/lit/ - Literature

define "moral"

>>14597414
proving well being to poor people, economic development, allowing people to follow their dreams, fulfillment of basic needs.

At least in economic terms.

>>14597425
I think you know the answer to your question

no. obviously not, and you dont have to be anti-capitalist to understand this. only big time shills like pinker would suggest otherwise

>>14597459
It's impossible to solve income inequality without a totalitarian goverment like most marxist nations evolve into.

>>14597471
And then that implies equity is the highest good rather than explicit freedom.

So we have to define what is the highest good and what are superlative goods. I think capitalism is hard to argue against if liberty is far and away your highest ideal. Yah, you can argue about implicit bounds in Capitalism, but then they are only implicit, not enforced.

>>14597471
wat ef duh onion run duh corporealation?

>>14597540
capitalism is based on maximizing your personal freedom.
income inequality is impossible to solve because of biological diferences in IQ/industriality (the most capable people win the most money).

>>14597541
corporations duty is to maximixe profits, they can't simply engage in an agenda that goes counter what the customers want.

hollywood tries to push woke movies, but they're forced to stop that if they don't want to lost more money.

Kodak couldn't stop people from using cellphones to make photos, so they went bankrupt.
Nokia couldn't stop people from using a superior product (Android) so they went bankrupt.

Companies can't suddenly print infinite money to push a concept or idea that the population doesn't want.

Ironically enough is the goverment who can push for ideologies.

>>14597562
>capitalism is based on maximizing your personal freedom
Imagine actually buying into this bullshit

Of course not, only "moral" economic systems have never existed and is nothing but well wishing so far.

>>14597405
It destroys the planet. Do your maths.

>>14597562
Do you think people want what corporations produce, do you think they want things that the products represent, or some combination?
For example, cars need to have more too them than just their function to keep selling, if you bought a car that never broke down and didn't have any kind of status attached to it why would you ever buy a new one? Does a new iPhone come out every year because people want that or do they want it because the iPhone came out and having the latest one represents something to them? Is that a result of advertising? A cultural desire to appear affluent?
I know I want products I don't constantly have to repurchase, but the market doesn't have many options for that.

>>14597405
Yes

>>14597405
Yes, because having money in a capitalist society means that you have contributed to said society in a morally beneficial way. Obviously there are outliers, but for the most part, if you have earned money, than you have benefited your community in order to get it.

>>14597703
that's the result of well, marketing, which is basically how you sell your products.
It's also tribalism, look up the console wars or the apple branding.

There's nothing wrong with that.
But think about properly.

Why the average consumer cares about a product?
How do u make people to care and consume more about your product than the competition?

Also, capitalims is good because a company that produces something better at cheaper prices usually beats the other companies.

Otherwise in marxists economies there's not this competition, so you don't have all the stuff we now care about like anime, consoles, videogames, internet.

Name a single thing we care about that came from marxist economies?

>>14597575
What's the alternative?
To punish the people that contributes the most because making more money is evil?

>>14597425
then no

>>14597746
then why the fuck my shithole is invaded with venezuelans who film my town supermarket to post to their facebook?

>>14597739
I'm not really a fan of Marxist economies; I love my Ushanka though, its the only hat I own that manages to keep my ears warm enough to keep them from aching when I go out in the winter.

I think what you've got on here with branding and tribalism is that the desires the corporate products are filling are ones that are subliminally implanted in consumers. Further you've presented a case that I strongly agree with, companies that make products cheapest survive. Less you can pay workers the cheaper your products are (this leads out outsourcing). The less time you put into making them last the cheaper they are (this is also good because it forces re purchasing [rent]). The fewer safety and environmental regulations your production is under the cheaper they are (resulting in a race to the bottom). What you're left with is the company and attitudes most willing to do these things gaining a monopoly and no longer having any reason (competition) to adjust their practices.

Hypermoral.

>>14597804
One aspect that most people don't seem to grasp is that those outsourced jobs need to cheap to make the product profitable.

The minimal wage in the US and europe makes the average worker too expensive to be profitable for such types of jobs.

But something positive is that such jobs actually provides income to thirld world people.
Chine lifted millions of poverty from jobs stolen from the US.
As such China was able to develop it's middle class.

Right now China is becoming too developed for those shitty factory jobs, so they're also losing jobs to places like vietnam, africa, india, bangladesh.

It's a positive force globally that reduces poverty, much more than any marxist crap.
But again, is hard to argue that is good to those american workers who are now unemployed who think such outsourcing is evil.

>>14597405
no

Capitalism is amoral.

>>14597405
Yes.

nop

>>14597836
I have never seen any proof that outsourcing is the only way to keep things that used to be made locally profitable, it seems that in only increases profitability by utilizing what I outlined.

It makes the lives of people in 'under developed' countries more like those of workers during the industrial revolution. I'm unsure of how much that improves their lives, especially when you consider how the profit is collected inside multinational corporations rather than being reinvested in those countries. The Asian Tigers only became economic players on the world stage because they were allowed to participate in protectionist economic practices, something 'free trade' and 'privatization of social services' explicitly prevents.

I'm not a fan of Marxist(-leninist/maoist/stalinist) Economic organization, but you can't deny that going from a feudal society to the #2 world power in under a century is impressive (and faster than capitalist) growth.

Lastly if what you're saying about the necessity of out sourcing is true, what happens when everywhere is developed and there's no place to go that has cheaper wages? Does the system just collapse because profit is impossible?
Maybe you could shift to automation which is cheaper than paying people, but then without income how can those people buy what is produced? What happens to workers when they are no longer part of the productive process and the upper classes have what they need in abundance? I can't imagine they'll take care of people they see as unlike themselves (lazy unable to climb the meritocratic later when it was available).

