Is wealth inequality as big of a deal as liberals and Sanders supporters think?
>>69864052
Well, considering that social mobility has an inverse relationship with increased inequality, I'd say yeah, it's a pretty big deal.
>>69864052
No.
The question is not whether or not it exists but rather how you approach it
Taxing the hell out of people, or taxing inversely ala Reaganomics
If you're an idiot that thinks wealth is a zero sum game and someone having more money than you means there's less in the world for you to take sure.
People with actual sense know "wealth inequality" is bullshit because there's no set amount of wealth in the world and anyone whining about someone who's rich is just a jealous piece of shit who needs to grow up
>>69864052
Yes. People who have billions aren't actually spending billions unless they're retards who want to re-enact Brewster's Millions. Poor people spend most of their money just trying to live. If a poor household managed to rake in a few thousand grand more they'd be putting thousands back into the economy buying things they couldn't before.
>>69864052
Wealth isn't a finite resource that has to be distributed by the government evenly. Other people being rich doesn't mean you have to be poor as a consequence.
>>69864393
Reagonomics is a fucking meme along with the "trickle down" myth liberals love to parrot so much.
What is true though, is that when Reagan lowered taxes, the government saw more tax revenue since more people bothered to just pay them instead of using loopholes.
>>69864052
If a poor person is better off then they were before the gap then why would anyone care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Yes it is a big deal but Bernie has a shitty way of going about fixing it.
>>69864623
you didnt understand our financial system
>>69864703
Because liberals don't think it's "fair" when someone has more money than them. They somehow think that everyone being as poor as them will make the world a better place.
yes
it's just that liberal policies make it worse, not better
>>69864780
How so? You seem to be the one that is stuck in the gold standard ages. "Oh, I can't write a book, we have to excavate more gold first so people can pay for it." duuuhhrgh.
>>69864052
Yes and no. Acquiring huge sums of wealth isn't a problem if it's obtained ethically, and spent righteously.
The problem isn't necessarily that a few have the ability and capital to become massively wealthy, it's more that concepts of righteous spending and differed responsibility have fallen apart. It gets even worse when you consider the very fiat nature of the economy; e.g., if you redistributed all of the wealth to everyone evenly, you would cause massive inflation and economic turmoil.
So, I suppose if the massively rich had projects and things to spend their money on that aren't exactly profit producing; say parks, charities, fordistic neighborhoods, etc , it would be the best for everyone.
>>69864894
no, we have to get a credit. And its not possible to pay back the interest for everyone, because interests is a value which is not existing at the moment, the credit is given out. So how can you pay something back, if it does not exist. The ammount of debts, within interests, are higher than the global worth. So someone has to loose.
>>69864975
For one, it's not your money and you have no right to tell someone how to spend it
Two, no one gets rich by just sitting on their money, they get rich by putting it to work or hiring someone to do it for them. Not only that, but most "wealth" isn't in dollars and cents as most retards seem to think, it's in assets. A building, land, a construction vehicle, a computer, chairs. Their money is already being put to work around the country but jealous bumfucks don't like it when someone has it better than them and that's where this "wealth inequality" bullshit comes from.
>>69865288
>what is Lohnarbeit
Not all money is (unbacked) credit.
>>69864975
>ethics
Get this shit outta here. Wealth inequality is not a problem. Unless you think people having better or more things than you is a problem.
>>69865532
so where does the money come with which workers are paid. Why do our banks have to have an equity ratio of only 10%. So i again ask you. Why does a bank, who has billions of dollars from workers salary, only hasean salary of 10 % ? Where does the other 90% of their money come from ?
>>69864052
No, there ain't no one starving. They just like to whine and cry to guilt stupid white college kids into feeling guilty. They cause most of the inequality by voting for generous social welfare programs to begin with.
>>69865705
not salary of 10 %, i ment equity ratio of 10 %
>>69865439
>For one, it's not your money and you have no right to tell someone how to spend it
No, it is not, but that doesn't stop the poor from devouring the rich if the rich become too distant to them.
> Two, no one gets rich by just sitting on their money, they get rich by putting it to work or hiring someone to do it for them. Not only that, but most "wealth" isn't in dollars and cents as most retards seem to think, it's in assets. A building, land, a construction vehicle, a computer, chairs.
Yes, people that are wealthy tend to hold capital.
> Their money is already being put to work around the country but jealous bumfucks don't like it when someone has it better than them and that's where this "wealth inequality" bullshit comes from.
It's a bit more complicated than this. For instance, at the moment there are dozens of large scale corporations that are sitting on massive cash stock piles. The reason being is that they do not currently have a use for it now that would be approved by investors and thus would be forced to give it out as dividends if they tried to make alternate investments. So, to prevent this they sit on it waiting for new technology to arise or business opportunities to occur in the future.
