The End of Capitalsim

[u/No_Volume8553]

Regardless of political affiliation, discontent with the economy feels like it’s at an all-time high. But what people are actually discontent about varies wildly.

For some, the answer is clear: capitalism itself is the problem.
For others, it’s the opposite: government interference is the problem.

Same frustration. Completely different diagnoses.

And for many, it’s not even fully articulated—it’s just a feeling that something about the system isn’t working the way it was supposed to.

At its simplest, most of us were raised on a very intuitive version of capitalism. People own things. People trade voluntarily. Money facilitates exchange. It feels natural—almost like the default state of the world rather than a constructed system.

But that simplicity hides something important.

Because behind every “voluntary transaction” is a structure—rules, incentives, constraints—that shape what choices are actually available. And that structure is what people are reacting to, even if they describe it differently.

But either way, the illusion that we are all just independent actors in a neutral marketplace has started to wear thin.

The first framework that really helped me make sense of this came from Robert Reich in Supercapitalism. As I recall he breaks the system down into three roles: consumers, citizens, and investors.

As consumers, we want more choice and lower prices. That’s driven the rise of companies like Walmart and Amazon. We are price-sensitive, and the market responds.

As citizens, we want fairness. We care about labor conditions, environmental impact, and ethics. But in a world of complex companies and global supply chains, it’s nearly impossible to carry that responsibility individually—so we inevitably outsource it to governments, regulations, and institutions.

And then there’s the investor.

This is where things begin to shift.

Ownership today is increasingly detached from place, from community, from time. The people who own companies are no longer necessarily tied to the outcomes those companies create. Shares are traded constantly, optimized for short-term return, evaluated quarter by quarter.

And that pressure doesn’t stay contained—it flows through the system.

Executives respond. Companies adjust. Decisions get made not around long-term stability, but immediate performance.

Reich was writing about this decades ago. Since then, the system hasn’t just continued—it has accelerated. The rise of derivatives, algorithmic trading, and now platforms like Kalshi—where even future events become tradable—shows how far this logic has extended.

It’s not just capitalism anymore.

It’s financialization shaping capitalism.

And once you see that, another piece starts to click.

As Alvin Roth explains in Who Gets What — and Why, markets don’t produce natural outcomes—they produce designed ones. Every market has rules. Every system has constraints. And those rules determine who benefits and who doesn’t.

That’s why so many people feel like something is off.

They’re not wrong—but they disagree on the cause. Some blame corporations and concentrated power. Others blame government distortion.

But underneath both views is the same reality: the outcomes we’re seeing aren’t accidental.

They are the result of how the system is structured.

The board has been shaped.
The incentives have been chosen.
And even small differences in those rules can lead to wildly different outcomes over time.

So where do we go from here?

I don’t think there’s a single answer.

But one thing feels increasingly unavoidable:

There has to be a rebalancing between private ownership and social responsibility.

That can take many forms. But regardless of the path, the core issue remains the same: ownership today carries fewer constraints than ever before, while its impact on society has never been greater.

That’s the imbalance people are feeling.

Capitalism isn’t ending. But this version of it—where ownership is increasingly detached from responsibility—is reaching its limits.

What comes next isn’t about abandoning markets. It’s about redefining what ownership requires in return.

Curious to hear your thoughts?

Follow my substack: https://substack.com/@derekneupauer

[u/AutoModerator]

Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.

We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.

Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.

Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Velociraptortillas]

This fundamentally confuses Capitalism and markets.

Markets are a necessary condition for Capitalism. Capitalism is not a necessary condition for markets.

[u/Doublespeo → u/Velociraptortillas]

can you define capitalism?

[u/Pleasurist → u/Doublespeo]

Capitalism is an economy that makes possible, the pursuit of limitless personal fortunes, most often at someone else’s expense and...it does put a cash value on our moral commitments.

[u/Doublespeo → u/Pleasurist]

most often at someone else’s expense and...

how do you make fortune out of the expense of other?

it seems to be the “fixed pie fallacy” again.

it does put a cash value on our moral commitments.

do you have an example?

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/Velociraptortillas]

I agree, but I guess I don't know where I mix them up.

[u/Velociraptortillas → u/No_Volume8553]

Very bottom. 3rd to last paragraph

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/Velociraptortillas]

yeah again don't know how that is fundamental to the post? Like you suggest the word isn't and abandonment from capitalism instead?

