/lit/ - Literature

>>19373704
Personal liberty is often confused with actual freedom. When you have been reduced to economic factors either through coercion or illusory autonomy, your 'freedom' to choose becomes arbitrary because it no longer is a question of what you ought to have but what you desire. As we can see, the absolute reduction of human desire synthesizes into sexual degeneracy, tribalistic violence and the replacement of symbolism with the simulacra.

The people complaining capitalism are just fucking bums.
>>19373752
Just kill yourself, psued.

>>19373754
Ironic...

>>19373754
Absolutely nothing to contribute, thanks again.

>>19373770
You shouldn't been born because your existence contributes to nothing. Fuck off you unemployed bum.

>>19373780
So fucking funny man, I own my own business and work in an actual trade. Go project somewhere else.

>>19373704
my main problem with most of these theorists of capitalism is that they never create a firm distinction between government and corporate power, and never explain why the latter is preferable to the former
a libertarian society would most likely wind up just empowering these corporations to far greater heights than they’re at now (though this is somewhat complicated by the fact that they couldn’t wield government power to their advantage). ultimately, these libertarians just never explain why it’s better that the people dictating my life work on wall street instead of in dc

>>19373797
I think they already know the bankers on Wall Street essentially run everything, they have been since the 1970's. Freidman, Hayek and all these types of guys were regularly promoted on mainstream broadcasting networks. Libertarians just think they're smarter than everybody else because they can see past this illusion of neoliberalism but then their answer to the problem is even more liberalism.

>>19373797
>ultimately, these libertarians just never explain why it’s better that the people dictating my life work on wall street instead of in dc
Because they know them personally lol. it's better for them, at least

>>19373752
>simulacra
You were doing good until you went full and total pseud. It's like making a great takeoff and flight then you crash and burn into flames with the landing. Idiot.

This was the guy whose theory was absolutely needed for them to roll back the New Deal and usher in neoliberalism.

>>19373797
>a libertarian society would most likely wind up just empowering these corporations to far greater heights than they’re at now
no since there would be be actual competition instead of monopolies colluding with the state
hard to impose on people who have alternatives you know?

>>19374424
Without regulations monopolies will naturally form.

>>19374465
standard oil was propped up left and right by illicit government deals

>>19374465
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2019/02/22/why-amazon-pays-no-corporate-taxes/
seems legit

>>19374104
??

>>19373797
>never explain why the latter is preferable to the former
The very first book about libertarianism explains that.
The state enables some people (or corporations) to socialize costs of their operations while privatizing profits. Like colonial companies have used the state army (paid for by all taxpayers - NOT by the company itself) to multiply their power over populations. You disarm rogue actors when you defund the state.

>but that wasn't REAL capitalism
what a hack. next.

>>19374487
Because Standard Oil controlled the government

>>19373752
>sexual degeneracy
ok incel.
>tribalistic violence
that is what groups do to each other so as to ensure their genetic survival.
>replacement of symbolism with the simulacra
kek,unironically kys subhuman

>>19373704
The problem is that capitalism creates a system where the politicians work for business interests rather than the workers. Pure capitalism would be barbaric, that's why most countries have a system to take care of people's health and social welfare. Automation and AI are going to take away most jobs in the future, capitalism will be dead at some point.

>>19373797
Wall Street, and corporations, should dictate your life because they are the wealthiest members of society. Without them, there would be poverty. There is now wealth creation without the investment , the entrepreneurship and speculation of people who risk take and make money in this society. People whine about Wall Street don't have good reasons; they're just pathetic moralists who can't stop fetishizing workerism.

>>19375154
I am amazed how atheists have turned genes into the new god. Make me laff when they say their dad was a fish too.

Guess which theory is true according to ''them''

theory 1 : humans descent from humans, which is verified at every human birth

theory 2: humans descent from a fish, then a monkey, yet it was never observed and fish today dont become monkeys and monkeys today dont become humans, just trust me bro


hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Ho and btw, they did the same with their bigbang

you believe a uncaused bigbang with the size of rice grain created the whole universe, then your granddaddy was a fish, then you daddy was an ape.


yes the bigbang is purely theoretical. nobody ever experienced a bigbang and nobody did a bigbang in a controlled lab.

bigbang= claim that there is a universe [placeholder for ''everything'', universe was never observed in a lab]+claim that universe is expanding+claim of conservation of energy+reversing time in some mathematical model

there is a cause for the bigbang or there isnt. so far science says there is not, ie bigbang= god

>>19375181
>The problem is that capitalism creates a system where the politicians work for business interests rather than the workers.
This is simply human nature - people naturally wish to compete and serve their interests. This would happen regardless, and has happened in socialist societies who have tried differently.
>Pure capitalism would be barbaric
Capitalism was not barbaric before social welfare. What has made capitalism better, however, is technology innovation because has allowed people to work less then they had to hundreds of years ago.

>>19375218
>Wall Street, and corporations, should dictate your life because they are the wealthiest members of society. Without them, there would be poverty.
Who told you that?
Their wealth keeps them in control of the limited resources which creates poverty. Wall Street ran the economy into a bubble with predatory lending, mortgage fraud, risky bets and made trillions and when it came crashing down they paid off politicians and took even more trillions strings free. The people who got the worst of it were the average workers who lost their homes, jobs, and lives.

>>19375224
Capitalism was super barbaricbl before social welfare and worked rights. Kids working in coal mines for a few cents an hour, workers would work crazy hours for not much pay. It was brutal.

