Do US national conservatives actually support capitalism?

Sure, but we aren't talking about the kind of capitalism you see here in America.

Everyone loves to drone on about how efficient the capitalist system is—how much productivity is supposedly skyrocketing... but honestly, I have yet to see any of that reflected in my grocery bill or at the gas pump. Prices just keep climbing. And then, whether it’s pure coincidence or not, you see salaries in government agencies creeping up too. It feels like someone is stirring the pot behind the scenes somewhere.

Seriously though, why does nothing ever actually get cheaper in this efficiency-obsessed version of capitalism?

briskowl said:Everyone loves to drone on about how efficient the capitalist system is—how much productivity is supposedly skyrocketing... but honestly, I have yet to see any of that reflected in my grocery bill or at the gas pump. Prices just keep climbing. And then, whether it’s pure coincidence or not, you see salaries in government agencies creeping up too. It feels like someone is stirring the pot behind the scenes somewhere.

Seriously though, why does nothing ever actually get cheaper in this efficiency-obsessed version of capitalism?

If things actually got cheaper, there wouldn't be any excess profit left to grab!

Nobody actually likes capitalism. It’s just one of those things you can’t really love. I guess if you’re doing okay within the system and feel like you’ve got a future, then maybe you’re satisfied enough.

Let’s simplify things just to make the math a little easier to digest: Here is the price breakdown for a single product from a massive Western conglomerate operating within an American state:
- Total production costs—equipment, labor, R&D, scaling up, the whole nine yards—comes to $3.00,
- Taxes paid to the government—$65.00,
- Corporate profit—$35.00.
That $35? That is pure, liquid cash landing straight in the pockets of the owners.

If you look at those numbers, everything becomes crystal clear. You see why bureaucrats claim to be such staunch lovers of capitalism, and you see exactly why everything in this world eventually ends up controlled by a tiny, opaque handful of people. It also explains why budget deficits keep ballooning in any country that relies heavily on their goods.

The capitalist system is fundamentally built on fear—specifically, that nagging dread regarding the future. That is precisely why it can be—though certainly not always—more efficient than other systems.
Personally, I have felt a lot better over the last two or three years, watching that smug, self-assured grin finally start to slip from our bureaucrats' faces as they slowly begin to feel a hint of genuine anxiety themselves.

It’s honestly pretty obvious how much socialism and leftist leaning creeps into the rhetoric of American nationalists, and you can see it everywhere—not just in their economic takes, but in their entire worldview. To me, local nationalists just seem incredibly weak, soft, and almost... feminized.

You really only have to look at the nationalists from major global powers—the big, wealthy nations—to see the difference. They’re aggressive, they’re bold, and they don't give a damn about being ashamed when they glorify their imperial pasts. They completely ignore the historical atrocities their countries committed because they actually defend traditional hierarchies and economic inequality. They embrace competition, conquest, and dominance... it's all part of their DNA. Compare that to our homegrown nationalists who do nothing but whine about how America has always been oppressed, how we've only ever fought defensive wars, or how we're currently being suppressed by some vague "foreign centers of power." They preach that we can only be strong as a collective rather than individuals, and they act like it's somehow inhumane for tiny little players to have to compete in a market against the giants. Basically, American nationalism is defined by passivity, collectivism, constant complaining, and a massive victim complex.

The way these local nationalists talk is almost identical to the rhetoric used by those leftist mobs in Western countries who are constantly crying about inequality, oppression, "power structures," and imperialism. Our right wing is truly embarrassing. Whenever someone in a conversation tries to claim I hold "far-right views," I always feel this weird discomfort... I find myself having to explain that despite my stances, I have absolutely nothing to do with this specific breed of "patriotic" right-wingers. I think most sensible conservatives simply refuse to be associated with those nationalist losers.

briskowl said:Everyone loves to drone on about how efficient the capitalist system is—how much productivity is supposedly skyrocketing... but honestly, I have yet to see any of that reflected in my grocery bill or at the gas pump. Prices just keep climbing. And then, whether it’s pure coincidence or not, you see salaries in government agencies creeping up too. It feels like someone is stirring the pot behind the scenes somewhere.

Seriously though, why does nothing ever actually get cheaper in this efficiency-obsessed version of capitalism?

Wait, what do you mean nothing gets cheaper? The computer you’re typing on right now—something almost anyone can afford today unless they’re living in extreme poverty—is lightyears better and way more affordable than the computers from a few decades ago that took up entire rooms and cost millions. Communication is cheaper, flights are cheaper, books are cheaper and often free... Generally speaking, the average person in developed market economies can enjoy a much higher standard of living today regarding hygiene, nutrition, housing, access to information, mobility, and education than even the wealthiest members of the elite could manage in pre-capitalist societies. And honestly, this trend was well underway long before capital started shifting toward Asian countries, so you can't really argue that this is just a temporary byproduct of cheap labor. Or were you talking about nominal prices and inflation? Could you clarify what you meant by that?

briskowl said:Let’s simplify things just to make the math a little easier to digest: Here is the price breakdown for a single product from a massive Western conglomerate operating within an American state:
- Total production costs—equipment, labor, R&D, scaling up, the whole nine yards—comes to $3.00,
- Taxes paid to the government—$65.00,
- Corporate profit—$35.00.
That $35? That is pure, liquid cash landing straight in the pockets of the owners.

