/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.10707866]

Explain me in what seizing the means of production is wrong.
Knowing that :
>The richest 1% save their money at the bank, when it could be reinvested in the economy by the state, or spent in consumption by households, which would increase GDP in both case. Instead of that, it stays stagnant.
>Letting companies to the private sector brings economy to fall just like in 2008, which is the result of speculation. As a proof, the USSR wasn't hit by the 1929 crisis, as it had banned stock exchanges and nationalized the means of production.
>Right after the fall of the ussr, it took russia no more than eight years to lose 62.17% of its GDP and see its income inequality going from 0.26 to 0.41 according to the Gini coefficient. On the opposite, the rise of communism in russia had lowered poverty (historical fact that anyone can check).
>When self-management was applied in communist Yugoslavia, the GDP suddendly grow up. The abolition of employers was a success for agriculture in republican Spain as well.

[Anonymous No.10707897]

>>10707866
>On the opposite, the rise of communism in russia had lowered poverty (historical fact that anyone can check).
It's simple Ivan, we just let the impoverished starve :^)

[Anonymous No.10707974]

Human labor is decreasing in value and will be worthless in the next few decades when automation has claimed a large part of the labor market.

Capitalism will not survive if there is no demand for most of the population's labor, but these new-age communists are a bit early and kind of pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10707998]

LMFAO do commies really think rich people park their money in a bank? They wouldn't be rich for very long.

[Anonymous No.10708099]

Exept there's no mutual gain in having people such as Bill gates monopolizing money that could be massively invested in industry or agriculture.

[Anonymous No.10708102]

>>10707866

[Anonymous No.10708115]

>>10707866

(I disagree with the pro-christian message in this comic, as I'm European [pagan], but whatever)

[Anonymous No.10708124]

>>10708115

[Anonymous No.10708126]

>>10707866
>The richest 1% save their money at the bank, when it could be reinvested in the economy by the state
there you go, from the start you are already a fucking retard. so you're paying for your socialist utopia with capitalist money. guess what happens when you run out of capitalist money? that's right, venezuela happens

[Anonymous No.10708137]

>The richest 1% save their money at the bank, when it could be reinvested in the economy by the state, or spent in consumption by households, which would increase GDP in both case. Instead of that, it stays stagnant.
There is no GDP in socialist state since no one can measure value or create value.
All goods produced by state and cant have market price. Socialists just write down random numbers and call it prices.

>Letting companies to the private sector brings economy to fall just like in 2008, which is the result of speculation. As a proof, the USSR wasn't hit by the 1929 crisis, as it had banned stock exchanges and nationalized the means of production.
There was horrible starving, millions people starved to death. Not only gold, ALL ASSETS was seized, including homes, apartments, land, cattle, food.
>Right after the fall of the ussr, it took russia no more than eight years to lose 62.17% of its GDP and see its income inequality going from 0.26 to 0.41 according to the Gini coefficient. On the opposite, the rise of communism in russia had lowered poverty (historical fact that anyone can check).
What coefficient of inequality you have between wealthy bureaucrat who live in free house, can afford voyage abroad, have special shops with low for ruling class, set for life and starving worker who had no apartments, no land, can't write letter abroad, can't have access to goods or closed shops, including quality food?
>When self-management was applied in communist Yugoslavia, the GDP suddendly grow up. The abolition of employers was a success for agriculture in republican Spain as well.
Agriculture rely on governments gibs in Europe.

[Anonymous No.10708139]

>>10708124

[Anonymous No.10708155]

>>10707866
faggot you got banned from /pol ?
>reported and saged

[Anonymous No.10708159]

>>10707866
>Explain me in what seizing the means of production is wrong.

It's not wrong, but the scumbag kikes want you to believe their bullshit, so you can be their slave for the rest of your life.

[Anonymous No.10708169]

>inb4 someone assumes I'm pro-capitalist
No, you retard. Being anti-communism doesn't mean one is pro-capitalism.

Capitalism and Communism are two wings of the same bird. The head of the bird is Judaism.

[Anonymous No.10708177]

I don't think the richest 1% saves too much in a bank because money itself is just a symbol of buying power which depreciates over long periods of time. Majority of rich people must own land instead of cash, cash is stupid.

