[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 355 KB, 1312x1410, libertarian logic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15328659 No.15328659 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

What's the rebuttal to this image?

>> No.15328685

No one forces you to sell your labor to someone else. Wage cuckin it is life support. Your goal should be to get off of life support.

>> No.15328695

probably that the value you produce is only made possible due to the capital provided for you by the capitalist

i've never understood how marxists think they are entitled to the "full product" of their labour (however the fuck that is even calculated) when they just show up to work and operate a machine that is provided, maintained, and legally the responsibility of someone else

the fuck kind of logic is that? there are good criticisms of capitalism but this is a garbage one

>> No.15328699

some people just love being wagecucks. its the cuck mentality, you can't use logic to convince these people, they are biologically born slaves

>> No.15328746

The only reason that surplus value is extracted is because someone else took all the risk of assembling the machinery and other physical and monetary capital as well as paying your comfy wagecuck salary to show up and produce whatever it is you produce. If you want a greater slice of that pie then set out on your own and start your own firm

>> No.15328784

this. nothing is stopping you from starting your own company and taking your own 'surplus value' AKA profit you fucking retard

>> No.15328802

but how do make profit from make company?

>> No.15328828

Create a product or service that people are willing to pay more for than costs you to make

>> No.15328829

Value is subjective
Theft is theft even if it is a small amount (which taxes are not)

>> No.15328834

Labor theory of value is wrong. Labor is an input cost. Value is determined by marginal use theory. There is no surplus value the laborer is alienated from.

>> No.15328843

Nothing is stopping you from moving someplace with no taxes

>> No.15328850


Why doesn’t the capitalist just make his own goods then?

>> No.15328866
File: 264 KB, 1199x1024, 1564269882008.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

My labour means nothing if there's no infrastructure and risk someone else nosedived into, unless I take the same risk.

Being that i wasn't forced to partake in the work, it's even. I sell my labour at the best price I can get for the least risk possible.

Your move, retard.

>> No.15328881

Because you're a disingenuous cocksucker trying to skirt around the fact that even though both parties need one another, what the capitalist provides is in far greater demand and scarcer availability and thus the balance of reward sharing is tipped in his favor. Never mind the fact that his hiring of laborers puts income in the pockets of many.

>> No.15328885

one is a contract
the other isn't
simple as

>> No.15328907

You guys remind me of people who run MLMs. "Don't be a loser! Have other people you recruit be the losers while you leech off of them!".

Not everyone can have a successful business so it's hardly a "choice", brainlets. MOST fail.

>> No.15328910

The taxes you paid was used to pay for infrastructure. You are not forced to reside in a location where you pay taxes.

You pay taxes because your total wage would be even less elsewhere even if there were no taxes there.

>> No.15328919

Rebutal to what? All the extraction of surplus value from your work is theft

>> No.15328926

>You are not forced to reside in a location where you pay taxes.
But I am though.
>literally pay to live

>> No.15328927

I think the business owners and people with higher responsibility and more risk should receive more of the pie, but nowadays the gap is often way too big. There is simply no way to justify it, except with greed. Productivity has grown immensly in the last few decades, while wages have more or less stagnated.

>> No.15328929

don't be a brainlet and only do the bare minimum then

>> No.15328950

And the glory of capitalism is even the failures can find refuge working for a more successful man to earn a living.

>> No.15328965

And yet it's the left advocating for the mass importation of low IQ shitskins to further drive wage costs down by replacing white Americans with a brown mass of illegals willing to work for pennies. Stop voting against your own self interests you abject retards

>> No.15328968

You are forced to pay taxes in the same way you are forced to work and have your surplus taken away by entrepreneurs/capitalists.

>> No.15328974
File: 15 KB, 300x300, 3p.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>The taxes you paid was used to pay for infrastructure. You are not forced to reside in a location where you pay taxes.
I'm talking about business infrastructure, you absolute fucking retard. Someone set the whole business up and took a risk on it, which I reiterated in the same post. Learn how to fucking read, you dumb commie. Holy dumb shit.

>> No.15328982
File: 773 KB, 1020x1020, 1566268556094.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Surplus value extracted from your labour = fee you pay for using another person's equipment/workshop/brand/basic goods/legal team/etc.
Want to get the whole value of the Big Mac you're making at McDonalds? Great! Do it yourself with your own brand, equipment, etc.
The taxes, however, are a fee you pay not to have police invade your workplace and shoot you in the face. That's it.

By the way, the size of the taxes in the pic is really dishonest. The entire chain of production and every worker/material involved have their own taxes, in the end it might be as big as the "Entrepreneurship" circle. Fuckin' commie faggots, I tell ya.

>> No.15328998

Taxes are the fee you pay for using everyone else's infrastructure/

>> No.15329004

Oh Jesus...

>> No.15329007

No, I like surplus value.

>> No.15329021

>Stop voting against your own self interests
I'm not an unskilled labourer

>> No.15329030

You've been brainwashed my friend. The Dems and the GOP are both importing immigrants. The difference is how they portray it. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do, how they vote. This tells more and is truth.

>> No.15329041
File: 440 KB, 1200x1200, 436452667.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Capitalism is voluntary and taxes aren't. I really think we are a race of slaves and the sooner the aliens come to enslave us all the better is will be for the 99%.

>> No.15329076

Politcians going around in circles about dumb shit like gay marriage and abortion is not an infrastructure.

>> No.15329086

>I'm talking about business infrastructure, you absolute fucking retard. Someone set the whole business up and took a risk on it
That's not infrastructure that's just capital and administration, fucking brainlet
>Infrastructure is the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or other area,[1] including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.[2]

You cannot successfully conduct business without infrastructure and public goods which includes, but is not limited to:
>Transportation infrastructure
>National Defense
>Rule of law

All of which need taxes to fund.

Ancaps and max-libertarians are equally as brain damaged as commies.

>> No.15329092

There's an armed group of sociopaths who force me to use this infrastructure instead of hiring it from someone else in the free market, though. And that's if it's a service which I use (not always the case).

>> No.15329093

>it's the left advocating for the mass importation of low IQ shitskins
It's the left advocating for the humane treatment of people who are willingly hired by corporations as cheap labor, and saying that you should blame the people hiring and not the people just looking for a job.
But as with everything right wing it's all concealed cowardice, so you go after the powerless immigrant because they're socially weak, instead of the employers who actually have all the power and control.

>> No.15329103

Roads are, laws are. If you don't like it, vote against it using the system you're paying taxes for.

>> No.15329124
File: 184 KB, 1312x1410, 1566339767070.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

that was easy

>> No.15329126
File: 235 KB, 500x511, gommunist memeball3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

One of the faulty premises that is based on is labor theory of value, which can be debunked in ten seconds by any 100+ IQ rational thinker. "I just dug a 3 meter hole and filled it back up again, pay me". The government is not any better at allocating resources/labor than the bum who digs a hole without asking anyone and then demands payment for his labor, they don't have a voluntary relationship with those they rule over despite the many absurd fallacies that comprise the belief in democracy.

One might be a skilled electrician yet not want to go through the trouble of starting and running your own business. That you consign your labor/skills as apart of someone else's business is not being taken advantage of, it is demonstrable to be in this hypothetical electrician's interest because they voluntarily chose this arrangement. Pic related is the type of retard communist to declare to the electrician that he is being taken advantage of, or else a rent seeking academic or politician that exists entirely as a parasite upon the tax base and may never have had a real job (someone like Bernie Sanders). It is only these parasites who have never had real jobs never mind ran their own business, that will discount the value of being a business owner / employer.

Socialists / communists don't have a coherent defensible theory of value, therefor their declarations about the value of labor versus the value provided by the employer / business owner is entirely arbitrary and meaningless.

>> No.15329128

Then leave the jurisdiction of the sociopaths, idiot, and do business somewhere else.

>> No.15329142

Again, you're retarded and threatened by the need to read into context.

Here, quick example:


Business infrastructure can be anything from accounting software to setting up the tax codes to procurement. I'm not talking about literal roads, you absolute bird-brained mongrel. The need to take a risk on an idea and investing capital into it before the first dollar even comes in is the reward for a higher payout than the person who risked nothing.

Way to prove commies are illiterate, emotional idiots. Enjoy your welfare bucks kiddo.

>> No.15329145

>muh roads
Here's an idea: private roads (just like the private railroads that have existed for a long time) and private laws.

>> No.15329155

>private laws
Lmao, how would they work?

