(10-15-2025 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 08:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 05:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Response to the idea that "Capitalism was NEVER ALLOWED to be its true self" and the question "Have you read 'The Wealth of Nations'"? Figured it would be easier to start a completely new comment without a myriad of quotes.

There is a copy of the book in the public domain that I linked earlier - contained in a PDF. I have it open in another tab and have been reading it - got to around page 110. Granted I'm skimming for the main ideas and if something looks more interesting I'll read more closely So far nothing revelatory - I've learned this part so far. Topics I've seen were about division of labor, labor costs, buying/selling in open markets, policy differences in Europe causing inefficient markets, etc. It's always been a great work. Smith quantified and defined the economics occurring in the UK in the 1700s. He's the father of Microeconomics. Also provided a lot of background for Macroeconomics too.

I think I'm seeing what you are talking about with not allowing capitalism to operate in a natural state - you're referring to Laissez-faire. I thought maybe you were referring to something else, but it must be this. Is that correct? Assuming it is, then yes in some cases and circumstances overregulation and laws limiting use of resources could affect the economy along with government subsidies to various industries and also government intervention to prop up or push an industry that is not wanted or needed by society. Yes this happens and yes it makes capitalism less effective. However, as it pertains to the concept of "late stage capitalism" this alone is incomplete. One critical component that the Wealth of Nations did fully grasp - and I can't blame Adam Smith for not seeing this - is the high barriers to entry that evolved from larger scale factories. Back in Smith's time, the largest metal producers were small to moderate sized foundries. In today's world you can still open a smaller foundry; however, it's so much more unattainable than for capitalists back then. Farming is a great example of this. Even family farms need to be way bigger today than in the past in order to be able to sell crops. I know farmer's markets exist. However, that's a niche area today whereas in the past that was THE MARKET people went to for their food. Automobiles are another great example. There were way more and smaller sized car companies vs today domestically. The barriers to entry to start your own car company are MASSIVE vs what they would have been in the early 1900s when autos first hit the scene.

Assembly lines and having to have a certain size to hit the economy of scale for many industries were not a thing to deal with Smith's age. That's not a trivial thing. It's no different from the 2nd amendment in in the early 1800s where a typical family had a firearm that would make them a near peer with a soldier vs today where you have zero chance of approaching the firepower of a typical soldier. Same goes for being a capitalist today. Look at what's happened with Amazon, Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot...all of these stores that came into local communities, temporarily cut pricing to drive local businesses out and then raise their prices. LOL, Amazon is no longer the cheap game in town. They put a bunch of people out of business and then...raised prices.

The government looked the other way. They gave up their oversight and regulation of business in most cases. Microsoft would have been split into parts in the early 1900s with anti-trust laws. No one cares today. Amazon would not be what it is today either. But...this is what happens when you allow capitalism to proceed unchecked with no real oversight. The moment one company can exert some dominance in the market, it leverages it ASAP and then does what it can to drive competitors out of the market. That's how unfettered capitalism operates - one or a few get bigger more quickly and then they leverage their sizes to squash the smaller competitors. When government DOES NOT INTERVENE this is the end result. The movement towards monopoly - or oligopoly when a few large firms come to an impasse. Ironically, oligopolies tend to be in threes.

Well----lets be clear. We dont have capitalism anymore at the top levels. One reason we are in the situation we are in is that we have not let companies fail that should have failed. Yes---systemic bank failures and subsequent deep recessions (or even depressions) are not fun---but they are a necessary part of capitalism as the reset the stage, clear the system of bad debt/investments, and refocus capital in new more effective directions. They also motivate respect for long term thinking and create a healthy fear of the consequences of risky behavior in business. Capitalism is where risk taking investors pony up the capital and reap the rewards if the investment pans out---but can lose big if the venture fails. A system where capitalist enjoy the big profits if the investment is a winner----but the taxpayers bear the brunt of cost if the venture fails is NOT capitalism. I dont know what that is---but its not classic capitalism.

Right now---between too big to fail, bank/company bail outs, and Fed meddling----our captains of industry have little long term vision beyond next quarters numbers and they seem too confident that they can take any risk knowing they will be bailed out by the tax payer simply because any Administration will want to avoid a financial storm on their watch. That leads to excessive investment in the wrong places and lots of money tied up in bad zombie companies that should have gone bust years ago.

Your assessment is dead accurate; your conclusion however is not. Why is Gold passing 4200 and Silver at 53? Nobody trusts the banking system, its capitalization, or its account insurance, and they don't trust the value of their own cash. Bitcoin is definitely a testimony to the latter. If the ability of the nation to defend its interests was still widely believed Gold and Silver would not be so high. People for decades trusted the dollar. They did so because of U.S. military might abroad, because the U.S. productivity backed the dollar, and because World Reserve Currency status meant something. The Digital age and 42 Trillion in debt eroded the latter, we exported our ability to produce negating the secondary, and 8 years of a lack of resolve to defend our vital interests first under Obama and then Biden coupled with the DEI military hires has eroded even confidence in the former.

Gold and Silver are high because everyone around the globe knows Hell is coming.

Hell is coming---but the idea floated by many that the dollar is over is hyperbole.
Total value of all the mined gold in the world---about 12 trillion.
Total value of all the dollar denominated bonds in the world--65 trillion
Total value of the US stock market-also based on the dollar-50 trillion

Gold is great---but the reason the world exited the gold standard is there simply isnt enough gold to function as money world wide. The dollar is absolutely not what it used to be---but it doesnt have to be. It just has to be better than any other alternative for use as the world reserve currency. Below is a dollar index that represents the dollar's value with respect to other currencies. As you can see, the relative health of the dollar is quite a bit better than many might suspect. The dollar is still quite in demand---because of its quantity, its quality, its wide acceptance, its relatively fair and uncorrupted legal system, its link to the massive American consumer market, and the backing of the most powerful military on earth.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1329/us-doll...ical-chart

While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

(10-16-2025 09:57 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 05:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Response to the idea that "Capitalism was NEVER ALLOWED to be its true self" and the question "Have you read 'The Wealth of Nations'"? Figured it would be easier to start a completely new comment without a myriad of quotes.

There is a copy of the book in the public domain that I linked earlier - contained in a PDF. I have it open in another tab and have been reading it - got to around page 110. Granted I'm skimming for the main ideas and if something looks more interesting I'll read more closely So far nothing revelatory - I've learned this part so far. Topics I've seen were about division of labor, labor costs, buying/selling in open markets, policy differences in Europe causing inefficient markets, etc. It's always been a great work. Smith quantified and defined the economics occurring in the UK in the 1700s. He's the father of Microeconomics. Also provided a lot of background for Macroeconomics too.

I think I'm seeing what you are talking about with not allowing capitalism to operate in a natural state - you're referring to Laissez-faire. I thought maybe you were referring to something else, but it must be this. Is that correct? Assuming it is, then yes in some cases and circumstances overregulation and laws limiting use of resources could affect the economy along with government subsidies to various industries and also government intervention to prop up or push an industry that is not wanted or needed by society. Yes this happens and yes it makes capitalism less effective. However, as it pertains to the concept of "late stage capitalism" this alone is incomplete. One critical component that the Wealth of Nations did fully grasp - and I can't blame Adam Smith for not seeing this - is the high barriers to entry that evolved from larger scale factories. Back in Smith's time, the largest metal producers were small to moderate sized foundries. In today's world you can still open a smaller foundry; however, it's so much more unattainable than for capitalists back then. Farming is a great example of this. Even family farms need to be way bigger today than in the past in order to be able to sell crops. I know farmer's markets exist. However, that's a niche area today whereas in the past that was THE MARKET people went to for their food. Automobiles are another great example. There were way more and smaller sized car companies vs today domestically. The barriers to entry to start your own car company are MASSIVE vs what they would have been in the early 1900s when autos first hit the scene.

Assembly lines and having to have a certain size to hit the economy of scale for many industries were not a thing to deal with Smith's age. That's not a trivial thing. It's no different from the 2nd amendment in in the early 1800s where a typical family had a firearm that would make them a near peer with a soldier vs today where you have zero chance of approaching the firepower of a typical soldier. Same goes for being a capitalist today. Look at what's happened with Amazon, Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot...all of these stores that came into local communities, temporarily cut pricing to drive local businesses out and then raise their prices. LOL, Amazon is no longer the cheap game in town. They put a bunch of people out of business and then...raised prices.

The government looked the other way. They gave up their oversight and regulation of business in most cases. Microsoft would have been split into parts in the early 1900s with anti-trust laws. No one cares today. Amazon would not be what it is today either. But...this is what happens when you allow capitalism to proceed unchecked with no real oversight. The moment one company can exert some dominance in the market, it leverages it ASAP and then does what it can to drive competitors out of the market. That's how unfettered capitalism operates - one or a few get bigger more quickly and then they leverage their sizes to squash the smaller competitors. When government DOES NOT INTERVENE this is the end result. The movement towards monopoly - or oligopoly when a few large firms come to an impasse. Ironically, oligopolies tend to be in threes.

Now, you are starting to get a better picture. And, yes Smith didn’t see how things would evolve or the scale of productivity that could be achieved. It doesn’t however negate his concepts.

My question to you is why you are trying so hard to defend an author who clearly dismisses all of the extraneous factors that accompanies our variation of capitalism then presuppose it ran its course?

Clear example of what the author wants us to accept.

Years ago in horse racing, favored horses were weighted down with extra pounds to try to compensate for their competitors.

If the horse lost the race we could surmise well he is slowing down. May be time for him to go to pasture

Yet we completely ignored the fact this horse was unfairly restricted with extra weight his competitors didn’t have.

