So /pol does trickle down economics actually work or is it just a meme give me proof
It doesn't work, only cuckservatives think so
But trickle upwards economics where you give more money to the lower class also doesn't work.
Capitalism just doesn't work at all.
>>81097473
Of course it doesn't fucking work. It's a forced meme by people who were fucking asspained by the New Deal.
The only reason it's still around is because Reagan was the Trump of his day and all of his memesters are in power.
>im retarded and don't have anything of market value to offer so capitalism doesn't work for me the thread
>>81098388
>he thinks capitalism is viable in a ever technologically advancing society
You're fucking retarded
>>81098562
Kek, it only advances because of said capitalism
>>81098562
instead of all those years that capitalism has been viable in a technologically advancing society
>>81097473
You have better and more TVs, phones and cars than your grandpa. Your grandchildren will have even more.
Every generation controls more wealth, because the richest of us advance industry and science.
The wealth trickles down, as in the overall size of the pie increases so much, that even though half the pie is eaten by a small minority, the other half is still bigger and each small person still gets more.
So yeah, trickle down works, just not as well as advertised, but still works.
It depends on how you define "trickle down economics." It's certainly not true that by growing the upper class of economics the lower classes will grow in proportion.
But the thing to understand about economics is that the top 1% aren't hoarders (that wouldn't do them any good), and they aren't burning the money to keep themselves warm, they are circulating their capital and growing the economy. The money might not "make it into the hands" of everyone else, but everyone benefits. I know you want them to give you dat, but does it really matter how many negative assets the bottom 50% of America has when their quality of life is doing fine and their access to cheap goods and services is ever-increasing.
Keep in mind that "trickle down economics" never was part of anu serious conservative economics research. It's a strawman that was developed by the left.
>>81097473
Faggot leftists memed the word trickle down economics
supply side economics do work though its a pretty basic idea
Have you ever been employed? Did someone ever pay you with money they made based on capital and risk they invested?
Fuck off
>>81098676
Not true.
Especially not during times of war.
We just need to find other ways to motivate people.
Trickle down is a left wing lie to discredit economic freedom: capx dot co/trickle-down-economics-is-a-leftist-lie/
>>81097473
Yes and no. There's aspects that work and aspects that don't. Lowering taxes doesn't really effect much, getting rid of needless regulation does.
>>81098959
this
trickledown is a strawman. The purpose of free market isn't to give everyone wealth, its for individuals to create wealth themselves
>>81098731
The fuck are you talking about.
It's only recent we've been truly becoming advanced with robots taking over jobs and digital only products which can easily be pirated
LIBERAL capitalism doesn't work.
Capitalism can work though.
Real trickle down has never been tried, it was crony capitalism not free market capitalism.
Give freedom a chance.
>>81098793
True, as long as they invest in useful things in their own country like small business it should work. Investing overseas or in shit like housing (negative gearing) fucks the poor in the housing market.
Also trade deficits are important, if your sending billions to china and getting happy meals in return that's money leaving your economy, and drives down your dollar.
TLDR I think it would work with protectionist investment laws and tariffs and shieet.
>>81097473
"Trickle down" economics is a left-wing invention to demonize supply-side economics.
>>81098894
>>81098895
Beat me to it.
>>81098948
Even during the war capitalist America was miles ahead with efficient production methods, proximity shells, efficient and quick methods to stop typhus, 4-engine bombers, atom bombs and lots of other things.
Remember that national socialism also relied heavily on private companies.
>>81098228
>>81098388
>>81098562
>>81098676
mfw the US is arguing against capitalism and the Ruskie is arguing for it
>>81099137
>What is the industrial revolution
>>81097951
>Capitalism just doesn't work at all.
fuck off retarded commie tripfag
>>81099213
The globalist argument (that I don't entirely support, but does have some inevitable weight to it) is that that is only a temporary issue because the market is by necessity isolated to a single system (the Earth). But even if it's only a temporary issue it still requires temporary action.
But I wouldn't use China as the prime example. China's economy is getting pretty good at investing in useful things and not simply throwing their money away on inefficient nonsense. As much as they're taking our money from us, they're sending it back by investing in America again. With regards to China we're in a co-dependent system where they depend on us as much as we depend on them. It may FEEL like China's getting more out of it than we are, but I don't think the average Chinese sweat shop worker would agree; I think that's just playing with the idea of a system where we benefit from all the cheap labor that China offers while simultaneously somehow keeping all the purchasing power for ourself.
>>81099213
This aussie has it right. With enough protectionism, any economic system is viable. Free trade with poor countries is just another means for the globalist elite and international Jewry to shit on the poor of your country. This is why non nationalist libertarians are retarded.
If you don't have strong tariffs, your wealth will "trickle down" to the fucking Chinese and you'll lose it forever.
If only enterprises weren't so corrupted and down on shady business, bad practices is what ends economies. The moment government interferes only gets worse.
>>81097951
paying better wages is literally the best way to mantain a strong economy. That is provided people aren't completely retarded and mnow how to inprove productivity
>>81099579
>>81099457
>I have no grasp that as our understanding of technology increases and our ability to produce more with less becomes more and more it wouldn't cuz capitalism to self destruct
You're completely deluded if you think capitalism can continue just fine in the future.
>>81097473
>>81098820
Both of these images are correct.
>>81098948
yeah remember when Cuba just jumped 300 years forward in technology because it stopped practicing dirty capitalism?
>>81099795
Chinese working conditions have been steadily rising for decades, and the cost of their labor is going up. You can thank American money for that shift. It's all money that would've been better spent domestically.
>>81100031
What you're describing is the economic equilibrium that is inherent in a global economy. Once Chinese labor becomes unprofitable it'll move elsewhere; if there's nowhere else to move it'll most likely become domestic (since having labor close has its intrinsic benefits). While it's true that "we're paying for China's growth", we're doing that because it benefits us.
Economy is not a zero-sum system. Because of technology and (the somewhat unsustainable) population growth, productivity is always growing.
>>81098948
If only we could be in a state of perpetual war with the world, we'd have cured cancer. Looks like we'll just have to rely on good ol Cuba to invent the next spaceship and HIV cure
>>81097473
circulation is the most important part of economics and the rich do it the most
>>81099969
>Producing more with less
>Not a capitalist dream
If resources become rare or depleted the price will skyrocket and capitalism will find other resources to use, as it has always done.
You have a very simplified understanding of economics
>>81097473
Socio economic doctrines work independently of the quality of people. African countries have every single doctrine under the sun and are still shitholes. Whites have had pretty comfy lives irregardless if they're living under franco, gorbachev, or thatcher.
>Employees don't get paid
Ok
>>81099969
>999
And would you look at that, Kek confirms what the Tripfag says.
Capitalism WAS good, but it is becoming LESS and LESS viable because technological advances decrease the number of necessary jobs without creating an equal number of them, not more.
