If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?

[zizek]

I think increasing tax rates and closing some loopholes is likely to happen if we put Democrats back in control.  I think well over 50% of all voters would support that if it wasn't too drastic.  It's one of those things that is probably best done in steps, letting people adjust to one small change before introducing another. 

Yes, just like Obama did when Democrats had the entire Congress......

Capitalism will collapse on itself if allowed to become a monopoly.  Unless it is an aware monopoly it will cut the purchasing power of workers to the point at which they have nothing to spend and the monopoly will lose its customer base, which is its employees.  The US reached that point in the early part of the 20th Century and reversed things so some degree during FDR's term.  We've now allowed things to get out of balance again and will again need to make adjustments.  Until some new form of human behavior emerges we, and every other country, will wander between extremes.

Good job bob. You're catching on. Capitalism is inherently flawed and eventually destroys itself. This has been clearly outlined by many scholars, including a 150 year-old one named Marx.  If you actually read a single book on heterodox economics we wouldn't have these grating arguments every few months. Instead you just parrot red-scare talking points you heard back in the Cold War.

[zizek]

monetary system without interest

Why would I loan you any of my money to start a business or buy a house if I couldn't make some money in exchange for the risk and not having immediate access to my money?

You wouldn't need to under socialism. Enterprises would be created, or housing would be built, depending on the needs of the people. The needs of the people would be decided through different democratic instruments like voting and councils.
Easy.

[johnm33]

"Has there been a workable alternative to capitalism presented?"
It's the way we create 'money', at the moment money is being created to buy up the losing betting slips of the aristocracy as if they were winning bets, and the 'money' thus created is then used to buy up any and all apparently performing assets, mostly, unfortunately, share buybacks which inflate share prices allow for mega bonus payouts but add no value but do create an ever expanding series of claims on future income. Since this is the cheapest money around .5% it's possible to eternally roll over debts, for the aristocracy, until they finally almost inevitably make a good bet as they double down to infinity. My suggestion is simply that we extend the same access to money  to all citizens at the same %rate, the whole of government expenditure could be met by a simple .5% transaction tax on all transactions, including free healthcare for all, this as an alternative to the upstream 40% interest charges on all transactions extracted by the financial sector seems a no brainer to me, shit it's even less than the 2.5% transaction tax levied by the credit card companies. To constrain the growth of 'money' supply you should probably limit annual 'credit' to the level of a living wage, and recoup it at 2.5% as an additional escalating transaction tax based on the number of years of debt carried.

[Bob Wallace]

My suggestion is simply that we extend the same access to money  to all citizens at the same %rate

Any adjustments for risk?  Shady Sonny pays the same rate as Reliable Ralph?


 

the whole of government expenditure could be met by a simple .5% transaction tax on all transactions

That sounds like a sales tax which is a regressive tax, putting a larger burden on the poor.

[wili]

I don't want to kill capitalism, "I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub"

[Bob Wallace]

I don't want to kill capitalism, "I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub"

That's fine.  Just give us a better system before you extinguish capitalism.  I'm eagerly waiting to learn about something better than adequately regulated capitalism.

[zizek]

I don't want to kill capitalism, "I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub"

That's fine.  Just give us a better system before you extinguish capitalism.  I'm eagerly waiting to learn about something better than adequately regulated capitalism.

I swear to god this happens every time we have this tired debate. You ask for alternatives. You are provided with examples. You then either ignore the examples or create strawmens. Rinse and repeat.

[TerryM]

I don't want to kill capitalism, "I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub"

Marvelous !! 
Terry

[sidd]

Here is some late stage capitalism: Three companies own 40% of all publicly traded firms in the USA

"BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have nearly US$11 trillion in assets "

"the Big Three do exert the voting rights attached to these shares. "

https://www.alternet.org/2017/05/these-three-firms-own-corporate-america/

sidd

[sidd]

It strikes me that posters here are using different definitions of capitalism. I propose

1) (Some) private ownership of (some of) the means of production. (No state allows entirely private manufacture of nuclear weapons, for example. Even Pantex is controlled by DOE but run by corporaions like Bechtel)

2) market mechanisms to set (some) prices and (some) wages. (I won't say "free markets" because there isn't one. All markets are regulated to some extent)

3) Profitability as criterion of survival (in some areas)

Anything else ?

