>If workers struggle for higher wages, this is hailed as “social gains”, if businessmen struggle for higher profits, this is damned as “selfish greed”.
Are you inclined to agree or disagree with this statement, and why? This is obviously Ayn Rand's quote, but her philosophy aside (inb4 she doesn't have a philosophy), what do you make of her perception of class struggles?
Greed implies that your material wealth is allready enough to enjoy a good life.
And most businessmen have enough disposable income not to need any more to live a healthy, satisfied life.
>>329135
But what is "good enough"? Who decides at what point a certain individual becomes wealthy enough? When that person has a BMW? 2 of them? A house?
If a point isn't set in stone, then isn't that up to personal, and thus variable, interpretation?
>>329147
It's not set in stone, no, and it's up to each person to define a limit.
That doesn't invalidate that some people might be seen as greedy by most other people.
>>329125
Because one of them actually works, hence why he's called a worker.
Rand makes the classic libertarian magic trick of conflating CEOs and entrepreneurs with capitalists. This is lodsabullshit. What defines the truly rich is they don't need to work.
>>329147
The breaking point is when you make your income out of your existing wealth, rather than your work.
Ayn Rand is literally the most redpilled philosophers, butthurt lefties just don't like her because she effectively ended philosophy
>>329125
I'm the biggest communist ever and I want to Marx all over her 50's housewife self
I think anyone should strive to make more money. Even if you ethically don't want it, you can at least decide what good cause it goes towards.
It's just jealousy that causes people to get angry at others for wanting to make more money than they already have.
>>329125
Ayn Rand is literally a KGB operation of capitalist satire but it backfired because Americans are retarded
Because one makes money because he owns the means of production. The other makes money because he works as the means of production. There's a reason why little people worship self-made men.
no meaningful difference in looks or otherwise
authoritarianism: just say no
Since most of society is comprised of workers rather than businessmen, this makes sense. Similarly, when political power is more level, it is seen as a social gain.
>>329125
It's a false dichotomy. "Higher Profits" in of itself is not the problem. A business's profits can be increased two ways, increasing productivity and decreasing expenses. One of the most common ways of keeping expenses down is to pay your workforce as little as possible. If businesses can get away with paying their workforce a dollar an hour, they'll do it.
Greater profits for the worker means more productivity and more free income with which to spend on products made. This is actually to the benefit of the employer and the economy.
Greater profits for the employer generally comes at the cost of the worker. Hiring less, giving less compensation, lower wages, and outsourcing.
Rand is fucking retarded. She's the equivalent of bag pipes.
>>329125
>Are you inclined to agree or disagree with this statement, and why?
I agree in that she accurately describes the way many people would describe such cases. Her message is that this is a bad way of describing such things and I would disagree with that given that there are depreciating gains for a person's wellbeing with regard to the resources they have access to. A person with access to everything they could ever possibly need or want within what allows them to be a healthy individual is rightly considered greedy when they try to acquire more resources at the expense of a person with limited resources.
>>329175
The problem with that is that it has widespread economic effects in some cases. A relatively small group of people can hoard the wealth of an entire country and this kills the economy no matter what those wealthy people donate to. Jealousy is irrelevant with regard to whether or not it has negative economic impact but it's probably a motivating factor in making arguments as to why we shouldn't allow people to have unfettered powers to exploit.
>>329135
>>And most businessmen have enough disposable income not to need any more to live a healthy, satisfied life.
>people must have the needs that I have
>>329125
Is it the Becherovka I've been drinking, or does Ayn Rand actually not look completely disgusting here?
>>329125
I am inclined to agree with the statement, but it should be obvious to her why the statement is true in the first place, but apparently it wasn't.
>>329147
The problem, I think, is that at a certain level wealth translates into political power, and when you give that power to people/groups who's sole motivating factor is "get more for less" society loses.
Or as>>329168 and>>329251
say
>>329210
I think you give them too much credit. If it were possible to pass on debt to offspring and keep people in perpetual slavery, they'd do it.
>>329275
There's a certain inevitable point when materialistic people acquire so much money that most of it ends up just being wasted on things that they no longer need, want or enjoy.
>>329168
Yes.
>businessmen
>"working"
>Ayn Rand died in 1982, before she was able to see any of her ideas in implementation. Her vision was of the individual capitalist as heroic and excellent. What we got, instead, was these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zngK13FMgXM
>Ayn Rand interpreted capitalism using a nostalgic view of industrial capitalism, when it was already well into its decline. The alpha-male she imagined running a large industrial operation no longer existed; the frontier had closed, and the easy wins available to risk-seeking but rational egoists (as opposed to social-climbing bureaucrats) had already been taken. The world was in full swing to corporate capitalism, which has been taking an increasingly collectivist character on for the past forty years.
>Corporatism turns out to have the worst of both systems between capitalism and socialism. Transportation, in 2013, is a perfect microcosm of this. Ticket prices are volatile and fare-setting strategies are clearly exploitative– the worst of capitalism– while service rendered is of the quality you might expect from a disengaged socialist bureaucracy; flying an airplane today is certainly not the experience one would get from a triumphant capitalistic enterprise.
>[...]This brings us directly to the true nature of corporate capitalism. It’s not really about “making money”. Old-style industrial capitalism was about the multiplication of resources (conveniently measured in dollar amounts). New-style corporate capitalism is about social relationships and “connections”. It’s about providing the best of two systems– capitalism and socialism– for a well-connected elite.