Capitalism WILL fail in the not-too-distant future without a sudden and unforeseen shift in the way this planet works, the only thing is to question whether we will devolve into a dystopia where a powerful 0.1% control the majority of the planet using their machines and drones, or something else.
>>81099432
I try.
>>81100461
>socialist ignores the facts that lie in between what he desires to be true and keeps on perverting his perspective until he sees what he wants
Well metaphored.
>>81100607
Firstly, I'm not a socialist.
Secondly, what am I ignoring? Spell it out to me. Because as I see it, it's an incredibly simple equation.
>Jobs go down.
>Population goes up.
>We all get fucked.
>>81100321
>this
You'd think everyone with a brain would come to that conclusion.
>>81100783
Jobs havent gone down, they have moved ti China, if anything they have gone up by the largw scale increase of different products
>>81099860
It's that same thinking that makes people believe trickle down economics works.
Yesh IF people spend that money productively.
IF only.
>>81100321
Less meaning less actual manpower and using less resources to create the same product hence why I said as technology advances it will cause a negative effect.
It's simple fucking logic what don't you fucking understand.
>>81100783
Jobs are not "things you must do" but "things you can convince people to pay you to do", you Luddite. Wheat threshers obsoleted some jobs and created far far more. Just because your particular set of skills are no longer needed does not mean the market suddenly decides to lock up.
Also trips in the middle of post numbers aren't trips.
>>81100963
I'm not talking about jobs going down from outsourcing, I'm talking about jobs vanishing into the ether due to automation.
In the end, only the very few reap the rewards of the effort of thousands.
>>81100461
>And would you look at that, Kek confirms what the Tripfag says.
>969
Trickle down economics doesn't exist. What does exist is keeping taxes low to make hard work worthwhile and not interfering by imposing useless regulations.
>>81100321
capitalism is fundamentally flawed in the long run.
it needs
consistant population growth
snowballing profits from public companies
homogenized trading blocks at the cost of national will
most problems pol has is because of it
>>81100272
I have made your exact argument before. The problem is political realities mean that even if globalism is good on paper, it shifts the political balance of power. Do you trust China with all the power you're giving them?
Strength must be hoarded, not shared. At the very least, only trade with Western democracies. America's place as global hegemon is quickly slipping thanks to these free trade agreements.
The economic argument for globalism is good, but the political costs are too severe. I don't trust the elites in my own country, and you expect me to hand power to communists in a foreign one?
>>81100965
It's very poor logic, the need for manpower doesn't go down because of more efficient resource use, you try to make this connection with no proof to back it up.
Youre literally anti-technology.
just wanted to butt in to say that this thread is getting dangerously close to unironically bringing up the "robots will take all our jobs in just a few years, basic income now!" meme and I would get fatally triggered if it were to come to that so please lead the conversation away from that
>>81100783
It means that there are less people needed to provide for a family, we can go back to one-income households. How is that not good?
>>81101287
The need for manpower doesn't go down because of efficient resource usage, the need for manpower goes down because of automated machinery.
>>81097473
In order for it to work you actually have to get a fucking job. Let me guess you thought you were going to get rich by sitting on your ass collecting welfare
>>81101295
Any idea why people keep repeating it, despite the fact that it's a total crock of shit?
>>81101244
>Do you trust China with all the power you're giving them?
Probably more than I should.
>>81101295
apart from attracting hoards of migrants, what is bad about it?
>the rich get tax breaks (includes well paid professionals)
>they now have more income to spend
>they invest the income with financial insitutions who buy/sell stocks and bonds on the secondary market
Literally LOL if you think the wealthy would do something as retarded and risky as starting new businesses or directly buying stock from IPOs.
>>81101259
>Capitalism WILL fail!
>Said increasingly nervous communist for the hundredth time this century
>>81101321
I wish that was how it worked, and in an ideal world it would. But you're assuming for some reason that it costing less to produce something means that the workers will get paid more or the product will become cheaper.
>>81099692
Why can't i see the people living in cages in this picture?
>>81101394
because the idea of being given free stuff without working for it or doing anything is very appealing to some
>>81101467
>he legitimately believes capitalism is the final system of distribution
So did the aristocrats during feudalism.
>>81101347
Thats not what he said and even in the industrial revolution, getting replaced by a machine was shitty, but jobs overall still increased.
>>81101584
Nobody said that.
>>81101295
>seriously guize the world isn't being more and more automated I promise you!!!
>>81101454
This is the crux of thing.
>Corporation makes 50,000,000 a year before a tax rate of 50%, leaving it with 25,000,000.
>Tax rate is slashed in half to 25%, leaving it with an extra 12,500,000.
What happens here? Because I'll tell you what doesn't happen to that extra money. It *doesn't* make decrease the price of the things they sell, it *doesn't* increase the wages of the low-level workers, it *doesn't* lead to more people being hired.
>>81097473
nah it's for sure some jew-type shit
>>81098388
Capitalism doesn't work like that, at least not anymore, it has turned in to a huge pyramid scheme waiting to collapse.
Money and power goes to the top to people who don't really contribute nothing to the society, they just manipulate the system for their benefit.
It's just a playground for already well established multinational mega corporations that only care for profits and keeping their share holders happy. There's barely any competition for them because they have either managed to establish a monopoly or they simply buy off the competition or prevent any from emerging with tons of patents and copyrights. They have huge influence over our politicians because they might belong to industry that employs a lot of people in certain states or that brings a huge sum of money through taxes.
This is the true nature of capitalism and free market.
You have the freedom to compete and freedom to restrict the freedom of others via competition.
We have simply entered the stage of capitalism where these corporations are starting to restrict our freedom to live.
>>81101474
As long as there is competition that's what will happen though. At the end you have to sell your products for prices people can afford, otherwise you won't sell it.
>>81101645
Then why are you mocking someone for saying capitalism will fail? It inevitably will land already is.
>>81097473
poor person has a cool idea opens store and sells his hand made shit, he gets money and starts making his product , meaning he gives money to some sweatshop to make his stuff, he just sustained a couple kids workplaces, he now sells professional made items, he sells more and for a higher price, he cant keep up with the demand by himself. he employs a salesman and a secretary, he buys out a store and sets up a neat store, he has to renovate the place so he pays some carpenter to fix shit up, he pays the electrician to fix the poewerlines and so on, he buys some furniture from some office outlet store and pays some delivery company to bring him the stuff, he now sells more of his item and expands, buys another store and employs a manager and 2 more salesmen
how does trickling down doesnt work?
what you assume is the regular rich person is George Soros, this guy is beyond rich and yeah he doesnt need to do anything to stay rich, but he keeps doing some deals and what not to get even more rich and probably indirectly finances some blue collar workers workplaces
>>81097473
it will be superseeded by technocracy
Like most theories that overlook human nature, it works in theory.
