Good products are expensive to make. Easier and cheaper to throw money around to remove competition and make a shitty product to save costs than actually making customers happy with a superior product. Capitalist enshitiffication.

See that isn’t capitalism, that is cronyism because the government allows the lobbying that puts the restrictions in place to destroy competitors

Our government has become a self-serving leviathan that needs to be cut back to its original intent.

Tired ass oligarchic propaganda. G Reagan served up that stupid swill. Younger people aren't buying it, glad to see.

You speak of propaganda yet you use all the trite, jargon of the left. The only thing the indicates that you may have had some education is the fact that you would have had to be steeped in such swill for a long time to be so comfortable spewing their stupid lies and insults. You are a chump.

Ha! The word oligarchy is "jargon of the left." Too much for you to handle, is it? You have no argument, you're just repeating decades of libertarian garbage. Laissez-faire economics is under attack from fresh minds. Must drive you cray to see your precious religion defrocked.

Bernie Sanders the left wing socialist has been using that term for over 10 years. It is a leftist term used by his ilk.

For many years before Bernie Sanders became a household name, oligarchy was taught in high school and college civics classes; a common governmental system that applied to Rome and other empires. Rule by the wealthy. You don't strike me as a native English speaker..

This might blow your mind.. William F Buckley should be one of your heroes, as much as he advocated for concentrated wealth. Yet he says things that would today be considered heretical.. how the worm turns. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W0B...

I never advocated for concentration of wealth. I advocate for a robust competitive market as free of gov/t interference as possible. I would allow some leeway for safety concerns and even some for environmental concerns as long as they are scientifically sound, unlike the climate change hoax.

Capitalism across the world has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history. Any argument against that reveals ignorance and bias. Yes, there need to be some environmental and safety constrains (very few) but central control and planning always fouls things up.

What the federal government has become is devastating. It has killed the very idea of America

I agree. The federal government has become captured by the extremely wealthy. The whole legal framework has been twisted and distorted to concentrate wealth in the hands of the already rich. It needs total reform. It must be as egalitarian as possible. Tall order for a republic, but doable.

What we need to do is return to the principles of the Constitution. Cut Fed. Gov't role back to what it was intended to be. Return power back to the states. Respect all the rights outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Screw big Gov't, centralized power, over regulation and taxation.

Cronyism is inevitable under capitalism. The goal is maximum profit, minimum spending. That's it. What's an easy way to to increase profits and decrease spending? Bribing the government to make more favorable conditions to do so.

Exploitation will always make more money than not which means the people with the least morals gain the most power the fastest.

No it isn’t inevitable. Government is the only institution that can institute cronyism with force of government power and purse. Government sucks. Capitalism is just an economic system, it has no power.

There are no incentives under capitalism to do good for people or the world. The only incentive is profit. If you cannot kill your morality and be as ruthless in pursuit of profit as possible, someone else will and will stomp you out. It is designed for the worst people to have the most influence.

That's why we can't make capitalism the king of our hearts. Which is what Reagan sold.. "greed is good!" I think it's possible to have tightly regulated capitalism that serves people, rather then people serving the system. At least I think so.. maybe I'm wrong about that. People can also suck.

We both seem to agree the gov' has become a corrupt leviathan. I say it needs to be slashed and limited. Our freedoms need to be protected, and our incomes left unmolested. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying its regulatory powers need to be expanded, and taxes increased.

Government has always had power to regulate business, and the power to levy taxes, and to create legal entities that "protect" individuals from liability, and more. A lot of power. The mess comes from government being used by rich businesses to battle each other. Laws and regs used for advantage.

An economic system has zero power to do good for anyone. Capitalism is an idea, not a governing institution. Your problems are with the government, you just don’t understand that or won’t accept it.

An economics system can have power to do good if you set up the right incentive structure. If you create a system where one gains benefits by being selfish and harming others, that's who'll have the most power in society. You create a system that rewards cooperation and societal benefit.

The government is a natural aspect of humans living in groups. There is always some structure of rules and management that will be set up because it's too much for individuals to handle purely on their own. If we go ancap, we'll still have a government, it'll just be the corpos at the top.

We know what happens when there's no government regulation because we've already seen it during the robber baron era. Companies towns where a single company owns the housing, the stores, the police, and everything else. You got paid in company scrip that only works at the company store.

And there are companies today trying to create company towns again and be fully autonomous to the federal and state governments. Under anarchocapitalism, the corporations become the government.