All these have problems as Marx and others have pointed out. I think the issue here is what the "some" in the clauses above should be.

sidd

[sidd]

Re: hidden wealth

Saez, Zucman,Piketty and others are trailblazing here. We see already that around 3e13 USD is hidden offshore. If the USA parks an aircraft carrier group off the Caymans, that might be a good start.

Who am i kidding. The banks own DC. Nuttn will happen until Citizens United is revoked and elections are publicly funded.

Place your bets on if doom arrives, whether as climate doom or violent revolt, or both, before effective reform. I am pessimistic.

Of course, there is the argument that doom is here already, just unevenly distributed.

sidd

[Bob Wallace]

Nuttn will happen until Citizens United is revoked and elections are publicly funded.

Might we be missing something here?  How many voters watch commercial funded TV these days? 

I don't have a TV.  The two houses I visit from time to time that do watch TV in the evening seem never to watch a station with commercials.  They watch Prime/Netflix type programming.  Candidates can't buy time on those media feeds.  Might the impact of political TV commercials be fading?

If you don't watch ABC/NBC type TV (at least mutch), stream your music, and don't read the newspaper for your news then is big money going to reach you with ads?  Might we be moving into the post-ad campaign era?

[Bob Wallace]

It strikes me that posters here are using different definitions of capitalism. I propose

1) (Some) private ownership of (some of) the means of production. (No state allows entirely private manufacture of nuclear weapons, for example. Even Pantex is controlled by DOE but run by corporaions like Bechtel)

2) market mechanisms to set (some) prices and (some) wages. (I won't say "free markets" because there isn't one. All markets are regulated to some extent)

3) Profitability as criterion of survival (in some areas)

Anything else ?

All these have problems as Marx and others have pointed out. I think the issue here is what the "some" in the clauses above should be.

sidd

Missing the ability to own capital, invest it, and make money off that investment?

I'm not seeing anyone support a pure socialism.  Some say they want to destroy capitalism but when nailed down it's more that they want to put more restrictions on what companies/individuals are able to do.  They don't seem to actually oppose capitalism but what the see as inadequately regulated business activities.

[b_lumenkraft]

There has been no third economic model presented.

Well, social democracy and capitalism are very different. In the aspects i lined out in my answer for example. You'll find more. Google it!

Also communism is also very different. I talked about some aspects there in my post too.

Instead of talking about that, you answer with 'There has been no third economic model presented'.

To be honest with you Bob, you totally discredit yourself everytime you talk about politics!

You don't know what the words mean and then you fall back to the propaganda you have been fed "Communism never worked!". If you had a little historical knowledge, you would know how ridiculous this sentence is and how much it reveals about the person parroting it.

[Bob Wallace]

Here is some late stage capitalism: Three companies own 40% of all publicly traded firms in the USA

"BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have nearly US$11 trillion in assets "

"the Big Three do exert the voting rights attached to these shares. "

https://www.alternet.org/2017/05/these-three-firms-own-corporate-america/

sidd

Those aren't companies in the way GM or GE are companies.  They're mutual fund companies that manage investments for individuals.  More accurately one might say that millions of individuals who have invested through BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have nearly US$11 trillion in assets.

