Society/Culture Can a purely socialist society exist?

[Seeds]

A purely socialist society has no means to allocate resources. You take away the price system then resource allocation collapses and thus so does the system. How long this takes depends on how long the leaders are willing/able to hold guns to everyone heads.

 

[IlovethePies]

So, responding directly to the thread title, can a genuine socialist society exist...
the answer is most emphatically, yes.

History shows that there was an alternative to Stalinism - it was the program of world socialist revolution.

Trotsky established the Fourth International in 1938, which was the genuine continuation of socialist internationalism, in opposition to Stalinism.

Since then, the Fourth International has fought for the principles of socialist internationalism.

For decades, it has remained small for several reasons, some of which include: the polticial assassinations and violent political provocations carried out by Stalinists and their allies, along with the imperialists themselves, and because the Stalinist regime itself criminally usurped the name of socialism.

Millions of workers and colonially oppressed peoples worldwide were hoodwinked: they believed that the right wing, nationalist dictatorship within the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc countries somehow defended socialism.

While this gigantic bureaucracy continued to hold state power, and syphon off the cream of the wealth made possible by the nationalised property relations, it was able to maintain this noxious myth.

However, in the end, when the globalised capitalist economy overcame the nationalised property relations within one country (as Trotsky predicted would happen in the end, because it was absurd to ever believe it possible for one nation to match the technological level of the globalised capitalist economy), the Stalinists moved to consolidate their wealth by reimposing capitalism, and ensuring that they themselves became the new capitalist class.

Hence, we had the phenonomen of former Stalinist bureaucrats who only years before had been preaching their commitment to socialism, suddenly emerging from the social chaos of capitalist restoration as capitalist billionaires.

 

[IlovethePies]

A purely socialist society has no means to allocate resources. You take away the price system then resource allocation collapses and thus so does the system. How long this takes depends on how long the leaders are willing/able to hold guns to everyone heads.

This is precisely what happened in the Stalin dictatorship that ruled the Soviet union. Every national program leads to inequality, because the productive capacity within the borders of a single country will always be incapable of satisfying the social needs of everyone.

Hence, the bureaucracy within the Soviet Union did rule with a revolver to the head of the working class.

Just like Hitler's fascist dictatorship ruled in the same manner.

Just like Pinochet's fascist government ruled in the same manner.

You see where I am going with this? Every capitalist government, because it is based on a national program, enforces social inequality through one means or another.

IN so called bourgeois democracies, social inequality is enforced through capitalist law, jails, the police and a trade union apparatus which constantly betrays the social demands of the working class and enforces the interests of the corporations.

Howver, as the social crisis deepens, and class polarisation reaches a level of intensity not seen since the 1930's, once again throughout the world we see a general trajectory towards authoritarian and fascist forms of rule. Throughout Europe, neo-fascists are either taking political power, or in the position of dictating to governments (France, Italy, Germany...) and of course in the US we are witnessing the attempts by Trump to create a paramilitiary fascist movement to seize political power. We also see a fascist government in Israel carrying out genocide in Gaza and now attempting to spread this to a regional war in Lebanon and ultimately against Iran.

The only way out of this is for the international working class to resume its struggle, begun under the leadership of the Bolsheviks in 1917, for world socialist revolution.

 

[FruitTingles]

Are we talking about here on Planet Earth or are we talking about on another planet where there are no Humans?

One of the few interesting things I heard Musk talk about. He was asked what political system we should use if we colonise Mars.

We would be turning up without all the baggage of slavery, colonial exploitation or holy sites of religious significance. Probably early on, it would be a sharing of resources. Initially a market economy might not make sense as at the bare survival level everyone needs to contribute and getting more people onto the planet difficult. To survive most human groups would need a cop and a leader who follows agreed upon laws.

 

[peetoo]

One of the few interesting things I heard Musk talk about. He was asked what political system we should use if we colonise Mars.

We would be turning up without all the baggage of slavery, colonial exploitation or holy sites of religious significance. Probably early on, it would be a sharing of resources. Initially a market economy might not make sense as at the bare survival level everyone needs to contribute and getting more people onto the planet difficult. To survive most human groups would need a cop and a leader who follows agreed upon laws.

I’m tipping bullying will be prominent

 

[FruitTingles]

Why would you want to live in a socialist society?