>>19374465
/thread

>>19375242
>Their wealth keeps them in control of the limited resources which creates poverty
Poverty is created because people lack the natural abilities to create wealth. The rich have their wealth because their natural abilities gave them the skills to generate it.
>Wall Street ran the economy into a bubble with predatory lending, mortgage fraud, risky bets and made trillions
None of this happened - the 2008 recession was caused by the federal government forcing loan businesses to give out loans to low income, high risk people out of the need of a social justice belief of providing them more housing knowing full well they could not pay them back. You can not blame Wall Street for something that was caused by low income people making bad financial decisions loans they willingly took out.
>>19375252
Child labor is not even a big deal. Children are forced to do labor at school and home - yet they are unpaid for it. Child labor is better because at least children get paid money. Coal mines were more common because coal was necessary for our industrialization. Trial, and error, allowed people to innovate ways to make it much safer for people.

>>19375242
>the average workers who lost their homes, jobs, and lives.
The people who lost their homes, jobs and lives were irresponsible with their money. Downtime is a risk that is expected in the economy, and you have a responsibility to have a back up plan and a rainy day fund or insurance.

>Facebook and big pharma are not powerful enough, let's give even more power to big corporations

>>19373704
If the past 100 years have taught us anything it's that anti-trust laws need to be stronger, not weaker.

>>19375320
>Believing retard tier Fox News propaganda
Its a private market; stay out of it

>>19375289
>Poverty is created because people lack the natural abilities to create wealth. The rich have their wealth because their natural abilities gave them the skills to generate it.
What natural abilities? Abilities to exploit the system better than other people. More egalitarian countries have less poverty than USA

>None of this happened
Yes it did happen the big banks committed fraud and got slapped with small fines and predatory lending did occur
https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/predatory-lending-a-decade-of-warnings/
And the government bailed out the rich fucks who knew they couldn't pay back the loans instead of the people who got put ok the street. You have a screwed up sense of morality.

>>19375328
It's near impossible to stay out of it.

>>19375289
And Child Labor is a big deal that's why we send kids to school instead of a dangerous coal mine or textile plant. Holy Jesus, you capitalism worshippers are nuts.

>>19375337
put out on the street*

>>19375347
We send kids to school so they can be more productive as adults. The reason schools are structured as they are are well documented.

>>19375337
>What natural abilities? Abilities to exploit the system better than other people
You consider being a better competitor "exploitation." Its really just a pathetic moralist argument to cope with the fact some people simply are more intelligent than you, naturally, via their genetics. They have the genes that allow them to develop skills much more faster, and utilize them with more potency than you.
>Yes it did happen the big banks committed fraud
Your source literally receives money from Soros and other liberal mega donors. Its not to be trusted because its literally a propaganda machine. More so, they paid back the loans, with interest, from the bail-outs, after the crisis was over.
>You have a screwed up sense of morality.
You are too emotional, and let your emotions get in the way of the facts. I do not.

>>19375289
>Poverty is created because people lack the natural abilities to create wealth.
Imagine being this naive

>>19375347
>that's why we send kids to school
We send our children school because we are forced to. And, you are exaggerating the amount of children who work dangerous in jobs. This pearl-clutching at best - unless you want tell us what's so bad about 14 year working on a farm or at Walmart for wage?

>>19375289
>Poverty is created because people lack the natural abilities to create wealth.
This is only true in countries with adequate welfare and educational systems. It is clearly not true in America.

>>19373752
They >>19374104 >>19373754 >>19375154
had to google the word, which made them feel stupid, and thusly they disregarded your entire argument.

Never forget what this place is.

>>19375372
This is true in America. Education can not change the genetic limits of intelligence from birth. That's a liberal fantasy.

>>19375375
Intelligence won't make you rich. That's a child's view.

>>19375356
>Le ebin smart rich people meme
I grew up right next to one of the wealthiest localities in the country, and I can tell for a fact that this is complete bullshit. And intelligence doesn't entitle you to rule the world either. My IQ is probably in the 130s but there would still be no moral justification for me to, say, bribe politicians, run an illegal brothel, engage in human trafficking, or deliberately keep employees desperate and miserable.

I think economic systems converged because both capitalism and socialism ran into serious problems -- and often surprisingly similar problems in some cases. Or you might not have the political will to do something about certain problems which becomes an obstacle to solving those problems. That was certainly the case in the USSR but that's probably also true in the U.S. today where you might conceivably be able to plan the economy in certain ways that would solve some problems but the political will to do that is nonexistent. There are also hardass economic laws that you can't really do much about with brute-force ideology.

I was also thinking of China as more successful case in a way that runs counter to capitalist logic in some ways. Like, they focus on trade as the primary partner with a lot places that didn't have the infrastructure to exploit their riches. Lots of places in Africa and Asia (and South America too thinking of it) have tremendous unexplored resource reserves because the infrastructure necessary to make them available require massive levels of aggregate investment. This is where one of the biggest ironies of capitalism lie: it would be a productive and profitable enterprise to seek those resources out, but doing so would require a level of general development that is contradictory to just raw imperial exploitation.