>What’s ultimately fatal to Rand’s ideology– and she did not live long enough to see it play out this way– was the fact that the entrepreneurial alpha males she was so in love with never came back. In the 1980s, the world was sold to emasculated, influence-peddling, social-climbing private-sector bureaucrats, and not heroic industrialists. Whoops!
>>329125
Of coure the businessman is selfish in a way the worer isn't, after all the social gains apply to all the workers, not just one, whereas the other businessmen will probably not gain anything from one of them making a profit, actually the opposite may be the case. That being said, Ayn Rand considered selfishness to be a good thing.
>>329719
What are you quoting?
>>329723
your mom
Poor wee bairn, she's but a child's understanding of class struggle.
The workers struggling for higher wages are gaining for the workers, the businessman struggling against them for higher profits is gaining for the bosses.
What Rand, being a fantasist puttering about in an abstract kind of hell, failed to see - as plain as it is - was that your estimation of these things depends on whether you are a worker or a boss. Since more people are workers than bosses, obviously one view is going to predominate among the broad majority of individuals.
The great thing about class interest is that it is amoral. I can pan your head in with a cinderblock, and it has no bearing on the positions of the classes relative to one another.
>>329135
Lol, no. Most busimessmen struggle. Plus for all jobs, if you can only get to a certain cap of income, what is the point of trying harder and harder?
>>329772
>Since more people are workers than bosses, obviously one view is going to predominate among the broad majority of individuals.
that's right, mob rules.
>>329125
Or maybe laborers want to be able to provide more for their fucking children?
Has she ever thought of that?
>>329125
Disagree
Because raising the cost of labor pushes the incentives towards labor saving devices and techniques
Profit maximization on the other hand causes no social gains, only personal
Well how are "higher profits" something desirable unless they benefit either the workers or society as a whole?
>>329174
That image doesn't even refute an argument. It just says "No u".
>>329168
>What defines the truly rich is they don't need to work.
So those who have decent income but do work are the uppper middle class?
>>329911
the question is: do they need to work?
>>329909
Did you know that historically only experts in a field could have an opinion?
>>329917
Medical doctor in America needs to work but salary for this profession is among the highest for ex.
>>329922
No I don't think you understand.
Is what they earn enough for saying ''fuck it I don't need to work anymore with all this money, I can just do nothing all day''?
Why did Ayn Rand get so much traction for her half baked ideas?
>>329772
Give me a fucking break. Marx survives ten trillion counter examples and logical fallacies. Meanwhile Rand is vilified as soon as she fails to predict 9/11 and for every >get part time job
>>329125
>If workers struggle for higher wages, this is hailed as “social gains”, if businessmen struggle for higher profits, this is damned as “selfish greed”.
>when poor people want money it's ''necessary'' but when I want to buy another helicopter it's ''decadent'' weehhh I'm marginalized
>This woman is popular in America
>>329936
>there are people this retarded on /his/
wew lad /leftypol/.... wew lad
>>329936
Not surprising, Americans are literally obsessed with money and material goods.
>>329946
Point out where he is wrong bourgeois scum.
>>329936
She is popular in some right-wing libertarian circles
>>329147
"Not good enougth" is a pretty clear situation.
>>330003
It's not.
Is being "poor" in America, "not good enough" ? Because poor people in America have a much higher standard of living than middle income people in the third world.
>>329959
It's not necessary for poor people to have more money.
>>330012
"Not good enough" is when you are surviving, unable to make your capital grow at the end of the month, and generally vulnerable to anything that could happen (material loss, injury, etc).
Also, the absence of possibilities to go up the social ladder (through cultural or material capital)
Good enough is vague, but there's a bare minimum.
>poor people in America have a much higher standard of living than middle income people in the third world
Misery is misery
>>330012
>Because poor people in America have a much higher standard of living than middle income people in the third world
Why don't you compare with poor people from others first world countries? It is more honest.
>>330031
>"Not good enough" is when you are surviving, unable to make your capital grow at the end of the month, and generally vulnerable to anything that could happen (material loss, injury, etc).
Define "surviving". If someone lives under a roof, has plenty of food, a fridge, a flat screen TV, a computer with the internet and other amenities that third worlders could only dream of, is he "surviving"?
>Also, the absence of possibilities to go up the social ladder (through cultural or material capital)
There has never been as much social mobility as there is today.
>Good enough is vague, but there's a bare minimum.
What's the bare minimum?
>Misery is misery
There's a difference between slaving away 12 hours a day in a rice paddy field every single day of the week, and collecting a weekly welfare check.
>>330051
>Define "surviving"
When you are not assured that your basic needs will be met (food, shelter, safety).
>There has never been as much social mobility as there is today.
True on a global scale, but we are talking about people with low living standards.
>What's the bare minimum?
That your secondary needs (education, resting time, investment in projects, inclusion in a groupe) would be your primary preoccupations.
>Third Worlders
The world is a bit more complicated than developped countries Versus. Mad Max style shitholes.
Still glad to live in a nice place, but not everything outside Europe-USA-Japan-BRICS is feodal-tier ruin field. And misery exists also in the one listed above.
>>330093
>When you are not assured that your basic needs will be met (food, shelter, safety).
Then everyone is surviving in America.
