'''Will capitalism end or can it be reformed?'''

I agree

What do you mean by prank like. Like low intensity warfare.

Nothing resembles a representative of the bourgeoisie more than a representative of the proletariat

To me it seems like we bitch about bourgeois democracy because we don't win elections

I bitch about bourgeois democracy because it's a media spectacle that makes people have a consumerist approach to politics.

I can't think with all this ass

nice asses

i want to sniff a girl's butthole so badly

quality discussion

thanks comrade

The heat death of the universe, entropy is the only thing that can beat the unstoppable moral perfection and efficiency of unbridled free-market capitalism. Deal with it.

...

now thats what I call a shitpost

...

hey… dont .. .. talk to my joe like… that… .

You're right, it was pretty rude to the mentally handicapped to compare them to postmodernists. Sorry.

ironically the chicago and austrian schools are literall pomo garbage

fuck off gonna metaphysicallycalss war ya faggot

literally*

Quality argument there, friend!
If you wanted me to post these you could have just asked

Yep, it's so efficient that it grinds to a screeching halt every 4-7 years only to be saved by state intervention, while the rate of profit continues to fall regardless of any efforts to salvage it.

Could you do me a favor and compare the 1920 recession (no comprehensive government action at Federal level) to the 1927 crash (Hoover, while not as active as FDR, started almost every program FDR had on a smaller scale, and FDR obviously ramped it up.)

That's because there's more competition, it's not like capitalism magically became less efficient as time goes on, except for the obviously ever-increasing regulatory burden, I agree, that's going to hurt the profit margins of most industries.

here, have some pure, unadultered, pomo

Q U A L I T Y A R G U M E N T
U
A
L
I
T
Y
A
R
G
U
M
E
N
T

No, it's because the composition of organic capital is changing, with investment in constant capital outpacing investment in variable capital.

When you take more money in as profits than you give out to workers, and every firm is doing this, how the fuck is anyone going to have money to buy your products? Bearing in mind that when you increase the money supply (which bourgoies do not like as this decreases their wealth), the new money isn't going straight into people's pockets so they can buy shit and produce demand with which to sustain the economy.

deductive reasoning is based on feefee's

your feefee's are trash, just like all of the pomos

You mean inductive.

Yeah, the hit to the stock market was bigger than the immediate hit in 1927 and yet it was a shorter recession. Funny how that worked out.

Let's rephrase this
>If companies were forced to give out as much or more money to workers than they took in as revenue, and there's no profit, why the fuck would entrepreneurs spend thousands of hours and take enormous risk to start up a new business to best serve the needs of consumers?

Bullshit, the "bourgeois" includes the politically connected and the banks, the banks collect interest off the money they create out of thin air (a muh privilege granted to them by the government, not the market, in a market you would have competing currencies, in the U.S. we generally saw gold-backed currencies which were a better store of value, not saying everyone would be forced to use it in a free system.)
Yeah, that's totally how people become rich, the consumers demand more. It's not like demands are infinite and resources are finite, nope, the reason Bangladesh is poor and [insert random Western nation of choice] isn't is because the latter demanded more stuff, doing mroe good econmys stuff11!!

Not an argument. And I've never seen anyone criticizing the Austrian school respond to any criticisms of inductive reasoning.

Uhh, in order to best serve the needs of consumers? Oh, wait - the capitalist economy isn't about that, it's entirely about profit. And will you look at that, an economy based on profit tends to fall apart and not serve the needs of consumers at all!

This is precisely why we are against society where resources are distributed and goods produced on the basis of profit and accumulation. So long as we have the profit motive, we have crises of overproduction and the falling rate of profit. If we somehow raise wages to the point where profit is impossible but keep the rest of the capitalist system, nobody would build things because investment is made on the investors' impression of future profitability and nothing else. Which is why we should invest in production based on how many use-values it could produce and how well it could satisfy people's needs, not profit.

Gold-backed currencies tend to lead to crisis due to the fact that deficit nations are unable to create money and thus the only way to stimulate demand becomes to cut off services and spending entirely.
As it happens, fiat currency only has value because of the state in the first place. You would have multiple competing currencies, but without multiple competing extortion rackets that demand those currencies and those currencies alone, each given currency would have no exchange value relative to other commodities, beyond something approaching the cost of its production.

