/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>944478
>TFW youll never beat the shit out of occupyfaggots

They may be misguided, but if you don't think the wealth gap is out of control then you're an idiot.

Look at China or Brasil, if you want to see how people live when capitalism and indecency go unchecked.

>>944485
>if you don't think the wealth gap is out of control then you're an idiot

Yeah and what's your solution? Some people are more valuable to society, thus they earn more.

The government already takes half your shit if you're in the "1%".

Is your solution to literally steal 95% of their money by force and re-distribute it? If you did that then no one would stay in your shithole country, thus you would lose people sustaining your entire tax-funded babyland, lose on ahuge amount of jobs and provide no incentive for businesses to grow.

>>944489
Are these "more valuable people" worth everything? Is there a weighting to be determined?

Let me phrase this another way:

If I run a company, am I entitled to raid the cash drawer all I like? What happens when my raiding causes the business to suffer?

>>944500
>Are these "more valuable people" worth everything? Is there a weighting to be determined?
Brain drain.

Unless you believe all people are equal, in which case you can just go ahead and keep hoping that's true while asking goggle eyed questions and gently jacking off under the desk.

But why? Where's the proof? Never mind that nonsense, that's not proof, do some research. Nice research, kiddo. This old socialist seadog is almost impressed by your class assignment. But what IS truth anyhow?

>>944500
>If I run a company, am I entitled to raid the cash drawer all I like? What happens when my raiding causes the business to suffer?

Yes because it belongs to you. I don't see why you would ever do that as it only harms you, much like smashing your computer to pieces.

>Are these "more valuable people" worth everything? Is there a weighting to be determined?

The point is that their investment in the economy via their company creates jobs(via employment) and requires transactions to sustain itself(requiring office space, office supplies, etc that someone needs to create). - If you just forcefully or implicitly kicked these people out, who do you think will give them jobs?

>>944489

There's so many problems with what you are saying that it would take too long to counter everything point by point.

The "solution" is that the working class should receive their fair share for their labor contributions. Currently they are not.

So what should change? Either government regulation, or more unions.

And the old argument, "well people will leave if we regulate them more harshly!", sure didn't happen when....

> slavery ended
> child labor ended
> OSHA was formed
> Overtime laws were enacted
> Break laws were enacted
> disability & workmans comp laws were enacted

>>944508
The cash drawer here is the buying power of the currency. If the vast majority of gains go towards those that sit on money, the currency loses velocity and the market grows slower. We want wealth to widen, not narrow. This adds value to the economy.

>>944523
>Either government regulation, or more unions

So the government is going to decide how much someone's labor is worth...?

>Unions

Lmao. Great more people who will literally work at 1/6th their maximum speed and effort because firing them requires an absurd amount of headache and half the time you can't even fire them in the end.

>>944524
>If the vast majority of gains go towards those that sit on money, the currency loses velocity and the market grows slower

How can they sit on money while at the same time investing it?

In order to earn a lot of money you need to invest it, you don't just sit on it.

>>944526

you don't know shit. Arguing with you is waste of time.

I've worked in 8 different industries, have worked in both unionized and non unionized environments.

I now own and operate a small business, and lead sales for a friend's small business.

Have fun growing up.

>>944478
this is to painfull to watch

>>944539
>you don't know shit. Arguing with you is waste of time.

You are a retard who hasn't taken a single economics class, even online or some shit.

Enjoy staying poor and bitter. Good luck at your next occupy meeting.

>>944485
>china brazil
>unchecked capitalism

Thanks for reminding us why you clowns have the most retarded ideology

>>944489
>Some people are more valuable to society, thus they earn more

Yes, like Madoff, like Skilling, live Livermore.
Valuable to society, my fucking sides. Only 15 year old aynfags or clinically retarded people (which almost always is the same thing) would unironically believe that there is a correlation between "value to society" and income.

>>944485
>>china
>>capitalist

>>944489
Currently the extremely wealthy aren't even paying their tax share due to loopholes. Closing those loopholes would be a good start.

>>944674
Not him but, in economics 'value' essentially means how much people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay engineers and bankers more, due to their scarcity, -> thus they earn more.
People aren't as willing to pay janitors and waiters as much, due to their abundance, thus they earn less.

>>944699

According to this logic creation of artificial scarcity, scams and ponzi schemes are the most valuable gifts to society, as they make ludicrous profits out of thin air. In reality however their value to society is either zero or negative in the end. Yes, people would pay more to a scam artist, but sooner or later he would disappear with all their money. Where's the value for the society?

>muh scarcity
Ok, there's a janitor with 6 fingers on each hand. One in a million! That's scarce! Would you pay him more?

>People aren't as willing to pay janitors and waiters
Wrong. Experienced waiters (in certain restaurants) earn more than recently graduated engineers, due to large tips and experience. Which means this waiter is more valuable to society than an engineer, and also your argument just got BTFO.

>>944758

>Wrong. Experienced waiters (in certain restaurants) earn more than recently graduated engineers, due to large tips and experience. Which means this waiter is more valuable to society than an engineer, and also your argument just got BTFO.

>Durr, one in a million waiters makes more than the lowest paid engineer, that makes the waiter more valuable!

>>944500
what the fuck are you going on about you stupid kike

The dirty hippies are right, the rich have it too easy in this country.

Unfortunately for them, Social Security and Medicare are much of the problem, but they'll never admit to it.

>>945016
Why is it so many other countries can be less economically stratified with even more socialized programs of that nature then?

>>945038
functional governments with responsible budgets

>>944485

China has pulled like 400 million people out of soul-crushing-Africa-level poverty into just poor status in like 25 years with the help of free trade from the USA, how again is capitalism bad in China?

>>945038
Social Security is half-assed. It costs 13% in taxes every year, but once you make above $115,000 you stop having to pay it, which is great for the people that applies to because anyone with a semblance of knowledge about the financial industry could take that 13%, invest it, and end up with a greater return than what Social Security gets. Not to mention they still get SS paychecks for the $115,000 that they did pay, so somebody with a $10mil retirement account is getting a fat government check in the mail every month while some poor bastard who worked at the mill his whole life gets barely enough to put a roof over his head.

The Democrats solution to this is just to equal it out by taking away the tax cap and the SS benefits of anyone who makes enough money outside of that to survive, but at that point you go from having an earned entitlement to just a re-distributive welfare system that would still be an unsustainable pyramid scheme.

>>945038

Smaller population with a more homogenized race and culture, which also doesn't eat up its entire budget on military spending and baby boomer entitlements.

>>945089

It's a pyramid by creation and trying to "fix" it is literally trying to turn a pyramid into a legitimate business

It's amazing that the government legally requires you to invest in a program with a negative ROI.

