Why "blaming capitalism" isn't a solution, according to Eric Levitz 

It's the economics of sucking profits of society to a handful of private owners.

@@TheMahayanist Only if those profits exist.

By free market capitalism you mean taoism

And what do we have here -another dunce table at the back of the economics classroom.

No, it makes sense if you account for welfare queens. Many people believe that a large percentage of the people on welfare are lazy or entitled or straight up frauds. And sure, they want to help the poor, but on the other hand, they don't think all people on welfare are actually deserving of it/aren't really poor.

Your position isnt serious though. Everyone on the same page is not how mankind has been wired. They will never all be on the same page by design, so your solutions need to keep that in mind.

Thank you - this was precisely what I wanted to write in response. :)

Capitalism is just a tool. And used correctly is good for everyone. But there's always someone who'll screw it. It's in the humans nature. If you let hundred people use a hammer, there's always someone who'll either hurt themselves or others.

Karl Marx was "so based" tho (/s) (you're describing their hero - the master complainer)

Sorry, dude. What you said is a "straw man" argument about what he said. The reality is that you can't pretend to improve anything when you're replacing a handful of corrupt megacorporations with a single government-owned corrupt megacorporation. The USSR tried this. It was a disastrous system. It was even more rife with corruption than our current system is. The fact that you people look at all the scumbags that our capitalist system "accommodates" in positions of power, and think that the exact same people wouldn't dominate one single giant "corporate hierarchy" at the government level is always baffling to me. Keep in mind that 9 out of 10 Russian oligarchs that emerged in the 90s were former high-ranked Soviet dignitaries, often in the exact same field. When the problem that you are solving is the easily-corruptible nature of the humans themselves, the last thing that you want is to create a single vertical of power that the current "corporate climbers" can ascend better than you!

You're whole comment is a strawman lol.

Indeed.

Yeah, this is the dogma on the progressive left. The Reagan bogeyman still haunting us 30 -40 years later. And that Thom Hartmann is your go-to man for economics history tells us something about your ability to determine what is a reliable source and what is not.

No, capitalism started with Taoism.

@@user-gu7lv9gk8m No, it didn't.

@@themaskedman221 uhm, yes it did.

Nothing wrong with it, but when those "downsides" are exaggerated and obsessed over and the positives ignored, that's a problem. We hear about the "downsides" all the time from progressives -it's all they seem to want to talk about. Let's spend some time appreciating the fact that over the last 50 years global starvation poverty has reduced by 80%. Most progressives don't know this because they live pampered lives in Upper-middle class communities and have no clue what "starvation poverty" means let alone what it's like to live that way.

Capitalism is far from perfect and it hasn't been proven to be the better or best form of governing..it allows only a selected few to great success. Learn from the ants, in order for the colony to survive they thrive as one. In the world of ants the queen and the soldiers don't try to eliminate the other ants on which they depend for food and nourish their young... When they attack or defend they do so as one.

@@themaskedman221 See I don’t see the downsides being exaggerated by the current political mainstream realm of discussion. I don’t think our current politicians are doing enough to address those downsides of capitalism, which have been increasing in severity over the decades. Capitalism is to blame but that doesn’t mean that we have to get rid of capitalism, just regulate it better. This guy is framing the discussion like any time someone blames capitalism for something, that means that they just want to get rid of capitalism as a system, which is ridiculous.

@@CaillouThePimp And do you ever listen to networks like MSNBC or the echo-chambers of liberal progressive discourse? They are in a relentless, 24/7 attack mode against capitalism (well, maybe not MSNBC, but they cater to this stuff whenever the subject comes up). "This guy is framing the discussion like any time someone blames capitalism for something, that means that they just want to get rid of capitalism as a system, which is ridiculous." Well, many progressives do take it this far, but I think this is missing the point. It is not so much what's explicitly said but what's implied, and then again it's not so much what's implied but the actual nature of these criticisms. A lot of the things that get blamed on capitalism are not actually the fault of capitalism -inequality, for example, is something that the government has failed to address even though they're more than capable of doing so. And blaming the problem on capitalism gets them off the hook.

@@themaskedman221all liberals do that. Obama was saying if you could choose to be born anytime in history today is the best time. Yet Trump still won, because a lot of people are not faring well in the system.