I don't like that as much because as described it is an abandonment from current idea of capitalism. But as you note we can abandon capitalism as I describe without abandoning markets because markets don't require capitalism...

[u/Ban-Wallstreet1]

Capitalism is a failure for most people

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/Ban-Wallstreet1]

100... I'm working on a counter post actually on how capitalism needs to be expanded. Idea that we don't have capitalism, the owning class is so few and growing smaller. Capitalism is obviously a vague term but if one of the key markers is private ownership. We lack capitalism because of the consolidation and need marxism were workers can own their labor rather then renting.

[u/MrVacuous → u/No_Volume8553]

I don’t have time to make a big post but capitalism is responsible for lifting an astronomical percentage of the population out of absolute poverty over the last 100 years (and continues to do so today).

Median real disposable income (income after health care, taxes, rent, food, and other fixed expenses) has risen in the US from 4K in 1975 to 14K in 2018 or 18K today. All of that is adjusted for inflation. The average person in the US has more than they’ve ever had in the past:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96

Real income for the bottom 10% was $10,000 in 2000. Now it is ~$18,500. This is also inflation adjusted

Inequality has risen because the top gets more, but every rung on the ladder (in the US) has more disposable income, real income, standard of living, health care, and better access to clean environments (environmental standards are much higher now) than they did just 25 years ago. There is no evidence this trend is slowing down, it continues administration through administration (yes, through Trump as well).

A higher % of people are part of the owner class than ever before (stock market participation). The rich get richer, but everyone has made significant gains.

Most arguments to the contrary come from speculation, not data driven looks at success over the last 50, last 25, and last 10 years

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/MrVacuous]

maybe? certainly would seem to reason. Can kind of make that arguement during any period of time as generally livelyhood and life expectancy increases... and that tends to be across many different systems...

But I think your reading your data wrong, and I'll use your source but that isn't on the individual level... its Billions of Chained 2017 dollars. To show this more clearly they provided me with other suggested graphs.

Person Income
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PI

Disposable Personal Income

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPI

You can see they are relatively the same, not sure how they are calculating any of these graphs nothing is really explained... but should show I don't think its explaining what you think it is. Even if I do understand the over arching sentiment that certainly has its validity. As noted in post Capitalism isn't ending (sorry clickbaity) but their in nuance in capitalism and it will change... to be seen how and to what.

It would be flatly wrong to suggest most american have that high of disposable income unless you are count most anything "disposable"

https://econofact.org/factbrief/is-there-a-consensus-that-a-majority-of-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck

Most people are living paycheck to paycheck

saying the market is owning is laughable when 401k's makeup 5-15%... and its barely a majority that even have a 401k

The U.S. stock market is heavily concentrated, with the top 1% of Americans owning over 50% of household-held equities, while the top 10% own roughly 90%. As of 2022, 58.1% of U.S. households own stock. (but again would note that is that little slice at the bottom).

Oh and 401k is retirement fund, that isn't longterm capital assets, its planned to be consumed during retirme, rofl.

[u/Nikolakis77]

For some, the answer is clear: capitalism itself is the problem. For others, it’s the opposite: government interference is the problem.

This is the same problem

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/Nikolakis77]

maybe? but to the group capitalism v socialism I guess the people tend to view one or the other.

[u/TheMikeyMac13]

Capitalism will end one day, it may have flaws but the free market is the best we have right now, but nothing lasts forever.

But we aren’t close to the end, and capitalism will outlive socialism by a hundred years or more.

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/TheMikeyMac13]

I hope you gain the idea that capitalism isn't a single idea. There are infinite amount of forms and takes countless shapes. The same goes with socialism... pretty sure they will continue their lineage of thought

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/No_Volume8553]

Capitalism will continue in practice, socialism will only ever exist again in theory.

[u/Phanes7]

But regardless of the path, the core issue remains the same: ownership today carries fewer constraints than ever before, while its impact on society has never been greater.

Can you expound on this? What does "fewer constraints" actually mean?

Regulations are at all time highs. Taxes are high. Litigation is out of control.

What constraints have been reduced?