From Fun Facts about Vanguard - "More than 20 million investors, in about 170 countries, as of December 31, 2018. "

[sidd]

Re:  millions of individuals who have invested through BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have nearly US$11 trillion in assets.

the big three own the voting rights ...

sidd

[sidd]

Re: the ability to own capital

"means of production"

capital is a means of production.

sidd

[sidd]

Re:  is big money going to reach you with ads

digital ad delivery. Goes far beyond TV these days , into all streaming/web platforms, with hair raising levels of tracking.

sidd

[TerryM]

Re:  is big money going to reach you with ads

digital ad delivery. Goes far beyond TV these days , into all streaming/web platforms, with hair raising levels of tracking.

sidd

If you thing ABC's ads were expensive, wait till you get the bill from Cambridge Analytica.
Terry

[zizek]

It strikes me that posters here are using different definitions of capitalism. I propose

1) (Some) private ownership of (some of) the means of production. (No state allows entirely private manufacture of nuclear weapons, for example. Even Pantex is controlled by DOE but run by corporaions like Bechtel)

Missing the ability to own capital, invest it, and make money off that investment?

I'm not seeing anyone support a pure socialism.  Some say they want to destroy capitalism but when nailed down it's more that they want to put more restrictions on what companies/individuals are able to do.  They don't seem to actually oppose capitalism but what the see as inadequately regulated business activities.

Bob, you come in these threads acting as an authority on economics, and cite your dear wisdom of 70+ years.. So how the hell have you managed to miss the most fundamental and important concepts of economics?  Means of Production = capital goods.  If private ownership of production is allowed, like in Sidd's example, the economy doesn't just allow for the movement/investment of private capital - it's a requirement for that type of economy to function.

You really don't know what you're talking about.  Stop shitting up threads with your nonsense.

[johnm33]

My suggestion is simply that we extend the same access to money  to all citizens at the same %rate

Any adjustments for risk?  Shady Sonny pays the same rate as Reliable Ralph?


 

the whole of government expenditure could be met by a simple .5% transaction tax on all transactions

That sounds like a sales tax which is a regressive tax, putting a larger burden on the poor.

risk, well since this is just a different way of creating 'money' into the economy there can be no risk unless the individual ceases to transact, since every years debt will add 2.5% tax to all their transactions, no transactions no more credit. If the individual has spent the money it has gone into circulation and would generate a much slower rate of devaluation of the currency than the present system.
regressive, in my experience the rich always transact more than the poor, and since the .5% will affect all transactions in the currency hft would pay the bulk of the tax, if it continued.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Never, since I see you despise Biden, what will you do if he is the Democratic candidate? Vote for him? Or vote for a third party candidate or abstain, making Trump more likely to win?

[b_lumenkraft]

what will you do if he is the Democratic candidate? Vote for him?

Of course! You want to minimize the chances of Republicans getting even more right-wing supreme court judges.

PS: But he will not become the Democratic nominee anyway.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Actually, in 2012 there was a pro-life candidate. I seriously considered voting for him over Romney, but decided to go GOP even though he was less intense a pro-lifer.

[Bob Wallace]

Re: the ability to own capital

"means of production"

capital is a means of production.

sidd

Is that the standard definition in economics?  Factories and equipment are capital that are the means of production.  Is the cash needed to purchase factories and equipment rolled into that category or is it something needed to acquire the means of production?

[Bob Wallace]

My suggestion is simply that we extend the same access to money  to all citizens at the same %rate

Any adjustments for risk?  Shady Sonny pays the same rate as Reliable Ralph?


 

the whole of government expenditure could be met by a simple .5% transaction tax on all transactions

That sounds like a sales tax which is a regressive tax, putting a larger burden on the poor.

risk, well since this is just a different way of creating 'money' into the economy there can be no risk unless the individual ceases to transact, since every years debt will add 2.5% tax to all their transactions, no transactions no more credit. If the individual has spent the money it has gone into circulation and would generate a much slower rate of devaluation of the currency than the present system.
regressive, in my experience the rich always transact more than the poor, and since the .5% will affect all transactions in the currency hft would pay the bulk of the tax, if it continued.

Risk is not a way to create money.  Risk deals with the odds of losing money.  If you take all your retirement savings/investments and loan them to someone who wants to start selling donuts that taste like axle grease you will not have created money, you'll have put yourself on the street in your later years.  Loaning money to all at the same rate would be mega foolish.