Yes it does. The fall of aggregate demand is why capitalism cannot sustain itself and why the rate of profit is falling. It is caused by investment in constant (dead) capital over variable (living) capital. In order for people to make money, other people need to spend money. This is particularly the case now, when ownership over the means of production is concentrated in an extremely small number of hands, and the owners allow the products of their property to go free only when it brings more cash than the value of the product back in.

In previous eras, the majority of economic actors were producers themselves and not all of their production was for exchange as today - some of it was private production for personal consumption, other parts were social production for tithes and feasts and w/e, and thus innovations in productivity benefited everyone as they spread across the world. However, this changed with the proletarization of the peasantry. As productivity due to investment in dead capital increases, less people are able to participate in the economy because they lose their jobs or their wages drop, meaning that demand drops and profit drops with it, and less stuff gets produced due to the fact that we are so good at producing stuff. Capitalism is the only economic system where advances in productivity and technology actually hurt everyone due to the falling rate of profit and aggregate demand from the change in organic capital.

You say this ironically, but the reason that so many poor countries today are in fact poor is precisely because their states were unable to grow the economy through spending because they were saddled with massive fucking debt by forces such as the imperial powers and the IMF. The case of Haiti is exemplary - upon gaining independence, France demanded that it pay them several times the world GDP at the time plus interest or else face a continual embargo. In order to compensate the former slaveowners whose property had revolted. The IMF operates on a similar principle, which is why Sankara was a genius to kick them out of Burkina Faso.

Most of the world outside of the West is held in some form of debt peonage due to this system, as a matter of fact. US imperialism relies extensively on it, though of course the US itself never pays its denbts.

Which you don't get if someone meets the needs of the consumer better than you. Competition, it's a thing.

Name me an example of a majority white country with significant amounts of economic freedom that collapsed economically due to the mode of production and not some other factor (e.g. war)?

As profits in an industry decrease, the attractiveness of becoming an entrepreneur and competing in that field decreases, favoring a more uniform level of competition in the whole economy, I fail to see how this is a deleterious effect of capitalism.

Prices instantly relay how everyone in the economy values something. How do you compare the value of an engineer's labor time with steel in a capitalist society? Prices, and with this, you can know whether to build something that requires more engineering (e.g. tunnel) as opposed to something requiring more steel (e.g. a longer route around the mountain), this problem of calculation is probably the biggest issue in an economy where you don't have privately owned means of production where capital goods can be bought and sold on the market.

What part of "competing currencies" didn't you get? I'm not in favor of fiat currency, gold-backed currency, or bitcoin having the monolith as the means of exchange.

Money existed before the state, it started off primarily as gold (and other fungible, durable, unconsumable, divisible, and portable means of exchange existed as money, even shells have been a means of exchange), then as gold stored in a vault, then people got paper receipts for their gold, then more receipts were given out than existed for gold (loans), this is essentially the origin of fractional reserve banking.
I'm not sure if you're arguing in extraordinarily bad faith, or if you're just exceptionally ignorant about the basic history of what money has been.

Demand is infinite, I've already said this and you haven't addressed this, I am not going to thoroughly address "muh demand" until you address the fact that demand is infinite and can not be quantified, do you know how many blenders I'm willing to take after I buy 1 blender? As many as exist on Earth and in the universe, those that I don't use or store I will resell. If I can't take more blenders, it's because my infinite demand for land and transport is not being met.

In order for businesses to exist, people need to save money so that banks have money to lend out to entrepreneurs to start new productive enterprises to serve consumers.

When the U.S. had a stable currency prices continually fell, the idea that you can't exist unless you're constantly making more money is a fiction of fiat currency and government control of the money supply.

(2/2)
Funny how 67 Autism Level Haiti (95% black) has been massively outdone by the average 84 Autism Level Dominican Republic, the latter also which suffered massive debt, going bankrupt and selling its right to collect custom duties in exchange for some immediate relief from the U.S. to prevent a full-blown war with European powers seeking to collect debt on the Dominicans, it's so weird how whenever you compare two nations the one with the higher Autism Level has lower crime and, if the economic systems are highly similar, you'll see the higher Autism Level nation is almost invariably doing better in terms of GDP per person.