This money is essentially out of circulation while it could be used to otherwise improve their quality, lower their prices, improve worker wages, etc, but the safest course is to simply let it sit.
Essentially, wealth that isn't being used for any clear purpose is insulting, but many people due to public relations, complexity of market factors, or simply legal restrictions simply keep their money dead.
>>69864052
Wealth =/= money
>>69865651
>Businesses should not behave ethically
Really?
Wealth inequality seems expected in a capitalistic society.
It's not like others being rich means you have to be poor. We have damn near infinite wealth thats constantly being circulated
>>69864052
Yes but:
1. Their ideas on the causes of it are wrong.
2. They disregard the increase in living standards due to capital stock/technological progress.
And as such I cannot get behind their shitty movement.
>>69865705
As long as the lended out money is backed (for example by a house to be bought) fractional reserve banking is not a problem, if it's not it is obviously a problem - but how does that belong to the topic "other people being rich makes you poor".
Companies make their money by creating goods or services, the monetary system is eager to track that with the amount of currency available, else there would be deflation (same amount of money buys stuff that hasn't been there before).
In the very top tier companies can pay their workers with money they receive directly from the ECB at negative interest if they have well rated bonds.
>>69866163
>as long as the lended out money is backed
yea like it was when lehman brothers have gone bancrupt.
>>69865961
Because what you perceive as proper ethics doesn't necessarily makes them real or proper ethics.
>>69865906
The poor will devour nothing in today's globalist society. The rich will simply move away.
Holding onto capital doesn't mean they're still not spending money as well. Not only that, but you seem to expect them to run on a near constant deficit, forever spending which is foolish and part of the reason the poor stay poor since they're always foolishly spending all of their money.
And your point is still baseless because it assumes there's finite wealth in circulation when that isn't the case.
>>69864052
No.
If there was economic equality in a democracy the government would collapse because everyone would be influenced the same by tax policy.
>>69865906
>This money is essentially out of circulation
If it's not part of the money supply then the rest of the money is valued as though these lump sums don't exist. So, it doesn't matter.
>>69866163
>companies make their money
no, they get their money for thier goods etc
>they receive their money from ECB at negative interest
and the ECB gets their money from ?
also the ECB flooded the stoxmarkets with over 500 billion Euros over the last few years. The ECB paid more than 500 billions for greece. Where is this money getting from ?
>>69864868
Yeah, the best way to end rampant and expanding income stratification is literally *nothing at all!*
/cuckservative logic.
>>69864052
It's the current economic meme like austrian economics in the 60s and 70s and keynesianism.
Personally, I think currency, managerialism and productivism is degenerate and evil in itself.
>>69865439
>Two, no one gets rich by just sitting on their money
Oh, my sweet summer child..
>>69866849
It's true. You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
>>69866719
Company makes money, ECB makes currency, know the difference.
ECB obviously doesn't "get" it, their job is to create currency to track the amount of money.
As for greece they didn't have any reason to put out currency here, so they robbed the money from you (and rich people holding more euros even more so). Not saying it's good, but other people being rich doesn't mean you have to be poor (which is the topic of the thread).
>>69865906
>Companies pay out dividends on investment
Well at least you have proven yourself not to be a Jew, just a retard.
Dividends get paid out on profit. So just sitting on cash does nothing for companies or investors. It's just money sitting there doing nothing. The only reason you keep a large cash reserve of liquid assets is because you deal in business where you need to to have liquid assets ready to cover losses.
>>69864052
It's only a problem for those with no aspirations. To them, we all owe them something.
>>69866012
>It's not like others being rich means you have to be poor.
I know there's the whole zero sum myth, but when it involves disparity this much, other certainly need to be poor in order for people to accumulate that kind of wealth.
>>69867234
Rare flag gets it, sweet jesus I wish the rest of the world would.Hope you're enjoying the beach and the sun bro
>>69864463
You got some rubber stuck in your teeth, bootlicker :^)
>>69867625
>statist calling me a bootlicker
my sides
Has nothing to do with idolizing the rich and more to do with my belief that people are entitled to their property and shouldn't have to submit to the whims of some faggot who's jealous of their success.
I admire my father more than anything, He paid his way through school, while taking care of his sick mother, got refused a job in his field and had to go to school again, while taking care of me and my older brother mind you, to get a good paying job, which he did faithfully for 35 years, investing his money wisely and retiring at the age of 57.
I hate cocksuckers like you and Sanders because he would wipe all of my fathers efforst away because cocksuckers like you are jealous pieces of shit who don't want to get your hands dirty and make your own way through life.
>>69866497
>Because what you perceive as proper ethics doesn't necessarily makes them real or proper ethics.
I think you might just be a huge fucking retard, or a troll, but let me break this down as simple as I can.
