Is capitalism fucked?
>>964054
Not if you're on the right side of the chart
I'm gonna need some real numbers instead of a meme chart.
What is the average income of the 70%-90% groups?
What are the most common jobs, education levels, race, and family background of those groups? Same for the middle class
What percentage of the poor groups are generational welfare niggers and trailer trash that got C grades in high school?
Wealth redistribution is a meme. Any politician that promises it or anything like it is just appealing to a retarded voter block that don't even work.
>>964054
More like Human inequality.
People are different, some are leaders and some are losers.
Wealth inequality will always exist, if you created Communism now the Members of the Communist party would be rich compared to the rest.
>>964071
As a capitalist system gets older those and the rich become richer and richer, just passing there wealth onto their children and so on and so forth.
Is every capitalist system doomed to have a small ultra-wealthy population overlooking slums from their penthouses if it goes on for long enough?
>>964054
Nope! Representative democracy is a great way of preventing/mitigating violent revolution. To change the fabric of a nation's economic system in 2015 would require violent revolution.
>>964076
Probably, but eventually the inequality would lead to a sort of economic culling, in which the entire system destabilizes and the economy resets after a massive depression
>>964076
>As a capitalist system gets older those and the rich become richer and richer, just passing there wealth onto their children and so on and so forth.
Children of wealthy parents usually don't know how to work hard or value money so they almost always tend to drain their parents' once large coffers.
It's a non-problem really, the ones who deserve wealth keep it and the ones who don't, lose it quite quickly.
It can be compared to Millionaire Lottery winners. Sure they won the jackpot of $26-million, but in a few years time they will be just as poor as they were because they didn't deserve it, the natural laws of the universe.
>>964054
Capitalism waxes and wanes between being great and being fucked. When the money is flowing in all directions its good. When there is a hiccup in a major industry the top 10% clams up with their money and the bottom and middle get fucked.
Call me a hippy liberal, but I think when shit gets bad (like it has been for 8 years now) the top should help out the society. But they refuse and cite the whole, "I deserve it" argument.
Well the society you live in provides you all that you need and has accepted your financial leadership, you should accept the burden of helping when shit gets fucky.
But more than anything else, pay inequity has gotten way out of hand. As a country advances, so to should the income available to the working class. Wages for the top 10% have risen some 250% in the last 20 years, while wages for the bottom 50% have risen like 50%.
>>964071
So lets return to the feudal system then?
Humanity has fought and evolved past, "well some people will win, and others will lose"
many many revolutions have taught us this.
>>964117
>Humanity has fought and evolved past, "well some people will win, and others will lose"
You can't evolve past it though. It's just how the world is.
Some people will always be a lot richer because they're smarter, more creative, hell even just more lucky than others.
There is simply no way to implement them to "share". If you make taxes uncomfortable they'll leave the country taking the jobs and their wealth with them. Or they'll just find ways to avoid it.
>>964116
>Wages for the top 10% have risen some 250% in the last 20 years
The richest people don't get wages because they own companies and assets.
>>964081
That's simply not true. The wealthy families hire instructors and advisors for their children so they know not to fuck around. Plenty of families do this and they'll continue to get disproportionately richer.
Do they deserve it? Yes. Will it fuck the system? Yes.
>>964143
>The wealthy families hire instructors and advisors for their children so they know not to fuck around.
No they don't. I've never even heard of such a thing.
just implement inheritance tax better, scrap trust fund loopholes etc... and make things more meritocratic...
I'm all for people being able to create wealth - if someone comes up with a rapidly growing business then why not have them become massively richer than the average pleb
there is no reason why people can't earn hundreds or thousands of times more than others
there is an issue though with unearned wealth - simply passing down dynastic wealth through generations without it being taxed is dubious and leads to a separate upper class... the sort of thing countries like the US were trying to get away from when they were founded
>>964143
>The wealthy families hire instructors and advisors for their children so they know not to fuck around. Plenty of families do this and they'll continue to get disproportionately richer
No they don't. Wealthy children are spoiled because they never earned the money and just remember seeing $5 000 gifts every holiday and expensive restaurants as a child.
They end up filling their lives with useless shit and blowing their money trying to impress others, and most importantly themselves.
It is HIGHLY unusual for children of wealthy people to increase their overall networth, it usually just decreases whether quickly or somewhat slowly.
>>964165
>thinks one exception makes the rule
Sure is stupid in here.
>>964116
Don't do this, it makes mustard gas.
>>964207
>No they don't
statement of absoluteness
>I've never even heard of such a thing.
statement of ignorance
clean that egg off your face. i do wonder how some people on 4chan can live IRL. no sense of humility. willful ignorance. overconfidence. truly pathetic. i would feel sorry for you but you seem too high on your horse. at some point you'll come tumbling down.
calm down kid. you're anonymous. losing an internet arguement isn't a big deal. stay arrogant.
>>964214
This isn't your occupy wallstreet meet kiddo.
>>964078
That's the risk. Nation-states which allow for too high an inequality do so at the risk of revolution. At this point the US has a wealth disparity that's greater than the Russian Empire did just before the Bolshevik revolution. The ultra-wealthy are just as flashy as the Romanov's were, if not more so.
The differences are in the government. You're right, "representative democracy" gives your average Joe Poorman to imagine he's part of the ruling class. That, plus the fact that our poor are better off than the Russian poor were in 1919 are the only things keeping open revolt from happening.
Should something happen, a crash that's big enough to wipe out the lower and lower-middle classes wealth (I don't mean like the 2008 recession, I mean a full on crash like we saw in 1929,) put out a few breadlines and have some folks die from literal starvation and you will have open revolt. The US is a violent enough society (it's how we came up on top, root, hog or die,) that 250 million Joe Poormans destroying all the "rich" because they're tired of seeing their kids starve.
>>964218
what makes you think my post has anything to do with occupy wallstreet. it's a fact the rich want to maintain and grow their wealth. who doesn't. only fools. my opinion on the matter is neutral. i understand their stance. it would be my stance if i was rich too. and i want to be rich. so these petty insults and redirections have little to with the arguement at hand. i can't even tell who's actually stupid and who's trolling anymore.
>>964224
>i can't even tell who's actually stupid and who's trolling anymore.
Look in the mirror, fag.
Do a few rich people teach their kids financial basics? Sure. So do a few middle-class and even struggling parents. It happens.
But don't come in here pretending there's some big cadre of rich-people tudors and financial coaches, and that the wealthy have suddenly discovered the benefits of passing their knowledge to their children. They haven't. The wealthy are just as bad about teaching their kids about money as everyone else. Worse, maybe.
Maybe if you stop spazzing out and treating 4chan like a competitive sport you'd learn something. Worse case, you won't be such a schmuck.
>>964222
America weathered the Great Depression. An economic collapse of larger scale than that would mean global anarchy. You really think that the federal government, with its terrifying defense apparatus, would allow dissent at home when the geopolitical climate would be at its hottest in decades?
>>964054
Wealth is not money.
>>964054
Communism is the only answer, but only if it is not a dictatorship.
>>964673
then who is going to redistribute the wealth? (kill and plunder)
Become elite on the best form of money humanity has ever seen before it goes 6 figures. You can still be 1 in a million by owning 21 BTC. You can do this, or keep coping.
>replace social security with straight welfare pensions and roll the associated taxes into the regular income tax instead of using payroll taxes
>replace the corporate income tax with treating long-term cap gains and dividend income as regular income above a certain threshold, maybe add a VAT
>socialize the health care system completely or get rid of Medicare/Medicaid
>stop importing cheap labor so businesses have to raise their wages instead of hiring spics for pennies on the dollar
>make it illegal for colleges and universities to use government money on worthless degree programs like 'Afro-Indonesian Studies' or whatever garbage retarded liberal kids get and then regret
There. I fixed America.
>>964807
>babbies first BTC
I already own more than 21 BTC. Get on my level newbie investor.
>>964116
>But they refuse and cite the whole, "I deserve it" argument.
Deserve because they earned it. How much of your salary goes to losers / bums? I pull 150k a year before taxes but uncle sugar takes about 50 thousand of it. 1/3rd of that 50 thousand goes to social welfare.
>>964829
You'll panic sell on the next bubble then kill yourself in 10 years where i'll still be holding all of my stack. Average /biz/tard fate.
>>964892
>1/3rd of that 50 thousand goes to social welfare.
Oh really? None of it goes to the military? none of it goes to your own social security? None goes to medicare? It all goes directly to TANF, Food Stamps, etc?
Crazy stuff, man.