>True on a global scale, but we are talking about people with low living standards.
Even people with low living standards have plenty of opportunities. In America, that is.
>That your secondary needs (education, resting time, investment in projects, inclusion in a groupe) would be your primary preoccupations.
This is impossible. Even CEOs don't have free time.
>>329125
SURPLUS VALIUE
U
R
P
L
U
S
V
A
L
U
E
>>330102
>When you are not assured that your basic needs will be met (food, shelter, safety).
>Then everyone is surviving in America.
Including pic related?
>>329125
It seems higher wages for wokers results in a bigger increase in net happiness of a society rather than a few getting a bigger increase in pay percentage wise.
Besides, high wages for labor is more or less the driving factor behind consumer economies and industrialization.
pic unrelated.
>>329719
I fail to see how this refutes or agrees with the topic. It feels like fluff.
Cite your damn sources, you git.
>>330102
When I say "not assured", I don't mean 100% certain, you can never be. I mean it as a daily concern, a permanent anguish.
>Even people with low living standards have plenty of opportunities
Oh boy, good ol' murrican dream.
>This is impossible. Even CEOs don't have free time.
Most people's primary concerns where I live are how to get/give a good education, how to be happy (vacations, improvement of life quality, cultivating oneself), or stuff as basic as founding an association.
You know, not "how I am going to make it to the end of the month ?".
>>330200
He probably meant it the other way around, that no one is assured of anything (you can get hit by a bus lol xD)
Look, Objectivism and libertarians in general are shit, but this doesn't gives you an excuse to defend something as ridiculous as marxism.
>>330200
>Including pic related?
To be homeless in America you either have to be a drug addict, mentally ill, or both. Nobody is homeless in America because he is "down on his luck". The welfare state is strong enough to prevent that.
>>330237
>Oh boy, good ol' murrican dream.
But it's true.
>Most people's primary concerns where I live are how to get/give a good education, how to be happy (vacations, improvement of life quality, cultivating oneself), or stuff as basic as founding an association.
You say that because you're still a teenager. When you're an adult you'll find that money is one of your main concerns.
>>329909
Contrary to popular 4chan belief, not every argument is worth refuting.
Buisnessmen have more leverage than their workers. Workers have been exploited since the industrial revolution, so its obvious why society respects their achievements over those of buisnessmen.
Also the core of our economy and civil society is the middle class which is made up almost entirely of workers. A thriving middle class means a thriving society.
>>330246
>you're still a teenager
A teenager that works to pay for his studies/rent, doesn't rely on Mommy-Daddy, and kind of knows the difference between worrying about your taxes and worrying about eating.
I'm not neglecting the role played by personal merit, but misery is a reality that you can't deny just by pretending that in some countries some welfare system makes it all ok (it's definitely a plus, though). It has structural causes beyond "degenerate lazy junkie, shuld have worked harder".
>>329125
Better question: Why aren't other fiction writers with half-baked political ideologies more popular? Why doesn't (let's say) Heinlein get the same treatment?
My guess [spoiler]because most of them wrote fiction that's interesting in it's own right whether you agree with its author's politics or not.[/spoiler]
>>330310
Jonathan Swift
Daniel Dafoe
I might be able to think of another few.
>>329936
>>popular in America
Those people have written "God" on their banknotes, it's not an accident.
>>329125
>If workers struggle for higher wages, this is hailed as “social gains”, if businessmen struggle for higher profits, this is damned as “selfish greed”.
There's a difference between "I want to earn more money so that I can lead more comfortable and financially secure life" and "I want more money that I don't even really need."
Either way I don't inherently disagree, but Rand's head was so far up her ass I'm inclined to out of principle.
>>329168
>Because one of them actually works, hence why he's called a worker.
A CEO is a worker you fucking retard, he works for the shareholders.
>>329919
Did you know that opinions can be refuted?
>>330467
But it doesn't need to be refuted. If you did your own research you'd realize it doesnt work
There is no such thing as class struggle. The only tine this ever happened was during the French Revolution, where the people rebelled against the aristocracy.
>>330227
That's because you are mentally retarded.
>>329174
How is not taking your stuff "upwards income redistribution"?
>>329125
Because workers make up 99% of the population so higher wages means a better life for 99% of the people. Capitalists make up 1% of the population so higher profits means lower wages for the 99%.
That's not to say capitalists shouldn't make good profits, they certainly should. It's just that workers deserve good wages and they haven't for decades now.
>things I like: good
>things I don't like: bad
>workers = good
>godless heartless evil capitalists = bad
What she's saying makes sense to me.
>>331880
>muh 1%
>muh 99%
I want this meme to die.
>>329280
Too much becherovka, bratře
>>331880
>Because workers make up 99%
But "goods-producing workers", which is what the graph is about, make up only 15 million people.
Try not to post misleading graphs if you want to be taken seriously.
>>331880
You do realize that graph is misleading because it does not take worker compensation into account, right? Worker compensation in terms of benefits, dental, healthcare, retirement packages, etc, has been increasing at a much higher rate, especially healthcare after the ACA push. Companies have been incentivized to provide these things rather than paying a worker more, meaning earnings aren't going up even though the total compensation you get from work has.