[Anonymous No.10708183]

Savings are the foundation of a strong economy. You need to understand how structure of capital works. I reccomend you to start with Bastiat.

[Anonymous No.10708204]

You're not going to be crowned emperor after the "peoples" revolution anon, I'm sorry.

[Anonymous No.10708209]

>>10708139
>>10708124
>>10708115
> I disagree with the pro-christian message
> Still falls for this ridiculous americuck propaganda
Soviet Union
> jewish pogroms
> jews forbidden from entering institutions of higher learning
> Georgian Caucasian chad
> Stalin displaces shitskin Tatars, Georgians, Armenians, fucking Chechens
> etc, etc
Why are you against this?

[Anonymous No.10708225]

>>10707866
Richfag here.

Every single person I know (each with net worth $20 million+ has active investments with over 90% of their wealth. Every one of them has fewer than $500,000 in their bank account at any given time. If you think about it, this makes sense. The FDIC only insures bank accounts for $250,000 per person. Why would they keep all of their wealth in a bank when they can throw it into passive investments that make assloads of money? Where do you think Startups get funding? Through VC firms that get their capital from private investors. I have yet to meet a single person that believes communism is the solution while also understanding how our financial system works. Communism preys on idiots who can't be bothered to actually learn how our world works.

[Anonymous No.10708226]

>>10707866
I'm a leftist, but I'm going to just criticize some of these for the hell of it.
>Letting companies to the private sector brings economy to fall just like in 2008, which is the result of speculation. As a proof, the USSR wasn't hit by the 1929 crisis, as it had banned stock exchanges and nationalized the means of production.
The USSR also stagnated in the 70s, which it never quite recovered from. It doesn't seem fair to claim the USSR solved economic crises, if that is a goal. After Stalin it became highly mobilized and had a high rate of growth, but it ultimately stumbled and failed to continue that. A lot of it got diverted into the military, so the populace also wasn't experiencing a rate of growth as high as would be suggested by raw output.

>Right after the fall of the ussr, it took russia no more than eight years to lose 62.17% of its GDP and see its income inequality going from 0.26 to 0.41 according to the Gini coefficient. On the opposite, the rise of communism in russia had lowered poverty (historical fact that anyone can check).
Sure, it's easier to destroy than to build. Supply networks were eviscerated by the collapse. The USSR was an empire of Russia, the dissolution of the empire basically left Russia and its satellites in total disarray.

>When self-management was applied in communist Yugoslavia, the GDP suddendly grow up. The abolition of employers was a success for agriculture in republican Spain as well.
I don't know enough about Tito's house desu, but I've read it had its problems. Worker's self-management was hindered by a party apparatus that still had political control of company executives which could be appointed by the state. I think this was shifted more in favor of the workers power over time, but towards the beginning of titoism the workers councils were still beholden to a political class outside of their power.

[Anonymous No.10708272]

>>10708155
Wasn't ban from /pol/, just told myself that'd be better talking about it here, isn'it?

[Anonymous No.10708318]

>>10707866
imagine being the 1%.

there, i showed you. somebody /thread me pls

[Anonymous No.10708324]

>>10708209

[Anonymous No.10708342]

>>10708209
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17TFNtHF0u0

[Anonymous No.10708348]

>>10707866
How would workers benefit from taking all the risk (i.e seizing the means of production) from their boss? If the goverment seizes the means of production, then how would it be different than wageslaving for mr. shekelberg?

[Anonymous No.10708357]

>>10708183
Then why not letting the state keeping up this money, when the private sector could just invest it somewhere else at any moment? Or impose its conditions for investment?

What I'm saying is that letting the management of money to individuals makes an oligarchy appear. I assume you'll agree on that point. That kills democracy.

>Ussr was not democratic

Yep. That's just true (exept from 1989 to 1991). But does that means each communist countries were dictatorship? No, it doesn't: allende led a marxist policy. And it worked. Then Pinochet showed up and led a neoliberal policy, which led the country to an enormous inflation

[Anonymous No.10708360]

>>10708209
--

[Anonymous No.10708362]

>>10707866
>The richest 1% save their money at the bank, when it could be reinvested in the economy by the state, or spent in consumption by households, which would increase GDP in both case. Instead of that, it stays stagnant.

do you know why this could be a problem? because of one central currency that is used. if the state wouldnt forbid other currencies, it wouldnt be a problem if one person has a lot of it.