The Chinese lived with that in their recent historical memory, so they understand (besides being Marxists) that putting their capital to that benefit has an actual greater general gain than going for a straightforward one-sided deal. Opening new sources of important resources into international trade means... establishing redundancies for their economic supply. Woah, gee. Bauxite supply is going down because Guinea gets couped and Australia is hostile to China? Big whoop, says the CPC, Kazakhstan has a good enough reserve of it, Cameroon and other West African states too, Jamaica has a good supply... While the usual order of things for the liberal countries in the Cold War was to absolutely keep the biggest supplier country in their camp, which must make the BRI maddening to the U.S. because China simply goes "oh well" and moves on to the next interested party while cutting the intermediary bullshit and negotiating directly with governments on favorable terms with capital loans at basically zero interest.

You'd think a bunch of neolibs would be big fans of competition in the market for international finance...

>>19375383
Intelligence correlated with wealth, so, I don't see your argument?

>>19375363
Meanwhile in reality, kids around the world are getting killed or maimed doing things like logging, fishing, manufacturing, etc

>>19375391
I really don't care about your personal anecdotes. Not sure why that should be used as evidence.

>>19375396
I said rich. Making real money has more to do with boldness than intellience. If anything being smart is a hinderance and will keep you second-guessing yourself into being middle class forever.

>>19375405
Maybe because it's true, and you can find it out for yourself if you move to certain wealthy areas.

>>19375356
>You consider being a better competitor "exploitation." Its really just a pathetic moralist argument to cope with the fact some people simply are more intelligent than you, naturally, via their genetics.
Intelligence doesn't have much to do with how wealthy you are. As I said more egalitarian countries have less poverty.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222681959_Do_you_have_to_be_smart_to_be_rich_The_impact_of_IQ_on_wealth_income_and_financial_distress
>Its not to be trusted because its literally a propaganda machine.
Look at the picture, that's the department of Justice making a settlement with Bank of America because of financial fraud leading to the banking crisis. And saying it's wrong because of soros money is a logical fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Genetic-Fallacy..
And those banks got additional TARP money they did not pay back. Goldman Sacs even converted his investment firm to a bank to bail out his risky bets.

>>19375404
Dying on the job is a risk we all take. "Think of the children." isn't a great argument here especially when you can just allow child labor, if you care so much, and restrict the top of jobs they do. According to you, working in coal mines all children would do if they could work. You should stop using special pleading fallacies; they don't make for strong arguments.

>>19375363
The working conditions for children were horrible, you have a strange view of history.
https://www.historycrunch.com/child-labor-in-the-industrial-revolution.html#/

>>19375417
You're misusing terminology while simultaneously making straw man arguments. Kids who are kept captive on fishing boats in Southeast Asia didn't choose to be there.

>>19375416
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222681959_Do_you_have_to_be_smart_to_be_rich_The_impact_of_IQ_on_wealth_income_and_financial_distress
There is no way to get IQ data from a NLSY79. You just googled a study you probably didn't even read the methodology of.
>As I said more egalitarian countries have less poverty
I don't see how this is relevant especially when "poverty" is relative. You can not argue someone who lives in America on food stamps, eats at Mac Donald everyday experiences poverty in the same way as a subsistence farmer in Africa. The terms "egalitarian" and "poverty" are just loaded statements that are purely emotional and counter-factual. To you, egalitarianism is simply the view that society benefits yourself at the expense of others. You mystify your selfishness with altruism - there is no such thing as "egalitarianism" because humans are naturally unequal therefore it is not possible for us to make 1:1 comparisons because we are comparing apples to oranges.

Your view on inequality purely a normative a priori assumption of what should be constituted as just wealth. There are no empirical, or even objective measures to make such claims. Its a pure appeal to emotion.

Taking from me, to feed you, doesn't make us more egalitarian - it makes me have less. Like wise, poverty is relative to the needs of the person evaluating it of what it means to be well off. It can not be defined generally. People are poor because they crave more than they need, and lack the self control to be content with what they have.
>Look at the picture, that's the department of Justice making a settlement with Bank of America because of financial fraud leading to the banking crisis
That's irrelevant because you are using a source that cherry picks facts to present a narrative. I have no reason to trust information from the Open Society Foundation.
You can not demonstrate any of what was posted is relevant to the financial meltdown because you're using a Texas sharpshooter fallacy. The article does not connect that case to the meltdown. It doesn't mention Bank of America - you did not even read it.

>>19375435
No one is making strawman arguments. You honestly believe child all worked in coal mines back then. You also ignore the fact unpaid labor, unsafe labor happens at school and at the house. You moralize about child labor, but you're okay with the risks children face doing other things that can dangerous? It doesn't seem like you're being consistent.

>>19375428
Since they were horrible, and not they are not now, you should support child labor because technology has made it safer for them. The laws are obsolete. You can't really argue that labor is much more dangerous today than it was over 100 years ago.

>>19375356
>You consider being a better competitor "exploitation." Its really just a pathetic moralist argument to cope with the fact some people simply are more intelligent than you, naturally, via their genetics. They have the genes that allow them to develop skills much more faster, and utilize them with more potency than you.
But wouldn't as equal a premise as possible highlight the individual differences in intelligence moreso than an unequal one?

>>19375463
>>19375416
Also, IQ is correlated to wealth. Unless, you really want to argue that countries with a low GDP per capita are some how not an indicator of wealth?

>>19375463
There is no way to get IQ data from a NLSY79
https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79/topical-guide/education/aptitude-achievement-intelligence-scores/page/0/1
Yes you can

>The terms "egalitarian" and "poverty" are just loaded statements that are purely emotional and counter-factual. To you, egalitarianism is simply the view that society benefits yourself at the expense of others.
According to the stats, counties that have more egalitarian policies have less poverty that's just a fact.