The only real way to fix it would be to allow people to have individual SS accounts. That doesn't work two fold because the fucks that never pay in don't get shit, and it shows the individual that they actually lose money for every dollar they pay into SS.

The only other option is to allow people to opt out, but this doesn't fix it because everyone is going to opt out and the system instantly collapses.

>>945109
An interesting thing to think about is how the current state of military spending came to be. Post WW2 europe lay ripe for the taking, laid bare before the red menace. If not for the US footing the bill for pretty much all defense, pogroms would have once again raged across the continent. Fast forward a few generations, and the mutual defense treaties that only the US is holding up are still in existence (imo for good reason, it's a great political bargaining tool).

With the burden of providing for defense now gone, many countries under the protecting umbrella of US military might decided not to step up to take care of their own defense, and instead pushed a lot of that money to social welfare and spending programs. This was kind of the point of it all. People like their free lunches though, and now the US is stuck footing the bill for unappreciative nations who nonetheless need the US's protection, if nothing else at least in a larger sense.

Seen in this light, bloated US military spending is kind of the price of the world we live in. Seen from another light, it's a consequence of past generations, that we're still living with.

Kind of like social security. And unions. And pensions. And prededucted taxes. And a thousand other things, up to and including congress and representatives having their votes made public since the early 70s, paving the way for special interest lobbying.

>>944478
Funny how peter schiff basically fell off the radar when gold and silver collapsed.

>>944674
Yeah, he should have phrased it as "some people have more in demand skills".
But that "value to society" stuff is subjective bullshit in and of itself. Everyone likes to argue that their job is valuable, and as for the people they don't like, theirs somehow isn't.

>>945343
>But that "value to society" stuff is subjective bullshit in and of itself. Everyone likes to argue that their job is valuable, and as for the people they don't like, theirs somehow isn't.

"People they don't like", what? You get paid based on your value to society, how much you produce. Do you even understand what you're posting?

In order to make $1,000,000 a year I need to provide something to people that they will buy.

People don't just draw money up. A fastfood worker cooks burgers, he very minimally influences the lives of thousands per year. A factory owner influences the livelihood of tens of thousands by providing them with products, paying their salaries and stimulating the economy a considerable amount.

>>945364
>Do you even understand what you're posting?
Do you?
I'm referring to the moral argument. The "Your job has no value to society", which is entirely subjective.
Not the economic one, which only a moron would debate, and is proved by the very fact that someone makes x dollars a year.

>>945364
>You get paid based on your value to society

are you dumb?
you get paid what people are willing to pay you. that's it.

"value to society" is meaningless. 'society' isn't a single entity, it's a set of individuals who often assign radically different levels of value to a thing than one another.

>>945373
>The "Your job has no value to society", which is entirely subjective.

*LESS* value, not none at all.

What do you mean moral argument? There's none here. I'm saying that if you're earning minimum wage you deserve it because that's your contribution to society, if you earn $100/hr you also deserve it. That's all there is to it.

>>945376
>you get paid what people are willing to pay you. that's it.

Yeah and how do they decide if you're worth $30/hr, $50/hr or $10/hr? By how in demand your skills are that provide *VALUE TO SOCIETY*, That's how you make money, that's why employers pay you money.
If your value was nonexistent they wouldn't pay you anything.

>>944683

you're not serious, right?

You are ignoring that perceived value is not always the same as real value.

>>945377
>ITT: Trying to start arguments with people who already believe the same thing you do.

>>945380
nigger did you even read my post?
no employer gives a shit about your "value to society". he cares about your value to him and his business. that's all there is to it.

https://youtu.be/kGdH7iGNqlY?t=27m15s

27:15

h o l y f u c k

>>945391
>no employer gives a shit about your "value to society". he cares about your value to him and his business. that's all there is to it.

YES I KNOW. But i'm saying your value to him and is business is based on what you can produce to the world that he can sell. How else would he earn money?

>>945393
dumb ass nigger holy fuck

No Tyrone Peter Schiff will not endorse your mixtape.

Tbh i'm surprised he even came out to such a gathering without bodyguards. I'd expect someone to try to attack him or shoot him or something. Bunch of degenerates all crowding him...

>>945398

I can't watch this anymore. It's devolved into a shouting match. This guy's patience is legendary.

>>945407
I don't understand why he's not fearing for his safety.

Niggers and non-nigger degenerates have gotten mad and assaulted people for much less

>>945408
>I don't understand why he's not fearing for his safety

this isn't some #blacklivesmatter shit.

occupy was mostly full of hippies and college students, college dropouts, and unemployed youth who graduated with shitty degrees. in short, failed middle-class people. annoying wastes of space, but not violent like some mob of #justicefortrayvon niggers.

>>945416
>hippies and college students, college dropouts, and unemployed youth who graduated with shitty degrees

Will we ever gas them senpai?

>this isn't some #blacklivesmatter shit

Maybe i got the wrong impression. I'd still not be out there with bodyguards though.

Also one of the only times I visited the US i checked out Washington DC and the niggers were in full-force, it was terrifying.

it always amuses me how those with nothing of worth are always big supporters of sharing.

>>945421
Dunning Kruger.

They watch a youtube video or two of feelgoodshit, don't fact check or anything and go on to decide they got all of economics figured out.

The fact that people are exactly where they deserve to be in their lives is much harder to swallow than "le evil rich white guys are keeping everyone poor".

webm related

>>945426
What you're totally missing is that people don't fact check. This is before they decide they have economics figured out.
Jeez, people are where they deserve to be.

>>945449
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing in some strange way.

You just repeated what I said.

>>945453
lol.
Now you know how I feel

>>945457
No I think we agree, just for some reason you said some weird ballonney about Value to society.

>>945460
>ballonney about Value to society
What I was saying is that's the language people use to make the argument.
They don't mean economic value. They mean some non-definable measure of "moral value".
You know, like the idea that people who plant trees "add more value" than people who drive trucks.That kind of shit.

>>945467
>You know, like the idea that people who plant trees "add more value" than people who drive trucks.That kind of shit.

OH.

I thought you were meaning some shit like liberalkeks say about a Philosophy major having more value than an Accountant because "explores deep meaning of life" or something.

>>944758
>According to this logic creation of artificial scarcity, scams and ponzi schemes are the most valuable gifts to society, as they make ludicrous profits out of thin air. In reality however their value to society is either zero or negative in the end. Yes, people would pay more to a scam artist, but sooner or later he would disappear with all their money. Where's the value for the society?
The ponzi schemes won't work every time. By definition they collapse and then a lot of people will wise up and not be so dumb with their money next time. For every successful ponzi scheme there's like 100 corporations who are very valuable to society (that's why they make so much money). Are you somehow implying that crime is the fault of capitalism with the ponzi scheme example? Or are you shocked that some people choose a life of crime?