[Anonymous No.10708388]

>>10708357
>What I'm saying is that letting the management of money to individuals makes an oligarchy appear.
Wrong. Oligarchy mean colluding of capitals and state. Sic state have all capital, therefore bureaucrat become absolute oligarch.

[Anonymous No.10708393]

>>10708209
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6p1zxKnDeM

[Anonymous No.10708408]

>>10708209
---

[Anonymous No.10708411]

>>10707866
"The means of production" are not your own. You are stealing someone else's business, and their own equipment and capital, that they bought with their own money. I realize that it's pointless trying to argue about basic things like private property with commies though. You're a fucking subhuman.

[Anonymous No.10708413]

>>10707866

I know this is bait but

>The richest 1% save their money at the bank, when it could be reinvested in the economy by the state, or spent in consumption by households, which would increase GDP in both case. Instead of that, it stays stagnant.

What do you think the bank does with that money?

[Anonymous No.10708417]

>>10707897
no sir that's libertarianism

[Anonymous No.10708422]

>>10707866
The problemm- people not stuped and alweys overplay retarded economists
as result poor people die from starvation and it ok

[Anonymous No.10708425]

>>10708209
----

[Anonymous No.10708442]

>>10707866
>money stays in the bank
>Banks have caps on how much you can invest

lol you really are retarded and definitely poor

[Anonymous No.10708445]

>>10707866
>The richest 1% save their money at the bank, when it could be reinvested in the economy by the state
Stopped reading here because you don't know how banks work

[Anonymous No.10708451]

>>10708357
Is english your second language?

[Anonymous No.10708459]

>>10708425
----

[Anonymous No.10708475]

>>10707866
>Instead of that, it stays stagnant.
it doesnt stay stagnant you retard. the bank uses that money and loans it out to others

>On the opposite, the rise of communism in russia had lowered poverty (historical fact that anyone can check).
Yes this is true. But average standard of living compared to the U.S was a lot lower. Everyone had shitty cars, shitty utilities and shitty houses because you had to share all of the wealth among everyone.

Just fuck off with these commie threads and take it to /pol/. this is /biz/.
>business and finance
This is literally the most capitalistic board on this site. JUST FUCK OFF.

[Anonymous No.10708482]

>>10708425
-----

[Anonymous No.10708490]

>>10708169
So, what's your ideal means of managing production? From your picture I assume you're some form of neo-tribalist similar to the nazis, but how do you think production should be handled in a society?

[Anonymous No.10708509]

>>10708169
>Capitalism and Communism are two wings of the same bird. The head of the bird is Judaism.

This is probably the most accurate post in this thread. Either way you get fucked. But at least with capitalism you have a chance of making it out. With communism you are literally stuck being a slave for the rest of your life.

[Anonymous No.10708512]

>>10708475
>Just fuck off with these commie threads and take it to /pol/. this is /biz/.

Did you see how he ignored every legitimate answer in this thread? He probably thinks he is intellectually superior to a bunch of racists without reading or hearing what they have to say. Blindness by arrogance a disease everybody suffers who is heavily invested in politics.

[Anonymous No.10708533]

>>10708451
Sure, did I make any mistake?

[Anonymous No.10708548]

this is /biz/ we only want to make money. if mr. sheklesberg makes 20 million and i get 700k im fine with that. go back to -> /Pol/

[Anonymous No.10708567]

>>10708475
>Yes this is true
It's not. Another lie.
>Everyone had shitty cars, shitty utilities and shitty houses
If only. Car was a dream for worker, only most lucky people get their shitty one expensive car after like 30 years of waiting. Houses not in rural area for ruling class only. People still live in soviet era shared apartments with one room for family, that is free socialist housing looks like.

[Anonymous No.10708579]

>>10708548
You stupid fuck, we basically can all be set for a life of luxury and prosperity if we overthrow the current cucktalist system.

[Anonymous No.10708582]

>>10708533
>Then why not letting the state keeping up this money, when the private sector could just invest it somewhere else at any moment?

This was just awkward. It's fine though, I think most people would get it.