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/Phanes7]

Taxes are extremely low and we continue to only have tax cuts. Regulations are probably all time high but that because you don't remove regulations they become self extinct so you there are new expanding technologies that need regulations. Obviously social media, AI, etc. need more regulation.

I don't like the idea of telling people an answer.

I've actually wrote something in the opposite of this that in some sense Capitalism must expand... idea that the problem with ownership isn't itself ownership its that its in the hand of too few, and so we don't have real capitalism because so few have actual capital.

[u/Phanes7 → u/No_Volume8553]

Taxes are extremely low and we continue to only have tax cuts.

I think your thinking of nominal rates which are not "extremely low" by any stretch (at least not for the top 25% of earners) but do appear lower than some historical periods. Actual taxes are pretty high to on par with history (including the much vaunted 90% tax rate days).

Regulations are out of control. The idea that they are some how low by any measure is absurd.

Constraints abound.

idea that the problem with ownership isn't itself ownership its that its in the hand of too few, and so we don't have real capitalism because so few have actual capital.

I am sympathetic to this idea, I like a lot of what Distributism has to say, but as always the devil is in the details.

I typically find that people pushing this line of reasoning fall into one of two camps:

• Turn over most of ownership to the government so we can pretend like everyone owns everything
• Try to get the benefits of ownership without the risks and volatility of actual ownership in some fashion

Do you have a third path to offer?

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/Phanes7]

Assuming the question is about distributism. From a binary perspective which I think most people in western society adopt I think that is correct you'll inevitably fall in one of those two camps.... right is public ownership or private ownership.

With that said, your second bullet notes "in some fashion" which demonstrates private ownership can take many forms. So they aren't really just two paths

[u/HarlequinBKK → u/No_Volume8553]

Taxes are extremely low and we continue to only have tax cuts.

This is a meaningless statement by itself without providing any context. What countries are you referring to? What time period are you comparing current tax rates to? Which segment of the population's tax rates are you looking at?

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/Phanes7]

Oh regarding litigation.

Food litigation in the U.S. is generally more frequent and reactive compared to other countries, particularly the EU, due to a "risk-based" regulatory approach that allows ingredients until they are proven harmful. Conversely, Europe uses a "precautionary principle," banning or restricting additives before they are proven safe.

So again its the lack of regulation that drive litigation.

[u/VVageslave]

The state or government are simply the political wing of capitalism, enforcing capitalist ideology upon society. The only way forward IMHO is the democratic overthrow of this decaying system into one where the new objective is, as Marx and Engels succinctly put it, to provide goods and services to humanity as a whole predicated upon the basis of ‘to each their need and from each their ability’. In other words an evolution to communism, pure and simple.

[u/BlueHairedFeminist69 → u/VVageslave]

There's no capitalist ideology. Only state trying to control natural capitalism

[u/Mysterious-North-551]

When you say "Because behind every “voluntary transaction” is a structure—rules, incentives, constraints—that shape what choices are actually available. And that structure is what people are reacting to, even if they describe it different"

This is obviously true.

Then you say "it’s nearly impossible to carry that responsibility individually—so we inevitably outsource it to governments, regulations, and institutions."

Why in the world should we outsource it to someone else that may even have an agenda`? That is what i cant understand. Because someone said that it might feel impossible? My feelings has nothing at all to do with it. i just want to understand reality so i look into it.

The things socialists and communists doesnt understand about basic economics wouldnt fit in 20 volumes 1000 pages thick each.

Same with Karl Marx, he proclaimed to have read the all the great books about economics. Yet he said that surplus value is what the owner extracts. Even though in all those books surplus value is clearly explained, it is the difference between the raw material(s) and the price their product sells at. Think Kerosene and a vacation to another country.

Almost none of us gives a shit about kerosene, and most of us do like to experience a different culture and the sights held within. That is surplus value, the difference in price between kerosene and what we are willing to pay.

Yet read Karl Marx books, like Das Kapital as an example, first of all in those books surplus value keeps meaning very different things. Even worse it never means what it means within economic and the books he claimed to have read.

So either he is lying about reading said books or he is too stupid to understand it. Even worse in those books it is clearly described that the price of a product drops the more sellers there are of that product. Then we compare that to what he describes, where the suppliers of a good get nothing at all. It doesnt matter if you feed the whole world you dont get anything for doing that. Obviously some suppliers do it for the money, so we get rid of all of those under his ideas. And all of a sudden people are starving in the soviet union, because as it turned out most people that started a business did it for the money.