>>964898
Nobody tell him.
>>964675
Why would you need a dictator to do that as opposed to other forms of government?
>>964054
It's really shitty, but it's also the least shitty system.
Capitalism "works" in a social justice sense in Northern Europe.
Capitalism also "works" in a laissez-faire way in America and a few other countries.
Pick your poison. Just looking at median wealth around the world, America's system is about as good as the social democracy system. The one difference is that you can get filthy rich in the USA as well, which explains our higher GDP per capita.
>>964143
"Deserve" is such a strange word. Let's not delude ourselves, its luck.
>>964054
Not capitalism per se. Neoliberalism since the 1970s has created these extremes in wealth disparity. Capitalism before that was more balanced and wealth inequality was nowhere near as bad.
>>964356
Most underrated answer in the thread
The wealthy are going to have to just start writing checks for low income people so they can consume and survive. We simply don't need as many workers anymore, and we're not in a time where a single income can support a family.
>>964905
>Still believes that governments doesn't use coercive force to fulfill it's promises
Sir, What will happen in your utopia if I worked harder then gained capital, made a business and then became super rich? should I be penalized? should the government make it harder for others like me to spring up and provide competition essentially giving me a monopoly? A government can only do is restrict the market to create the effects it wants, but by doing so damages others in other fields
>>964892
The people who make your very life possible make small amounts of money
What ends up mattering is not so much the distribution of wealth as the ability to rise and fall between classes. This rate of change is higher than ever. This ultimately makes the distribution close to meaningless by itself.
>>964071
There is no currency in a true communist system, there is no monetized wealth. Plus, true communist is anarchic in nature, no true leaders can emerge, everything is democratic.
>>965408
>gaining capital
>competition
>in a true communist system
u wot m8
>>964898
A stack of 1BTC? You poor fucking pleb. Learn how to Bitcoin.
>>964054
Unregulated capitalism is always fucked. People talk about the free market being the best way to for economies to run, but time and again it's been proven wrong. All you need to do it look at the last 30 years and you can see that.
A well regulated market, much like a well regulated militia, is the only way to keep things from going to hell and requiring public intervention.
>>965484
>last 30 years
>unregulated
>>964165
To crease networth, you have to benefit society, they would be helping fund businesses and what not, bettering everyones life anyway, what's your problem with that? That means cheaper things for the poor.
>>965578
create*
>>965484
The last 30 years have been regulated as fuck, read things before you speak. Bailouts are part of regulation and they're what's killing the free market. Those fuckers should fail because they suck at what they do, and somebody who is good at it should fill the void. Instead we keep the same retards and our taxes pay for their fuckups.
>>964150
You could say the same about welfare kids who grew up in a one-parent household, living off food stamps and engaging in petty crime for profit and entertainment. Obviously they're fucked by their upbringing and can't handle the concept of holding down a job or owning cash responsibly. I guess we should wall off their ghettos, or maybe just euthanise them all. Voila, the wealth gap just narrowed.
>>965463
A stack of 21, aka 1 million club, aka rich as fuck in 10 to 15 years. Stay fucking mad.
>The poor still have a pretty decent standard of living in capitalist countries
>But lets just go communism where the poor always starve so the rich dont have as much
We have no better system than capitalism.
>>964081
If the lotto would be so kind as to give me $26,000,000 I would be so bold as to prove your example wrong.
>>965768
Isn't 21 bitcoins only like five grand right now?
I have thought about getting a job just to buy BTC though to be honest.
>>964951
Amen
>>964673
I would agree, but the problem with communism would be that there is no incentive to work. If a burger flipper at McDonald's were to make as much as a doctor, no one would want to become a doctor.
>>964054
Pareto distribution
all is well
>>965812
Are you kidding burger flipping sucks a huge dick. If communism pays for your education and you get to be a fucking doctor why on earth would you spend your days in front of a greasy solar flare with customers yelling at you?
>>964054
>economic system based on rewarding risk and self sacrifice
>essentially a doctrine of economic heroism
>surprised to see that only a small portion of the world is heroic
>a large portion are cowards
>like it's been forever
>>964230
Oh cool, wealth equality finally happened because the rich families lose their money in a generation or two.
Good job everyone anon says we can go home.
>>965834
Burger flipping is an example. You could do any other minimum wage job where you do hardly anything instead of being someone who works a lot more to make their money. Why be CEO of a company when you could work as a janitor, or any other minimum wage job that doesn't require near as much work as being a CEO?
i fail to see why inequality is supposed to be bad.
it seems like a perfectly normal result of life, and is observable on every level.
i look at the people i went to school with and where they are now.
some went to university and graduated with good degrees, they make bank.
some got useless degrees, they're getting by.
some dropped out and went NEET, they're miserable.
some went for the party and drug life. they're mostly wrecks now and dont have a penny to their name.
i fail to see the problem. you get what you deserve, you deserve what you earn.
>>965834
>power through 10+ years of soul crushing medical education
>have to do really nasty shit to old fat people on a daily basis
>bear the burden of responsibility for your patients' life and well-being... every single day
versus
>no education or qualification necessary
>just do what your boss tells you to do
>no responsibility, barely requires any concentration or skill
flipping burgers is a LOT more comfortable than practicing medicine, anon.
SOCIALISTS GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>966062
Do you really think janitor positions are so favorable? This is backwards; I'd see it as everyone would try to become a doctor/lawyer/chemist/CEO/FBI agent because the education is free and the pay is the same, so they can do whatever they enjoy doing or whatever looks the most impressive.
Who the fuck would be a janitor when they could be whatever they want? You have weird fantasies.
>>964054
The "graph" is not the distribution of wealth, it's the distribution of hard work, commitement, blood, sweat and tears. Wealth is a side effect of that.
>>964222
Thankfully, economics is not a zero-sum game
Wealth inequality is only an issue in nations where the poor are starving. In the U.S., even those in "poverty" own cars, computers, video games, iPhones, etc. The only real challenge they face are unsafe neighborhoods, which are mostly due to the amount of red tape we wrap around the cops these days.
>>964054
Subsidies is not capitalism.
What is with this meme where people blame the market for the problems government creates?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/17/the-united-states-of-subsidies-the-biggest-corporate-winners-in-each-state/
>>965851
>2015
>implying that "wealth equality" -- whatever the fuck that means -- is possible, let alone desireable
Expect the system to start breaking apart under its own weight over the next 10-20 years unless there's a serious change in trajectory. The increasing financial stress on the public is starting to leave its mark on the economy as consumer spending drops off.
>>966568
Because those subsidies were pushed by the businesses which benefit from them. A free market doesn't mean a game with no rules: it means making sure everyone plays fairly so as to maximize competition and innovation.
Examples of laissez faire business practices going against the principles of a free market include
-monopolies
-regulatory capture
-price/ wage fixing
-advertising (a form of market distortion)
>>965812
That's why we have state capitalism. The government owns corporation; the employees of such are still paid the wage that the market dictates their labour is worth. Yet there a no no-feudal capitalists profiting from their surplus values.
>>966643
so it looks like the solution is to get rid of the government
also
>advertising goes against the principles of a free market
maybe in your idealized "free" market
>>966663
>we have a problem with the players bending the rules
>let's just throw out all the rules!
randfag pls
>>964054
Income inequality is a vital component of healthy capitalism, increased inequality increases efficiency which increases the purchasing power of the median income bracket. From a perspective of one interested in the sustainability of both America's median standard of living and competitiveness in international trade the distribution of wealth should actually be significantly higher with over 95% of the population counting as middle class with incomes for professional experts only being a few multiples of the lowest income brackets and only 1% of the top 1%'s income being more than a few dozen times that of the median income.
As for wealth distribution - it exists despite capitalism as it's integral to most societies.
It's not capitalism that's fucked, it's society. Furthermore you've inspired my conviction that capitalism is a net benefactor for society.
>>964054
Capitalism is not a zero sum game. Stop being retarded, OP
>>966998
>increased inequality increases efficiency which increases the purchasing power of the median income bracket
Except that's completely wrong. Meanwhile in the real world, gains in efficiency are going towards corporate cash reserves and stock buybacks rather than lower prices. Prices are still rising with inflation while incomes don't keep up, which is beginning to crush consumer demand and hurt the broader economy.
There is no reason whatsoever for a rational business actor to pass on efficiency gains as lower prices if they can keep the gains as increased profit instead.
>>967002
Nor is it a purely wealth generating game either: it's a mixture of the two. Please stop spouting memes.