The future seems quite dark for those of us who aren't rich if capitalism and its Protestant work ethic oriented moralism doesn't change soon.

>>14597924
It seems to me that UBI will be implemented so the lower castes don't starve.

Most of the basic survival production of goods will be cheap as fuck because of automation.

Maybe the UBI will cover just the basic welfare, but it seems most consumer goods would be a lot cheaper then than today.

>>14597938
Truly a gods and the useless scenario then

>>14597945
I'm sure people will find themselves some way to be occupied, maybe entertainment will grow into a giant industry dunno.

Maybe everyone then will rather than work to afford food will work to fullfill their lives.

>>14597951
My issue is not what the lower will do to/with themselves, but rather how the upper will entertain themselves with the lower if equitable weath distribution does not manifest.

>>14597988
think of this way.

what's the purpose of working if you knew you're not gonna starve to death if you stop working.

All that capital asks of us is to receive it as rational or to combat it in the name of rationality, to receive it as moral or to combat it in the name of morality. Because these are the same, which can be thought of in another way: formerly one worked to dissimulate scandal - today one works to conceal that there is none.Watergate is not a scandal, this is what must be said at all costs, because it is what everyone is busy concealing, this dissimulation masking a strengthening of morality, of a moral panic as one approaches the primitive (mise en) scène of capital: its instantaneous cruelty, its incomprehensible ferocity, its fundamental immorality - that is what is scandalous, unacceptable to the system of moral and economic equivalence that is the axiom of leftist thought, from the theories of the Enlightenment up to Communism. One imputes this thinking to the contract of capital, but it doesn't give a damn - it is a monstrous unprincipled enterprise, nothing more. It is "enlightened" thought that seeks to control it by imposing rules on it. And all the recrimination that replaces revolutionary thought today comes back to incriminate capital for not following the rules of the game. "Power is unjust, its justice is a class justice, capital exploits us, etc." - as if capital were linked by a contract to the society it rules. It is the Left that holds out the mirror of equivalence to capital hoping that it will comply, comply with this phantasmagoria of the social contract and fulfill its obligations to the whole of society (by the same token, no need for revolution: it suffices that capital accommodate itself to the rational formula of exchange).Capital, in fact, was never linked by a contract to the society that it dominates. It is a sorcery of social relations, it is a challenge to society, and it must be responded to as such. It is not a scandal to be denounced according to moral or economic rationality, but a challenge to take up according to symbolic law.

>>14597425
by that definition nothing is moral lel

>>14598001
If you're just going to avoid what I'm driving at our discussion is at an end.

Regardless, I hope you have nice day anon <3

>>14598030
I think you're missunderstanding me.

I see class inequality as the result of biological diferences and the need for specialization and the fact some jobs are more valuable than others.

>>14598037
>class inequality as the result of biological differences
Oh you're fucking kidding right? How does this make any sense? You're asserting that the ruling classes are biologically superior to those whom they employ? Can you provide ONE piece of evidence or even hypothesize on how this could be true?

>>14598074
compare average IQ between economic classes.

All the rich people are like top 1-2% in terms of IQ while the poorest clases are bottom IQ wise.

>>14598083
>>14598074

>>14598092
I'm not talking about race, faggot.

>>14598102
This book talks about more than race hetero

>>14598111
you're not disproving my argument.

Take any economic class and measure their IQ.

Rich people will have on average an IQ of 130-140

Homeless people will have an average IQ of 70-80

>>14598122
And yet there is no evidence that IQ measures intelligence which you would know if you read the book uwu

>>14598130
No, but you can make the claim that having 130-140 IQ there's a bigger chance you end up in high quality jobs and end up rich when you're 40 than if you're lower IQ.

>>14597562
>capitalism is based on maximizing your personal freedom.
No, capitalism is about finding ways to extract labor without paying for it.
> biological diferences in IQ/industriality
Ok thrasymachus, why don't you define IQ for the audience?

>>14598142
>>14598130
Take any cognitive task, one that requires abstraction.

ANY FUCKING TASK.
like reading, vocabulary, trivia questions, musical ability, emotional ability, capability to learn new situations, math ability, language ability, problem solving ability.

ANY FUCKING TEST YOU CAN IMAGINE.
make a basic test for such skill.

High IQ people will score higher than lower IQ people.

>>14598139
You still haven't provided evidence IQ measures Intellegence™

>>14597405
check The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America by Michael Taussig

>>14598160
Irrelevant, any test you can try to invent to measure intelligence, any test, high IQ people will score higher and dumber people will score lower.

the test is irrelevant.

>>14598158
>what is education

>>14597405
Yes. Not all capitalist ends are moral, however.

>>14598166
Higher IQ people will learn faster and score higher on educational test than dumber people.

If your idea of morality is expanding capital at all costs

>>14597988
Here's a real doozy for you: if UBI happens, what will the upper class do when the lower can only afford based on what is given to them? There's a finite amount of buying power in that scenario, and on a long enough timeline, it costs the upper class a lot of money.

>>14598177
>retard doesn't know about urban mining and the economics of recycling that are developing to solve the issue of trash and dumpsters.
yes, capital will also solve pollution as well.

Regardless of whether or not IQ measures intelligence and ability to perform cognitive tasks -
The point is that using capital and political power to oppress others with the threat and use of violence is immoral but is a staple of capitalist, classist societies around the globe and has been forever.
And this is inherently immoral.

>>14598158
SAT: 1570
IQ: 90

Checkmate, atheist.

>>14598198
how come there's less opression in capitalist nations than in marxist ones?