>> No.15329171

There are sociopaths in every country, moron. I choose the place with the better ones, but I can't secede without being bombed by them.
In the end only one thing will free us from these sociopaths: mass tax evasion enabled by crypto

>> No.15329185

Also how would education work? All people are required to pay for their own kid's education? That's how you get a stagnating, expanding, impoverished and angry working class, who inevitibly turn to commies when they're promised a better life (and then turn to corpses when the starvation starts)

>> No.15329189
File: 53 KB, 680x673, 1566316086262.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>muh poorly named buzzword as validated by some no-name shit website

kys you absolute cuck

>> No.15329202
File: 30 KB, 657x651, huutista.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>implying currently 75% of the kids actually learn anything in their 10+ years through the public education system

>> No.15329210

It's validated by pretty much every site that uses the term, of which there are thousands and thousands, you illiterate commie. It's also validated by common sense, which commies lack, otherwise you wouldn't be doing such a great job of ignoring everyone who tells you that higher risk = higher payout.

>he's going to avoid the point again
>commie mental gymnastics

>> No.15329211

Of course they're going to bomb you if you try to secede with their land that they've laid rights to. Start your own country on unowned land.

>> No.15329213

>hurr durr what are literacy rates

>> No.15329215

There isn't one unique way for it to work, but the best one IMO is a system with local laws (thousands of Liechtensteins instead of one huge country such as the USA).
Private mediation already happens between companies btw

The fact that it doesn't exist right now doesnt mean the current system is the best one.

>> No.15329221

>I just dug a 3 meter hole and filled it back up again, pay me
What's the use value in that retard?

>> No.15329230

Brain damaged
>v-validated by common sense!

>> No.15329238

Public education systems are shit in almost every country. There's a central entity deciding on the curriculum and everything is decided by a bunch of politicians who have a vested interest in keeping people dumb.

Btw, everyone already pays for their own kid's education through taxes. How can you not see this?

>> No.15329243

robbery/racket is a better term anyway

>> No.15329262

You're told several times higher risk = higher payout and make every excuse in the book not to answer the simple point. Skullfucked commie. You necked yourself - I just watched.

You're so dumb you'll run again. Higher risk = higher payout. Rebut it. You won't.

>> No.15329279

You've completely missed the point of the picture and you've completely missed my point in my post. You are screaming and boasting about how you are owning a strawman. Sad.

>> No.15329286

So you mean my land isn't actually mine, correct? The same goes for my car, my body (can't use drugs or engage in prostitution), my guns (gov can take them away whenever), etc.
You're right, it really works like that.

But to make that argument you also have to agree that you're a slave to your overlords and only a cuck wouldn't be against it.

>> No.15329302

>You are forced to pay taxes in the same way you are forced to work and have your surplus taken away by entrepreneurs/capitalists.
Except it's at gunpoint. Fuck you bootlicker

>> No.15329322

>forced to work
Who's forcing you to work, anon? You should complain to the police about that, it's not right

>> No.15329324
File: 184 KB, 578x591, 1566256337886.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You dont have to work for a company if you think they dont pay you enough. Simple. The reality is companies bring value to workers, which is why they dont quit.

>> No.15329332


>implying both the "left" and the "right" don't want to import cheap immigrants to do jobs that were previously done only by Europeans

Left and Right are two parts to the same system. Having only one political party running a system means that a controlled dichotomy stage show can't take place, which in of itself is a form of control.

The corporate Democrats and the corporate Republicans both want the same thing, but they just differ in their stated reasons for achieving it.

Look at who cuts the lawns of the lawmakers. Or if the lawmakers cut their own lawn.

>> No.15329339

I pay nearly 40% taxes so it's literally the largest part of the pie.

Nice try though.

>> No.15329354

>You dont have to work for a company if you think they dont pay you enough. >Simple
Oh that's right. Well paying jobs grow on trees!
That's why 30% of jobs pay hardship wages and 32% pay livable wages, huh?

>> No.15329357

Cowardice is realizing life and a career is hard work and instead of putting in the time and effort to increase your skills and earning power you whine and complain for the system to be reorganized because you're too weak to compete. Disgusting filth, you deserve the fate that's coming to you

>> No.15329359

>So you mean my land isn't actually mine, correct?
Correct, the fact that you have to pay taxes on that land really means that you're really just leasing it, not 100% owning it
>The same goes for my car, my body (can't use drugs or engage in prostitution), my guns (gov can take them away whenever), etc.
You'd have no problems with these in international waters.
>But to make that argument you also have to agree that you're a slave to your overlords and only a cuck wouldn't be against it.
I don't like it but it's the same overlordism on the government side as on the capitalist/entrepreneur side, which was the real point of the OP picture. It's just how the world works. You can take actions to minimize it and avoid it but it's fundamentally the same.

>> No.15329363

Dummy logic. You are forced to work for food and shelter. Stop pretending to be stupid.

>> No.15329367

How is that not better than the alternative which is having no income?

>> No.15329382

The universe owes you nothing. You are entitled to nothing.

>> No.15329388

The capitalist/entrepreneur doesn't force you to do anything. You engage in cooperation because it's in your best interest (i.e. it's much easier to work a job than to start your own company). Crystal-clear difference between both of them.

>> No.15329400

Well no, I have a friend whose parents abandoned her as a kid (junkies) who still got an education, pretty clear that her parents weren't paying for her education with her taxes.
Also this doesn't make sense since public education clearly works, given the number of working-class kids I know and grew up with succeeding in university today. The system isn't perfect, but I'd rather it than a system where only people who can afford to pay get educations.

>> No.15329405

Do you even know what a hardship and a livable wage are?
It's bad because people are forced to grind a shitty job for shit.

That is shit. Having no income is shittier, but both are shit regardless. Shit is still shit. If you have 2 options and both are shit, that's nothing to celebrate.

>> No.15329406


Because if it's a declining real wage, your living standards are objectively going down with it.

Why SHOULD a people have to stand their living standards going down when they aren't doing anything differently from 20 years ago?

The corporation they are working for is making mad shekels utilizing cheap foreign labour and selling into the domestic market but workers can't do that.

>> No.15329419
File: 49 KB, 750x408, 10431400_821460317864113_3729929410970835508_o1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Preach it brother.

>> No.15329421

Okay? You said something and I corrected your trash logic. Stop changing the subject.
I'm not arguing for "entitlement". I am arguing how shit the situation is. Stay focused.

>> No.15329427


There's no financial risk in being a laborer. I did it for years.

I tried to started a business now i'm 400k in debt. You plebs have no idea what it takes to run a business. I do less labor now, but I work ways more. There's no days off, there's no "After" work, it's a 24/7 gig. I sleep and I work.

I better get a fucking capitalist payout of putting myself through this for 4 years so far. Risk is what has value, not labor.

>> No.15329430

You engage in cooperation with the government (paying taxes, obeying the law) because it's in your best interest (much easier to obey than to start your own country).

>> No.15329431

The point of the picture, retard, is to suggest libertarians consider taxes an unfair trade-off and consider an employee-employer relationship a fair trade-off, while the latter ought to be remarked within the category of theft.

I'm telling your commie dumbass that the employee-employer relationship is a perfectly fair trade-off, and the retarded image you dumb commies like doesn't factor in the fact that all the risk is from one side (which is a huge contributing factor to fairness).

And you'll run again and do everything to avoid the point, like the dumb commie you are.

>> No.15329435

Btfod here, bootlicker: >>15329421

>> No.15329442
File: 70 KB, 789x750, 07a6953c.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

heheh women cooperate with their rapists because it's better than to fight him ehhehe fooken based m80

>> No.15329444

You’re either a winner or a loser. I know which one you are you little whiny bitch

>> No.15329457


The system was superior for class mobility in the 20th century though. Nobody can get to the VERY top within a generation, but they can go from the working class to the lower-to-middle upper class.

The value of a University degree in the 20th century was much higher than it is in the 21st century. If you got a degree, really any degree, post WW2, you were guaranteed a middle class lifestyle basically.

>> No.15329461

Productivity has grown because of cheap immigrant labor coupled with the major advances in technology which make assembling something as complex as a moving, running vehicle a matter of button presses for a human ( a human you can pay $2.00 an/hour), and a machine does the actual work, and a hell of a lot better and more precise than you can.
Productivity DID NOT increase due to the wagie who has actually had his role in many companies diminish, if not outright disappear due to automation/technological advances aka diminishes his value unlike your claim.

>> No.15329467
File: 67 KB, 750x747, 1565247054107.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Does the state bureoucrat brownhole really taste that good?

>> No.15329468

The point of my post, retard, is to suggest that if you consider an employee-employer relationship a fair trade-off, so too is the citizen-state relationship. You can engage in semantic wordplay to call taxes theft but that same reasoning can be used to describe the employee-employer relationship. They are fundamentally the same.

You have literal brain damage if you think you are arguing with an commie and keep screaming about how you're owning the commies.

>> No.15329472

And what are you? I've literally never meant one single bootlicker that is winning in life. I can guess which one you are too. A submissive bitch that will probably retire broke.

