I'm starting to do some research on capitalism and I thought the best place to start would be here

>>capitalism is great so long as it's controlled - but it's not controlled enough, it's unbalanced in favour of the extremely wealthy.

Except no. The problem is not that it's being controlled too little, but too much. The reason you see so much favor for the rich is because of cronyism, too much meddling. Here is what happens:

>Something happens because of corporate or more likely worker negligence, a fluke
>Moral outrage, public demands "solution"
>Lawmakers wishing for reelection agree
>Large corporations lobby and give "campaign donations"
>Lawmakers bring in corporate stooges as "advisers"
>Advisers gerrymander the law so it doesn't cut into their profits, but heavily detracts from competition
>Law passes
>Smaller companies that would innovate, or create healthy competition in the market lack resources to comply to the law
>Small businesses fail, large corporations gain more monopoly
>Lack of competition fosters worse business practices with more corruption and cronyism
>Corporations become too big to fail because no smaller companies able to fill the void can be created.
>Government then bails out failing corporations essentially subsidizing the rich because "they're too big to fail"
>The poor are crushed because prices rise and wages fall due to lack of competition and taxes rise to prop up the the now critical corporations

If you want to see what happens when capitalism isn't controlled like this look at the Chilean Miracle or Hong Kong prior to Chinese rule. They went from backwaters to economic powerhouses in their respective regions.

>As you all know capitalism is great so long as it's controlled

Sure if you like economic recessions that last longer than normal and people having trouble starting new businesses and making money. You're not against common people are you?

I've been looking for this everywhere. Just had to search for "communist pyramid" which I'm sure I already checked. Oh well.

Neither the military Junta in Chile or British controlled Hong Kong are remotely examples of "uncontrolled capitalism".

Even Chicago School Friedman was described as "socialist" by the ancap types.

I think we're going through a period of radical structural transformation that cannot be stoped. The internet is going to destroy profit margins since competition can be intensified to a insane world-wide degree. Some things are holding this back today but it's going to happen and traditional fiscal & monetary policies cannot solve these issues. Also cryptocurrencies and other such things may emerge as a serious threat to traditional banking and this could cause all kinds of unforeseen issues and instability.

Read these articles:
Smith, Marx, Kondratieff and Keynes: Their Intellectual Life Spans, the Convergence of their Theories based upon the Long Wave Hypothesis and the Internet:
web.archive.org/web/20110716112602/http://www.southerndomains.com/SouthernBanks/p2.htm

The incompatibility of prolonged technical change and competition concurrence and the socialisation of entrepreneurial losses through inflation:
docdroid.net/wHGPxeQ/the-incompatibility-of-prolonged-technical-change-and-competition-concurrence-and-the-socialisation-of-entrepreneurial-losses-through-inflation.pdf

You're describing corporate regulatory capture and ya obviously that's a big problem because of how government is structured.
Liberalisation doesn't magically lead to more competition because there's just as many private barriers to entering markets as public, you have to deal with intellectual property trolling, variable rents that can kill you, etc, etc
Progressive taxation favours smaller entities since more costs are shifted onto larger players and small businesses in most jurisdictions are given a ton of special incentives themselves but you're always going to have a extremely high failure rate for businesses because most people are morons.
Also cost shifting isn't a "fluke", companies will do bad things if the costs associated with getting caught are less than the return that can be made doing them.

Sweatshops, workhouses in Vitorian London and such are all bad but still it's a normal progression from the agricultural society and that will only improve (again naturally) in the next generations.

Going to recommend the same as in the Veeky Forums thread. Check out "the origin of wealth" and Peter Turchin's "Secular cycles" or "War, peace and war".

I didn't say Capitalism should go unregulated. My point is that the ills OP sees in modern capitalist markets are not in large part because of the Capitalist system, but how they have been handled by regulatory bodies.
>AnCap retards who believe that true capitalism can only exist outside of a political system don't like someone who made it a point to say Governments were important despite their short comings
Gee golly I'm shocked.
Private barriers to entering market
>Do you have enough capital?
>Do you have the skill?
>Is there a demand for the project?

Intellectual property trolling is a thing because of bad lawmaking spearheaded by large corporations who wanted to limit future competition.
Progressive taxation sounds good until you realize that most of the 1% are small business owners who employ at least 50% of the work force. Their money goes not nearly as far as you might assume, mostly because they are almost always racing with debt. Add to that that many are unincorporated meaning when you take bites out of their personal wealth, you greatly endanger them should their business fail.
I was not calling cost shifting a fluke, i was calling worker failures a fluke. Cost shifting isn't all that deterred by regulation either. Corporations will more often than not just use money or clout to move any bureaucrat in the way and if they are found out then they will have to pay the same damages anyway. The people hurt are small competitors who lack the proper clout, and without their competition the large companies have less reason to worry about people switching to competitors after their 12th recall in 2 years. All that you succeed in doing is increasing instances of cost shifting.

forgot pic

>I didn't say Capitalism should go unregulated. My point is that the ills OP sees in modern capitalist markets are not in large part because of the Capitalist system, but how they have been handled by regulatory bodies.

Except you specifically said "isn't controlled". I reply to what anons say not what they think they said.

"isn't controlled like this"
Your reading comprehension is dogshit

Doesn't help that neoliberalism has about 200 meanings

This. 1000 times this. Left and right have the same general agenda in America

Your articulation is very poor. I don't have the slightest clue what you are trying to say here.

Next time try and communicate in paragraphs and sentences.

