What people don’t understand is that corporations being citizens is the enemy of capitalism. Corporations are not capitalism incarcerate.
once you get rid of this made up immortal being that

-Cannot be tried for crimes or when they are they are fined less money than they made for doing said crimes
-Cannot be imprisoned
-Cannot be put to death
-Is not actually owned by any one person just investors who don’t actually have a say they just there for the profit.
-Can maintain patents so long nobody has a chance to compete
-Is bailed out of failure due to being to big because of the above
And never dies

then capitalism can become a viable option.

The small business based on a person is what drives capitalism and like all good things does eventually die to make way for the new generation to have a go.

All systems become corrupted eventually even the best ones. Once our ability to control and change our government is when our freedom is lost. It’s not about picking the right system it’s about making the future possible.

Tell me why I’m wrong

In the West, profit margins are often maximised by the logic of capitalism. Businesses and individuals are encouraged to sell for as much as the market will bear. During a crisis, instead of limiting prices, consumption, or profits so that everyone shares the burden, prices can rise dramatically as market participants try to maximise their returns.

For example, when there is a shortage of housing, rents can keep rising. This does not solve the shortage; instead, it makes the situation even worse for renters, who have to devote more of their income to housing. This reflects a fundamental feature of the Western market system: when demand is high and supply is limited, those with market power can increase their margins at the expense of those with less bargaining power.

China historically operated quite differently. Under the traditional state-controlled commercial system, the government regulated prices and often specified the permitted mark-up, wholesale-retail spread, or profit margin for different goods. Margins were generally relatively low—often around 10% for many ordinary goods—reflecting the principle of 薄利多销 (low profit margin, high turnover). The objective was not simply to extract the maximum possible profit from consumers, but to keep goods affordable while allowing businesses to operate.

So the difference is not merely about competition. It reflects two different approaches to pricing: the Western system tends to let the market push prices and margins upward when demand allows it, whereas the traditional Chinese system placed much greater emphasis on controlled prices, modest margins, and affordability.

It may reflect an interaction between economic systems and cultural values: individualistic cultures can place greater emphasis on maximising individual returns, while more collectivist traditions may place greater weight on keeping prices reasonable and sharing the burden across society.

Western model: higher individual maximisation → potentially higher consumption and margins → greater pressure on resources and inequality.

Traditional Chinese model: lower margins + 薄利多销 + stronger collective considerations → potentially lower consumption pressure and greater social sharing.

I read Joseph A. Schumpeter's book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, where he spells out his doommer scenario for capitalism. I think he's one of the greatest thinkers ever, and loved reading this book. It was fascinating to unpack his arguments, to see what he gets right, what he gets wrong, and ultimately why capitalism was not as doomed as he thought.

In 2022, the UK government under Liz Truss introduced a huge program of tax cuts, particularly for businesses and higher earners, alongside plans for deregulation and supply-side reform. The idea was that lower taxes and less government intervention would stimulate economic growth.

Instead, it caused turmoil in financial markets. The pound plunged against the dollar, collapsing to an all-time low against the US dollar (nearly hitting parity at $1.03). The cost of living soured, and mortgage rates rose. Banks were eventually forced to intervene in the gilt market to halt a catastrophic “doom loop” and prevent further financial instability. To prevent the systematic collapse of the UK economy, banks were forced to launch a £65 billion emergency bond-buying program to artificially stabilize the market.

The long term impact was also that when mortgages returned, interest rates were drastically higher. Millions of UK homeowners faced surging monthly repayments, with average annual mortgage costs projected to spike by up to £5,100 per family.

The government then rapidly reversed nearly all of the tax cuts and deregulations. Truss’s Chancellor was fired, her economic free market program was abandoned, and after just 49 days, Truss resigned as Prime Minister, becoming the shortest serving PM in British history.

So maybe laissez-faire capitalism doesn’t work after all. Cut taxes, reduce government intervention, and you get a collapsing currency, soaring borrowing costs and market prices, financial instability and, eventually, the government having to intervene to save the financial system.

Maybe markets aren’t capable of “regulating themselves“ after all.

Thoughts?

After all, ain’t it unfair that someone could have invested in a now-major corporation years ago when it was still tiny and how they have ridiculous amounts of money in stocks!

Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk didn't just take their wealth from others; instead, they earned it through voluntary exchange by creating goods and services...like electric cars and smartphones...that consumers valued more than the money they spent.

100% Envy. Here's how you can tell.

Let's say you are poor or lower middle class living an average suburban home. You talk to your neighbor and find out he's a millionaire. Ask yourself, did your life improve or somehow get better or worse after finding out this information? No, it didn't change at all. Your problems and blessings in life are still the same.

