The success of capitalism

[Anarchic-Marxist]

Where is it? Not in the USA ever since the Great Depression we have used a mixed economy. Not Africa, not Asia, not Latin America, and not europe. Everyone knows the failures of socialism but where is the success of capitalism?

[Conserative Morality]

Bill Gates.

Or was he the product of socialistic policies?

[South Lorenya]

Once again, pure capitalism is just as much a failure as pure socialism.

[Pevisopolis]

The destruction of almost all standing in opposition, and systematic raking-in of enormous profits.

[Inchland]

The success of capitalism, its not really anywhere tbh

[Anarchic-Marxist]

Bill Gates.

Or was he the product of socialistic policies?

But he was under a mixed economy not a capitalist one.

[Conserative Morality]

But he was under a mixed economy not a capitalist one.

A mainly Capitalist economy. Elements of a mixed economy, but still primarily a Capitalist one.

[Wikine]

We didn't have laissez-faire before the Depression either. Unions were banned and there were high tariffs, which are hardly laissez-faire.

[Jenrak]

Bill Gates.

Or was he the product of socialistic policies?

But he was under a mixed economy not a capitalist one.

Firstly, that's a fallacious claim. To add on that, Gate's rise to fortune focused on eliminating the average variable cost incurred by advertising when working with information. High fixed cost, low average variable cost, low advertising, allowed the product to be marketed at a cheaper rate, allowing him to gain a foothold advantage when marketing his products. He left the costs low by finding innovative alternatives, allowing a more stable position in the marketplace for longer, gaining him more economic power. This increased his economic profit as equity costs lowered. It's fairly capitalist in nature.

Secondly, the question in the thread is largely fallacious as well, given that you're under a misinterpretation of what is capitalist and what isn't capitalist policies and also the importance of being in a mixed economy to capitalist policies. Particular practices are unquestionably capitalist in nature, so it's not rocket science to figure out which ones are and which aren't.

[Call to power]

Where is it? Not in the USA ever since the Great Depression we have used a mixed economy. Not Africa, not Asia, not Latin America, and not europe. Everyone knows the failures of socialism but where is the success of capitalism?

so what your going to do is for every success of capitalism mentioned your going to put your hands over your ears and yell "mixed economy LAWL!11"?

fine lets play this game: the various East/West India companies giving even European powers a good thrashing? the East India companies ability to rule India for hundreds of years before evangelical Britain's fucked things up by demanding widows not be cremated with their husbands?

or perhaps just the success the more capitalist orientated systems have had in having sex with the world

[Greed and Death]

Where is it? Not in the USA ever since the Great Depression we have used a mixed economy. Not Africa, not Asia, not Latin America, and not europe. Everyone knows the failures of socialism but where is the success of capitalism?

or perhaps just the success the more capitalist orientated systems have had in having sex with the world

I do admit it is nice to travel.

[Dododecapod]

It's EVERYWHERE.

The op is making the mistake of thinking that only absolute free market, laissez-faire capitalism is capitalism. Which is ridiculous; it's like saying someone isn't a socialist because they don't believe in absolute, hardline Marxism.

Our current system isn't "mixed" at all. It's a solid, basic capitalist structure, with some good ideas from socialism tacked on and a reasonable level of government oversight. Which is anything but anti-capitalist, whatever the "free-the-market!" extremists might have you believe - even Adam Smith acknowledged a role for the government in the market, if only as a neutral referree and law-keeper.

We have high standards of living in the west because of capitalism. Many nations of the far east see their economies rising and people getting better off through capitalism, as do many South American states. Is capitalism a panacea for the world? Certainly not - it can do nothing in the face of corruption, of government mismanagement, or political or religious strife. Capitalism is, simply, the one truly effective economic system we've got, and that's all. But that's enough.

[Call to power]

I do admit it is nice to travel.

and thanks to decadent capitalist pharmaceutical companies theres no risk of taking home more than you bargained for!

try and explain that to a Moist with dear leaders super aids

The op is making the mistake of thinking that only absolute free market, laissez-faire capitalism is capitalism. Which is ridiculous; it's like saying someone isn't a socialist because they don't believe in absolute, hardline Marxism.

your just not hardcore like us

[Sibirsky]

Where is it? Not in the USA ever since the Great Depression we have used a mixed economy. Not Africa, not Asia, not Latin America, and not europe. Everyone knows the failures of socialism but where is the success of capitalism?