And you said "none of that happened", that justice department picture showed they did engage in fraud. And the article said
>It turns out that Brennan didn’t know how right he was. Not only did those loans bankrupt investors, they nearly took down the entire global banking system.
And as I said genetic fallacy you can't just say the website is wrong because you don't like the origin. That's a genetic fallacy. Good night.

>>19375489
Correlation is not causation, that's why the study had a regression to take in multiple variables.

>>19375480
I support children going to school not working in factories that's me and how most of society wants things it seems better that way

>>19375519
You did not read your study. In the Discussion, the author says.
>"While income and IQ test scores are related, results do not suggest a link between IQ scores and wealth.Regression results range from a negative to a small positive relationship depending on the specific analysis done."
The author is basically saying the analysis of his study can change based on what data he cherry picks. That's not a significant analysis. You can not really take a bunch of different analyses, and then choose a criteria in which explanatory power of a data set is determined by the majority of the analyses. You're basically picking and choosing what data set you like for your analysis.
They also find something more important here which confirms what I was saying:
>"The results confirm other researchers' findings
that IQ test scores and income are related. Depending on the method of analysis used and specific factors held constant, each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year. This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2% of society (130) is currently between $6000 and $18,500 per year."
They also seem to think income isn't as important as wealth. Which seems a bit dumb - since income is what creates wealth in the first place. They find people with higher IQs make more income.
>According to the stats, counties that have more egalitarian policies have less poverty that's just a fact.
This is irrelevant because egalitarianism is a normative value. We do not have to structure society to be less poor or egalitarian in your sense. You're making a moral claim here. We don't have care if people feel poor. "Poverty" is relative to the observer.
>And as I said genetic fallacy
Its not - because its literal propaganda. And it lists a bunch of non-sequitur that have nothing do with the financial crisis.

>>19375571
>Wall Street, and corporations, should dictate your life because they are the wealthiest members of society.

Your original statement, now you say

>They also seem to think income isn't as important as wealth. Which seems a bit dumb - since income is what creates wealth in the first place. They find people with higher IQs make more income.

>Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth. Financial distress, such as problems paying bills, going bankrupt or reaching credit card limits, is related to IQ scores not linearly but instead in a quadratic relationship. This means higher IQ scores sometimes increase the probability of being in financial difficulty.

>You consider being a better competitor "exploitation." Its really just a pathetic moralist argument to cope with the fact some people simply are more intelligent than you, naturally, via their genetics.
You also said

And that article has everything to do with the financial crisis, anyone can read that and know what that has to do with the financial crisis. Sorry it's early morning I must go sleep good night.

>>19375489
>How wealthy you are
> average IQ against GDP per capita
I hope you understand why this graph means nothing to what we were discussing.

>>19375489
>>19375618
cont.
>GDP per cpaita
>egaitarian countries have less poverty
Do you even know what you're arguing?

>>19375614
You didn't read your own study. I did. The results show that IQ is actually correlated to net worth and income. The author simply suggests the relationship can be seen as "quadratic" if you factor in financial choices and lifestyle activities.
You did not read the study. I did because I can pull up the entire thing. Your author isn't disputing IQ isn't correlated to wealth; they're showing other factors can determine wealth too. Its pretty irrelevant because they're weighting things differently to paint a totally different conclusion using the data.

>>19375625
>>19375618
Egalitarianism is an abstract concept, you retard, it can not be measured independent of human biases. So is poverty. They are not objective measurements, but relative to human morality. You're being a sophist, and you keep doing this point even though I've brought up to multiple times. I don't to accept what you believe is egalitarian, nor do I have to accept a society that uses that as a metric.

>>19375649
>Absolute and relative poverty cannot be measured
Retard

>>19375662
Sociology isn't a real science; sorry to tell you this. How they are measured are purely subjective. So not really.

>>19375649

>>19375662
Also, the whole "more egalitarian society, less poverty" non-sense is a red herring. We were specifically talking about intelligence, and wealth, and you sidetracked to this pointless discussion. Again, these are normative claims that can be dismissed.

>>19375671
>subective
>objective
>subective
>objective
>subective
>objective
>subective
>objective
>subective
>objective
>subective
>objective
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measuring_poverty#Absolute_vs_relative_poverty
>Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. An example of an absolute measurement would be the percentage of the population eating less food than is required to sustain the human body (approximately 2000–2500 calories per day).
Not having enough money to not sustain body mass is not a sociological measurement you absolute fucking lunatic.

>>19375674

>>19375681
>How wealthy you are
>average IQ against GDP per capita
Average measurements mean nothing, you were talking about how wealthy a person is being dictated by their IQ. All I can discern from this is that you don't know anybody that's actually wealthy. No, execs and partners don't count.

>>19375683
>Not having enough money to not sustain body mass is not a sociological measurement
There's no way to measure that, retard, because you can not measure the specific genetic characteristics of every human being on Earth to know the minimal amount of money they need to feed themselves. And you don't need necessarily even need money to get food, you fucking retard. Is food stamps now? Are you saying farmers can't feed themselves because they don't use money? Use your head, retard. More so, you're not even measuring absolute poverty you dummy. The OECD wasn't using absolute poverty in their analysis.

>>19375690
>Average measurements mean nothing
They mean nothing to you because you want to cherry pick what analyses suit your political agenda. You're just a sophist.