>>964146
>there is an issue though with unearned wealth - simply passing down dynastic wealth through generations without it being taxed is dubious and leads to a separate upper class... the sort of thing countries like the US were trying to get away from when they were founded
the most powerful countries were founded on class, the most powerful countries have class and class creates prestige which increases a countries prominence when it comes to international trade. many working class folk support dynasties because it provides support or insulation in tough times and benefits in easy times. in capitalism income inequality and dynastic sized inheritances are doubly beneficial because the money saved is not spent thus increasing the value of everyone elses money by being out of circulation. savings is good too, forcing inflation was a means to an end that has been reached and is unsustainable. the other course of maintaining inflation after its' functionality is authoritarian monarchy or despotism which is funny because it's the opposite of what liberals promote - thinking that liberalism amidst a keynesian system with a high defecit and inflation will create socialism is incorrect over the course of centuries, or even decades.
and this is why you're all getting fucked by politicians despite your coveted democracy and liberalism.
>>967006
Your understanding of basic economic theory is so flawed that I'm not sure it can be fixed. You need serious help.
>>967004
This is a problem that stems from a clash in society and competing authoritarian structures which stifle progress, this problem does not stem from income inequality or capitalism. If you don't own a company what gives you the right to alter its' operation, even if the result is increased efficiency? If the owner of a company isn't present to make decisions to alter its' operations making an attempt to alter it without permission is basically theft which is why socialists using the guise of having the moral high ground face resistance. If you don't own enough stock to change a company in a way you think is an improvement then legally you have no right to. And there are reasons to pass on efficiency - for security. Many good business models fail because they lack security, their sustainability is subject to external factors. This is why Fortune 500 companies have such an dominating degree of success even though it could be replaced by more efficient business models and this is why people invest in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and not some dweebs crummy but efficient business venture.
>>967008
>This is a problem that stems from a clash in society and competing authoritarian structures which stifle progress, this problem does not stem from income inequality or capitalism. If you don't own a company what gives you the right to alter its' operation, even if the result is increased efficiency?
What the hell does the government have to do with this? The efficiency increase is from increased worker productivity and decreased labor costs. That's something which is happening organically across the business world, and it's resulting in what people are describing as income inequality.
It would be absolutely fine for them to continue what they're doing if they reinvested their extra profits back into their business instead of hoarding cash or gambling money away on the financial markets, but they refuse to reinvest. Now it's hurting the economy.
no but you sure as fuck are! ;)
>>964076
That's not always true. Many rich create charitable trusts to provide infinite wealth to good causes.
>>967005
people only make decisions they think benefit them under capitalism
>fraud
Clear cases of fraud (selling mercury pills as a cure for syphilis) are illegal.
Things that could be considered fraud at a stretch (convincing people to smoke) depend on how competent consumers are and capitalism promotes competence, people who get good at spending wisely make their money go further.
>rich people
The upper-middle class competes with the rich driving down their income, lowering inequality in a systematic way, as opposed to some people's republic that outwardly makes token gestures to make it look like everyone is equal but in reality is hopelessly corrupt.
>>967007
I'm afraid it's you who lack understanding of reality Mr. Bond, that or you mad frontin'. I'm going to make this more clear and concise so it's easier to comprehend.
The most powerful countries were founded on class because a society with class is advantaged against a mob of equal or greater size if the upper class is of a high caliber and loyal to their respective society. This is why the most powerful countries were founded by societies with class and these countries became prestigious because of it. This prestige increased the countries prevalence in trade with other societies and led to them dominating trade which lead to profits. The most efficient way to store profits is to consolidate them under a dynasty and consolidated wealth has greater potential than distributed wealth. In capitalism this consolidated wealth passed on through inheritance in the form of paper money is doubly beneficial because the money saved is not spent and thus is temporarily taken out of circulation. Yes, this applies to the savings of the mob too in such a monetary system but the proportion of savings versus expenses is higher when owned by one person with billions of dollars versus one with thousands of dollars. Furthermore this consolidation of money decreases the supply of the money which eventually increases the value and purchasing power of it. Forcing inflation was a means to an end that has already been reached - the end result was to get the masses to participate in an economy unified under one currency. Forcing inflation after its' functionality has been exhausted is unsustainable because it leads to increased volatility which will eventually pose an absolute risk to the integrity of the monetary system.
>>964807
>leaving out the fact that bitcoin isn't accepted in as many places as fiat or even gold
>fungible - gold should be moderate here (different karats)
>portable - NEED electronic device for bitcoin transaction
>highly divisible - is that level of divisibility even necessary? Who would want $0.0001 worth of bitcoin for a product?
>secure - lel
>easily transactable - see above
>scarce - irrelevant. The GBP is scarcer than the JPY, doesn't mean GBP is overall better, whatever this metric is trying to prove
>sovereign - arguably a positive
>decentralized - arguably a negative
>smart - to what benefit. also assuming fiat has none of this
Keep dreaming as sovereign nations clamp down on bitcoin in the name of anti terrorism
>>964899
shitty graphic. the 11% on the right is significantly smaller than 19%, should be about half and is even smaller than the 6% interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
This is much better, though some of the discretionary is part of programs one would classify under other portions of the graph
>>964938
>The one difference is that you can get filthy rich in the USA as well, which explains our higher GDP per capita.
Wrong. The US has a higher GDP per capita because it has a richer middle-class.
>>967006
>the other course of maintaining inflation after its' functionality is authoritarian monarchy or despotism which is funny because it's the opposite of what liberals promote - thinking that liberalism amidst a keynesian system with a high defecit and inflation will create socialism is incorrect over the course of centuries, or even decades.
i get it you just mistyped it huh so let me get this straight you meant maintaining inflation requires authoritarian structure which is subject to takeover and the plausible powers to take it over or construct it are despotic in nature because of the whole class/prestige phenomenon you mentioned.
>>966674
>randfag
>anarchist
error.exe
>>967043
>responding to yourself
pls take your meds
>>967011
Cash hoarding is only 10% on average m9, and again, it's the government's fault. The businesses are simply doing what is most efficient given how their costs are.
http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/04/22/is-apples-mounting-cash-pile-a-mirage/
Also,
>stocks
>gambling
>>967025
>a society with class is advantaged against a mob
You're confusing cause and effect, most organizations need some sort of hierarchy and this can become reflected by the society. The ring leader in the mob may form a hierarchy to maintain their power, but this is for reasons other than organizational efficiency and is inherently different.
>This prestige increased the countries prevalence in trade
Not true, trade was often in the hands of small states like venice rather than lofty empires and invariably handled by merchants, not great lords.
>>967035
proof?
>>964054
The meme of "wealth inequality" is predicated on the idea that there is a finite amount of "wealth" in the world and that if someone has more wealth than "average" he is essentially "stealing" that value or wealth from the rest of society.
Just admit it. "Income Inequality" is just a stand in for "Gimme Dat".
>>967103
Exactly, if your neighbor Latifa decides to build a windmill while you sit out on your lawnchair watching her and sipping beer that is her decision and has nothing to do with you.
If Latifa starts to earn money selling electricity from her windmill (means of production), that is her money, the money she earns, the windmill and the effort she put in were part of the same package and should stay that way, it would be immoral for you to declare that you also deserve a share of the means of production.
Build your own windmill.
God Bless America
>>967106
That applies only if you live in a place without an HMO that bans that kind of thing. They usually stay around there to pass silly rules to try to keep homeowners from lowering property values. But without that, yeah.
>>967103
>>967106
Except you're completely ignoring the fact that we live in a capital-intensive economy, where in order to be economically productive, you need to have capital. By concentrating capital in fewer hands, you're ensuring that there will be fewer businesses, less innovation, and less economic productivity.
Extending your analogy, building the windmill costs thousands of dollars, so unless you have that money in the first place, you can't build the windmill to produce more money. However, those that do have the capital to build windmills can only build so many at a time because of the organizational limitations of being only human. A more optimal distribution would be to have those with lots of capital still have just enough to build as many windmills as they already can, and ensure the rest of people have enough money so they can build additional windmills. Otherwise that extra capital goes to waste.
>>967150
So if Latisha has $2000 and spends $1000 of it to build a windmill explain to me again why we need to take her other $1000 and give it to Shaniqua Fatass? What makes you think Latisha wouldn't just build two windmills and run them better because she probably knows more about owning and operating windmills? Doesn't this kind of hurt Latisha's incentive to build windmills because they keep taking all the money she makes from it and giving it to people who didn't earn anything? You can cry all you like about how unfortunate it is that everyone in the world isn't equally productive but it always seems to come back to "Gimme Dat".