Those pesky facts keep getting in the way of my assertions

You can believe in the idea of late stage capitalism without buying into all of the opinions and view points of the author of the link in the OP. Hell, you can even change the term if you feel it's not accurate. I think JR brought up a good point about the U.S. moving towards fascism. Corporate fascism I think is the avenue I think the U.S. would take where the corporations bend the government to their views as opposed to the government thru a charismatic leader being in control and the corporations are brought into the fold. I'm not saying this is a foregone conclusion; however, it's trending towards this direction. I agree with JR on that.

The free market economy has been degrading for awhile. We know this is true. You seem to not believe in this premise that the free natural flow of market industry in your industry of choice is consolidation. Whether that means consolidating under 1 (monopoly) - which our government still tries to protect us from - or consolidation to a small group (oligopoly) - which our government no longer cares about - the end results are less competition. Adam Smith felt that what he observed would always be true - that low barriers of entry would prevent people or groups of people from cornering the market. But that's a feature of early life cycle industries when markets are highly fragmented. I'd offer that in the 1776 (when the Wealth of Nations was first published) free market style economics similar to what we know today was quite young. I understand that commerce in the Renaissance and early existed, but it was a different world vs the late 1700s and later. The Industrial Revolution in the UK was the starting point to where capitalism was truly born.

You can't hold things in stasis. Capitalism has been evolving over time. I'm not talking about government regulation (over-regulation?) but even there it was a reaction to capitalism. The UK industrialists (capitalists) were NOT good stewards of the environment. Neither were the U.S. industrialists early on either. Even in the 1950s the city of Pittsburgh it was perpetually dusk/night due to the thick smoke throughout the area. The town I grew up next to had a creek that was orange from all of the coal min runoff for decades. People forget what it was like in the past. I get it. The evolution I'm speaking of wrt to capitalism is the rise of the corporations. The small family crafting businesses evolved into small factories. Those small scale factories evolved into larger ones. Large factories started to incorporate. Corporations started increasing their reach thru expansion. Depending on how old the specific market was, expansions led to M&A. The original firms created thru M&A were bought/merged by other bigger firms and it keeps going until: 1) One corporation is the top dog and is a monopoly, 2) a few mega-corps don't have the juice to eliminate each other so an equilibrium of a few form an oligopoly or 3) the government INTERVENES before it gets out of hand and force more smaller companies to exist in a market space.

Where the 'Late Stage' comes into play is how far along we are with a few large corporations controlling large parts of numerous markets. And now it looks like they're trying to dominate even more by getting into market spaces that were always "safe" for small family businesses.

(10-16-2025 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

How can this be?

All I hear is that our country is terrible and there are many other countries far better off - you know, all those places that everyone here is fleeing to because we are so bad.

(10-16-2025 01:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 09:57 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 05:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Response to the idea that "Capitalism was NEVER ALLOWED to be its true self" and the question "Have you read 'The Wealth of Nations'"? Figured it would be easier to start a completely new comment without a myriad of quotes.

There is a copy of the book in the public domain that I linked earlier - contained in a PDF. I have it open in another tab and have been reading it - got to around page 110. Granted I'm skimming for the main ideas and if something looks more interesting I'll read more closely So far nothing revelatory - I've learned this part so far. Topics I've seen were about division of labor, labor costs, buying/selling in open markets, policy differences in Europe causing inefficient markets, etc. It's always been a great work. Smith quantified and defined the economics occurring in the UK in the 1700s. He's the father of Microeconomics. Also provided a lot of background for Macroeconomics too.

I think I'm seeing what you are talking about with not allowing capitalism to operate in a natural state - you're referring to Laissez-faire. I thought maybe you were referring to something else, but it must be this. Is that correct? Assuming it is, then yes in some cases and circumstances overregulation and laws limiting use of resources could affect the economy along with government subsidies to various industries and also government intervention to prop up or push an industry that is not wanted or needed by society. Yes this happens and yes it makes capitalism less effective. However, as it pertains to the concept of "late stage capitalism" this alone is incomplete. One critical component that the Wealth of Nations did fully grasp - and I can't blame Adam Smith for not seeing this - is the high barriers to entry that evolved from larger scale factories. Back in Smith's time, the largest metal producers were small to moderate sized foundries. In today's world you can still open a smaller foundry; however, it's so much more unattainable than for capitalists back then. Farming is a great example of this. Even family farms need to be way bigger today than in the past in order to be able to sell crops. I know farmer's markets exist. However, that's a niche area today whereas in the past that was THE MARKET people went to for their food. Automobiles are another great example. There were way more and smaller sized car companies vs today domestically. The barriers to entry to start your own car company are MASSIVE vs what they would have been in the early 1900s when autos first hit the scene.

Assembly lines and having to have a certain size to hit the economy of scale for many industries were not a thing to deal with Smith's age. That's not a trivial thing. It's no different from the 2nd amendment in in the early 1800s where a typical family had a firearm that would make them a near peer with a soldier vs today where you have zero chance of approaching the firepower of a typical soldier. Same goes for being a capitalist today. Look at what's happened with Amazon, Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot...all of these stores that came into local communities, temporarily cut pricing to drive local businesses out and then raise their prices. LOL, Amazon is no longer the cheap game in town. They put a bunch of people out of business and then...raised prices.

The government looked the other way. They gave up their oversight and regulation of business in most cases. Microsoft would have been split into parts in the early 1900s with anti-trust laws. No one cares today. Amazon would not be what it is today either. But...this is what happens when you allow capitalism to proceed unchecked with no real oversight. The moment one company can exert some dominance in the market, it leverages it ASAP and then does what it can to drive competitors out of the market. That's how unfettered capitalism operates - one or a few get bigger more quickly and then they leverage their sizes to squash the smaller competitors. When government DOES NOT INTERVENE this is the end result. The movement towards monopoly - or oligopoly when a few large firms come to an impasse. Ironically, oligopolies tend to be in threes.

Now, you are starting to get a better picture. And, yes Smith didn’t see how things would evolve or the scale of productivity that could be achieved. It doesn’t however negate his concepts.

My question to you is why you are trying so hard to defend an author who clearly dismisses all of the extraneous factors that accompanies our variation of capitalism then presuppose it ran its course?

Clear example of what the author wants us to accept.

Years ago in horse racing, favored horses were weighted down with extra pounds to try to compensate for their competitors.

If the horse lost the race we could surmise well he is slowing down. May be time for him to go to pasture

Yet we completely ignored the fact this horse was unfairly restricted with extra weight his competitors didn’t have.

Those pesky facts keep getting in the way of my assertions

You can believe in the idea of late stage capitalism without buying into all of the opinions and view points of the author of the link in the OP. Hell, you can even change the term if you feel it's not accurate. I think JR brought up a good point about the U.S. moving towards fascism. Corporate fascism I think is the avenue I think the U.S. would take where the corporations bend the government to their views as opposed to the government thru a charismatic leader being in control and the corporations are brought into the fold. I'm not saying this is a foregone conclusion; however, it's trending towards this direction. I agree with JR on that.

The free market economy has been degrading for awhile. We know this is true. You seem to not believe in this premise that the free natural flow of market industry in your industry of choice is consolidation. Whether that means consolidating under 1 (monopoly) - which our government still tries to protect us from - or consolidation to a small group (oligopoly) - which our government no longer cares about - the end results are less competition. Adam Smith felt that what he observed would always be true - that low barriers of entry would prevent people or groups of people from cornering the market. But that's a feature of early life cycle industries when markets are highly fragmented. I'd offer that in the 1776 (when the Wealth of Nations was first published) free market style economics similar to what we know today was quite young. I understand that commerce in the Renaissance and early existed, but it was a different world vs the late 1700s and later. The Industrial Revolution in the UK was the starting point to where capitalism was truly born.

You can't hold things in stasis. Capitalism has been evolving over time. I'm not talking about government regulation (over-regulation?) but even there it was a reaction to capitalism. The UK industrialists (capitalists) were NOT good stewards of the environment. Neither were the U.S. industrialists early on either. Even in the 1950s the city of Pittsburgh it was perpetually dusk/night due to the thick smoke throughout the area. The town I grew up next to had a creek that was orange from all of the coal min runoff for decades. People forget what it was like in the past. I get it. The evolution I'm speaking of wrt to capitalism is the rise of the corporations. The small family crafting businesses evolved into small factories. Those small scale factories evolved into larger ones. Large factories started to incorporate. Corporations started increasing their reach thru expansion. Depending on how old the specific market was, expansions led to M&A. The original firms created thru M&A were bought/merged by other bigger firms and it keeps going until: 1) One corporation is the top dog and is a monopoly, 2) a few mega-corps don't have the juice to eliminate each other so an equilibrium of a few form an oligopoly or 3) the government INTERVENES before it gets out of hand and force more smaller companies to exist in a market space.

Where the 'Late Stage' comes into play is how far along we are with a few large corporations controlling large parts of numerous markets. And now it looks like they're trying to dominate even more by getting into market spaces that were always "safe" for small family businesses.

As long as there is money available from banks to start a business venture then a variation of capitalism remains alive.

It’s really that simple. Small breweries are popping up and the monopoly Budweiser had has taken some hits. Same with the soda industry.

If there are free thinkers with ambitions these so called monopolies will have some competition.

Now, if banks decide to not loan then you have a very strong argument.

I’m not saying it’s fair competition but there will always be ways to create niches that large corporations cannot compete with.

I’m living proof of that and my business has grown despite the fact I do not want it to because I’m trying to wind it down.

So, I’m not sure which direction the market will take but essentials are still essentials and Americans depend on them daily and I don’t see that ever coming to an end.

Every one also tells you oil is on the way out.

Seriously, you’ve built an economy and lifestyle around oil for over 100 years and use it to make almost everything you touch but yet it’s going away. Late stage oil is no closer than late stage capitalism unless you are talking decades from now when we are all deceased

(10-16-2025 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 08:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 05:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Response to the idea that "Capitalism was NEVER ALLOWED to be its true self" and the question "Have you read 'The Wealth of Nations'"? Figured it would be easier to start a completely new comment without a myriad of quotes.

