wouldn't worry so much about large companies controlling more market share than they know what to do with.

Nothing was stolen in the first place, as corporations are disproportionate users of public investments like infrastructure and fire departments.

yes, you start by not stealing tax payers money and by not fucking with the markets

i know its a radical extreme idea, but it might just work