Yeah the neolibs are never going to allow any of that to happen. Organize worker cooperatives locally

full communism is the only long term solution, even if that means gulags and death squads.... not kidding.

The cliché of the pampered liberal complaining about living in a "virtual prison" as he types from his smartphone in an air conditioned McMansion. The best defense of capitalism I've read is the almost completely clueless comments on this page.

You are almost spot on. Its not simply capitalism its the version of capitalism we are now running. Prof Mark Blyth from Brown U. points out that there have been 3 major versions of capitalism - the gold standard, Keynesianism and Milton Freidman's De-regulated Free Market. He describes it like computer systems that need to be upgraded every so often. We should have had a major economic rethink after the 2008 GFC but there were a very small number of people with way too much power making too much money and they would not let go. What's happened since is that instead of having that upgrade we got a patch and the patch has not fixed the inherent issues. Go and have a lock at what happens when the Ruling class tries to hang-on in times like this and the peasants eventually flip out. There's plenty of examples. The British Revolution where they chopped Charles the 1st's head off. The French Revolution where they chopped Louis and his wife's head off as they trashed the country. The Russian Revolution where they shot the Tsar, his wife and their kids as they trashed the country including some of the worlds worst environmental disasters like they did with the the Aral Sea.

@@tonywilson4713 capitalism started with the gold standard? At least your theory starts to n the Industrial Revolution. That’s far more advanced than most. Here’s mine. free market- a free market not controlled or manipulated by capitalists or nobility or serfdom. There are two primitive markets, both rely on supply and demand value systems. 1st is the labor market: outside of farm collectives, Tradesmen would have local names and they passed down this name and trade to their sons. The tradesmen were the owner class, they sold to the retailer wholesale or sold locally themselves. They bought and owned the raw materials for products and owned machinery and the land the machinery was on. The history of Lichtenstein is a good example of a free labor market. The 2nd market was goods and services, the raw materials needed to produce goods can easily be manipulated and is impossible to regulate so we will leave this type of market out of reference to ‘free market’ Capitalism- the invention of the assembly line during the Industrial Revolution where it took multiple people to create 1 product put the tradesmen out of business. tradesmen would now become artisans instead of movers of the market, this afforded the owner class an opportunity to create a low skilled class. If a low skilled class is maintained, slave owners could make a larger profit switching over to employees because price of slaves and housing and feeding slaves costs far more than paying out wages. It is important that a labor market is manipulated to make workers financially dependent on middlemen / their employers so they always show up for work. Owners usually make passive income(they don’t work) and hire managers to make them profits. If the workers become financially independent enough like the baby boomers did to start their own trades again, than the whole system can be commandeered by the working class forcing the owner class into the working class. This can never happen to the upper classes and they spend much time creating secret societies that come up with solutions to make certain it never does. They manipulate the labor market so that all the profits the workers create for the company only contribute to two entity’s personal economies: the business owner and the landlord. This creates a slow and thrifty economy. A great majority of the profits companies make don’t go into their pockets they go into bashing unions and making sure churches and school textbooks teach children capitalism and the righteousness in dying poor. Socialism- the workers were attempting to break away from the owner class/ employers in 1790s France and own their own capital and control the distribution of their own surplus. What is surplus value? It is the profit made from labor, if it only costs 15 cents to produce a good, and that product then sells on the market for $10, than the surplus value is $9.85. What is capital? It’s 3 things: 1 natural resources or the raw materials it requires to produce goods or provide services, 2 the machinery to extract natural resources or produce goods or provide services, and 3 property. A worker cooperative is usually organized by local low skilled workers that pool together resources to start a private for profit business. Private companies do not accept outside investors, a worker cooperative goes a step further than this by making the workers the only major investors. This explains why the janitors get paid same as the harder jobs, both invest the exact same money. The mission objective of a co op is not only financial independence but job security. Each member of the company owns an even percentage of the business, so the more co owners there are, the less personal profit each co owner will gain. Sometimes production cooperatives outside cities or populated areas will share their profits with lower valued service workers so they have access to services, these are called sister co ops. Each co owner also receives one vote on the board of directors, they hire and fire managers and co owners and vote on production and service schedules, this is