There is a copy of the book in the public domain that I linked earlier - contained in a PDF. I have it open in another tab and have been reading it - got to around page 110. Granted I'm skimming for the main ideas and if something looks more interesting I'll read more closely So far nothing revelatory - I've learned this part so far. Topics I've seen were about division of labor, labor costs, buying/selling in open markets, policy differences in Europe causing inefficient markets, etc. It's always been a great work. Smith quantified and defined the economics occurring in the UK in the 1700s. He's the father of Microeconomics. Also provided a lot of background for Macroeconomics too.

I think I'm seeing what you are talking about with not allowing capitalism to operate in a natural state - you're referring to Laissez-faire. I thought maybe you were referring to something else, but it must be this. Is that correct? Assuming it is, then yes in some cases and circumstances overregulation and laws limiting use of resources could affect the economy along with government subsidies to various industries and also government intervention to prop up or push an industry that is not wanted or needed by society. Yes this happens and yes it makes capitalism less effective. However, as it pertains to the concept of "late stage capitalism" this alone is incomplete. One critical component that the Wealth of Nations did fully grasp - and I can't blame Adam Smith for not seeing this - is the high barriers to entry that evolved from larger scale factories. Back in Smith's time, the largest metal producers were small to moderate sized foundries. In today's world you can still open a smaller foundry; however, it's so much more unattainable than for capitalists back then. Farming is a great example of this. Even family farms need to be way bigger today than in the past in order to be able to sell crops. I know farmer's markets exist. However, that's a niche area today whereas in the past that was THE MARKET people went to for their food. Automobiles are another great example. There were way more and smaller sized car companies vs today domestically. The barriers to entry to start your own car company are MASSIVE vs what they would have been in the early 1900s when autos first hit the scene.

Assembly lines and having to have a certain size to hit the economy of scale for many industries were not a thing to deal with Smith's age. That's not a trivial thing. It's no different from the 2nd amendment in in the early 1800s where a typical family had a firearm that would make them a near peer with a soldier vs today where you have zero chance of approaching the firepower of a typical soldier. Same goes for being a capitalist today. Look at what's happened with Amazon, Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot...all of these stores that came into local communities, temporarily cut pricing to drive local businesses out and then raise their prices. LOL, Amazon is no longer the cheap game in town. They put a bunch of people out of business and then...raised prices.

The government looked the other way. They gave up their oversight and regulation of business in most cases. Microsoft would have been split into parts in the early 1900s with anti-trust laws. No one cares today. Amazon would not be what it is today either. But...this is what happens when you allow capitalism to proceed unchecked with no real oversight. The moment one company can exert some dominance in the market, it leverages it ASAP and then does what it can to drive competitors out of the market. That's how unfettered capitalism operates - one or a few get bigger more quickly and then they leverage their sizes to squash the smaller competitors. When government DOES NOT INTERVENE this is the end result. The movement towards monopoly - or oligopoly when a few large firms come to an impasse. Ironically, oligopolies tend to be in threes.

Well----lets be clear. We dont have capitalism anymore at the top levels. One reason we are in the situation we are in is that we have not let companies fail that should have failed. Yes---systemic bank failures and subsequent deep recessions (or even depressions) are not fun---but they are a necessary part of capitalism as the reset the stage, clear the system of bad debt/investments, and refocus capital in new more effective directions. They also motivate respect for long term thinking and create a healthy fear of the consequences of risky behavior in business. Capitalism is where risk taking investors pony up the capital and reap the rewards if the investment pans out---but can lose big if the venture fails. A system where capitalist enjoy the big profits if the investment is a winner----but the taxpayers bear the brunt of cost if the venture fails is NOT capitalism. I dont know what that is---but its not classic capitalism.

Right now---between too big to fail, bank/company bail outs, and Fed meddling----our captains of industry have little long term vision beyond next quarters numbers and they seem too confident that they can take any risk knowing they will be bailed out by the tax payer simply because any Administration will want to avoid a financial storm on their watch. That leads to excessive investment in the wrong places and lots of money tied up in bad zombie companies that should have gone bust years ago.

Your assessment is dead accurate; your conclusion however is not. Why is Gold passing 4200 and Silver at 53? Nobody trusts the banking system, its capitalization, or its account insurance, and they don't trust the value of their own cash. Bitcoin is definitely a testimony to the latter. If the ability of the nation to defend its interests was still widely believed Gold and Silver would not be so high. People for decades trusted the dollar. They did so because of U.S. military might abroad, because the U.S. productivity backed the dollar, and because World Reserve Currency status meant something. The Digital age and 42 Trillion in debt eroded the latter, we exported our ability to produce negating the secondary, and 8 years of a lack of resolve to defend our vital interests first under Obama and then Biden coupled with the DEI military hires has eroded even confidence in the former.

Gold and Silver are high because everyone around the globe knows Hell is coming.

Hell is coming---but the idea floated by many that the dollar is over is hyperbole.
Total value of all the mined gold in the world---about 12 trillion.
Total value of all the dollar denominated bonds in the world--65 trillion
Total value of the US stock market-also based on the dollar-50 trillion

Gold is great---but the reason the world exited the gold standard is there simply isnt enough gold to function as money world wide. The dollar is absolutely not what it used to be---but it doesnt have to be. It just has to be better than any other alternative for use as the world reserve currency. Below is a dollar index that represents the dollar's value with respect to other currencies. As you can see, the relative health of the dollar is quite a bit better than many might suspect. The dollar is still quite in demand---because of its quantity, its quality, its wide acceptance, its relatively fair and uncorrupted legal system, its link to the massive American consumer market, and the backing of the most powerful military on earth.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1329/us-doll...ical-chart

While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

And none of that addressed the threat I named, digital currency. It will be used to camouflage inflation. And I don't know what kinds of cash amounts you have tried to withdraw from your accounts recently, but our banks have a surplus $100 bills and a paucity of $10's and 20's. And that isn't a random occurrence. It's happened 3/4ths of the times when I wanted cash for travel or a home repair issue. We bank at 3 banks and the problem seems to be fairly common. With the elimination of the penny as far as new mintage goes it's merely another step in an inflationary direction.

What will erode the value of the dollar and accentuate the value of all commodities will be digital currency and digital transactions. It blurs the line of distinctions between physical currencies by making their different values less transparent, and it allows for the inflation of currency beyond the printed treasury notes. And it does so intentionally and by design of those working in the marketplace.

I submit that the inability of cash to keep pace with its digital representation will result in the eventual loss of the last vestige of true freedom in the Western World, the ability to independently conduct trade without the all-seeing eye of government recording it all. And the ability of any citizen to function in the marketplace without having to have the approval of its government to do so. How does the innocent defend themselves when all assets are locked?

The lack of physical cash supply for denominations of bills below $100 is a direct assault on small and private business and an invasion of privacy perpetrated against all citizens. "I will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

All liberty sir, ends with the demise of cash transactions.

(10-16-2025 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 08:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 05:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Response to the idea that "Capitalism was NEVER ALLOWED to be its true self" and the question "Have you read 'The Wealth of Nations'"? Figured it would be easier to start a completely new comment without a myriad of quotes.

There is a copy of the book in the public domain that I linked earlier - contained in a PDF. I have it open in another tab and have been reading it - got to around page 110. Granted I'm skimming for the main ideas and if something looks more interesting I'll read more closely So far nothing revelatory - I've learned this part so far. Topics I've seen were about division of labor, labor costs, buying/selling in open markets, policy differences in Europe causing inefficient markets, etc. It's always been a great work. Smith quantified and defined the economics occurring in the UK in the 1700s. He's the father of Microeconomics. Also provided a lot of background for Macroeconomics too.

I think I'm seeing what you are talking about with not allowing capitalism to operate in a natural state - you're referring to Laissez-faire. I thought maybe you were referring to something else, but it must be this. Is that correct? Assuming it is, then yes in some cases and circumstances overregulation and laws limiting use of resources could affect the economy along with government subsidies to various industries and also government intervention to prop up or push an industry that is not wanted or needed by society. Yes this happens and yes it makes capitalism less effective. However, as it pertains to the concept of "late stage capitalism" this alone is incomplete. One critical component that the Wealth of Nations did fully grasp - and I can't blame Adam Smith for not seeing this - is the high barriers to entry that evolved from larger scale factories. Back in Smith's time, the largest metal producers were small to moderate sized foundries. In today's world you can still open a smaller foundry; however, it's so much more unattainable than for capitalists back then. Farming is a great example of this. Even family farms need to be way bigger today than in the past in order to be able to sell crops. I know farmer's markets exist. However, that's a niche area today whereas in the past that was THE MARKET people went to for their food. Automobiles are another great example. There were way more and smaller sized car companies vs today domestically. The barriers to entry to start your own car company are MASSIVE vs what they would have been in the early 1900s when autos first hit the scene.

Assembly lines and having to have a certain size to hit the economy of scale for many industries were not a thing to deal with Smith's age. That's not a trivial thing. It's no different from the 2nd amendment in in the early 1800s where a typical family had a firearm that would make them a near peer with a soldier vs today where you have zero chance of approaching the firepower of a typical soldier. Same goes for being a capitalist today. Look at what's happened with Amazon, Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot...all of these stores that came into local communities, temporarily cut pricing to drive local businesses out and then raise their prices. LOL, Amazon is no longer the cheap game in town. They put a bunch of people out of business and then...raised prices.

The government looked the other way. They gave up their oversight and regulation of business in most cases. Microsoft would have been split into parts in the early 1900s with anti-trust laws. No one cares today. Amazon would not be what it is today either. But...this is what happens when you allow capitalism to proceed unchecked with no real oversight. The moment one company can exert some dominance in the market, it leverages it ASAP and then does what it can to drive competitors out of the market. That's how unfettered capitalism operates - one or a few get bigger more quickly and then they leverage their sizes to squash the smaller competitors. When government DOES NOT INTERVENE this is the end result. The movement towards monopoly - or oligopoly when a few large firms come to an impasse. Ironically, oligopolies tend to be in threes.