>>14598201
>one single sample can defeat the statistical measure of IQ done on millions in near a century of studies

>>14598172
>>14598165
IQ correlated with education goof ball, pull a rando from 'the slums' feed em well and learn em good and they hit all your silly IQ bench marks. Besides that sit was developed to help diagnose learning disabilities and is therefore only accurate in the lower ranges, using it to measure upper limit intelligence is perversion of its use. You should trust me I scored a 125 projected 150+ when they were testing me because of open defiance to the teaching strategies (busy work) of my first grade teacher.

>>14598183
Obviously they purge them, that's what I was hinting at.

>>14598207
look up the studies on twins that were given to diferent families, or adoption studies.

twins had basically the same IQ even while one were given better education than the other one.
Also, black kids raised on rich white families have IQ closer to average blacks than closer to whites.

>>14598205
I'm not advocating for a "marxist" society whatever you think that means.
My actual position is that due to the inherent immorality and oppression present in hierarchical class/economic/political structures, we should seek to abolish those hierarchies in pursuit of freedom and cooperative, equal communities.

Why did a thread about capitalism turned to IQ one?

>>14598225
There's hierarchical structures in animals, goofus.

They're an inherent part of the system, you can't simply abolish hierarchy without abolishing the system.

Humans are hierarchical structures.
Look up the whole hypergamy thing.

>>14598229
Richer people have higher IQ than poor people.

>>14598229
Anon says capitalist hierarchy is just because it's okay to abuse retards

>>14598225
>we should seek to abolish those hierarchies in pursuit of freedom and cooperative, equal communities.
You need a model for this though. 'cooperative, equal communities'- can you point to an example of such a thing? Or else describe what it would look like

>>14597405
Capitalism is a word invented by a Jew to describe every kind of system that actually exists. It's sort of like if you invented a pejorative word for people who breathe air, and then state that because breathing air places a limit on what you can breathe, we should instead all adopt the breathing of other things for our liberation.

In reality if you try to breathe water or mud, you die. But this is just because we have not yet TRULY breathed mud or water. Airbreathingism is restricting us. It is oppressive because it only allows you to breathe air. If we just try to breathe mud again, maybe this time it will work.

>>14598239
Kibbutz

>>14598233
>you can't abolish hierarchy
And why the fuck not? Because it's "inherent" to the "system"? Racism is inherent to the system. Homophobia has been inherent to our system for generations. Those things are being overcome. Animals evolve and their societies evolve.
Let's make a new system, one based not on the exploitation of people as economic and political tools.

>>14598239
Sure thing, literally just Google anarchist communities. Exarchia in Greece. The ZAD in France until it was evicted.

>>14598254
how do u avoid people with higher IQ/concientiousness wont become richer without some totalitarian goverment?

Will u punish asians for being smarter than blacks?

>>14598245
Those are those little farm co-op things right? The question though is scalability, if those are actually 'equal'(I don't know anything about them really).

>>14598261
>richer
Get rid of money and have communal ownership of goods, save of course for personal mementos, things like that. People should only be given what they need, and this should be communally enforced.
>>14598264
>little farm co-ops
See my above post mentioning ZAD. Go online and research scalable anarchism. I can answer questions you may have

>>14597405
Is moralism capital?

>>14598308
you can't run a complex society on anarchy.

go and live with some hippies in some shitty comunity, faggot.

>>14598321
Why not you witty little cunt?

>>14598331
do u want society to devolve in complexity faggot nigger retard?

think off something fuck huge like international trade retard.

>>14598308
That's like the most common criticism of anarchists though, the scale issue. There aren't really any examples of it are there? That doesn't mean there can't be of course, just that there are issues to be resolved at the least.

>>14598339
Why can trade not be facilitated across continents without money?
>>14598340
Yes it is a common concern but with guiding principles (from ability to need) it's theoretically feasible. And theres no reason not to AT LEAST STRIVE for a more equal and evolved society.

>>14598356
do u think international trade between giant corporations like amazon and alibaba is like sending people money with paypal?

retard?

>>14598357
No. I dont.

>>14597405
"You shall not steal."

Next question...

>>14597414
define "define"
see, we can go on for the rest of time. stupid nigger

>>14597405
>morality

Oh no no no ahahahahahaha what a fuckin' joke oh no.

>morals

Who literally gives a fuck

>>14597425
>>14597414
>>14597405
so if moral is only external. then capitalism is not moral by that law. because the fluidity from capitalism comes from the ability of an individuals self-interest. Which is why we can find effort or disparity to complain only select few people with a high amount of self-interest are millionaires.

although the neat thing about self-interest and what adam smith calls the "invisible hand" proves that an actors self-interest can make other peoples lives better. the product which he can believe in so much can indirectly improve other peoples lives.

capitalism goal isnt to do anything moral but thanks to the individuals of capitalism, and if every human on earth was like the capitalist that contributes to society in the best of his ability there can be a morality on what is good or right that humans were not striving to for no ends and just appeared because every human knows how to act.

>capitalist strives for his own value and not an invisible abstract idea which can lead to nowhere and no man can demand perfectly

Obviously not, it's predicated on the exploitation of the masses by the few and the wealth is inherited indefinitely by shitstains

Nothing is moral in the strict sense. All morality is selective.

it is still the strongest. how much control does it have over us really? how far back does it go? how deep is it a part of us?

>>14598195
>Relentless expansion and consumption cycles create problems we never could have imagined
>Decades later we implement solutions to nominally decrease a handful of the problems and the same companies causing them in the first place spend 0.000004% of their annual revenue on these "solutions" long enough to set up photo ops for use in advertising campaigns
>"THE WONDERS OF CAPITALISM TRULY BOGGLE THE MIND"

>>14597405
Capitalism incentivizes antisocial behavior

>>14598339
>do u want society to devolve in complexity faggot nigger retard?

