[tavavex]

We're living under true capitalism right now. Look at the incentives. I don't see how we could have progressed to anything besides this, this is the natural outcome of the system in place.

American libertarians often imagine some kind of wonderland capitalism where everyone agrees to play by the rules that aren't enforced by anyone. To my knowledge this has never existed as a long-term equilibrium and it can't exist. I've yet to meet anyone who can tell me how their imaginary ideas go up against claims like

1. Encouraging infinite growth with no controls or limits will always lead to monopolism and is a one-way ratchet

2. Power vacuums are always filled (no public government leads to private companies stepping in and taking the dictatorial role, this time without any of the democracy)

3. Power always corrupts

[watwut]

The answer is that most libertarians see both 1.) and 2.) as a good thing they want to achieve. They imagine themselves benefiting as a high profile worker of that monopoly or rule setting company.

Also, note how super ok and welcomming libertarians are toward racists or even fashists. They do dislike pro-democratic center groups, they hate democratic left.

[DoesntMatter22]

The United States is far more socialist than capitalist and it’s not close. In the early 1900s the federal tax rate was 0. Now we spend 125% of what we bring in in taxes. That is definitely not capitalism. That’s not a free market, that is the government spending far beyond what’s even feasible

[Analemma_]

What does the relative level of government spending versus taxation have to do with whether businesses will self-regulate? You're just spewing non sequiturs here.

[DoesntMatter22]

They said we live under true capitalism right now we I’m clearly showing we do not. Not to mentions the US is far from “self regulating” there are millions of words of regulation in the US.

[fragmede]

No you didn't, all you did was complain about taxes and say that there exist regulations by counting the number words in them. Not all words are equal, not does it mean that they're effectively enforced. Looking at various monopolies like Ticketmaster or the UnitedHealth group and how they've been allowed to flourish it doesn't seem like America has anywhere near enough regulations to be considered true capitalism. If the market economy isn't a free market because a monopolist is exerting outsize control on the market, it's not a free market. That doesn't make it socialism though, that makes it crony-capitalism instead.

[DoesntMatter22]

First of all I didn't complain. I don't care what happens personally. Secondly it's just a fact that the US has a tremendous amount of regulations compared to the past. Just look at how few regulations existed in the 70s vs today. Apparently you don't like word counts, but the reality is there are a enormous amount today that didn't exist in the past.

That's not a free market economy.

"it doesn't seem like America has anywhere near enough regulations to be considered true capitalism."

You can't regulate your way into capitalism because capitalism by definition means markets free from government interference. The more it interferes the less capitalism you have.

United Healthcare is a great example. The governments enforce these companies being a monopoly be restricting which companies can operate in which states, having an enormous amount of red tape and regulation, documentation laws, etc.

If it was truly "capitalism" the government wouldn't' get involved at all. Part of the reason that doctors are so expensive to see is because there is a board that the US Government certifies to allow them to control which hospitals are allowed to be teaching hospitals for doctors.

If it was true capitalism there would be no regulation there and any college could graduate doctors. This artificially keeps the supply lower than it would be. These are facts.

[TFYS]

For capitalism to exist we must have a system in place to protect private property, e.g. a government. That government must be the most powerful entity to be able to protect property. The capitalist system is competitive, and controlling the decision-making of the most powerful entity is an enormous competitive advantage. Once you control that entity you'll naturally want to expand its powers. Hence capitalism will always lead to a growing government that capitalists will use to get a competitive advantage in their market. This is what capitalism will always lead to.

[Terr_]

> socialist than capitalist [...] federal tax rate

My dude, you're acting like Federal government is the only government that matters. It's a common mistake, but in this context it's fatal to your argument.

It's fatal because federal spending is the least relevant kind, since so much of it (and so much of its growth) is for the military, and military spending indicates very little about whether a country is socialist or capitalist on the inside.

In contrast, state/local taxes and programs are--even today--still a majority of the spending that actually tells us anything useful for a socialist/capitalist spectrum, the stuff that involves schools, libraries, policing, homelessness, property rights, etc.

[DoesntMatter22]

"since so much of it (and so much of its growth) is for the military"

So clearly you are pretty uninformed as the military spending is only 13% of the federal budget. Social Security (AKA a socialist program, IDK if anyone can deny that) is 22%, Medicare (another socialist program is 14.2%). Interest on our prior spending (a lot of it from SS and Medicare, etc, some military too. is 14%

So, if you add social programs you has (SS = 22.5%, Medicare = 14.2%, not counting education) that is 36% of the budget or nearly 3x miltitary spending.

A capitalist economy would NOT have those things are as they are not free market at all, they are the government forcing your to pay into them.

[Terr_]

> you are pretty uninformed [...] SS and Medicare

This is another aspect where your thesis is not-fully-baked. If you want people to receive what you meant, you have to stop writing it wrong.

1. You spoke about "the federal tax rate" and claimed it was "0" in 1900.

2. The most charitable interpretation of that is that you meant to say income tax: That's usually what people mean when they're too-vague; It would literally be $0 before it was introduced in 1913; You can't have meant all taxes because those were absolutely >0 and you wouldn't make that kind of math mistake, right?

3. When critiquing the growth and dominance of the income tax, that excludes the separate taxes (payroll) that go to SS/Medicare.

> capitalist economy

I'm not taking a stand on the "what the US is" conclusion at this point. What I'm saying is that your argument--how you're getting there--is unsound (can't ignore state/local level) and unclear (which numbers from where).

[DoesntMatter22]

The vast majority of you money goes to the federal level. You are here nitpicking and not dealing with any of the real issue. You are dancing around it for the sake of semantics rather than dealing with the actual issue.

[lenkite]

I went through the thread twice and unsure what precisely is the "real issue" you are talking about ?