But as an Australian business owner, i can tell you when i got cuts from 2015 (1.5% less + crazy tax deductions) i wasn't thinking how many more employees i could put on, i was thinking i could now drop to 8 months a year working and fund annual 2-3 week holidays to wherever the fuck i want.
Also the problem with alot of trickle down tax cuts is that they're flat out not enough to really improve things. Like i said, those 2015 tax breaks we got ironed out to about 15-20 grand at best, it costs me like a minimum 20-30 grand to hire an apprentice, stretching to 60-70 thousand for a fully qualified worker.
You just can't do the cuts necessary without completely crippling the economy, so all these half-measures that sort of help business but not in the way it's meant to are just silly statistic manipulating bullshit.
I'll still vote for it because the alternative is worse, but it's retarded.
>>81101212
Even socialism needs population growth. Public companies are anti-capitalist and your last claim is unverifiable.
>>81101645
If its not the final system, then it will in fact fail.
>>81102089
Trickledown means giving tax cuts to rich business owners. Learn english.
>>81099213
>like small business
You mean like no wealthy person in their right mind does?
>>81101731
Unverifiable claims supported by nothing
A person starts a business, and employs other people.
That is trickle down economics. The business owner getting rich while the employees earn a fair market wage is not proof of a broken system. If you expect to be rich while working for someone else then you're still a child. You become the business owner, become a success, and get your own employees. If you fail you keep trying.
>b-b-b-but muh living wage
>muh glass ceilings
>muh rich get richer
>muh wealth gap
>muh social programs
Reminder to ignore all Critical Theory posters
hahaha, that's the /pol/ I know.
#LonglivetheAnarchy
>>81097473
It works as long as there are laws that prevent anti competitive shit, but because almost every capitalist society is basically an oligarchy it will never work.
In america is LEGAL to LITERALLY BRIBE politicians, its impossible for "trickle down" to work as long as that exists.
>>81102376
>A person starts a business, and employs other people.
>That is trickle down economics.
no, that's actually not what trickle down economics is
sorry you're literally retarded
>>81097473
Pareto law does not allow the upper glass grow more, than the double of the volume of the lower level of glasses.
>>81102089
It's a wonderful theory, but when the richest 20 men own more wealth the bottom 160,000,000, there is a tragic flaw somewhere.
>>81102234
brexit explains my last point,
socialism is so flawed i literally cant start on it.
It doesn't work, but not because "people are evil" or "the rich are greedy" or whatever emotional appeal is being pushed in this thread. Trickle-down economics don't work because of debt dynamics. As an economy changes its tax structure to free up more capital for productive investment - this can be tax cuts OR tax increases depending on the economic structure you're starting with - you do indeed see an increase in productive investment, to some extent. But as the program continues, bolstered by promising increases in productive investment, you also see upticks in malinvestment.
Over time, any economy with sufficiently large numbers of dollars freed up for investment will run into the problem of increasing malinvestment. Brazil ran into it in the 1960s (and are running into it again,) Japan ran into it in the mid-1980s (and is still reeling from its impact; look at government debt growth in Japan from 1990-2010) and China is running headlong into it right the fuck now, and has been since about 2005.
And, of course, the US ran into it, culminating in the housing market collapse. The US is also reeling from its impact. But, and this is the infuriating part, the US didn't have to adopt these policies. They were basically mislead by policymakers which misinterpreted macroeconomic trends and were lucky enough to have their dumb asses covered by the tech boom in the 90s.
>>81102486
If you don't have any debt then you have more wealth than the bottom 140,000,000.
>>81102573
But Britain is a socialist country, with a welfare state and government bailing out businesses and restrictions on every little aspect of life for the individual.
>>81102465
Yes. It is. That is the fundamental basis behind it. The government creates tax cuts for businesses in order to spur more people to start businesses, and make owning a company in America financially appealing rather than exporting those jobs over seas.
The government incentivizing business which creates job growth. That is trickle down economics.
Shitpost harder, you liberal faggot cuck.
>>81102316
so they get tax cuts, so what? by enabling them to grow and expand they can offer more jobs in the long run, and even have a higher tax return than letting them pay high amounts of taxes
i wouldnt even mind paying higher taxes if they would be used for specific projects that are actually helpful or efficient. but the state just keeps wasting money on shit that doesnt work but they dont give a shit, since its not their money, its ours.
instead of burning millions and millions on rapefugees we could have pumped that money into new schools, financed roads, modernized hospitals, nope gotta burn money on fugees
>>81102573
My point is that every system needs population growth, even something like tribalism
>>81102422
tariffing makes things even more expensive, would'nt the average american be able to spend less?
>>81102607
But rich celebrities are in debt.
>>81102698
I think he's getting 'socialism' mixed up with 'communism' thanks to moronic burgers who used the terms interchangeably so much during the Cold War they still think that they're the same thing.
>>81102486
whats your issue with those 20 richest men tho? they are usually some old guys that sit in their mansions somewhere hidden. what are they actually doing to you? oppression you with their wealth? whats the evil thing they are doing?
there was never a time in history where the majority was rich, it just doesnt work.
It seems to me that capitalism needs a continuous, unlimited, global economic growth.
And the easiest way to do this is to create need to be filled, which in turn can generate a waste of labour and raw material.
However, since Earth and indeed human population is limited I wonder of there is some upper limit that causes stagnation to set in since the effort of time, labour and (by extension) monetary assets will eventually yeild a decreasing net gain.
>>81102891
there will be a time where the poor can afford more than what they had in the past
>>81102842
As a person who knows the difference, you should be able to tell that communism has never existed in reality, and has always been just a theory.
And the European Union sure as hell isn't trying to remove private property, currency, inheritance laws, abolish marriage and so radical policies on that communism proposes and requires.
Saying that the UK left EU to escape from socialism is silly, because the UK is socialist as is, and saying the UK left EU to escape communism is silly, because the EU isn't advocating communism, and nobody is, or ever was.
>>81102977
pray to god that someday soon some bright sparks make space travel cheaper
>>81102776
For a short time until American manufacturing picks up the slack (which is whole the idea).
>>81102990
This happens constantly. Even though people cry about "the rich getting richer" it is true that the standard of living for everyone is on the rise, and the poor in America today can afford more luxuries than ever before. People living below the poverty line in America still have cellphones, and can eat hot meals every day. They still have shelter. They watch TV, and have internet access.
>>81097473
DELETE THIS
>>81101682
>1850
>80% of population is in food production
>What will we do with all the farmers, when we got technology?
>2012 + 1 + 2 + 1
>1% of population is farmers
>What will we do when bad robots take over?
Go back to /r/futurology and see how cancer is being cured every month and how robots take over ALL our jobs.
>>81097473
>So /pol does trickle down economics actually work
No.
It's been refuted.
Wealth acutually trickles up, over time. This happens because wealth generates returns faster than the overall economy grows. This means the rich are getting richer at the expense of the middle and working classes.