More moral than the alternatives

>>14597727
>having money in a capitalist society means that you have contributed to said society in a morally beneficial way

what did he mean by this?

>>14598166
IQ is largely hereditary.

>>14598259
"Anarchist" communities can barely work with a dozen people in them, let alone a global population.

"capitalism" as in a free market, is amoral
However, in a completely free market with zero restrictions, it might leave open the possibility for immoral acts to be permitted (eg snake oil salesmen, selling slaves), thus if your goal is a "moral" system, capitalism requires pro-consumer regulation.

>>14597540
Liberty for who to do what? I'm not sure what kind of liberty you can have when you starve to death on the street.

>>14598308
>People should only be given what they need,
And who's going to decide what people need?

>>14597405
capitalism is a local phenomenon and communism is a global myth

>>14597405

No. Not even the proponents of capitalism call it a ‘moral’ model, at least the ones worth listening to. It was always sold as a system that exploits greed to the financial benefit of its populace, provided that they initiative, of course.

>>14598195
Holy shit, what a fucking retard you are

>>14597727
What if i inherited property and rent it out?
How has that benefitted the community?

What about designing an exceptional neural network to maximize clicks on targeted beauty products advertisements?
Am i really contributing good?

If im a car manufacturer and lobby to prevent a railroad from being built, are the resulting extra sales from cars indicative of my contributing to the community?

>>14597471
>solve income inequality without a totalitarian goverment
You're that special kind of retard, aren't you?
Calling the ruling junta something else doesn't make society equal
>>14597405
Capitalism has nothing to do with morality. It is an economic system of centralization of power and resources, supported by massive propaganda claiming that that will make everyone, happy, free, and live forever
It's simply Communism for Anglos

>>14598122
>Rich people will have on average an IQ of 130-140

Maybe billionaires, the average rich person isn't that bright and many times even average at best.

>>14601401
providing housing for people who want the option of renting. perhaps you've also created a job for a property manager

exploiting a shitty system either destroys it or helps it improve by revealing its weaknesses

the government would be 100% responsible for that decision

>>14597405
Capital is not human. It's ai.

>>14601401
How do u define benefit for the comunity nigger?

What if I start renting property to poor people that can't afford houses?
Should I be punished for that?

What if this beauty makeup actually lowers the price of make up products and make the process more efficient and women prefer my product?

>muh car lobbies
yes and the taxi lobbies can easily prevent uber from making their bussiness obsolete.
and the TV network lobbies can make millenials to prefer watching TV over youtube.

>>14598158
Not hunting, or violent sport.

>>14602833
mass-optimizing non-human slime

>>14602859
How do u define what constitute a worthy something to produce retard?

I just got some crappy like 3-4 dollars plushies for my dog and he was happy to bite them.

Are u telling me I need to ask permission to some central planning retards to get some green crappy toy to my dog?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oSE6N6luVw
Look how happy he was with his green toy.

Should my dog be punished because is not an essential good to the comunity (whatever that garbage means)?

>>14597405
Sort of. If you look at what any first world has contributed to "proving well being to poor people, economic development, allowing people to follow their dreams, fulfillment of basic needs." you will find your version of moral stemming from regulation, provided the country is wealthy. Specialization is the powerhouse you're looking for. Capitalism does many things well, and accounts for a good chunk of our modern society, but it will never optimize anything with 1. imperfect information, or 2. inelastic demand.

Any survival need has whats called inelastic demand. Meaning that you will pay whatever is asked of you. You won't shop around hospitals after a car crash. Capitalism won't drive down costs in these areas.

Capitalism in luxury markets is essential. Capitalism in any area with inelastic demand has no power to optimize. The majority must regulate it to.

>>14602833
If you’re making a profit of your rentals to the poor you’re either forcing them to spend more not to own property, or driving them out by reducing the housing they can access.
It is impossible to rent to the poor without being a leech on the community.

>>14601613
I am anon and I approve this message

>>14602899
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsc8kZ8i_Ow

then why is always the private hospitals the ones with superior quality to whatever my shitty goverment can provide?

>>14602911
Why someone that spend 20 years getting enough wealth to afford multiple house so he can live off renting them should be punish?

Do u know most of the rich guys aren't teenagers or young adults but guys that are 40-50 years old who spend 30 years working their ass off in investment to get wealthy?

Do u know what's the average age of most rich people?

>>14602922
Because you are posting a counterpoint video from china? Find me a first world country who looked as the american model and switched back to it.

>>14602911
Amen. Housing is inelastic. Watching property investors squirm when builders ask for a percentage of rent is hilarious. The risk of investment is so far removed from a potential loss we erased the middle class. A merit based economy is the goal.

>>14602985
the website you're using, the infraestructure you're using to post this and the technology that made possible you to post in this site.

ALL WERE MADE BY CAPITALISTS

>>14597405
Compared to what?

>>14602995
my son, my poor son. federally funded university research drives most modern technology.

https://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2012/08/100-important-innovations-that-came-from-university-research/

Capitalism benefits from perfect information. Open source research allows for competition. Patents don't.

>>14601683
>provide housing
You havent provided anything, the housing was already built and already exists, you just charge for it
>exploiting a shitty system either destroys it or helps improve by revealing weaknesses
Would love if this was true, but i think we can empirically say it isnt
>govt responsible
100%? Even though my actions were the direct cause of it?
You can even flip the example and look at the politicians. Sincd they maks money off my lobbying, did they do something to benefit the community?

