The Evolution of Free-Market Capitalism

[Patron]

Is that social activism at work, or corporate welfare, a not uncommon aspect of predatory capitalism ?

The activism around climate alarmism encouraged governments to "do something" - and provided opportunities for governments to do what they do: create new taxes, regulation and bureaucracies. In response to the social activism, the governments took money from taxpayers and created new bureaucracies to dole out "green" grants to any agency creative enough to see the opportunity provided and the lack of oversight involved - and they introduced myriad taxes and requirements making life more costly for ordinary Canadians, all of which provide fresh opportunities for opportunists.

Ignoring this reality in preference to the belief our socio-economic condition is just "because capitalism" is what capitalism is - a system where the willingness to seek out and profit from opportunities is rewarded - is just plain foolish. If we're calling it "predatory", then we ought to also be willing to call the poverty industry "predatory" for how they've capitalized on opportunities presented by governments' responses to social activism, and how they've contributed to greater social activism to create better opportunities on which to capitalize.

No, you don't need "sources" and "proof" and "research" to understand this process and how social activism has been involved. No one does.

Capitalism is now nothing but Monopolies -

Monopolies: How Limited Competition Affects Everyday Life

Competition is supposed to be the lifeblood that fuels innovation, growth, and prosperity. It is the engine that drives businesses to improve their products, offer better services, and strive for excellence. However, the rise of limited competition beginning in the 1980s choked off innovation, posing significant risks to small businesses and consumers alike.

https://upriseri.com/monopolies-limited ... fects-you/

[seewood]

Capitalism is now nothing but Monopolies -

Monopolies: How Limited Competition Affects Everyday Life

Competition is supposed to be the lifeblood that fuels innovation, growth, and prosperity. It is the engine that drives businesses to improve their products, offer better services, and strive for excellence. However, the rise of limited competition beginning in the 1980s choked off innovation, posing significant risks to small businesses and consumers alike.

In the olden days capitalism was for the most part limited to the country of origin.
In today's world capitalism is worldwide. If another country has developed something unique, many countries might invest to do the same, except China of course, they just steal it.
Has everything to be "invented" been invented? I dunno. Nuclear fusion is a work in progress and a few countries are working on that technology.

But your right, in many instances innovation may be stifled. US steel bought Stelco because they didn't want the competition and after a few years wanted to close it down. Nippon steel is now wanting to purchase US steel.
If stelco invested in new technology, perhaps they could have held off the takeover.

[Mrmarvingardens]

Yes, and the more money you have at your disposal, the more "fun" you can have.
Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos are spending millions to reactivate mothballed U.S. nuclear facilities.
Remember Three Mile Island? Closed because of the dangers of radiation contamination, it is now being refurbished to again supply electric power, which Gates and Bezos say is needed.
The big problem is disposal of the tons of nuclear waste current being held in storage silos, with nowhere to go for disposal.

[Patron]

Corporate Capitalism has taken over everything- everything we need to live our life is owned by the few Giants the ones who create the need for more government social programs because their profits come before the People -

[fluffy]

Corporate Capitalism has taken over everything- everything we need to live our life is owned by the few Giants the ones who create the need for more government social programs because their profits come before the People -

Bingo. And if actual control rests in the hands of a very few, then democracy has indeed become a sham.

[rustled]

I mean like people who are use alarmist messaging about capitalism, messaging which attempts to blame capitalism for worsening outcomes over the past 60 years while steadfastly ignoring the natural negative effects of social activism and increased social programming over the past 60 years.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Those nebulous "negative effects of social activism" you consistently resist substantiating.

No one actually needs someone else to substantiate any natural cause and effect that ought to be obvious to anyone who isn't resisting reality. It's like asking me to substantiate the consequences of eating too much sugar - and it's also an obvious attempt to resist taking responsibility for supporting the policies resulting from social activism regardless of their negative outcomes, in service to a preferred "it's just because capitalism" narrative.

[rustled]

Corporate Capitalism has taken over everything- everything we need to live our life is owned by the few Giants the ones who create the need for more government social programs because their profits come before the People -

Bingo. And if actual control rests in the hands of a very few, then democracy has indeed become a sham.

We can see in America the will of those who want to wrest control away from "a very few" in a movement that is resisted most by those who call themselves "progressives".