[Anonymous No.10708584]

>>10708512
Actually, the subject is "Explain me in what you think so", which doesn't mean I'm here for an argument.
I'm just downloading each images for which I will take the time to read. Also doing screen caps of the replies. See what I mean?

[Anonymous No.10708591]

>>10707866
If the millions of dead innocents your philosophy has left behind can’t convince you why should I reason with you? As I see it there are two ways to deal with you that are justifiable. Kill you or ignore you. I’ll choose the latter.

[Anonymous No.10708618]

>>10708579
no u

[Anonymous No.10708640]

>>10708584
So in other words you come to a board specifically not about politics/communism and you are not sure enough of your ideology to defend it against people who do not specialize in it without researching and replying later? Giving yourself a tremendous advantage but not the opponent?

In other words your the equivalent of a High-School kid trying to bully middle school kids without actually hitting them just talking smack?

[Anonymous No.10708661]

>>10708591
Who said I support Stalin or Mao?
These are cliches.

[Anonymous No.10708664]

>>10708591
And the millions of dead from trying to stop communism dont count eh? You cant make an omelette without breaking a few eggs

[Anonymous No.10708702]

>>10708640
I think I was misunderstood.
Once again, told myself that'd be better to ask here as I checked many boards, and this is the closest I found on economics. Which is written. But I guess that would have been better on /pol/, if you say?
Btw, I really don't see the link with the bully metaphore.

[Anonymous No.10708716]

>>10707866
>The richest 1% save their money at the bank, when it could be reinvested in the economy by the state, or spent in consumption by households, which would increase GDP in both case. Instead of that, it stays stagnant.
No, they own productive assets. All you can do is replace existing private management with bureaucrats, or worse, soldiers. That's what nationalization means in practice.
For most recent results of that practice see Venezuela.

[Anonymous No.10708721]

>>10708702
if you say so*
my bad

[Anonymous No.10708725]

>>10708702
Its just bantz but yes /pol/ would have been better to ask this.

[Anonymous No.10708770]

>>10708661
Socialists collectively wish in their hearts to exterminate all successfull people and introduce state slavery. How you supposed to take away all things from people and enslave population to bureaucrats peacefully? There is no options.

[Anonymous No.10708786]

>>10708209

[Anonymous No.10708795]

>>10708209
-

[Anonymous No.10708834]

>>10708209
--

[Anonymous No.10708854]

>>10708482
So? Capitalism and Communism are both Jewish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzAsH_7zHMY

[Anonymous No.10708860]

>>10708770
lol

[Anonymous No.10708863]

>>10708770
No, that's not my wish, neither the wish of people I know that share my ideas.
There's a perfect quote from Marx that explains the thing: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

[Anonymous No.10708872]

[Anonymous No.10708879]

who literally gives a fuck what you think? bitcoin has literally made it impossible to steal anybody's money.

[Anonymous No.10708890]

>>10708863
Don't you want to take richest 1% shit? After you do this there is still 1% richest left with like 50% of wealth
So you supposed to do this again. And then again.

[Anonymous No.10708937]

>>10708879

Btc is legitimate but it's still pretty easy to get anyones coins after you hit them in the face a couple times with a wrench.

[Anonymous No.10708945]

>>10708872
Aren't we on a board related to economics?
This is not a damn bait or whatever

[Anonymous No.10709066]

>>10708124
Holy shit, this BTFO pseudo intellectuals like op who think communism would make the world a better place and eliminate income inequality, and whatever other shit retards like op believe. Thank you for posting this, anon.

[Anonymous No.10709090]

>>10708661
You support taking things that aren’t yours by force. You deserve to die :)

[Anonymous No.10709102]

>>10708863
In a perfect world it would actually work, but Marx was either a fucking retard or extremely naive since he's completely disregarding human greed with this message.

[Anonymous No.10709120]

>>10708664
I know the goal of your philosophy. It is those dead bodies. Mostly you want your own. Men live by their work and thoughts you want neither to work or think. You want to die. In a deep sense, you are dead already.

[Anonymous No.10709685]

>>10707866
communism doesnt work at all because of basic human logics and how the smartest people would still just manage to seize more wealth than others anyway resulting in capitalism again

[Anonymous No.10709821]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/182400154