like voting for how much money you want to work for and everyone works together to achieve this goal. The managers make about 4 to 5 times more than the other co owners, but they also own an even share and 1 vote on the board. Ties are broken by the managers vote. This is socialism, the workers owning the means of production and distributing the surplus evenly(except for managers unless self managed.) communism - when a community of co ops vote to stop selling to the market and decide to only trade goods locally. They stop paying taxes and stop using bunk government currencies. The system works by each co op entering into consumer contracts with all the workers where production of the natural resources that come from the local area is planned. All workers in the 19th century communes received the same local goods they would’ve paid for in currency for their work but with no money changing hands and no co op or good was more valuable than another. The workers were still in charge of production but they voted on production and service schedules based on the community’s needs instead of schedules based on profit motive. Communes must stay small to work, they are anti globalist and very nativist. If everyone was a communist, there would be no more governments or militaries because of it’s anti state nature Sociology/ Marxism - post traditionalism that would put into question every aspect of accepted economics including socialism. Many philosophers around the time of the French Revolution thought it was a good idea to not allow single entities to own land and resources, something the ussr didn’t even do, but being that they had no way of enforcing that policy they focused on other things. Marx came along much later when socialism and co ops already existed in some forms like the rochdale co op. Marx didn’t invent socialism or communism, he supported private co ops and formed political parties that supported them but he saw past socialism. Marx hated current governments in his time and their political representation but looked up to hegelian liberty and hoped it would help create a new type of government someday. Marx never thought all the land should be owned by a government, he wanted natural resources and land to be shared by the people that lived on that land. This means you would still own possessions and a house but everyone local would own the land that house is on. Marx was not that important to socialism or communism but he was to socio economics. Marx only used the word communism in his predictions because socialism consists of Omni classes and value systems/ high and low value trades eg a fish co op Nor-tuna making far lower profits than a manufacturing co op, Mondragon. Socialism also includes privately owned land and sharing it corporately, which Marx preferred over not sharing but saw as just margins set by capitalists. In terms of the debate over land, in my opinion, I don’t see how it is relevant because it takes a collective agreement on everyone’s part to accept no one can come and take any land for themselves, So why bother even arguing over these childish things that will never happen As long as nation states exist and own everything and will never give true ownership of land to the people. They will only lease it to people and take it back as needed. Leninism/ Bolshevism - after socialists won the Russian revolution, they obviously wanted to organize worker cooperatives but after beating Lenin and the Bolsheviks in an election, they were refused a seat at the first general assembly. Instead of giving the ownership of future Russian factories to workers, Lenin froze the market so that would never happen and put himself and 50+ oligarchs in charge of the factories and the country became one big for profit company. The system was truly against the maintaining of lower classes but this ultimately was ignored because bureaucracy ran rampant. Workers never owned the means of production in the ussr so it is neither socialism nor communism, I would call it an industrial collective ran from the top to bottom not that far removed from ancient collectives. Keynesian social policies - investment capitalism fell in the 1920s and was replaced with keynesian economics. This is where the workers lost wages that the owners took were supplemented by the workers own tax dollars. Companies were heavily taxed and could only make 10 million a year so there was no incentive for conglomerations. Saving money was very easy and This is why the baby boomers did so well. Neoliberal capitalism- immediately after fdr died and the war ended, neoliberals like truman and Nixon and Reagan started withholding goods and services like attaching healthcare directly to employers, stagnating wages, and gutting social policies. 80 corporations openly bribed both political parties, the courts, the media, and the government in the powell memo in the 1970s. To get Americans to vote against their own economic interests, they implemented wedge issues and controversies into political platforms much like Germany did in the 1920s and 30s. This was to again reestablish a low skilled class/ capitalism. This return of capitalism is why millennials and gen z struggle.

You guys need to stop attacking capitalism dogmatically without having the first clue how economics works. This is the US education system in all its glory.

Capitalism died in 1926, Free market capitalism never existed. What we have is corporatism with incipient Fascist elements. Neither the Fascist Republicans nor the corporate Democrats believe in democracy. The Republicans have gone full authoritarian, while the Democrats continue to push their pseudo-democracy or " Bipartisanship " as they have branded it.