>> No.15329475
File: 190 KB, 1500x844, Sixty-and-Me_What-is-Being-60-Years-Old-Like-in-2-Words.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]




>> No.15329481

>says the guy that is defending a shit system aka a bootlicker
I'm also not "defending" anything so... what the fuck are you blabbing about? Reaching much?

>> No.15329490

Now replace women with "worker" and rapists with "corporation" or "their boss".

>> No.15329500

There are tons of ways through which this kid could've got an education that don't involve a centralized outdated piece of shit system like public schooling (take me: I went to a private school paying zero, because there were scholarships).

This would be even less of a problem if the drug war (another thing paid for by taxes) wouldnt make drugs so expensive and concentrated to the point where her parents became poor junkies who couldn't seek help for fear of being arrested.

>> No.15329503

Keep telling yourself that, loser.

>> No.15329505

Ironic thing is, in the ancap world, women could be publically raped by billionaires and do nothing about it.

>> No.15329515

that's a NAP violation and zeroes in the bank account don't stop bullets

>> No.15329520


If productivity has stayed the same since the tech revolution of the last 30 years, then the real wages should have stayed the same as well.

All I'm advocating for at least is a return to 20th century capitalism. If we can't go back to the 60s or the 80s in equity between the classes, then we're either purposefully or obliviously being led towards a massive Socialist or Communist Revolution.

People with the ability to vote won't tolerate being serfs.

>> No.15329535

I live in the UK m80, completely different context to the war on drugs.

And I've never seen anyone offer scholarships to 6 year olds, and who would for as many as need it? 4 million kids in the UK alone live under the poverty line.

>> No.15329554

Literal slave mentality. It's in my best interest to get fucked by Bubba in the ass, because I don't want Bubba to kill me.

Very different from your relationship with an employer, btw. If you don't want to work for him or he doesn't want to hire you, your paths won't cross again and each one is free to do as he wants.

>> No.15329573

Renounce your citizenship and leave the country for unowned territory and you'd also be free to do as you want.

>> No.15329576

I went to private school. Sorry your parents were lazy and didnt care about you.

>> No.15329577


The closer you are to power, the easier it is to skirt the law.

If you ARE the power, you can ignore the law entirely pretty much. The monarch in the UK isn't subject to the criminal laws of her country. A sitting President isn't either.

The Queen could literally anally rape someone on live television and there is nothing legally that any police in the country could do to stop it.

What we're seeing now with the Epstein case, this is true to a class of financiers/ state intelligence operatives. He had enough pull in 2008/2009 to get away from charges via traditional means.

>> No.15329581

You still haven't answered his question though. If the capitalist is more important than the worker, why can't the capitalist do everything by himself?

>> No.15329590


Why do you think slave mentality exists only when it comes to the private individual vs the government?

Slaves were owned by private individuals too historically.

I'd even wager they were mostly owned by private individuals historically.

It's blind subservience to ANY authority, no distinctions.

>> No.15329593

So you have no argument and start shitposting? Pathetic.

>> No.15329602

>4 million kids in the UK alone live under the poverty line
Well, maybe if their families didn't pay so many taxes (both direct and indirect) they could afford cheaper private educations while also being able to choose which type of school they want.

I live in Brazil. Poor people here pay the most taxes, get buttfucked in all kinds of ways because of the war on drugs and the education they get is atrocious (you get pushed to next year even if you can't read or write).

>> No.15329612

Not true. The gov will find you and tax you. And tear down your cabin because zoning etc.

>> No.15329627

There is no unowned territory.

>> No.15329638

So you believe a literal slave can choose to stop working for a private individual and go somewhere else? No, they can't.
In this case the private individual is just like the government, totally different from a company you'd work for today.

>> No.15329645

Start a colony on Mars, under the sea, on the Moon etc. etc.

Space is literally infinite.

>> No.15329646

>If you have 2 options and both are shit, that's nothing to celebrate.
>Still only sees 2 options
Put the Jacobin down victim anon

>> No.15329660

There is but in order for you to actually claim it was your own the rest of the world needs to validate your claim as legitimate and that isn’t gonna happen in a million years

>> No.15329670


Not that guy but I'll answer anyway because I'm autistic.

He can't, and that is the impious to pay people wages to attract their labour.

Given this, it's in the best interest of the business owner to expand the supply of labour to the fullest extent possible to drive down wages.

Or he'll simply chase lower labour costs and move his business entirely and ship the manufactured item into the domestic market, making a bundle in doing so.

The only thing that stops the businessman from acting in his base economic interests is the will of the state acting to arbitrate equity in society.

And if the state is entirely ruled by the businessman? Equity is defined by them, and on a global scale equity is FAR FAR below the current living standards of the American worker.

>> No.15329672

You don't need legitimacy if you don't need the rest of the world.

>> No.15329688


Sorry, I worded my post wrong.

My point is that slave morality is not limited to the relationship between the individual and the state.

It's just as true when it's an individual and a corporation (or plantation owner for instance).

>> No.15329730


Even if fully self sufficient, you need to be able to defend your territory from the armed forces of another tribe or state.

Understand why Zionism succeeded in the Middle East and why other self proclaimed independent states in the 20th century collapsed.

The only states capable of autocracy are the large ones with an abundance of natural resources to exploit.

>> No.15329733

so all the more reason why people who didn't fail deserves the rewards retard

>> No.15329734

There's still a fundamental difference regarding the individual's free will.
No one's forcing me to buy from Amazon or work for them

>> No.15329763

>Even if fully self sufficient, you need to be able to defend your territory from the armed forces of another tribe or state.
Wow, it's almost like businesses need to defend themselves and compete with other businesses.

An actual solution is to be out of the way and insignificant that it would be a bother to actually go after you.

>> No.15329770

So if only .0001% of people succeed and the rest fail, everyone deserves to get shit on? Fuck off. Trash trash logic.

>> No.15329805
File: 71 KB, 1256x1122, fuck you.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>disingenuously show a tiny sliver of income going to taxes
>when pic related is what communists really want

Communists are lying scum, on top of their theory being scum.

>> No.15329827


It's a superior form of economic control. Slaves knew that they were never going to see the fruits of their labour and they acted accordingly except for when threatened with violence.

Someone who genuinely believes that their future will be prosperous doing what they are doing, will work harder than the slave.

Thing is, that's no longer true compared to previous generations. We can gauge this now, living standards are objectively going down.

>> No.15329833

Yeah the monarcy is fucked, do agree on you there, but the rest of the system works fairly well. The rich and powerful often get away with their crimes, but far less than they would in a privatised system, and the only way to fix it that I see is more spending on law enforcement/ less freedoms, neither of which I'm particularly happy with.
Actually a huge amount of poor people in the UK, especially those with kids, don't pay any tax at all thanks to benefits and tax credits.

>> No.15329842

10% tax would be fine but here total tax burden exceeds 65%

>> No.15329844

I think we may be potentially advocating for the same things, while being divided on a different subject. My argument is that the system of capitalism IS being taken advantage of through cheap labor via illegal immigration/cultural shift in America.

>> No.15329867


You even read that wikipedia page? Sealand got invaded and had to be reconquered. It exists now as a novelty.

The entire history of serious countries in the pacific is one of being crushed by your stronger neighbors. Even multi-millionaires in the 70s tried and got crushed.

>> No.15329885

what country?

>> No.15329888

Small countries getting eaten up by big countries.
Small businesses getting eaten up by big businesses.

Adapt or die.

>> No.15329913


>> No.15329914


The UK itself is a privatized system. It's one big corporation run nominally by the Queen, but in actuality by the people and institutions she has delegated power to.

How do you even fight a system like that? You need mass support by the populace.

>> No.15329917

Every product these families buy has added tax, anon. These taxes are passed on by the producer to the consumer through every step in the chain of production
Specially if they buy drugs (high prices due to risk)

Not only that, but there's also the cost of corporatism - big companies pay the govt to kill their competition (causing an overall reduction in services/products quality, an increase on their prices and a reduction in the amount of jobs being offered on the market).

There's also the Cantillon Effect in regards to money printing and inflation, etc, etc. I could spend days here listing the ways through which the state fucks you over.

>> No.15329931
File: 254 KB, 1298x1316, 1433708142251.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

replace the populace

>> No.15329935

You make a good argument in regards to "just open your own country" and everything, but...
I have yet to encounter someone so content in being a slave while still being aware of this. Congrats, anon, unironically.

>> No.15329956

We're all slaves to something.

Material wealth
Laws of Physics

The list goes on and on. Employers and governments are simply additions.

>> No.15329983


My point is that unfettered capitalism knows no national allegiances and seeks out cheap labour naturally.

It was always the state that restricted them or didn't restrict them. If it was up to the corprations the entire Western seaboard of the USA would have been flooded with cheap Chinese labour in the early 20th century.