>Ok, there's a janitor with 6 fingers on each hand. One in a million! That's scarce! Would you pay him more?
I don't see how a janitor having 6 fingers would help him on his job. His extra fingers might be scarce but his janitorial skills aren't. If he could do the job of two or three janitors thanks to his extra fingers then he could undoubtedly negotiate better compensation.

>Wrong. Experienced waiters (in certain restaurants) earn more than recently graduated engineers, due to large tips and experience. Which means this waiter is more valuable to society than an engineer, and also your argument just got BTFO.
We're talking in general here. When I say men are physically stronger than women most everyone will agree. You on the other hand will find one woman stronger than one man and say LOL BTFO!!!

A couple of waiters make more than some engineers who recently graduated. What about experienced engineers (in certain companies) versus experienced waiters (in certain restaurants)? There's a reason we have the saying "the exception that proves the rule" because if you have to struggle to find exceptions it means it's a pretty good rule.

>>945472
No. I couldn't buy that kind of crap.

What I never could figure out is how they can't see the similarity between people they deplore, like traders who get paid millions, and say, Kobe Bryant or Brad Pitt, who also use their talents to do something someone sees as worth millions (putting asses in the seats).
Although I guess lots of them hate those guys too.

>>945491
>No. I couldn't buy that kind of crap.

Lol what a misunderstanding tbhh famm.

>What I never could figure out is how they can't see the similarity between people they deplore, like traders who get paid millions

It's nice to imagine le evil boogeyman white people sitting and laughing at the misfortunes of the "working class" and putting things outside of their circle of control.
>I'm not poor because im a lazy faggot, some other guy is responsible and he wont let me!

>>945393
>dank meme
Peter Schiff doesn't know.

>>945495
>evil boogeyman
It must be nice to imagine that shit, because I hear it on a daily basis.
It doesn't seem to matter to a lot of them whether they understand the mechanics of something or not.
The very fact that other people are profiting from something they can't be involved in is enough for them to believe they're getting fucked.

>>945505
>It must be nice to imagine that shit, because I hear it on a daily basis.

>tfw parents somewhat like this

>Anon i'm tired of rich faggots taking advantage of me, capitalism isn't so good
>B-but dad the house and cars you have are literally only possible under capitalism

Idk senpai. Sometimes he says Libertarian-tier shit, sometimes he's a commie. I think might be going senile kind of early.

>>945510
>rich faggots taking advantage of me
Always do business as if the person you're doing business with is trying to fuck you. Because they probably are.
And if they're not, you can be pleasantly surprised.

>>945517
>Always do business as if the person you're doing business with is trying to fuck you. Because they probably are.

Goes without saying but no one is forcefully stealing from people...

>>945519
The earlier in life people figure out that it all comes from the same place, the better off they are.
When McD's asks if you want to super size.
When BofA ask if you want to open an account.
Do you want a double for $1 more?

It's all about chasing your dollars.

Occupy were onto something, but they tackled it from the wrong angle (leftist). It made them easy to knock over.

The real issue is that modern capitalism exists on an out of control, global scale and is run by soulless corporations who are tied to no particular nation. Taxing the fuck out of CEOs is a silly solution to this.

Limiting immigration (of all kinds) and protecting American jobs from going overseas would help the lower and middle classes immensely. That gets in the way of productivity and consumerism though, so that combination is never even on the table for people to consider.

>>945584
I am in /biz/ right? What's with all the patriotism.
When jobs go overseas, they go there in the first place because labour is cheaper. Which means that people who get those jobs are poorer.
The entire reason India and China are not as shit as they were a few decades ago is because of jobs going into those countries, to the very poorest.
But I completely understand, who gives a fuck about the shitskins and the chinks?
Much more, immigration allows the labour market to shift to where they are needed. The US has a humongous engineering sector, a lot of other people are coming to the US specifically because of this. Skilled labour is coming and meeting a demand that the local labour supply cannot meet.
But fuck it, if that demand isn't being met with true Americans, then it shouldn't be met at all, lets just cause aggregate prices to increase, reducing real income.
Because America belongs to the Americans, Everyone else should go back to their own country.

>>944485
>Look at China or Brasil, if you want to see how people live when capitalism and indecency go unchecked.

I'd love to live in china as a chinese person. As a foreigner you have a hard time getting legal,

but the fucking opportunities man, unless you're a lazy uneducated complacent shit the opportunities are explosive.

>>945584
I'm beginning to wonder if globalism can work for us if education quality is higher.

We outsource to other countries because they offer cheap labor, certainly, but other countries outsource to us because we have skilled and educated labor.

Outsourcing skilled white collar jobs has come with caveats - IP theft in China, shitty finished products in India. Auto manufacturing, our traditional bread and butter, suffers more from foreign competition and automation than outsourcing.

The biggest problem on the horizon is automation, especially of the intelligent variety.

Nevertheless, multinational political tyranny is a very serious problem.

>>945762
Automation is an interesting topic, though I imagine it will only be really a problem in the short term. In the long term, I imagine higher education, especially the ability to continuously learn better skills, would become akin to reading and writing today. In the past, the literate had a massive advantage over the illiterate, but now the planet has an 80% literacy rate, 90% if you only include under 30s.
One automation kicks in, I imagine amount of people who know C (Or other programming languages) will be the new literacy test.

>>944699
>Not him but, in economics 'value' essentially means how much people are willing to pay.

Please educate yourself on economic models outside of the neoclassical so you don't sound like an idiot when discussing these topics, thanks and god bless.

>>945780
Prax pls

>>945752
I'm as patriotic as they come, and I don't think that globalization is bad. Loving america and the system that's set up that lets me make money and be safe is separate from thinking that the US lives in isolation. That ignores basic realities on a grand scale. Globalization is a good thing and is only derided by luddites unwilling to adapt to a changing and increasingly technological world. There's a difference between "patriot", where the term is used to hide behind hatred and fear, and patriot, which is a term that says "oh I like my home."

>>945762
Automation isn't a problem, but an opportunity. Factory workers become more or less obsolete, much like horses. The model T is just now coming out these past couple decades. Kinda neat.

>>945477
>The ponzi schemes won't work every time.

Doesn't matter, all that matters they still exists, means it's still profitable, without any "value to society".

>By definition they collapse and then a lot of people will wise up and not be so dumb with their money next time
>a lot of people will wise up and not be so dumb

AHAHAHAHAHA
If, as you claim, "a lot of people" would become wiser after each failure, ponzi schemes wouldn't have existed and con men would have all died of starvation a long time ago.

The explanation is that you confuse "value to society" with greed. It's a desire to have more money quick that drives both con men and those who give them money. Not some obscure "value to society", ffs.
It's the same as saying that people, who go to casinos are doing this because they want to see their money taxed away to build schools, kindergartens, etc., i.e. to bring "value to society".