Business ethics are the moral principles that guide business conduct and decision making. I currently work for Altria in their Latin American market doing business to business relations. This is my companies' corporate code of ethics
http://www.altria.com/Responsibility/Compliance-and-Integrity/Documents/Altria_Code_of_Conduct.pdf
Proper ethics are defined by the holder of them, and are shaped by the society and legal environment that they're found in. Typically, proper ethics are good for the long term future of the business and for the society they're in and thus they work in tandem.
For example, this year is an El Niño year. This means that thousands of farmers in Latin America will be unable to meet their contracts, and many do not have crop insurance. To follow or code of ethics, we have agreed to pay their contracts with additional surplus pay for food and living expenses.
Why? Because if we don't, they will either not sign up with us when their contract comes up for renewal, or they will starve/go into a different market and thus be unavailable. We are securing our own future by securing the future of our suppliers. This is a very basic example of ethical business. We sell tobacco products if you haven't looked at any of this.
>The poor will devour nothing in today's globalist society. The rich will simply move away.
The rich rely on consent to operate in nation states. If you were to pull away the nation state from this, you simply risk people murdering them for wealth and you'll get a situation similar to Brazil post junta where the rich have to guard themselves night and day.
1/2
>>69867905
>Has nothing to do with idolizing the rich and more to do with my belief that people are entitled to their property and shouldn't have to submit to the whims of some faggot who's jealous of their success.
"I don't suck rich peoples' cocks, h-honest!"
"I just think that doing anything that would unequivocally help people who aren't already rich and society as a whole as a flow on is poor people being jealous niggers who deserve no human sympathy!"
Fucking libertarians, I swear.
>>69867905
> because he would wipe all of my fathers efforst away
TFW you advocate the free market so people can earn what they're worth.
TFW you want to be entitled to your father's wealth.
2/2
>Holding onto capital doesn't mean they're still not spending money as well. Not only that, but you seem to expect them to run on a near constant deficit, forever spending which is foolish and part of the reason the poor stay poor since they're always foolishly spending all of their money.
It's much more complicated than this because
>infinite wealth in circulation?
Essentially, the reason once again they have this massive stockpile is because of
>>69867234
>Dividends get paid out on profit. So just sitting on cash does nothing for companies or investors.
So, what happens is that because the company is accumulating such an amount of raw cash, they either sit on it which in their books they right down as an asset, or they attempt to reinvest it.
The problem with reinvesting it is that most investors that are high enough to have a say in the business are not retarded. They do not want say Googleto start investing in the production of Google body lotion, because they do not feel that their corporation will handle the task well, thus they'd demand to be given dividends with the excess profit, but Google is not a company that gives dividends and thus the whole company would have to change business model with its investors to accommodate this.
So, what you get is money that exists on paper as an asset which is shown in company evaluations, which is not actively being used in the actual production of wealth or being used in improving processes that is continually building.
>>69868307
Libertarians have the luxury of a libertarian system never existing in the modern world, so they can be all fucking smug because there's no empirical evidence to refute their claims. More so, they can say whatever they want because a libertarian world is never going to exist, so they never have to bite their tongue.
>>69868307
Come Australia! Step your game up
But we all know taking money from someone in the name of "charity" to support people who aren't doing what it takes to be successful is the "right" thing to do
>>69868391
I support free market because people have the right to enterprise and build for themselves and I won't inherit anything from my father, nothing significant anyway, I have three brothers to split things with and my dad isn't rich, just well off.
>>69868604
>Libertarians have no proof
The US?
Highest GDP
Highest buying power
Most powerful military
Homes of most of the world's largest and wealthiest businesses
We sure as fuck didn't get this way by giving Ahmed NEET bux
>>69868641
>people who aren't doing what it takes to be successful
>oh wait you're serious.jpg
>>69866804
Actually the best way is to nuke your silly hellhole island of criminals.
>>69864627
That's exactly the point. If we cut taxes as trump wants and employ his tariff threat, American companies will choose to build here if it is cheaper, this will mean more jobs, as demand for jobs goes up, supply of workers will go down, but more specifically of high skilled workers, like people who went to college and didn't take a gender studies course. Meaning they will have to pay more to convince people to work for them, and our economy will hopefully balance out because of this. It's similar to what he says about health care, competition breeds innovation and much better customer satisfaction. Monopolies caused by lobbyists are one of the single biggest reasons besides our dreadful international trade that our economy is failing and unemployment is so high
>>69864184
>Well, considering that social mobility has an inverse relationship with increased inequality, I'd say yeah, it's a pretty big deal.
Only person here who understands. Wealth inequality is a huuge issue that works against the prosperity of the country.
Pic fucking related.
Poverty isn't a problem at all. People don't know shit about spending money properly anyway. They'll use it all on alcohol and stupid designershit, or they'll just adjust their working output to work less. They don't try to maximize their productivity and they don't spend money on science and art.
>The Greatest time for the working plebs was the Reagan era,
HOL UP, is this true?