This is why we need fascism so the economy serves the nation and the various economic goals of individuals are oriented towards achieving communal goals

nice unsustainable debt there Hans, oh but don't worry, I'm sure declaring war on half the civilised war will solve all your problems

Italy was a shithole of poor decisions, Mussolini had a boner for "muh quota 90" for the Lira, which meant shit, the New Deal devalued the dollar to ease exportation, so sure, Italy printed more money and placed it at 90, but exportation suffered tremendously, (italian goods prices doubled) and it would get even worse with the conflict with Ethiopia when the Society of Nations rightfully blocked Italy.

That chart does not tell the whole story.

Why don't you got live in North Korea since you love dictatorships?

Humans are fallible and easily corrupted. Any regulatory system you set up will inevitably become corrupted by the thing it is regulating, this goes double when that "thing" is the economy. This phenomena is known as "regulatory capture" and is a serious and intractable problem.

The reason capitalism is generally considered the best and fairest economic system is because it operates well with little or no regulation. This lets you cut down on the corruption inherent in any administration without the economy going haywire, as it would if you tried cutting back on bureaucracy under a planned economy.

>Any of these...
>Economically "liberal" policies...

That's America for you. Where an economic philosophy based on austerity, deregulation, free markets, and removal of worker's protections and rights, suddenly gets associated with socialism and syndicalism, because, through some twisted flip-flop fashion, the socially conservatives became fiscal liberals, and started nonetheless using "liberal" as a derogatory term, to the degree where no one know what anything means anymore... Which is just the way (((they))) like it.

Granted, neo-liberalism always seems to come down to protection for the big guy, but none for the little guy, regardless of the supposed intent - but then again, so does everything else.

Daily reminder that anarcho-capitalists are the anti-vaxxers of economics. They haven't had to worry about careless amounts of death or disfigurement in the workplace, company stores, company postmasters opening private mail, businesses handing their employees pre-marked ballots, Pinkertons escalating strikes to violent confrontations, starvation due to unemployment, ethnic/gender/etc. discrimination in the workplace, paychecks coming late or not at all, ETC. ETC. -- they haven't had to worry about all these problems in so long, they've forgotten why the regulations exist in the first place. They're just like anti-vaxxers.

Or they think like and forget that once upon a time, in a better job market and a faster growing economy, even uneducated people had their pick of employer and STILL had to deal with the problems listed above, because libertarians can't comprehend the concept that all options can be shitty at the same time unless regulations force them to be less shitty. As for modern examples of things that employees might want but can't get -- like vacation hours for hourly workers, full-pay maternity leave, etc. -- they have no answer for why they exist in countries with those regulations but not in countries without those regulations. Because they just can't think.

Because you shitty Americans destroy any government that the people of a nation elect, to replace it with a soulless capitalist system. I don't need to go to North Korea, if you would stop destroying countries that disagree with you.

Controlled in the fashion which benefits the greater people and the state the most.

If left unchecked, Capitalism will amass wealth towards one tiny minority. This is a problem as it negatively affects the most others. Its also a problem for the state as it threatens the stability of the state with another equal (economic) power threatning to create imbalance.

Capitalism unchecked creates a system that consumes the state. See rise of Gokturks

Don't even need to look at history. Just see what's happening in the West as we speak. Most people ignore that unrestrained immigration doesn't come from DA JOOOOOOS but from greedy capitalists that want cheap labour.

If you want to discuss capitalism, this place is fine. If you want to discuss economics, stay far far away. This board get's bogged down with such basic shit that it's not worth explaining for the 600th time that finance is a thing and it does something.

Oh those greedy allmighty capitaliats investing millions in people who don't even work. Really ignites my molotov cocktail, comrade.

That's monopolies. Definitely not what free market capitalists like. Just like unbalanced budget, huge debt and difficulties with starting a business.

Capitalism creates monopolies. Its a natural state of the system.

Regulations either prevent monopolies or limit them.

The pareto's laws, the zipf's laws etc describe this event in nature. Monopolies naturally form without outside influence.

>people who work for below minimum wage because it's more than what they'd make in their shithole home country
>a bad investment

>unrestrained immigration

It's pretty hard to legally immigrate to a good country, especially if you're a third worlder. You have to be an idiot that doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about if you think immigration is unrestrained.

They don't work. Except when they're like Ukrainians. And they're extremely beneficial considering demographic troubles in Europe. They also work jobs the natives won't.

If you work you're also a monopolist. But sounds like you don't.

I don't think you understand what capitalism entails. So don't bother commenting.

Pretty sure I benefit from it. Like everyone else.

okay

Just more to fuck with you.
There's always competition. State can create monopolies though. And does that a lot. And they always fail.

t. white yurop/burger living in one of the richest parts of the world.

>My point is that the ills OP sees in modern capitalist markets are not in large part because of the Capitalist system, but how they have been handled by regulatory bodies.

No, you haven't understood the point in my OP. If the markets were freer then the concentration of wealth would of happened much faster.

It's absolutely inevitable that wealth becomes concentrated because the more purchasing power you have, the easier it is to grow it. It's sort of an exponentially increasing relationship between purchasing power and growth.

What Im worried about is when the market becomes so saturated by the elite class that the common man has no chance but to work for them instead of creating his own thing.

Have some fun papers that I wanted to share:
>From the Bedroom to the Budget Deficit: Mate Competition Changes Men’s Attitudes Toward Economic Redistribution
>The Ancestral Logic of Politics: Upper-Body Strength Regulates Men’s Assertion of SelfInterest Over Economic Redistribution
Maybe not entirely related