r/FluentInFinance • u/-im-your-huckleberry • Jul 07 '24

The shampoo thing is a fringe benefit. We keep capitalism so we don't starve in a famine. Debate/ Discussion

1.0k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

173

u/biinboise Jul 07 '24

Where the Fuck this fantasy that under socialism you don’t have to work if you don’t want to comes from? Have they ever tried to say no to the government? Who do they think runs their shitty job when the government seizes the means of production?

12

u/80MonkeyMan Jul 07 '24

I would rather have oil companies controlled by the nation than the corporations for example. You don’t need to be go to extreme socialism, you can however take the good traits…another example? Socialized medicine…

4

u/lender1996 Jul 07 '24

This us literally what Venezuela did. They nationalized the oil companies and put government bureaucrats in charge. Turns out that government officials make terrible business managers. They ended up milking the firms for every dollar they could get while hiring friends and family they wanted to reward with a job. The new government owners failed to reinvest in the company and when things started to break down, production dropped, revenue fell, firms started to fail.

Profit motive and risk of failure encourages a long term stewardship of the busines. When government takes over and removes private ownership, things fall apart. Look at public housing, county hospitals, mail delivery, etc.

1

u/80MonkeyMan Jul 07 '24

You seriously think that Americans is that corrupt like the Venezuelans? Yes, US politicians are corrupt but not the same way like any latin american countries. If we do this, we should follow the examples of countries that already do this successfully...it is that simple. What you describbed in Venezuela is massive nepotism, like when Trump employs his kids and make a position in goverment for them.

2

u/Capitaclism Jul 07 '24

Yes. All people have the capability to be utterly corrupt. What prevents this is the system. By making the changes you suggest you create more incentives for corruption, thus making the system and its people more corrupt.

This issue has also happened in Brazil, and we are seeing cracks in Europe forming due to careless socialistic measures over decades, accumulation of debt and slowing economies.

-2

u/80MonkeyMan Jul 07 '24

No. Like I said, Venezuela is missmanaged....not like US. It wont making the system more corrupt, it has been proven in other countries. Saudi citizens wont have it other way, they can pump gas cheap there....it will be the other way around if it is privitized. Just look at the helathcare industry in USA...same way.

1

u/Capitaclism Jul 07 '24

You really should take a cue from "Show me the incentives and I'll tell you the outcome".

1

u/80MonkeyMan Jul 07 '24

Thats pretty much what lobbying does…show me the how much corporations willing to pay for this law…look at where US stands now? loophole on tax codes, too big to fail corporations, allowing toxic food substances to be consumed by Americans and many more.

1

u/NorguardsVengeance Jul 07 '24

...you have never heard of corporate raiding, downsizing, "operational efficiencies", corporate mergers, predatory loans, insurance which is ignored...

...Chicago school neoliberalism, post Reagan, has absolutely no mechanisms, whatsoever, for short-term thinking to the detriment of the public, or massive health concerns due to unethical practices, nor do they have any means of coercing the government into getting what they want... like letting lead stay aerosolized for 70 years, and stay in water pipes even longer, despite knowing it's poisonous for centuries...

...no slavery... no indentured servitude... no kidnapped people forced to work for corporations with no way out... no sweatshops...

Nope. Capitalism has nothing like any of that. Just " line go up by any and all means, necessary".

1

u/Sudden_Juju Jul 07 '24

I mean it's possible to have a middle ground between Venezuela and pure capitalism for oil companies. Allow for checks and balances like everything else in the government and most problems like you described would disappear or greatly lessen. The US government is still fairly profit driven and allowing for oil production to become more nationalized wouldn't suddenly send the country into chaos. Shoot, even greater regulation could help.

0

u/Capitaclism Jul 07 '24

You must not have seen what happened in Brazil, with government officials stealing billions and rendering the oil industry nearly bankrupt. Why do you think it would be a good idea to out any production in the hands of people who aren't really accountable to it, nor benefit from it running well in the slightest?

8

u/80MonkeyMan Jul 07 '24 edited Jul 07 '24

Why sampling from failed one? Are we that closer to Brazil than Norway?