>>69868533
If it is company policy to not pay out dividends to stockholders than liquid assets are turned into physical assets over time. You can't just make a profit one year and immediately turn all that money into something meaningful to the business.
What Google which you like to use for your example, tends to do with it's liquid asset accumulation is buy other companies. These are their investments to help Google grow and become more profitable.
Money management is not an easy thing for private individuals. Corporate money management is even harder. Suffice to say that most money gets invested into things or is used to simply run things. Very little money is put into pure savings.
>>69869078
The actual distribution is exactly what any rational person would describe as a fair distribution. It's almost a perfect paretto distribution.
People being stupid isn't an argument for wealth inequality being a problem
>>69869278
Unemployment was down from the Carter administration
Tax revenue went up
More businesses were being created (Apple, Microsoft)
Reagan wasn't perfect but he was pretty much the Bill Clinton of the 80s
>>69864052
Aren't they in the top 0.1 percent because they're in the top 0.1 percent? I mean isn't that how these things work? The people with a lot of money have a lot of money?
>>69869078
It's not about the gap between the richest and the poorest. It's about how poor are the poorest. (See Cuba)
It's no good being all equally poor. And it's no good having everyone be poor but for a few rich people. (See African nations)
>>69869682
No, the pickle for them is not they in the top 0.1% but the amount of money they have as part of that bracket and their delusion that there's less money available to them since the 0.1% have so much.
>>69869579
That's not rational and it wasn't always like this so why settle?
>>69869360
It's not, but that's not my point. My point is simply that it's in a businesses best interest and societies best interest in the long term to run a business ethically. Wealth inequality can have a host of problems if the divide becomes too large and businesses have no concern for the societies they operate within.
>If it is company policy to not pay out dividends to stockholders than liquid assets are turned into physical assets over time.
I don't know where we're getting to. My point is simply that a lot of money exists in storage that could be better used in a variety of ways.
>>69869579
Are you fucking retarded? The distribution was created to describe that exact phenomenon. That doesn't make it ideal economically.
>>69869770
If the 0.1% controls ever increasing wealth they also have a greater share of resources and influence. That is what people are angry about. The unequal distribution of money represents serious imbalances.
>>69864052
What is the fucking y-axis labelled as? My ass? The fuck is this? And then the x is fucking years? Are you kidding me? 90% on one line. Not 10 on the other but .01
How stupid do you think I am? And THIS is the only pic you need. Assnugget
>>69864052
lmao no
>durrrr people have more money than me and that's bad :DDDDDD tax them and make them as poor as me:DD
Piketty says that the increase in inequality over the past 20 years is largely due to the increasing prevalence of the 'super manager' i.e. top executives of companies. Mainstream economic theory says that a worker's wage is mostly determined by their marginal productivity (how much they can contribute to output). For top managers its too abstract and hard to determine. Not only is it hard to determine, they also are in a better position to bargain for extremely high salaries.
I would think the solution to this form of inequality is better corporate governance regulations, not higher marginal tax rates.
>>69864052
It is, but the thing is that all the wealth gets taken in the form of taxes and given to welfare queens
>>69868749
>USA
>Libertarian
Pick one
>>69864052
No
Only cucks looking to shift responsibility from themselves onto others care about it
>>69870228
You are aware of the international tax avoidance being unveiled as we speak.
>>69870228
Wealth is not zero-sum
>>69870004
>A pattern appears literally everywhere in nature and human societies somehow means the system's unfair
So what would your ideal distribution be?
>>69869888
1.Why isn't it rational when it's derived from a basic mathematical principal
2.Yes, it was much worse for almost all of human history
>>69870578
>>A pattern appears literally everywhere in nature and human societies somehow means the system's unfair
What the actual fuck? Are you seriously using the appeal to nature fallacy?
By that logic, we should be a-okay with the destruction of the earth's ecosystems, since it's only "natural patterns" that lead to one species eventually dominating/killing all others.
>>69868641
My point a lot of the time people who advocate free markets are the ones who want to see themselves get wealthier (not that there's anything wrong with that) and believe that your income/wealth should be reflected by the work you put in.
However, these same people wouldn't be willing to live in a society where they would have to start from scratch and at the same point as everyone else.
They say earn your keep, but they're against levelling the playing field so that the everyone's opportunity to earn their keep is the same.
>>69870858
1.Fallacy fallacy
2.It describes the outcome of competition making it perfectly valid
3.Stop dodging the question
>So what would your ideal distribution be?
>>69870442
No
Only cucks try to convince themselves they aren't being shafted by the wealthy instead of having the balls to do something about it.
>Wh-what's that? 7 bucks an hour with no benefits, 12 hour work days, barely any vacation time, and unpaid sick days?
>I'd be entitled if I said that wasn't a good deal, ha ha! Earning my keep, right guys.. right?
>>69870881
That sounds completely hard to do, and more than anything completely inefficent.