>>14602833
>what if i rent to poor people
Thatd be a good thing but that kind of altruistic goal is in direct opposition to capitalism, which would have you charge as much as you could get away with
>what if this beauty makeup actually lowers the price of make up products and make the process more efficient
How would advertising do anything of the sort? Remember in this example you arent doing anything about the product itself, just targeting ads
>lobbying doesnt always work
so what? When it does work its bad, no matter how much it failed
Also the "taxi lobbies" is a really laughably bad comparison

>>14603023
So basically western universities that are on western nations and capitalists countries?

>>14603029
How do capitalists lobbies if they're so almighty can't stop simply from a newer technology to make obsolete their industry?

Why couldn't Kodak stop people from taking photos using their phones?
Why couldn't mainframes companies from stopping people to use mainframes over PCs?
Why couldn't the coal industry stop people from using gasoline?
Why couldn't the railroad industry stop companies from using trucks?

Why technology becomes cheaper instead of being more expensive?

How does a big company stops another newer company from providing a cheaper newer product that is better and cheaper?

I can literally name plenty of big industries that couldn't stop a newer cheaper industry to bankrupt them?

Why didn't Kodak used regulations to stop cellphones and digital cameras from being popular?

>>14603056
If you say "anything american does is pure capitalism" sure. If you look at the new deal, or keynesian economics, or the shift in federal university funding, or the GI bill, you'd see the majority asking for a distribution of wealth that the owners of capital resisted but complied with.

>>14603056
>Why technology becomes cheaper instead of being more expensive?

*laughs in NVIDIA*

>>14602995
The internet was made by public funding
4chan was not made for profit, and wasnt profitable
>>14603056
It's a poor argument to set up all lobbying as big industry vs technology that opposes them, no number of companies that picked the wrong side and didnt buy out competition early is going to argue against the unshakable fact that private money influences law for its own profit, and that is a bad thing
>why technology becomes cheaper instead of being more expensive
you dont even need to research to disprove this, you just need to think
Off the top of my head in recent years, insulin (i was going to mention video cards too but i felt youd focus on and attack that since it had new demand)
I even wanted go see how the price of the big mac, the symbol of american capitalism, fared and the price has been going up for decades (adjusted for inflation ofc)
>how does a big company stops another newer company from providing a cheaper newer product?
Many ways, and it depends on the industry
1. Monopoly on userbase. Certain products, such as social media or link aggregate sites, are only as good as the userbase. Products with a large userbase are better, even if a newer product has better features. For a fictional example, a company selling phones that dont use a sim card and dont need a service provider may never take off if they cant communicate with our current phones, despite being better
2. Buying out. Self explanatory, turn their profit into yours, or just decomission them
3. Just be supermassive. Some businesses cant just be too large. A burger place offering cheaper, better burgers than mcdonalds is never going to threaten them. Most startups are never going to be able to compete with large corporations since they get to buy supplies cheaper in bulk, or just own multiple layers of the supply chain altogether
Now, i REALLY dont like that every example youve raised has been company vs company, because in all these instances is corporate money gets to fight back. Where lobbying really bares its nasty teeth is when it takes on a noncorporate entity.
No one has much power to oppose banks lobbying for deregulation or energy companies lobbying for fracking rights

>>14603182
A big industry doesn't need to ban newer products retard.

Most off the time they buy the smaller companies and use them as newer part of their company.

Most oil companies already have a big stake on investment of renewals.

Also most companies care about good marketing, so they will try to spend money on social programs.

Just because they have lots of power and money doesn't mean they doesn't care about helping society.

Bill Gates spend more money on charities than any marxist politician.

Start ups literally don't compete with bigger companies, look up netflix vs blockbuster.
Yahoo tried to buy google, they didn't accept.

>>14603206
>big industry doesnt need to ban newer products
I never argued this
>most of the time they buy the smaller companies
I mention this
>most companies care about good marketing
Disagree, only those selling stuff like toys or burgers. Energy company doesnt give a fuck. So many companues use literal child slavery abroad and no one cares
>just because they have lots of power and money doesnt make them bad
not inherently (which many would disagree with), but its not just the money and power, but incessant pursuit of more that harms society
>bill gates donates more
No shit, he has more to donate by orders of magnitude. Doesnt change the fact that he has enough money to completely solve homelessness and STILL have billions of dollars (which is more than can even be spent in a lifetime) leftover, yet he insists on keeping it
>yahoo tried to buy google, they didnt accept
ok, and?

>>14603260
>muh poor people
most of poor people are low IQ retards, you can't help them with just shovelling money, they will start to get overdosed with cocain and alcohol.

People with IQ lower than 83 can't even join the military by law, so they can't even be used as cheap cannon fodder in a war.

>>14597405
Like asking if the rotation of planets is moral
but no, it isn't

>>14603267
and there it is

>>14603273
you wont solve poverty without solving the IQ factor.

>>14603282
Maybe if you flip your correlation then youd have an actually tenable worldview

>>14603293
IQ predicts wealth.

compare every economic class with their average IQ.

Rich people are on average 130-140
Middle class are on average 110-120
Lower middle cass are on average 85-90
Poverty is always 75-85

A high IQ black kid in poverty shithole will always rise to rich economic class

>>14597727
>Yes, because having money in a capitalist society means that you have contributed to said society in a morally beneficial way.

>>14603309
iq correlates with wealth
answer me which is more reasonable:
1. people with naturally high or low iqs succees or fail, leading to success or poverty
2. people with more money get better educations and a better development, resulting in a higher iq. Their wealth growing up means continued wealth. Those who are impoverished have poor developmental education and have a lower iq, and they continue to be impoverished since they were born into poverty

>>14597836
>It's a positive force globally that reduces poverty, much more than any marxist crap.
The exploited Chinese workers probably disagree.