>>331844
This, even if I accept his premise that Chicago school economics doesn't work, its still a moral judgement that the government should take an extra percentage of money from corporations and the very wealthy so the poor can have more
>>329174
>Being a professor and unironically using the term "trickle-down economics"
Wages are sticky at the lowest margin. A wage is equivalent to a price, because labor is a commodity. Now bargaining is an ineffective method of price negotiation, especially when the parties (individual laborers) are not savvy negotiators. All collective bargaining does, is present an equal playing field. Labor cannot ask for a wage that is impossible, because they have a vested interest in ensuring the survival of their industry. (Despite the common propaganda to the contrary)
One can compare the stickiness of the marginal labor wage to the fixed price of Coca Cola from the years 1886 to 1959. Coke could not raise the price, even though they dominated the market. There are huge forces of inertia involved, which we won't get into here.
What a labor movement can do, is force an entire industry to raise wages. In strict competition, the producer that raises wages unilaterally, may find itself undercut on price. When labor organizes, this is essentially a form of ethical collusion. It allows an upward trend of wages, in the absence of which an industry may sink into stagnation.
There are plenty of zombie companies that may not survive in such an environment. I say good riddance. We have got to remember, that Capitalism is not intended to safeguard the investment of every corporation. Most must fail, in order for the best to succeed.
Because when a businessman increases profits, it usually drives down workers wages.
And since most people are workers, its kinda viewed as unfair
This is a trick of language, which is part of a confidence trick.
Egotistical people try to reason greed by playing around with wording.
But:
Wages and profits are not the same thing.
Wages are what you get before you look at your own person head and coverage, profits are post-coverage gains.
Wages are personal, whereas profits can come from sources other than yourself.
It's a confidence trick to mix the two up because they're both economic income terms.
>>330024
What if they are literally too poor to afford necessary medical care or housing? I'm so grateful autists like you can't even manage to get elected dog catcher.
>>329719
That video has to make you question the idea of money.
>>329125
The reason society thinks that way is because one of the main sticking points of modern society is that the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.
The labourforce uniting and organizing effectively enough to successfully campaign for higher wages is a victory of the many. A businessman finding a new way to get more cheddar is a victory for himself alone.
Of course Ayn Rand vehemently disagreed with this and thought you should only ever look out for numero uno, even if it meant shitting on everyone else.
>>334043
>The government gives more to corporation and the very wealthy than it does to the poor.
As long as by "give" you mean corporate welfare and not tax loopholes, then yes I think most of us will agree that is bad.
>>334079
The owners are just looking for a profit. When you get a profit you know that what you are doing is a rational allocation of resources.
>>334043
>The government gives more to corporation and the very wealthy than it does to the poor.
Government spending on healthcare and welfare combined is well over 2 trillion dollars, more than double what is spent on defense.
Do you have some evidence that what the government gives the wealthy is worth more than 2.3 trillion dollars annually?
>>334122
I mean in terms of the costs of protecting their properties, even leaving aside the other favors you mention.
The only thing keeping someone from homesteading your property is that you have an officially recognized deed that says they're squatting.
When this officially recognized deed is for a property that produces rent or profit, the government is subsidizing the business of the landlord or owner.
Tax loopholes are a real thing, and they're always regressive. This is why I support a tax on property (with one exemption per citizen), it's the only tax that is impossible to avoid by those who owe it, while being trivial to avoid for those who don't like taxes.
Why is it not in rational self-interest to be a communist revolutionary in order to maximize your own happiness by overthrowing the social institutions you don't like and hopefully securing a comfortable position in the party?
>>334090
She actually argues that pursuing your self-interest means you end up doing well, and therefore no one has to take care of you and you produce enough surplus to be of benefit to others, so they in turn don't need to be dependent on government handouts. The blind and pathological pursuit of altruism - forcing people to help others, all the time, no matter what - harms both the people it intends to help by subsidizing their poverty while not relieving it or allowing them to climb out of it, and the person paying for it.
This "Ayn Rand wanted poor people to all die, only think of yourself ever" meme has gone on long enough.
Smdh familia
>>334165
Just look at every single communist state to have ever existed and that won't be a question for much longer.
>>334147
The government should be spending money on the things the people who own the government want it to spend money on. A basic income is already owed to the citizens of western countries, it's implied by our basic values that we own the government, the government doesn't own us.
Corporations and the very wealthy cost more than the average citizen because they have more property that needs protecting. So they should pay based on that. It's about who's being taxed how much on what and why.
As a more left-leaning person, I want fewer people to pay taxes.
>>334158
I am certainly not against replacing the tax code, but the rich as a general group already pay more for protection, even under a flat tax they would still pay more.
>>334182
>Just look at every single communist state to have ever existed and that won't be a question for much longer.
Of course they are shit.
But I don't understand how Kim Jong Un for instance isn't living the objectivist dream.
>>334182
>Just look at every single communist state to have ever existed and that won't be a question for much longer.
>communist
>state
>>334208
>muh wither away
>>334191
A hundred dollars is very different from a million dollars.
A flat tax is effectively regressive because of the nature of money, the reality that keeping a person alive costs a certain amount of money per day.
>>334207
>But I don't understand how Kim Jong Un for instance isn't living the objectivist dream.
He is.
It's the perfect objectivist society, owned by one person.
>>334224
>believing Soviet propaganda
>>334244
So why don't all objectivists just be communists in the hope they can be dictators some day rather than trying to promote free market capitalism?