>>81102990
true thats an argument
guess what, 100 years ago, the poor were living in shacks, getting exploited by the industrial revolution, but what about now? oh our poor are living in pretty neat flats? they have flat screen TVs? they have smartphones? they can pay for heat and electricity and even buy groceries available in 10 minutes of walking range from their homes?
oh yeah capitalism really failed the poor
capitalism is the only system known to man so far that is able to lift the poor from extreme poverty on a huge scale
>>81099457
Not to mention the US managed all of that without sending dimitri to gulag for corrective manual labor duty. WW2 and Cold War-era comparisons between the USA and USSR are the best proof that capitalism actually benefits workers significantly more than any planned/central economy.
>>81103162
in which I do not understand, blocking cheaper goods into the US will make all the mentioned things here even more expensive, isnt that a move going backwards?
>>81103160
Americans either fill in with quality or quantity... But I do not see either with how so many of your manufacturing workers want pay and resources that would demmand they make a damn good product to compete with the likes of the germans and japanese
>>81103162 Well said.
Here's what a problem wealth inequality in the United States is: our homeless people are obese.
>>81103054
It seems that struggle ground to a crawl the moment the cold war ended.
A new space race would likely be a boon to all mankind.
>>81101682
more automation elevates your quality of life. Think about when your car turns off the lights instead of you having to do it.
>>81103279
But the rich getting richer leads to more scientific and cultural advances, meaning that the poor, who remain relatively poor, have increased life style and access to wealth.
The poor of today own more than the poor of 50 years ago, who owned more than the poor of 150 years ago.
The poor thus remain poor, and may even be getting poorer when you consider the individual's piece of the economy, but since the economy itself grows more than the poorer lose, they still gain over time.
>USA
>capitalist
Isn't the generous state subsidization and corporate bootlicking going against some of the basic principles behind that?
>>81103330
It will make some products more expensive, but will also increase domestic employment, which creates more consumers because the US is not working at full employment capacity.
>>81103162
The "luxuries" enjoyed be the poor are bought with cheap credit, not their new found wealth that has "trickled down" from the rich.
The poor get into debt buying luxuries with money they don't have.
>>81102977
Google has been the most massive wealth generator in recent history and the amount of resources consumed by it is negligible.
We're evolving and there are certain resources that are never-ending.
Societies auto-regulate their growth with wealth. Advanced societies have less than 2 children per couple already.
>>81103297
I think capitalism is human nature effecientised really... Everyone to some degree wants to make something and sell it, even if doing so in service or as management.
capitalism is an embracement of human greed and envy in a good way.. gommunism the opposite.
plus blaming globalism/capitalism for refugees is no reasonable, the push for refugees has been humanitarian. It is a false gambit if the current globalists think importing africants and ayyrabs as a replacement is a wise idea.
>>81103477
>capitalism = ancap
Sorry, no. Capitalism is simply the private ownership, consumption, and production of capital goods.
>>81097473
Trickle-down is the only system that works.
In fact, nothing else CAN work in economics. Think about it. The only alternative is socialist-style redistribution, and we know that always fails.
Leftists use trickle-down, too. They tax-and-spend. That's trickle-down, liberal style.
Think for yourself, anon.
Even a ballpoint pen could understand why your pic is retarded.
>>81103039
>remove private property, currency, inheritance laws, abolish marriage
I am ok with all of this
>>81103261
>comparing something at its infancy to now
Oh how silly you are.
>>81102776
Yes, but all the taxes would go to the government, so they might be able to balance the budget. Also: China is manipulating their currency like crazy to drive out competition. Driving down the value helps your exports. And that's what they've been doing all the time. Let them do this to compete with American companies. Tariffs are just a negative form of subsidies and subsidies are almost exclusive to big corporations due to much paper work.
>>81097473
Money doesn't trickle down, technology does. You practically can't be poor in a 1st world nation if you aren't also mentally ill.
>>81103611
>remove private property, currency, inheritance laws, abolish marriage
>I am ok with all of this
Then you need to leave the US. You'll never be happy in a country that expects you to work.
>>81103477
You can't have pure capitalism with a democracy, since the poor are more in number, so they will eventually vote for a guy that will do some sort of redistribution of wealth, like taxing the rich more, or installing a health care system and so on.
Democracy leads to welfare state, because it is beneficial to most people, and in democracy the majority decides who is in charge.
In the USA in particular strong state propaganda and leftovers from the Cold War have been a big deterrent to this, but its slowly creeping in.
>>81103552
There's no real private ownership outside of anarcho capitalism, though.
There's partial ownership, but that's it.
>>81103479
that is... if people buy them.
Tarriff the cheapest of the 3rd world and the 2nd will come to replace them.. and so on.. untill you have tariffed everyone cheaper than you.
>but will also increase domestic employment
that is in the assumption you get rid of all the good cheaper than made in USA, so that the only choices are made in usa or exepensive goods not made in USA. Before the murrican goods reach cheaper prices the americans in low skill manufacture will be able to afford much less...
>>81102776
if all products are created outside of the US, where does the consumer get his wage from?
>>81103611
>I am ok with all of this
In which case you are an actual communist, and you subscribe to an unfinished and untested alpha version of a political and economic system that every person who looked at decided to abandon in favor of socialism.
>>81103628
>Yes, but all the taxes would go to the government, so they might be able to balance the budget
Are you kidding?
Name one government that didn't just give away that new money for votes, or keep for themselves and their friends. Name just one.
>>81103628
>Yes, but all the taxes would go to the government, so they might be able to balance the budget
but murrigans hate gubment, plus have'nt many issues in the US lately been due to ineffecient gubment?
>>81097473
>>81098820
Well obviously you are doing something wrong or illogical, only a retard could believe in broken system, or could not think of a working system.
Too bad, that most of the humans are retards.
>>81103764
>no real X
Good fallacy m80. Why do you think the rule of law is corrupt in non-ancap societies but sacrosanct in ancap societies?
>>81103765
>that is in the assumption you get rid of all the good cheaper than made in USA
It would be trivially difficult to do that for any given sector. The US, in fact, DID do it for the better part of a century.
>>81103611
Yea, as long as we haven't replaced all the fast food workers in McD, I don't worry about huge job sectors getting completely overtaken by some phony robots. Believe me, corporations invest billions and billions in R&D, but the outcome hasn't been to great yet, so I don't buy into some faggot's apocalyptic fantasy.
>>81103765
And not to mention the conformism and low quality products that are caused by protectionism.
Monopolies cause higher prices and lower quality goods, I don't know how people can understand this yet think that protectionism (which is embracing and encouraging the reduction of competence) is good for economy.
Russians were driving the same Ladas for almost 5 decades.
>>81103765
You're assuming incorrectly that price is the only determining factor in what people buy despite this manifestly not being the case.