>>19375714
>They mean nothing to you because you want to cherry pick what analyses suit your political agenda. You're just a sophist.
You don't even know what you're arguing. How does the average GDP and average Iq of countries prove your point?
>There's no way to measure that, retard,
There is no way to measure household income and CPI.
Ok????

>>19375628
Yes but a good study takes in multiple variables from the author himself:

>Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth. And being very smart does not protect you from getting into financial difficulty, Zagorsky said.

>But when it came to total wealth and the likelihood of financial difficulties, people of below average and average intelligence did just fine when compared with the super-intelligent.

!>The lesson is simple, he said.

>Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth. Those with low intelligence should not believe they are handicapped, and those with high intelligence should not believe they have an advantage.

You just don't do a single variables analysis you have to take in multiple variables for a good study.

https://news.osu.edu/you-dont-have-to-be-smart-to-be-rich-study-finds/

>>19375736
>You don't even know what you're arguing. How does the average GDP and average Iq of countries prove your point?
Because intelligent people are more productive and therefore create more wealth? Are you going argue now countries like Chad are filled with intelligent people?
>There is no way to measure household income and CPI.
Why do you keep Gish-galloping with irrelevant things? When your study was exposed for cherry-picking analyses - you just started moralizing about poverty. Can you not stay on a single subject at a time?

Capitalism is unsustainable and requires infinite growth. Retards who call themselves nationalists while also worshipping the free market refuse to acknowledge that the culture and traditions they supposedly value are barriers to the self-perpetuating machine that is capitalism and will necessarily destroy those in its quest for infinite growth. A true nationalist can have markets, but you can't have capitalism.

>>19375748
>Because intelligent people are more productive and therefore create more wealth? Are you going argue now countries like Chad are filled with intelligent people?
Again, you're arguing on a meta-level because you know you don't have a point to make on individual level. And you're calling ME a sophist? There are plenty of reasons why LEDCs have low GDPs and IQs.
>Why do you keep Gish-galloping with irrelevant things? When your study was exposed for cherry-picking analyses - you just started moralizing about poverty. Can you not stay on a single subject at a time?
What fucking study? I've never mentioned a study.

>>19375062
that would be my point yes
in effect it was regulation that enabled these monopolies in the first place

>>19375760
Growth IS infinite. That's the whole point of innovation. The economy has moved on since the industrial revolution.

>>19375468
You 100% made a strawman argument. You said that according to me all children would work in coal mines if they could, which if course isn't true. Now you claim that I believe all kids worked in coal mines back then - that's another strawman.
Yeah unpaid labor happens at the school and at the house but you're not likely to lose a limb, get silicosis, or get torn into pieces while sweeping the house, taking a test, or raking leaves.

>>19375289
Right, I forgot about the rich's natural ability

>>19375760
It's funny how every ignorant parrot says this same thing over and over, like a mantra. Of course none of it corresponds to reality.

>>19375737
>Yes but
This is irrelevant. The author is weighting variables in a way that suits his biases. A good example is bankruptcy data he uses. He seems to think its a good argument to say there is no correlation between between IQ and wealth because middle income people are face more bankruptcy than low income people. This ignores the fact low income people don't have the money for bankruptcy, or the assets for it to make sense since creditors can not take anything from them. Its not a good comparison considering bankruptcy can't even necessarily mean one is bad at having wealth. Bankruptcy is a lot smarter for people in those income groups because they can negotiate a better settlement with their creditors, and keep more of their wealth after it. The sociologist who did that "study" (Its not even really a study its just hogposh of cherrypicked data) refuses to acknowledge confounding variables are influencing their data set.

>>19375770
How can growth be infinite if natural resources are limited?

>>19375356
Again, I forgot about how being was all about confronting people in real competition and not generational

>>19375762
This entire conversation isn't suppose to be happening, retard, because you're going on a red herring about poverty that nobody has to give a fuck about because you're making normative claims. Its not relevant to the thread whatsoever.
>What fucking study? I've never mentioned a study.
Read the thread you fucking bum? Can you not see the conversation going on? Are you blind?

ITT:neo-feudalists

>>19375789
How much of the modern economy requires pulling shit out of the ground?

>>19375798
>Read the thread you fucking bum? Can you not see the conversation going on? Are you blind?
I'm not the anon who posted the study you absolute retard.

>>19375801
Sounds pretty based to me. There's no argument against the superiority of monarchy.

>>19375771
That's argument you're making though because you're ignoring the fact that very few children worked like that back then, and ignored the argument that labor conditions have improved since then. You also, again, ignore children did unsafe labor at school and at home back then too because a lot of schools back then were filled with labor regimentation. So, again, your argument is irrelevant. More so, those laws are obsolete because technology has made those jobs much safer for children now. There's no reason for you to oppose such work because the risk is much lower.

>>19375780
And how's that working out?

>>19375821
You're absolute retard who entered the thread, and decided you were going to interrupt a discussion you don't understand. Are you one those retards who goes into a barbershop expecting get a Mac Donald happy meal? How about you get the fuck out of the thread, and let the adults handle the discussion.

>>19375808
A lot, all the technology, cars, manufacturing. The software runs on hardware that has needs rare earth metals. Energy prices are already going higher and higher.

>>19375822
It was so wonderful that people were willing to risk their lives crossing the Atlantic to get away from it.

>>19375831
Like communism, but you ChapoTraphouse trannies don't stop shilling it

>>19375823
You think children should still be working in factories?

