That's some Grade A virtue signaling. Good job. You have NOT made an argument. Thanks though.

Your comment was what was vague. What do you object to?

@Krish55
No emperical data to back up those "beliefs".
That's OK though. We all live in our own mythologies.

@bigpawbullets It was a memorial piece, not an argument.

@DonThiebaut
OK Don. Communist memorial crap.

@bigpawbullets So a person who doesn't share your views doesn't deserve a memorial?

@DonThiebaut
Well, that's silly. Who am I to say who deserves anything. Still, a Communist. I'm a Cold War and Vietnam veteran. Communists are not my favorite people.

Science has. Capitalism just determines who gets paid for it. And as a lot of truly groundbreaking science is socially funded...

@DonThiebaut if someone finds a useful way to apply new science (that was funded socially) and provide solutions that people are willing to pay for, I'm all for it. They deserve to get paid for it.

If it weren't for capitalism we wouldn't have the variety of products or solutions that we have for all kinds of stuff that makes our lives so much better.

@idolpx Capitalism isn't even responsible for that. Capitalism is literally just private ownership, versus public or worker ownership. Worker coops are perfectly capable of having R&D to streamline inventions to make them marketable. If Apple had been structured as a worker Co-op, instead of a private business, it still could have developed the iPhone, it just would have done so with all of the workers getting a fair cut of pay and a say in how things are done.

@DonThiebaut a capitalistic society allows for both private and public ownership of companies.

I'd have to argue that apples workers do get a fair cut. They choose to work there for the wage they agreed on. They aren't forced to do a job by a communist or socialistic society.

When you work for someone you are responsible for negotiating a fair compensation. If it's not fair then don't do the job and go somewhere else and get paid.

@idolpx I see. You are making a very common mistake with regards to the terms 'capitalism' and 'socialism'. See, people often use the term 'capitalism' interchangeably with 'market economy' and 'socialism/communism' interchangeably with 'centralized economy'. In actuality, while the (nominally, not literally) 'communist' nations of the 19-20 centuries were centralized, and the capitalist countries were market, they aren't literally the same thing. Capitalism is, literally, private ownership. It discludes public or worker ownership. A 'capitalist' nation is one that has predominantly privately owned business. It could be (and usually is) a largely market or mixed economy, but the portions of the economy that are not privately owned are not capitalism. The reverse is also true: an authoritarian central government that ridgidly enforces private ownership at the expense of worker coops is still capitalist. And the inverse for socialist: coops are socialist regardless of whether the overall economy is centrally organized or free market, or mixed.

Now, if you take all that in mind, we can rephrase your above statement to make it valid:
" a [market economy] allows for both private and public ownership of companies."
This is a true statement. But it doesn't make capitalism better than socialism, because it isn't actually about capitalism or socialism, it's about a market economy.

@idolpx If you're interested in this sort of thing, you should read up on free-market socialism. It covers a rather broad range of socialist philosophy within a market or mixed economy, without centralization.
Also, read up specifically on worker cooperatives, ESOPs, public cooperatives, and such. This is a good starting point:
Www.democracyatwork.info

@DonThiebaut

@idolpx First, we had capitalism long before 1970. And this guy just brushing off all those government programs without any argument is absurd. Of course those things had an impact.
Second, he goes on to make the same mistake as you: conflating capitalism with market economics.
Third, he gives the U.S. far too much credit. We had a hand in a lot of it, but we didn't do it all.
Fourth, capitalism gets a bad rap because it's not what he says. Market economics are fine: capitalism is not market economics. He even references 'central planning'.
Fifth, it's ironic that this video is put up by Prager, as a free, nonprofit, donation funded video. Since that's not capitalism, since it's not privately owned for profit.
And sixth, the AEI (the video's producers) have been criticized for taking big money from special interest groups specifically to further political agendas. They took $1.6 million from Exxon, and turned around and offered $10 thousand dollar bribes to climate scientists to try to get them to deny climate change. They aren't exactly a trustworthy group.
All that said, the video isn't necessarily wrong (though it is overly generalized and mildly misleading), but only if you swap the word 'capitalism' for 'market economy'. Trade and freedom are great. Private ownership, not so much. Cooperatives have all the advantages he spoke about, plus many more.

@idolpx As a matter of fact, private ownership, after capital accumulation hits a certain point, gets in the way of trade. That's what a monopoly is, after all, and we all know those are bad. Cooperative and public ownership models don't have the same issues with capital accumulation or monopolies, so they actually facilitate a market economy by keeping it open.

@DonThiebaut so... you don't care about poor people. Gotcha!

@idolpx I am a poor people. What I'm saying is that I don't get a bit of good out of trade when my boss eats up all the gains that trade brings just because he owns the business. If I worked in a cooperative, that trade would benefit me as well.

@DonThiebaut I was you in my 20s. My daughter was born when I was 18. I understand completely. Although I also understood that I am my own business. I am trading my time to who ever I work for and it is up to me to negotiate the best rate so that I can take care of my bills & baby and that they are happy to pay me. At one point I was working a full time job, going to school full time and had two part time jobs to take care of things.

How long do you think it took before your boss built up the business enough to be able to afford to hire you to help? Do you think it's fair to take a share of the profits without also taking on a share of the risks? If the business needs new equipment or the rent goes up on the building are you ready to pitch in to cover those expenses if there isn't enough business coming in to take care of things? Even if you had to go without pay for a while? I don't think so.

It's not as simple as people make it out to be. It takes a lot of work to build a SUCCESSFUL business. If you put in all of the hard work to do that would you want someone coming in after you invested all of that and demanding a share of the profits above and beyond what they contribute and are already compensated for?

People can always build their own business or cooperative or what ever they like if they think it's that simple.

@idolpx first, you should be happy to find that cooperatives actually have one third of the failure rate after the first three years of privately owned businesses. By dividing up ownership you also divide up risk and reward, and that results in far more stability, as well as a more equitable pay situation.
Second, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm demanding that private businesses suddenly turn into cooperatives. I think it would be a good idea in general if they voluntarily did so, but I'm not about to hold a gun to anyone's head.
Third, I find it ironic that you talked about it being your responsibility to get the best deal you can for you labor, while also supporting the boss's interest in keeping you suppressed. The best deal in a business transaction is specifically to take equal ownership. That's what every worker should strive toward.

@DonThiebaut I think cooperatives are great if that is how people want to run a business. I never suggested anyone turn private business into a cooperative. I was talking in general. If you feel like you are being "suppressed" by working for someone, you shouldn't be working for them. It should be a win/win. You are getting what you want for your time and they are getting what they need as well.

I'm all for voluntary interactions. It is immoral to use the force of government (aka a gun) to coerce involuntary associations in business or otherwise.

@idolpx Then you should fit right in here. A big part of modern progressive ideology is getting rid of special privileges for large corporations so that more equitable and voluntary business associations can flourish.

@DonThiebaut in my experience, "modern progressive ideology" relies on and promotes the use of government force to accomplish it's goals. I'm open to learning more though.

@idolpx How else, except using government, are we to get government to stop favoring major corporations?

@DonThiebaut I agree that the crony bullshit needs to stop and let the market take care of things.