>>81103783
there are jobs outside of manufacturing/product creation
on the most basic levels in retail, manufacturing , service, nearly all pay pretty crappily, some have crap pay AND crap working conditions
working as a cashier sucks, but you're still being paid alot more than some poor fuck in india stuck with making clothes in a building that could collapse at any time.
>>81103429
>But the rich getting richer leads to more scientific and cultural advances,
Er... wat?
Government funds "blue sky" research, not the rich.
>The poor of today own more than the poor of 50 years ago, w
No true.
The poor today are worse off than they were in the 1960s. The reason why the poor have more "stuff" is because of cheap credit.
This is why we have soooo much debt.
>>81103703
>In the USA in particular strong state propaganda
There's no such thing here.
Our political 'propaganda' changes with almost every administration. There's no underlying meme here. That's why we're such an unreliable ally, as Europe could tell you.
>>81103929
How is it a fallacy when it's an evidence?
If I have a factory and I have to give the government 50% of what it generates, how is it my property?
>>81104010
The USA houses tens of millions of people who passionately hate socialism without knowing what socialism means. They aren't born that way, they are taught that way.
Propaganda doesn't have to be der fuhrer speaking before a live crowd.
>>81103982
price... is quite a factor in disposable/cheap goods that do not need much skill/technique to manufacture.
>>81103929
that was when the US was a manufacturing powerhouse, mind telling me how were the living conditions and rights of those that did labour jobs during that era? were there pensions, paid leave and company insurance for workplace accidents?
>>81103969
some industries must be protected for national sovereignty, but luxury goods/ interchangable services should not be entirely protected.
>>81103995
Poor people today have phones, tvs, the internet, there are clothes, shoes and food in every dumpster.
This wasn't the case in the past. The poor of today have access to more wealth.
>>81103687
It would be the opposite however, such a system would encourage people to work for free not because of greed and ones desire to obtain wealth but as a public service to the people.
It is the idealistic viewpoint where one imagines people are willing to do things out of a desire to help human kind and not one simply deeply rooted in greed.
>>81103825
>>81103839
I'm not saying gubment is great. But: Tariff money goes, just like taxes, to the government. What they do with it is out of my reach. But since Obongo and Bushy both doubled the debt, the US should look into new ways of getting some dollar.
In the end: All the tariffed products like cigarettes still found some buyers and supply & demand made worked it out.
>>81104132
I most certainly know what socialism is and I still most certainly hate it.
You can do all the mental gymnastics you want but the reality is that most of the retards in this country that want socialism are the ones who don't know what it means. There's a reason most of our liberals are young millennials
>>81103985
cashier is related to the products that were shipped. you need to export services/goods to the third world countries elite to compensate their labour.
>>81104279
that depends on what is tarriffed.. if products are something people willing to pay a higher price for (alcohol, tobacco) then I guess it'll be fine, but I don't know how feasible that is for cheaper goods.
>>81104222
Poor people having more access to things doesn't equate to having more wealth it equates to things being cheaper thanks to technological advances.
We aren't wealthier things are simply getting cheaper.
>>81103969
Tariffs only encourage lower quality goods if the state picks domestic champions as "industry leaders" which is the bullshit that China and Korea (and the Soviets) pull. The US successfully avoided that problem by having pretty hardcore tariffs, but also having zero favoritism among domestic companies.
>>81104073
>I have to pay for upkeep
>How is this property my own?
If you don't blink at paying maintenance costs for a piece of equipment, you oughtn't blink at paying the costs to maintain the legal structures necessary to ensure your property remains yours.
>>81104216
>mind telling me how were the living conditions and rights of those that did labour jobs during that era? were there pensions, paid leave and company insurance for workplace accidents?
They were awful. The implementation of a tariff isn't going to instantly turn the US back into a developing country; it takes decades for that shit to take hold. Probably centuries, in the case of the US.
>>81104222
>Poor people today have phones
Bought with cheap credit
>, tvs,
Bought with cheap credit
>internet
Bought with cheap credit
>there are clothes, shoes and food
Bought with cheap credit
>This wasn't the case in the past
This is because we didn't have a debt based economy in the past.
>he poor of today have access to more wealth.
The poor have access to cheap credit.
>>81104364
that is true, but cashier is still on the side of the service industry, not the production/manufacturing industry no?
>>81103429
There is more to economy than the overall amount of wealth and its distribution among the populace you stupid fucking bulgarian
Even going by your own logic, pure technological advancement is in no way enough to cover and compensate for the relatively smaller portion of wealth poor people have
Your assumption that rich = technological and cultural advancement is also fucking retarded, Abramovich buying himself another football club and 2 more yachts doesn't give shit to the poor, yet so much wealth is transferred to other deluxe companies (read: other rich people) that you could potentially uplift a small african country out of poverty were that money properly invested
Dumbass fucking Bulgarians falling for the capitalism meme
>>81104477
yes, the trends of outsourcing have led to the increase in service sector opposed to manufacturing
>>81104452
what the US should aim to be is an Assembly powerhouse, skill enough people to be better than just manufacturers, where they are capable of sorting and assembling parts for devices/vehicles/items etc etc, at a quality far better than china.
China has the capacity to make good parts (gears, pipes, etc etc), but the world obviously has great concern on their ability/will to make quality items like cars, trains and planes from these parts, the US with its experience could fill in that void.. no?
>>81104455
No you stupid bong. the poor don't use credit because most of them don't even have fucking bank accounts.
The primary users of credit are the middle class, who use it to fund lifestyles that can't afford so they can keep appearances.
All of those things you've listed are actually fucking cheap, no credit needed, and it's why the poor are fucking poor, because they spend every fucking nickel they get instead of saving.
>>81104484
>another football club and 2 more yachts
a football club likely involves a bunch of rich players that spend their money on luxury goods.
luxury good manufacturers likely pay high-skill labourers well, like watch makers.
these people will themselves spend on many more industries, which in turn leads to other people spending in other industries...
this applies the same for the yacht aswell.
Britain has its mail and trains nationalised and most of the failing banks have been scooped up also.
if you want living proof of how socialism is a fail
>>81104327
>i r not st00pid thus ur rong
Okay, but you didn't actually argue me.
There are in fact, most certainly, many americans who hate socialism without knowing what it means.
This is easily proven by asking around. Hating socialism is american culture, and doesn't require knowledge of it.
I'll ask you to not get offended and angry, and instead discuss facts, since I don't reply to people just being mad and throwing insults around.
>>81104452
>If you don't blink at paying maintenance costs for a piece of equipment, you oughtn't blink at paying the costs to maintain the legal structures necessary to ensure your property remains yours.
The subtle difference between being robbed of your property and not being robbed of your property is the voluntariness.
If I willingly give you part of my property, it implies my property was 100% mine to give. If you take it with force from me and you have social acceptance/impossibility of being prosecuted and punished, it implies my property wasn't mine to begin with.
