Unrestrained Capitalism leads to Socialism?

Don't get me wrong, I like capitalism, but unrestrained capitalism is something I don't like. Remember, socialism is control of the economy by 1 or a few entities, whether it be the government or a couple gigantic businesses. Our capitalism is leading to Socialism.

Is anyone sick of nice small towns being turned into sprawling suburbs? I don't mind developement but it seems some towns are being swallowed up by urbanization.

Not only that, I'm sick of seeing "Mom and Pop" businesses vanishing due to Wal-Mart and McDonalds. Should there be restricitions on these enterprises? Are you guys tired of seeing good old America becoming urban centers? Anyone have any explanations on why this is happening?

But is anyone sick of our nice towns being absorbed by the rapidly increasing cities? I for one don't like how some towns are being transformed into gigantic suburbs.

The decline of "Mom and Pop" businesses has come from markets of scale, also called economies of scale along with globalization. Walmart and Ikea are the best examples, they make their products in the cheapest place possible in the cheapest quantity possible, transport it in the cheapest quantity possible and sell it in the cheapest quantity possible. If the cheapest way to manufacture something is to have a huge factory making a million units a year, they will do it because they know they will be able to sell it because they have thousands of massive stores around the world. Mom and Pop stores can't match that so they are forced to charge more or make less money until they go out of business.

I agree with your fear though that the Walmarts of the world drive all competition out of business and then overcharge the consumer as much as they can. It appears, with the rare expection, Walmart has been able to build where it likes and small business tax cuts don't help money losing businesses. It appears now unionisation efforts, or at least the threat, by the employees to get at least a small share of the richest family fortune on earth might be working a bit better, at least in Canada. In that sense, the definition of socialism, worker's owning the means of production, will be achieved. Maybe someday Walmart employees will make as much as Mom and Pop.

There is a way to put the big businesses in check. Don't buy from them.

If you don't want them moving in next door, out bid them for the property.

The truth is the mechanisms already exist, but you just don't like the results. People have voted with their wallets, and mom and pop lost. Report It

It is a shame but the almighty dollar rules.

I disagree with your definition of socialism. That term usually means that the control of goods and services rests exclusively with the government. The term you are looking for, the condition where this control rests in just a few private hands (individual or corporate) is "plutocracy".

Many believe we are increasingly headed in that direction but that would not be "socialism."

But in another sense, plutocracy often leads to a political backlash. In a plutocracy, you typically see a small privileged upper class, no middle class and the vast majority of the country poor and even in squalor. You often see a political or military uprising in opposition to this perceived inequality. That uprising often leads to some form of government that is (or claims to be) socialist in an effort to redistribute the wealth.

Think South America - Cuba or Venezuela for example.

You are confusing globalization with the type of government (socialism, capitalism, etc). The two have little to do with each other.

The world is becoming more and more integrated -- a process that started when man moved out of Africa to Europe and then to the Americas.

There are lots of downsides, of course, but then we get to enjoy French wines and cheeses and Indonesian coffee -- right at our doorstep.

No, capitalism doesn't neccessarily lead to socialism. Democracy unrestrained by the rule of law is the path to socialism. It is true that capitalism promotes socialism by its own excesses. Excesses like extra food which can be divided up and handed out to deadbeats.

Walmart has grown because they provide what the consumers want. Capitalism is the free market at work. In that system you only get paid for doing what someone else is willing (freely willing) to pay for. In short, to get paid you must serve your fellow man. Any other alternate economic scheme you might envision where some other method for determining what goods and services are available, including placing contraints on the free market, will result in something else being served. In most cases bureaucrats or the regulators.