>>334267
Why don't people use rhetoric derived from communist language as a cover for a personal power grab?
>I don't know
Also, I don't know many objectivists who want a free market. They want unbidden capitalism, not the same thing. North Korea is the kind of economy you'd have if an objectivist ran your country.
>>334207
Objectivism isn't about tearing others down and ruling over them. Ayn Rand did not advocate for violent coercive force.
Jesus. How come all the people that make fun of Rand have clearly never read her or anything about her? These are some hot opinions guys.
>>334208
Bakunin was right. Too bad anarchism will never work.
>>334244
>owning society
>objectivism
Nigger, are you high?
>>334277
>they don't want a free market
>they want unbridled capitalism
>literally everything I think about objective terms are my opinions on them, not the terms or their meanings themselves
You're a retard, m8.
>>334267
Too much of a gamble. You might get rich on a crazy scheme, but you won't stay rich unless you play safe. Doesn't mean you can just sit on your money though, inflation means your fortune will only devalue over time. So you have to invest it into something that makes you more money to stay ahead of it.
So a revolution occurring in the country where the majority of your capital is invested is a really risky thing. If your businesses get wrecked during the revolution, a huge chunk of your wealth is gone, and so is your ability to replace it.
>>334300
I'm not making fun of Ayn Rand. It's just that dictatorships and warlordism seem like the logical conclusion of objectivism.
Of course John Galt's famous mantra denounces coercion, but that seems very contrived when Rand's whole system of ethics is based on the only thing worth caring about being ones own survival.
If you are capable of making slaves of millions of people that sounds like the pinnacle of objectivist strength.
>>334339
>Rand believed the only moral social system is one that recognized individual rights as sacred
Yeah, enslaving millions of people sounds like it's right up her alley.
The key is *rational* self-interest - the best way to ensure individual rights is to respect others'. If you are allowed to violate the rights of others, then why can't they do the same to you? Instead, you must treat everyone the same to ensure you'll be treated the same, and you must all work together to prevent each others' rights from being infringed.
Rationally, enslaving others means rights are not sacred, and you could have yours stripped away at any time too.
>>334187
>Corporations and the very wealthy cost more than the average citizen because they have more property that needs protecting.
Yes that is true, but using that same line of thought the property owned by the wealthy and corporations is also far more valuable and thus far more important to protect than ordinary people.
Just as an example, Arch Coal runs the largest coal mine in the United States, which provides fuel to countless electrical power plants across the nation. This kind of asset is more valuable than, say, your typical half-acre middle class homestead.
>>329125
Businessmen who make profits on their workers backs, with no profit sharing, and through unscrupulous means are denounced.
Businessmen who reward their employess and want them to succeed in life but still get rich aren't as denounced.
Rand had no fucking clue how things worked, possibly becuase she leached off others.
>>334354
> the best way to ensure individual rights is to respect others'. If you are allowed to violate the rights of others, then why can't they do the same to you? Instead, you must treat everyone the same to ensure you'll be treated the same, and you must all work together to prevent each others' rights from being infringed.
That's another thing I don't understand. That's another way of phrasing the golden rule which is the very pinnacle of altruism. Feeling obligated to limit yourself for others sake, which is the very thing objectivism is supposed to rebuke.
Of course it means yours could be stripped away at any point, because that's simply an objective fact of existence. The only thing protecting your, or anyone else, from slavery is common protection based on altruistic morality.
>>329125
There is a point at which one can only become nominally wealthy (that is, having more money than one can reasonably spend/from which they can profit mentally, emotionally, &c.), yet also a point below which one cannot significantly change their condition without state involvement.
In other words, [Big Scary CEO] may have 10,000 times the wealth of [Borderline alcoholic proletariat], but the necessities and even comparable commodity purchases buy the CEO do not cost 10,000 times those of the proletariat. Thus when our archetypal businessman spends several times the proletariat's yearly wage on something like a yacht or a gold-plated bidet that finds loopholes in the tax system while one shits (or what the hell every it is that rich people buy) it's seen as excessively extravagant; whereas when our proletariat gains institutionally higher wages to enable his offspring to obtain the education necessary to escape their class, it's seen as admirable/preferable to the alternative of the poor breeding more poor.
>>334424
>do unto others what you would have them do unto you
This is not an altruistic statement by any means. It's essentially "don't be a dick to people and they won't be a dick to you." She had a hard on for being left alone by the powers that be and leaving others alone to their lives too. It's not a call to give away your money to other people in the vain hope that they give you theirs.
>>333810
>I want this meme to die.
It's a fact that 99% of work for a living.
>>333881
>Try not to post misleading graphs if you want to be taken seriously.
It's the same when you use all workers. Wages have NOT kept up with productivity since the 70s.
>>333886
Except all the data says the exact opposite.
>>334486
>Except all the data says the exact opposite.
>posts wage data
Did you even read what that guy said?
>>329125
I don't agree because it's a gross oversimplification without context.
>>334471
>"don't be a dick to people and they won't be a dick to you."
I know what it means.
It just doesn't fit in what an actual objectivist society would be. Just because you yourself are decent enough not to take slaves, doesn't mean it will influence everyone else not to. As a matter of fact that has never been the case.
What would actually happen if people oriented themselves entirely on their own pursuit of happiness, is that the strong will do as they will, and those who can't defend themselves will suffer.