First pass, I will answer this from purely economic perspective:

In the original economic theory (which economists don't agree with now) the return on capital was seen as an exploitation premium. Essentially a labour theory of value would say if 100 hours of work goes into a product. Hypothetical $10 an hour means it should sell for $1000. If it's sold for profit of 5% or $50 then that value is being extracted by the capitalist for not putting in anything.

Now you compound this 3-5% for 50 years, GDP per capita would be higher per person if we each took home the value of our work, with the state simply taking the role of the capitalist by owning major industry. Paul Samuelson. who won the Nobel Prize in Economics produced this ill fated prediction:



There's quite a few good refutations of the theory but the Austrian's did it probably best because at the time economics was more theory based whereas now Academics are more concerned with empiricism.

 

[Seeds]

First pass, I will answer this from purely economic perspective:

In the original economic theory (which economists don't agree with now) the return on capital was seen as an exploitation premium. Essentially a labour theory of value would say if 100 hours of work goes into a product. Hypothetical $10 an hour means it should sell for $1000. If it's sold for profit of 5% or $50 then that value is being extracted by the capitalist for not putting in anything.

Now you compound this 3-5% for 50 years, GDP per capita would be higher per person if we each took home the value of our work, with the state simply taking the role of the capitalist by owning major industry. Paul Samuelson. who won the Nobel Prize in Economics produced this ill fated prediction:

View attachment 2125920

There's quite a few good refutations of the theory but the Austrian's did it probably best because at the time economics was more theory based whereas now Academics are more concerned with empiricism.

This model fails to examine what drives the creation of capital. If the capital stock was fixed and the efficiency in the way it was used was also unchangeable I would be completely behind the state owning it. But it's not.

Better for the state to regulates it use rather than own it to ensure no negative externalities arise and extract some of the profit through tax. As it currently does. Although the amount of tax is up for much debate. I don't think it's high enough.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

So in this amazing international socialist world of equality who gets to live in leafy suburbs in the nice mansion houses with pools and who gets to live in the grubby housing commission flats that are currently built .... or do we knock them all down and start again?

Does a neurosurgeon at a state run hospital get paid more than a burger flipper at a state run restaurant?

No or tiny wealth divide ... correct??

 

[FruitTingles]

This model fails to examine what drives the creation of capital. If the capital stock was fixed and the efficiency in the way it was used was also unchangeable I would be completely behind the state owning it. But it's not.

I don’t think it was a key problem, the state even now does capital works and uses consultants to try and determine the cost/benefits. They could simply tax more to gain funds for capital expansion.

Marx starts, I believe, from the standpoint of why Capitalism was so unstable, and led to booms and busts and how to make it work better. Ultimately coming down on an incomplete analysis.

Better for the state to regulates it use rather than own it to ensure no negative externalities arise and extract some of the profit through tax. As it currently does. Although the amount of tax is up for much debate. I don't think it's high enough.

Yet here we are, when the balance tilts too far in order to try and deal with any social issue:
Climate Change, gambling, Obesity, drug addiction, domestic violence. We struggle to do anything meaningful because vested interests yield control over society and can influence the right people to ensure nothing is done. Hyper-consumption becomes a necessary feature of the system to sustain itself rather than just the maximisation of everyone’s innate needs.

 

[Malifice]

No they were not socialist, they were Stalinist. They were based on the anti-Marxist program of " building socialism in one country,".

So Stalin wasnt a socialist and neither was the USSR? Thats historical revisionism at its finest.

The means of production were State owned and controlled under a one-party socialist system. Free enterprise and private capital were outlawed.

It was socialism whether you like it or not.

You only repudiate it because Socialism in the USSR quickly devolved into a regressive totalitarian police state that murdered literally millions of its own people (dissidents to the Socialist rule and the bourgeoise) and severely limited all personal freedoms.

Guess what? That happens in literally every single socialist nation (China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba etc), because Socialism requires enforced totalitarianism (or everyone miraculously willingly buying into it) for it to function.

And a significant number of people don't want Socialism (the bourgeoise and a significant number of the Middle class).

For those people, its the Gulags or the Killing fields.

Lenin and Trotsky were genuine Marxists/socialists.

I'll stop you there.

Lets assume a Leninist party in Australia seizes power and takes control of the means of production. All private property (homes, industry, buisiness etc) are seized by the State. The ASX is disbanded, and the Banks (and bank accounts) are taken over by the Government (all wealth appropriated by the State).