"in my experience the rich always transact more than the poor, and since the .5% will affect all transactions in the currency hft would pay the bulk of the tax"

We've seen how that works.  Reagan taxed 'luxury goods'.  The rich went abroad to buy their yachts, thus avoiding the transaction tax.  The tax destroyed the US large recreational boat industry.  The rich will go abroad to make their large purchases but the non-rich won't be able to do the same.  Look for the rich to own multiple homes out of the country and fewer in the US.  Look for them to import their used very expensive cars after driving them in other countries for a year or so.

[Bob Wallace]

There has been no third economic model presented.

Well, social democracy and capitalism are very different. In the aspects i lined out in my answer for example. You'll find more. Google it!

Also communism is also very different. I talked about some aspects there in my post too.

Instead of talking about that, you answer with 'There has been no third economic model presented'.

To be honest with you Bob, you totally discredit yourself everytime you talk about politics!

You don't know what the words mean and then you fall back to the propaganda you have been fed "Communism never worked!". If you had a little historical knowledge, you would know how ridiculous this sentence is and how much it reveals about the person parroting it.

"Social democracy" is a blend of capitalism and social safety nets.  If you want to push hard into the weeds you can say that it's a different system than pure capitalism.  I view it as a hybrid which attempts to take the best of both systems in order to create something that works better than either pure capitalism or pure socialism.  My question is whether there is a third "pure" system and I think the answer is no.

Can you please show me a time and place that communism worked?  I only know of places where communism was forced on populations.  If something works then it shouldn't require military might to keep people in line.

Here's my big issue.  I regularly see people here and on the far left claiming that we should destroy capitalism.  When nailed down what they typically want is to adequately regulate capitalism, not kill it.  They, generally, want more and stronger social safety net programs and to control corporate misbehavior but they don't actually want a pure socialist system.

[TerryM]

IIRC when the Soviet Union went out of business >80% of the people voted for communism to continue.
I believe it was sidd that first mentioned this and posted the link - but I could be wrong.
Terry

[Bob Wallace]

IIRC when the Soviet Union went out of business >80% of the people voted for communism to continue.
I believe it was sidd that first mentioned this and posted the link - but I could be wrong.
Terry

People had their support system jerked out from under them with no apparent substitutes. 

If the Communist Party had not ruled with an iron fist do you believe private enterprise would not have risen?

[Shared Humanity]

Can you please show me a time and place that communism worked?  I only know of places where communism was forced on populations.  If something works then it shouldn't require military might to keep people in line.

Hmmmm......capitalism is a system that spans national borders. Could you explain to me how the U.S. military is not employed to "keep people in line".

[Bob Wallace]

Can you please show me a time and place that communism worked?  I only know of places where communism was forced on populations.  If something works then it shouldn't require military might to keep people in line.

Hmmmm......capitalism is a system that spans national borders. Could you explain to me how the U.S. military is not employed to "keep people in line".

No, because I don't see how that question has any validity as to the viability of capitalism.  I don't see the US military forcing anyone to acquire and invest capital.

I do see times at which the US military has been used in an attempt to contain countries which were seeking to conquer other countries.  But since some of those invading countries have been non-communistic I don't think we can make much of the use of the military. 

[Shared Humanity]

Can you please show me a time and place that communism worked?  I only know of places where communism was forced on populations.  If something works then it shouldn't require military might to keep people in line.

Hmmmm......capitalism is a system that spans national borders. Could you explain to me how the U.S. military is not employed to "keep people in line".

No, because I don't see how that question has any validity as to the viability of capitalism.  I don't see the US military forcing anyone to acquire and invest capital.

I do see times at which the US military has been used in an attempt to contain countries which were seeking to conquer other countries.  But since some of those invading countries have been non-communistic I don't think we can make much of the use of the military.

Really? Our military's only purpose is to project power and preserve an economic system that benefits us the most. It is the basis of our empire.

[Neven]

Can you please show me a time and place that capitalism worked?

[zizek]

No, because I don't see how that question has any validity as to the viability of capitalism.  I don't see the US military forcing anyone to acquire and invest capital.