>>334486
>it's a fact
I WANT
THIS MEME
TO DIE
>post income, not address compensation
You deserve your retardation tbqh familia.
>>329147
Almost everyone can agree the minimum requirement for "good enough" is the ability to pay rent/eat food/enjoy little bit of cheap thrills. The upper limits have no bounds. The bottom really suffer from not getting enough money and thus can not really have enough to pay rent/food/little hobbies.
Anything more is leisure/consumerism
>>334519
The key part is, again, rationality. She also disdained subjectivism, saying that there are object ways to be happy or do well in life. She would argue that your interpretation is wrong, because it's not rational to deny others rights if you wish to have them yourself. She would also say that seeking to control others is not a real pursuit of happiness, because there is an objective criteria for that.
Businesses operate in a paradox. This paradox is the cause of the recession, as businesses operate in their own self interest it causes booms and busts in the economy.
Also, the reason why everyone rallies against corporations aggressive pursuing their interest is the same as peoples disinterest in expanding the power of the government. They are just mechanisms of oppression for the citizen. Just look at how health care companies operate, they hold your life and well being over your head and cut what they have to pay out for your medical procedures and you're forced to keep paying it because one day you might need it. You probably won't get back 5% of what you pay into the health insurance over your lifetime even after all the medical expenses at death.
What constitutes a fair and reasonable profit to socialists and communists?
>>334543
What I'm saying is it's irrational to hold that limiting your own behaviour will change how others behave. Not keeping slaves won't stop slavers from trying to infringe on your rights anyway because that's the ultimate fact of objectivist society, the strong and ruthless triumph.
>>334585
I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not sure I can give a good defense of it. It's a lot more coherent than you think, though.
She declared that hedonism and such were not true pursuits of happiness because they were not rationally inspired. There's a lot more to it, it's a whole ideological framework.
>>334583
Simply whatever the market is willing to pay for it above production costs.
>>334583
A normal profit. No pure profit, as pure profit is a sign of an economy that is not functioning under equality. It's why big industries like power production, phone companies, the internet, all need to be regulated monopolies as they have high barriers of entry that under a freemarket would invariably lead to consolidating into a monopoly.
Workers typically struggle for higher wages for the purposes of getting by in comfort, being able to raise families, actually own property, etc. business owners can already do all of those, so increased gains are viewed as unnecessary. But beyond that, businessmen aren't vilified for seeking increased profits unless they do it in a way viewed as unfair, unethical, or socially destructive (slashing wages, price gouging, cutting corners, etc.).
>>334244
Well, I do not care if a tax is regressive, though a flat tax isnt my first choice, I would still prefer it over our current tax system which is far to complicated
>>329125
The problem is that businessmen (not all, but a large part) have a tendency to use those profits to purchase any kind of power they can, which, if left unchecked, they then use to oppress the workers in order to further increase and protect their own profits - we're seeing this in the United States now. And when people can't afford to feed themselves, they'll revolt - and at that point you can't really argue the ethics of self-interest with the barrel of a gun.
>>334632
But profits are how the market knows what to invest in. Simple supply and demand.
As demand goes up, profits go up. Supply, seeing a chance for profit, will begin to increase to a point where profits return to an average or equilibrium. iPhones had a high profit margin, so tons of companies began to invest in smart phones, bringing the average cost of a smart phone down to a price that even poor people can afford nowadays.
Profits are not evil, they are necessary.
>>329188
Ironically this guy would probably one of the first ones killed in one of Mao's purges.
>>334677
A flat tax is the worst tax to have, as it is crippling to the poor. You are correct in your deduction that the current tax system is inefficient. No amount of rewriting will ever solve the system, as it is so intertwined with the running of the state and the usurpation of corporations. Corporations rake fat profits off keeping the poor impoverished and weak politically.
>>334688
Pure profit is fine in the short term anon, I never said that it was an inefficiency of the system. If a company however achieves pure profit in the long term, the economy is not functioning at efficiency. A business owner will always demand a wage for themselves, so if they are getting paid, the fixed capital expenses are paid (machinery, land to rent, etc), and the input costs (workers) are paid for then the business is operating at a normal profit.
>>334700
I've always wondered what it is with social rejects and buying into authoritarian systems that would destroy them in a heart beat.
>>334716
Because radical forms of government appeal to those who don't feel satisfied with this one.
Autistic rejects are especially susceptible to this, because the may as well be aliens as far as conventional society goes. So they need a system of government that's more accommodating to their autism. The rigid structure of socialism is very appealing, but so is the callous indifference of radical capitalism.
>>329901
BY being invested back into the company or into other industries, which creates innovation, and possibly things cheaper.
>>333910
underrated post
based Sowell
If workers get their way then nobody can afford the products they make, ultimately leading to them losing their jobs and becoming poor, the economy crashing and the rich still being rich.
If the rich get their way, the workers are too poor to buy the products other people make, crashing the economy but leaving the rich still rich.
There's a good compromise somewhere in between, but it's easier to build a computer blindfolded than it is to get humans to compromise.
Some might suggest, what if we just take the money from the rich, but then you don't have anyone to make new factories and create jobs. At best the government steps in, but eventually inefficiency, corruption, incompetence and bureaucracy will crash the economy leaving everyone but the rich government poor.
>>331767
If you did your research you'd realize it doesn't exist either.