>>945477

>I don't see how a janitor having 6 fingers would help him on his job

I don't know too, but it's you who said "due to their scarcity", there wasn't anything else on your part besides "muh scarcity". Abundance/scarcity alone do not dictate the amount of payment.

>What about experienced engineers (in certain companies) versus experienced waiters (in certain restaurants)?

What about experienced engineers, who got fired or lost their job, because the factory/company went bankrupt and these engineers are too old (too experienced and "too overqualified") to find another job/immigrate?
What about countries, which got owned by political/economical crisis and doesn't have any industry/R&D, only service based economy and tourism?
Ans so on.

>We're talking in general here

In general, i knew countries in which engineers with many years of experience were selling shit in flee markets and waiters (IN GENERAL) were living much more better than them. And people with PhD were actually working as janitors. And that was a rule there, IN GENERAL, for many many years.

Your "rules" are akin to memes about PhD degree and 300k starting or "having a college degree equals success in life". These"rules" are only good for pointless speculations.

>>946398
>>946392
This has to be bait. There is no way someone wrote this with a completely serious intent.

Isn't it weird how the US did so much better when they had historical high tax rates, 50s and 60s?
you Americans seem so scared by the word 'socialism', it's fucking scary...

>>946507
Isn't it weird how when you're the only one standing after a global conflict, you can run the rebuild and become a superpower?

>>944489
>Is your solution to literally steal 95% of their money by force and re-distribute it? If you did that then no one would stay in your shithole country, thus you would lose people sustaining your entire tax-funded babyland, lose on ahuge amount of jobs and provide no incentive for businesses to grow.
Not if we forced everyone to do it.

>>944526
>Lmao. Great more people who will literally work at 1/6th their maximum speed and effort because firing them requires an absurd amount of headache and half the time you can't even fire them in the end.
Is this really how Unions work? How can I join one?

>>946633
So your logic is that if you take over the -entire- world (so that people have nowhere to escape to) you can implement the "perfect" system (which everyone hates, which is why you need to control the whole world so they have nowhere to escape to) then everything will just be peachy.

Go to bed Kim Jong Un.

I fucking love these Peter Schiff videos.

Anyone have more of people getting BTFO about economics?

>>946638
Be a French citizen in France.

>>946699
I legit watched the first hour and what bothered me is how he kept telling these people general statements instead of facts. Every time they argued that corporations are evil and used Walmart as proof he responded that it was because of government regulations, the same argument he gave for so many other things. He should have kept bringing up how Walmart is only alive because of government support and subsidies and that it would die in a true capitalist society.

He's absolutely right but he keeps repeating general statements like a salesman. He doesn't have to; he can use the truth, but he doesn't half the time.

Come on Pete, be the hero we need.

>>946727
If you can find anyone who does this half as good, please do send.

Can anyone debunk anything he's saying? His libertarian points from the several videos I have seen are incredibly convincing.

>>946665
"The perfect system of government is one where all semblance of power has been stripped from those who would dissent"

>>946731
Milton Friedman used to bury commie bitches all the time. Youtube "Milton Friedman debate" or something.

>>945756

I'm heading over there again next week.

It'll be interesting to see if anything's really changed since $4 trillion and counting has left their economy (Bloomberg). But I do see opportunities still.

>>946727
>He's absolutely right but he keeps repeating general statements like a salesman. He doesn't have to; he can use the truth, but he doesn't half the time.

Do you think he memorizes exact facts and statistics to just shoot them out at will?

>>945109

Option 3 is bring in more immigrants to feed the scam.

>>946507

>correlation=causation

>>946626
This.

>>944478
>what are memes
God

>>944478

> What if Peter Schiff is just as much of an ass hat as the occupy faggots?

He's an alarmist turd who's been shilling investment advice to buy gold since $1800/oz and that markets are going to crash and whatever else nonsense he says.

>>944485
>China
>Brazil
>capitalist
I think you meant point out what happens when government and indecency go unchecked.

>>944478
So you're telling me that the economy would in no way benefit if more people had more purchasing power to buy goods and services?

>>949012
The "economy would benefit" if you gave every homeless person $100.
Is that your only criteria?

>>949047
Not what I said. The economy would benefit more if the 99% were all paid more. Considering that wages have stagnated since the 80's in all positions except for high level executive type, I would say we're due for a raise. Hell, adjust for inflation the minimum wage in 1984 was around $20/hour nation wide. We currently don't even pay $10.

>>949075
>The economy would benefit more if the 99% were all paid more
Not what I said you said.
It would also benefit the economy if you targeted a minority group, seized their assets, and shipped them off to death camps.
My criteria is only "things that would benefit the economy".
Fuck other considerations.

>>949087
Well that would only depend on what you did with the seized assets wouldn't it?

Regardless, you don't think more people, able to purchase more goods and services would help the economy?

>>949116
Regardless, you're ducking the point.
Namely, that anyone can come up with a vast list of things that will "help the economy". The real question is what's worth pursuing.
Saying something will "help the economy" doesn't make it worth doing on those merits alone.

>>949131
Ok, you don't think more purchasing power for more people isn't worth pursuing?

Why?

>>949136
Of course I think it's worth pursuing.
I also think lots of other things are worth pursuing.
You don't understand that the importance of these things is subjective?

Why?

>>949148
Because I'm posting anonymously on an anime image board about economics of course.

>>944523

>the working class should receive their fair share for their labor contributions. Currently they are not

Statements that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The market decides what a fair wage is. Wages are low right now because the economy is shit, jobs aren't being created because businesses can afford to hire fewer people, and we're being flooded with cheap labor. Wages go up when the opposite is true. If companies have to compete for the best workers, wages rise.

Your solution is to start bailing water rather than fixing the hole in the boat.

>>949227
>America has obesity epidemic
>mcd has a right to exist and do business
>people make bad decisions, get obese

What happens when the burden of this outweighs the GDP benefit? Or to put it another way, if ceos deserve outrageous pay after buying back shares with debt, the economy effectively deserves to fail.

Are we beyond this yet or will our hubris drive us into the ground?

What good's a billion dollars if there's nothing left worth buying?

>>949243
So what would you do? Take away people's freedom to spend their own money that they earned as they see fit? What makes you so certain that you are much better at spending Joe Blow's money than he is?

>>949209

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4_KuC1-sQ


Schiff is a joke. Here he is getting rekt by a libertarian who's an actual economist.

>>944485
> brazil
>unchecked capitalism
BR monkey here, you clearly are retarded.

>>949620
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php

rek'd

>>944524
You seem to think bill gates has 40 billion cash under his mattress just waiting for the economy to slow and then he would do shenanigans with it.

I do not expect anything to change, the ows movement imo is a failure but concessions will be made when the majority believes the system does not work for them. I expect that when the ethnicity of the elite changes from anglo to asian.