>>14603326
>voluntary exchange of goods and services and money is inmoral
>but muh drug trade (which is illegal because of goverment)

>>14603332
Education is not IQ.
Also, lower IQ people can't even understand basic high school math.

Something dificult to learn for a low IQ person can be very easy for a high IQ person.

It's like saying that having a faster CPU in your pc over a slower CPU depends on the software installed.

>>14603336
The alternative for those chinese workers is to work in slums.
why do u think they need to bribe their factory managers for those crappy jobs?

>>14603346
No, education isnt iq, neither is intelligence
>lower iq people cant even understand basic high school math
what a coincidence that poorly educated people cant, either!
Your cpu analogy is rather ironic since most of the development in cpus isnt improving clock speed, but improving other architecture. Taking this analogy literally would oppose you argument, which is just kind if funny

>>14603206
reddit spacing

>>14603389
Nigger, I self study all day.
I haven't become smarter, my intelligence just became sharper.

It's like sharpening a knife.
You can't increase intelligence more than what your genetics allow.

A dumb person can't suddenly become Fields medals not matter how much he study.

A manlet person can learn basketball, and be good, but wont be able to play and succeed in the NBA.

Sure, education improves your cristalized knowledge.
But higher IQ people have faster reflexes, more empathy, better logical thinking skills, better capacity to rotate objects in their minds.

A higher IQ person can solve any problem in a faster way than a dumber person and will learn any craft in a better time than a lower IQ person.

It doesn't matter what kind of software or OS or any shit you design, you can't intall and advanced 3D package in a 20 year old PC.

>>14603346
not every capitalistic exchange of goods is voluntary dumb house nigger

>>14603440
that only happens in third world nations, not the first world.

Ironically shitholes with marxist goverments.

>>14603444
you mean third world nations perennially colonized by first world multinationals?
>marxist governments
literally dont exist in 2020

>>14603413
>i havent become smarter, my intelligence just became sharper
Did you even read this before posting? How am i supposed to keep reading your post LMAO

>>14603454
Oh no, shitty evil multinationals like mcdonalds who put shitty mcdonalds shop to sell their goods, giving jobs to people who oterwise would just starve to death or work in the narco industry or just scraps in a slum.

how terrible.

do u know how many jobs those evil multinationals give in my shithole to poor brown people?

>but they're privatizing the water of some indios in bolivia
yeah, and ironically enough privatization works more efficient than whatever garbage their shitty thirld world cunts goverment can do.

I trust coca cola would take care better of some acquifers in india than those low IQ retards.

>>14603456
nice ad hominem faggot.
got a real argument?

>>14603475
>only capitalism can provide the quality of life capitalism can provide

my pistachios = percolated

>>14603487
the alternative is to starve to death in some place like venezuela.

>>14603475
>ad hominem
lmao NO i was just laughing at how nonsensical the start of your post was and that it wasnt worth continuing

>>14603475
>I trust coca cola would take care better of some acquifers in india than those low IQ retards.

yeah i know your house nigger ideology is predicated entirely on faith. you have faith in big business, you have faith in plutocracy, you have faith in the biggest other of them all - capitalism. the ultimate mammonbrain.

>>14603346
>>>14603326 (You)
>>voluntary exchange of goods and services and money is inmoral
>>but muh drug trade (which is illegal because of goverment)
Nigga, what?

>>>14603336 (You)
>The alternative for those chinese workers is to work in slums.
>why do u think they need to bribe their factory managers for those crappy jobs?
Nigga, what?

>>14603206
>A big industry doesn't need to ban newer products retard.
>Most off the time they buy the smaller companies and use them as newer part of their company.
This is a completely new phenomenon. Ice shipping companies tried to use lobbyists, back-room dealing, and outright corporate sabotage to stop the rise of refrigerant based cooling.

>>14603444
You literally don't understand economics past a 101 level. Please stop trying to sound intelligent.

>>14603504
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nestle-coca-cola-trying-to-privatize-guarani-aquifer-in-south-america/

lmao, is not even truth the leftard nonsense that coca wants to privatize acquifers.

lol

>>14603510
What's the alternative in those shitholes to working for some multinational?
Most of the time the local jobs pay a shit ton less than multinationals.

The alternative for those chinese workers is to work in shitty local bussiness that can't compete with apple in terms of wages.

And let's not get started the secondary jobs that such shitty factory jobs create.

Imagine now all those people who sell coffee and some food at the door of the factory who also benefits from apple giving jobs to china.

now imagine all the jobs that depends on the income of those factory workers.

>>14603521
Sure, but they can't simply force the consumer to buy the older industry inferior products.

Taxi drivers can't force people to prefer to use ubber.

>>14603529
nice rebuttal argument, loser.

>>14603475
>I trust coca cola would take care better of some acquifers in india than those low IQ retards.
Ahh yes, the company known for definitely not killing indigenous people will take better care of poor people's water supply.

>>14603490
based on the assumption that capitalism is a self-evident good, I'm ready to agree with you that capitalism is a self-evident good. this was enlightening

>>14603534
indigenous people are inferior and they deserve to be killed for being inferior.

most of the time amerindians end up being homeless and asking for money on the streets.

at least capitalism creates enough jobs to give to those amerindians to rise above poverty level.

>>14603532
>The alternative for those chinese workers is to work in shitty local bussiness that can't compete with apple in terms of wages.

now why do you think that is? rub some neurons together and don't post 'til you get a spark

>>14603534
u took the b8, m8

>>14603549
because big corporations have enough money to pay higher wages than the local bussiness.

retard.