That's what the Leninists did in Russia, and its central to their entire ideology.

Their next steps will be to round up any dissidents (Capitalists, liberals, fascists etc) and ship them off to the Gulags, and seize control of all the Press.

Again, this is what the Leninists did in Russia.

We havent even gotten to Stalin yet. We're still at the Leninists.

Lets assume I want to start my own (liberal capitalist) political party, seeking to re-implement private property ownership, restoration of private capital, and freedom of the individual to work where they want, for profit, sell their labor and capitalize on their ideas and inventions.

Am I:

a) Prohibited from doing the above by the Leninist State, and either shot at dawn or sent off to the Gulags, or
b) Allowed to do so by the Leninist State.

Answer the above honestly, and you'll see why literally every Socialist State has regressed into a tyrannical uni-party oppressive State.

Marx. Was. Wrong.

He assumed some kind of Stateless society (and the only form of Stateless society is an Anarchy), and all members of society buying into socialism (after the Bourgeoise are killed in the revolution of course), both of which are fantasist absurdities.

 

[barreness]

So Stalin wasnt a socialist and neither was the USSR? Thats historical revisionism at its finest.

The means of production were State owned and controlled under a one-party socialist system. Free enterprise and private capital were outlawed.

It was socialism whether you like it or not.

Yep, I think he only gets his source from trot fantasy. I mean it was accepted that state capitalism was the only option in a global capital world, Stalin just didn't think it could progress much more. Later regimes did obviously decry Stalins crimes and eventually allowed some private enterprise. Was most certainly a try at socialism

Failed the first rule of marxism, material analysis

You only repudiate it because Socialism in the USSR quickly devolved into a regressive totalitarian police state that murdered literally millions of its own people (dissidents to the Socialist rule and the bourgeoise) and severely limited all personal freedoms.

They killed a lot, millions is propaganda and means you have to include famines and killing fascists

Guess what? That happens in literally every single socialist nation (China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba etc), because Socialism requires enforced totalitarianism (or everyone miraculously willingly buying into it) for it to function.

Did Cuba kill millions? Vietnam?

All states are totalitarian almost by definition, being non subservient to the state gets you put in jail pretty quick

And a significant number of people don't want Socialism (the bourgeoise and a significant number of the Middle class).

For those people, its the Gulags or the Killing fields.

Or you know they could just work for their required resources like everyone else

I'll stop you there.

Lets assume a Leninist party in Australia seizes power and takes control of the means of production. All private property (homes, industry, buisiness etc) are seized by the State. The ASX is disbanded, and the Banks (and bank accounts) are taken over by the Government (all wealth appropriated by the State).

That's what the Leninists did in Russia, and its central to their entire ideology.

Their next steps will be to round up any dissidents (Capitalists, liberals, fascists etc) and ship them off to the Gulags, and seize control of all the Press.

Again, this is what the Leninists did in Russia.

We havent even gotten to Stalin yet. We're still at the Leninists.

Lets assume I want to start my own (liberal capitalist) political party, seeking to re-implement private property ownership, restoration of private capital, and freedom of the individual to work where they want, for profit, sell their labor and capitalize on their ideas and inventions.

Am I:

a) Prohibited from doing the above by the Leninist State, and either shot at dawn or sent off to the Gulags, or
b) Allowed to do so by the Leninist State.

Of course you wouldn't be allowed. I think you miss a bit of history here, it wasn't like they simply took power and that was it. They had to fight a bloody civil war over it with the whites being armed/funded/supplied troops by all manner of internal and external forces. You are now an enemy of the state.
Did laugh at this abc article the other day, war hero eh, fighting for the interests of capital
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09...-hero-remains-australian-government/104246496
He was one of about 110 Australian soldiers who, following World War I, volunteered to fight for the British Army in the Russian Civil War.


You make it sound like it's just little old you trying to start a helpless political party, capital is the most powerful force in most countries and can throw the most resources at whatever they like. You can be damn sure they're not going to give up their privileged position willingly

Answer the above honestly, and you'll see why literally every Socialist State has regressed into a tyrannical uni-party oppressive State.

Marx. Was. Wrong.

He was right about a lot of things, a lot of great predictions tbh. He was wrong about a bunch but his economics is first rate and why he's considered alongside Smith and Ricardo as the greats of (classical) economics

He assumed some kind of Stateless society (and the only form of Stateless society is an Anarchy), and all members of society buying into socialism (after the Bourgeoise are killed in the revolution of course), both of which are fantasist absurdities.