>>81104682
>what the US should aim to be is an Assembly powerhouse
That's what manufacturing is.
>China has the capacity to make good parts (gears, pipes, etc etc), but the world obviously has great concern on their ability/will to make quality items like cars, trains and planes from these parts, the US with its experience could fill in that void.. no?
Why would the US give its experience in making high-value products like airplanes, rockets, and satellites over to China? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the US no longer produces lots of stuff, probably because the US has a negative trade balance with China and the EU, specifically Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
The US isn't even pretending to try to be a country based on exports, and it still places 3rd in the world.
>>81104782
>No you stupid bong. the poor don't use credit because most of them don't even have fucking bank accounts.
Mate... have you ever heard of WONGA?
Most poor people I know are in debt up to their eyeballs, with credit cards, store cards, personal loans, bank over drafts, mortgages, etc, etc...
We live in a debt based global economy.
>>81104413
It really depends on the products. The clothes don't get more expensive. you mostly pay for the brand. I think it brings back competition in general, since the big corporations have enough money, but now have to pay for their imports, while local businesses are now more likely to compete since they don't have too much cost of imports, but they can't lobby. In the end I'm a free trade guy because I have a reliable and useful job, but I can see that tariffs enforce more competition between countries and not such a huge monopoly. Because if the Chinese economy crashes, everybody's fucked. And if the dollar crashes, the U.S. is fucked. Having manufacturing in your country can really save your ass from getting dragged down too far by the rest of the world and you can get out of it easier.
>>81099520
>Ruskie
>A fucking crest
>>81104951
Your property is considered yours because of the legal fictions created by the state. Ancap societies would have zero property except what one can personally defend, since there is no state to back up the legal fictions of property by force.
Anarchy is hot garbage, and we can tell this because states operate in anarchy, and everything fucking sucks on the international level.
>>81099520
>ruskie
>>81098754
>Every generation controls more wealth
Millenials are the first generation that is worse off than their parents, you dumb cunt
>>81104884
I didn't even insult you, I merely told you that the assumption that most american's don't what socialism is is wrong and it's true, while it's primary advocates in America don't.
To say that you're right because you think you are when you don't even fucking live in my country doesn't help your case and you bitchfit over a perceived insult also didn't help.
Now, I actually will insult you. Eat a fucking dick faggot
>>81104782
the products can be cheap aswell
>phones
nokia, 20-40 dollars here
>tv
now mostly 100-20 dollars here
>internet
cheap ISPs provide enough for website browsing: public wifi is available for other needs
>clothes , shoes and food
non-big brand clothes and shoes are cheap, food can also be cheap aswell if you know where to buy
>this wasnt the case in the past
that was so because in the past companies could not expand into other nations and take advantage of the plusses of said nations.
>the poor have more access debt
credit cards arn't doled out to every man woman and child like pre 2008 lad.
>>81104973
no... I'm saying parts, not everything, and i mean for cheap products like washing machines.
I'm saying have china produce low-level parts, and bring the parts for assembly inside the United states, with that there isn't a need for exporting experience of making high value products into china anyway.
when you teach china how make 747 rudders is this the same as telling them how to make an entire godamn 747?
>>81105030
that is if they will bite the bullet and become competitive...
>>81104985
>Most poor people I know are in debt up to their eyeballs, with credit cards, store cards, personal loans, bank over drafts, mortgages, etc, etc...
did you ever ask if it was those bad loans that made them poor?
>>81104452
>Tariffs only encourage lower quality goods if the state picks domestic champions as "industry leaders" which is the bullshit that China and Korea (and the Soviets) pull. The US successfully avoided that problem by having pretty hardcore tariffs, but also having zero favoritism among domestic companies.
It's a slower decline, than the very obvious cases, but it is a decline. The US avoided that problem because in comparison, other countries were less exposed to markets than them due to sheer size of a common free market, but as the world is getting more and more globalized we're seeing how countries that are opening to global commerce are growing faster than others.
In the country of the blind the one eyed man is king, but we're getting to a scenario where more and more people are starting to grow one eye.
>>81104782
Dude, the only reasons these things are cheaply available is because of cheap credit available for people to get them, keeping the prices low because of both secondary / used markets, and competition.
CHEAP. CREDIT. IS. WHY. POOR. PEOPLE. CAN. HAVE. ALL. THIS. BULLSHIT. EVEN. IF. THEY. DIDN'T. USE. CREDIT. TO. GET. IT.
I have very little money to spare but I can afford some shit, paid cash, that is 'luxury'. Basically a computer and an old smartphone and a low grade phone plan. I can ONLY AFFORD THESE because of all the other people with cheap credit driving the price down.
And the prices being driven down from the credit spiral means all this shit is made overseas, the american workers get fucked, the economy gets fucked, etc.
It's not trickle down credit availability it's like.. trickle down mercury acid, and the cups are the economy and our futures, and they are made out of aluminum
>>81105307
>credit cards arn't doled out to every man woman and child like pre 2008 lad.
Credit is now cheaper than it was before the 2007/8 international financial crisis.
Personal debt is a record levels.
>that is if they will bite the bullet and become competitive...
Why bother with a race to the bottom? If you impoverish your workers in an attempt to compete with Chinese workers, you are killing your own consumer base. Remember - your workers are also your consumers.
If you can't compete, specialize. Develop new comparative advantages. This takes Government investment.
>>81105136
You're moving the goalpost trying to imply that I'm an anarcho capitalist, which I am not.
The matter of the initial fact of our debate is that if you have to pay 5% in taxes, you own 95% of your production, if you have to pay 50% in taxes, you own 50% of your production, and thus real, pure private property only exists in anarcho capitalism, and you haven't been able to prove me wrong.
>>81104985
US arent aware of class structure, hes talking about the underclass.
lower class (aka working class) = low payed unskilled workers.
be careful with the amerifags
>>81104832
Tell me, how many middle-class high-skilled laborers spend money on things made by unskilled labor?
No sensible person would let a dumbfuck indonesian shitskin fix his plumbing, make him a shitty car, or buy an indonesian bootleg iphone made of cardboard and a kids toy phone stolen from china
Middle-class high-skilled laborers working for those luxury good manufacturers have enough money to consider themselves above all the shitty products your country makes, while poor people have no such luxury and are forced to buy subpar indonesian products because they don't have money to buy quality product that won't break in 2 weeks and force them to buy another
The only way to get out of the capitalist meme is to educate oneself and gain marketable skills, which isn't even possible for the majority of poor people cause it costs gorilla money in pure capitalist societies to get a proper education, and none of the countries with socialised education have the money to accept ten trillion Indonesian black muslim fucknuggets into the system
>>81102332
I Only need to point at "trade deals" like TTP, TTIP, TiSA, CETA and NAFTA. They're being lobbied heavily by oil industry, automotive industry and US Agriculture industry. These deals will provide these multinationals with powers to sue governments in their private corporate tribunals if it does anything that might negatively affect their profits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9inPBS98cs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0LOwmwgkdA
Patenst and copyrights
http://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-domain/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents
http://www.msfaccess.org/content/impact-patents-access-medicines
https://www.exposingtruth.com/new-un-report-finds-almost-no-industry-profitable-if-environmental-costs-were-included/
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/water-managementprivatizationworldbankgroupifc.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/monsanto-and-its-promoter_b_8235936.html
You'd literally have to be blind not to see this shit.