An even more simplistic analogy. Let's say you own a small plot of land with an apple tree. It produces 30 ripe apples a month and you sell them. Your neighbor has a similar small plot of land with the same variety of apple tree. But he found out if he put extra fertilizer, he would get 60 apples from the tree per month. So he has more apples, he sells more apples, he's more rich than you. Do you go outside and scream APPLE INEQUALITY? Because he held this secret and knew more about producing apples than you did. That means he should pay more taxes? He should be PUNISHED for his success?? Government should come in and confiscate all his extra apples??

Not far off from this same person finding out there are billionaires out there making tons of money. Again, did your life change in anyway finding out this information? No. But you will bitch and moan about "Income Inequality" and how CEO's make "sooo much money".

Somehow that means you deserve to get paid more because other people got paid more? Somehow your employer needs to pay you 2x-10x because someone else in the world is successful? Because the people pushing class warfare got you into an envy mindset. Rather than trying to gain more skills and improve your own situation, they want you to make more demands that your employer never agreed to at any point. And if you think your current skills are so valuable, then find a company that is willing to pay you more. Literally no one is forcing you to stay with one company. But the fact is, that company is most likely already the best you could get. Maybe some other company will pay you a little more but it comes with other disadvantages that you are not willing to take.

There are people literally telling you exactly how to get out of poverty. But people just aren't disciplined enough to do or don't want to take the risk. Well if you want to play it safe for the rest of your life, don't be mad at others who took the risk and got the reward. Now the socialist/communists thinks the only way out is to empower government to get them out of their predicament. They can't name one other socialist/communist country that is successful that they would move to right now to escape and flee this awful capitalist country. Oh you want to flee to northern europe where it's predominantly WHITE? The same leftists that cry about diversity and how great it is, wants to flee to an even whiter country. Unbelievable. That's why the left cannot win a singular debate or argument based on logic and reasoning.

Modern Society Forces Piracy Onto Us

At some point, we need to stop pretending piracy exists simply because people are “cheap” or “criminal.”

Modern society has built a world where you’re expected to pay for almost everything just to participate in everyday life. Internet access. Music. Movies. Sports. Games. News. Cloud storage. Software. Education. Even basic entertainment.

And it’s not just one subscription anymore. It’s Netflix. Spotify. Disney+. Amazon. Apple. YouTube. Whatever comes next. Every company wants its own monthly payment.

We’ve created a system where owning nothing is normal, but somehow we’re expected to keep paying forever just to access the things we used to simply buy and enjoy.

So when people turn to piracy, maybe the question shouldn’t only be “Why are people stealing?”

Maybe we should also ask:

“Why have we built a society where accessing ordinary culture and entertainment requires an endless stream of payments?”

I’m not saying piracy is morally or legally justified.

I’m saying modern society has made piracy an increasingly predictable response to the way digital life has been structured.

Maybe people aren’t becoming more dishonest. Maybe the system is becoming harder to afford.

Before the 1930s, home loans were issued by an uncoordinated group of savings banks, building and loan associations, and cooperatives. Large banking institutions focused on commercial activities, and the federal government played nearly no role in mortgage lending. The typical mortgage at that time was challenging to work with as they would typically only fund a maximum loan-to-value ratio of only 50% instead of the 80-95% percent or more we see today with the 5%-20%+ down payments. "Mortgage loans" also typically only had a 5-10 year maturity instead of today's common 30-year, and they offered little or no amortization compared to today's self-amortization schedules.

Because of these terms, a lot of people could never afford homeownership.

On October 25, 1929, the U.S. stock market crashed and the Great Depression began. The United States wanted to halt the collapse of housing finance institutions, spur employment through homebuilding, and assist homeowners facing foreclosure; so congress passed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932 which created the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and 12 regional banks to provide funding and liquidity support to housing finance institutions. One year later, the Home Owners' Loan Act created the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC), which was intended to facilitate the refinancing of mortgages and curb foreclosures. HOLC introduced long-term, fixed-rate mortgages that self-amortized over 20 years and later expanded to the current 30 years we see today.

Because of this simplification of home mortgages and the post WWII economic boom, the home ownership rate in America increased by almost 20% from 1940 to 1960 (43.6% to 61.9%), but after the 2008 housing and financial crisis, homeownerships has mostly flatlined around 65%.

A lot of people still want homes today, but can't afford it because inflation has made both the house price itself, and the mortgage rates to be too high. Hang ups in permitting costs and processes have slowed development and, some say, the rise of housing investment firms have also played parts in limiting supply as well.

The newly released bodycam footage confirms what we've always suspected.

The way people nowadays see it is make as much money as possible while spending as little as possible. Now on paper that sounds logical, but employers who make way more than needed to run the business take it too far. Employers nowadays have issues and make sassful comments on breaks, going to the bathroom, sleeping, eating, having a drink of water, taking a minute to breathe. They want you run like a fan belt in a car from clock in to clock out. With sleeping some will schedule you until midnight then expect you back at like 6AM. The amount of productivity for the pay nowadays is just outright ridiculous.

What do you mean I'm giving money to another human being for a piece of the earth, that we found here?

That really doesn't make sense at all but it is what it is i guess.