>>334714
I doubt a flat tax would be any more crippling to the poor than our current system, and a flat tax would help the middle class
>>334898
Or you know, just remove the income tax and let people decide what to do with their money.
>>334901
That's not an income tax, that's a spending tax.
As in, if you spend 100 bucks and you make 120k a year you pay 120 bucks in total.
>>334910
>spending tax
jesus christ, no thanks
>>334921
Hardly any different than a tariff of ye olden days. You get tax based on what you buy, not based on what you make. I don't see why the government should get 30% of my paycheck if I'm not even spending that much of it.
>>334898
That is a progressive tax. Its what we have now only the rates are much higher on the top, and there are a bunch of loopholes and deductions for those who can afford people to do their taxes
>>334933
I don't see why the government should have any of your money.
>>334962
Ultimately someone has to pay for the roads and the schools.
I think that should all be done at a State level though. I suppose we could go back to toll roads owned by corporations, but I don't really know if I want to pay Walmart to drive to Walmart.
>>334977
Because only the magical wizard that is the government can pay for roads and schools.
Taxes only on direct purchases
Everything should be privatized
No gods or kings
Only man
>>334979
>I suppose we could go back to toll roads owned by corporations, but I don't really know if I want to pay Walmart to drive to Walmart.
Also
>today's lesson, class, is sponsored by McDonalds! Try our new McKids meal with Peaches, and it even comes with a free toy!
>>334990
Rather than: Today's class is sponsored by the government, try our new shitty tax system with lesser benefits than ever or how about our ridiculous laws and regulations? It even comes with no personal freedom, free of charge.
>>334998
So we're both in agreement that either one kinda sucks? It's like deciding to switch from one drowning horse to another drowning horse in a rapids.
>>333910
It only says "faculty" on that image, he's probably like a janitor or something.
>>335009
I guess, you're implying something private automatically have to be sponsored like it's some corporate event.
There are plenty of private schools today that are nowhere close to what you describe them as.
>>335020
Right, but they're not exactly cheap. If you want to make something accessible for everyone, and something like education should, you're inevitably going to end up with McDonalds sponsoring tons of schools.
And I don't trust the rich white businessman any more than I do the rich white politician. I don't trust anyone in power inherently. This shit would have to be very heavily regulated, and then that gets into the issue of the government being incapable of properly regulating something. It's just, every solution just brings new problems and doesn't even fully fix the old ones.
>>335041
What about the rich asian business man? What about the rich black politican? You trust them?
Now, a small government with non-retarded regulations could work for schools. However the "tax some to pay for others" mentality is stupid.
>>335055
>I don't trust anyone in power
I'm more likely to trust white guys than most other races though. Kinda racists to be perfectly honest, sue me.
>>329401
This is a retarded graph. Carry on.
>>329719
Atlas shrugged speaks on this. There are those who use the government to gain wealth, ex. James Taggart and Orren Boyle. There are also the industrialists who despise the easier route. This is probably Rand's biggest contention in her most famous work.
>>330249
>Workers have been exploited since the industrial revolution
>Since the industrial revolution
I am no philosopher but if someone's already rich as fuck then he's a greedy mother fucker for wanting more
It's not like these 40+ people are going to have a life with that money, they're just want higher numbers, more yachts and easy future for theird grandchildren
>>334585
>Not keeping slaves won't stop slavers from trying to infringe on your rights anyway because that's the ultimate fact of objectivist society, the strong and ruthless triumph.
Wrong. Slavers infringe on human rights. And in a society with objective laws they wouldn't exist and if they did the organization in charge of enforcing laws and contracts would stop them and if they existed outside said country the military wouldn't let them in. In an objectivist society the rational and virtuous would triumph. You seem to think objectivism consists of only Politics but you are missing Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics. Each one leads into the next. You have obviously not read anything by Ayn Rand. I highly suggest you do. Her novels are what got me out of the worst stage of my life and gave me the courage to pursue my interests not with embarrassment and guiltiness but with pride and self-esteem.
>>334977
interesting. So does that mean every state that existed before public roads and schools was an illegitimate one?
>>329401
That's not true. Rich people feel incredibly depressed when they can't spend millions of dollars on things. There are rich people who commit suicide because the "lost it all" and only have a few million dollars left. Their greed is insatiable, it makes it so they can't be content with lesser things, the same way you wouldn't want to live like a cave man.
>>330051
>lists a bunch of stuff everybody but the most remote and poorest third worlders have
>dodges the point about building capital
>>330246
you are so goddamn naive it's annoyingly cute
>>330310
A-fucking-men.
>>330361
funny thing is, she didn't believe in gods
>>329125
One is team work, one is exploiting other people's work.
>>330459
>worker takes a vacation for a week
>loses the chance to earn the money needed to make rent, company fires him because they want someone with no life to slave with no break
>CEO takes a vacation for a week
>leaves someone else in charge, comes back to then go to a business meeting at a restaurant where he can claim it's a business expense and get drunk and fat for free
I think there's a disparity in how much work is demanded
>>329171
She came well after philosophy was broken by near total jewish infiltration.
>>335204
It's a massive generalization yes but it tells you what it's trying to say.
>>335749
I love camping, hunting, hiking, and spelunking.
>>333977
I just wanted to give you a (you).