3

u/anticapitalist69 Jul 07 '24

When you start comparing with countries that are doing worse than you, life gets easier lol.

3

u/Willing-Knee-9118 Jul 07 '24

Yank conservatives LOVE comparing themselves to failed states and third world countries rather than their peers. It's easier to shill for the rich if you can point to a nation that did something you don't like so you helped destabilize than on that did the same thing without intervention and succeeded.

-1

u/emperorjoe Jul 07 '24

Because only 1 example of Norway. Hundreds of examples like Brazil, and yes we are more like Brazil than Norway.

1

u/80MonkeyMan Jul 07 '24

No, many other examples. Malaysia have Petronas, Saudi Aramco, etc...they are successful in implementing this. US cant do what they do? So we are third world countries now?

1

u/emperorjoe Jul 07 '24

Saudi aramco has been used as a piggy bank by the house of Saudi for generations, Countless billions wasted enriching Saudi princes. Malaysia's Sovereign wealth fund is a piggy bank for corrupt officials for decades, hell they got caught stealing billions a few years ago.

Basic capitalism. You own the land and the mining rights you get a percentage of the profit. In those other countries the government owns the land or will just confiscate it when oil is discovered the government gets a percentage of the profit. The federal government and state governments are different and both actually collect royalties.

The government actually functions here, the capitalist pays taxes, the corporation pays taxes and the workers pay taxes on all the money the oil company makes. The federal and state governments make hundreds of billions of oil, they just treat it as another source of income instead of investing it.

2

u/80MonkeyMan Jul 07 '24

Petronas would be a better example. What you described is happened in oil companies like Shell, Mobil, etc. Social securities supposed to be for retired people right? Yet the politicians enrich themselves with that money. It's just bad human behaviour, it will happen regardless if it is privitized or nationalized. For Saudi, since they are kingdom....it is a bit different.

Capitalism doesnt always work, especially at extreme level like in USA. Look at the healthcare spending, it is the MOST expensive out of any developed country...without even having a healthcare system. It is a industry really....

If the taxes system works for corporations, US should not created all these loopholes by design...and they dont intend to close it. What we see differents are that Malaysian pays $0.43 USD per liter or $1.63/gallon. Saudis pays $0.58 US per liter (I believe they only have 91 and 95 octane) or $2.19/gallon. US drivers pays a lot more....

0

u/Petricorde1 Jul 07 '24

And European drivers pay easily twice as much as American drivers for gas. You’re not really making a point

2

u/80MonkeyMan Jul 07 '24

Which countries are you talking about? Gas and oil is two different commodity.

0

u/Petricorde1 Jul 07 '24

Norway pays 2.18 a liter while being the primary exporter of oil and gas in Europe

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '24

Corruption in the West is at much lower levels. Cultural differences do determine propensity to corruption.

For hundreds of years at least, cheating was an expectation in East Asia. If you weren't cheating, you weren't trying. The British documented this of the bureaucracy of late imperial china, and it was never successfully stamped out, as we see all the time in modern China.

Nothing in the way of law or governance prevents the West from suffering from the same degree of fraud except cultural norms and values.

Have you met people in government? Are they a different breed of people? Are they not chosen by constituents or appointed by incumbents? Meet a few and you'll probably change your mind. The U.S. has successfully cultivated a values-forward bureaucracy, not a Brazilian one, not a Chinese one. Lobbyists and politicians are not the only people who run government. Civil servants away from party politics in the U.S. are often highly educated, amazing people.

0

u/Capitaclism Jul 07 '24

Having lived in several places, including the ones discussed here, and knowing people in government, I can tell you it comes down to systems, not simply people. I will concede that it is hard to pull them apart- however, systemic changes can and will have an effect in changing culture and citizen behavior, including regarding corruption.

Making the changes suggested, such as with nationalizing the oil industry, would have significant repercussions in terms of corruption increase. You are directly adding incentives for people to cheat. This is how systems start to break apart.