>>944674
CEOs that create sophisticated business plans which result in jobs and tax revenue are tremendously smarter and more valuable than you, redneck.

>>944478
what is this faggot complaining about
i am a student with 600k in student loans

>>944478
>Peter Schiff
lel

>>944485
>>944500
LMAO
Okay communists name me ONE successful country of yours.

>>944523
>"well people will leave if we regulate them more harshly!", sure didn't happen when
What is US manufacturing?

Pic related, this is why USA is fucked and the result of 'muh big gubermit regulations'

>>949012
>what is say's law

>>944523
>And the old argument, "well people will leave if we regulate them more harshly!", sure didn't happen when....
So your goal is the type of system where you tax and regulate people so harshly that they're constantly on the fence about leaving?
Sounds like my old job.

>>946633

For any given company the difference between the highest paid employee (including things like stocks and bonuses) and the lowest paid employee can't be more than 100x.

Bam! Inequality in compensation problem solved.

>>947099
Yes, that's typically why somebody goes down to have a debate about a specific topic. Because they know the facts.

>>945144
I thought the same exact thing but with a different perspective.

>All these countries spending their money on being happy
>America spending their money on military "protection and aid" to these countries
>Other countries lose military power to contentment
>Europe ripe for America's take over.

Occupy movement wasted its time on too much finger pointing instead of getting together and working on solutions. It was just one big bitch fest.

No one talks about employee owned busniesses in lieu of corporations. o having the employees pool their resources and buy out their bosses

no one talks about forming a secret society based on dues like the free masons so they can have a social network and a fund if their health is in the shitter.

I think the occupy movement just further illustrates that some people are leaders and some people need to be led.

its unfortunate that this is so rigid and it doesn't have to be.

but atleast we have
>MIC CHECK!
>progressive stack
>rules of assembly

>>951450
Im friends with the local occupy movement
and it is sooo horrible.
so many people hate the page.
its all race baiting and black lives matter and move over whitey

if you guys could , post a wedge of cheese on occupy portlands facebook page.

>>951408
>All companies fire their lowest paid employees and outsource low-level tasks to avoid this
>entry level positions now have less job security
> GENIOUS

>>944480
Just become a cop

Here's some advice from a fellow over in a very socialist country.

USA. Guard your capitalism and guard it well. Sure in socialism you have less people being very poor, but everything is kept at a minimum standard. Healthcare is minimum standard, and private alternatives do not exist. Old people care is minimum standard, and private alternatives do not exist. Schooling is minimum standard and private alternatives do not exist. Those are illegal. "No profit in healthcare", "No profit in schooling", etc. I'm sure you've heard those slogans over in the US too. They are dangerous. They believe that by making it public and free everyone will have the same quality that is now the private quality. But they will not. They will get something that is of very poor quality, and laws to make it impossible to improve it. You will be stuck with the bare minimum.

Please America, remain the land of opportunity.

>>951530
In other words
<==

>>951530
This tbqfh.

It sucks in every way...
>Masive taxes for things i don't even use more than very rarely
>Cant get private services, even if i have the money
>Huge waiting lists because people waste doctor's time and no incentive to do good work/diligently

>>944523

this guy is brazilian and is wealthy, i can confirm

source: im brazilian and poor

>>951530

Reminds me of pic related.

Basically: "If I can't live at your standard then no-one should be able to!"

>>945752
Importing bindis and mexicans because they work for wages americans won't is treachery, plain and simple.

You just referred to human beings immigrating into another country as the "shifting labor market".
>Skilled labour is coming and meeting a demand that the local labour supply cannot meet.
These are people we are talking about you soulless kike. Not farm equipment.

And we can meet the labor needs of these companies, but not for the wages the foreigners are willing to work for. There are 6 billion poor workers desperate to live with the prosperity we have. What you're defending is a race to the bottom so that corporations can maximize profit. We need protectionism if we don't want Americans to have to compete for jobs that pay a bowl of rice a day.

Fuck you and everyone who thinks like you.


>Because America belongs to the Americans, Everyone else should go back to their own country
Or maybe we should just put our own people first. You know, the entire purpose of a "nation"?

>>951522
You can't write off the proposal by magically inventing a loophole. I can just as easily propose that that loophole be addressed by saying that any outsourced employees or subcontractors are counted against the 100x ratio and as such the same rule applies, so now the highest paid employee can't make more than 100x the lowest paid subcontracted employee.

>>945861
I'm setup automation system for build releases and I can 100% tell you that automation is going to fuck the general population. That's the point of automation, to do more work with less people. It's fantastic if you work in automation, which is why I got on the bandwagon when I could, but it exists 100% to allow businesses to employ less people to do the same work, or to do more work without employing more people.

That's its sole function, there's no way around that fact.

>>952415
>6 billion poor workers
>Over 82% of the world is poor

>>952415
>We need protectionism if we don't want Americans to have to compete for jobs that pay a bowl of rice a day.
You don't really get a choice in the matter. The goods and services those companies produce go into the global market all the same. If American companies are forced to pay more for their labor they will be at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. You compete with Panjit and Xiaoming for a job every day, whether you like it or not. If they can do a job just as good as you can but for less you better believe your job is going overseas.

American labor is highly competitive and even superior to foreign labor and has been only making gains in the recent years, especially when you include productivity in the equation. In addition foreign labor involves the moving of good and services, see how that pans out in a couple of years when the cost of fuel starts climbing back up. The thing holding back american products and keeping the cost artificially high is the obscene amount of resources that go to pay upper management ridiculous salaries and benefits.

>>952638
Why do US companies NEED to compete in the world market with regards to imports? The US has enough demand that existing manufacturers could supply the US market at a reasonable cost. I don't see domestic steel manufacturers selling steel for buildings in china when we are GOAT for making steel.

Outside of limited imports(which are a matter of preference, not necessity) the US is self sufficient on cars, heavy equipment, food, structural steel, specialty steel, building materials, large appliances, aircraft, furniture, petroleum products, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, ect.

I cannot think of a single raw material that the US must import for it to function. Panjit and Xiaoming don't need a job making shit for us. There is more than enough demand with the growing middle classes in their own countries for them to be employed.

>>952415
>implying wageslaves like you will ever have a choice in the matter
smugpepe.jpg

>>944485
>Brazil
>capitalism unchecked

Tamarin here and I advise you to seek counselling.

>>944478
>if you have 100mil
>imagine how many jobs
>would have been created
>if you earned 50mil

>>952701


Kek, I just got past that part. Was watching Shark Tank till I saw this thread, now I'm watching all of this.

Taking notes, seeing how simple he explains it.

>>952712
It's amazing how they can't process things in their mind, it's like what he says goes straight through their ears.
I want to be cordial and moderate but I can't seeing this shit.