He did think it'd go down a lot more democratically. Material analysis again, he thought the revolution would happen in proletariat states with an industrial working class, but it failed in France and Germany(bloody capitalists) and ended up going down in largely agrarian states(peasants and all that).

He thought it would end up in a stateless society, didn't assume it would happen overnight. And yes socialism and anarchism(and their many varying schools) do share many end points and goals in common

 

[Seeds]

I don’t think it was a key problem, the state even now does capital works and uses consultants to try and determine the cost/benefits. They could simply tax more to gain funds for capital expansion.

Marx starts, I believe, from the standpoint of why Capitalism was so unstable, and led to booms and busts and how to make it work better. Ultimately coming down on an incomplete analysis.



Yet here we are, when the balance tilts too far in order to try and deal with any social issue:
Climate Change, gambling, Obesity, drug addiction, domestic violence. We struggle to do anything meaningful because vested interests yield control over society and can influence the right people to ensure nothing is done. Hyper-consumption becomes a necessary feature of the system to sustain itself rather than just the maximisation of everyone’s innate needs.

There are no independent consultants in a socialist system because all industries are owned by the state. Plus without a market price system consultants would have no idea how to allocate resources either.

And your second point has nothing to do with the problems of capitalism (socialist systems are full of corruption as well). Its simply a problem created by the lack of regulation around the democratic system. You simply ban lobby groups and private funding of large public parties. That fixes the vested interests problem in a capitalist system.

 

[Gethelred]

There are no independent consultants in a socialist system because all industries are owned by the state. Plus without a market price system consultants would have no idea how to allocate resources either.

And your second point has nothing to do with the problems of capitalism (socialist systems are full of corruption as well). Its simply a problem created by the lack of regulation around the democratic system. You simply ban lobby groups and private funding of large public parties. That fixes the vested interests problem in a capitalist system.

...

wat?

 

[JackFlash]

NO!

 

[Malifice]

You are now an enemy of the state.

Aa would be every other liberal, libertarian, or freedom loving person.

That State is already a tyrannical one. And with so much power concentrated in a single party State (that extends of the Globe) that tyranny would only increase, and of course members of the Party elite would be treated like Kings.

Any purely socialist State, global or otherwise is (by natural extension of how it operates) a tyranny.

He (Marx) was right about a lot of things, a lot of great predictions tbh. He was wrong about a bunch but his economics is first rate and why he's considered alongside Smith and Ricardo as the greats of (classical) economics

He had some excellent critiques of capitalism, but his own answer was fundamentally flawed, simplistic, and utterly failed to take into account human nature.

About the only people who cheer on Marx are 1st and 2nd year Uni students, but most of them tend to grow out of it.

 

[barreness]

Aa would be every other liberal, libertarian, or freedom loving person.

That State is already a tyrannical one. And with so much power concentrated in a single party State (that extends of the Globe) that tyranny would only increase, and of course members of the Party elite would be treated like Kings.

Freedom is such an intangible property, of course it's limited by any state, do you think you can overthrow the state(and fail) and not receive punishment?

Libertarian was originally socialists and anarchists is probably the most free political idea. all in all we are not that free in a liberal capitalist state

Any purely socialist State, global or otherwise is (by natural extension of how it operates) a tyranny.

Everything's a tyranny man, that's civilisation. Where you draw the line is the interesting bit

He had some excellent critiques of capitalism, but his own answer was fundamentally flawed, simplistic, and utterly failed to take into account human nature.

Yeh this is an interesting; human nature, which bit is a result of material conditions and which bit is genetic, how much is cultural etc. This is a good discussion not your random liberalism is best for all eternity stuff

About the only people who cheer on Marx are 1st and 2nd year Uni students, but most of them tend to grow out of it.

What Marx did you read?

(look i'll be honest here I'm not a great reader these days, I've done the first Capital and the mainfesto. Interesting reads but I find myself looking more at Murray Bookchin and others which deal with more modern and ecological conditions)

The grow out of it thing is a bit of a furphy, leftist thought is growing as the capitalist system no longer adds value but is in opposition to climate change efforts

 

[peetoo]

I prefer the term commonwealth over republic. It’s a little bit ‘third way’


Australia needs to be a commonwealth in culture as well as name

 

[IlovethePies]

He had some excellent critiques of capitalism, but his own answer was fundamentally flawed, simplistic, and utterly failed to take into account human nature.