>>967118
Maybe we should loosen regulations. If any of the fine folks on /biz/ want to invest in a pair of kneepads and get to work, maybe the government shouldn't interfere, the important thing is they have found a way to provide for themselves.
>>967150
That is what the stock market is for. If you beat the market average then essentially you are outcompeting the hedge funds and investment banks who own most of the capital. Most plebs can earn a small surplus by giving up liquor and ciggies.
>>964825
The last 3 are really good points
I would need more info/ arguments for the first 2
>>967187
We're not talking about one or two windmills here. Suppose Frank has $200K. Frank uses that money to produce as many windmills as he can, however windmills tend to need mechanical maintenance in order to prevent them from breaking down over time. Frank can hire people to help maintain the windmills, but managing people also requires effort. After years of building windmills, Frank has maxed out his ability to build and maintain windmills at a total of 100 windmills. He still has $100k in reserve, but he's too busy to do anything with it. It would stand to reason that the remaining $100k would be more productive if it were in the hands of those who weren't already tied down by lots of windmills.
Jim has an idea for a more efficient, productive windmill, however Jim lacks the capital to produce his invention despite the fact that Frank has $100k just sitting in reserve. Jim only needs a few thousand to produce some prototypes. Yes, Frank could hypothetically invest some money in Jim's idea, but then he would be helping his own competition. The only way for the market to continue becoming more efficient is to ensure that those that need capital already have it.
Yes, there is venture capital, but that requires extensive pre-existing business connections in order to even access it, implying that you're already quite wealthy in the first place.
>>967198
There are a lot more segments to the economy than just the financial sector.
>>967208
Do you seriously think rich people just put all their shekels in a giant fucking vault where they don't get used? They invest it, meaning they choose people whose business ideas they think are worthy and give them money to expand their businesses in exchange for a cut of the action (shares of stock, etc). What you're proposing is that men with guns (the government) steal Frank's money and give it to Jim even though Frank is a successful windmill developer and Jim and the only person who gets to decide which Peters shall be robbed to pay which Pauls is the government itself.
>>967209
yes but the financial sector enables people to pool resources to invest in large projects they could not afford on their own, thereby allowing lateefa to invest in windmills even though she cannot afford a windmill of her own and allowing the CEO of windmillcorp, Wu, to invest his spare $100k in something else
>>964892
But we're talking about the ultra rich senpai.
The Trumps of the world scheme to avoid paying taxes and have so much power already they can affect the market on a whim, and since they're the ones who manipulate it they will never be on the losing side.
And already having money makes a huge difference. The landlord I have that my business is in always goes on about how he 'made it from the ground up' but his first business was a tennis club his parents bought. Had he not had the advantage of wealthy parents, he might have just been another working class guy.
That's what wealth inequality is about to me.
>>967230
So you're mad that his family worked hard for something and shared it with their children and you'd really appreciate it if they just gave you stuff too because reasons. Thanks for clearing that up.
I could argue that by that logic you should donate all your money to buy food for starving people in the 3rd world but I'm sure your reasoning is that you have a "fair" amount of wealth and it's simply the people who are richer than you or richer than you ever see yourself being who are making "unfair" amounts of money.
>>967219
>>967295
You keep trying to turn this into an emotional argument, when in fact it's about achieving the maximum utility of the world's existing resources. I'm willing to bet that your emotional reaction has to do with your attachment to the wealth you've received from your parents. Sorry, I mean your "hard work."
Quit strawmanning with "people with guns taking muh money away!!!!!" They're called taxes. Every properly functioning, developed society has them. If Frank Corp has more money than he can possibly put to utility, what damaged will be done by taking some fraction of his reserves in order to put them to greater utility? They will perform far more economic development when passed through some UBI program.
Additionally, it's been proven time and again that the markets are speculatory in nature, and disconnected from tangible economic development. Even if you're a value investor, publicly traded companies are already quite mature and have reached most of their potential, so your investment dollars yield relatively little economic development. A more even capital distribution will be more efficient since it allows more actors to put more money to more utility. It's as simple as that.
>>967336
Actually, it is not me being the emotional one, but the "muh fairness" argument which is the emotional one. Governments have never shown themselves to be adept at capital allocation. Never. The overwhelming tendency is that people have money because they are good at earning it (which strongly correlates with providing value to the world)
>>967005
Please expand.
>>967336
>publicly traded companies are quite mature and have reached most of their potential
Spotted the fucking retard.
If a liberal talks long enough, they will eventually prove how clueless they are. Every fucking time
>>967354
It has nothing to do with fairness: it's about having a functioning, improving economy. And if people are naturally inclined to earn more than others, then why should they care about the implementation of a UBI program? The capital flow gradient will simply redirect the money right back to them.
>>967358
So how many times do you expect Shell Oil or IBM to grow in size? 5x? 10x? 20x?
You're retarded if you think they're the ones that generate wealth.
>>964165
>One firm, Ascent Private Capital Management, employs an historian and two psychologists to help clients put their fortunes and family dynamics into perspective.
HOLY SHIT I FINALLY FOUND THE ONE PRIVATE HISTORIAN WITH A JOB
>>967366
>RDS and IBM are the only two publicly traded companies.
Just stop talking. I can feel the burn through the computer
>>964054
No, look around you, more automation more job loss, greater wealth inequality (10% more for the top 1% is 10% less for the rest of us)
what do you think will happen when we have strong AI that can do most jobs? you think we'll all come together and share the "earth dividend"? or do you think the already rich will just leave us to rot?
Maybe we'll see an expansion of the welfare state but it wont be "sharing" so much as more bread and circuses (just watch what happens in the next 10 years with vr technology and weed becoming legal in more and more places, also we now have a convenient food beverage called soylent!)
screen cap this post, within 10 years vr will take off and apathy will go to all time highs, the trucking industry and all the towns and families its supports will be gutted by automated 18 wheelers and the bourgeois will be sitting pretty.
>>967393
Name some.
>>967354
>the "muh fairness" argument which is the emotional one
No, thats only if you frame it as "hard working people who totally deserve what they have" <- meaning not the silver spoon leeches etc vs "welfare crack heads" <- totally ignoring the realities of poverty , its causes and effects
we all live on the earth, hence you can argue that we should all have a "dividend" alloted to us of the worlds riches, since were framing the argument for universal basic income based on the foresight that society is reaching a tipping point where material goods / food etc are trivially easy to produce this becomes a valid call to humanitarian action, similar to how essentially every first world country on the planet besides the united states understands that healthcare is such (since its so insanely easy to give it carte blanche to every citizen when you just collectively decide to do so, seperate argument though)
Second point is basically spot on but you fail to realize that the one thing the government IS REALLY GOOD at doing is writing checks, the money saved from reducing overhead by eliminating means tested welfare programs can be used to push up the amount everyone can get. Ultimately I myself support the negative income tax however as it is simpler on many sides.
The last point is laughable, we have plenty of rich leeches, monopolies, people rich from nepotism and corruption - either flagrant or through use of "loop holes" which involve bribery to keep , not to mention people who just "luck" into wealth
>>967479
lets not forget that the "providing value to the world" libertarian idea is a fucking farce, I provide the same value selling life saving medicine at a 10% profit that I do selling it at 100% or 10,000% profit but if I control the supply I can name the price since its a "need" (see income elasticity of demand)
do baseball players and b tier action movie actors provide more "value" to the world than doctors and nurses and firefighters? , nonono , I think any sane person examining the subject would see the value argument is a false start
>>967479
>hence you can argue that we should all have a "dividend" alloted to us of the worlds riches
I stopped reading right here. The world's riches are not limited. You cannot evenly divide them.
>>967481
>since the plow was invented. There isn't any point in refuting this any longer.
the luddite fallacy? really? if you don't see how the digital age (say requiring a trucker to learn how to do coding and programming) is different than 18th century britain (teach a farmer to connect a cog to sprocket) then I guess we're at an impasse
>>967485
Have you ever actually looked into it? we have more homes in the US than homeless people and we could easily feed everyone on the planet with available resources, its a problem of politics, not resources.
So yeh, not everyone gets a lambo, but its far from impossible to give everyone basic healthcare , food , clothing and shelter.
>>965449
in theory there is no difference between theory and practice. in practice there is
>>967481
No, name some faggot. Name some publicly traded companies that experienced orders of magnitude (10x or more) of explosive growth after their IPO. You can't.
"Investing" in the stock market is a masturbatory waste of capital.