>>952716

27:15

My lord where art thou taketh my sides?

>>944485
So everyone should be equal?

Should I apologize to you for being a millionaire although there countless ways to reach my success level. Instead of looking for unfairness take advantage of the fairness.

>>952762
Rich daddy huh
Do you think you hit a triple, my friend?

>>944489
Yeah dude, 95%! If you made 200k before, well now you're coming home with 10k a year!
You absolutely fucking mindless retard

>>952778
No I worked 16-20 hour days risked it all on a loan and invested my money wisely. I'm an immigrant from Russia the last thing I would have is a rich father. You live in a capitalistic society where its easy to get rich if your not a dummy. Why not just figure it out?

>>944478
>If Ron Paul is so different how come he always casts his vote with Republicans

I died. They think he's Ron Paul.

>>952672
>Why do US companies NEED to compete,,,
Take a look at these countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
Notice how absouletely none of them were better off than the rest of the world when they were isolated.
Competition promotes innovation, because if you can build something no one else has, you can make a fucktonne more money. This leads to tech improvements in society, which leads to people not dying of dyssentry.

If you were to isolate the US, what is going to happen is that the world is going to advance, but the US is going to get stuck, just like Japan before it ended isolationism.

Also
>Who gives a shit about bindis and mexicans
This part isn't economic related, but they're still people, mate. I don't understand how you can choose between one group of people, the vast majority you've never met, over another group of people, the vast majority you've never met. I mean, you had a go at referring to the movement of human beings and "Shifting labour market" and yet you don't consider foreigners as the same level as you. As if they don't deserve the same oppurtunities as you.

>>953028
>you don't consider foreigners as the same level as you. As if they don't deserve the same oppurtunities as you.

They don't. They have their special opportunities due to citizenship in their nation, I have special opportunities due to citizenship in mine. They're trying to double dip. They should stay and fix their country, brain drain is a very real problem.

>>953028
I am not talking total isolation. I am talking tariffs to prevent countries without similar environmental, wage, and safety laws from dumping cheap products in the US. Germany, Japan, and Taiwan all have parity on those laws and their exports compete well with US made goods.

>As if they don't deserve the same oppurtunities as you.

They deserve to play on a level playing field with regards to wages, environmental and safety laws.

>>953103
That still results in a net deadweight loss.
Lets have two goods. A (US), B (Foreign)
A can't compete with B because people willingly pay for B over A, it could be for various reasons, the most common is lower price but it could also be higher quality, reliability. Lets assume price.
Say you put a tariff on imported products so it ends up the same price or higher than B. The result is people have to pay more for a for a good that they did not need to. Now, this is probably manageable if it's a well of person, but this will have a huge impact on the poorest. By removing tariffs, people are now paying less for the same product, which increases their disposable income, making them wealthier.

For an extreme example of this, have a look at the corn laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws
tl;dr:
>UK goverment imposed taxes on foreign corn to protect local land-owners
>People died from famine
This is a rather extreme example, no government would be willing to do this today (I hope), but it's an example to illustrate how protectionism leads to lower disposable income of consumers, and protects inefficient producers. As for the level playing field, I agree with you there should be international standards. But if it's a choice between protectionist tariffs and free trade with unlevel playing field, the unlevel playing field has higher benefits. The poorest have jobs, and we all get cheaper goods.

But more International law uniformity is definitely the way to go.

>>953126
> By removing tariffs, people are now paying less for the same product, which increases their disposable income, making them wealthier.

But if those people lose their jobs to foreign products they cannot buy either the domestic or the foreign good because they have no money. Throughout history it is the poor and middle class who work in factories.

I would rather see everyone employed, buying slightly more expensive and better made domestic products. Americans got along just fine living in a 2-3 bedroom house with fewer, but more expensive and better made possessions. Even high school dropouts could get a factory job that allowed them to afford that lifestyle.

>>953210
>People should just accept the standard of living I dictate is appropriate for them.
>It's okay if market inefficiencies cause harm to people.
>Protectionism and isolationism will definitely not hurt the standard of living in a country whose prosperity has been almost entirely built off of innovation and free trade.

Go take a look at Cuba for what this sort of country looks like.

>>953342
They stood up well to 50 years of isolation. Things would have been better if they did not almost start WWIII

>>Protectionism and isolationism will definitely not hurt the standard of living in a country whose prosperity has been almost entirely built off of innovation and free trade.

If anything our prosperity is built on immigrants who wanted a better life.

>>953210
Say, jobs move offshore.
The remaing people will suddenly have more disposable income, as things become cheaper,
Then they'll want to spend that money beause what the fuck else are you going to do with it? You can't eat it.
Now, business cater to the current demand, they don't have extra cinemas just laying around just incase theres a massive rise in consumer income.
So, when these people who suddenly have an increase in wealth, they want to spend it. firms will realise there is a large increase in demand that they are not suited for. They then hire people to be able to fill that demand.
Luckily, there are a huge number of people who want jobs. You have a benefit in the long run.
An extreme example of this would be when people started industrialising food. A lot of farmers lost their jobs, but suddenly there were vacancies in textiles and other sectors, because people could get food cheaply and could spend it on other things.
People will still have jobs, they might work for less in the short term, and in the long term they'll need to train and adapt, but that's how it works.
By allowing innefficient firms to exist, only the inefficient firm benefits. The consumer loses out, the efficient firms lose out, and technological growth loses out.

>>953412
>They stood up well to 50 years of isolation
Haha. You got me there man. I almost thought you were serious for a second. lel, I gotta use that one sometime.

>>953464
>Say, jobs move offshore.

Some people will lose their job

>They then hire people to be able to fill that demand.

At wages far lower than that of the skilled and semi-skilled labor required to run a factory. Wages so low that the lower cost of goods does not make up for the loss of income.

>An extreme example of this would be when people started industrialising food. A lot of farmers lost their jobs, but suddenly there were vacancies in textiles and other sectors, because people could get food cheaply and could spend it on other things.

Trade industrializing food for robots and the same scenario does not play out. The robots will have taken the textile jobs before the industry gets up and running. Labor is not the major cost in many goods and raw materials. The major costs are equipment, energy, and land/buildings. Back in the day labor was a major cost in producing food. However the other costs like equipment, fertilizer, seeds, water, sunlight are low. Therefore food can be cheap. The same cannot be said for cars, appliances, prepared foods, ect.

>>953492
Wages so low that the lower cost of goods does not make up for the loss of income.
Yes it does.
The lower cost of goods is for everyone. The job loss is for some.
>Trade industrializing food for robots and the same scenario does not play out.
I'm not saying they're going to into manufacturing other things, in all likelyhood they are going to go in the service industry. An industry that cannot be offshored due to the fact that you need cinemas to be reachable. An industry that is likely to grow as people gain higher income.
Or they'll train up and get better jobs. Neccessity being the mother of all invention and all that.
I mean, by your reasoning the EU should have collapsed from all the unemployment from jobs going from one EU state to another.
As much as /pol/ loves their EU rants, it hasn't collapsed.