>>81105582
>Why bother with a race to the bottom? If you impoverish your workers in an attempt to compete with Chinese workers, you are killing your own consumer base. Remember - your workers are also your consumers.
If you can't compete, specialize. Develop new comparative advantages. This takes Government investment.
this is what I agree on, but you understand that brexit was argued in favour of making the UK compete that impoverishing manner right? since many believed it would revive britain's manufacturing might.
>>81105582
sure you could run into debt if you bought all the latest high tech goods, but many high tech goods from the pre 2010 period are incredibly cheap now.
>>81099520
>ruskie
Come on man.
>>81105605
> hes talking about the underclass
The "precariate"?
Well, in the UK the scum can get credit too.
>>81105307
The US would do that, except China pegs the Renminbi to the dollar at "arbitrary" (read: designed to bring foreign investment dollars into the country) levels. That said, I don't give a shit that the Chinese are keeping their currency devalued, since it's only hurting themselves in the long run, and actually it's getting close to the short run. Every time undervalued Renminbi is traded for American dollars, it's the People's Back of China which is getting fucked, not that Chinkland understands that.
>>81105446
>It's a slower decline, than the very obvious cases, but it is a decline. The US avoided that problem because in comparison, other countries were less exposed to markets than them due to sheer size of a common free market, but as the world is getting more and more globalized we're seeing how countries that are opening to global commerce are growing faster than others.
Arithmetic necessity is going to close the door on globalism, or at least globalism as defended by the US. One of the big problems when it comes to being a globalist is that you pay through the nose for every country that free-rides on the global economy. In the post-2008 world, the free-riders are China and Germany and Japan, which are the second, third, and fourth largest economies in the world, respectively. Now, the US probably could afford to maintain the current system, but it's becoming politically toxic to do so. Even multiculturalists are rallying against globalism, which is hella funny.
>>81105644
Im kinda sure basic stuffs like disposables ( pencils, toilet paper and A4 bulk paper ) are things middle class labourers spend their money on.
>>81104985
It seems like people are conflating several issues.
Even if people are living in poverty (lack of economic agency) the vast majority of those (in developed countries) have a far greater standard of living than even the wealthiest people of the entire history of human civilization that existed prior to the turn of the century.
There are different kinds of debt. Someone who mortgages his home to buy a rental property has a large amount of debt, but that doesn't make him poor.
>>81105806
> but you understand that brexit was argued in favour of making the UK compete that impoverishing manner right?
Yes, I understand this... BUT, apparently, many of by Brexit voting fellow countrymen do not.
The working men who voted for Brexit are like turkeys who just voted for Christmas.
>>81098820
>THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO CAPITALISM IS COMMUNISM
End yourself and your line.
>>81105922
they are reaching the point where they either develop homegrown companies that can surrvive and expand outwards or remain in 3rd world status of being exploited for cheap labour
Guess we'll gave to wait/
>>81106025
>The working men who voted for Brexit are like turkeys who just voted for Christmas.
literally this, like, they enjoyed great rights under EUs workers programme, now they want to leave cause "fug da eu :DDD"?
if anything this will initiate even more sink or swim, the workers that adapt will survive, those that won't will be the next problems in your country.
>>81099860
American productivity has gone up, but wages are stagnant. Strengthen the middle class, give the people more spending power and they will spend their money.
>>81105997
> far greater standard of living than even the wealthiest people of the entire history of human civilization that existed prior to the turn of the century.
This simply isn't true.
The poor in Medival England were better off, in terms of per capita income, than the poorest in today's Capitalist countries.
The poor are actually getting poorer.
far greater standard of living than even the wealthiest people of the entire history of human civilization that existed prior to the turn of the century.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/medieval_england_twice/
>>81097951
>But trickle upwards economics where you give more money to the lower class also doesn't work.
you're kidding right? pov cunts spend like 99% of their income each week.
>>81105968
Of which none are even made by humans anymore, the only labor employed in factories making all of these is the sole educated person watching all the automated equipment churning it out at insane rates and playing Counter Strike until one machine breaks and he has to fix it, which requires getting a proper education, back to square one
There's a reason prostitution and street crime are rampant in poor countries and even poorer areas of rich countries (read: black ghettos in america), that shit requires no skill
>>81097473
It doesn't fucking exist nor do any economists promote "Trickle-down Economics." Them liberal pundit shepherds got you herded good.
>Aussie flag
whelp baited me again.
>>81106141
>he thinks they're gonna make it
Your optimism is refreshing. I don't think China even knows how fucked China is.
>>81105922
>Arithmetic necessity is going to close the door on globalism, or at least globalism as defended by the US. One of the big problems when it comes to being a globalist is that you pay through the nose for every country that free-rides on the global economy. In the post-2008 world, the free-riders are China and Germany and Japan, which are the second, third, and fourth largest economies in the world, respectively. Now, the US probably could afford to maintain the current system, but it's becoming politically toxic to do so. Even multiculturalists are rallying against globalism, which is hella funny.
We'll see. My bet is that the countries that lock themselves from open commerce are going to fade into irrelevance while other economies emerge into well-being and produce envy.
It's not going to be an overnight process and, if all the big powers do it at the same time, you might not see any effect, but it will eventually happen, and talent will slowly but steadily move towards those countries where prospering is easier.
Just because you're better than the rest doesn't necessarily mean you're doing things right, it might just as well mean that others are doing things terribly wrong. But what happens when others stop doing things terribly wrong? Well, there's where comparisons start taking place.
https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history
Check there, how long before the EU becomes totally irrelevant, thanks to its very protectionist anti-market laws?
>>81106342
>The poor in Medival England were better off, in terms of per capita income, than the poorest in today's Capitalist countries.
>The poor in england are comparable to the poor in shithole nations that might actually be worse than medieval england in some cases
>and these crappy nations have made little to no effort in making themselves attractive to capital
>>81106479
>thinks they're gonna make it
>Your optimism is refreshing. I don't think China even knows how fucked China
huawei is kinda of a thing
plus many of their students that study oversea and even inside china understand what china is going through, it is simple a race against time, will china or its old-faggots die first? if the latter, china should live
>>81103885
What the fuck is that picture supposed to mean? People who have low self esteem are ultimately unconscious?
>>81106723
If only you knew how bad things really were.
>>81106581
The poor were better looked after in Feudal times because the poor were vital for production. They were regarded in the same terms as cattle, they were valuable to land owners.