>> No.15329995

Most of these are optional, except for physics and government.

The laws of physics will always exist, correct. Governments don't have to, though. Democracy has only existed as we know it for a small part of human history and it can be killed through mass tax evasion one day when crypto really takes over. I won't see this in our lifetimes, though

>> No.15329999

actually they decreased the taxes a bit from my last calculations its more like 60% tax burden now not counting various small taxes and fees that can amount to an other 1 or 2%

ifficially ibcome tax is 15% but in reality you only get 55% of what you would get paid and the vat is still 27% comes out to about 40% spending power left for average joe.

>> No.15330024

If capitalist democracies are killed by crypto tax evasion won't that mean that only authoritarian countries with command economies will survive?

>> No.15330029


That's a given, but the way in which a small country becomes a big country or a small corporation becomes a big one is the important part you're leaving out.

All we need to do to figure things like this out is to go back to the Age of Discovery in with the Portuguese/Dutch/Spanish/British Empires.

And eventually the American Empire to understand how success past success isn't infinite.

>> No.15330047


That's not fighting the system, that's the system imposing demographic change on the people.

>> No.15330075

Some businesses choose not to grow and find ways to survive through their smallness. Countries can follow the same path.

Imagine there is someplace with a corporation and no government. What is stopping the corporation from assassinating a whistleblower?

>> No.15330080

Regular countries would most likely be fragmented through continuous secession and in the end you might have local "governments" within people's reach (kind of like a business owner's association, where they organize because it's in their best interest).

In the case of authoritarian countries with command economies? I don't know, but Venezuela has been one of the places where crypto is most widely used and black/grey markets flourish out of pure necessity. You can even send/receive DASH through SMS messages over there.

>> No.15330100

Imagine China instead of Venezuela.

>> No.15330139

>opens up a fish and chips restaurant
>too incompetent and went bankrupt
>successful restaurant owners should compensate those who failed


no one's stopping you from opening a business and pay your workers below market rate.. or better yet rent your property out below market rate.

>> No.15330142

The Chinese govt are doing what they can to instill authoritarianism into the minds of their people, but it won't last forever. Some countries will probably find freedom sooner than others (and I hope they organize to protect themselves against invasions)

>> No.15330151


Small countries aren't sovereign. They are dominated by the interests of countries larger than themselves. I'd argue that there are only maybe half a dozen truly sovereign countries in the world. Russia would be one. China would be one. The Anglo-American-Zionist Empire would be another.

Your point is entirely true in regards to private government. I'm not arguing for an AnCap paradise at all. I'm just exploring my thoughts.

>> No.15330155

Holy shit.. you missed my point. The fact the most people are failing in this country means this system is a failure.
Ya, some people make it. Some people make it in communism too kek. That doesn't make the system as a whole "good".

>> No.15330189


Your idea of social liberalism being freedom is not what the Chinese, or really most of the world outside of the Anglosphere, thinks.

China is proof that social liberalism is not a prerequisite for economic wealth. As long as people are affluent, they don't give a shit.

>> No.15330193

there are no perfect systems

what is your solution?

>> No.15330223

I agree, asians have a more submissive mentality. But the fact that their government went out of their way to make control systems like Sesame Credits and internet controls points to the opposite. They still have to be kept in check

It's easier if they're all rich, but if the chinese bubble is not a meme it might be just a matter of time. Venezuela used to be rich as fuck too.

>> No.15330233

You can easily inawoods and create your own shelter and forage for food. The only thing that would stop you is government.

>> No.15330238

The labor theory of value is just subjective assertion

>> No.15330240

To add, wagecucking has always been a form of insurance. You sacrifice maximum potential income for the sake of stability and lesser risk relative to the boss

Literally nothing is wrong with the image

>> No.15330288

>The taxes you paid was used to pay for infrastructure.

My local government wastes money on needless infrastructure and upgrades while not repairing the fucking potholes in high traffic areas.

>> No.15330301

The surplus value would still be taxed.

>> No.15330307

I agree. I maintain that there are extreme parallels between businesses and governments but the parallels do have an end as businesses are abstractions while countries are geopolitical constructs heavily dependent on geographies. Military prowess is instrumental to survival and independence, and therefore sovereignty. Military prowess is correlated with manpower and material wealth which snowballs weaker neighbors until geographic barriers provide asymmetric strength to defenders (oceans, mountains etc.).

>> No.15330309

Food and shelter don't appear on their own, correct. But if you don't want to work for them, there's no one stopping you from doing that. No other people have to be involved.

If someone's forcing you to work, there's a person directly violating your private property (your own body). Look up positive rights vs. negative rights.

Sorry, I try to answer everyone but you slipped by

>> No.15330314


The West runs it's own good-goy points scheme, just an unofficial one.

If you say the wrong thing on Facebook the state will rail road you and corporations will drop you like a hot potato.

Hell, even payment processors drop you.

>> No.15330327

I'm sorry your local government is shit.

>> No.15330331
File: 243 KB, 964x562, article-2481378-191965A100000578-174_964x562.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>The fact the most people are failing in this country means this system is a failure.
>Some people make it in communism too kek.

People aren't starving to death by the millions. That's the huge difference between the two systems.

>> No.15330342

>you agree to one
>the other is forced on you and backed up with violence
This is like asking why libertarians would support giving 1mil to charities but be against being mugged for $20

>> No.15330350

When you want to keep the peasant populace controlled, you either offer them channels to become higher class or you give them free shit. Our current elites do neither, and instead are hedging their bets on killer robots instead.
I wonder if it will pan out.

>> No.15330357


>Food and shelter don't appear on their own, correct.

Well, they do in the wild. Can't live in National Parks though, goy!

>> No.15330358

Wasteful spending is common in every government.

>> No.15330362

Real unemployment is something like 20%.

>> No.15330382

For now, I would keep things as they are. The only difference being that I would put emphasis to affordable housing (that's how a lot of tax money should be allocated to). Making homes as cheap (but still safe enough) along with making them small. Maybe 214sq ft.

Fixing the cost of living and making owning property actually feasible for once would fix nearly everyone's financial situation.

This way people wouldn't have to work as much (so more work/life balance) and would NEVER have to worry about homelessness (minus disasters).
Another thing I would change is making it so employers can't be as picky ad they are now (it would be illegal to ask for a degree if not needed for a job i.e. "we want a bachelors in bullshit for you to even be considered". What they could do instead is create study guides, offer an online test, and go from there. It should be illegal for employers to ask for credit scores. Maybe even criminal history. Etc. As it stands now, they have too much power).

Those are the 2 main things I would change if it were in my power.

>> No.15330385

If there is a goal and two men are required to complete that goal, one can still be more important to its completion than the other, you tard
Ex. doctor and nurse, the doctor couldnt possibly perform surgery all by himself, he really needs someone to get the supplies for him as he calls for them, he needs someone to monitor the machines as he works because he cant look at them and do his work. Does this mean the guy who hands him a scalpel is doing as much towards the goal as he is, that his work is as valuable or scarce, even though scalpel guy is necessary? No

>> No.15330388

This just boosts my point desu. Governments have to do this crap because they are bloated and most of their actions and workers are unnecessary. Some will last longer, some won't

>Hell, even payment processors drop you.
Another point for crypto

>> No.15330392

>imagine being this retarded

>> No.15330395

You seemed determined to believe that wasteful government spending is easily avoidable, while every existing (local) government is equally wasteful in their spending. Have you considered starting your own government?

>> No.15330397

Try "every western government spending millions on importing and feeding mohammeds"

>> No.15330400

Read >>15330382

Creating afforsable housing = now you don't have to work as much to be able to afford food and other expenses. Rent is the biggest eater of a paycheck by a landslide. That and health care.

People end up nearly (or straight up broke) thanks to the asinine cost of necessary expenses.

>> No.15330418


People can starve in nominally "capitalist" countries too. A system is one thing, but it actually takes people to run any system, and the resulting society will be the product of that.

It's for this reason why East Germany was the most developed and had the highest living standards in the Eastern Bloc.

>> No.15330420

Then move out of these "western governments"

>> No.15330429

You can minimize it by reducing taxes that common people have to pay. This would force the government to be more careful with their spending. Why encourage them by giving them more money?

>> No.15330438

Still shit though. Nothing to be proud of. 78% of fulltime workers live paycheck to paycheck, 50% of renters spend over 30% of their income on rent. Of those, half spend over 50% of their income on rent. 42% of americans retire broke. Etc.

Ya, it's less shit than other countries, but shit is still shit.

>> No.15330445

You can try doing this, but eventually the market fucks you over for trying to bypass it (just like every other keynesian policy).

Get money from taxes -> Subsidize housing -> owners increase the price because now people can pay more -> people have less money (due to taxes) and houses are more expensive -> start over again
Literally happened in my country.