What do you propose creating a system where we strip kids from thier parents?
Okay.
I guess we put them in a factory which probaly wont have thier best intrest in mind. I.e 1 parent for every 50 kids.
Even if we redistributed the wealth in 10 to 20 years wed end up in the same place.
What free college? I guess but its inefficent. It gets too flooded, and most kids don't know how to administer themselves. It becomes easy and they take it for granted.
>>69864052
No it isn't.
People don't understand that rich people being richer doesn't mean you aren't also getting richer.
Back in the middle ages even kings would die of simple diseases. Now any random nigress can afford to sustain a diet making her weigh more than a car as well as the healthcare necessary to keep from immediately dying due to it. All while having a car, phone, and stable sturdy house, things that didn't even exist or were extremely expensive in the past.
Just because you don't have a mansion and a Lamborghini does not mean that you're not living the fucking life of kings among kings even in poverty in the US.
>>69871741
>Being this deluded.
So advancements in medicine and technology mean that you cannot expect or demand more? Having a car is great but if you are forced to commute for an hour each way every day because rent prices are too high near your workplace then your standard of living is diminished. Just because quality of life has gone up doesn't mean people shouldn't strive for more and fight for better institutions.
>>69871636
It's largely based on a hypotheticals.
And the harsh reality is socialism is the closest you can get to putting everyone on equal footing.
But again, you starve entrepreneurial innovation. But is life really about making money? Also I wouldn't care about having the latest iPhone if I didn't expect it to exist, or if no one else one.
Anyway back to the point. If you believe in justice and true meritocracy, the playing field should be levelled at the start somehow.
But if you think it's everyone should fend for themselves, there's nothing wrong with that, but just don't claim its under the pretence of what's doing best for society (as opposed to yourself)
>>69871857
Strive for better conditions, yes. But now-a-days you have a fucking car to drive miles to work where you can just sit on your ass or flip burgers and get enough money to buy shit.
Imagine being a peasant farmer where 50% of your harvest is just taken automatically by the lord because he decided so. The last 40% is needed to feed your family, and 20% of the crops rotted. Oh welp I guess your family gets to go hungry some days.
What's that? "Just buy some food."? Alright. It's only a several day journey by wagon on highways riddled with bandits and highwaymen to eventually get to town. "Some bandits stole my wheat on the way here!" you shout to the guards. They shrug because it isn't in town so they don't care and they can't do anything about it.
Your family starves and you all die.
"BOO HOO I HAVE TO COMMUTE AN EXTRA HOUR TO WORK INSTEAD OF HAVING A STAY AT HOME JOB"
Fucking entitled little shits of this day I swear.
>>69871320
>2.It describes the outcome of competition making it perfectly valid
... so? Just because it occurs "naturally" doesn't mean it's in any way ethical or desirable. And again, how is this logic any different to using "natural" competition between species as a reason not to give a fuck about the environment?
>>So what would your ideal distribution be?
It's not hard. One that rewards hard work, but also allows for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to become successful through hard work alone, and not have to rely on luck in order to make it big.
>>69871320
Oh yeah, well you walked right into a fallacy fallacy fallacy
>>69872097
Tell mother nature to stop having unfair resource distribution then.
If I want to dig oil and so I buy a plot of land but I have less oil than other people do I get free oil because I didn't get my fair share? :(((
>>69869579
Fuck off weeb
>>69872271
>If I want to dig oil and so I buy a plot of land but I have less oil than other people do I get free oil because I didn't get my fair share? :(((
Nice strawman, retard. But to humour you with an actual response, no, you obviously don't, but the people who DO have more oil than you don't just get to keep 100% of the wealth to themselves, because doing so will inevitably lead to problematic social structures down the line.
>>69872446
So then they don't own the oil, right?
The government owns the oil, or the people do?
In which case why let people buy land in the first place? Just assign them what they need.
Oh wait, the USSR did that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENG7PEvByOE
>>69869579
It's a shitty chart that doesn't highlight the actual problem: that wealth and income inequality have been INCREASING over the years. Why is it perfect now, and wasn't perfect 40 years ago, where the gap between the lower and upper classes was much smaller?
>>69872569
*sigh*
Yes, they own the oil, but due to the fact that they are inherently part of a society in whose social structure and civility they directly benefit from, it is actually completely reasonable to expect them to forfeit some of their wealth in order to help support said society.
And for fuck's sake man, don't use strawmen or you can consider this argument over.
>>69871584
I make 75 grand a year
That's more than enough for a single bachelor with no debt to live quite comfortably and put away a substantial amount into mutual funds
In America there is no reason to be poor
The rich got rich through being smart and working hard
I know that's not what your Marxist teachers told you but it's the truth
Even elsewhere success stories abound but your narrative needs a world on fire in order to hold water
>>69872807
>Yes, they own the oil, but due to the fact that they are inherently part of a society in whose social structure and civility they directly benefit from, it is actually completely reasonable to expect them to forfeit some of their wealth in order to help support said society.
