The perils of Capitalism in America
As we know, the founding principle of the modern world is Capitalism. If you think through the logical consequences of this, all the depredations of the current system seem to make sense. The structural motive in capitalism to seek profit regardless of social or environmental cost encourages scams and corruption of the market. Corruption is the norm if you can get away with it in the system, it's encouraged structurally. The legal system having some countermeasures that are supposed to prevent too much corruption. Like those Anti-Trust laws that seem to never get invoked anymore as these few giant corporations dominate everything, which happens to also include owning all the congressmen.
Yes open markets get sabotaged and manipulated majorly but this is consistent with the motives capitalism helps create. When the system is oriented around being self-centered and seeing your own profit over others, it's not a huge surprise that some people then try to abuse others for their own profit. However, I'm not going to dogmatically say that capitalism is always bad, as sometimes beneficial results can still emerge under it. But I definitely don't think it's ideal, or that human needs are optimally delivered under a price tag at all. Obviously the typical false dichotomy is that if you don't endure their version of capitalism then anything else must be some communist dictatorship which is not what I am saying would be good at all. Pure socialism doesn't work on its own because it doesn't motivate education, efficiency or any form of extra effort. A couple of points:
1. Under Capitalism, you would expect a transition from nationalism to imperialism to globalism. First you have to build up an industrial base with clustered factories, supply chains, transport hubs etc. and bring goods to it, so you get nationalism. Then at some point it becomes profitable to capture primary resources and/or use your own people to extract them, so you get imperialism. Then it becomes profitable to cut costs by relocating production centers to the cheapest locations possible and moving customers and workers where you want them, so you get globalism.
2. Capitalists would see the founding of colonies in places like America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc. as sending workers out to do the job of opening up mines and such, something like large construction projects. Individuals in those colonies probably thought of themselves as pioneer staking out a future for their families in a new world etc. but that was never the official position. They are seen as temporary help and like any temporary help, when the project they are working on is finished you get rid of them and replace them with different workers hired to manage the finished site.
3. The next step after that is it becomes more profitable for these multi-national corporations to employ machines than workers on an individual basis, they are more effective at the job and more cost efficient. But on the broad scale, this is doomed to fail, as it just pushes more workers out of the work force and when done by many separate corporations creates enough unemployment that there aren't enough consumers able to buy the goods to maintain cyclical consumption. If the consumers don't keep buying in every new product cycle at a high enough rate to maintain profit then the Capitalist system fails. And individual companies might sometimes have little choice but to automate to keep up with competition and get the cost efficiency necessary for short term profit. The bottom line is capitalism is essentially doomed and not very sustainable when the core motives it produces for companies and heads of those companies contrast with their long term sustainability. Increased automation is just a continuation of the same principle that leads companies to outsource for cheap labor overseas.
How the system currently works
The dumbest thing that otherwise smart people glorify is the free market. It’s the central ideology of libertarians, the party of people who pride themselves on sounding much smarter than they actually are. That alone should make you question free market rhetoric. Scams like the fed fit the profit motive at the core of capitalism, at least for the people who own the banks and get all the money. IRS taxes corporations but they aren't honestly that affected compared to your average joe, who is the one that actually suffers while the big corporations really aren't going to have much of an issue. Under capitalism, the average population isn't going to have much purchasing power in the first place compared to the rich who are the ones that mainly direct the economy. In a free market, your main goal is to make money and defeat your competitors in the market, not to provide goods and services as well as you possibly can to the population. Cutting corners is beneficial to your profit even if it means downgrading your product and making things worse for consumers. And if you can beat all your competitors in an area, you're free to greatly increase your prices and gain way more profit even if that means the consumer is now getting screwed over. TLDR, the primary motive of the market system is competition and inevitably tends towards monopolies. Even these sorts of scams like the Federal Reserve are encouraged by the system, because inevitably if you gain enough economic power with your corporation one of the best ways to increase your profit is to buy out people in the government and change the laws so there are less barriers in the way of your economic success.
Corporations that own the government benefit from an economically deprived general populace that is living from paycheck to paycheck and unable to quit their jobs. It does benefit the financial elite that people can't own their own homes, but that's capitalism, if people were to own their own homes and stay there and allow their children to inherit the home later on it's no longer up for sale on the market removing market share and removing profit opportunities for the banks that want to own the homes. The international mega corporations benefit if the people are deprived and always in debt so they can't have a solid foundation to build their lives on independent of them, capitalism has no reason to push people to play fair when the fundamental profit motive encourages abusing the system.
In addition the scam of Fractional Reserve Banking where let's say a bank is given 10'000 dollars to store from someone who wants it safe, they can loan out up to 9/10ths of that without deducting from the original 10'000, creating new money out of nowhere. The same can happen with that new 9'000 and the same with 9/10ths of that and so on, ultimately allowing them to create about 9x more money out of thin air. It also goes over what you seem to already know that all money is created by loans meaning it is all corresponding with an equal amount of debt, and with the addition of interest, it's impossible for all the loans along with the added interest to be paid back, making it absolutely impossible in the system for some people to not then go bankrupt because there's not enough money in the system for everyone to pay back all the debt corresponding with every dollar along with the interest that has to be paid back on top of that.