Ahem. Well, I would say the success of Hong Kong, Singapore, Western Europe and the US after World War II were driven by the free market and not their governments. Or, their governments staying out of the free market enough for them to prosper. China, is a pretty good example as well. Ever since they have relaxed their iron fist grip on the economy, it has had immense growth, powered by the free market.

[Sibirsky]

Bill Gates.

Or was he the product of socialistic policies?

But he was under a mixed economy not a capitalist one.

But it was capitalism that allowed him to achieve what he has.

[United Russian State]

Not Asia?

Please look at a map of the area, and report back when you do. Clearly you are not aware of all the nations that are apart of Asia, part or entirely.

[Pan-European States (Ancient)]

Capitalism appears to be pretty successful but is it sustainable in the long run? If man-made climate change is a reality then surely capitalism will need to be replaced with something else to prevent ecological catastrophe- which would make capitalism a failure if it happened.

[Fson]

We didn't have laissez-faire before the Depression either. Unions were banned and there were high tariffs, which are hardly laissez-faire.

yea because Laissez-faire is an amazing policy isnt it?

[United Russian State]

Capitalism appears to be pretty successful but is it sustainable in the long run? If man-made climate change is a reality then surely capitalism will need to be replaced with something else to prevent ecological catastrophe- which would make capitalism a failure if it happened.

Yes, because it's not like socailist economies/governments haven't played a role in clminate change.

Which we cannot even say men plays a huge role in it.

[Trotskylvania]

Bill Gates.

Or was he the product of socialistic policies?

Computer technology was developed entirely at public cost. Only when the technology had suffiently developed, after decades of public support, were the benefits released to the private market, allowing men like Bill Gates to reap the rewards of a mature technology they played no hand in developing. That's a very bad example to use, CM.

[Sibirsky]

Capitalism appears to be pretty successful but is it sustainable in the long run? If man-made climate change is a reality then surely capitalism will need to be replaced with something else to prevent ecological catastrophe- which would make capitalism a failure if it happened.

Temperatures have been dropping for 10 years or so.

[Sibirsky]

Bill Gates.

Or was he the product of socialistic policies?

Computer technology was developed entirely at public cost. Only when the technology had suffiently developed, after decades of public support, were the benefits released to the private market, allowing men like Bill Gates to reap the rewards of a mature technology they played no hand in developing. That's a very bad example to use, CM.

Warren Buffet.

[Trotskylvania]

Where is it? Not in the USA ever since the Great Depression we have used a mixed economy. Not Africa, not Asia, not Latin America, and not europe. Everyone knows the failures of socialism but where is the success of capitalism?

Ahem. Well, I would say the success of Hong Kong, Singapore, Western Europe and the US after World War II were driven by the free market and not their governments. Or, their governments staying out of the free market enough for them to prosper. China, is a pretty good example as well. Ever since they have relaxed their iron fist grip on the economy, it has had immense growth, powered by the free market.

And all of the places you listed have had, since WWII, giant state sectors planning and regulating the national economy. You cannot attribute their success to the free market. None of the most successful nations in the world have ever adopted more than a limited pretense to laissez-faire.

[Trotskylvania]

Bill Gates.

Or was he the product of socialistic policies?

Computer technology was developed entirely at public cost. Only when the technology had suffiently developed, after decades of public support, were the benefits released to the private market, allowing men like Bill Gates to reap the rewards of a mature technology they played no hand in developing. That's a very bad example to use, CM.

Warren Buffet.

And even a cursory look at his Wiki article reveals that the truth is far more complicated. His corporation is a holding company, that, among other things, holds many companies in untilities and manufacturing, both sectors are heavily supported through subsidy or tarrifs. He also benefits with all his other companies from public infrastructure, such as roads, telecommunications etc. The only thing you can find is the truism that there are no self-made men.

[Sibirsky]

Where is it? Not in the USA ever since the Great Depression we have used a mixed economy. Not Africa, not Asia, not Latin America, and not europe. Everyone knows the failures of socialism but where is the success of capitalism?

Ahem. Well, I would say the success of Hong Kong, Singapore, Western Europe and the US after World War II were driven by the free market and not their governments. Or, their governments staying out of the free market enough for them to prosper. China, is a pretty good example as well. Ever since they have relaxed their iron fist grip on the economy, it has had immense growth, powered by the free market.

And all of the places you listed have had, since WWII, giant state sectors planning and regulating the national economy. You cannot attribute their success to the free market. None of the most successful nations in the world have ever adopted more than a limited pretense to laissez-faire.

Their success is based on the free market. Not on state planning of the economy.