>> No.15330449


That unofficial good goy points scheme would exist even if government didn't. That's just society working.

Society ALWAYS lifts up the people that emulates the ideals that it propagates.

>> No.15330450 [DELETED] 

If the government is incompetent why would it be any more competent with less spending?
>Why encourage them by giving them more money?
Why encourage them by continuing to live under that government instead of moving and contributing anything to them in the first place?

>> No.15330461

If the government is incompetent why would it be any more competent with less spending?
>Why encourage them by giving them more money?
Why encourage them by continuing to live under that government and contributing anything to them in the first place, instead of moving?

>> No.15330462
File: 130 KB, 589x800, kill-zone_orig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>communist fairy tales
If it was so good, why did they build a wall to prevent people from escaping?

>> No.15330467


Meh, the crisis in residential housing is driven by credit. You take the credit away and every two-bit nigger can't afford it, and the prices crash.

Historically in Australia, you could buy a house if you could save up 3 years worth of the average income. Currently it is 20 years worth of the average income.

>> No.15330488


It wasn't as good as West Germany. That wasn't my point.

I literally told you my point: a system is only as good as the people that operates it.

Plenty of nominally capitalist countries in Africa under American sway have dog-shit living standards.

>> No.15330497

>owners increase the price because now people can pay more
And that should be regulated to avoid abuse.

>> No.15330509

Good luck lmao
People always try and they always think it will work. Eventually you have grey markets operated by the mafia and tons of homeless people (just like in the USSR).
It's the lure that all governments fall victim to

>> No.15330511

>They are fundamentally the same.
Nope, the employer doesn't hold me at gunpoint if I don't wish to sell my labor to him.

I also don't get to negotiate with the state, while commie retards like you forget that.

All that running and you can't even explain why it's the same. Run run run.

>> No.15330552

Breathing is a portion of effort too, and inherent to your value creation.
You breathe for yourself for free to do work.
Breathing is theft.

It being associated and it being theft aren't the same thing. This is a stupid way to make these things look equivalent, when their mechanisms, affect, and compulsory nature are very different.
Don't abstract shit until it matches your ordained outcome, that shit isn't healthy.

>> No.15330556

kids want free shit and a fancy way to explain why they should have your shit

>> No.15330573

>Nope, the employer doesn't hold me at gunpoint if I don't wish to sell my labor to him.
What's stopping your employer from holding you at gunpoint?
Most countries will let you renounce citizenship and leave the country if you so wish if you don't wish to continue paying taxes to that country.
>I also don't get to negotiate with the state, while commie retards like you forget that.
This is exactly why representational governments were formed.

>> No.15330575

Why are there no taxes on the part of value that the entrepreneur makes?
Oh right, because that isn't as simple of an idea.

>> No.15330577

Starting a business is not that hard. I've started 3.

I could start a business and have it running at a healthy profit in 2 months.

When you consider all the businesses that don't require a building there is a shitload of ways to make money under your own name.

I know a guy that makes $90k a year washing windows. I know another guy that makes $100k a year doing the videos and photos of weddings.

>> No.15330597


All the negative shit you read about Russia happened in the 1990s, not during the Communist era itself. At least from 1950 to 1990.

It's the privatization era that broke Russia big time. Hell, the Russians were so shocked at how bad things were in the mid 1990s that they almost elected the Communists again.

>> No.15330606

Whoever managed to do something that so little could should be compensated. People have him money for a reason. A lot of people benefited from his product

>> No.15330617

>What's stopping your employer from holding you at gunpoint?
The fact the business wouldn't be successful regardless of state. Go figure - businesses do better when workers are actually performing at their best and are incentivized. Retard.
>This is exactly why representational governments were formed.
You said state-citizen and employee-employer are fundamentally same. You're retarded again: they're not fundamentally the same if I get to negotiate as an individual to an employer.

>> No.15330624

I really don't see how that could happen at all.
If homes were owned say by the governemnt (and then the ownership transferred unto those that are renting to own), then how the heck would that result as an issue?

With current landlords, I don't know. Maybe make it so they have to make the units rent to own too but the owner will have to pay for maintenance fees and utility bill. Also, some regulation about not allowing them to charge more than some set amount (gets adjusted with inflation). Not sure what that could be but this is just throwing some ideas out there. I don't think it has to be AS complicated as it currently is. At the end of the day, it's just a box where you shower, shit, eat, and sleep in along with plug in electronics. Shouldn't be some thing that takes decades to pay off.

>> No.15330642

>the employer doesn't hold me at gunpoint if I don't wish to sell my labor to him.
No, but the system itself does. Ever heard of this thing called homelessness?? Use common sense. You need them more than they need you. You are at their mercy.

>> No.15330649

The point I'm making is that if most people are struggling just to survive, that is a shit system.

>> No.15330652

>The fact the business wouldn't be successful regardless of state. Go figure - businesses do better when workers are actually performing at their best and are incentivized.
Not being shot/not being whipped is an incentive. You can argue that businesses can do better when they're better incentivized/paid but this isn't true for all businesses, why do you think minimum wage jobs continue to exist?
>they're not fundamentally the same if I get to negotiate as an individual to an employer
Your employer has no obligation to negotiate you and can gladly tell you to not let the door hit you on your way out. Just like you can leave a country and renounce citizenship.

>> No.15330684

Right, because the USSR was heaven on earth before privatization lol
I know people who lived in Ukraine in the 80s and Cuba after that, they told me the horror stories

>> No.15330686

>Ever heard of this thing called homelessness?? Use common sense. You need them more than they need you. You are at their mercy.
Another retarded commie.

If a business owner doesn't give society what it needs, he starves. If a regular employee doesn't give society what it needs by selling his labour to employers who found what society wants, he starves.

Not exchanging goods or not having goods to exchange would make one homeless? No, really, idiot? Did you just try to make it sound profound that people go homeless if they have nothing to offer?

>You are at their mercy.
Then go take the risk of becoming an employer (most businesses fail) - higher risk = higher reward.

Commies are retarded.

>> No.15330687
File: 54 KB, 400x2000, comicunism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

First, Libertarians don't think taxation, as a concept, is theft. They think the current implementation of taxes is theft. (Which is correct). If you don't believe in taxes ,you don't believe in government in which case you are an anarchist, not a libertarian

Second, "Surplus labor" doesn't exist. It fabricates the idea that workers create ALL the value of a company by themselves, when really they are only able to create such value because the Boss took a risk, opened a business, supplied the tools, training, and building for the worker. If you could produce everything without any of that, you don't need a fucking boss then. Just sell it on the open market.

>> No.15330706


>> No.15330714

You fucking faggot.
When you work for someone else, YOU OWN NOTHING.



>> No.15330720

if the "surplus value" collected is really that big, a competitor could step in and cut their prices by 75%, and completely demolish your employer.
natural monopolies, price/wage fixing, etc.. do exist, but competition keeps the inefficiency to < 15%, not 75%.
google and apple for example conspired to wage fix, but their employees make $200k. Smaller fish use illegal labor (which lefties support) to bring down labor costs.

public companies give this information out in great depth in their quarterly earnings reports, you can check the numbers yourself but communists are too dumb to read and do basic arithmetic.

>> No.15330728

>If homes were owned say by the governemnt (and then the ownership transferred unto those that are renting to own), then how the heck would that result as an issue?
Corruption. Governments are just like shitty landlords, except that they wouldn't be undercut by anyone because they would be the only ones on the market. Powerful people get theirs first, peasants get scraps

>some regulation about not allowing them to charge more than some set amount
Price controls have always in the history of the world caused scarcity. Just look at Venezuela.
You'd make a fine dictator, my friend.

t. south american

>> No.15330738

Surplus labor is the marginal value a worker brings minus his marginal cost (wage)

>> No.15330756
File: 255 KB, 640x640, 1557012346300.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Not being shot/not being whipped is an incentive
Retarded commie still can't read. I said "performing at their best". Are most successful businesses run on pure threat? Are commies good at reading? Answers are much the same.
>why do you think minimum wage jobs continue to exist?
Because not all skills are worth paying beyond minimum wage. At least you have cocksucking to keep you afloat (your mother did a nice job teaching you).
>Your employer has no obligation to negotiate you and can gladly tell you to not let the door hit you on your way out
Saying no is part of negotiation, retarded commie. Again, you said employer-employee and citizen-state is fundamentally the same. Again, you can't say no to state. The only way you get around that is by saying an employer telling you to leave the business is the same as the state telling you to leave the country, which would make you a commie bootlicker as well as a cocksucker who can't recognize that I shouldn't be able to demand a job or wage (as it violates the employer's freedom) while people who take from me in return for that which I don't need (and/or take away the ability to negotiate individually) violate my freedoms if I wish to say no to what should be a consensual bargain.