Who decides when they've given enough?
>>69864052
damn we're fucked
I am a Trump supporter and it is obvious the government has been working for rich people
>muh tax cuts for rich people will come back around someday!
>maybe a flat tax will fix it! I must pay the same tax rate as rich people lmao
>>69872807
Stop fucking whining about strawmen and fallacies every three fucking seconds you invalid. Your entire argument is fucking garbage and that's why to even argue against it, it'll always sound like a strawman.
Anyways; society exists due to those investors. Do you think the rich people just *have* the money they make and they just keep it in a massive vault where they swim occasionally?
They put money into systems and those systems cause more systems to rise and all of this helps everything. The majority of railroad work in the early US was thanks to random capitalist investors. Not the government laying down the foundations.
Cities sprang up and became successful places because investors threw tons of money at them. Not because the government gave them subsidies. Because guess what, the government doesn't have any money. Any money the government "Gives" you; you have to pay back in taxes because it's the pocket money guy who takes your pocket money.
>>69873021
>Who decides when they've given enough?
It's an ongoing process. A debate. A *democracy.* However, recognising the inherent good that comes from sacrificing some of your wealth in order to support the society isn't really up for debate.
>Stop fucking whining about strawmen and fallacies every three fucking seconds you invalid. Your entire argument is fucking garbage and that's why to even argue against it, it'll always sound like a strawman.
Jesus FUCKING Christ /pol/ I thought you were better than this. No, goddamnit you mouth-breathing double-nigger, you ARE using fallacies and it makes your argument all the more weaker, not mine. You're arguing against something that I'm not even talking about, how the hell is that in any way a valid debating tactic?
>Anyways; society exists due to those investors
Or maybe... just maybe... society is a multifaceted complex thing can't be reduced down to the retarded notion that any "one" segment of it built it in it's entirety, and that there's far more to living in a peaceful, prosperous country than how much money the influential make?
>The majority of railroad work in the early US was thanks to random capitalist investors. Not the government laying down the foundations.
Yeah, and the Interstate Highway System was a government project. As I just said above, you can't reduce social progress down to "this class of people did this, therefore it applies to all periods of history, ever." I'm sorry if your undeveloped brain can't handle anything other than ideological dogma, but it's just the goddamn truth.
>Cities sprang up and became successful places because investors threw tons of money at them
Oh for fuck's sake. Cities don't exist the way they do just because some people wanted to make money, they existed due to a complex series of social and geographic factors that determine where people choose to live and where not to live.
Anyway I'm out of words and you really don't deserve a second post, good day.
>>69873403
Do you... Actually believe that people try to go along with society for ANY reason other than personal gain?
People didn't build roads so other people can use them. People built roads so people will use them and bring more business to their area.
Money rules the world, cuck. Try buying something sometime and lemme know how that Australian wealth distribution is on your taxes.
>>69867234
that flag looks like a credit card
>>69871917
Yep socialism is.
You are assuming there is a mean
ing/ or at least a universal meaning for everyone.
Anyways most people would say no money isnt, but they all have thier own meaning or drive or motivation.
And society rewards those that meet or help satisfy those wants and needs.
You can do somthing for the betterment of society and at the same time yourself.
And i belive in justice and meritocracy, but no i don't have to belive that the playing field has to be leveld at the start. It should be as fair as possible without hampering or with a little hampering the others around them. But thats as much i can subscribe to that.
A great person will be great no matter what. Just because another person has an advantage in some way does'nt mean that the other person holds no advantage over them. A advantage today can be a disadvantsge tommrow.
A man who started poor might become politician over a rich man, just because he was once on thier shoes and can appeal to them on a more personal level.
Is being poor a disadvantage in that case?
I know wealth is more of a net gain because 99/100 its a positive. But society and life in general is hard to predict. Maybe that one time makes up for it. Its a really hard thing to messure amd that depends on the person to which is more valuable in the end?
>>69873573
>Actually believe that people try to go along with society for ANY reason other than personal gain?
Literally, yes. I'm sorry if your parents were so emotional negligent that you think life is just some cut-throat ratrace, but it's plain fact that not everyone shares your views. I personally couldn't give less of a shit about money, so long as I have enough to provide a comfortable lifestyle for my family. Everything else I do is for the betterment of my country and my species.
>Money rules the world, cuck.
.. So? Doesn't mean that that's how it SHOULD be. You might as well say "well the earth is going to die anyway, why the fuck should we worry about global warming?" It's like, well yeah, you're not actually wrong, but unlike you I'm not some autist only invested in my immediate short-term satisfaction. I, for one, would rather see humanity live as long as it can, rather than just fuck over my kids and grandkids because taking meaningful action against global warming meant I had to settle for a Lexus instead of a Mercedes.