>>967496
Are you literally retarded? Why are you on a business board if you think publicly companies don't grow.
>>967496
>10 bagger
Heard of it?
>>967538
keked him pretty hard lol.
It's really obvious he's a /pol/ transplant by the way his entire argument boils down to "I'm obviously right but I won't use any logic or reason to price it." They really should stick to their containment board.
>>967538
Apple, to name the obvious one.
>liberal economics, folks
>>967551
No, they're arguably the best contender and they still haven't met the criteria of an order of magnitude growth since IPO.
Still, name another. Remember, for your argument to be true, all publicly traded companies have to experience 10x or better growth after IPO.
>>967564
Lol no. Go look at a chart moron.
>inb4 you have no idea what market cap is
>>967496
Since when is risking money to get more money "investing" instead of investing? It doesn't stop being investment just because you dislike it. Stocks are like donations or crowdfunding, except you might get some money back.
>>967567
Post ten market caps that have grown ten times within ten years of IPO. Even if you can, they're going to be the exception rather than the rule. Meanwhile, startups easily and consistently exceed that kind of growth, and uneven capital distribution hurts the formation of those startups.
>>967578
>risking money to get more money
You just described gambling, not investing. Publicly traded companies are generally already quite mature and don't need the extra capital that could otherwise be going to faster growing, more innovative startups.
>>967610
>post ten more examples that I could easily find myself if I knew anything about the subject matter I was trying to lecture people on
You are like the perfect liberal progressive. You should run for office when you're done interning for Bernie Flounders
>>967610
http://www.investopedia.com/university/beginner/
Here, this might help you.
Also, startups are fucking risky, man.
>>967610
Also, you may as well be telling people to stop buying bonds because you don't like big things getting money and not growing hard. It's your money, and you can do what you want with it, but you can't guilt me out of safer, rational investing.
>>967646
No, but he can legislate you out of it. Bernie and his supporters want much higher capital gains tax, under the guise that rich people are the only ones who invest money. Anon's ignorance of investing is very telling of extreme left progressives
>>967629
>I'm out of arguments
>>967631
>>967646
I'm not telling you to invest anything. I'm making the point that "investing" large excess capital reserves in the stock market is largely a waste of financial resources, and that we would be far better off economically with a more even capital distribution since it would allow more startups, which then grow into mature companies, to develop.
I don't care whether or not you have the ability to make money through speculating, or as you call it investing. I'm only interested in achieving maximum utility of capital, and the current distribution is decidedly non-optimal.
>>967694
Wait, let me say it in a different way.
You are free to invest however you like. If it turns out your allocation is the most efficient and gives the greatest yield, then you'll get more money than everyone else.
Put your money where your mouth is and win, if you're so sure what the best way to invest is.
>>967694
I'll bite.
So you are saying that startups generally do not recieve enough capital from banks and should instead sell equity to private investors?
>>967694
fyi, if you want big business and banking to be smaller, it requires a sacrifice in stability. Tell the government to stop feeding the banks free money and handing out subsidies.
The problem then becomes how to do fiscal policy outside of interest rates, depending on whether you're with monetarism or keynesian economics.
>>964165
Holy shit, this is why I'm busting my ass right now. Reading that makes me fucking sick to my stomach with envy.
>>967694
>with a more even capital distribution since it would allow more startups, which then grow into mature companies, to develop.
mal-investment reduces economic efficiency and eventually leads to economic stagnation or depression. the optimal distribution is all capital is held in the hands of the smallest number of professional capitalists that can manage its' portion with a nominal amount of capital held by everyone else. this is how capitalism was built and this is its' main advantage versus other economic systems.
>>967662
actually typically wealth inequality doesn't lead to revolution it leads to violent coups depressions assasinations and asset confiscations.
>>964054
It would be less fucked if we weren't importing millions of foreigners to drive down the value of labor in an already weak economy.
>>967095
>You're confusing cause and effect, most organizations need some sort of hierarchy and this can become reflected by the society. The ring leader in the mob may form a hierarchy to maintain their power, but this is for reasons other than organizational efficiency and is inherently different.
But you're not accepting the social realities of the actual established power structures on Earth if you're not understanding my points. It's practically impossible to explain such abstract socio-economic concepts.
> Not true, trade was often in the hands of small states like venice rather than lofty empires and invariably handled by merchants, not great lords.
But who was in control of the trade and the profiteers? The prestigious - and they come to collect in unpredictable fashions and at seemingly random intervals. Which city has more prominence in trade, London or Venice?
>>967035
>Wrong. The US has a higher GDP per capita because it has a richer middle-class.
Wrong again, the real reason the US has a higher GDP per capita is because it has a higher export-import gap. If the US weren't importing twice as much as it exports the GDP per capita would be drastically lower but if the middle class were wiped out entirely GDP would remain affected less than if China evened out its' trade balance.
>>967006
You're gonna need a citation for that, you've repeated it like a million times without substantiation.
Also,
>He thinks the gold standard was abandoned for no good reason
>>964145
>never heard of such a thing
This has been happening since ancient roman times
>>967150
>Except you're completely ignoring the fact that we live in a capital-intensive economy, where in order to be economically productive, you need to have capital. By concentrating capital in fewer hands, you're ensuring that there will be fewer businesses, less innovation, and less economic productivity.
Increased consolidation of capital in professional capitalist hands equals increased economic efficiency which equals higher purchasing power per average hour worked. It also leads to an economy with infinitely better taste, would you rather have 10,000 brands of the same thing or 1 brand of something that is superior and less expensive?
>>967799
Fuck the gold standard.
>>967807
What about the argument that wages per employee have greatly underpaced production by employee while CEO salaries have almost tripled since the early 70's?
I don't know all the facts but I've heard this more than a few times now.
>>967823
This has more to do with income distribution disparity not capital consolidation so your post was mostly irrelevant to my point. In the grand scheme of capitalism a CEO earning dozens of millions of dollars each year is still just a pawn.
>>967831
Oh ok I see what's happening now. Last time I brought that up, someone just said it was because Reagan opened up free trade in the 70's or some stupid bullshit like that.
So basically we're talking about how the owners of the companies, the ones who pay the CEOs millions, have wayyyy too much fucking money and will never be able to spend it all even if they threw stripper yacht parties every other day for the rest of their life?
I would say it's deserved. if everything went back to zero, I would assume the lions would eat their share while the sheep ate their grass. I'm sure there's a couple people out there who just need that one break to make it big, just like there are people who are idiots and don't deserve the money at all, but I would argue that it would more or less end up the same.
>>967838
>So basically we're talking about how the owners of the companies, the ones who pay the CEOs millions, have wayyyy too much fucking money and will never be able to spend it all even if they threw stripper yacht parties every other day for the rest of their life?
Never has a man been so misunderstood. The problem is that there are too many of these "owners", they're too poor (even if they're worth hundreds of millions of dollar) and they're making the economy perform poorly.
>>967846
Ok now you have to really explain. How are there too many, how is hundreds of millions "too poor" and how are they making the economy perform poorly, outside of hogging all the cash and not giving their employees raises because "it's not in the budget"?
that would increase the spending power per person and help to stimulate the economy, correct?
>>967846
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
Hopefully
>>967853
I for one am looking forward to the next depression which ushers the economy into the post-modern industrial age because a more industrious economy leads to a more prosperous country.
The base wage is hardly even $10 which hardly even has the purchasing power to afford the most modest comforts for an independent full time worker, this makes for a very, very poor economy.
>>967858
Well that's kind of what I was saying in the first place. The stats I read stated that at this proportion, the proper base wage should be right around $21/hr and the median househould income should be 90k and not 50k
Which would be fucking miraculous to be quite honest. It honestly would probably take a hard reset to achieve something like that. Honestly the thought of working 25-30 years, actively saving/investing, and living frugally kinda depresses the fuck out of me and I sure as hell don't want my kids to be stuck doing the same thing. It's just so hard to get a step ahead, though.
>>967858
If a job isn't worth $20+ an hour then it's not a job worth doing, that means that lots of full time workers doing jobs definitely worth doing are getting underpaid. Choosing which jobs are worth doing and which aren't requires administration and taste, the most tasteful administration is a consolidated one. This is why the unparalleled growth of the industrial age was mostly due to capital distribution - there were many multi-billionaire tycoons and few millionaires.
But you commie mobsters are too petty to understand economics because you're too obsessed with working towards renting a Ferrari for a few hours so you can feel like you earned your pride.