Well----lets be clear. We dont have capitalism anymore at the top levels. One reason we are in the situation we are in is that we have not let companies fail that should have failed. Yes---systemic bank failures and subsequent deep recessions (or even depressions) are not fun---but they are a necessary part of capitalism as the reset the stage, clear the system of bad debt/investments, and refocus capital in new more effective directions. They also motivate respect for long term thinking and create a healthy fear of the consequences of risky behavior in business. Capitalism is where risk taking investors pony up the capital and reap the rewards if the investment pans out---but can lose big if the venture fails. A system where capitalist enjoy the big profits if the investment is a winner----but the taxpayers bear the brunt of cost if the venture fails is NOT capitalism. I dont know what that is---but its not classic capitalism.

Right now---between too big to fail, bank/company bail outs, and Fed meddling----our captains of industry have little long term vision beyond next quarters numbers and they seem too confident that they can take any risk knowing they will be bailed out by the tax payer simply because any Administration will want to avoid a financial storm on their watch. That leads to excessive investment in the wrong places and lots of money tied up in bad zombie companies that should have gone bust years ago.

Your assessment is dead accurate; your conclusion however is not. Why is Gold passing 4200 and Silver at 53? Nobody trusts the banking system, its capitalization, or its account insurance, and they don't trust the value of their own cash. Bitcoin is definitely a testimony to the latter. If the ability of the nation to defend its interests was still widely believed Gold and Silver would not be so high. People for decades trusted the dollar. They did so because of U.S. military might abroad, because the U.S. productivity backed the dollar, and because World Reserve Currency status meant something. The Digital age and 42 Trillion in debt eroded the latter, we exported our ability to produce negating the secondary, and 8 years of a lack of resolve to defend our vital interests first under Obama and then Biden coupled with the DEI military hires has eroded even confidence in the former.

Gold and Silver are high because everyone around the globe knows Hell is coming.

Hell is coming---but the idea floated by many that the dollar is over is hyperbole.
Total value of all the mined gold in the world---about 12 trillion.
Total value of all the dollar denominated bonds in the world--65 trillion
Total value of the US stock market-also based on the dollar-50 trillion

Gold is great---but the reason the world exited the gold standard is there simply isnt enough gold to function as money world wide. The dollar is absolutely not what it used to be---but it doesnt have to be. It just has to be better than any other alternative for use as the world reserve currency. Below is a dollar index that represents the dollar's value with respect to other currencies. As you can see, the relative health of the dollar is quite a bit better than many might suspect. The dollar is still quite in demand---because of its quantity, its quality, its wide acceptance, its relatively fair and uncorrupted legal system, its link to the massive American consumer market, and the backing of the most powerful military on earth.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1329/us-doll...ical-chart

While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

And none of that addressed the threat I named, digital currency. It will be used to camouflage inflation. And I don't know what kinds of cash amounts you have tried to withdraw from your accounts recently, but our banks have a surplus $100 bills and a paucity of $10's and 20's. And that isn't a random occurrence. It's happened 3/4ths of the times when I wanted cash for travel or a home repair issue. We bank at 3 banks and the problem seems to be fairly common. With the elimination of the penny as far as new mintage goes it's merely another step in an inflationary direction.

What will erode the value of the dollar and accentuate the value of all commodities will be digital currency and digital transactions. It blurs the line of distinctions between physical currencies by making their different values less transparent, and it allows for the inflation of currency beyond the printed treasury notes. And it does so intentionally and by design of those working in the marketplace.

I submit that the inability of cash to keep pace with its digital representation will result in the eventual loss of the last vestige of true freedom in the Western World, the ability to independently conduct trade without the all-seeing eye of government recording it all. And the ability of any citizen to function in the marketplace without having to have the approval of its government to do so. How does the innocent defend themselves when all assets are locked?

The lack of physical cash supply for denominations of bills below $100 is a direct assault on small and private business and an invasion of privacy perpetrated against all citizens. "I will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

All liberty sir, ends with the demise of cash transactions.

I dont disagree---but the basic issue you describe has existed for centuries and began with the practice of fractional banking. For those that dont know what "fractional banking" refers to---its essentially what George Bailey describes in the bank run scene of "Its A Wonderful Life" when he explains "Your thinking of this place all wrong---as if I had the money back here in a safe---the money's not here---well your money is in Joes house---its right next to yours".

The banks only has a fraction of the actual recorded deposits on hand. Instead, it uses most of the deposits to make money through granting loans that pay a higher interest rate than the bank pays on its deposits. For instance---A new bank opens and I deposit $100. JR SEC has a fantastic credit rating a asks the bank for $100. The bank knows JR is a good credit risk, grants the loan, and deposits $100 in JR's account. The bank only has $100 in deposits---but if I look at my bank statement----I still have $100, and so does JR. Not a dollar bill was printed---yet the money supply expanded by $100. Thats fractional banking taken to the extreme---though real life is not much different (I think they only have to have something like 2 or 3% of deposits on hand).

As long as fractional banking exists---nations really dont have much control over the money supply. The banks control the money supply far more than the treasury printing press---and that new money is effectively "digital" because it exists only as digits in a computer ledger which are legitimized via loan docs. The government did basically the same thing to a massive degree when they borrowed a trillion and gave it to folks during Covid (thats was the digital equivalent of printing money--which why it was so inflationary). That money only existed as digits in computers and bank accounts---no physical cash was printed. Honestly, a true bloc chain "digital currency" like Bitcoin actually is more secure against this type of thing because the total supply of the coin is limited by the originator when the project begins and the bloc chain insures a given coin can only exist in one wallet at a time.

As for getting rid of cash---I agree its a privacy issue---not to mention its a security issue. I live in a state where hurricanes hit and we lose power. How the hell is a digital currency going to work when there is no power and possibly no internet or cell network? Cash must remain a viable part of our monetary system.

(10-16-2025 04:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 08:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well----lets be clear. We dont have capitalism anymore at the top levels. One reason we are in the situation we are in is that we have not let companies fail that should have failed. Yes---systemic bank failures and subsequent deep recessions (or even depressions) are not fun---but they are a necessary part of capitalism as the reset the stage, clear the system of bad debt/investments, and refocus capital in new more effective directions. They also motivate respect for long term thinking and create a healthy fear of the consequences of risky behavior in business. Capitalism is where risk taking investors pony up the capital and reap the rewards if the investment pans out---but can lose big if the venture fails. A system where capitalist enjoy the big profits if the investment is a winner----but the taxpayers bear the brunt of cost if the venture fails is NOT capitalism. I dont know what that is---but its not classic capitalism.

Right now---between too big to fail, bank/company bail outs, and Fed meddling----our captains of industry have little long term vision beyond next quarters numbers and they seem too confident that they can take any risk knowing they will be bailed out by the tax payer simply because any Administration will want to avoid a financial storm on their watch. That leads to excessive investment in the wrong places and lots of money tied up in bad zombie companies that should have gone bust years ago.

Your assessment is dead accurate; your conclusion however is not. Why is Gold passing 4200 and Silver at 53? Nobody trusts the banking system, its capitalization, or its account insurance, and they don't trust the value of their own cash. Bitcoin is definitely a testimony to the latter. If the ability of the nation to defend its interests was still widely believed Gold and Silver would not be so high. People for decades trusted the dollar. They did so because of U.S. military might abroad, because the U.S. productivity backed the dollar, and because World Reserve Currency status meant something. The Digital age and 42 Trillion in debt eroded the latter, we exported our ability to produce negating the secondary, and 8 years of a lack of resolve to defend our vital interests first under Obama and then Biden coupled with the DEI military hires has eroded even confidence in the former.

Gold and Silver are high because everyone around the globe knows Hell is coming.

Hell is coming---but the idea floated by many that the dollar is over is hyperbole.
Total value of all the mined gold in the world---about 12 trillion.
Total value of all the dollar denominated bonds in the world--65 trillion
Total value of the US stock market-also based on the dollar-50 trillion

Gold is great---but the reason the world exited the gold standard is there simply isnt enough gold to function as money world wide. The dollar is absolutely not what it used to be---but it doesnt have to be. It just has to be better than any other alternative for use as the world reserve currency. Below is a dollar index that represents the dollar's value with respect to other currencies. As you can see, the relative health of the dollar is quite a bit better than many might suspect. The dollar is still quite in demand---because of its quantity, its quality, its wide acceptance, its relatively fair and uncorrupted legal system, its link to the massive American consumer market, and the backing of the most powerful military on earth.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1329/us-doll...ical-chart

While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

And none of that addressed the threat I named, digital currency. It will be used to camouflage inflation. And I don't know what kinds of cash amounts you have tried to withdraw from your accounts recently, but our banks have a surplus $100 bills and a paucity of $10's and 20's. And that isn't a random occurrence. It's happened 3/4ths of the times when I wanted cash for travel or a home repair issue. We bank at 3 banks and the problem seems to be fairly common. With the elimination of the penny as far as new mintage goes it's merely another step in an inflationary direction.

What will erode the value of the dollar and accentuate the value of all commodities will be digital currency and digital transactions. It blurs the line of distinctions between physical currencies by making their different values less transparent, and it allows for the inflation of currency beyond the printed treasury notes. And it does so intentionally and by design of those working in the marketplace.

I submit that the inability of cash to keep pace with its digital representation will result in the eventual loss of the last vestige of true freedom in the Western World, the ability to independently conduct trade without the all-seeing eye of government recording it all. And the ability of any citizen to function in the marketplace without having to have the approval of its government to do so. How does the innocent defend themselves when all assets are locked?