>>19375823
Reality check: business owners aren't all benevolent father figures who take responsibility for the well-being of their employees, including today. In parts of the world today, despite the introduction of new tools, kids risk their lives doing dangerous work. I actually know people who experienced this.

>>19375834
>hurrr at least im not le tankie tranny
Not a big accomplishment.

>>19375828
No. You're just mad you don't have a counter-argument and you've made yourself look like a complete dickhead.

>>19375393
what's a good book to read on the recent-ish history of international trade involving china?

>>19375837
Factories are much safer than they were 100 years ago, so, yes. Also, minors even today work in factories because all factory jobs are assembly line jobs.

>>19375853
Factories are safer today because in civilized countries you can get in hot water for running a factory where people get mangled by machinery every day.

>>19375839
Reality check, communists calling for wealth distribution aren't benevolent father figures either nor is the government. But, you still drink their kool-aid regardless.
>>19375848
What do you mean? I've pointed out how you're a sophist arguing what the optimal poverty level ought to be base do on normative claims. You just keep dodging the fact your arguments are purely moralistic, and not basis besides how you feel. Its typical libtard non-sense, and the Chapotrannyhouse people you are samefagging with don't change that fact.

>>19375853
I said children not minors. But you did say yes. That's messed up. I've been in factories I don't think children should be in their with the heavy machinery, adults still killed in heavy machinery.

>>19375856
This doesn't refute my argument; you should be agreeing with me children should work in these jobs because they are much safer now if you agree with me on this point.

>>19375858
>waaaaah communism
No argument.

>>19375858
>What do you mean? I've pointed out how you're a sophist arguing what the optimal poverty level ought to be base do on normative claims. You just keep dodging the fact your arguments are purely moralistic, and not basis besides how you feel. Its typical libtard non-sense, and the Chapotrannyhouse people you are samefagging with don't change that fact.
You've used the word "sophist" when you don't have a counter-point. That's the same thing :)
Normative claims such as not starving to death? I'm confused - are you pro-starvation?
>chappotrannyhouse
Oh, you're an incel. NM.

>>19375863
It just seems like your making the false dichotomy that there can not possibly be jobs children can not do safely.

>>19375865
It does refute your argument. You act like kids magically just didn't have to work in factories because God gave the world revolutionary technology that all of a sudden made them able to go to school rather than work, and that the factory owners decided out of good will not to hire them anymore.

>>19375865
Imagine being this autistic

>>19375870
Its amazing how you're trying pretend you're not a sophist when you keep moralizing about poverty in a discussion about IQ and wealth. You just had pivot to your soapbox about poor wittle workers when it was pointed out people with higher IQs generally have higher income and are better off than you.
>Oh, you're an incel. NM.
See, I know where you faggots are from. You shillls need go back, you chapo trannies

>>19375831
What dreck, it was almost entirely religious fantatics and literal prisoners bought forced to set up territories that made said desperate crossing.

>>19375847
>I'm totally not a communist, I'm just trying to destabilize western civilization for the better you can trust me even though all I do is lie, teehee!
Fuck off.

>>19375877
You agreed with me these jobs are safer, and therefore, your complains don't exist anymore. Now, you're just gish galloping irrelevant moralistic claims about how the ebil employers. Can you just stop pivoting?

>>19375825
Every day people grow more and more conscious of the shortcomings of democracy, I'd say at this point a Hoppe like system is inevitable.

>>19375887
Again, I'm not the anon you were talking to. the post I responded to was talking about both poverty and IQ vs Wealth. Using the word "sophistry" incorrectly to avoid having to respond is, in itself, sophistry.
>people with higher IQs generally have higher income
This was never your point. You've added the word generally and changed "rich" to "high income" to pivot your own argument. High IQ will make you a high-earning employee and little more. Being rich requires a set of skills that have little to do with intelligence. I say this as someone who is rich and has a very average IQ.
>See, I know where you faggots are from. You shillls need go back, you chapo trannies
Take your meds schizo.

>>19375877
>"Using information from OSHA and from death certificate data, we estimate that there are at least 100 work-related deaths in the United States in children under 18 each year. Hazardous child labor continues to occur even in industries regulated by OSHA and FLSA."
>452 children died on the job in the U.S. between 2003 and 2016
Child labor still exists in the United States, and the fatality rate is slow I don't see why your argument makes any sense. Even the 1900s, the fatality rate was low compared to the children working in factories back then.
>>19375902
You are being a sophist, like every ChapoTrapHouse tranny. I posted the data from your own study. It shows IQ is correlated with net income and median wealth (>>19375628). The author, in the discussion, willing admits their analysis is only true if you accept the other criteria they invented which I pointed out and you ignored here (>>19375786). If you purely look at the numbers instead of gisp-galloping like, and the author did, the data is clear that intelligence determines wealth. Actually read what you posted instead of just repeating non-sense ad naesum.

>>19375891
Was 1/4 of Ireland religious fanatics and prisoners? Or millions of Germans, Italians, Russians, Hungarians, and so on?

>>19375892
I'm not even the original anon, I'm just calling out your bullshit.

>>19375921
Yeah we still have problems. Imagine that on steroids.

>>19375921
For what feels like the 5th time - I have never posted a study. I am not the anon you were responding to. You are now willfully engaging in sophistry.
> It shows IQ is correlated with net income and median wealth
>125 IQ
>$133250
>$447275.29 (inflation adj.)
>Average net worth of a single person with no children aged over 55
>>https://financebuzz.com/us-net-worth-statistics
>Rich
This doesn't really prove anything. Being rich requires a set of skills that don't really correlate to intelligence. If you disagree all I can discern is that you'll always be doomed to be middle class.
>>19375786
Not me.

