Typical non sequitor thought conflating Capitalism with Non-Asset Based Fiat Currency. And of course, Communism is in fact a Capitialist system as well. It is simply Capitalism which is controlled by Party Technocrats, and which denies opportunity from all but the chosen winners.
And who are the (((chosen))) winners? Is that a non sequitur thought, too? Tell me, what am I conflating?
Capitalism, even in theory, is kikery.
Civilization can not exist without Capitalism. Non-Asset Based Fiat currency is the problem, which is illustrated by Lady Liberty bound to a chair. Something based on a false definition (Capitalism conflated with Non-Asset Based Fiat Currency) is non-sequitor.
Civilization can not exist without Capitalism
I disagree. National Socialism would save the entire world.
Also, I'm aware of the difference you're pointing out. What asset should back a currency then?
Capitalism facilitates the concentration of capital. Capitalism performs fine when competition exists, but eventually companies form truces and shift to rent seeking. Capitalism has a finite lifespan. Like any tool you need to switch to the right tool for the job and capitalism isn't perfect for every situation.
Please feel free to offer any system that is not Capitalist in which Civilization can function. I for one am not aware of any other. I suspect that you are forming your thoughts using false definitions.
National Socialism. Markets are leveraged to improve efficiency, but companies are regulated to prevent trusts and other anti-competitive behavior.
but eventually companies form truces and shift to rent seeking
You forgot the third element: "and coopt governments to enforce their truce."
Without government intervention big oligopolies are highly unstable. The more intervention the less competition there'll be.
Companies and trusts don't necessarily need government to enforce their truce. The Light Bulb Conspiracy was one such example, but Standard Oil and the railroad companies also had schemes.
(post is archived)