The lack of physical cash supply for denominations of bills below $100 is a direct assault on small and private business and an invasion of privacy perpetrated against all citizens. "I will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

All liberty sir, ends with the demise of cash transactions.

I dont disagree---but the issue you describe has existed for centuries and began with the practice of fractional banking. For those that dont know what "fractional banking" refers to---its essentially what George Bailey describes in the bank run scene of "Its A Wonderful Life" when he explains "Your looking at this all wrong---Your money's not here---its in Franks house---its in loans on lots of other houses". The bank only has a fraction of the actual recorded deposits on hand, and uses most of it to make money through granting loans that pay a higher interest rate than the bank pays on its deposits. For instance---A new bank opens and I deposit $100. JR SEC has a fantastic credit rating a asks the bank for $100. The bank knows JR is a good credit risk, grants the loan, and deposits $100 in JR's account. The bank only has $100 in deposits---but if I look at my bank statement----I still have $100, and so does JR. Not a dollar bill was printed---yet the money supply expanded by $100. Thats fractional banking taken to the extreme---though real life is not much different (I think they only have to have something like few percent of deposits on hand).

As long as fractional banking exists---nations really dont have much control over the money supply. The banks control the money supply far more than the treasury printing press---and that new money is effectively "digital" because it exists only as digits in a computer which are legitimized via loan docs.

I know all of this. It's also why runs happen as in "It's a Wonderful Life". What most people don't know, especially retirees invested in CDs is that FDIC can take up to 10 years to replace the insured amount of the deposit and can pay as little as 10 cents on the dollar each year for those 10 years to repay the insured. How many retired holders of certificates of deposit have 10 years left in their lives? With assisted living facilities costing up to 7,000 a month should a crisis hit, imagine the impact it's going to have on the lives of the children of those aged depositors who have to pick up the costs that their parent believed they had covered with CDs. That's just one scenario out of a myriad of how such a lockdown on deposits would impact the broader society and that's if FDIC or FSLIC even are able to handle the volume of loses.

Digital currency is only beneficial to the government and massive banks carrying large sums on the ledger.

For the record Governor Ivy of Alabama legalized gold and silver for the payment of debts. That's forward thinking, and why there is such an upward pressure on the metals. When they don't have to be converted to be exchanged they represent real assets for the security of families if you are in a state such as Alabama.

we're headed back into the land of Dutch tulips ... AI is getting ready to destroy lives and wealth seen not before...

the main construct is about how antitrust laws have been ignored due to corpshite controlling political policy since abandoning the gold standard ... it's simply a different version of fascism ... I don't bother with labeling ... call it wtfe ... it matters naught...

JR has this pegged to the hilt ... this is actually a great thread ... I've said my piece/peace ..

(10-16-2025 04:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 04:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Your assessment is dead accurate; your conclusion however is not. Why is Gold passing 4200 and Silver at 53? Nobody trusts the banking system, its capitalization, or its account insurance, and they don't trust the value of their own cash. Bitcoin is definitely a testimony to the latter. If the ability of the nation to defend its interests was still widely believed Gold and Silver would not be so high. People for decades trusted the dollar. They did so because of U.S. military might abroad, because the U.S. productivity backed the dollar, and because World Reserve Currency status meant something. The Digital age and 42 Trillion in debt eroded the latter, we exported our ability to produce negating the secondary, and 8 years of a lack of resolve to defend our vital interests first under Obama and then Biden coupled with the DEI military hires has eroded even confidence in the former.

Gold and Silver are high because everyone around the globe knows Hell is coming.

Hell is coming---but the idea floated by many that the dollar is over is hyperbole.
Total value of all the mined gold in the world---about 12 trillion.
Total value of all the dollar denominated bonds in the world--65 trillion
Total value of the US stock market-also based on the dollar-50 trillion

Gold is great---but the reason the world exited the gold standard is there simply isnt enough gold to function as money world wide. The dollar is absolutely not what it used to be---but it doesnt have to be. It just has to be better than any other alternative for use as the world reserve currency. Below is a dollar index that represents the dollar's value with respect to other currencies. As you can see, the relative health of the dollar is quite a bit better than many might suspect. The dollar is still quite in demand---because of its quantity, its quality, its wide acceptance, its relatively fair and uncorrupted legal system, its link to the massive American consumer market, and the backing of the most powerful military on earth.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1329/us-doll...ical-chart

While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

And none of that addressed the threat I named, digital currency. It will be used to camouflage inflation. And I don't know what kinds of cash amounts you have tried to withdraw from your accounts recently, but our banks have a surplus $100 bills and a paucity of $10's and 20's. And that isn't a random occurrence. It's happened 3/4ths of the times when I wanted cash for travel or a home repair issue. We bank at 3 banks and the problem seems to be fairly common. With the elimination of the penny as far as new mintage goes it's merely another step in an inflationary direction.

What will erode the value of the dollar and accentuate the value of all commodities will be digital currency and digital transactions. It blurs the line of distinctions between physical currencies by making their different values less transparent, and it allows for the inflation of currency beyond the printed treasury notes. And it does so intentionally and by design of those working in the marketplace.

I submit that the inability of cash to keep pace with its digital representation will result in the eventual loss of the last vestige of true freedom in the Western World, the ability to independently conduct trade without the all-seeing eye of government recording it all. And the ability of any citizen to function in the marketplace without having to have the approval of its government to do so. How does the innocent defend themselves when all assets are locked?

The lack of physical cash supply for denominations of bills below $100 is a direct assault on small and private business and an invasion of privacy perpetrated against all citizens. "I will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

All liberty sir, ends with the demise of cash transactions.

I dont disagree---but the issue you describe has existed for centuries and began with the practice of fractional banking. For those that dont know what "fractional banking" refers to---its essentially what George Bailey describes in the bank run scene of "Its A Wonderful Life" when he explains "Your looking at this all wrong---Your money's not here---its in Franks house---its in loans on lots of other houses". The bank only has a fraction of the actual recorded deposits on hand, and uses most of it to make money through granting loans that pay a higher interest rate than the bank pays on its deposits. For instance---A new bank opens and I deposit $100. JR SEC has a fantastic credit rating a asks the bank for $100. The bank knows JR is a good credit risk, grants the loan, and deposits $100 in JR's account. The bank only has $100 in deposits---but if I look at my bank statement----I still have $100, and so does JR. Not a dollar bill was printed---yet the money supply expanded by $100. Thats fractional banking taken to the extreme---though real life is not much different (I think they only have to have something like few percent of deposits on hand).

As long as fractional banking exists---nations really dont have much control over the money supply. The banks control the money supply far more than the treasury printing press---and that new money is effectively "digital" because it exists only as digits in a computer which are legitimized via loan docs.

I know all of this. It's also why runs happen as in "It's a Wonderful Life". What most people don't know, especially retirees invested in CDs is that FDIC can take up to 10 years to replace the insured amount of the deposit and can pay as little as 10 cents on the dollar each year for those 10 years to repay the insured. How many retired holders of certificates of deposit have 10 years left in their lives? With assisted living facilities costing up to 7,000 a month should a crisis hit, imagine the impact it's going to have on the lives of the children of those aged depositors who have to pick up the costs that their parent believed they had covered with CDs. That's just one scenario out of a myriad of how such a lockdown on deposits would impact the broader society and that's if FDIC or FSLIC even are able to handle the volume of loses.

Digital currency is only beneficial to the government and massive banks carrying large sums on the ledger.

For the record Governor Ivy of Alabama legalized gold and silver for the payment of debts. That's forward thinking, and why there is such an upward pressure on the metals. When they don't have to be converted to be exchanged they represent real assets for the security of families if you are in a state such as Alabama.

#wealthSiphon ... as the largest gen with wealth accumulation, you guys were always the target from the advent of the 401k ...

(10-16-2025 04:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 04:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Your assessment is dead accurate; your conclusion however is not. Why is Gold passing 4200 and Silver at 53? Nobody trusts the banking system, its capitalization, or its account insurance, and they don't trust the value of their own cash. Bitcoin is definitely a testimony to the latter. If the ability of the nation to defend its interests was still widely believed Gold and Silver would not be so high. People for decades trusted the dollar. They did so because of U.S. military might abroad, because the U.S. productivity backed the dollar, and because World Reserve Currency status meant something. The Digital age and 42 Trillion in debt eroded the latter, we exported our ability to produce negating the secondary, and 8 years of a lack of resolve to defend our vital interests first under Obama and then Biden coupled with the DEI military hires has eroded even confidence in the former.

Gold and Silver are high because everyone around the globe knows Hell is coming.

Hell is coming---but the idea floated by many that the dollar is over is hyperbole.
Total value of all the mined gold in the world---about 12 trillion.
Total value of all the dollar denominated bonds in the world--65 trillion
Total value of the US stock market-also based on the dollar-50 trillion

Gold is great---but the reason the world exited the gold standard is there simply isnt enough gold to function as money world wide. The dollar is absolutely not what it used to be---but it doesnt have to be. It just has to be better than any other alternative for use as the world reserve currency. Below is a dollar index that represents the dollar's value with respect to other currencies. As you can see, the relative health of the dollar is quite a bit better than many might suspect. The dollar is still quite in demand---because of its quantity, its quality, its wide acceptance, its relatively fair and uncorrupted legal system, its link to the massive American consumer market, and the backing of the most powerful military on earth.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1329/us-doll...ical-chart

While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

And none of that addressed the threat I named, digital currency. It will be used to camouflage inflation. And I don't know what kinds of cash amounts you have tried to withdraw from your accounts recently, but our banks have a surplus $100 bills and a paucity of $10's and 20's. And that isn't a random occurrence. It's happened 3/4ths of the times when I wanted cash for travel or a home repair issue. We bank at 3 banks and the problem seems to be fairly common. With the elimination of the penny as far as new mintage goes it's merely another step in an inflationary direction.