What is "human nature"?

 

[Malifice]

What is "human nature"?

There are sayings that are sayings for a reason.

Things like 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

There is a very good reason why liberals implemented a strict separation of the powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, imposed strict term limits, mandated a free press, democratic oversight of the ruling class, Constitutional limits to power, and a requirement of adherence by the ruling class to the Rule of Law.

It's for the same reason that every single time Socialism happens (you centralize control into a unitary party State) a tyranny happens.

Also, most people don't want to have the same as everyone else and to be told what to do all the time. Most people want the freedom to choose for themselves how to live.

Socialism (State ownership of the means of production) is dead, and it's dead for a good reason.

 

[Malifice]

Do you think you can overthrow the state(and fail) and not receive punishment?

Yes. I can literally start a Nazi party or a Communist party in Australia. Lawfully and openly. We can run candidates for elections.

Something you ironically cant do in a Communist or National Socialist State.

Liberalism assures people of freedoms they simply would not have in Socialism/ Communism or National Socialism/ Fascism.

As long as you're not harming anyone else, live your life how you please.

we are not that free in a liberal capitalist state

What (non-harmful to other people thing) can't you do in Australia, the USA, UK, Canada, France, New Zealand etc that the State stops you from doing?

You can work in whatever you want, start whatever business you want, travel where you want, vote for who you want, worship who you want, marry who you want etc.

If you want to you can also start your own Socialist collective in any of those countries. Grab some like minded people and move out to a communal farm, with communal property, and have your own little socialist utopia.

As a hint people dont do this with any frequency.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

First pass, I will answer this from purely economic perspective:

In the original economic theory (which economists don't agree with now) the return on capital was seen as an exploitation premium. Essentially a labour theory of value would say if 100 hours of work goes into a product. Hypothetical $10 an hour means it should sell for $1000. If it's sold for profit of 5% or $50 then that value is being extracted by the capitalist for not putting in anything.

The capitalist holds the overall risk on investment, thats not ' not putting anything in'. Meaning if the market dies, he/she loses out much more than the worker.

 

[Malifice]

2000 was peak. In the couple of crisis since, we’ve all ‘pulled together’ but the wealth gap significantly increased both times

Long-term trends in wealth inequality (2003 to 2022) Wealth inequality increased substantially over the past two decades. The wealth of the highest 20% increased by 82% compared to 61% for the middle 20% and just 20% for the lowest 20%.

https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/09/sharp-jump-in-wealth-inequality-over-last-20-years--report-#:~:text=Wealth inequality increased substantially over,overall increase of wealth inequality.

When the middle class are still seeing wealth increases of 61 percent over those 20 years, the revolution is still some way away.

Yeah, billionaires have gotten even richer. Who cares? Good for them.

The reality still is, presuming you're fit and able to work, in Australia you can come from literally nothing, get a Trade or Degree and be on 100,000+ in your 20's. If you're smart with savings, you should be in your first home by the time you're 30.

That's the truth of it. People are still gonna bitch though.

 

[btdg]

I think this is a strange question because a I don't think a 'purely' anything society exists. It depends a lot on definitions, of course.

I'm going to define capitalism firstly as 'a system where productive resources are privately controlled, for profit'. Capitalism is often associated with markets, but markets exist before and after capitalism (that said, it has brought in markets more broadly, particularly financial and labour markets that didn't really exist before in the same way). Capitalism is also often associated with competition. This is, of course, a complete furphy: most capitalists will do everything in their power to avoid competition, and the most successful examples of corporations (from the East India company to Tesla) have defined their operations by obtaining monopolies and extracting maximum profit, often with huge levels of government rent-seeking.

Capitalism has been associated with political rights; in contrast to prior systems, those with power have wanted input into political processes. It's also seen political rights gradually extended: from property-owners to all men, then to include women, minorities, etc. This is all good.