@@themaskedman221 How was this an 'attack' on capitalism? I literally say that there are many cases where it is the optimal way to run an economy. EDIT: Also, my literal first sentence is "We need to stop treating capitalism dogmatically"

@@inscrutablemungus4143 No one is treating it 'dogmatically'. Economics is an empirical discipline that studies what can actually be observed and measured -not some hypothetical "post-capitalist" society. Capitalism is pervasive because when most people start a business, they freely choose to organize it that way.

@@themaskedman221 Dude. I can't spell out everything for you. I think the LEFT has to stop treating it dogmatically as the problem with everything in society. EDIT: I'm arguing for exactly what you said for in your first comment "You guys need to stop attacking capitalism *dogmatically* "

Progressives Getting Economics Wrong! Again..

innovation comes from free education and idea sharing, it does not come from financial incentive as the liars would have us believe.

@KLJFcallme I can certainly agree with that but a profit motive on the individual level might not be the ideal future for Humanity in general, but here on the ground level Humanity may not be quite there yet.

No. Capitalism itself is the problem. Sigh. What you DESCRIBED is how capitalism is SUPPOSED to work. Increasing their profits, lowering their costs. That's capitalism. Production for the maximizing of profit. You're complaining that capitalism is working EXACTLY AS ITS SUPPOSED TO. And you don't see any hint of irony.

What lack of regulations? The US economy is one of the most heavily regulated markets in world history, we have regulations for our regulations that have regulations on them so we can put more regulations on the regulations for the regulations that are regulated by more regulations. Confused yet? Cuz that's the point.

Too much government regulations is the issue

@@brandonm2520 seriously, these people have very severe mental issues. How you can think "unregulated capitalism" is the problem with one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world is some next level stupid. Stupid doesn't even describe it. It's something that's more stupid than stupid. The word doesn't exist.

I disagree with all of the responses to this. The first one is the most reasonable and I get what you're saying but I definitely don't want America to be a socialist country. The other two responses are just silly lol

You keep believing that lie. The truth is, we're more familiar your positions than you are with our positions. That's because WE do the research. You fools are a cult that walks away from conversations with people you disagree with. Or you shriek at the top of your lungs to drown out the opposition. I can define every one of those terms as I see it unfold in the classroom every day, and in society at large. It's all about equity -- and not equality. It's all about re-drafting Marxism for the American landscape, and injecting it into every American institution.

Which it almost never is.

​@@themaskedman221 Almost always is. Do you want to go through why capitalism is the problem with rents? It's very basic.

@@TheMahayanist I'd honestly like to "go through" why economic illiteracy is so rampant on the populist left (and right).

Wow, thanks for the hard hitting comment.

@@themaskedman221 if leftists understood economics, they wouldn't be leftists anymore.

And it's objectively false to claim "the system" (ie capitalism) is the only obstacle in the way of environmental progress. Local governments, rather than corporations, are a bigger roadblock at this point.

@@themaskedman221 Local governments in places like West Virginia are bought and paid for by corporations.

Burning the system down gets us to leftist utopia how?

But do you have tears in your eyes?

*rationally critical discussions. :)

Those are some very nice platitudes while people will continue to go through their lives in abject poverty

full communism is the only long term solution, even if that means gulags and death squads.... not kidding.

What? They want 50% now? Leave something for the rest of us, will you?

Yeah Adam Smith was a psychopath

Everyone is a capitalist with their own money.

@@markzuckergecko621 Not everyone. Even in our society which incentivizes capitalistic enterprise, there are many co-ops showing how businesses can be operated ethically.

@@Correactor so why aren't there more co-ops?

@@Correactor if it's a better system, seems like more people would be doing it. If it's not a better system, then it's at least worth entertaining the idea that you're wrong about capitalism.

@@markzuckergecko621 The fact that there are co-ops at all is proof that not *everyone* is a capitalist with their own money.

Do you understand the global trends you identify? Why is growth static in USA and active in PRC?

@@grantsmith505 The short answer is that more centrally planned economies are proving more robust than market economies. And I think this trend will deepen as the climate crisis worsens.

@@daltonheck9862 Are you just guessing, or are you suggesting this for political reasons? Do you understand that china is expanding from a very low developmental base, while USA has a stagnating population Seems like your understanding of economics is non existent, and you just pushing political sentiment

@@daltonheck9862 Australia has an economic growth at the moment that almost matches china Exceeding 3.7% last year But Australia is certainly not a centrally planned economy Where does this fit into your theory?