What will erode the value of the dollar and accentuate the value of all commodities will be digital currency and digital transactions. It blurs the line of distinctions between physical currencies by making their different values less transparent, and it allows for the inflation of currency beyond the printed treasury notes. And it does so intentionally and by design of those working in the marketplace.

I submit that the inability of cash to keep pace with its digital representation will result in the eventual loss of the last vestige of true freedom in the Western World, the ability to independently conduct trade without the all-seeing eye of government recording it all. And the ability of any citizen to function in the marketplace without having to have the approval of its government to do so. How does the innocent defend themselves when all assets are locked?

The lack of physical cash supply for denominations of bills below $100 is a direct assault on small and private business and an invasion of privacy perpetrated against all citizens. "I will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

All liberty sir, ends with the demise of cash transactions.

I dont disagree---but the issue you describe has existed for centuries and began with the practice of fractional banking. For those that dont know what "fractional banking" refers to---its essentially what George Bailey describes in the bank run scene of "Its A Wonderful Life" when he explains "Your looking at this all wrong---Your money's not here---its in Franks house---its in loans on lots of other houses". The bank only has a fraction of the actual recorded deposits on hand, and uses most of it to make money through granting loans that pay a higher interest rate than the bank pays on its deposits. For instance---A new bank opens and I deposit $100. JR SEC has a fantastic credit rating a asks the bank for $100. The bank knows JR is a good credit risk, grants the loan, and deposits $100 in JR's account. The bank only has $100 in deposits---but if I look at my bank statement----I still have $100, and so does JR. Not a dollar bill was printed---yet the money supply expanded by $100. Thats fractional banking taken to the extreme---though real life is not much different (I think they only have to have something like few percent of deposits on hand).

As long as fractional banking exists---nations really dont have much control over the money supply. The banks control the money supply far more than the treasury printing press---and that new money is effectively "digital" because it exists only as digits in a computer which are legitimized via loan docs.

I know all of this. It's also why runs happen as in "It's a Wonderful Life". What most people don't know, especially retirees invested in CDs is that FDIC can take up to 10 years to replace the insured amount of the deposit and can pay as little as 10 cents on the dollar each year for those 10 years to repay the insured. How many retired holders of certificates of deposit have 10 years left in their lives? With assisted living facilities costing up to 7,000 a month should a crisis hit, imagine the impact it's going to have on the lives of the children of those aged depositors who have to pick up the costs that their parent believed they had covered with CDs. That's just one scenario out of a myriad of how such a lockdown on deposits would impact the broader society and that's if FDIC or FSLIC even are able to handle the volume of loses.

Digital currency is only beneficial to the government and massive banks carrying large sums on the ledger.

For the record Governor Ivy of Alabama legalized gold and silver for the payment of debts. That's forward thinking, and why there is such an upward pressure on the metals. When they don't have to be converted to be exchanged they represent real assets for the security of families if you are in a state such as Alabama.

Yup. FDIC also has a backstop called a "buy in" clause where the depositors are effectively forced to self insure. The bank is bailed out by having a percentage of each depositors account confiscated and converted into bank equity shares in their own shaky financially distressed bank. Thats what will play out if FDIC ever becomes overwhelmed. Basically---its just another way of white washing the liquidation of depositor wealth.

(10-16-2025 05:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 04:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 04:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Hell is coming---but the idea floated by many that the dollar is over is hyperbole.
Total value of all the mined gold in the world---about 12 trillion.
Total value of all the dollar denominated bonds in the world--65 trillion
Total value of the US stock market-also based on the dollar-50 trillion

Gold is great---but the reason the world exited the gold standard is there simply isnt enough gold to function as money world wide. The dollar is absolutely not what it used to be---but it doesnt have to be. It just has to be better than any other alternative for use as the world reserve currency. Below is a dollar index that represents the dollar's value with respect to other currencies. As you can see, the relative health of the dollar is quite a bit better than many might suspect. The dollar is still quite in demand---because of its quantity, its quality, its wide acceptance, its relatively fair and uncorrupted legal system, its link to the massive American consumer market, and the backing of the most powerful military on earth.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1329/us-doll...ical-chart

While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

And none of that addressed the threat I named, digital currency. It will be used to camouflage inflation. And I don't know what kinds of cash amounts you have tried to withdraw from your accounts recently, but our banks have a surplus $100 bills and a paucity of $10's and 20's. And that isn't a random occurrence. It's happened 3/4ths of the times when I wanted cash for travel or a home repair issue. We bank at 3 banks and the problem seems to be fairly common. With the elimination of the penny as far as new mintage goes it's merely another step in an inflationary direction.

What will erode the value of the dollar and accentuate the value of all commodities will be digital currency and digital transactions. It blurs the line of distinctions between physical currencies by making their different values less transparent, and it allows for the inflation of currency beyond the printed treasury notes. And it does so intentionally and by design of those working in the marketplace.

I submit that the inability of cash to keep pace with its digital representation will result in the eventual loss of the last vestige of true freedom in the Western World, the ability to independently conduct trade without the all-seeing eye of government recording it all. And the ability of any citizen to function in the marketplace without having to have the approval of its government to do so. How does the innocent defend themselves when all assets are locked?

The lack of physical cash supply for denominations of bills below $100 is a direct assault on small and private business and an invasion of privacy perpetrated against all citizens. "I will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

All liberty sir, ends with the demise of cash transactions.

I dont disagree---but the issue you describe has existed for centuries and began with the practice of fractional banking. For those that dont know what "fractional banking" refers to---its essentially what George Bailey describes in the bank run scene of "Its A Wonderful Life" when he explains "Your looking at this all wrong---Your money's not here---its in Franks house---its in loans on lots of other houses". The bank only has a fraction of the actual recorded deposits on hand, and uses most of it to make money through granting loans that pay a higher interest rate than the bank pays on its deposits. For instance---A new bank opens and I deposit $100. JR SEC has a fantastic credit rating a asks the bank for $100. The bank knows JR is a good credit risk, grants the loan, and deposits $100 in JR's account. The bank only has $100 in deposits---but if I look at my bank statement----I still have $100, and so does JR. Not a dollar bill was printed---yet the money supply expanded by $100. Thats fractional banking taken to the extreme---though real life is not much different (I think they only have to have something like few percent of deposits on hand).

As long as fractional banking exists---nations really dont have much control over the money supply. The banks control the money supply far more than the treasury printing press---and that new money is effectively "digital" because it exists only as digits in a computer which are legitimized via loan docs.

I know all of this. It's also why runs happen as in "It's a Wonderful Life". What most people don't know, especially retirees invested in CDs is that FDIC can take up to 10 years to replace the insured amount of the deposit and can pay as little as 10 cents on the dollar each year for those 10 years to repay the insured. How many retired holders of certificates of deposit have 10 years left in their lives? With assisted living facilities costing up to 7,000 a month should a crisis hit, imagine the impact it's going to have on the lives of the children of those aged depositors who have to pick up the costs that their parent believed they had covered with CDs. That's just one scenario out of a myriad of how such a lockdown on deposits would impact the broader society and that's if FDIC or FSLIC even are able to handle the volume of loses.

Digital currency is only beneficial to the government and massive banks carrying large sums on the ledger.

For the record Governor Ivy of Alabama legalized gold and silver for the payment of debts. That's forward thinking, and why there is such an upward pressure on the metals. When they don't have to be converted to be exchanged they represent real assets for the security of families if you are in a state such as Alabama.

Yup. There is also something called a "buy in" clause where the depositors are effectively forced to self insure. The bank is bailed out by having a percentage of each depositors account confiscated and converted into bank equity shares in their own shaky financially distressed bank. Thats what will play out if FDIC ever becomes overwhelmed. Basically---its just another way of white washing the liquidation of depositor wealth.

And in that world only those with "digital" currency have any wealth, not the real cash that was deposited, not in most cases the actual value of metal which has to be converted into a currency which will be transacted digitally, so the skanks and corporate crooks through the government who owes them trillions through the Federal Reserve where the skanks happen to be the major stock holders in the corporations backing the FED, either extend the government loans to free liquidity, or clamp down so that they get richer through foreclosures and the panic selling during the collapse.

This has gone on for millennia in one form or another. It is why our founders insisted on currency pegged to the real value of metals. And it is why Kay Ivy is beloved in Alabama.

Just remember... I told ya'll to buy gold awhile back.

(10-16-2025 05:40 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  Just remember... I told ya'll to buy gold awhile back.

some of us went raw mat'ls over 5 years ago ...

(10-16-2025 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 08:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 05:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Response to the idea that "Capitalism was NEVER ALLOWED to be its true self" and the question "Have you read 'The Wealth of Nations'"? Figured it would be easier to start a completely new comment without a myriad of quotes.

There is a copy of the book in the public domain that I linked earlier - contained in a PDF. I have it open in another tab and have been reading it - got to around page 110. Granted I'm skimming for the main ideas and if something looks more interesting I'll read more closely So far nothing revelatory - I've learned this part so far. Topics I've seen were about division of labor, labor costs, buying/selling in open markets, policy differences in Europe causing inefficient markets, etc. It's always been a great work. Smith quantified and defined the economics occurring in the UK in the 1700s. He's the father of Microeconomics. Also provided a lot of background for Macroeconomics too.

I think I'm seeing what you are talking about with not allowing capitalism to operate in a natural state - you're referring to Laissez-faire. I thought maybe you were referring to something else, but it must be this. Is that correct? Assuming it is, then yes in some cases and circumstances overregulation and laws limiting use of resources could affect the economy along with government subsidies to various industries and also government intervention to prop up or push an industry that is not wanted or needed by society. Yes this happens and yes it makes capitalism less effective. However, as it pertains to the concept of "late stage capitalism" this alone is incomplete. One critical component that the Wealth of Nations did fully grasp - and I can't blame Adam Smith for not seeing this - is the high barriers to entry that evolved from larger scale factories. Back in Smith's time, the largest metal producers were small to moderate sized foundries. In today's world you can still open a smaller foundry; however, it's so much more unattainable than for capitalists back then. Farming is a great example of this. Even family farms need to be way bigger today than in the past in order to be able to sell crops. I know farmer's markets exist. However, that's a niche area today whereas in the past that was THE MARKET people went to for their food. Automobiles are another great example. There were way more and smaller sized car companies vs today domestically. The barriers to entry to start your own car company are MASSIVE vs what they would have been in the early 1900s when autos first hit the scene.