But hey, not that a commie cocksucker like you would understand consent. Your mom probably got sodomized by 20 niggers with consent while you watched. How did you become such a bootlicker who's unable to thrive without muh daddy state? Loser. LMAO

>> No.15330761

ok but you're not measuring other capital expenditures in the company.
>buns, hamburgers, electricity, lot rent, insurance, marketing, management.
each Mcdonalds employee pays the CEO $0.04 per hour. That's some money, but fairly efficient.

>> No.15330765

Retard. I was correcting your logic, dumbass. YOU said you don't HAVE to work to survive when obviously you do. Lmao you are so fucking dumb.
Also lmao @ "everything I don't like is communism". Nice strawman, jackass.

>> No.15330804

sounds like a copout.

>Price controls have always in the history of the world caused scarcity
Explain further how making homes and apartments affordable = a bad thing.
What do you mean by scarcity even? Less homes/apartments available? Then more should be made? Like okay?

>> No.15330814

>If you could produce everything without any of that, you don't need a fucking boss then. Just sell it on the open market.
I entirely support this idea. Workers should gather more around theirselves and start organizing horizontal companies and cooperatives, because fuck bosses. No need for government to actually take control of companies like literal commies want to.

>muh risk taking
Do you really think that a well-established financial tycoon will do worse than your average work during a depression or recession or if the company simply breaks down? Granted they lose more money than the worker, but the contacts and ties they have to the upper class and other millionaires won't simply vanish. They can get up much quicker than the average person in the rat race.

Perfect example: Donald Trump. Bankrupt more than a couple times, look where he is now.

>> No.15330819

Eugen von Bawerk refuted this image 130 years ago. Cope more commie

>> No.15330836

>average worker

>> No.15330841

Read a fucking book sometimes, retard. I recommend econ 101.

>> No.15330860
File: 5 KB, 220x229, 1565989919319.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Shitposting instead of providing a solid argument. Topkek

>> No.15330872

like how the government made college education cheap by subsidizing it?
Some things the govt could do:
>ban foreigners from owning property
>local: ease zoning restrictions
>Some sort of system where its illegal to own more than 5 houses (*unintended consequences I haven't thought of may apply)

Stupid idea that the left likes to implement
>free money for houses
fixed supply of houses, increased supply of money for the houses, home hoarders raise home prices, no net gain.

>> No.15330922

Some jobs don't require peak performance. Your first two answers literally contradict each other.

>Saying no is part of negotiation
Country-leaving, citizenship-renouncing are your negotiating options with the state.

The worker has the option of not working. The company would still have to pay for the same capital expenditures. I'm not opposed to the existence of labor surplus but it definitely exists.

>> No.15330927

This is good, clear and concise.

Most infrastructure is handled and paid for by the states, not the federal government. The last thing we got from the fed that worked was spaceships and they only use $3 from every person to fund NASA for an entire year

>> No.15330931

>sounds like a copout.
It's not. Lots of cases like this in history

>What do you mean by scarcity even? Less homes/apartments available?
Price controls don't actually make people change their prices. It just prices people out of the market.
Suppose you pass a law that states a maximum price on housing. Now the people who made cheap houses still make cheap houses but the people who make expensive houses were priced out of the market. This makes housing more scarce and eventually rich people will start buying the cheap houses, competing against the poor for them. Since the rich can pay a bit under the table (corruption), they can get a bunch of houses and rent. Poor people can't pay more under the table, so they have to pay rent to the rich.

There's a ton of stuff that could happen, but in the end the free market will let more people produce more houses (due to competition). Less regulation lets them make cheaper houses too.

>> No.15330962
File: 12 KB, 225x225, images (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15331010

>like how the government made college education cheap by subsidizing it?
That has nothing to do with what I said (and is also not a bad thing either. Norway. Finland. Sweden. Slovenia. Germany, etc all have free schooling and are doing fine).

>ban foreigners from owning property
>local: ease zoning restrictions
>Some sort of system where its illegal to own more than 5 houses (*unintended consequences I haven't thought of may apply)

You call ot a stupid idea yet don't explain why. Wtf? Also, foreigners should be able to own but just 1.

>fixed supply of houses
And more can be created so wtf?
>increased supply of money for the houses. Home hoarders raise home prices, no net gain.
Home hoarders raising the price of home = no net gain?? That doesn't make sense. Anyways, I don't think people should be allowed to hoard homes to begin with. If they want to sell their homes since they want to move, it should be just enough to break even with inflation taken into account to not incentive making a business out of it.

Also, what I'm arguing is that the property the governemnt should own at first should still have a small ROI attached to it and not just "break even" to not risk having too little funds.

Still don't see how that wouldn't work.

>> No.15331014

>your theory is wrong because my theory says this and my theory is right
Nice rebuttal retard.
Said machine is actually maintained by another worker, and also produced by another workers, so if one is making the argument for a centrally planned economy then all the capitalist really does is legally own the machine (means of production). Basically anybody in any position of authority in any given corporation (small business owners aren't the party in question) is born into wealth and is in that position because they are well connected. Nobody bootstraps their way to ceo status unless they have a literal million dollar idea and is able to successfully implement it, and if everybody had one then they wouldn't be million dollar ideas. At the end of the day, all value is produced by the laborer and only the elite few are able to really profit from that. Wageslavery isn't a "choice" unless you have a huge pile of cash or wealthy family to fall back on.

>> No.15331033

Trump even admits in his book that rent controls work, and he'd fight for them if he was poor. There really aren't that many rich people, so competing for houses doesn't make sense except in urban areas. but the rich buying big houses isn't the problem, its them buying all the cheap house and driving the prices out with a physical monopoly around areas with jobs. and its not like people can up and create a new city overnight to fight it.
I feel like there's a better way but there's too many upper middle class making money from the scam so they're also fighting to keep people their slaves.

>> No.15331047

US federal government pays for:
National security
Funding for highways
Rule of federal law
Research and development

Whether or not they do a good job is a different matter but they do do it

>> No.15331055

Trump is an idiot, even socialist economists agree that rent controls don't work

>> No.15331066

Of course Trump of all people would say that. Policies like these would make his property price shoot through the roof ya dingus
Remember how Alan Greenspan told everyone the housing market was 100% rock-solid just before it crashed in 2008?

>> No.15331087

Yep and that other worker pays for the parts required to maintain the machine too so capitalists are even worse

>> No.15331090

Even if profits were surplus value, this image doesn't make sense. Usually when you buy some product less than 10% of its price are profits, the vast majority are costs of production and taxes. There is shit that more than half of its price are taxes.

So even if the capitalists were stealing from you, the would have been stealing much less than the government.

>> No.15331097
File: 366 KB, 1080x1315, 1556807723872.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There is no rebuttal. The existence of worker co ops prove that the capitalist isn't necessary.

>> No.15331116

>That has nothing to do with what I said
it has everything to do with what you said. Federal and State subsidize college up to $200 billion. College is still massively expensive because they just take the money and double their prices since people have more money to pay.
>Norway. Finland. Sweden. Slovenia. Germany,
None of these have massive shitskin populations that consume, but don't give back to the system. The average nigger consumes $1,000,000 in tax resources, after paying taxes. Average spic consumes $600,000 in their lifetime, while whites contribute average $200,000 over a lifetime.
>You call ot a stupid idea ye
no those 3 are ideas I'm proposing. and foreigners can gtfo, 0 homes.

> the governemnt should own at first should still have a small ROI attached to it
since the government can not be fired, they have little incentive to actually follow through with any promises they make. any politician given power to administer the program will divest the funds into their own reelection campaigns. happens every day. the government can't be trusted to be a middleman in anything. see obamacare. even if you cry muh republicans you have to admit it was a massive failure. do we need another expensive failure on our hands?

>> No.15331118

>multi billionaire with degree in economics who is now the president of the USA and leader of the free world
Yes, you are the big brain here

>> No.15331144

Read >>15331066

>> No.15331156

That says less about Trump and more about all the politicians on Capitol Hill who are utterly inept. Trump's thesis was that all the incumbent politicians had their heads stuck up their asses and he wasn't wrong.

That said while his opinion on rent control isn't irrelevant as he was a developer he is definitely in the wrong here.