Also did this thread get linked on /pol/ or something? There's a lot of posts here that reeks of their influence.

>>953506
>Yes it does.

Please prove how someone can afford a house making $9/hr compared to $20/hr.

>in all likelyhood they are going to go in the service industry.

An industry in which robots and AI will thrive. Humans can't beat perfectly polite, but firm customer service that does not waiver 24/7/365 while only requiring electricity and an internet connection to operate. Pic has already replaced several cashiers per store.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/07/artificial-intelligence-homo-sapiens-split-handful-gods

>Or they'll train up and get better jobs. Neccessity being the mother of all invention and all that.

That is cute. Look up the underemployment rate for college graduates since 2008.

>I mean, by your reasoning the EU should have collapsed from all the unemployment from jobs going from one EU state to another.

Greece, Spain, and Italy are not doing so well. German manufacturing combined with a currency they have no control over has crushed them. The EU would be in much better shape without them and the addition of the UK. The brits know better than to get involved in something the Germans run.

>>953791
>Please prove how someone can afford a house making $9/hr compared to $20/hr.
Why do they have to be able to afford a house? When was it decided that people flipping burgers should be able to live the American dream with a house, two kids, and a dog on such a meager salary?
>Greece, Spain, and Italy are not doing so well. German manufacturing combined with a currency they have no control over has crushed them.
You're delusional if you think Germany is responsible for Greece, Spain, and Italy being in the shitter. Those countries are in the shitter because they borrowed a bunch of money to pay for welfare states they couldn't afford. They are prime examples of why all this minimum wage and pensions for free everything BS doesn't work.

>>953791
>Please prove how someone can afford a...
Not what I said.
I said the benefit to society is greater even if a small portion lose their job.
And the ones who lose their job will go onto other jobs.
>An industry in which robots and AI...
You have your timelines severely messed up.
Yes there will come a day when the service sector is overtaken with AI, but that is the same day when C or C++ becomes the new literacy test. In the past, people who can read or write had a massive advantage of those who dont, now the literacy rate is almost everyone. In the future, everyone will be able to read or write, and all that'll matter is whether or not you can program.

That won't happen for a while. Though you are free to start learning early.
Until then, some jobs are being taken, but they are still people working. The US currently has a 5% unemployment rate, there are jobs available.

>Look up the underemployment rate for college graduates since 2008.
Gee, I wonder what happened in 2008 for there to be a sudden rise in the underemployment rate for college graduates.

>Greece, Spain, and Italy...
Greece, Spain, and Italy are all welfare states, the goverment decided to spend money they don't have on pensions, rather than any kind of investment towards economic growth.
And you seem to have confused the EU for using the Euro.
UK is in the EU, with all the benefits it brings, it just doesn't utilise the Euro.

Regardless of which, the majority of the EU states are doing very well.

>>948122

>whatever else nonsense he says
>He predicted the 08 crash while retards like you keked

>>944478
Why would you want to watch a video of a retard talking to an idiot? Are you some sort of masochist or do you unironically identify with one of the morons?

>>953848
>Why do they have to be able to afford a house?

Because it is good for the economy and generate more tax revenue and economic activity per dollar than a movie ticket.

>Those countries are in the shitter because they borrowed a bunch of money to pay for welfare states they couldn't afford.

They could have made their poor decisions work if they had their own currency they could inflate as needed. A less valuable currency makes exports more attractive.

>>953967
>even if a small portion lose their job.

Approximately 12 million people works in manufacturing. Add on supporting industries and you have close to 20 million out of 145 million jobs. Yeah 1 in 7 jobs being lost is no big deal.

>that'll matter is whether or not you can program.

You do realize a handful of PhD level scientists will make AI a reality and part of that will be the ability for the AI to program its self to fit the demands?

So throw everyone else under the bus who unable to learn programming, never had an interest in it, and even people who had interest, learned it, yet never sucked the right dick to get into graduate school to work on AI?

>The US currently has a 5% unemployment rate, there are jobs available.

The real rate is a bit over 10% Wages are stagnant, hours are lower, yet prices keep rising.

>>954055
>Because it is good for the economy and generate more tax revenue and economic activity per dollar than a movie ticket.
And this is the point where you become completely detached from reality. The value of a currency isn't the amount of units you own but the products and services you can buy with them. This is why printing money causes inflation, but it's also why you can't just give people "enough" money to buy whatever you feel they "deserve". Inevitably, the cost of that product rises. If you say McJorb *MUST* pay a million dollars a year because that is what is needed to afford all the nice things a human being deserves then, eventually, the people adding twice as much value to the economy will be making two million, and before long you'll be buying your burgers for 250 a pop, and you'll be right back where you started except all savings will be destroyed. This velocity of money garbage needs to die. Spending doesn't stimulate economic growth, the production of value does. If you have a desert island with ten people trading a coconut it doesn't matter how many times they sell that coconut to each other, they'll never all eat. If they pick ten coconuts then and only then will things be better.

ITT: socialists who haven't read Proudhon.

Here's a hint: socialist goals are best accomplished by removing government authority protecting large corporate actors.

>>954069
>If you have a desert island with ten people trading a coconut it doesn't matter how many times they sell that coconut to each other, they'll never all eat. If they pick ten coconuts then and only then will things be better.
I like this argument.
It will help draw "word pictures" for the people who can't wrap their heads around economics.

>>954099
#TRUUUUU SENPAI

>>954055
>You do realize a handful of PhD level scientists will make AI a reality and part of that will be the ability for the AI to program its self to fit the demands?

I'm confused. Are we still talking about trade protectionism in the US or have we moved onto discussing the AI singularity? Because the latter is a vastly more complex topic and job losses is nowhere near any of the biggest problems in the subject.

>>951408
That would simply kill all large companies if enforced.

>>951535
>>951530
Am i smelling the smelly smell of huehue?

>>954069
That coconut analogy is pretty good.
Please make more of them for other things.

>>954069
>Spending doesn't stimulate economic growth

The way the US economy has operated since the end of WWII says otherwise. When the value of your company is based off of revenue the shareholders are forced to push for higher revenue each quarter to get their return on investment.

> but it's also why you can't just give people "enough" money to buy whatever you feel they "deserve". Inevitably, the cost of that product rises.

Why must it rise? If you can produce the product for a little more due to increased labor costs, but have a consumer base with more to spend on said product they will buy more. The lower classes are terrible with money. You give them a buck and they spend it. Some of that buck will eventually make it back to the top, but more people will get a cut of it, and many will spend it.