>>14603557
worm

>>14603532
>nice rebuttal argument, loser.
You didn't make a valid argument to begin with because you came to a conclusion by using incomplete knowledge of the subject. I am not required to rebut a conclusion drawn from an incorrect premise.

>Sure, but they can't simply force the consumer to buy the older industry inferior products.
>Taxi drivers can't force people to prefer to use ubber.
Again, nigga, what? This doesn't even make sense in relation to my point. The entire point was that they spent millions fighting the obviously superior product in an exact attempt to do just that, rather than to buy the, then, smaller company and profit from the improvement. Your second statement literally makes no sense and contradicts your first.

>What's the alternative in those shitholes to working for some multinational?
>Most of the time the local jobs pay a shit ton less than multinationals.
And again, your lack of economic knowledge rears it's head. Also, a disturbing lack of the conditions of most factories in those "third world" countries.

I have to assume from the constant spelling errors, the horrible grammatical errors, the constant inaccuracies or gaps in your knowledge, and the similarly poor responses to other that you're either very underaged or some kind of troll.

>>14603545
Oh, you're just a /pol/ troll. All makes sense now.

>>14603565
>has not real argument other than muh poor people are poor, bahhh capitalism is inmoral

>>14603599
Yes, they tried to lobby but companies can't force consumers to spend money on superior products.
That only happens on marxist shitholes where the goverment forces everyone to get everything they deem necesary.

Note how there's nothing the marxist nations invented like the internet, porn, videogames, anime, hollywood.

>disturbing lack of the conditions
which ironically enough are better than the local bussiness alternatives.

Why there's 3 months wait list to get one of those really crappy factory jobs that chinks need to bribe their managers with working several months without paid just to get hired?

What's the alternative to those nigerian poor people to work in a factory from some big company?
To burn toxic fumes from burning trash so they can get some ores from electronic trash so they can get some dollars every day?

>>14597562

>>14603672
there's nothing with being rich.
Jeff bezos being rich doesn't affect my personal life nor he making billions doesn't mean I can't also make a lot of money thanks to what he created.

>>14597405
capitalism with a welfare state is the most moral system ever implemented in practice

cue retarded ancaps and commies trying to dispute this fact

>>14597405
Is a wrench bad, good, a knife, a car...? Then how can a system of exchange hold any moral values? It's a tool, more akind to an emergent supercomputer that assigns values and distributes resources, if you fail to see this you will fall prey to the shortcomings of many non-market based systems in which economies ran on centralized human feedbacks which are far worse in speed and efficiency, there is a reason why we have mixed systems with welfare states after all.

You could possible try today an emulation of the market with actual computers, but you would find that in the end you just gave capitalism a physical form. so rather focus on shaping capitalism and building on top, not in it's destruction.

>>14597405
No, it's not at all. Capitalism plays all of the weaknesses that we have to control us. We are bombarded by advertisements from before we can talk, these adverts breed materialism into us. We can see in other cultures that aren't as technologically advanced as us that they don't need all of these trinkets, most of their belongings are essential to their survival. In the West we live in a society where greed and power are rewarded, spirituality and religion are looked down on by most to a point where the general population think you're mental if you have different ideas. As we dismiss spirituality we stop people thinking for themselves, this leads back to materialism, none of us introspect so none of us know who we are so we all feel like we need to buy this bit of merch or shit like pop vinyls so we can look at it all and think "yep, that's me". We're told we're not cool if we don't have this shiny car, we're not sexy if we don't have the right clothes, we are constantly told that we are less than others and that we can make ourselves more by buying shit we don't need. On top of this most companies realised that designing products to fail generates more sales, a washing machine from the 60's may have lasted 40 years before it needed replacing, now you'll be lucky if it lasts 4. This constant production line is ruining our planet and the worst thing is we don't even have a choice to buy things that last. And the fast fashion industry, so many people feel if they don't have the on trend clothes they're worthless, they've been made to feel that way, the fashion industry is the second most damaging industry to the planet after fuel, if everyone felt comfortable wearing the same clothes till they wore out the world would be a better place. And yet it's social etiquette to never wear the same clothes to an event twice otherwise you're a loser. We are told that not all humans are equal, that some are worth more than others, they play on the human want for power when children should be getting taught that power over other men is not a good thing. I mean did you know there's enough food on the planet to feed every human an adequate amount of calories 1.4 times a day? So why are most people starving in poverty? There's enough food for all of us, but greed stops it from getting to those who need it most. Capitalism breeds selfishness, and the worst thing is it tells us there is no alternative way, that nothing can work other than capitalism but that's not true, we need to start with changing our attitude to our fellow man, capitalism teaches us everyone is our competition, but they should be our companions, our brothers in arms. Capitalism makes the general public think that billionaires are okay, but what could be more immoral?

>>14603856
As a billionaire lays on his lilo in his pool in his fourth home a mother in Africa screams and cries as she holds her dying baby in her arms, and that's happening practically every minute. How can these people sleep at night? How can they hurt not just thinking about that? Why don't they have the desire to stop these atrocities? Capitalism is destroying our planet and clearly not working.

>>14603862
Ironically enough capitalism is developing africa right now.

>>14603825
>is a wrench bad, good, a knife, a car...?
sometimes yeah

>>14603875
>Mercantilism is capitalism
How many times do people have to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about before you take the hint?

>>14603936
capitalism == free market.

>but muh late stage capitalism
not real capitalism acording to clasical definitions.

>>14603825
Right.

That is, I think we should analyze how this system came to be. There are many who are attempting to maximize the utility given to the participants of this economic system given what we have and know. This is important because you need to realize that most important scientific findings in economics (i.e. indifference curve analysis, Game Theory) are not applicable to solely capitalism. They are scientific works about the nature of the relationship every citizen and individual stands in relation to the rest of society. You 'mean' something for this science.