Assembly lines and having to have a certain size to hit the economy of scale for many industries were not a thing to deal with Smith's age. That's not a trivial thing. It's no different from the 2nd amendment in in the early 1800s where a typical family had a firearm that would make them a near peer with a soldier vs today where you have zero chance of approaching the firepower of a typical soldier. Same goes for being a capitalist today. Look at what's happened with Amazon, Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot...all of these stores that came into local communities, temporarily cut pricing to drive local businesses out and then raise their prices. LOL, Amazon is no longer the cheap game in town. They put a bunch of people out of business and then...raised prices.

The government looked the other way. They gave up their oversight and regulation of business in most cases. Microsoft would have been split into parts in the early 1900s with anti-trust laws. No one cares today. Amazon would not be what it is today either. But...this is what happens when you allow capitalism to proceed unchecked with no real oversight. The moment one company can exert some dominance in the market, it leverages it ASAP and then does what it can to drive competitors out of the market. That's how unfettered capitalism operates - one or a few get bigger more quickly and then they leverage their sizes to squash the smaller competitors. When government DOES NOT INTERVENE this is the end result. The movement towards monopoly - or oligopoly when a few large firms come to an impasse. Ironically, oligopolies tend to be in threes.

Well----lets be clear. We dont have capitalism anymore at the top levels. One reason we are in the situation we are in is that we have not let companies fail that should have failed. Yes---systemic bank failures and subsequent deep recessions (or even depressions) are not fun---but they are a necessary part of capitalism as the reset the stage, clear the system of bad debt/investments, and refocus capital in new more effective directions. They also motivate respect for long term thinking and create a healthy fear of the consequences of risky behavior in business. Capitalism is where risk taking investors pony up the capital and reap the rewards if the investment pans out---but can lose big if the venture fails. A system where capitalist enjoy the big profits if the investment is a winner----but the taxpayers bear the brunt of cost if the venture fails is NOT capitalism. I dont know what that is---but its not classic capitalism.

Right now---between too big to fail, bank/company bail outs, and Fed meddling----our captains of industry have little long term vision beyond next quarters numbers and they seem too confident that they can take any risk knowing they will be bailed out by the tax payer simply because any Administration will want to avoid a financial storm on their watch. That leads to excessive investment in the wrong places and lots of money tied up in bad zombie companies that should have gone bust years ago.

Your assessment is dead accurate; your conclusion however is not. Why is Gold passing 4200 and Silver at 53? Nobody trusts the banking system, its capitalization, or its account insurance, and they don't trust the value of their own cash. Bitcoin is definitely a testimony to the latter. If the ability of the nation to defend its interests was still widely believed Gold and Silver would not be so high. People for decades trusted the dollar. They did so because of U.S. military might abroad, because the U.S. productivity backed the dollar, and because World Reserve Currency status meant something. The Digital age and 42 Trillion in debt eroded the latter, we exported our ability to produce negating the secondary, and 8 years of a lack of resolve to defend our vital interests first under Obama and then Biden coupled with the DEI military hires has eroded even confidence in the former.

Gold and Silver are high because everyone around the globe knows Hell is coming.

Hell is coming---but the idea floated by many that the dollar is over is hyperbole.
Total value of all the mined gold in the world---about 12 trillion.
Total value of all the dollar denominated bonds in the world--65 trillion
Total value of the US stock market-also based on the dollar-50 trillion

Gold is great---but the reason the world exited the gold standard is there simply isnt enough gold to function as money world wide. The dollar is absolutely not what it used to be---but it doesnt have to be. It just has to be better than any other alternative for use as the world reserve currency. Below is a dollar index that represents the dollar's value with respect to other currencies. As you can see, the relative health of the dollar is quite a bit better than many might suspect. The dollar is still quite in demand---because of its quantity, its quality, its wide acceptance, its relatively fair and uncorrupted legal system, its link to the massive American consumer market, and the backing of the most powerful military on earth.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1329/us-doll...ical-chart

While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

And none of that addressed the threat I named, digital currency. It will be used to camouflage inflation. And I don't know what kinds of cash amounts you have tried to withdraw from your accounts recently, but our banks have a surplus $100 bills and a paucity of $10's and 20's. And that isn't a random occurrence. It's happened 3/4ths of the times when I wanted cash for travel or a home repair issue. We bank at 3 banks and the problem seems to be fairly common. With the elimination of the penny as far as new mintage goes it's merely another step in an inflationary direction.

What will erode the value of the dollar and accentuate the value of all commodities will be digital currency and digital transactions. It blurs the line of distinctions between physical currencies by making their different values less transparent, and it allows for the inflation of currency beyond the printed treasury notes. And it does so intentionally and by design of those working in the marketplace.

I submit that the inability of cash to keep pace with its digital representation will result in the eventual loss of the last vestige of true freedom in the Western World, the ability to independently conduct trade without the all-seeing eye of government recording it all. And the ability of any citizen to function in the marketplace without having to have the approval of its government to do so. How does the innocent defend themselves when all assets are locked?

The lack of physical cash supply for denominations of bills below $100 is a direct assault on small and private business and an invasion of privacy perpetrated against all citizens. "I will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

All liberty sir, ends with the demise of cash transactions.

If true, Liberty is already lost.

But, then again it has already been foretold over 2000 years ago.

My business is cash starved. I’m lucky if I see $500 cash a month. Everything is either debit card credit card virtual credit card company check or ACH

Cash is dead in my world

(10-16-2025 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

I agree in principle but PPP adjusted 1% income is around ~$100k (some estimates up to $130k)

I'm not wading in to all this muck, but one thing that needs correcting

The 40 hour work week was instituted by Henry Ford at his manufacturing plants. Not the government. Not a union.

(10-16-2025 02:43 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 01:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 09:57 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 05:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Response to the idea that "Capitalism was NEVER ALLOWED to be its true self" and the question "Have you read 'The Wealth of Nations'"? Figured it would be easier to start a completely new comment without a myriad of quotes.

There is a copy of the book in the public domain that I linked earlier - contained in a PDF. I have it open in another tab and have been reading it - got to around page 110. Granted I'm skimming for the main ideas and if something looks more interesting I'll read more closely So far nothing revelatory - I've learned this part so far. Topics I've seen were about division of labor, labor costs, buying/selling in open markets, policy differences in Europe causing inefficient markets, etc. It's always been a great work. Smith quantified and defined the economics occurring in the UK in the 1700s. He's the father of Microeconomics. Also provided a lot of background for Macroeconomics too.

I think I'm seeing what you are talking about with not allowing capitalism to operate in a natural state - you're referring to Laissez-faire. I thought maybe you were referring to something else, but it must be this. Is that correct? Assuming it is, then yes in some cases and circumstances overregulation and laws limiting use of resources could affect the economy along with government subsidies to various industries and also government intervention to prop up or push an industry that is not wanted or needed by society. Yes this happens and yes it makes capitalism less effective. However, as it pertains to the concept of "late stage capitalism" this alone is incomplete. One critical component that the Wealth of Nations did fully grasp - and I can't blame Adam Smith for not seeing this - is the high barriers to entry that evolved from larger scale factories. Back in Smith's time, the largest metal producers were small to moderate sized foundries. In today's world you can still open a smaller foundry; however, it's so much more unattainable than for capitalists back then. Farming is a great example of this. Even family farms need to be way bigger today than in the past in order to be able to sell crops. I know farmer's markets exist. However, that's a niche area today whereas in the past that was THE MARKET people went to for their food. Automobiles are another great example. There were way more and smaller sized car companies vs today domestically. The barriers to entry to start your own car company are MASSIVE vs what they would have been in the early 1900s when autos first hit the scene.

Assembly lines and having to have a certain size to hit the economy of scale for many industries were not a thing to deal with Smith's age. That's not a trivial thing. It's no different from the 2nd amendment in in the early 1800s where a typical family had a firearm that would make them a near peer with a soldier vs today where you have zero chance of approaching the firepower of a typical soldier. Same goes for being a capitalist today. Look at what's happened with Amazon, Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot...all of these stores that came into local communities, temporarily cut pricing to drive local businesses out and then raise their prices. LOL, Amazon is no longer the cheap game in town. They put a bunch of people out of business and then...raised prices.

The government looked the other way. They gave up their oversight and regulation of business in most cases. Microsoft would have been split into parts in the early 1900s with anti-trust laws. No one cares today. Amazon would not be what it is today either. But...this is what happens when you allow capitalism to proceed unchecked with no real oversight. The moment one company can exert some dominance in the market, it leverages it ASAP and then does what it can to drive competitors out of the market. That's how unfettered capitalism operates - one or a few get bigger more quickly and then they leverage their sizes to squash the smaller competitors. When government DOES NOT INTERVENE this is the end result. The movement towards monopoly - or oligopoly when a few large firms come to an impasse. Ironically, oligopolies tend to be in threes.

Now, you are starting to get a better picture. And, yes Smith didn’t see how things would evolve or the scale of productivity that could be achieved. It doesn’t however negate his concepts.

My question to you is why you are trying so hard to defend an author who clearly dismisses all of the extraneous factors that accompanies our variation of capitalism then presuppose it ran its course?

Clear example of what the author wants us to accept.

Years ago in horse racing, favored horses were weighted down with extra pounds to try to compensate for their competitors.