I do see times at which the US military has been used in an attempt to contain countries which were seeking to conquer other countries.  But since some of those invading countries have been non-communistic I don't think we can make much of the use of the military.

hahaha. The United States of America has never intervened in a country for reasons other than pure altruism.  God Bless America!

[wili]

 



https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-kate-smith-racism-flyers-remove-statue-20190422-story.html

[b_lumenkraft]

Can you please show me a time and place that capitalism worked?

Planet says no!

[Bob Wallace]

Can you please show me a time and place that communism worked?  I only know of places where communism was forced on populations.  If something works then it shouldn't require military might to keep people in line.

Hmmmm......capitalism is a system that spans national borders. Could you explain to me how the U.S. military is not employed to "keep people in line".

No, because I don't see how that question has any validity as to the viability of capitalism.  I don't see the US military forcing anyone to acquire and invest capital.

I do see times at which the US military has been used in an attempt to contain countries which were seeking to conquer other countries.  But since some of those invading countries have been non-communistic I don't think we can make much of the use of the military.

Really? Our military's only purpose is to project power and preserve an economic system that benefits us the most. It is the basis of our empire.

I think our military's main goal in WWI and WWII was to keep Germany and a few other countries from conquering the world.  And those countries had economic systems very similar to ours.  Later we fought against communist nation expansion into places like South Korea and Southeast Asia but I'm not seeing a lot of threat to our economic system figuring into those fights.

The Iraq oil wars?  Largely fought to protect US and global oil supplies and oil company profits.  But those were not at the scale of the other wars listed.  US military action in the Kosovo War seems to have nothing to do with US interests other than helping Europe to damp down a problem of theirs.

Our "empire"?  You thinking Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands make for an impressive empire?

[zizek]

I think our military's main goal in WWI and WWII was to keep Germany and a few other countries from conquering the world.  And those countries had economic systems very similar to ours.  Later we fought against communist nation expansion into places like South Korea and Southeast Asia but I'm not seeing a lot of threat to our economic system figuring into those fights.

lol

[johnm33]

Risk is not a way to create money.  Risk deals with the odds of losing money.  If you take all your retirement savings/investments and loan them to someone who wants to start selling donuts that taste like axle grease you will not have created money, you'll have put yourself on the street in your later years.  Loaning money to all at the same rate would be mega foolish.

"in my experience the rich always transact more than the poor, and since the .5% will affect all transactions in the currency hft would pay the bulk of the tax"

We've seen how that works.  Reagan taxed 'luxury goods'.  The rich went abroad to buy their yachts, thus avoiding the transaction tax.  The tax destroyed the US large recreational boat industry.  The rich will go abroad to make their large purchases but the non-rich won't be able to do the same.  Look for the rich to own multiple homes out of the country and fewer in the US.  Look for them to import their used very expensive cars after driving them in other countries for a year or so.
The state would create the money out of thin air as debt signed off by the citizen, since the account would be gov. owned any losses would be born by the taxpayer just like all the losses the bankers made were covered by the taxpayer. Since the credit offered by the government would be only enough to cover living expenses the losses would be more than covered by there being no need for welfare or the costs in administering that. Plus of course no need for welfare handouts to the bankers.
Since the principle of .5% transaction tax would include buying foriegn currency, and the charge is split equally between buyer and seller it wold cost far more to transfer the money out of the country, once you factor in the private banking charges,  than the .25% extra the yacht would cost, shit the first class flights would cost more.
 

[Shared Humanity]

Can you please show me a time and place that capitalism worked?

Planet says no!

Exactly.

Modern humans have been around for say 250,000 years. Capitalism for the last 200. At best, capitalism can be described as a failed experiment.

[Shared Humanity]

No, because I don't see how that question has any validity as to the viability of capitalism.  I don't see the US military forcing anyone to acquire and invest capital.

I do see times at which the US military has been used in an attempt to contain countries which were seeking to conquer other countries.  But since some of those invading countries have been non-communistic I don't think we can make much of the use of the military.

hahaha. The United States of America has never intervened in a country for reasons other than pure altruism.  God Bless America!