>>19375936
>hurr durr economic migrants are just trying to escape monarchy too!
Move the goalpoasts all you like, you remain a retard.

So just so we are clear:
IQ is correlated net worth and income. The study you posted just said they found a differently relationship because measured different variables besides IQ, and the result changed for them because had a different methodology that weighted things such as bankruptcy and smoking. That's pretty silly, and we can acknowledge your study, the one I know you didn't read, just distorted the conclusion with a confirmation bias.
The "egalitarian societies have less poverty" is irrelevant because this is an abstract normative claim. We don't have make our societies "less poor" or "egalitarian" based on your socialist ethical standards.
Child labor laws should be phased out because jobs are much safer than they were 1900 years ago because of technological improvements. Saying it was unsafe in 1900 is pretty fucking irrelevant. It was unsafe for us to fly at one point, but now it is, should we stop people from flying now? No. Any of you ChapoTrapHouse trannies want to argue differently; do so with something counter-factual instead of moaning about the so called "proletariat" class you aren't a part of since you're fucking unemployed college student from Brooklyn.

>>19375953
Germany saw a lot of people leave because it was an aristocratic shithole where you didn't really have opportunities unless you were wealthy, and you could be imprisoned or killed for protesting. Ditto with Italy.

>>19375952
Its pretty much you're too illiterate to understand what's being said in the thread, you don't know how to pick a part statistics and you literally are arguing with data you haven't read. You need to go back.

>>19375965
I'm taking your lack of response as an implicit surrender which is accepted. Thanks for playing.

>So just so we are clear:
>IQ is correlated net worth and income. The study you posted just said they found a differently relationship because measured different variables besides IQ, and the result changed for them because had a different methodology that weighted things such as bankruptcy and smoking. That's pretty silly, and we can acknowledge your study, the one I know you didn't read, just distorted the conclusion with a confirmation bias.
>The "egalitarian societies have less poverty" is irrelevant because this is an abstract normative claim. We don't have make our societies "less poor" or "egalitarian" based on your socialist ethical standards.
>Child labor laws should be phased out because jobs are much safer than they were 1900 years ago because of technological improvements. Saying it was unsafe in 1900 is pretty fucking irrelevant. It was unsafe for us to fly at one point, but now it is, should we stop people from flying now? No. Any of you ChapoTrapHouse trannies want to argue differently; do so with something counter-factual instead of moaning about the so called "proletariat" class you aren't a part of since you're fucking unemployed college student from Brooklyn.

>>19375968
Commies like you don't like the fact IQ is correlated to wealth because it won't allow them to cope with historical materialism to hide fact niggers are stupid and that their failures in life all stem from personal limitations. It doesn't matter; you people have no political power or support anyways. You can go back now.

>>19375808
Literally everything, electricity used for computing and manufacturing is still oil based and everything we consume uses oil or its byproduct at some point. Infinite growth is also a retarded premise, it just means you take a technology that's perfectly adequate and replace it with another slightly modified technique in its efficiency; efficiency just means running things at maximum capacity. Even if you were to come up with a new source of energy, it would require infrastructure that would use more oil to produce and maintain then is able to be extracted at a given point WHILE still feeding the current demand at the same time.

>>19375972
>commies
I'm a capitalist you fucking incel. I'm just not some LARPing basement-dwelling libertrian.

>>19375974
>19375974
So essentially, following electrification of energy production and transport the answer will largely be "nothing"?

>>19373704
>communists get mocked for their "no true communist" bullshit
>within a few years, lolberts decide to copy them with "no true capitalism" as that will surely work well
In awe at the absolute retardation of americans

>>19375981
I know you're being sincere, but wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear etc will never cover the demand, it's not consistent like oil extraction which the modern world requires; not to mention there's no way to store huge amount of electricity. At most the excess energy created temporarily will be used to raise the ceiling of efficiency, furthering reliance on oil, which is a finite resource.

>>19375978
>>19375512
If you agree poverty is bad; you should support sterilizing poor people then.

>>19375988
The mistake is thinking this is anything but a continuation of that mockery my dear dumb Trot.

>>19376021
If you love real socialism so much; its not hard for you to move to Vietnam or China

>>19376018
No, I shouldn't. I support welfare systems that are fit for purpose because I'm not an Amerilard. I'm also not some LARPer, I'm actually out making real money and see the value in providing a good enough education to the poor that they can aspire to be middle class by making me more fucking money you child.
>>19375512
not me

>>19376040
>I support welfare systems that are fit for purpose because I'm not an Amerilard.
You're just going to support inflationary programs that make everyone poorer while having all the bad effects of a large underclass existing like violent crime.
>I'm actually out making real money and see the value in providing a good enough education
The real value is that it helps you get votes for the Demonrat plantation.
>hey can aspire to be middle class
If you knew anything about the middle class, the middle class having more members makes it more expensive for everyone since it increases the demands of those classes. Housing, education, and food now is much expensive because idiots like have subsidized unproductive people who don't make up for that in the productivity.