>> No.15331167

>But there was one problem. In 60 of 100 Central Park South’s 80 apartments, rent-stabilized tenants already lived Central Park South building. Donald Trump describes renters as privileged, rich “yuppies” who unfairly benefitted from rent-control, claiming the rent he collected barely covered expenses. That’s why he installed cheaper lightbulbs to cut back. As he claimed, “If there’s one thing I’ve learned about the rich, it’s that they have a very low threshold for even the mildest discomfort.” To be fair, a low rent home a short walk away from Broadway theaters and Carnegie Hall is a pretty sweet deal. Dentist Dr. Michael Richman paid $700 a month for his apartment. Fashion designer Arnold Scaasi paid $985 for his mind-blowing, 6-bedroom with killer views of Central Park. B-movie actress and original Rockette Suzanne Blackmer paid $203.59 month for her 2-bedroom unit which wasn’t her primary residence. A 3-room apartment in the building overlooking the part could be as low as $436 a month. In New York City this was the stuff of legend.

>n 1982 and 1983, Donald Trump put out newspaper advertisements offering to shelter homeless people offering them a dozen or so free apartments with “beautiful views.” But seeing how Trump often does seemingly charitable things on selfish motives, tenants saw the move as a ruthless attempt to drive them out. T

you can read more elsewhere, but trump tried to evict them so he could drive the prices up. the controls were obviously working for the renters favor.

>> No.15331170
File: 255 KB, 720x960, 149684.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>pretending that taxes are this low
>implying that taxation isn't theft, either because of the perception that taxes are only used to pay for common infrastructure, or because of its purported insignificance, or both
>implying that voluntary agreements are unfair
>implying that you, or anyone else should be able to decide who i can get into agreements with because "logic"

and most of all,
>implying that your argument against what you perceive as slavery doesn't propose a solution that is, factually, slavery
communists literally, unironically think that liberty is evil
it's at that point that you have to realize that the difference between communism and capitalism is that one pretends that nature isn't a real force and nothing physical is real and everything is rooted in human suffering so it's a matter of "be a slaver or be enslaved" which is why ***they won't allow you to distance yourself from them***, and the other acknowledges that nature is the most potential-rich entity that the greatest among us—"greatest" being determined by nobody but oneself—may manipulate to our liking, so long as no other person's natural rights or physical property are violated in the process.

other than the government that would inevitably come along to collect taxes upon you running any valuable operation
that and border security, if you decide to go somewhere completely lawless
besides—and forgive the presumptions—but, why do i have to either move to an area of land that's vacant of government infrastructure for several miles in any direction so that i have room to expand, or run away to some shithole that's only a disorderly violent shithole because its many mindless inhabitants are disorderly violent shitholers by their genetic nature who build and engineer nothing of value, and thus attract no government to come along and tax things—i.e., somalians


>> No.15331181

>Now the people who made cheap houses still make cheap houses but the people who make expensive houses were priced out of the market.
Those homes should still be there and should be priced at the cost of material and labor (to break even). Maybe a small roi to the government so they can have that money remain as a safety net. Maybe just have them seized by the government and have them do the selling (and whoever invested in the property could still be compensated by the government to have a small ROI). I think all homes should be made through the government so that actual affordable homes for minimalists could be a thing (of course, this current government is incompetent, so this is pretending politicians had the same mindset as me).
>This makes housing more scarce
No, with my idea, if the government were in charge of creating housing, big homes wouldn't be created anymore. Existing ones would still remain for the rich to buy those, but big homes really need to stop being a thing since that's part of the problem.
>and eventually rich people will start buying the cheap houses, competing against the poor for them.
Homes should be limited to 1 a person and more small homes/apartments could be created so that there isn't a scarcity of them.

>but in the end the free market will let more people produce more houses
Doubt it. This current situation is crap. I doubt this is the "most efficient" it can be.

>> No.15331184

Oh that's what you meant by "admitting that they work"

kys yourself

>> No.15331186
File: 55 KB, 650x650, 1526222932352.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


i never asked for the government to come along and force the building of the roads to where i live in any of the places i've lived and in doing so shaping the future in the favor of central planning, but just because i have the money extracted from me to pay for it, i'm on the hook? i'm the one who has to change my ways? collectivists come along, change the rules in their favor, and i MUST give up whatever it is that i do and move somewhere else to try to build an entirely new civilization—in doing so, just HOPING that it's not going to be stolen from me if i am successful?
the best i could do would be to TRY to build some place out on private land with people who want in on it as well—but, we already know that the government just does not fucking care what your natural rights are and that they will take as much of what they want as they can get and then get the democracy to join in on the chant that it's all fair and moral after they've thrown you in jail for fighting back, and we're just supposed to TRUST that they aren't going to use the enormous leverage of their collective tax base against us in some way? like, do you value your life? your relative freedom? the precious little opportunity you have to arm yourself with a weapon with which you can defend yourself and all that you stand for, even if that small weapon that you hold hopelessly pales like the shout of a single man to the roaring mile-high winds of the antarctic in comparison to the decades-assembled arsenal of the new world order, produced on the stolen money of the most capable people in the world?

i mean—these are our circumstances, i guess
what kind of suckers would we have to be to let ourselves be completely killed off by the powers that are most dependent on us, in true self-mutilating tranny communistic fashion

>> No.15331195


>> No.15331223

And look where the prices in NY are now. Eventually reality sets in
I bet the subprime housing markets looked beautiful once too, everyone making tons of money and lots of loans being passed around

>> No.15331226

yes they made housing affordable for the tenants, at the expense of landlords not wanting the job because it didn't pay very well.
Its the exact system you want if you're not a landlord.

>> No.15331240

The point is that simply owning a company and moving money around isn't labor. It's unnecessary, capitalists are unnecessary because workers in a collectivized setting could do literally everything the capitalist does and do it more efficiently as well.

>> No.15331271

So long as you don't have any outstanding unpaid taxes you can renounce citizenship so you don't pay any more future taxes.

As to why? It's because that land is ultimately the governments. You can "buy" land but ultimately you are purchasing a lease from the government from someone else, of which rent comes in the form of land/property tax.

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

So long as you are not prevented from leaving the country and renouncing citizenship, you are engaged in a voluntary social contract. If you don't like the social contract, renounce.

>> No.15331285

>once the capitalist has done their job then they are unnecessary

>> No.15331293

>College is still massively expensive
I still don't see how that related to the housing issue. Anyways, colleges overprice their service due to demand. Education shouldn't be for-profit anyways. They should still make an ROI to be able to feed themselevs, but there needs to be regulation with the pricing. Also, another way to make paying for schooling cheaper is buy putting restrictions on employers as a lot ask for degrees even when they are not needed AT ALL for the job. If employers weren't allowed to screen people out this way, less people would go to college (as this way, now only those in fields that actually need them [such as engineering,nursing, etc.] Would go to college). Another issue is GE classes. Make them not needed for a bachelor's anymore. It would make schooling even less costly now.

Your other argument is "corruption". So you believe in anarchy? I believe the government can be a good middleman for housing. The issue would be getting rid of pieces of shit politicians. This would be the hard part.

>> No.15331303

Because they are Africans buddy. Communist african countries are somewhere below hell in living standards.

>> No.15331310

Real dictatorship hours
Most of the stuff you're proposing has been tried before with horrible consequences. You can only ignore the market for so long. Eventually you need "a little bit more government" to edge out the problems that appear and in the end everything will be under the state's control.

>i think
>with my idea
>i doubt
Seriously, fampai, read some Thomas Sowell books for your own sake

>> No.15331366

>one pretends that nature isn't a real force and nothing physical is real and everything is rooted in human suffering so it's a matter of "be a slaver or be enslaved" which is why ***they won't allow you to distance yourself from them***
You're describing capitalism here, right?

>> No.15331368

so, before the fall of the CCCP everything was great? Hm, tell me more

>> No.15331370

Green text my responses and dissect them point by point. I doubt my particular ideas themselves have been tried.

One price control method =/= "all" price control methods.

>> No.15331400 [DELETED] 

CCCP had significant flaws and glaring issues but the 1990s and "shock therapy" was a period of lawlessness and deep psychological scarring for Russia. This is why people who lived through the 90s support Putin, as he was the one who brought Russia out of them out of the dark age.

>> No.15331408

You people have a childish view of humanity. Thinking the "workers" are just going to collectively come together and a hierarchy ie "capitalism" wouldnt arise from this.

>> No.15331413

CCCP had significant flaws and glaring issues but the 1990s and "shock therapy" was a period of lawlessness and deep psychological scarring for Russia. This is why people who lived through the 90s support Putin, as he was the one who brought Russia and them out of the dark age.

>> No.15331426

> less people would go to college, reducing dumb classes
i agree with you here, there isn't high enough demand for white collar [majors] that everyone needs to go to school, so fewer people should attend

>Your other argument is "corruption". So you believe in anarchy?
No, I'm saying while the current situation sucks, the government does not have anyone's best interests in mind, and any more involvement will make the situation much worse. The ideal scenario is reducing taxes whenever possible and allowing the free market to work.
I am open to ideas of making laws like restricting ownership of multiple homes, but NOT anything involving money incentives, because that can go very wrong very fast, usually just leads to higher taxes, and cronies pocketing the difference being the new middleman instead of the landlord.