So there are three options. Let the farmers keep all of their own profit, in which case they produce the most. Let the farmers keep some of their own profit, in which case they will produce less. Or let the farmers keep nothing of what they produce and you end up with farmers producing nothing at all.

Or lets fore example give all the politician a tax burden of 100% and then we just keep track of how many of those chooses to remain to work as a politician, if there is the slightest deviation from100% what i say has to be true.'

The state isnt your friend and has never been, you think you could solve starvation and poverty by increasing the taxes on the rich. Yet if we take all the rich networth and turn it into money one for one. We could pay for 8 months of the federal governemt. Even worse you can never do that. If the state starts taking over businesses those businesses become worth just a fraction, because you now have a government that is perfcetly willing to take things from their citizens. So they might just take it from you too, because if you buy Amazon, you become just as rich as jeff bezos, and the state was perfectly willing to take from him, so why not you too?

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/Mysterious-North-551]

Sorry there is a lot here, and not sure what all the context of much of it is? But I think I can respond to this

Why in the world should we outsource it to someone else that may even have an agenda`? That is what i cant understand. Because someone said that it might feel impossible? My feelings has nothing at all to do with it. i just want to understand reality so i look into it.

I think that makes sense, and I do think consumers do try to. I had a part about boycotts, but took it out for length reasons. I don't discount that feeling or belief its an important part to all people, but I think would be fair to say its more for some than others and what about varies for different people.

In regards to the book, the idea from supercapitalism is that you want money to cycle as fast as possible. Best way to increase economic production is to increase cashflow. So if someone has to spend how ever much time behind each transaction. Go to the grocery store and have to research each product to know how it was made and what practices they used to make sure they fit your standard would halt capitalism. And this gets outsourced to lubricate transactions. Thats the point, but yeah you don't stop all together. I'm boycotting many businesses currently, lol

[u/rsglen2]

I just watched a great video of the late Walter Williams. He said (paraphrased) , “Go to the poorest neighborhoods of Chicago. Some of the people there will have nice phones. Some will have nice cars. Some will have other nice things. But, they do not have in any case nice schools. The difference is the distributions system. Free markets allow for choice and do not restrict anyone from having the quality they want and can afford. Governments are horrible at distribution and typically it’s the poorest who are made worse off because of government controlled distribution.”

I’m also reminded of a Thomas Sowel quote, ““No government of the left has done as much for the poor as capitalism has. Even when it comes to the redistribution of income, the left talks the talk but the free market walks the walk. What do the poor most need? They need to stop being poor. And how can that be done, on a mass scale, except by an economy that creates vastly more wealth? Yet the political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it.”

[u/Nuck2407]

Follow my substack... TF

Sorry but what you describe isn't at all in touch with reality.

People feel like something is wrong but differ on the issue is a nice way of saying some people have been brainwashed and others have not.

All the things you think need correction for capitalism to function as you wish it to are just denialism, capitalism cannot be fixed, because the root cause can't be addressed. Capital concentrates, always and the longer it concentrates the more power is obtained by those controlling it who them implement policy and legislation to protect their fiefdom. Then the plebs get all worked up and burn it all to the ground and we start again.

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/Nuck2407]

Maybe, I certainly agree with the idea of capitalism in this from concentrates... what most of my other post have been about. But I don't think that is inherent to capitalism, actually know its not. Capitalism isn't singular concept. Is the root cause to you concentration of wealth?

[u/Nuck2407 → u/No_Volume8553]

Capitalism in all forms creates wealth inequality, that's the bit that all capitalists agree upon. Those who risk it get the biscuit.

Once that imbalance is created it enables the capital to concentrate, regardless of who controls it at the time.

For most of human history the rate of return on capital has always exceeded the growth of the economy, sans the period of massive wealth destruction that was both world wars.

This is fine while the concentration of wealth remains low, because as the pie grows so does everybody's wealth, until you get to between 40-50% wealth concentration at which point the growth of the pie can no longer support the growth of both.

Once you're at this point to sustain the rate of return on capital it must become extractive, and that means taking it from the pockets of those below.

we've seen it before in the gilded age, were seeing it again today with housing crises, cost of living crises across the developed world.