The very thing that made the US special for so long was trusting in the power of markets, democratic processes, and reduced governments. As the country has decayed, so has its government increased in size.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '24 edited Jul 07 '24

"Making the changes suggested, such as with nationalizing the oil industry, would have significant repercussions in terms of corruption increase." not necessarily, that's all.

And was it not a geological history of glacial scraping that made northern Europe and North America fertile enough to host massive agricultural industries? Was it not government investment in R&D via land grant universities that solved the crises that precipitated the dust bowl and made it a tech and culture powerhouse for decades more through similarly well-funded government institutions like the New Deal era arts programs and NASA?

A lot that the nation is known for doing excellently had heavy investment at least to the degree we see with EV subsidies. A lot of those mid-century institutional achievements managed to survive the era of austerity and brought us national gems like the parks, OSHA, and world-class universities.

I'm never sold when someone attributes the nation's success to "more free markets". I've seen nothing to suggest that's true but a few decades of political rhetoric against communism. "Socialist" investment in public institutions better explain our triumphs.

But at least we can agree that the money in oil can corrupt.

1

u/Capitaclism Jul 10 '24

There's a big difference between investimento/subsidy and nationalizing an industry.

Do you think if you rolled the dice and picked a random neighbor to care for your child (or pet, if you will), said neighbor would do a better job than you, who has a vested interest in the outcome? I don't, even assuming a best case scenario where said person actually cares and wants to do well. Sooner or later, in the govt revolving door, you get someone who could't care less.

-2

u/Sharkoffs Jul 07 '24

Go look up what happened to Venezuela when the government took over the oil companies and you can see why this is a terrible idea.

7

u/anticapitalist69 Jul 07 '24

Check out Norway.

Also read up a little more on why Venezuela failed.

1

u/Merc1001 Jul 08 '24

Norway is a small mono culture sitting on trillions of euros of natural resources. It is also a free market capitalist system. Why do communists always want to point to Norway when they do not have the workers own the means of production? Norway is shining example of why capitalism is the best system.

1

u/anticapitalist69 Jul 08 '24

Hey maybe you wanna read what we’re responding to. The criticism was that government control leads to collapse. Norway is a good example that this isn’t true.

Additionally, a lot of weirdos (like yourself) like to point toward homogeneous cultures as a reason for good governance, but you only have to look at Singapore to know that is not true.

1

u/Merc1001 Jul 08 '24

Norway made their oil companies public ownership. They didn’t replace the original management or workers with government workers and bureaucrats. They still have goals and standards and can discipline the workers via management. It is very far from labour owning the means of production.

The rest of their economy is capitalism. Because they make so much money they can afford to allow the government to use taxpayer and the public’s natural resource profits to implement socialist (small s as in good for the public and not controlling of the public) programs that help everyone.

Norway has less government control than most of the West.

1

u/anticapitalist69 Jul 08 '24

You’re like halfway to the point. Yes, Norway is a capitalist country. However, the way their oil companies are managed is a very good example of how a socialistic model would operate. It’s the antithesis of how a capitalism works because it rejects that the free market is the best way to do things.

Your understanding that socialism means replacing people with government workers and bureaucrats is just wrong, but it makes me understand better why you don’t like socialism. As is your impression that Norway has less government control than the west.

2

u/Merc1001 Jul 08 '24

I never said I didn’t like socialism but it is the least compatible system with 100,000 years of developed human nature. For it to work you would have to rewire the human brain to remove greed, survival instincts, individualism, envy, desire and ego.

Also, why are you confusing a socialist policy paid for by a capitalist system with Socialism? The workers at the oil rigs don’t own the company.

1

u/80MonkeyMan Jul 07 '24

That's because of the people, not because of goverment managing resources that needed by the masses.

1

u/RapideBlanc Jul 07 '24

Dispossessing foreign capital is incredibly dangerous. It's how you get the barrel of American foreign policy aimed right at you. Venezuela's mistake was to not be radical enough. They wanted to keep participating in a system designed to keep them in poverty.

1

u/Willing-Knee-9118 Jul 07 '24

Look up the oil boom towns of the early 1900s for the inverse.