>> No.15331464

>Who makes the product?
The worker
>Who markets the product?
Marketing workers
>Who provides the materials for the product?
Workings who extract and refine them
>Who pays for the factory?
Everyone who does labor that generates revenue, or who did the labor that generated the starting capital
>Who provides the training?
Workers who specialize in training other workers
>Who risked capital in order to create a business?
Literally the only thing bossman can take credit for, and only if it was an actual risk. (Being a billionaire and spending a couple million to start a company does not count)
>And how should the profit be distributed?
>"Bossman gets it"
>Grade A under A whacks bootlicker anon with the 4 foot long blunt

>> No.15331478

Venezuela has tried some, they seized a ton of properties. In the USSR all home purchases were made through the government. In Brazil financing was subsidized by the govt as you proposed before.

>Those homes should still be there and should be priced at the cost of material and labor (to break even)
Eventually no one makes houses because it's just not worth it

>No, with my idea, if the government were in charge of creating housing, big homes wouldn't be created anymore
Powerful people could get two or more adjacent apartments and turning them into one single big apartment

You put way too much trust in the goverment's power to self-regulate. Look at all the countries with strong socialist (which by definition is what your proposed policies are) governments - they are all corrupt and none of their ideas work

I'm going to bed now. I'll reply if this thread is still open tomorrow

>> No.15331485 [DELETED] 

Profits are the unpaid wages of the working class.



>> No.15331494
File: 171 KB, 698x1033, suit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Sixty-two percent of small-business owners say they work 50 or more hours each week. On average, small-business owners put in 52 hours each week.

The average boss is more of a worker than the average worker. Suck my giant capitalist cock you retarded monkey

>> No.15331502


>> No.15331510

The workers spend what they earn and the capitalists earn what they spend.

>> No.15331619

>Eventually no one makes houses because it's just not worth it
With my idea, the government would be in charge of all things related to housing and they would get it done with the tax payer money.

>Powerful people could get two or more adjacent apartments and turning them into one single big apartment
No, because the government would be in charge of creating housing and a person could only own 1 piece of property (homes or an apartment unit) with my idea.

>You put way too much trust in the goverment's power to self-regulate
Maybe not self-regulate. Maybe it should be made in such a way where any politician can be voted out say every single year by citizens. Idk. I'm not sure what the best way to regulate the government is, but I don't see it as "impossible".

>> No.15331639
File: 40 KB, 720x720, capitalist breakfast.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>the average wage worker works 40 hours a week (and more at their second and third job, but let's ignore that for now)
>the average small business owner works 52 hours a week
The average small business owner should get paid the same wage as an employee performing similar labor, plus 12 hours of overtime pay, plus the value of any labor that went into starting the company that couldn't be reimbursed at the time because the company hadn't grown big enough yet. Under this system, entrepreneurship would still be worth pursuing because the company's founder would be pretty much guaranteed to be its highest paid employee at any time, whether after the first year or after ten years when they have ten years of seniority over everyone else.

>B-b-but you just h-hate entrepreneurs, w-why do you want to p-punish them by only letting them b-be paid 50% more than literally every other employee instead of several thousand times more r-regardless of how much p-profit their actual labor g-generates?
Pic related, it's your breakfast

>> No.15331756

Do you ever look in the mirror?

>> No.15331777

No those are my shoes. Your only effort is complaining and begging men with guns to take them from me. In the end, you'll just keep cleaning my shoes and bitching about it, because you're too pussy to get your own.

>> No.15331818

Will you shut the fuck up you stupid fucking nigger

>> No.15331860
File: 121 KB, 1024x739, 1563429668492m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

too tired to write a real response to this now, but i really do have one
basically, what you're describing is an unfair deal; gov't gets to collect much of the profit you earn off of your labour AND benefit from the goods and services and infrastructure that your labour creates AND the labour of everyone you're associated with who you might have positively effected—basically, you contribute positively to the development of a nation—until you get to the point where you want to take charge of your own life and your only legal option is to renounce your citizenship, and even then any land that you buy still doesn't belong to you in the eyes of your former government. it's totally *predicated* on the idea that the country REALLY IS the property of the government because "logic", it's totally predatory, it's wrong, it's unfair, etcetera. like i say—i'd write more, but my body would kick my ass.

if you're really confused, then no—that's communism. it's predicated on slavery; communists generally think that life is a zero-sum game—i.e., that producing wealth *does necessarily* detract from the wealth of someone else. i mean, this is so demonstrably false just from the simple act of observing technical innovation, and noticing that the creation of a better and more advanced tool that puts less strain on its user while helping to produce better desired output *does not* in fact detract from the life of anyone at all. pretty rudimentary way to put it, i know—but, again, i gotta go.

>> No.15331933

Yet another shitpost. I don't shitpost. I've been arguing actual ideas. All you have said is "you are dumb dur hur" like a fucking idiot. No counter-arguments. Just straight up generic responses.

>> No.15331978

>I get paid for more work than I actually do
>You're just whining that I should have my stuff I didn't earn taken away
Also I barely have to do any work because the boomers who run the company don't actually know how long it takes me to do anything and have to take my word for it. I'm also one of the only people who knows how everything works so they're fucked if I leave.
>Those are my shoes
>I don't know how to tie them, but surely the people who tie them for me will keep doing so forever and I won't have to worry about tripping

>> No.15332032

>214 sq ft
You know how I know you’re an incel?

>> No.15332228

Retarded response. It's funny because you want to play the "I'm a man" card when your pussy ass probably can't even handle the workouts I did as a 16 year old.
I find it funny when delusional fucks think they are so "alpha" when they are just average or worse. Get off your high horse, delusional fuck.

>> No.15332381


>i'd write more, but my body would kick my ass.
I'll try to keep it brief
>it's totally *predicated* on the idea that the country REALLY IS the property of the government because "logic", it's totally predatory, it's wrong, it's unfair, etcetera.
Correct. I'm not sure why you're quoting logic, it really is how it is. Certainly the tacit consent of the social contract can be considered unfair, and has been criticized as such. However, specifically about land, if you look deeper, countries have gone to war and have had millions of soldiers die for valuable scraps of it. There certainly is a basis for this ownership. Governments have to back up claims with legitimacy and force. When in contention, it's mostly the latter. If they don't have sufficient force, they get run over by other governments that do. To think that they won't is a hippie pipe dream. And wars are materialistic and expensive.

You've mentioned violent shitholes before and I think perhaps you're underestimating the amount of work needed to keep a place from becoming violent and a shithole. To the former, a government monopoly on violence, and to the latter, taxation to fund infrastructure and public goods.

I understand you have a distate for these kinds of societies, but alternatives on a similar scale simply don't exist. Game theory says that these countries that don't engage in these kinds of behavior, or at the very least submit to one that does, won't last long. If there is no government and country you'd rather live in, your options are to be small and insignificant (some pacific island no one cares about) or to be remote and far-removed (mars, space).

>> No.15333099

It doesn't mention capital, which usually conributes lots of value on the margin.

>> No.15333215

>value is determined by marginal use theory
Thats is literally an opinion.
Value is subjective.

>> No.15333353

Someone in the desert is going to value a glass of water differently than me.

>> No.15333363

What place is that?

>> No.15333401

because morons with hands are required, and morons with hands are too stupid to run the show. don't worry moron, soon AI based automation will render the need for low IQ people obselete. your kind will die off

>> No.15333406
File: 172 KB, 680x620, Budget.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

If it was being used for the infrastructure, sure.
Look, I can compromise, if you want the government to fund infrastructure, that's fine. If we cut out the other 95% of the budget, and leave the 5% sent on infrastructure, I am sure we can come to an understanding

>> No.15333424

tyrone's welfare gibs and letisha's govt sponsored whoring vagina baby factory are not infrastructure dumbass

>> No.15333427

the anon you replied to literally said take your OWN surplus, so nobody else is hired / "exploited". but it's not surprise socialists have to misrepresent the argument to be able to make a counterpoint
most businesses fail because legitimate business is a trial-and-error venture. to your drone mind the idea of failure is catastrophic, as image is everything to those who produce nothing of value. to someone productive it's simply the cost of doing business, and even a learning moment. any successful businessman has several failed businesses on his belt

>inb4 hurr durr but what about this unrelated libertarian argument, gotcha!
stop right there collectivist scum. libertarians are retarded too just for different reasons (their insistence everyone is a 110-120iq white man, instead of recognizing the different needs and abilities of different populations and individuals)
pointing out your retarded shit does not make me a flagbearer for the other team

>> No.15333431

There are a lot of well paying jobs. So long as you don't "follow your dreams" and instead "follow the money"
Like going to school for Petroleum Engineering instead of Psychology

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.