>>967865
The current direction is going to obliterate the middle class so if you want to hold on to your precious and net-negative middle class you're going to have to make some concessions and level with the more productive and more valuable working class, why do you dependents feel entitled to extortion?
>>967869
This isn't about me being entitled. This is just basic microeconomics. It's only worth making an item if you can sell it for more than it costs to make.
Either we get inflation or lots of places go out of business. If we get inflation, we're back at square one except only the middle class gets screwed. If lots of places go out of business, output crawls to a halt and everyone loses.
Why would you advocate for something that's bad for everyone? Are you trying to shitpost, or are you so angry that you want to bring everyone down to your level?
>>967865
Not necessarily. The point that I was trying to make is that at this point, wages have not increased at the same rate as prices since the early 70's. This is the argument that gets brought up everytime because in order for CEOs to continue making millions instead of hudnreds of thousands they would have to increase prices.
Basically cut a little off the top and stick it in the middle. This will never happen and there are probably some obvious economic repercussions to consider here, but still.
>>967866
I completely agree. Minimal skills = minimum wage. I think with all of the online educational tools available out there, no one really has an excuse to not make a somewhat decent living. But that's just me and the way I was raised. I was just posting some stats for the sake of argument.
>>967875
Why is it so hard to understand that labor factors into the cost of a good, and that the cost of a good factors into it's price?
>>967878
So what would be a proper solution, in your eyes?
I vote that we lower the cost of education in order to strengthen the middle class.
>>967882
There's already cheap education that gets you a decent job, it's called trade school.
The only way to fix things is to stop protecting big business and leave only the regulations that we "need", like not dumping shit into the water or having food labels, in order to make it easier for people to make their own businesses.
The laws of this country need to be streamlined.
>>967873
microeconomics doesnt matter because at that level different economic systems are more practical such as feudalism or communism. altering the macro-economy regulation to make it conducive to raised lower class wages isn't bad for everyone.
>>967896
>businesses closing in record numbers or heavy inflation don't affect the whole economy
>>967900
> not making relevant points
>>967906
Aggregate demand is affected by employment which is affected by having businesses up.
>inb4 aggregate demand and employment aren't macroeconomics
>>967909
> focusing on improving the average standard of living, the efficiency and competitiveness of the economy in international trade and the taste of culture associated with economic progress
> focusing on insignificant details and covering it up by using fancy economic words like "aggregate".
the economy is still going to function regardless of monetary policy dweeb.
>>967962
>increasing the minimum wage makes you more competitive internationally
>making your shit cost more makes you more attractive for potential foreign markets
>aggregate demand isn't the basic shit you learn in beginner macroeconomics
All it means is money spent by everyone, dumbass. You kill the businesses, you kill output, and the workers hoard whatever cash they have left.
>inflation and deflation don't affect spending
Money flow is key to the health of any economy. Rampant inflation kills living standards, deflation favors those who save and erodes equity.
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/Inflation_and_deflation.html
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/202.asp
You're not seeing the bigger picture here, all you do is look one step ahead and ignore the implications that action brings.
>>967966
im seeing the big picture but you're such an asshole that you're misconstruing my points. im not about raising minimum wage, im about encouraging wage growth. instead of creating output in industry that isn't worth paying its workers $20 an hour cut those jobs kill that business and leave room for industry that's valuable enough to pay its' workers a decent salary instead of wasting everyones time with crony capitalism for the sake of cheap, socially regressive economics.
but you're just a cheap bastard that wants half of the population to be enslaved to the entitled worthless dweebs in the upper middle class huh?
Wealth inequality is really a non-issue because our economy is not a 'fixed pie' where the rich are hording a large percentage of the total wealth that will ever exist. Wealth is being created constantly for people of all class backgrounds.
>>968010
If you would actually read the thread, you would realize that's bullshit. Uneven capital distribution has a tangible negative economic impact, and capital is actually a partial mixture between being zero-sum and purely generational.
>>968069
The system helps reduce inequality. Capital and its allocation is highly competitive, those at the bottom can challenge those at the top and if they prove to be better they soon will accumulate a substantial share of their own. Expensive private schools can help you get your CFA but there is no degree that can teach you how to achieve greater than average annualized returns over the long term, anyone can participate, more true nowadays with the internet.
You folks seem to think democracy is the only way to increase equality, but if that were true the Venezuela would not be a kleptocratic failed state. Autonomy is important too.
>>964054
Capitalism is fine, it gets fucked when the government starts bailing out people, whether a segment of the population (blacks, women, the poor etc.) or industries/corporations (banking, auto, aero).
The problem is once you say "It doesn't matter how bad <some group> fucks up, we're going to bail them out anyway," it gives that group free licence to make really stupid fucking decisions knowing that the taxpayer is going to foot the bill.
>>966388
>even those in "poverty" own cars, computers, video games, iPhones, etc.
I fail to see this as a good thing, and it's trotted out all the fucking time.
All of those are depreciating assets which don't generate a direct return at all. Poor people spend more of their income (as a percentage) on such similar goods than people at the top, meaning they have less to invest and so the rich rocket away in wealth.
Regardless of how many times you say it doesn't matter how much of a share you get as long as you have a tiny bit more than yesterday, watching your share of the wealth rapidly decline year after year - while being pushed harder and harder at work, at home, etc. is infuriating.
>>964152
/pol/ is ayn Rand incarnate in this matter, 90% of /pol/ would agree that rich people deserve to be rich
>>964222
>That's the risk. Nation-states which allow for too high an inequality do so at the risk of revolution. At this point the US has a wealth disparity that's greater than the Russian Empire did just before the Bolshevik revolution
1/25 of the US population are millionaires m8, that's one of your buddies from high school, plus "the royal family" is a much more obvious target than "the 1%"
>That, plus the fact that our poor are better off than the Russian poor were in 1919 are the only things keeping open revolt from happening.
That's a great reason actually. Even the very poor don't starve in the US and the few that do are literal retards. Fucking Mexicans working for half the minimum wage don't starve.
>Should something happen, a crash that's big enough to wipe out the lower and lower-middle classes wealth (I don't mean like the 2008 recession, I mean a full on crash like we saw in 1929,) put out a few breadlines and have some folks die from literal starvation and you will have open revolt. The US is a violent enough society that 250 million Joe Poormans destroying all the "rich" because they're tired of seeing their kids starve.
They won't hurt anyone significant enough. I'd like to think that people from the US are smart enough (or at least used to capitalism enough) not to kill their literal neighbors that provide them with their jobs. You think that Joe Schmoe will kill his boss, a small business owner that earns as much as him with twice the stress? Or do you think that the mob will somehow reach and kill Trump or Gates or that Mexican mobster that is safe from the cartels? That they would somehow steal (redistribute) their money that's in assets, real estate and other equity that's tied to country's property rights? Or their liquid assets that are easily transfered? USA would become a desolate shithole.
>>968130
>All of those are depreciating assets which don't generate a direct return at all. Poor people spend more of their income (as a percentage) on such similar goods than people at the top, meaning they have less to invest and so the rich rocket away in wealth.
So it's the fault of "rich people" that poor people can't manage their money or get their priorities straight? And you want to take money from people who can and give it to those who obviously can't just so they have extra to "invest" with?
What the fuck mang.
>>968142
This, although I don't really like atlas shrugged. only like 2% of millionaires inherited it. The biggest demographic in america is stupid poor people. Not whites. Not blacks, republics or democrats. It's stupid poor people. The harsh reality is that stupid poor people collectively hold most of the power, but they're so stupid and poor they just can't figure out how to use it to their advantage. We have cultural marxists leninists who are idiots on one side vs. Christian faith conservatards on the other. I hate my stupid and poor fellow man, it burns because I am one.
>>967990
>I'm entitled to more money even if I don't go to trade school or study well in college
>I know what's best for the market and what's fair
It's clear that you aren't willing to learn about economics. I'll just have to take solace in the fact that your kind will never win, so long as the republicans still exist. You might be able to vote, but so can I. I don't even agree with them most of the time, but they have to be there to balance things out.
btw if you wanted industry to come back, you'd have to lower corporate tax and let wages stagnate for even longer. There's a reason why they left, it's called cost benefit analysis.
>>968069
Zero sum only applies to games where there are a fixed amount of resources. When we run out of oil and the sun burns out, maybe then you can talk about the market and capital being zero sum.
Furthermore, most millionaires are first generation.