Where did I say no regulations? I am saying the regulations that GOVERNMENT has put in place have allowed people to act like they do. Capitalism didn’t do that.

Yes, and government has set the structure and rules that allow people to act as they do. Capitalism didn’t do that. That is a direct result of government failure.

Government does not exist in a vacuum. It is set up by people with their own motivations and agendas. Once set up, it was influenced by the people under it. The systems start to shift and morph as more people try to influence it to their benefit.

Who would set that incentive structure up? Government. You continue to blame capitalism on government and selfish people. Neither of which capitalism controls

I don't blame capitalism on government, I blame it on itself. It's an incentive structure that reinforces negative behaviors. If a kid gets candy for beating other kids, you get inevitably more violent kids.

Due to that trait, those that are most successful have the worst of those negative traits and use their power to further increase wealth and power.

Yeah, and as a parent you are a failure for allowing your kid to act like that and rewarding them. Who allows businesses to act in bad ways and rewards them? Oh yeah, government.

Younger people have only seen the worst kind of capitalism. You're right; government creates capitalism. Ownership laws, the corporate charter, market law and business law. I get why younger people consider capitalism the scourge.. but it's not, it's just run amok thanks to libertarian ideology.

Government run by the rich totally sucks. Government run by the people, to help people in general... Sucks much less. Not that it's easy to get there.. but we had a few decades of something closer to it.. and we had a solid middle class.

Capitalistic enshittification is real and happening in front of our eyes. That doesn't make capitalism itself useless, it can do good. It has to be TIGHTLY REGULATED. Heavy taxation on excess profits, regulate for social good and environmental preservation.. Worker-owned capitalism better.

Excuse me sir, your Socialism is showing.

you say "socialism" like that's a bad thing. You're probably confusing socialism with communism. Communism was a happy fairy-tale story sold to ignorant peasants to get them to buy into becoming a new kind of slave. Very bad. No matter what Marx intended, it didn't work out.

Socialism is a VERY bad thing. It destroys wealth, freedom, responsibility and motivation. Free people to pursue their own self-interests and both they and society do well. Our gov't was corrupted with the introduction of "progressive" aka socialist thought from Europe. We have suffered since.

That's just not true. It's religious belief, that's what it is. And it flies in the face of reality. People are naturally socialistic. You sound anti-social. ( that's a little joke.. )

Naturally socialistic? Read a little Hobbs. Socialism is absolutely unnatural and only arises when someone seizes power and forces it down on the masses. Have you ever noticed socialist leaders are always fat even while their people starve.

"Nasty, brutish and short" Hobbes. Doom porn. Stop reading depressed philosophers and learn some evolution. Without cooperation the human race wouldn't exist. Again, you're confusing socialism with communism. Here's the president of socialist Sweden.

If socialism is worker ownership, socialism offers positive outcomes. Research tells us that worker-owned businesses are more productive and resilient. Worker-owners have been found to have higher savings and enjoy greater job stability. It has the potential to reverse wealth inequality.

If the research is accurate, then why are there not more successful worker owned businesses? Are they counting sole proprietorship as "worker owned businesses"? If so, the claim becomes a little easier to believe.

You can investigate those structural questions and find out. As for why not more of them, legal changes need to made. The USA has a lot of ugly history around organized labor, the rich using all kinds of dirty tricks to defeat unionization. Worker-owned businesses are like a union on steroids

and in case it's not clear.. unions have a bad reputation with a lot of people.. It's not the union structure or the idea that's the problem with many real world unions ( thinking Teamsters mostly ) It's the same old stupid people tricks. Corruption is *everywhere* Even in the Fortune 500.

Sole proprietorships are not considered worker-owned and would not be included in this kind of research. The employee ownership trust, employee stock ownership plan, and worker co-op are the three main broad-based worker ownership models. There are existing barriers that affect creation rates. In

the United States, laws for worker ownership can vary widely by state and while there is a federal legal framework for ESOPs, there isn't for worker co-ops or trusts. ESOPs may be expensive to implement, especially for smaller businesses (which are the majority).

thanks for providing detail. I'm a big fan of worker ownership.. Of course, anytime people are involved, problems arise, but hey.. can't make an omelet.. all that.

Indeed. Communistic socialism used "worker" to describe an entire class.. and obviously the communist government controlled things ( not democratic in any sense. ) Democratic capitalistic worker ownership is different. www.esopassociation.org/blogs/employ...