What is "late stage capitalism" please expain it to meis it late stage because it is terminal like cancer, or it is late because it is about to fall and it's the late era on a graph or something? I have a lower IQ and would like it explained simply pease.Thanks,
Holy Fuck You're Retarded Lol !
>>84395380>late stage capitalismdoesn't exist.What you're seeing is a transition from liberal capitalism to monopolistic capitalism (aka "le good old times")
>>84395380Once capital has financialised everything and there's nothing left to financialise, everything is fucked.
It's basically a communist term. When the soviet union became an obvious failure the communists began to say the capitalist system would unravel itself on its own, without needing a global revolution. They point to the general suffering of people with the schizophrenia in the markets and say that the monetary system is decoupling from reality and will soon enter a new paradigm. It has become popular because basically all illiberal forces in the world have combined forces to try to undo free market free movement economies in favor of more restrictive ones.
>>84395381I havent akways been but am getting worese>>84395382and can I ask what is libera capitalism? is it some formm of free market thing?>>84395385do you mean such as loans and debts? like the 08 housing crisis or something similar?>>84395388how can markets become schizophrenic? i didnt understand much else of that i'm sorry!
>>84395388>It's basically a communist term.Someone should invent a website that takes pictures of any historical figure and changes it to make reaction images. I would have one of Werner Sombart calling you gay atm
>>84395457>and can I ask what is libera capitalism? is it some formm of free market thing?An economic system that emphasizes individual liberty, free markets, and limited government intervention. Can do good, or go completely awry like the infamous Thatcher
>>84395380It means capitalism, but after jews have spread their disease to every healthy cell.
>>84395475Ok thanks for explainingand my dad likes Maggie thatcher so maybe some things she did were not so bad
>>84395475>R-r-real liberalism has never been tried!!!1!
>>84395484>and my dad likes Maggie thatcher so maybe some things she did were not so badYou HAVE to kill your DAD right fucking NOW
>>84395489I never said that? Thatcher is pure evil.
>>84395490his wife does not ikethatcher so she has told him off for it but he says sOMEONE had to close down the mines and she had the guts to do it
>>84395484MAGA boomers and tories fantasizing about maggie pussy hole
>>84395490>>and my dad likes Maggie thatcher so maybe some things she did were not so bad>You HAVE to kill your DAD right fucking NOWkek
>>84395482how do the jews get by doing it?
>>84395380It means the system isn't working anymore
>>84395380To put it very simply, Capitalisms goal is to allow business men to make as much money as possible unrestricted. There's benefits and drawbacks to it on paper, but ultimately that's what sets it apart from something like communism which has the goal of equally distributing wealth amongst everybody evenly. Late stage capitalism is when that goal is realized, and all of the money is held by a handful of businessmen, leaving nothing left for the rest of society. This is pretty much a bad thing for everybody and is the reason that we can live in the richest country in the world, and yet have most Americans living below their means. The reason why it's dangerous, and why you hear about it so much, is because it's constantly compounding like a snowball rolling down a hill. The businessmen have now made so much money that they can use their wealth to influence politics, and in turn pass bills that only make them richer. Donald Trump passing the Big Beautiful Bill did exactly that, where money that should be benefitting society is now spent on tax breaks for themselves, continuing to keep that snowball rolling.
>>84395549>which has the goal of equally distributing wealth amongst everybody evenlyAre you 14 or something?
>>84395573I'm trying to dumb it down for the OP. My explanation of capitalism isn't much better, but this is how I'd explain it to a second grader
>>84395549There is no explicit "goal" of capitalism except for the recognition of property rights and for allowing voluntary transactions. You're miscontruing people of their volition acting greedy with a system that recognizes property rights and allows for voluntary transaction. >ultimately that's what sets it apart from something like communism which has the goal of equally distributing wealth amongst everybody evenly.It was partly the prediction of marx on what he thought would happen according to his theory of history. Moreover, the goal isn't to equally distribute wealth, it's for the means of production to be owned collectively, and for there to be no such thing as money, state, or class. Of course it didn't pan out that way due to the fact marx was wrong. He was wrong about the theory of history being soley the result of material conditions and it being a progression towards communism. He was wrong about the labor theory of value. He was wrong about his theory of class exploitation. He was wrong about his theory of alienation. He was wrong about the base forming the superstructure of society. Basically, every main premise of his was wrong, and it's why everytime socialism was tried it ended in a complete disaster of an authoritarian dictatorship.
>>84395619did we try communism without a command economy though?