>>69873766
>Doesn't mean that's how it SHOULD be
Well who gives a fuck what you learned in your liberal arts class listening to your anarchist buddies? Humans don't have a hivemind network like ants. We will never do things for the sole benefit of someone else. Even charity or giving to the homeless is to make yourself feel good or to get tax breaks.
Let me know when you give away all your wealth to a bunch of homeless people and we'll see just how serious you are.
>>69873766
>Everything else I do is for the betterment of my country and species
Neat. I have 850 dollars to my name and tons of student debt. Can you write me a check ??? Gibs monay plz. Wouldnt you rather help a starving college kid like me then go on vacation?
>>69872946
>The rich got rich through being smart and working hard
You forgot the key ingredient of being at the right place, at the right time. There is simply a degree of luck to it. E.g. Just meeting the right person at a networking even to launch your career. Or for example, inventing something like Instagram (which nearly anyone can do these days), but being fortunate enough to do it at the right time. If he made Instagram today, next to no one would use it.
>In America there is no reason to be poor
You seem to be under the illusion the american dream still exists. One reason to be poor is you grow up in a crime-ridden neighbourhood where the schools are underfunded and no one wants to hire you because your parents named you Jakwonkay Le'quishan. It's pretty disturbing that people actually think poverty is a choice.
>>69873403
Dude not that i agree with either of you, but /pol/ should really update that sticky, call it the falicizer or somthing cool.
It goes like this "calling someone out on a fallacy doesn't make your argument right".
Also when you encounter a fallacy you shouldn't call them out and say its a fallacy, it does'nt help your argument. And worse of all it does'nt convince them. Just be aware of it and correct thier fallic knowledge and point out why that logic does'nt flow well. Most people won't know what your screaming about when you say omg ad-himminuimss!!!
>>69874181
>equally redistribute IQ points and skilled workers to give everyone a fair chance
The only way what you're saying could be fixed.
People in ghettos constantly escape the ghettos. The issue is they stay in the fucking ghettos and act like chimps. "Oh but the system forces them to act that way!!!!" "Oh but they can't afford to move!!!!" If they can't afford to move they couldn't afford college to get a degree to get a job that could get them out of the ghettos.
Lazy ass niggers with low IQ whose best skill in life is flipping burgers are not some untapped geniuses that are just disadvantaged. Ghettos exist for a reason.
>>69873931
>Humans don't have a hivemind network like ants
We literally do. Every time you go down to the grocery store and buy milk without the expectation you're going to be stabbed or molested by a big black man, you're subconsciously aware of the fact that it is in more or less most people's best interest to not upset the social contract. Of course, there are exceptions to this, but humanity is far more influenced by the society and environment we surround ourselves in than most cuckservatives/libertarians realise.
>Even charity or giving to the homeless is to make yourself feel good or to get tax breaks.
Speak for yourself, asshat. I personally send a small percentage of money to charity because, you know, I genuinely care about other people and don't want them to have to suffer needlessly if there's the option for them not to. Maybe it's something in the libertarian mindset? There is a strong correlation between libertarianism and autism, after all (not even joking.)
>>69874019
>Strawman
Get fucked.
>>69874240
I actually agree. Fallacies don't automatically invalidate someone's argument. However, most of the time on /pol/, they usually do. The people arguing against me are perfect examples of this.
>>69874240
>fallic
fallacious
fallic just looks like a misspelling of phallic, a word meaning penis-like.
>>69874538
That is not a hivemind. The fact that you can get stabbed by a black man proves we are not in a hivemind. Bees and ants do not fight amongst themselves. They do not argue when they are told to die for no reason. They have zero care for their life. They exist solely to serve the queen of their colony and all of them work towards this goal mindlessly.
Don't lie, you mention the charity you pay away on your tax reports to get breaks. Everyone does it.
>says he does everything for the betterment of mankind
>someone asks him to do it
>calls it a strawman and disregards it
You're just an idiot who doesn't realize that your entire life is based on capitalism and that securing enough money for a "Comfortable" life for your family would be impossible otherwise.
After all, don't you think 10 disheveled hobos would do much more with the money than your family of less than 10 people? All people are equal and hobos are just homeless due to bad conditions not due to any personal reasons; right?
>>69874538
How is that a strawman. You literally said you "couldn't give less of a shit about money, so long as I have enough to provide a comfortable lifestyle for my family." Why aren't you giving the rest of that money to others in need? Unless you were lying of course and you care about money.
>>69874750
>Why aren't you giving the rest of that money to others in need?
Because I never said "I'm going to actively work against my own self-interest if it meant arbitrarily helping whoever asked for my money", retard. I said I wanted to work to help others and make the world a better place. I never specified how. You're essentially saying the only way anyone can ever help others is to be a bleeding-heart cuck. That is plain old wrong.