If the horse lost the race we could surmise well he is slowing down. May be time for him to go to pasture

Yet we completely ignored the fact this horse was unfairly restricted with extra weight his competitors didn’t have.

Those pesky facts keep getting in the way of my assertions

You can believe in the idea of late stage capitalism without buying into all of the opinions and view points of the author of the link in the OP. Hell, you can even change the term if you feel it's not accurate. I think JR brought up a good point about the U.S. moving towards fascism. Corporate fascism I think is the avenue I think the U.S. would take where the corporations bend the government to their views as opposed to the government thru a charismatic leader being in control and the corporations are brought into the fold. I'm not saying this is a foregone conclusion; however, it's trending towards this direction. I agree with JR on that.

The free market economy has been degrading for awhile. We know this is true. You seem to not believe in this premise that the free natural flow of market industry in your industry of choice is consolidation. Whether that means consolidating under 1 (monopoly) - which our government still tries to protect us from - or consolidation to a small group (oligopoly) - which our government no longer cares about - the end results are less competition. Adam Smith felt that what he observed would always be true - that low barriers of entry would prevent people or groups of people from cornering the market. But that's a feature of early life cycle industries when markets are highly fragmented. I'd offer that in the 1776 (when the Wealth of Nations was first published) free market style economics similar to what we know today was quite young. I understand that commerce in the Renaissance and early existed, but it was a different world vs the late 1700s and later. The Industrial Revolution in the UK was the starting point to where capitalism was truly born.

You can't hold things in stasis. Capitalism has been evolving over time. I'm not talking about government regulation (over-regulation?) but even there it was a reaction to capitalism. The UK industrialists (capitalists) were NOT good stewards of the environment. Neither were the U.S. industrialists early on either. Even in the 1950s the city of Pittsburgh it was perpetually dusk/night due to the thick smoke throughout the area. The town I grew up next to had a creek that was orange from all of the coal min runoff for decades. People forget what it was like in the past. I get it. The evolution I'm speaking of wrt to capitalism is the rise of the corporations. The small family crafting businesses evolved into small factories. Those small scale factories evolved into larger ones. Large factories started to incorporate. Corporations started increasing their reach thru expansion. Depending on how old the specific market was, expansions led to M&A. The original firms created thru M&A were bought/merged by other bigger firms and it keeps going until: 1) One corporation is the top dog and is a monopoly, 2) a few mega-corps don't have the juice to eliminate each other so an equilibrium of a few form an oligopoly or 3) the government INTERVENES before it gets out of hand and force more smaller companies to exist in a market space.

Where the 'Late Stage' comes into play is how far along we are with a few large corporations controlling large parts of numerous markets. And now it looks like they're trying to dominate even more by getting into market spaces that were always "safe" for small family businesses.

As long as there is money available from banks to start a business venture then a variation of capitalism remains alive.

It’s really that simple. Small breweries are popping up and the monopoly Budweiser had has taken some hits. Same with the soda industry.

If there are free thinkers with ambitions these so called monopolies will have some competition.

Now, if banks decide to not loan then you have a very strong argument.

I’m not saying it’s fair competition but there will always be ways to create niches that large corporations cannot compete with.

I’m living proof of that and my business has grown despite the fact I do not want it to because I’m trying to wind it down.

So, I’m not sure which direction the market will take but essentials are still essentials and Americans depend on them daily and I don’t see that ever coming to an end.

Every one also tells you oil is on the way out.

Seriously, you’ve built an economy and lifestyle around oil for over 100 years and use it to make almost everything you touch but yet it’s going away. Late stage oil is no closer than late stage capitalism unless you are talking decades from now when we are all deceased

Do you understand how the large corporations are getting their new ideas and innovations? They are buying smaller companies! For example look at Rohan Oza, who is now on Shark Tank. He was a key leader of Glaceau (Smartwater, Vitamin Water, etc.) which was sold to Coca-Cola for $4.2 billion in 2007. Next he was involved with Bai Brands which was bought by Dr. Pepper Snapple for $1.7 billion. After that it was Poppi, which he just sold to Pepsi for $1.95 billion (he had invested 400k for 25%-really good return!).

(10-17-2025 09:04 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  While America has more than its share of faults---its important to remember the world as a whole is a very poor place. Lets put things in prospective when it comes to the success of US capitalism. Annual earnings of right around $30,000 a year would place you in the top 1% of earners worldwide. The vast majority of Americans are part of the "1%" as far as the rest of the world goes. Whether we know it or not---virtually everyone fortunate enough to be born in America are lottery winners compared to the rest of the world.

I agree in principle but PPP adjusted 1% income is around ~$100k (some estimates up to $130k)

I have not checked, but thats probably true. That said, I think PPP can be very misleading. For instance, it might show housing as being much cheaper in some poverty stricken nation, but fail to take into account that this "housing" provides a dirt floor, has no electricity, running water, or climate control. Thats in no way a reasonable comparison to how even a person below the poverty level in the US is likely to live. A person in America with 30K income probably enjoys housing with finished floors, electricity, air conditioning, and running water---he probably owns multiple TVs, a running vehicle, has a computer or smart phone device, and has easy access to affordable food and clothing. PPP reflects differences in cost but does not take quality into account (and it doesnt really reflect the difference in quality of life a "first world" infrastructure provides).

I ended up seeing a video about Sysco and how this company - along with a couple other food distribution companies - have consolidated this industry to such a degree that most restaurants are becoming too similar to each other. Several examples are deserts at the mid-tier chain restaurants that are all alike along with other common appetizer staples like jalepeno poppers, mozzarella sticks, pot stickers, egg rolls, etc... No doubt that entrees like chicken strips, any flattened chicken breasts used in dishes like chicken parm, chicken Marsala, lemon chicken, etc are also extremely similar. The sauces for various dishes as well.

While the video was coming from an obvious place of bias, it reinforces that most of us (IMHO I personally believe) don't truly grasp that all of this consolidation across all of our industries are an indicator that these markets are maturing. Consolidation to one or a few large entities is an indicator that the industry is not competitive in the classic sense. You may be selecting a restaurant or a grocery store product thinking it's a unique product. Later you find out that the 2 or 3 products you thought were competitors were in reality all owned by one entity. I know the term "Late Stage Capitalism" has some form of finality to it that people bristle at. I don't interpret it this way; however, to not offend maybe consider it "Late(er) Stage Capitalism". Regardless of the label, the outcome is the same...monopolistic/oligopilistic power by a few MNCs is an anchor to true innovation and competition.

At one time, we cared about this as a country. Somewhere - I think JR is right in that around WW2 into the Cold War - the thinking changed. It needs to go back to a point where the government cares about anti-trust and to break monopolies and olibopolies.

Additional reading on Sysco below if interested.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/why...r-AA1OsuAU

(10-27-2025 02:24 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I ended up seeing a video about Sysco and how this company - along with a couple other food distribution companies - have consolidated this industry to such a degree that most restaurants are becoming too similar to each other. Several examples are deserts at the mid-tier chain restaurants that are all alike along with other common appetizer staples like jalepeno poppers, mozzarella sticks, pot stickers, egg rolls, etc... No doubt that entrees like chicken strips, any flattened chicken breasts used in dishes like chicken parm, chicken Marsala, lemon chicken, etc are also extremely similar. The sauces for various dishes as well.

While the video was coming from an obvious place of bias, it reinforces that most of us (IMHO I personally believe) don't truly grasp that all of this consolidation across all of our industries are an indicator that these markets are maturing. Consolidation to one or a few large entities is an indicator that the industry is not competitive in the classic sense. You may be selecting a restaurant or a grocery store product thinking it's a unique product. Later you find out that the 2 or 3 products you thought were competitors were in reality all owned by one entity. I know the term "Late Stage Capitalism" has some form of finality to it that people bristle at. I don't interpret it this way; however, to not offend maybe consider it "Late(er) Stage Capitalism". Regardless of the label, the outcome is the same...monopolistic/oligopilistic power by a few MNCs is an anchor to true innovation and competition.

At one time, we cared about this as a country. Somewhere - I think JR is right in that around WW2 into the Cold War - the thinking changed. It needs to go back to a point where the government cares about anti-trust and to break monopolies and olibopolies.

Additional reading on Sysco below if interested.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/why...r-AA1OsuAU

This is one of the reasons the Pentagon is now realizing it has an issue with the defense industry churning out the massive amounts of ordinance required to fight a peer level adversary these days. We used to have lots of small and large defense contractors. Over the years, most of the smaller defense aircraft/missile companies have either gone broke or been gobbled up to create a handful of more profitable supersized defense companies. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, General Dynamics---all great companies. The thing is---these acquring companies want to become more profitable through acquisitions---so when they gobble up a smaller contractor, they get rid of excess capacity and facilities/employees that are redundant---cutting costs and increasing profits.

Thats why we have the problem have. A lot of the US reserve excess defense production capacity for weapons has been shuttered or scraped as a part of the acquisition process---making these big super defense companies more profitable. Gone are the small aircraft builders that once represented the first and most accessible line of excess productive capability. We have lost most of other smaller companies that would compete with innovative ideas that might be cheaper and more effective than the highly profitable billion dollar platforms the big super defense contractors are pushing. Think about it. There is no Hughs Aircraft. There is no Brewster Aircraft. There is no Curtis-Wright---or Consolidated---or Republic. Thats one of the reasons ramping up production for things like Patriots or Tomahawks is not easy these days.

On the upside, there are a few companies entering the fray that might offer some alternatives to the gold plated big boy weapons---while still being capable of getting the job done---and more importantly----they are being offered at a price where the US can afford to buy them in the kind of numbers needed for an extended peer level conflict. Anduril is an example of a relatively new company that is selling the idea of effective sophisticated weapons that can be made relatively cheaply and mass produced on a large scale quickly. These would be effective weapons that can be launched by existing platforms already in our inventory (no need to buy new launch systems).