A lot of people seem to think socialism = government control of everything, but I think that really just represents the result of decades of anti-socialist propaganda

Socialism more broadly just means the socialisation (rather than privatisation) and democratisation of the means of production, with three key tenets that I think are important.
1. nationalisation of key industries and where natural monopolies exist; this ensures these are run for the good of everyone, not just used for profit extraction
2. provision of an equitable level of basic services to all - education, health, food, housing etc; this ensures all people have equitable opportunity, and a basic safety net.
3. where private businesses exist, a range of systems in place that support worker influence over the means of production and prevent exploitation and excess profits


We know that #1 can work, and already have it in place for some industries. At times in the past we had it for others as well - and in hindsight, the privatisation of electricity/telecommunications was stupid, and has made the market worse. Almost everyone accepts SOME level of nationalisation - the question would be around what is right to nationalise (and when and how...). Some industries I think could over time benefit from nationalisation would be: electricity/telecommunications (obviously), banking and finance, insurance, mining, etc. Whether you fully nationalise them, or have a hybrid model (a la the current health/education systems) could also be up for debate.

We know that #2 works as well. In Australia we have a basic level of healthcare and education, and some support to ensure everyone gets a base level of food/housing. That's being stretched by a range of factors right now, but it also isn't hard to seeing it exist in a stronger capacity.

#3 is probably the area that requires the most thought. I don't think 'pure' socialism requires the abolition of markets - in fact, I think markets are a necessity in a range of industries where there are limited economies of scale and where competition really helps drive innovation and efficiency. But this could be done SO much better, and a move towards a socialist system might involve something like:

• rethinking corporations. These already represent an example of collective ownership. Create a new, democratised version that includes workers - maybe to start with via mandatory profit-sharing, worker representation on boards, etc.
• adjusting the 'playing field' to promote the success of small (and ideally worker-run, but not necessarily so) businesses. In doing so, promote competition in industries where this is beneficial.
• replacing the 'profit motive' with something broader: a requirement for corporations to act in the best interests of their stakeholders. That means customers, workers and the broader community. Some companies have already implement 'triple bottom line' reporting and it's just an extension of that.

Naturally this would have to evolve over time; laws would have to be adjusted, and you can't do it all at once. But I think it is feasible.

An absolute MUST for a socialist state is both political and economic rights. Political rights have been so important and hard-fought over the past 200 years or so, and things like freedom of speech, freedom of association - they all matter. Ideally socialism would extend this tot eh economic sphere: the right to a basic standard of living, right to work, right to keep the profits of your labour, etc. It shouldn't be about 'taking away'.

So yeah, I think it is possible to envisage a world where we shift from being 'profit-driven' to thinking more broadly about wellbeing and happiness, particularly given the level of material abundance we all have access to.

 

[Gethelred]

The capitalist holds the initial risk on investment, thats not ' not putting anything in'. Meaning if the market dies, he/she loses out much more than the worker.

FTFY.

A business that has become successful enough to sustain itself needs to continue growing; you're in constant competition with everyone else. You grow or you shrink, and survival is predicated on growing; staying put or becoming comfortable is a guaranteed way eventually to fail. Once you've grown enough, monopoly is inevitable because there reaches a point in which the only way to continue growing is to dominate yours and other markets; businesses either figure this out and become global businesses, or they peter out after a period of successes and are consumed by smaller enterprises.

The initial cost/risk of a business is borne by the business owner, but go beyond subsistence and you'll find social networks built around successful enterprises, communities and networks built completely from that business. Other businesses will crop up, connected to your successful enterprise, and those businesses will be impacted when/if you fail; they must find other enterprises to lean on or work with. Diversification is important, but...

All of this is to say that when your business fails, if you are beyond the initial stages in which that failure only affects you - the capitalist - your failure influences that network around you. Other businesses succeed or fail due to you; families and other businesses need seek alternative supply chains, need diversify their sources for the products/services they get from you, and diversification is something that can be done much more easily at scale than in minutae. A family only needs one fridge; a franchise of butchers needs a good deal more. That family is hit a lot harder when their fridge breaks if the place they got it is no longer there.

Imagine if you will Amazon went under. Suddenly, that's a series of supply networks and businesses that would be completely ****ed; unable to actually do their own business. There would be families that starve due to Amazon's failure, entire economic sections that suffer due to it.

While Amazon's failure would absolutely affect Jeff Bezos, the damage would certainly not be limited to him and while he would lose a lot of money he'd still be pretty well off due to the ability wealth brings to diversify. Those who rely on Amazon have no such luxury.

Thus, capital takes initial risk and reaps initial and ongoing reward, but when an enterprise fails the damage is as broad as its reach at its apex.

 

[peetoo]

Parents can start an investment property for their kids when they are small, Turnbull told me.

Crisis, what crisis?