Haiti is only paying 4 million per year in debt, and it has received billions of dollars in aid.
I did the math on this once, that's well below 1% of their GDP, it doesn't explain why their country is so much shittier than the Dominican Republic, unless you look at race and realize the reason white people had the Roman Empire at the same time Sub-Saharan africans had mudhuts is not because the latter didn't have enough navigable rivers or crops that could be selectively bred for agriculture, it's because their environment did not select for a high average Autism Level and the result was a bunch of high-testosterone idiots who can't sustain a civilization.

I am going to preemptively reply to your completely fucking retarded blank slate theory.

news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9365000/9365567.stm
Iran's critically endangered cheetahs are the last remaining survivors of a unique, ancient Asian subspecies, genetics experts reveal.
New analysis confirms Iran's cheetahs belong to the subspecies Acinonyx jubatus venaticus.
DNA comparisons show that these Asiatic cheetahs split from other cheetahs, which live in Africa, 30,000 years ago.

30,000 years.

The classic recent African origin theory statement is that Asians left Africa about 60,000 years ago, Europeans entered Europe around 40,000 years ago. So let's get this straight:

Cats spend 30,000 years apart in similar climates (Persia/Africa): Biologically distinct subspecies

Humans spend at least 40,000, up to 60,000 years apart in vastly more variable climates, with similar levels of genetic isolation: WE ALL DUH SAME!

Which you don't get at all, because of the falling rate of profit. Which I've already explained.

Capitalism has yet to entirely collapse, this is a stupid question. I said it tends to fall apart. This tendency has been known since the 18th century. David Ricardo and Adam Smith considered it an empirically verified fact. The 2008 Crisis can be seen as stemming essentially from the falling RoP.

Because nothing gets made despite our being able to produce things in abundance. And millions are left jobless, precariously employed or exploited when we could have full employment at living wages.

How much someone values something is irrelevant. The STV is some real nonsense. As it happens, some form of price system is not mutually exclusive with a collecitivized MoP and production for use, and thus cannot be used as justification for the institution of private property.

>As it happens, fiat currency
Read what I wrote. The shit you're talking about is not fiat currency. Multiple fiat currencies cannot compete in a """free""" market because fiat currency is based on coercion. You would simply return to the days of the classical political economists where everything is commodities.

Aggregate demand doesn't refer to how much people want things. It refers to how many things will be purchased. This is what I am referring to when I talk about demand, you fucking illiterate.

And how can this happen when firms in order to protect their profits pay people subsistence wages? And that the amount they pay out in wages decreases yearly regardless of what happens?

The idea that you can't exist unless you're constantly making more money is a fact of capitalism. Think what happens when you have both profit and a limited supply of money. Bearing in mind that profit for firms would mean increasing the share of all money that they own, and that in order to generate more profit, firms will naturally try to cut on variable capital by dropping wages and employment. An economy based entirely on accumulation of this one commodity, or any commodity with a limited supply would reach a point where further accumulation becomes impossible.

I've had this argument countless times and it's about as productive as trying to convince a Salafists that there is no God. Thanks for proving that Ancaps are indeed all economically illiterate racists. Suffice it to say that the Dominican Republic's debt was far smaller and that it received far more assistance in the course of its history compared to Haiti, onto which they only started pouring money long after the damage had been rendered.

This shit about Autism Level and race has been so thoroughly debunked by mainstream science that I'll just tell you to go read a book. Or even a wikipedia article.

Solid reasoning, at least by commie standards.

Right, the Housing Crisis had nothing to do with Fannie Mae, Freddie, government forcing banks to give loans to unqualified retards and guaranteeing those loans to the unqualified (the only reason those loans which no sane person would make were made is that the government required it and the government rating agencies told the people buying the right to collect the interests on the loans they were all PERFECTLY safe investments.)

That's not what happened throughout the 19th and 20th centuries in America when it had falling prices. Your claim has been proven false.

No it's not, it's extremely fucking important, when a producer of steel is trying to figure out who the steel should go to, it's definitely the person willing to pay one million dollars to put it towards a productive end as opposed to the guy who will pay $100 for the same quantity of steel to be used as the world's largest paper weight. Prices allocate goods/services to where they can be used most productively and where they are most needed. This is why women's studies majors get paid shit, because they're useless retards who deserve to starve to death.

