> Blaming capitalism for corruption while giving government more and more power
Do you think governments have had "more and more power" in the last fifty years? What is your reasoning?
To me, it seems like capital has far more power compared to fifty years ago.
> let's give the government more power in the name of social justice and expect that no one in the system is corrupted
Spoken like a true ideologue. Does this argument not work in reverse? Money == power. If you concentrate more and more wealth in fewer hands, then you can also expect corruption.
> it simply ignores the fact that people have no reason to work hard when they see someone who's chilling gets the same outcome
The thing about capitalism is that capital generates capital. Someone who is already wealthy can "chill" and get a better outcome than someone who works much harder.
> Do you think governments have had "more and more power" in the last fifty years? What is your reasoning?
If opposite was true then there would be never debate about helping bankers after crisis few years back, government shouldn't have power to "help" private investors with taxpayers' money.
> If you concentrate more and more wealth in fewer hands, then you can also expect corruption.
Why should I care about corruption inside companies? Corrupted companies are less effective, they will eventually die. What I care about is corruption inside government - you have no solution for corrupted officials - I have: just don't give them too much power, then even if they are corrupted they won't make much damage.
> The thing about capitalism is that capital generates capital. Someone who is already wealthy can "chill" and get a better outcome than someone who works much harder.
That's not the feature of capitalism, that's feature of corrupted government with too much power - in free market, if you have capital and don't create any goods, but only spend it eventually you have less capital - it's simple math.
> Why should I care about corruption inside companies? Corrupted companies are less effective, they will eventually die.
Assuming that's true, "eventually die" doesn't sound great for the vulnerable workers of the company, who have lost out on wages due to said corruption and are now unemployed.
> you have no solution for corrupted officials
Sure I do. There's the media, the judicial system, and the ballot box.
> in free market, if you have capital and don't create any goods, but only spend it eventually you have less capital
That's not a rebuttal of what I said, and it's not necessarily correct either. You can, for example, buy land and rent it out.
> doesn't sound great for the vulnerable workers of the company, who have lost out on wages due to said corruption and are now unemployed.
Why would they be unemployed? Why wouldn't they work for someone else or even start their own business? You assume people are helpless, I hope it's not the projection of your own experience.
> Sure I do. There's the media, the judicial system, and the ballot box.
How they (except the last one) are doing so far?
> You can, for example, buy land and rent it out.
That's already investment, that's already doing something with a risk involved. You can buy a land that no one would rent out.
Besides the things above: you still don't propose any explanation why socialism will work this time, when it happened to lead to tragedy so many times before (I assume you agree with my proof of why the system USA lean towards socialism since you haven't argued with that proof).
> If opposite was true then there would be never debate about helping bankers after crisis few years back, government shouldn't have power to "help" private investors with taxpayers' money.
Maybe it's not that the government doesn't have power, but more like the government's power has become a tool for the rich and their corporations due to their larger influence.
> Corrupted companies are less effective, they will eventually die.
Why is this true? Anyone could state the opposite without proof: that corrupted companies are more effective and thrive.
> in free market, if you have capital and don't create any goods, but only spend it eventually you have less capital - it's simple math.
It's not like capitalists just sit on their cash and burn it; their capital is in wealth-producing assets. They don't need to create any goods themselves. Their outsized wealth owns things that does that for them.
> Maybe it's not that the government doesn't have power, but more like the government's power has become a tool for the rich and their corporations due to their larger influence.
That's why you need to reduce government power. Socialism do the opposite.
> Why is this true? Anyone could state the opposite without proof: that corrupted companies are more effective and thrive.
It's the definition of corruption: you gain personal benefits in cost of organization you work in. Why would I prove the definition?
> Their outsized wealth owns things that does that for them.
Yeah... everything just happens on its own. Surely no one ever bankrupted by investing in stocks.
Do you think governments have had "more and more power" in the last fifty years? What is your reasoning?
To me, it seems like capital has far more power compared to fifty years ago.
> let's give the government more power in the name of social justice and expect that no one in the system is corrupted
Spoken like a true ideologue. Does this argument not work in reverse? Money == power. If you concentrate more and more wealth in fewer hands, then you can also expect corruption.
> it simply ignores the fact that people have no reason to work hard when they see someone who's chilling gets the same outcome
The thing about capitalism is that capital generates capital. Someone who is already wealthy can "chill" and get a better outcome than someone who works much harder.