>If you have a desert island with ten people trading a coconut it doesn't matter how many times they sell that coconut to each other, they'll never all eat. If they pick ten coconuts then and only then will things be better.

The problem comes when 1 person gets 3 coconuts and uses them to get another 6.

>>954455
How so? There are many excellent executives who would make terrible entrepreneurs. We have been able to force people to work for less purchasing power. The same can be done for executives.

>>954611
>The way the US economy has operated since the end of WWII says otherwise.
[Citation needed]
The US economy thrived after WWII because the rest of the world was a bombed out hellhole or being gobbled up by communists.

>The problem comes when 1 person gets 3 coconuts and uses them to get another 6.
So we have a choice between a group of ten people sharing three coconuts to be distributed or sold or ten people sharing nine coconuts according to how much each is willing to pay for some of the food. What is your point again?

I'm not even addressing that shit in the middle. It's a total non-sequitur. It also assumes that most people are too stupid and incompetent to take care of themselves and are much better off when stupid and incompetent people attempt to take care of them, which is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read all day. I guess I did end up addressing it.

>>952762

Yes, that's clearly what I am saying. Everyone should be equal. A brain surgeon should make the same as a janitor.

THATS OBVIOUSLY WHAT I AM SAYING. I AM THE 99%. I WANT COMMUNISM. END ENTREPRENEURSHIP!!! DOWN WITH ADVANCING CIVILIZATION!

>>952762
>Instead of looking for unfairness take advantage of the fairness.

Are you serious nigger? So instead of addressing all the people being murder, we should look at all the people not being murdered too huh?

>>954626
>So we have a choice between a group of ten people sharing three coconuts to be distributed or sold or ten people sharing nine coconuts according to how much each is willing to pay for some of the food. What is your point again?

I think you misunderstood his point. But wait, you're the guy saying velocity of money is bullshit while trying to explain your reasoning with a very simplistic analogy right?

The occupy movement is a fine example of modern movements who think thousands of voices can make a consistent message. Screw having a leader that can iron out the message and make sure the crazies don't come in and corrupt the movements message!let's just have everyone yell out at once because that worked so well for the tea party !

>>954626
>So we have a choice between a group of ten people sharing three coconuts to be distributed or sold or ten people sharing nine coconuts according to how much each is willing to pay for some of the food.

In this simplistic analogy you have a choice between everyone passing 1 coconut around vs 1 person with 9 coconuts while the other 9 people pass around one.

In the former everyone gets a share. In the later 1 person has 90% of the wealth and the other 9 squabble over the remaining 10%. The other 9 are going to be resentful especially if the 1 had enough to keep everyone well fed.

>>954626
>The US economy thrived after WWII because the rest of the world was a bombed out hellhole or being gobbled up by communists.

Western Europe recovered very quickly thanks to US monetary support. Any advantage we had was done by 1955. The most destroyed portions of Europe were in soviet control.

The US shifted because of a huge surplus of supply in everything from automotive production(suburbs) to unmarried women(babies: AKA future consumers) Things worked out well because we supplied our own wants and needs with little imports.

That changed in the late 1970s. A lack of protection(wages) combined with new environmental laws(failure to adapt by business) led to the loss of many high paying manufacturing jobs.

>>944500
Yes you are. If it's yours you're entiteled to do whatever the fuck you want with it. You can fire everyone on the spot if you wanted to. The Business didn't create itself.

>>944758
You're trying to conflate economic value with utility or usefulness or value in general.

economic value is not about something being a good or worthy gift to society.

if people are willing to buy into a ponzi scheme, or invest in something like say beany babies, then by definition those things have value. whether they're a "valuable gift to society" is a totally different question.

You have to be precise with language and make direct comparisons instead of conflating things.

>>944478
>what about the people that put their money under the mattress?

I have no idea what this guy was getting at. Lack of know-how as to how to invest your money?

>>944478
While Occupiers are idiots, and there is excessive regulation - its hardly better to watch a man parrot supply-side economics as the cure-all.

>>952685
>implying I'm not dedicated to gaming the system and avoiding wage slavery
>>952638
We don't have to compete globally. We do that because it's more cost efficient and it maximizes profit for the corporations. We can afford to take a hit to our efficiency, we're educated first world white people.

>>954746
Additionally, the decades long rise and subsequent fall of union manufacturing culminated with, among many other things, the fall of detroit. Queue automation and the new world!

>>944500
Yeah bro, that's called equity. It's great, and if you're halfway smart you fight to keep that equity, tooth and nail. No one else sacrifices as much as you to get the company running, no one else risks as much as you. Risk = reward.

Honestly, /biz/ isn't a whole lot better than those people. Replace retarded mainstream misconceptions with retarded 4chan memes and it's all the same. Most of /biz/ doesn't even know how to read, or even know the fucking difference between a BS, cash flow statement, or even a P&L.

>>954863
>Additionally, the decades long rise and subsequent fall of union manufacturing culminated with, among many other things, the fall of detroit.

Some can argue that the unions were too greedy and made offshore manufacturing profitable sooner. Where I live unionized steel workers were offered 12 weeks vacation once you hit the top rank of seniority. Anecdotaly I know of a few retired union guys who worked 84 hours a week for years because the OT was too good to pass up. They are doing well in retirement and continue to work part time while collecting social security and a pension.

>>954733
>especially if the 1 had enough to keep everyone well fed
This is true.
I resent the fuck out of the guy next door to me, namely because he has enough money to buy me a Ferrari.

>>944478

>Fucking first guy in the video is retarded and wearing a sweatshirt from the college I went to

Well fuck me

I like Justine Tunney. >she used to manage their web presence but then read Moldbug and saw the light.

You may enjoy reading >her Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/JustineTunney

>>954929
Difference is while those people are caught on video being stupid, here on /biz/ you can disguise it way better by googling shit before you post.

4chan maymay spouters are the worst though. And even more pathetic are those who actually let all the shitposting here affect the way they see the world.

>>954009

And he also predicted the crash of 2012, 2014, and the end of capitalism in 2015.

> disgruntled precious metals buyer detected

>>954733
No, wait a second. In your first example ten people are now sharing one coconut vs nine people sharing one coconut and one person enjoying the nine he picked by himself.

Even when you assume the guy with nine coconuts will hoard them all to himself (and why shouldn't he? He's the one who did the hard work of picking them) your example still makes capitalism look like the better alternative.

You make shitty examples. Stop making shitty examples that undermine the point you are trying to make.

>>952628
define poor

>>945089
you dont just "stop" paying it. Its a limit of 115k. If you make 300k you still pay 13% for the 115k

>>952780
Please kill yourself. If you think 200k is the 1% you need to lurk a bit more and maybe read something

I'm not even for or against your view but this is the dumbest shit I've heard all day