@@grantsmith505 Australia is not as significant in terms of mapping large economic trends. It isn’t even a G7 country. The two major economic blocks in the global marketplace are the G7 and BRICS. BRICS total GDP surpassed the G7 some years ago, and it continues to grow at a more rapid pace.

Precisely.

Except transitions from command control systems to market capitalism were the means by which billions of people have been brought out of abject poverty in the past 30 years. That’s a pro-people outcome.

Because socialism has such a stellar track record for putting people first. First for the firing squad.

Ah no it's not.

The only people who don't like capitalism are too stupid or lazy to capitalize on anything.

Reaganomics ruined capitalism. Now capitalism is just a patriotic term for anti worker.

Symptom of what?

@@ZSAZSS09 The justification of greed and avarice.

Distinction without a difference. Private ownership of production for profit. That's what we have, that's the definition of capitalism. Own it, deal with it.

@ChristianEconcom Umm, CRONYISM happens no matter the skin color😏 Like Socialism, the elderly fear of progression through "Capitalism" is just as flawed 😕😑 "Christian" is a loaded statement😉

Since when did unregulated capitalism exist? The US is one of the most heavily regulated economies in world history.

Exactly. Once capitalism became business owners and employers sitting in an air conditioned cubicle watching everyone else do all the work, underpaying the people that keep their operation going and price gouging the customers, there was no question as to if our model of capitalism has either failed or has worked for the people it was designed to work for....the REAL freeloaders of society. It all started with Reagan.

Private ownership of production for profit is what is failed. THAT IS capitalism. Regulated or not regulated.

@@markzuckergecko621 You must be a troll to be spreading comments like this all over this section.

It's not unregulated, but it is under-regulated or at least improperly regulated. :)

That's called taxes or as the Repugs call it " wealth redistribution ".

It's funny how they'll argue about how most people are progressive, and how nobody is progressive enough, depending on what dishonest narrative they're trying to push.

Well, isn't there some truth that moderates, liberals, and conservatives have progressive ideals? Without progression, there is no history, and progression can only be denied for so long. It can only be slowed because old politicians have an entitlement issue after making millions off the people while in office, no? Seems to me, ANY KIND OF PROGRESSIVE seems to be voting now. Do we want an actual free society for all or just the "chosen ones"?

It is. By the polls.

The argument is that the progressive agenda is supported by an overwhelming majority. Not that there are a majority of preogressives. Words have meaning. Maybe you should work on your comprehension

​@@markzuckergecko621 Name a "dishonest narrative" being pushed by the left. I'm not aware of one. There are hundreds peddled by the right, because that's ALL the right is, is one big dishonest narrative.

🤌🤌🤣🤣🤣🤣👏😂

Poc means people of color, so you didn't need to add the extra "of color" just correcting you ❤

Yeah, there are unfortunately a lot of ignorant people out there. Don't know why you'd be proud of it

@@xaui2240 This has to be a bot or troll.

This is cringe. And the assumption that people who do and don't support capitalism is race specific is kinda racist TBH

In the absence of strong government, the strong will simply take from the weak. So youre wrong

No. Capitalism has never existed without government and never will. Government is necessary to capitalisms existence. The capitalism you're talking about is Ayn Rand's fantasy world. Actually Existing Capitalism is private ownership of production for profit. That doesn't entail government or no government. So you don't understand the definition of the economic system you're defending. And in fact, almost everyone who simps for Corpo cock doesn't know what capitalism means or definition. They never do. And you've been a great example.

Capitalism is about private ownership and management of the means of production. The reason capitalism is so popular is because of the government's support of it. The fight to put control of the means of production in the hands of the people is a grass roots people powered movement.

​​@@TheMahayanistcorporations are socialist. They're publicly owned and traded companies that have to answer to the whims of their shareholders.

That's not what capitalism is. Capitalism needs a government to function. How would capitalism function without government intervention? I guess the Robber Baron era was the only real capitalism? That's essentially feudalism.

You know solar is the cheapest source of energy, right? Capitalism have alwasy told us the economical solution alwasy winn in capitalism. Still, we don't see energy-companies move to the cheaper alternative, but rather fight to uphold the old expencive one. This is how the capitalistic system work, not the utopian idea capitalist have been feeding, us about the invisible hand always moving us to the optimal solution