Fiat currency requires coercion to be universally accepted, not to be run by a private bank and accepted by private individuals. Skip the all or nothing thinking, given that there's absolutely no basis for it in this discussion.

And people will purchase infinite goods if the price is low enough and they have enough space. Saying "people aren't buying enough x at y price, therefore shit economy" is a non-sequitur, the fact that commies think Keynesianism is the ugly tape holding capitalism together when the U.S. has had literally all of its worst crashes under Keynesian policy is more than a little retarded.

No, actually, gold-backed currencies don't lose value so you can live off of your savings.

Gold expands at about 2% per year, it's "inflationary," just not so inflationary as to outpace the growth of the economy, but if productivity is increasing sharply, prices will still fall.

And if this is a really bad idea for the firm, other firms will be able to outcompete them with alternative strategies.

Wrong, you fucking retard, having your debt so bad that you go bankrupt and have to sell your right to collect taxes to a third party isn't "far more assistance" and it isn't evidence that their debt situation was preferable.

HOLY FUCKING HELL, WITHOUT FAIL
It's so fucking hilarious. There's a stereotype that leftists think applying the word "debunked" to something they disagree with somehow proves it wrong. I used to think that right-wingers exaggerate that point, but you fucking idiots on Holla Forums brilliantly exemplify that principle whenever I grace your board with my presence. Thank you for proving, yet again, that the greatest depth of your reasoning is applying adjectives to that which you disagree with.(USER WAS DEBUNKED FOR THIS POST)

...

Whether competition happens is irrelevant. The point is that capitalism fails to provide for people's needs because it only seeks to make a profit. As profit approaches impossibility, people's needs fail to be met.

The only reason those institutions existed in the first place was to counteract the falling RoP and stimulate demand.

The rate of profit was much higher back then. Do you have the memory of a goldfish in addition to your other mental deficiencies?

The price of steel is not based on something subjective. While you could theoretically go around offering more than the asked price for something, in practice nobody but mental patients do this. Conditioning and cultural expectations can play a part in people perceiving something as valuable, such as veblen goods, but this isn't really the case outside of luxuries, and of course it has nothing to do with non-exchange value.

No, it requires coercion to be accepted at all. Should I come offer you a bunch of monopoly money for your car, would you say "holy shit, I better trade my valued commodity for this useless paper, because someone else might be as stupid as me and make the same trade!"

I'm not saying that, you ding dong. I'm saying that people aren't buying shit in general and the amount of shit they're buying is dropping yearly. You can look this up. Everyone knows this. I have told you why it happens. This is why capitalism is shit and its non-bourgy unpaid defenders retards.

Thinking that firemen stop fires when some of the worst fires occurred in the presence of firefighters is more than a little retarded.

All the gold would get immediately sucked up by a minority of people in surplus nations. It might grow, but it's not stimulating demand, it's just going straight into the pockets of the bourgeoisie. Thus the system fails.

I've already answered this point in a previous thread. I'm not going to validate your delusions by responding to them.

also
At least the Nazis have the character to admit to what they are.

You may be surprised, but it's actually just one single fully sincere ancap. Poe's law in action.

Also sorry, my frail mortal shell cannot possibly contain the full force of my autism.

Cheetas didn't invent sailing or the wheel you massive fucking retard.

Why was he banned?

the funny thing is. HE ACTUALLY THINKS THE BANKS WERE ==FORCED== TO GIVE OUT RISKY MORTGAGES
I always hear retarded rightwingers say this when it's been debunked a thousand times.
The incident they refer to is president bill clinton releasing a statement asking banks to lend to poor blacks to help the economy
no law was passed forcing them to do anything of the sort. They intentionally committed fraud on a mass scale to forge documents for people who would not have otherwise even qualified for mortgages, they bundled the mortgages together as derivatives, and the regulatory agencies ==THEY FUCKING OWNED== gave the derivatives a triple A fuckin rating, so they could be sold to investors for big bucks (I'd love to see how privately owned regulatory agencies in ancapistan would defraud people for the profits of the mega corps they are owned by but are supposed to regulate)

what an ignorant classcuck

probably ban evasion lol

I love logs