We can see how the "progressives" - always intent on increasing some form of governmental power and control through activism - have used their power to convince people those with the California model (which has already deployed in Portland and Seattle) ought to be in charge of the entire country, and how the opportunities presented create opportunities for the greater upward redistribution of wealth and worsening outcomes for most in the middle and lower classes. Pretending California-style progressivism is just what's needed everywhere isn't sensible.

Recognizing how social activism has gone much to far is the first step in recovery. Blaming these outcomes on "because capitalism" is an avoidance mechanism.

[fluffy]

You're going to have to do better than unsupported claptrap and cop-outs if you want to be taken seriously. As it stands now you're just wasting everybody's time, so you can expect to be treated as such.

[rustled]

You're going to have to do better than unsupported claptrap and cop-outs if you want to be taken seriously. As it stands now you're just wasting everybody's time, so you can expect to be treated as such.

It doesn't matter a whit to me whether or not my posts here are "taken seriously", and how others choose to treat me is entirely their choice.
I see it as a cop-out to insist the worsening outcomes for the middle and lower classes despite more than five decades of policies responding to increasing social activism are just "because capitalism".

[fluffy]

It doesn't matter a whit to me whether or not my posts here are "taken seriously"...

That much is obvious.

[rustled]

It doesn't matter a whit to me whether or not my posts here are "taken seriously"...

That much is obvious.

I've no need for your approval, fluffy.

IMO, posts pointing to the worsening outcomes for the middle and lower classes despite more than five decades of policies responding to increasing social activism can't be taken seriously when these posts suggest, imply or claim these worsening outcomes are just "because capitalism".

[Zedi]

Bingo. And if actual control rests in the hands of a very few, then democracy has indeed become a sham.

We can see in America the will of those who want to wrest control away from "a very few" in a movement that is resisted most by those who call themselves "progressives".

We can see how the "progressives" - always intent on increasing some form of governmental power and control through activism - have used their power to convince people those with the California model (which has already deployed in Portland and Seattle) ought to be in charge of the entire country, and how the opportunities presented create opportunities for the greater upward redistribution of wealth and worsening outcomes for most in the middle and lower classes. Pretending California-style progressivism is just what's needed everywhere isn't sensible.

Recognizing how social activism has gone much to far is the first step in recovery. Blaming these outcomes on "because capitalism" is an avoidance mechanism.

this

[fluffy]

What Is Late-Stage Capitalism?

"Late-stage capitalism is a popular phrase that targets the inequities of modern-day capitalism. For example, it spotlights the immorality of corporations using social issues to advance their brands. It also criticizes the growing wealth gap and the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

One example is Anheuser-Busch spending $5 million on a Super Bowl ad to advertise how it donated millions of cans of clean water for disaster relief efforts.1

The term "late-stage capitalism" got its name from the idea that the current phase of capitalism is the final, often most exploitative and unsustainable, stage before a significant change or collapse."

>snip<

"Late-stage capitalism describes the unrealistic perspectives of the wealthiest 1%. In the same vein, it highlights how the middle class is largely oblivious to the struggles of the poor.

It's the sense that monopolies, and the oligarchs that run them, have rigged the system in their favor. They hire well-paid lobbyists to influence politicians. They win Supreme Court cases, such as Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which gives corporations the same rights as people.2 This allows them to spend untold millions on political ads that benefit them. Many feel that capitalism's winners may even favor inequality or "rig the system" by creating barriers to entry."

This all begs the question that if the days of capitalism in its current form are indeed numbered, what comes next ?

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/late-st ... ng-4172369

[steven lloyd]

This all begs the question that if the days of capitalism in its current form are indeed numbered, what comes next ?

When capitalism begins to fail, fascism comes to the rescue. We are already seeing this play out with people willingly allowing it to happen (even supporting the transition) while being duped into blaming the inevitable growth in inequality and concentration of power that resulted from 50 years of neoliberalism on "social activism". Wittingly or unwittingly, these people are helping to promote the antithesiscal narrative that more authoritarian politics are going to protect their freedoms (privileges) - a narrative used and promoted by those wanting to further grow, concentrate and protect their wealth and power.

[fluffy]

^^^