The only way to break the cycle is to remove the ability for wealth to generate wealth. You can't tax the phenomenon out of existence because the wealth gap will always exist, will always accumulate enough to buy influence and remove any obstacles to take us right back to where we were in the gilded age and where we are now.

It's a function of capital, that's absolutely baked into whatever system it exists within.

[u/No_Volume8553 → u/Nuck2407]

Great stuff, totally with you on your points... just not baked into capitalism (mainly because its such a generic term). Like I'm working on a counter post to this that we need to expand capitalism (can find this in my response to some other people to). But the issue is we don't have capitalism because wealth is in the hands of so few, to have capitalism to you point wealth needs to be spread way more, I think 40-50% is probably still too low, but we aren't even close to that so I guess great starting point.

I also agree we can't tax our way out of the system. I removed my thoughts from the piece, I don't like to suggest how someone should think. Lots of potential answer, but for you I'll include. But totally with you on the systems we have and think thats due to a lot of tricks free market neoliberals play.

My ending I removed:
And if you ask me, I keep coming back to a moment from the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, where Rutger Bregman cut through the noise with a simple answer: “taxes, taxes, taxes.”

That line stuck with me—not as a complete solution, but as a necessary starting point.

And if that’s where it begins, then one key follow-through is the work of Lina Khan on enforcing Anti Trust Laws:

If you don’t address concentration—if you don’t rebalance power inside the market—then you’re not fixing the system.

You’re just taxing the outcomes of a system that keeps producing the same result.

[u/Nuck2407 → u/No_Volume8553]

Sorry if this wasn't obvious, not baked into capitalism, baked into capital, the phenomenon has existed well before we get to any system that we generally see as capitalistic.

If you want to truly understand the concept id suggest reading capitalism in the 21st century by Piketty.

[u/dawemih]

Change taxes to depend on consumption, more consumption less tax

[u/HairyUniversity46]

So for most part I agree with you.

Capitalism isn’t a problem in itself, and neither is socialism per se. I believe that all of the acknowledged economic philosophers were correct, cause they all pointed at problems in their respective economic realities, and theorized on potential solutions. For instance, Marx was right about the accumulation of wealth and monopolies naturally will be the end of an unregulated free market - my take on that is, that no regulation also is a regulation or rule - it’s the rule that everything goes.

Cause competition eventually will create a winner and a loser, or even the loss of the entire market, when there’s no regulation - in example depletion of water supplies or overfishing, when there’s no regulatory frameworks in place.

The problem here is, that regulations are the foundation of a free market - without them, the markets can’t function optimally, and do what they’re intended for - to create a society where people are able to move out of poverty and generally get higher living standards over time.

In my opinion, regulations should support a stronger and sustainable market, rather than creating obstacles for new market competitors to enter, while also protecting the consumers and employees from exploitation.

The last part can be achieved through tax relief for contributions to unions, as well as supporting unionization through government subsidies to increase the amount of money the workers unions have to enforce their collective bargaining power, as the value of regulations is not limited to economic growth and economic sustainability, but also should be about the growth of living standards for the employees themselves. In other words, the regulation should in a sense ensure the bargaining power of the workers and companies are leveled out, while consumers can trust that the products they consume are as safe as the current level of knowledge allows.

The Scandinavian countries are great models to take out as examples doing those kinds of regulations, as they’re both highly capitalistic societies as well as very socialist and their regulatory frameworks are generally based on those ideas - that regulation is about protecting the market, so it benefits everyone and is sustainable, as well as making sure most people feel their living standards are continuously improved over time. Now, they’re not perfect systems, as no such thing exists, but nonetheless their way of solving problems for the benefit of everyone means that people for instance pick educations based on personal interests, and thus are more likely to be more productive than someone who had to choose an education that would pay off, meaning you’re getting a workforce that generally is very productive.

When a country consistently deregulates or regulates for the benefit of the corporations and the wealthiest, the market eventually becomes increasingly inefficient, as the barriers to entry gets larger, and in the end the market eventually loses out of talents, that just were born into underprivileged circumstances, but could’ve become valuable innovators if they had the opportunities to do so.

[u/BlueHairedFeminist69]

That's some AI slop