>>964054
why is this bad
people live well down to above the bottom 20%. those people still own smart phones
>>968266
Lay off the memes and think about what you're saying for a moment. If I spend ten thousand dollars on dragon dildos, I just transferred ten thousand dollars of my wealth to Bad Dragon: I don't magically have another ten thousand dollars just magically show up in my bank account. I just performed a zero-sum transfer of wealth and now I have to work very long and hard in order to earn that ten thousand dollars back.
The rate at which capital is transferred far exceeds the rate at which new capital is generated, so our economy can be modelled as a mostly zero-sum system. This is especially true for those without capital due to the capital-intensive nature of our economic system, which means you need money in order to make money.
>>968311
Those are some hot opinions you have there, for something that isn't zero sum by definition.
Show us the reliable model of the economy in zero sum.
Also,
>implying value isn't created via output and new raw materials
>implying the money supply is the only way from which to gain equity and assets
If we were really zero sum we'd just use the gold standard all day.
( >inb4 yes)
>>968311
The silicone and 3 hours to craft a dragon dildo cost $30$ at most. The price is $120 where does the extra $90 value come from.
the anal destruction, makes you more enthusiastic at work the next day, and you crank out 1 more widget than you usually would. poof. Marginal increases in efficiency.
>>968205
>This, although I don't really like atlas shrugged.
>Americans find it boring or hate it
>all my ex-commie people love it, her predictions reflect my country's history very accurately
What's wrong with you faggots? It's a total mystery to me, it's like a collective delusion that something like that could never happen to the USA and that the wealthy and capable people aren't more valuable as human beings than ghetto niggers.
>>968456
First of all, you gotta question Ayn Raynd (Alissa Rosenbaum)'s motivation for writing that shit. And its pretty simple at the core of it - childhood trauma from her dad's pharmacy being confiscated by the Bolsheviks back in the day.
The fact that she lived her last days off the governments dime pretty much discredits everything else. It's like a heavily obese woman writing whats the proper diet and exercise regime for being skinny. Alissa's works are worthless.
Works of Descartes or Kant will tell you more about human value and how to find it in economic terms than her trash about John Galt.
>>968175
>So it's the fault of "rich people" that poor people can't manage their money or get their priorities straight?
No it's not really anyone's fault, it's simply that there are certain expenses you can't forego (food/housing/medical care/bills) and if you're poor these will be a larger chunk of your income.
I don't think it's poor peoples' fault either that their non-negotiable expenses are like 80+% of their income.
At any rate, it seems there were periods in the past where incomes grew more or less in tandem (i.e. by about the same percentage across the board), and I don't see why that can't still be the case. It doesn't involve getting rid of rich people, merely that the rich stop getting -more- wealthy at a disproportionate rate. I don't think it's too much to ask to share in the increase of wealth, considering poorfags do contribute.
>>968367
>Show us the reliable model of the economy in zero sum.
Transactions are zero-sum, labour adds value; Marx was right all along.
>>968559
>Marx was right all along.
That's a funny way to spell Frederic Bastiat. Labor doesn't add value, only producing useful things adds value.
>>968592
>only producing useful things adds value.
Good luck doing that without some labour faggot.
>>968559
>labour adds value
It's like saying "writing generates valuable 4chan posts"
>>964146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bJwUaVDIPXg#t=111
>>964146
>unearned wealth
Literally no such thing
>there is an issue though with unearned wealth - simply passing down dynastic wealth through generations without it being taxed is dubious and leads to a separate upper class... the sort of thing countries like the US were trying to get away from when they were founded
Fuck off back to reddit
>>964054
>start at poor
>work way up to middle class
>investing and saving way up to rich
Seems to be working well for me. The drunken. drugged up. tattooed, retards I left behind may take issue with this system but fuck them.
>>967336
> What Fraction.
Tons of damage actually.
I can see you've never worked a day in your life.
For every Dollar Taken, the loser needs to earn 3 to get back to where they should have been.
Income inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's bad when there's minimal opportunity for the poor to become rich.
The social safety net, a smoothly running economy, universal healthcare, and a good education (including post secondary) system for all does a lot to alleviate these issues.
>>967966
Nearly 0% interest rates and trillions of dollars in QE and we are still within target rates. The Fed is looking for ANY excuse to increase the interest rates, a minimum wage increase won't make a dent.
Seriously, any talk about inflation in the year of our lord 2015 is a fucking meme. Get your shit together.
>>968477
she paid more in taxes than she took from the government
>>968477
>The fact that she lived her last days off the governments dime pretty much discredits everything else
>what is social security?
Rand was opposed to social security as a concept, but it's ostensibly a state mandated retirement account. If you put money of your own into it, then why the hell would you not use it?
>>965837
this guy gets it
granted i'm sure some of the poor people might have actually taken risks and failed (which may be heroic but also stupid), but the vast majority of people take no risks at all
>>966341
>wageslave mentality: the post
>>964079
>the entire system destabilizes and the economy resets after a massive depression
1929?
>>964076
No, in a good capitalist system the poor get a always shrinking % but a higher purchasing power. But your prediction is possible if the goverment allows cartels
Cheap labor builds nations. The United States has a lot of infrastructure to support socialism, but be prepared to see a hurt economy because of the speed democrats will apply meme changes, such as taxing hedge funds more. The only purpose in doing something like that is because poorfags are salty that people use hedge funds to make money, and they are burning the bridge for literally no point.
When democratic candidates are still saying that the iraq war was bad for the middle east economy it worries the fuck out of me.
>>964899
>goes to your own social security?
LOfuckingL
The taxes paid by today’s workers and their employers don’t go into dedicated individual accounts (although 32% of Americans think they do, according to the 2014 Pew Research survey). Nor do Social Security checks represent a return on invested capital, though you might be forgiven for thinking so since the “personalized Social Security statements” that used to be mailed out once a year and now are available online detail your payment history and projected monthly benefits. Rather, the benefits received by today’s retirees are funded by the taxes paid by today’s workers; when those workers retire, their benefits will be paid for by the next generation of workers’ taxes.
how is capitalism not a huge scam?
you are told to either become good at some specialized field of knowledge, some useless but entertaining pastime, or to do whatever you can to survive.
if you try to follow the first path, you are told stories about how this guy was a great scientist, a great technician, etc.... in reality, no one even cares, specialized fields aren't as difficult as they seem, people just bullshit their way to the top, and to keep going, people need to dedicate 100% of their time to it. many of those professionals will barely survive anyway, but they will have to keep a stupid social status just because "society said so" (that's the way we are taught). these are usually the business owners, the ones that do everything to improve their social status at all cost. of course they all are desperate and cheat at some point.
the 2nd path is usually for people who look good, "can sing" (whatever that really means), those who are good kicking a ball, or whatever. these kind of people usually don't even know how to manage money, and end in the same way they started. sometimes, rich people will follow this path just because they can, by using their influences.
for the rest, you usually either scam other people by selling them shit they don't really need, steal, sell drugs or, the obvious option, work for someone else for cheap: big corporations that destroy everything they touch, or medium/small business owners, that have to compete with bigger companies. this is what most people do, work hard until their health makes them useless, and they live like shit just because someone decided that "they didn't deserve it".
the pattern here is that a few people become rich, then employ other people as wage slaves, other people will brag about their "social status", and both young people and those at the bottom of the scale are the ones being exploited the most. and we are all slaves of our own bullshit.
>>971151
>how is capitalism not a huge scam?
You get paid what you're worth. Sorry you aren't worth as much as you thought you were anon. Maybe you should take some steps to increase your worth.
>>964054
the 'failure' of capitalism is actually the failed realization of false promises.
the few control the rich and that has never changed. we moved from chiefs to kings to presidents to CEOs.
we can't 'fix' capitalism. we can just accept reality, quit with the promises of trickle down, charity, good will towards men, etc. and try our best to protect ourselves and our rights from those who want to amass power.
>>971219
*the few control the many
i will add that the post-war boom gave everyone a false sense of security. we suddenly forgot the fights for worker's rights at the turn of the century. we let our guard down and bought the narrative even though our ancestors were shot down by pinkerton agents for going on strike, or worked as children in textile mills.
capitalism is inherently antagonistic but not in an aggressive way. i think it's easy to misconstrue a lack of physical harm as a lack of ill will towards yourself. there are many ways to manipulate people.
>>971229
>and how do you do that?
I meant to quote this
>we can't 'fix' capitalism. we can just accept reality, quit with the promises of trickle down, charity, good will towards men, etc. and try our best to protect ourselves and our rights from those who want to amass power.
Abolish the IRS and end the Fed.
>>971151
Not a capitalism problem. Its an education problem.