Even more so after the Black Death decimated the population. The "poor" in post plague England were very well off in material terms.
>>81106342
>in terms of per capita income
What does all of the gold in the world matter when it can't buy you air conditioning, refridgeration, or life saving medication? In some facets, we''re on par with kings being able to clap for the Netflix court jester to entertain us, or eat veritable feasts at the all you can eat buffet.
Trickle Down is viable in a vacuum, but not viable in a market as heavily regulated and unfair as ours. Barriers to entry in the United States produce effective monopolies and oligarchies that can govern prices somewhat freely and operate with the consent of our good old gubbermint
>>81107012
it is unfair to compare medieval england to crappy countries that untill recently, have not changed much before foreign intervention
medieval england is likely better than modern day zimbabwe, to give you an example.
>>81106342
>le poor people nowadays live better than kings a thousand years ago
>comparing present-day poor with rich people hundreds of years ago
>not comparing the relation between poor and rich at any given time
my sides
>>81108033
A view such as this leads to the conclusion that wealth inequality is inherently evil, knstead of the necessary engine that drives productivity.
>>81102486
Yeah. Why you own more, than 15000000 bottom chinese?
>>81108737
this desu
poor now can do 100x more than what they could have done in the past, but this effect has also been applied to the rich.
Internet also allows for more social mobility.
>>81108737
No it doesn't. You seem to assume that if someone points at wealth inequality the conclusion must follow that it's bad, but you could just point at it and say "I'm ok with it tho". I think your subconscious just betrayed you.
>>81097473
They bought a bigger glass. You didn't.
Ask if you can have a sip of wine, swish it around until you find a sap willing to pay more than you did, move from there. Fucking oz shitposting right cunt time to take ya out back and dilly your fucking block
>>81108955
>You seem to assume that if someone points at wealth inequality the conclusion must follow that it's bad
This opinion is on the same level as people thinking 9gag is the original: widespread and wrong
so yes, he is correct in assuming that.
>>81108737
also
>necessary engine that drives productivity
bitch the USSR did their fair share of driving productivity, even if less so than the western block. I'm not defending it, but you can't say they stayed still for 70 years. If they did, there wouldn't have been mutually assured destruction preventing the US from invading the soviets. There's no basis in saying that inequality drives productivity.
>>81108955
But it is ok you fucking moor. No one cares about poor people. Keep the ladyboys in the bed and the beer on the table what more could a man want?>>81108991
>>81109071
>he's right tho
not an argument.
>>81109191
>ad hominem
not an argument.
also A FUCKING LEAF
>>81108955
>My subconscious betrayed the fact that 99% of the time that someone points at wealth inequality, it's to say that inequality must be eliminated
Maybe you should explain a bit more instead of simply pointing.
>>81108955
If the way to prevent inequality is halting the progress, or compromising future generations wealth, then inequality is good.
>>81109396
Wealth inequality doesn't need to be eliminated, it needs to be reduced. A lot.
>>81108737
Man it's so hard to tell if someone is stupid or trolling.I give up
>>81109150
Well, I suppose throwing someone in the gulag can also motivate the workers to show up.
You're also very silly to say the USSR had no inequality.
>>81109289
N O O N E C A R E S A B O U T P O O R P E O P L E
>>81109523
Decoupling wall street from capital hill would be better than just mindless wealth redistribution. Much of the "wealth" of the 1% are corporate holdings that generate wealth for everyone.
>>81104455
All money is debt it has no inherent value and you can't eat gold.
>>81110314
Oh, mindless wealth distribution would be awful. It wouldn't work anyway, because with the same system in place it would just flow straight back up.
>>81110368
Cheap credit available to the plebs is a relatively new phenomenon.
According to the law of the vital few, the allocation of resources in the hands of the non productive halts the progress of societies, while the allocation of resources in the hands of the productive advances them.
If you have a tree and are an experienced gardener, and this tree grows apples, sharing the first batch of apples between the population of the village, when 99% of them will just eat and throw away the seed, will generate a worse situation than if they let you keep all your apples, because you would eventually have so many apples that you would need someone to pick the leaves, yes, the inequality between the guys picking leaves and the apple tree owner would be huge, but the truth is that in the alternate reality where they forced you to give your apples away, you'd all be more poor, equal, but poor.
Therefore, we can conclude that fighting inequality generates issues in the future, which are not perceived because it's impossible to compare alternate realities and can only be somewhat perceived by comparison with countries that took a different approach towards inequality, but this comparison fails to take hold because ignorant people don't understand the formula of success.
Basically, helping the poor today may cause that in 20 years there will be more poor than there would have been if we didn't help the poor today. Inequality is good.
>>81110368
>All money is debt
Money is deb the issuer owes YOU. Money =/= debt-based economy.
>>81106951
fucking JUST
It would work if you didn't have foreign tax havens and loop holes so big your momma could fit through them.
>>81110698
There's nothing wrong with *some* wealth inequality, it's always going to exist to a greater or lesser extent. The problem is that currently there is
A) Too much of it.
and
B) The system that creates the inequality in the first place is destroying society.
>>81110698
true,
a 1000 millionaires will do more with their money in investment than a million with 1,000 cash
>>81098562
That's quite an argument there, professor.
>>81110973
>The system that creates the inequality in the first place is destroying society.
A system that pays a doctor the same as it does a stockboy would likewise destroy society. Also, the whole system isn't broke, just some of the parts.
>>81101489
North Korea : Not Pictured
>control+f
>Venture capitalism
>fucking nothing
/pol/ you fucking retards
>>81101489
????because they aren't in cages??? This is Hong kong separate set of laws from the shitty rest of china. In Hong Kong, you become what you make of yourself. Everywhere else in china, the COMMUNIST part, you die of malnurishment and polution. Same thing that happens in EVERY communist country ever. Get rekt faggot.
>>81097473
Some one jad a wounder full pic of this showing how it realy is.
Cracks in the lower glasses waisting money on rims alcohol drugs and other shit with a tube conected to the bottel.
The circel of money and stupidety.
>>81106951
For comparison this is what that graph should look like.
>>81111663
Hong Kong is alright
>>81112826
well sure... so as long as you don't minde speaking spanish in the future
>>81111585
googled it. too long to read. provide 1 sentence summary or kill yaself bitch :^D
>>81097473
The problem is that with a global economy, you can just fuck off with the money rather than investing it in businesses.
>>81113035
>>81106951
Here is Australia's for further reference. Even Great Britian and Russia have similar shapes. Though Russia's has more "waves" on theirs due to massive losses incurred in WWII.
>>81102797
Debt is the cancer that kills. If you don't have debt then you can watch your money grow. That is why rich people prioritize getting rid of their debt ASAP. It is literally money management 101.
>>81101445
you're making yourself dependend and useless.
>but muh votes!!1
you have no negotiating power. you just want the most regardless of anything