In capitalism, the motive is always to get as much money as you can when selling, even if you're making people pay 10x what they really should. Corruption is encouraged by the competitive motive of capitalism. Whether it's banking scams, or cutting corners on product safety to increase profit margins, this is all just a pursuit of the profit motive. Common decency would make most people think those things are wrong but it is discouraged by the system and undermined. Capitalism profits off of social issues being perpetuated and not fixed since that maintains needs so people keep cyclically buying products from the corporations. Competition and capitalism will always tend towards monopolies and oligopolies, they serve the goal of defeating competition and gaining profit, so it's no big surprise that big businesses over and over again try to establish these oligopolies and monopolies. How would changing the money system make it so that structural motive isn't still there? Sure, it might help to remove interest and fractional reserve banking, but big business will push against this and seek ways to exploit people anyways to maintain maximum profit. An even playing field is fundamentally against the goals of individual competing big businesses who want to maximize their profit and consolidate their power for further profits. So they will do what they can to make it unfair. And if bank owners got interfered with by a more fair monetary system where they could not scam people with interest and fractional reserve banking, you can bet they'd do their best to use their money and resources to buy the right people and attempt to just manipulate the public into supporting the reinstatement of the scam.
Capitalist vs the communist is just a construct created by the ruling elite to divide and conquer so they can take the whole planet over. You shouldn't just lump all ideas associated with 'socialism' or 'communism' in as the same. Obviously, the USSR never intended to do anything good for the populace. Communism as the ideology where a 'worker's state' supposedly has everyone's best interests in mind as they take over all the industries and seize control of all the factories and farms is obviously just a way to take over a country under the pretense of liberating the people at some later date. Compare that to socialized health care in let's say Sweden. Obviously that has shown effective results and the same can be said of the prison systems in the Nordic countries which have produced far greater mental health results than the USA's prison system.
Profit is the key motive in capitalism rather than social progress, oil is necessary for energy companies to continue cyclically selling their mined resource to consumers and gain continuous profit, and because the oil companies have already invested a lot of resources into extracting oil. Efficiency is extremely bad for these companies because the more efficient a car or an engine the less they can profit. AKA, if a car was invented that was totally self sufficient in energy supply, you could never sell gas to consumers using that car ever again. Similarly if a car was good enough to last 50 years and still be extremely efficient and easily updatable with new parts over time you can profit far less from selling new cars. The car companies would go out of business if they couldn't keep selling cars. It's the same with the medical field, actually finding a cure for cancer would be terrible and destroy too much profit opportunity in continued treatments. So they don't fund the research for cures anywhere near as much as should be done. The underlying point with all of these issues is the same, the profit motive is extremely ineffective at solving people's actual needs or getting anything socially good done in society.
Capitalism actually works against people owning their own property. If someone owned their own home and their children inherit it and don't need to pay off any mortgage whatsoever there's nothing for the housing industry to profit off of. It's far more profitable if people are either paying off an impossible to pay mortgage or just renting in apartments. Then since they don't own their place of living they must cyclically pay the landlord or bank which gives them a source of profit. You see the problem here of how capitalism actually works against people owning their own homes?
No competition does not just naturally remove monopolies, unlike some economic theorists may propose, with the 'invisible hand' of the market clearing up the issues. The market may have been more necessary in the past for maintaining a medium of exchange as open source platforms like the internet obviously did not exist at the time. But now that the internet exists and technology has advanced much since then the possibility for more and more individual self sufficiency through applied technology has grown quite a lot and will only grow bigger over time. Leading to basically the inevitable obsolesce of the market.
Most libertarians have no idea how much consumer protections have done for them. Hell, if not for government regulations than most people wouldn’t even know who owns a company, or what that company is doing. Hell, if it wasn’t required by law to tell the consumer where a product was made, what it is made of, or how it was made….than the average consumer wouldn’t even know what he was buying (even if he wanted to be patriotic and buy made in america). How would you even fight back against corporations without laws and a justice system that define what a corporation can do or not do?
The whole reason bankers can come along and exploit everyone like that is their dependence on the monetary system mostly due to lack of other ways to manage things in a freedom-respecting way at the time where people could achieve their resource needs without being independently capable of acquiring all they need. Due to technological advances the necessity of this medium of exchange has basically disappeared, although obviously the ruling elite would try to use technology to instead facilitate an unbreakable dictatorship. Point is that the old economic system is becoming obsolete and no longer necessary for everyone to obtain needs in an open source way not requiring a hierarchical government. In other words that invention runs counter to capitalism as it reduces the market and the range of goods that need to be bought and sold. If someone invented a car that would also never break down for an extremely long time then you wouldn't need to replace with a new car removing more need to buy products. And so on, the further you improve technical efficiency of products the less needs to be bought and sold. The more indoor aeroponics and aquaponics improve and the more people are able to be self sufficient with their own food, the less they need to buy. Ideally everyone is self sufficient and the market becomes fully obsolete with enough technical advancement, but the point is the same regardless of the degree, technological progress renders capitalism more obsolete over time.