No one that studied Marx is ever a scientist for a reason: they are too busy trying to proselytize a movement because they think that is something inherently important. I can see why after being on this board for a considerable time: revolutions and bloodshed are more 'fun' than actual hard science for the majority of individuals. As opposed to putting in the time to understand the nature of exchange from a scientific perspective they'd rather understand it through the lens of 'exploitation of labor'.

Fucking retarded academia. I'm just glad that colleges haven't completely gone the way of Marxists for economics, they have unfortunately infiltrated the rest of the humanities though. :3

>>14603825
>economies ran on centralized human feedbacks which are far worse in speed and efficiency
only if you consider efficiency to be maximizing wealth and value
even how that wealth is distributed is far from efficient. theres no way to argue that surplus billions of dollars is better off added on top of billions in a bank account rather than funding schools is efficient
when you consider efficiency not in terms of wealth generation but in terms of human capital, then capitalism seems even less efficient

>>14603976
capitalism seeks to automate labour while increasing capital.

If anything automating the parts of the product that can be aumated is more efficient than anything else.

>>14603942
You're spelling is atrocious. Also, what is happening in Africa is hardly free market, so even by your own definition, capitalism is not developing Africa.

>>14603989
how is automation unique to capitalism?

>>14604025
I'm ESL.

>africa
China is very capitalistic.

>>14604036
because there's not profit motive in marxism.
Marxists doesn't seek to remove labour from the production cost, so they lack motivation to automate people.

>>14604063
>>africa
>China is very capitalistic.
China's economy is based on mercantilism. Again, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

>>14604081
mercantilism is based on some form of free market.

I consider by free market anything that ins't goverment regulated like central planning.

>>14604063
profit motive isnt the only form of incentive
if anything, automation would be better received under marxism as the people whose jobs are being replaced arent left to rot
the desire to do things better and more efficiently is an inherent human trait, capitalism has just coopted it and claimed its all about profit

>>14604087
this is why all the FOSS tools are garbage compared to the propietary software?

and why spaceX is outperforming NASA?

>>14604100
>why all the foss tools are garbage compared to proprietary
that isnt true
>spacex
which? the heavily subsidized company?

>>14603976
You are thinking about it in terms of a centralized understanding of wealth distribution, but local entities as spoiled as they might be, are just acting in their most rational way to optimize their resources acting in bad faith to this can only mean their downfall unless they have other means to survive(typically the state, other people or capital), that pile of money growing bigger is potential future investment and is not necesarily an irrational greedy desition but a strategic one under the conditions of the individual or individuals involved.

In terms of human capital, alternative systems become stiff, if you think wealth distribution in capitalism is bad wait untill your livelyhood depends on your social network of government officials assigning who gets what and when, wealth is a relative term and those system seem more equal because they stagnate easily as soon as the hidden market forces underlying everything become clogged between regulations and the informal economy taking a big hold, centralized economies are only good at increasing statistics not at providing local needs, so when we say that the economy is a complex system we acknowledge that the market is the only know force to work at both creating wealth and providing, but being an emergent force no one really knows whats going on and gets the blame over things that are barely it's fault, mixed economies understand that the market is something to be shaped but they require wealthy and well developed societies capable of taking on the challenge of managing the involved economical complexities of shaping the market.

Therefore, Marx was right in understanding capitalism as a phase but he was wrong in understanding it in opposition to anything, is not something to be destroyed, but rather integrated in more complex and advanced societies, and as some might start to understand now is the path to post-scarcity fearing it for the fault of the humans involved in playing with fire can only cause stagnation of that process and a self-fullfilling profecy that will not only get people nowhere but also desintegrate this small window of resource avaliabilty to expand into further frontiers of exploitation to reach material transcendence.

>>14604141
all the non shitty FOSS tools are basically open source companies (AKA Capitalist enterprises).

>>14597405
neither moral nor unmoral. it's just a dead theory. only humans can be moral.

>>14604153
examples please so i know what youre talking about

>>14604084
>mercantilism is based on some form of free market.
>I consider by free market anything that ins't goverment regulated like central planning.
For like, the sixth time or more in this thread, I will say again: You literally do not know what you're talking about.

>>14604141
SpaceX is the use of a private entity to push for space development, NASA just found out that if SpaceX destroys a rocket it's the fault of SpaceX alone and can always switch but if NASA destroys the challenger not only loses budgets but also the public trust which has set back space industry development for decades now. If trends continue, we would start to see public-private partnerships more often which can be good or bad depending on how it's done.

>>14604168
I'm just going to talk about my field, which is mostly 3D and gamedev, but the only non crappy gamedev tools seem to be godot and blender, which ironically are good because of money investment by richer companies.
Blender started to become good when It started to receive funding from epic and other companies.

>>14604179
Free market is the oposite of goverment controlled regulations.

Left and right wing economics.

>>14604179
>Free market is the oposite of goverment controlled regulations.
>Left and right wing economics.
For like, the seventh time or more in this thread, I will say again: You literally do not know what you're talking about.

>>14604197
blender is non profit, the fact that it got so much success after funding only proves that making a good product requires money, not a profit incentive.
if anything it supports my original point that there are other incentives besides profit motives

>>14598092
Retard leftist shill. This isn't even science, it's just an educated person pulling a bunch of shit from their ass.

>>14604254
what economic system produces enough money so these non profits can survive?

>>14604319
Money is money, it doesn't matter
These non profits only need to "survive" because of the same system that occasionally gives them some money

>>14604305
>this isnt even science
>defends iq essentialism