>>84395588Fair enough. I'm too used to seeing simplistic takes being passed of as truth in bad faith, and not just for the sake of explaining something. I clearly spend too much time here.
I am OPI am still unsure what late stage capitalism is because half the people said 1 thing and half the anons said the opposite
>>84395549I can understand most of thisBut why would anyone WANT the businesman to have all that money then? rather than themselfso why not everyone go to communism?
>>84395706>But why would anyone WANT the businesman to have all that money then? rather than themselfSome people believe that money that you earn should be yours no matter what, even if it could better society. The rebuttle to this would be that most modern billionaires haven't actually "earned" most of their money in any meaningful way. It depends on a person's perspective.Beyond that though, Capitialism in the past has proven to work as a way to gain money for society by taxing the wealthy businessmen. In the 1950s, the peak of successful capitalism, businessmen were able to make as much money as they wanted, but the catch was that the money they made was taxed at almost 50 percent. They were encouraged to become as filthy rich as they could, and the heavy taxes benefitted the rest of society. America could be a rich country where the average citizen could live comfortably. This was changed by Ronald Raegan. He wanted to see how things would work if the businessmen payed far less in taxes. In theory, the rich would benefit the rest of society through their own means and wealth would eventually find its way down into the pockets of employees.However the actual result was the snowball I mentioned earlier beginning to roll faster and faster. The rich got even richer, we're able to influence society and politics more and more, and in the end society didn't benefit the way Raegan thought it would. Now it's too late, and there is too many billionaires in politics to ever undo Ronald Raegans decision, since it's in their best interest to pay as few taxes as possible. That is what brings us to the modern day, where we see Donald Trump, a realestate businessman as the president, and using his power to speed the snowball up as fast as he can with the support of people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezzos who, like I said at the very beginning of my last post, have the single goal of accumulating as much money as they possibly can.
>>84395838I do understand itso that is the trickle down' economics I ahave heard of. Or it's what they want to happen anyway. But doesnt really happen because you cannot trust every1 to do the right thing. They keep the money for themself and not share it.
>>84395864Correct. Trickle Down Economics was what Raegan believed would happen but ultimately didn't work. >But doesnt really happen because you cannot trust every1 to do the right thing. They keep the money for themself and not share it.Yes, to put it very simply.
>>84395838I wouldnt say its the low tax rate that particularly helped accelerate everything into the hands of business interests but more of lack of lobbying regulations and regulations in general not being able to keep up with technology but im not an economist.
>>84395878Well theres more to learn and never been a big one on economics but I wanted to ty and understand this at the least. Thanks for explaining best. No need to carry on the thread for the rest of the night now.
>>84395626That would look like people creating voluntary communes/co-ops, and enforcing certain standards or rules if people to be a part of it; a take it or leave it kind of deal. In other words, it presupposes the recognition of property rights and non-coercion, which is capitalism. The moment you try to force everyone to be a part of it is the moment where you necessarily introduce a class of people who control the economy and the class of workers who are controlled; this is why marxism is contradictory nonsense. All that happened in socialist states is that you shifted ownership from capitalists to the government, ie the leaders of the revolution. Then you trust these people whom have a monopoly over a huge swath of people to not act as a business would when they have a monopoly, especially one that's formed via coercion, which attracts dark triads who want power. I think the hang up communists have is with the idea of property itself ultimately, because it's inherently exclusionary and unequal; there is some kind of internal drive for all inclusiveness with people who have the communist disposition. Yeah, they have the notion of "personal property", but it's incoherent to not recognize private property while recognizing personal property, as if they were different. Even if a "collective" owns something, that is still private property, and this collective is made up of individuals. If this collective of individuals agreed to such conditions voluntarily, that they share ownership, then it is capitalism. Anything that is rivalrous can be property, and thus there's always going to be conflict over who has a right to it. You either acknowledge ownership to people who earned it through non-violent means, in other words, voluntary transaction or homesteading, or you don't. Commies don't, and think hierarchies themself are coercive, and really ultimately that reality is coercive since it's inherently unequal.
>>84395878>was what Raegan believedhe knew it was a fat fucking lie, and that deregulating everything would almost only benefit the wealthy. every person in politics knows this.
>>84395380The term is based on the hope that it will crumble soon because is unsustainable yeah.We're still some way off that to happen
>>84397079IMO it will come a lot sooner than expected because of oil shortages. We're not feeling them now, but there will be mass famine across the world, less so in developed countries of course, and because of that more war. The next year or two are going to be awesome to watch as a faggy little NEET such as myself.