If you look at those numbers, everything becomes crystal clear. You see why bureaucrats claim to be such staunch lovers of capitalism, and you see exactly why everything in this world eventually ends up controlled by a tiny, opaque handful of people. It also explains why budget deficits keep ballooning in any country that relies heavily on their goods.

The capitalist system is fundamentally built on fear—specifically, that nagging dread regarding the future. That is precisely why it can be—though certainly not always—more efficient than other systems.
Personally, I have felt a lot better over the last two or three years, watching that smug, self-assured grin finally start to slip from our bureaucrats' faces as they slowly begin to feel a hint of genuine anxiety themselves.

And what’s the problem with that? Owners start a company because they spot an opportunity to make a massive profit under current market conditions—where one labor market has people willing to work for low wages, and another consumer market has people willing to buy products at relatively high prices. If they hadn't spotted that opportunity, the company wouldn't exist, some people would be unemployed, and others wouldn't have access to that specific product. If you think that’s inefficient and believe you could produce things more effectively and sell them for less, then by all means, go ahead and start your own business to outcompete them...

It’s quite convenient how you sidestepped the whole issue of the state taking 65% in taxes. From what I last heard, they hit 50% in Canada—and mind you, Canada is supposed to be the gold standard for capitalism. Or is it? It’s much the same in the USA. More than half of the turnover just vanishes into bureaucracy. It’s a strange sort of capitalism, if you ask me.

I mean, what does a billionaire actually do with his 35 dollars when we're talking about tens of billions in total revenue? He’s already sampled every fine wine, traveled to every corner of the globe, owns the private jet, the massive yacht, the villas—he even had a threesome with Naomi Campbell and Sharon Stone (that was two decades ago, mind you). He’s got collections of Impressionists, silver service dating back to the era of Rome, a private physician, even a personal priest... And all of that cost him less than a single percentage point of that constantly accumulating wealth. The key word there is *accumulating*.
The money sits in the bank. Then the bank goes to the politicians—it happens everywhere, including here in America—and makes them little offers. These politicians realize that without a product costing $100, which in a true, literal definition of capitalism should only be $10, the government simply couldn't function. So, the state takes that extra cash just so it can buy the product at ten times the price. Something always sticks to his fingers, but he keeps quiet. He’s essentially building up a massive government apparatus that consumes products provided by our "capitalist" friends. That apparatus is growing, staffed by more people with ever-increasing salaries. Spending is up. The capitalist's wealth keeps piling up... Money goes to the banks, the banks go to our Ivo or Jack, and they go straight into the pockets of the government machinery...
So, it’s hardly surprising that our local patriots—those working within the government or sitting comfortably on solid pensions—are such staunch defenders of capitalism. Though, honestly, their future looks pretty bleak. And their children's future looks even worse. Because:

Nobody asks—and I mean literally nobody—why these billionaires are handed sums of money they could never hope to repay. Why is some debt of $100 billion for a place like Greece so easily forgiven? Why would some tycoon suddenly waive the money owed to him by some Greeks? What exactly is he looking for in exchange for such an "altruistic" gesture?

Every year, on the first Thursday of June, I run my own little audit of prices. The average cost of computers, gas, cream, oil, bread, cars, electricity, groceries, soap, toilet paper... everything is climbing. Yet, for some reason, yachts are getting cheaper. And the girls along the Mississippi.

So, if I’m following you correctly, you believe the fundamental flaw in free-market economies is that they inevitably spiral into massive bureaucracy, crushing taxes, and an oversized government... I have to admit, in all my reading on political economy so far, I haven't come across any scholars who base their critique of liberalism on those specific points. Honestly, you should really try to get these original ideas out there—maybe pitch them to academic journals or major news outlets—so the rest of the world doesn't miss out on such deep insights. This is genuinely a fresh perspective.

That wasn't even the point I was making—really. My post was based on math, which, if I do say so myself, I know quite well. In America, we're looking at a 50% tax rate, so maybe try cramming that realization into your little free-market pamphlets.
I honestly don't understand how anyone could look at the American system and call it "free market." You have 50,000 bureaucrats running around in a planned economy like the old SRH, compared to 280,000 in the supposedly free-market US. And—well, just throw all those contradictions into one bag and call it a day.
By the way—and this is just an observation—back in the seventies and eighties, the bureaucratic machine of the Republican Party was actually larger than that of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

briskowl said:That wasn't even the point I was making—really. My post was based on math, which, if I do say so myself, I know quite well. In America, we're looking at a 50% tax rate, so maybe try cramming that realization into your little free-market pamphlets.
I honestly don't understand how anyone could look at the American system and call it "free market." You have 50,000 bureaucrats running around in a planned economy like the old SRH, compared to 280,000 in the supposedly free-market US. And—well, just throw all those contradictions into one bag and call it a day.
By the way—and this is just an observation—back in the seventies and eighties, the bureaucratic machine of the Republican Party was actually larger than that of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Maybe try picking up some actual literature instead of those ignorant little pamphlets written by local leftist hacks who see capitalist fingerprints on everything... maybe then you wouldn't run into such nonsense labeling and bad classifications so often. It might help clear up the confusion. Just a thought—try educating yourself. Books are cheap these days, and you can find an incredible amount of stuff online; for instance, certain American right-wing organizations actually offer a huge selection of classic liberal and conservative political economy works for free on their sites, along with really solid scientific articles and studies. If people actually read and used their brains more, there'd be way less ignorance and socialism in this world...

So, you're working a government job.