I've chosen not to engage in this discussion as I simply do not have the time to list the post WWII conflicts that were purely based on defending our economic interests and this does not even count the times we armed proxies to do the same.

[sidd]

There is an good article by Streeck from 2014 on the decline of capitalism.

"even the most sophisticated institutional arrangements cannot in the long run contain the dynamism of capitalist development"

Thus we have a market in legislators and regulators, regardless of institutional curbs on bribery

"Today it is the central banks that dictate to governments "

"The easy money of central banks is easy to get only for the masters of finance andd never trickles down to ordinary people"

"It is high time .... to think about capitalism as a historical phenomenon, one that has not just a beginning but also an end"

"we should learn to think about capitalism coming to an end without assuming responsibility for answering a question like: What do you propose to put in its place ?"

He has a definition of capitalism: "a social order built on a promise of boundless social progress -- as measured by the size of its money economy -- coming about as a side product of independent maximization of individual utility, prosperity and profit"

He quotes Mandeville in a footnote: "In other words, where the public goods on which the society's viability depends emerge as the unintended side-effects of the private vices of its members."

 He lists five disorder of capitalism "stagnation, oligarchic redistribution, the plundering of the public domain, corruption and global anarchy"

On oligarchic redistribution: "The possibility of rescuing yourself and your family by exiting with your possessions as offered by a global capital market constitutes the strongest possible argument for the rich to move into endgame mode: cash in, get out, burn bridges and leave nothing behind but scorched earth."

On plundering public domain: "I have traced its origin to the transition since the 1970s from the tax state to the debt state to finally the consolidation or austerity state"

"Step by step, capitalism's shotgun marriage with democracy after 1945 is breaking up. On the three frontiers of commditification, labor nature and money, regulatory institutions restraining the advance of capitalism for its own good have collapsed and political agency capable of rebuilding them is not in sight"

doi: 10.1425/76469
"Taking Crisis Seriously: Capitalism on Its Way Out," Stato et Mercato v1, 45-67 (2014)

open access read all about it, only 23 pages or so, short for Streeck.

sidd

[Bob Wallace]

No, because I don't see how that question has any validity as to the viability of capitalism.  I don't see the US military forcing anyone to acquire and invest capital.

I do see times at which the US military has been used in an attempt to contain countries which were seeking to conquer other countries.  But since some of those invading countries have been non-communistic I don't think we can make much of the use of the military.

hahaha. The United States of America has never intervened in a country for reasons other than pure altruism.  God Bless America!

I've chosen not to engage in this discussion as I simply do not have the time to list the post WWII conflicts that were purely based on defending our economic interests and this does not even count the times we armed proxies to do the same.

You have chosen to engage.  Your engagement is to post part of my comment out of context.

Here's your claim to which I responded.

Really? Our military's only purpose is to project power and preserve an economic system that benefits us the most. It is the basis of our empire.

I emboldened the critical word.  And here's my reply...

I think our military's main goal in WWI and WWII was to keep Germany and a few other countries from conquering the world.  And those countries had economic systems very similar to ours.  Later we fought against communist nation expansion into places like South Korea and Southeast Asia but I'm not seeing a lot of threat to our economic system figuring into those fights.

The Iraq oil wars?  Largely fought to protect US and global oil supplies and oil company profits.  But those were not at the scale of the other wars listed.  US military action in the Kosovo War seems to have nothing to do with US interests other than helping Europe to damp down a problem of theirs.

You'll note that in my first paragraph and last sentence of my second paragraph I listed US military actions whose main goal, as I see it, was not to "project power and preserve an economic system that benefits us." 

What I meant to say in the last part of the first paragraph was " And those countries we fought against had economic systems very similar to ours.  Had Germany, Japan, and Italy won WWII we would probably live in capitalistic systems with some social safety nets.

And I acknowledged times at which our military was used mainly to protect our economic system.

It's a mix of both.  Not an "only".

[Neven]

I think our military's main goal in WWI and WWII was to keep Germany and a few other countries from conquering the world.