>>69874738
>That is not a hivemind
It shows that we have elements of it. Every time you go to work and reasonably expect to be compensated for your efforts, that is part of a "hivemind." Every time you're accused of breaking a law you know you didn't commit but are confident you won't be convicted based off circumstantial evidence, that's being part of a "hivemind." It's called the social contract, look it up. And again, I never said this was absolute, only that it influences us a lot more than most people care to realise. Obviously people still have agency. Obviously people are going to break this contract, for whatever reason. But for the most part, societies live and die as peaceful, welcoming places to live as much as they buy into the idea of supporting a "common good."
>Don't lie, you mention the charity you pay away on your tax reports to get breaks. Everyone does it.
That's a nice bonus, and a good incentive for others to do it, but seriously, I'm actually not just fucking with you when I say this is not why I do it. If there was no tax breaks, I would still do it anyway. Again, not everyone is a cold, mathematical autist like yourself.
>You're just an idiot who doesn't realize that your entire life is based on capitalism
Oh really? Tell me, how does the 8-hour workday support capitalistic endeavors? Or how about mandatory vacation time (something you Burgers wouldn't know about)?
>hobo thing
You know as much as I do that economics doesn't work like that.
>>69875380
Stop using the word hivemind to describe something that isn't a hivemind unless you want to sound like an idiot.
>That's a nice bonus
So you do it. So part of it is a gain for you even if you would do it without that. You cannot prove you'd do it without the gain system in place, so you lose on that point.
I dunno. Ask your brand name food and toiletries you use daily. Perhaps the brand name car you have? Maybe even the brand name business you work at. Also Americans don't have mandatory vacation time because you're supposed to negotiate your benefits with your employer. If you don't get enough vacation days that's your problem. Find a new work place, become a business owner, or shut up.
Oh so the hobos wouldn't benefit from being given money? Why do you donate to charity then? Doesn't it just give you a warm feeling and a nice cut on your tax reports? Seems like you already know that the homeless aren't going anywhere with or without your payments.
>>69864052
WELL OP WE BETTER TAX PEOPLE MAKING 150K A YEAR.... THAT WILL SURE STICK IT TO THOSE BILLIONAIRES.
>>69870209
Suprizingly Israel is doing exactly that.
>>69875648
>Stop using the word hivemind to describe something that isn't a hivemind unless you want to sound like an idiot.
Fine. "Social contract." Better?
>You cannot prove you'd do it without the gain system in place, so you lose on that point.
.. I can't know my own intentions?
>Also Americans don't have mandatory vacation time because you're supposed to negotiate your benefits with your employer.
Not a good thing. Literally every other developed country on earth has such a system, because unlike the American ethos most other countries realise that life isn't just about how productive a worker you can be.
>Oh so the hobos wouldn't benefit from being given money?
Freaking hell man you're not even TRYING to think about these things. "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for the rest of his life." Giving all of my money to homeless people would help them buy food/booze/cigarettes for a day or so, but then I'd have no money and they'd be no real better off than before. You know what WOULD help them out in the long-term? Providing them with housing and programs to help them find a job/clean themselves up/get off the streets.
>>69874538
hivemind network.
Humans. Not really bad analogy
No i would rather volenteer or help someone, i won't give a cent. If you genuinely care you'd do that instead.
I think it stems from a lack a trust, that in my opinion is justified, that chairities, not all, are inefficient with thier money, look at where most if it goes if you ever feel the need to donate.
Giving it the poor as a general rule of thumb directly is also bad. I.e bums/ ussualy druggies are bad with finance. So it isnt always a great idea.
I agree with your point about charity not being just about tax breaks.
I just want you too see it from a diffent prespective.
>>69875380
>The only way anyone can ever help others is to be a bleeding-heart cuck.
I never said that. I was quoting you exactly. Be more clear about what you are saying. You are defiantly moving the goal posts from your original claim about "helping humanity".
>>69876236
Yes.
Most humans don't. Human brains are fucked and we barely understand them now. I can tell you though that people aren't innately good or bad. They are self-centered and will only feel empathetic for people that don't involve them as a temporary thing for people to think you are a nice person. That's why everyone forgets a tragedy one week later.
It isn't about productivity, it's about being an adult. If you aren't responsible enough to tell your employer that you need more pay and more vacation time because you can't plan your budget properly and you have a low work ethic then that's your issue.
Let the hobos live in your house then. How's that? My point I'm making for this is that redistributing wealth to people is a bad idea because rich people are rich for a reason poor people are poor for a reason except for in extremely corrupt societies. Due to this; redistributing wealth is fucking stupid. Wealth redistribution is automatic and a free economic system is what turned America into one of the worlds strongest players in its extremely short lifespan. (Along with our massive supplies of natural resources but hey, it's not like being fair is a thing in real life.)
>>69864052
India is wealth inequality taken to the extreme