>>967014
That's fundamentally an irrational concept; if the wealth they provided to charity was "infinite", then the wealthy would very quickly become poor. As a percentage of their net worth, even the most charitable 1%er's are remarkably UNcharitable, including the likes of Bill Gates etc.
The world would be a lot more charitable if they simply did not exist, and the gap between rich and poor was nowhere near as big. How to arrive at that scenario is a whole other question however.
>>971268
I'm sure we will all be able to scam someone else once literally everyone in the world has a shitload of money and no one cleans bathroom, harvests vegetables or fishes for a living, m8
I mean, isn't it obvious that education will make us forget about these little problems?
there is no capitalism without inequality and dumb people to be convinced that they have what they deserve. it's a huge scam on itself. education doesn't make you better in any way, it just makes you a better bullshitter and scammer, sometimes.
>>968694
Inherited wealth is earned?
>>971307
>The world would be a lot more charitable if they simply did not exist, and the gap between rich and poor was nowhere near as big.
Yes, I'm sure world would be a lot better without Intel or Oracle or HP or Microsoft or Apple. How dare they produce wealth and change the world and make shit mote efficient. How dare they donate some of their profits away when they know that it's clearly not enough to satisfy college communists who never worked a hard day's work.
>>967336
>Additionally, it's been proven time and again that the markets are speculatory in nature
unlike all communist predictions about future, which are defintive in nature. I mean i know you have absoultely no idea how the market operates, but come on lad, at least have som decency of knowing your shit before posting on taiwanese knitting business board
>>965484
A well regulated market is intervened. It is necessary though, some sectors are volatile and others have been acquired by middle-class entitlement (like health or education).
The ugly truths of today's capitalism:
Income inequality destroys wealth, not through some hippy-dippy bullshit about muh human suffering, but because wealthy households save more of their income. Because S = I (look it up, commie retards) this means more dollars are chasing increasingly lousier returns on investment, causing capital misallocation and with it, wealth destruction.
Income inequality in the US doesn't exist because some people are naturally more gifted or what-have-you, it largely exists because of government policies, both foreign and domestic. Domestic government policies in the US favor investment through lower relative tax burdens, which naturally favors rich households. Foreign government policies create better investment opportunities abroad, which causes USD to flow out of the US and into foreign central banks, allowing their currency to depreciate versus the dollar for as long as it is held. This feedback loop has gone on since the end of Bretton Woods II in the 1970s.
>>971307
delusions of someone buying into market distortions caused by fiat
>>971233
in that case say goodbye to 75% of the purchasing power of the US population, half of you would go bankrupt and wouldn't be able to find jobs that don't pay slave wages regardless of your credentials. you're dependents - dependent on half the countries for not only income but security.
but then again, 25% of you would benefit greatly, deep in the country as you'd have 50% more purchasing power or greater. but you'd probably have to shoot people or pay off militias.
you people fucked yourselves so idiotically mobs have no foresight
>>971219
>we can't 'fix' capitalism.
>the 'failure' of capitalism is actually the failed realization of false promises.
the perceived failure is due to the fact that the integrity of capitalism was compromised because of inflationary and artificial distortions. this isn't as much of a failure as a "final solution" though. it'll demand capital be restored to its' original function without distortion - that of being a unit of value, instead of a unit of value that is the root of 1,000 different subverted or subverting functions as well.
A fixed budget is a fixed capitalism. It can have a deficit but it must be strictly defined and not an arbitrary concept of "we want all this and we'll demand you accept this for all that" because that's extortion.
>>971219
>and try our best to protect ourselves and our rights from those who want to amass power.
oh also
>muh butthurt because people in power continue to amass power
it all leads up to a higher power and that higher power founded all the countries and all the modernized economies so go hate reality but if you're gonna accept any reality you should accept the reality that you're butthurt because you weren't born into the power you wish you had.
>>968263
lol, do you know who i am? or are you just pretending you don't/?
or maybe you're donald trump.
real progressive economic change comes gradually with real capitalist adjustments
>>971674
>because wealthy households save more of their income. Because S = I (look it up, commie retards) this means more dollars are chasing increasingly lousier returns on investment, causing capital misallocation and with it, wealth destruction.
Literally wat. Wealthy households invest essentially all of their money, putting it to use as opposed to having it gather dust in a bank or a mattress. I'm not sure where you pull the idea that they chase smaller returns or grossly miss-allocate their capital. Either way, it's not wealth destruction. Wealth destruction is smashing a window to give a window repair man a job. At very worst it's anything that's not making the sort of returns YOU feel are appropriate with a given pile of money, but then again it's not your money to decide how it is spent. The idea of a world where a master "wealth allocator" dictates how all the money will be spend sounds like a grim nightmare indeed.
>>968528
>"disproportionate"
What the fuck does that even mean, that is just such a loose term.
>"non-negotiable expenses are like 80%+ of their income"
Apart from the fact that poor people usually don't have income but receive handouts, you're just plain wrong. There is no such thing as a non-negotiable expense.
You do not NEED a car.
You do not NEED a to take out loans.
You do not NEED to have medical insurance.
You do not NEED to eat trash food that is expensive.
You do not NEED to go to college and get a meme degree at great cost.
People have the freedom to make their own decisions. This includes the freedom to be retarded. The feeling and sense of entitlement that no matter what you do, the state should take care of you only breeds complacency.
>>966376
>Who would want to work 40 hours a week mopping a floor with no responsibilities when you can work 70 hours a weak with great weight on your shoulders, assuming both of these persons go home to the same little shitbox?
Yeah, totally.
In fact, lets enter a contract. I will pay for your education and in turn you will forfeit all your future salaries and assets to me. I will then give you the same standard of living as someone who flips burgers. So then when you're 28 and work 60 hours a week as a doctor you get to share an apartment with 3 pot smokers who lounge on the couch all day.
Please reply, I'm sure you're just dying to get in on this exciting opportunity.
Mid Class here, not much wrong with it desu.
>>966376
>Implying everyone is smart enough to do one of those jobs
If you think you can be a doctor, take out a loan and be a doctor. If you fail out of don't make it, no one else's fault but your own, in which case you don't make doctor money.
>>973250
>You do not NEED to have medical insurance.
what is mandated obamacare
>>973396
But anon, it's not a penalty. It's a "tax".
It's simple.
Adapt or die.
I want to live in a country for productive people only. A truly free market without welfare or regulation.
Let the slothful starve. Let the stupid wallow in poverty. Let them be scammed and gipped by every timeshare sales pitch, and let them buy cheap diseased food then die because they were too stupid to insure themselves.
I know I'll be fine, and I know intelligent productive people will be fine too. Fact is, I don't really care about single mothers working at McDonalds, or their spawn.
Don't feed the wildlife, folks. We have to maintain the ecology.
>>973736
Ayn?
>>973741
Right? I could smell the jizz on the keyboard
>>973741
>>973743
If there was a country which had a truly free market in the modern world, somewhat similar to the America of yore, you know that rich people and productive people would flock to it.
This is why I know free-market capitalism will make the ultimate triumph and dominate the world someday.
The people of worth do not want to have their sweat stolen from them. They do not want to live under a micromanaging regime. They do not want to subsidize the unworthy.
They want to be free. Whereas the slaves find comfort and safety in their enslavement.
>>973765
Low quality bait
>>973777
It's not bait. It's my earnest opinion and worldview.
Does that make you feel threatened? Don't want to lose your bennies?
>>973781
Nope. I am an external auditor. I look at the books of Fortune 500 companies for a living. If you knew the things that I know you would not be calling for deregulation.
>>968694
I know a guy at my university whose grandfather started a large shipping company. This guy's family has a total fortune in the billions despite the fact that none of them have ever really worked. They didn't run the company, they didn't even invest their own money, they just held onto the stock the grandfather built and let other people make money for them. The kid I know will do the same. He will never work in his life. He gets a monthly allowance from his parents of 50k that he pisses away on coke and bottle service. He parks his car wherever he wants and just pays the tickets because he doesn't care. Are you tryig to tell me this kid earned his money?
>>974963
It doesn't matter if he "earned" it or not, his grandfather set those events in motion and now he has provided a perfect life for his heirs
Don't like it? Then fuck off back to reddit.
>>974970
It's just that it's not economically efficient for those 3 people to hoard billions just for the hell of it. That money doesn't get reinvested. it just sits around in trust funds and beach houses. Of course it's theirs, but the system that allows this is stupid.
Capital begets more capital, this is a fundamental law of capitalism
>>973250
Not him, but you're actually retarded.