This is an American Myth, and you should be old enough to know this. The Soviet Union was already winning the war, after making most of the sacrifices. And then the Hollywood movie started.

[Bob Wallace]

I think our military's main goal in WWI and WWII was to keep Germany and a few other countries from conquering the world.

This is an American Myth, and you should be old enough to know this. The Soviet Union was already winning the war, after making most of the sacrifices. And then the Hollywood movie started.

The Soviets did an excellent job of protecting the British Isles and driving the Nazis from western Europe, didn't they?  Stellar work.  Add to that the way the Soviets defeated Japan, unassisted.  Astounding!

I made exactly zero claims that the US won WWII on its own.  Please don't make stuff up. 

And consider this -

The Soviet Union did not turn the tide on the Eastern Front on its own. Though for decades Soviet historians played down the role of American and British Lend-Lease aid, its real significance has now been acknowledged. From 1942 a flow of food and raw materials and engineering equipment sustained the Soviet war effort.

There was enough food in the end to ensure a square meal for every Soviet soldier; most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA; one million miles of telephone wire, 14 million pairs of boots, 363, 000 trucks, all helped to keep the Red Army fighting with growing efficiency. Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml

That's Joe, himself, telling you that the Soviet Union was unlikely to win the war unassisted.

[Neven]

And before the good, ole US of A donated all that aid for free to the Rooskies, it helped re-arm Germany. Glory, glory, hallelujah!

When I asked you to show me a time and place that capitalism worked, I couldn't have guessed you would come up with such a prime example. It worked wonderfully, it did. Just not for the millions of dead and maimed. And here I was, thinking you would just ignore that question!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=MaWz42tmxug
 

[Bob Wallace]

Can you please show me a time and place that capitalism worked?

I missed this question.  Looking back I found it.  I'll be glad to answer it.

Capitalism has worked over and over for most of the time humans have had a social network.  People who have something tend to not just give it away, they trade for something they want, goods or 'services'.  If they have something really good they may rent it out and get stuff back for its use.

A really good throwing spear is a means of production.  Trading it to someone for a nice skin, a good rock axe, whatever is capitalism at work.  Letting someone have a measure of grain so that they can plant a crop and asking for two measures back in exchange is capitalism at work.

The places where there's been an attempt to eliminate capitalism haven't fared very well.  Don't you live in one of the Soviet block countries?  People around you can tell you how well it worked when people couldn't borrow and loan money, couldn't start their own business.

The problem is not that capitalism doesn't work.  The problem with capitalism is that, left unchecked, it can work too well.  Unfettered capitalism can lead to extreme monopolies and the accumulation of wealth into the hands of very few individuals.

Let me ask you.  Can you identify a country which has a long period during which capitalism was not allowed to operate, people accepted that without being coerced, and the country enjoyed 'good times'? 

(Please, not Cuba.  Cuba did well as long as they were propped up by the Soviet Union.  When Russia failed to subsidize Cuba things went downhill.)

[Bob Wallace]

And before the good, ole US of A donated all that aid for free to the Rooskies, it helped re-arm Germany. Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Perhaps this site needs a recognition award for extreme goal post moving.

[Shared Humanity]

I think our military's main goal in WWI and WWII was to keep Germany and a few other countries from conquering the world.  And those countries had economic systems very similar to ours.  Later we fought against communist nation expansion into places like South Korea and Southeast Asia but I'm not seeing a lot of threat to our economic system figuring into those fights.

lol

Cognitive Dissonance

[Bob Wallace]

I think our military's main goal in WWI and WWII was to keep Germany and a few other countries from conquering the world.  And those countries had economic systems very similar to ours.  Later we fought against communist nation expansion into places like South Korea and Southeast Asia but I'm not seeing a lot of threat to our economic system figuring into those fights.

lol

Cognitive Dissonance

In the 1950s the US had no significant economic interests in Korea.  And no significant economic interests in Indochina in the 1970s.  At least that I can think of.

Can you stiffel your laughter long enough to remind me of what I might have forgotten?