>>333896
That's if you make it into a moral issue and not one of practicality. If you tax the poor, they grow unruly and restless, especially if it outpaces their ability to pay (a greater hardship for them). If taxes aren't paid (either through unwillingness or inability), the government cannot function.
Taxing the rich however, creates greater income, causes only mild economical instability, and could be put to use on social programs for the poor to pacify their frustrations, creating social stability (a sought after quality in many a nation),
As to whether government is good/bad is a moral quandary for another debate, one can hardly blame the government or the poor for seeking the latter course of action. I cannot blame the rich for wanting to keep a greater portion of their health either.
But half-assed justifications for self-interest and simultaneous condemnations of an others self-interest smacks of hypocrisy and intellectual laziness.
>>334979
>Because only the magical wizard that is the government can pay for roads and schools.
Why would anyone have an incentive to pay for roads and schools that don't benefit him? A rich entrepreneur might invest in roads which he needs for transport and schools for the children of his employees in order to be more attractive as an employer, but why would he care about infrastructure of the rest of the country?
>>335806
He's not commenting on that. The fact is in marxist terms a CEO is a worker. He does not own the means of production but is paid a wage y those who do.
>>335835
How else are you going to sell shit to Amish communes without access roads? Of course, he would want to make the Amish commune pay for the privilege of buying his goods if possible.
Keep in mind, these would be private roads, and only meant for the distribution of that firm's goods, not a road for the Amish people to get on their horse and buggy and shop around.
>>329125
I don't think people begrudge CEOs or owners that increase profits. Actually, there is a big problem of underperforming CEOs who are compensated generously nonetheless.
I do think a good capitalist maximizes profits. However, profits are different than wages,so the comparison doesn't make sense.
Also, while wages can only be so high, but its essential that they be free of risk for sudden changes, so workers can be loyal and not worry about losing their income.
>>335831
As a short retreat from modern society, sure. I'm sure you wouldn't want to live entirely without conviences such as supermarkets, cellphones and the internet.
>>329719
That post doesn't make any sense, and only appears as valid criticism of Rand's philosophy to those who know nothing about it. For one, Rand never made predictions; Objectivism, unlike say for example Marxism, does not make any claims about how society will develop.
Secondly, the people in that video would fit perfectly in Atlas Shrugged as villains, who were not all government buerocrats despite what some people may have you believe, but mostly corporate bosses too incapable to make a profit on the free market and so turns to the government to get handouts and legislate against unfair competitive practices.
Objectivism does not side any form of capitalism against socialism, but only with one very specific form of capitalism; laissez-faire. It is as much opposed to Corporatism as it is to Communism.
>>335806
A CEO rarely has actual time off work. Even when he's on vacation he must be prepared to take important calls, make deals, take decisions and probably participate in conferences or meetings through his laptop.
When the factory worker is off the clock he's off the clock.
The main reason for the disparity in wages between the two, however, is that way less people are able, or willing, to do the things the CEO has to do in his work than the amount of people who are able and willing to do what the factory worker has done.
Rand has many strange theories yet it's always the collectivists that get butthurt about her.
Literally disagreeing with the one thing Rand is right about.
Her writings on aesthetics, history or faith are not much worthy of mention but it's quite telling that she remains on the scene thanks to the ramblings of socialists.
>>335887
>but its essential that they be free of risk for sudden changes
This. People often question why those why the factory owner earns so much more than the people he employs when he arguably isn't doing much more work than them. What those people forget is who is the monetary risk in the relationship. The workers aren't the ones who have to go without lunch if the factory doesn't make a profit that month.
>>336038
Corporatism is a natural result of technological progress, it has nothing to do with the economic system.
>>329125
What you fail to grasp is that there is a striking difference between "wage" and "profit".
There are people of all backgrounds who work for an entry-level wage to buy milk and bread.
Then there are people who work for profit so they can get the office with a fancy view.
>>334898
That's a progressive tax ffs
>>336293
>it's usually old money.
Most millionaires in the US are self-made.
Besides, even if you think that it's unfair that someone else's dad was rich than yours and let him inherit a fortune it would be just as unfair, if not even more so, if the man who worked hard to provide for his family was not allowed to use that money to give his children better preconditions than he had himself.
>>336323
>Corporatism is a natural result of technological progress
You'll have to prove that.
>>334936
>there are a bunch of loopholes and deductions for those who can afford people to do their taxes
As fucked up as that may seem, tax law in Sweden is at least as messed up as you can get convicted for finding and using such loopholes because "while it doesn't break the word of the law, it breaks the spirit of the law". The government is fine, and encourages, that people invest in a certain sector when the government lowers the taxes on it, just as they expect people to sell if they announce that the taxes will be raised. However, if someone does this too much, or finds a loophole that lets them get around paying more taxes than the government had intended they can be charged with commiting a crime that doesn't actually exist.
Lawyers and economists do not dare to give advice on wether you can exploit a certain loophole or not, because there's simply no way to be certain wether it will be considered a crime or not. Tax law in Sweden is extremely fuzzy and applied inconsistently.
>>336404
>Most millionaires in the US are self-made.
No.
>>336528
You are wrong.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/03/there-are-more-self-made-billionaires-in-the-forbes-400-than-ever-before/
>>336535
You said "most millionaires are self made".
Thats not true.
Also take a look of what they understand for "self made"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-new-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-boostrappers/
is ridiculous. The "10s" (meaning the people that really started from nothing) are not even the 10%.