>>19376057
>You're just going to support inflationary programs that make everyone poorer while having all the bad effects of a large underclass existing like violent crime.
Yeah fuck giving people food and shelter. inflation is good - I'm in on assets and real estate.
>The real value is that it helps you get votes for the Demonrat plantation.
I'm apolitical for the most part, but again I'm not American and the rest of the world sees Republicans as being bat shit insane and the Democrats as the "least worst" option.
"If you knew anything about the middle class, the middle class having more members makes it more expensive for everyone since it increases the demands of those classes. Housing, education, and food now is much expensive because idiots like have subsidized unproductive people who don't make up for that in the productivity."
Housing is more expensive due to planning regulations, low interest rates and credit availability. Food is expensive because you're all anti-importing is from somewhere cheap.

>>19376057
Welfare programs for the poor don't create an underclass - that would be the result of welfare for the rich and efforts to forcibly suppress the poor.

>>19376021
>I was merely pretending!
Lame

>>19376057
>lolbert claiming to be rich
>also concerned about inflation making him poor
Every single time, get back in the wage cage.

>>19376064
>Yeah fuck giving people food and shelter. inflation is good - I'm in on assets and real estate.
Lmao, inflation is good? No wonder you're a fucking retard. Yeah, its really good for food to be more expensive because you keep printing money to keep people on welfare without incentivizing them to work. It worked so well for Venezuela.
>housing and real estate
This is ironic coming from the fucking guy who just blamed the rich for the 2008 recession for creating a fucking housing bubble. To me, it doesn't seem like you care about the poor. You just use them as an excuse to protect your petite bourgeois lifestyle from proletarianization.You are just as selfish, and greedy, as the rich people you criticize. You can not claim otherwise you are a moral agent with the amount of hypocrisy you're displaying here.
>I'm apolitical for the most part.
No, you're not. You pretend to be. No one would defend the poor, government spending this much without having political slant.
>Housing is more expensive due to planning regulations, low interest rates and credit availability. Food is expensive because you're all anti-importing is from somewhere cheap.
All of these are more expensive because there is lower supply of them, and higher demand from a growing middle class, those regulations are just a feather added on to the weight of the fact there too many people in the middle class who are competing for a shorter piece of the pie.
>>19376070
>Welfare programs for the poor don't create an underclass
An underclass exists because our genetics create low achievers and people with low ability. Poor would die if the rich did not provide for them because they don't have the skills to take care of themselves. The rich are the ones who pay for everything you have with their taxes.

>>19376086
>Inflation doesn't effect the poor
You would think this since you're a commie; you don't understand basic economics. Mommy pays the bills.

>>19376097
Underclasses aren't the result of genetics. Underclasses are the result of the material conditions of the society in which they exist. And the poor can survive on their own - for 99% of human history, everyone lived in what we'd call poverty, and they survived. The rich, on the other hand, need the labor of the poor. Otherwise they wouldn't put so much effort into controlling them and curbing the power of workers.

>>19376097
>Lmao, inflation is good?
Inflation coupled with low interest rates? Yeah it's fucking great for me. Remortgaging at a lower cost while pulling out equity.
>keep people on welfare without incentivizing them to work
As opposed to letting them starve to death?
>This is ironic coming from the fucking guy who just blamed the rich for the 2008 recession for creating a fucking housing bubble. To me, it doesn't seem like you care about the poor. You just use them as an excuse to protect your petite bourgeois lifestyle from proletarianization.You are just as selfish, and greedy, as the rich people you criticize. You can not claim otherwise you are a moral agent with the amount of hypocrisy you're displaying here.
for the four-hundredth fucking time I AM NOT THE ANON YOU WERE ARGUING WITH YOU FUCKING SMOOTH BRAIN.
>To me, it doesn't seem like you care about the poor. You just use them as an excuse to protect your petite bourgeois lifestyle from proletarianization.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Doing so prevents them from starving to death and gives them an education and better standard of living. My intentions are irrelevant.
>You are just as selfish, and greedy, as the rich people you criticize.
I am rich. I've made this point several times.
>You can not claim otherwise you are a moral agent with the amount of hypocrisy you're displaying here.
You're the first person to mention morality AFAIK.
>No, you're not[apolitical]. You pretend to be. No one would defend the poor, government spending this much without having political slant.
I'm not an Amerifat. The rest of the developed world finds allowing peasants to starve to death to be poor form. It's not a political issues outside of the states.
>All of these are more expensive because there is lower supply of them, and higher demand from a growing middle class, those regulations are just a feather added on to the weight of the fact there too many people in the middle class who are competing for a shorter piece of the pie.
No. Rents work on supply-demand. House prices are an asset and are tied to credit cost and availability too which is why they work on 18-year cycles while rents only really ever go up unless there's some sort of genuine "evacuate the cities" emergency.

>>19376109
>Underclasses aren't the result of genetics. Underclasses are the result of the material conditions of the society in which they exist

This argument has been shot down since IQ is correlated with net worth and income. "Material conditions" is a cop out to ignore the innate abilities of human beings that allow us to be different than each other and survive better. This is no different than any other organism on the planet. Your schemes of equalization can not change make men equal, and your pathetic appeals to enlightenment humanism has always been outdated and vapid. You can not reverse millions of years of evolutionary biology because it hurts your preconceived morality. No amount of spending, and stealing, will change that.

>>19376097
>An underclass exists because our genetics create low achievers and people with low ability. Poor would die if the rich did not provide for them because they don't have the skills to take care of themselves. The rich are the ones who pay for everything you have with their taxes.
You can't think yourself out of not being able to afford food, school or healthcare you autistic LARPer.

>>19376137
Hereditarian, elitist narratives about the class divide have been shot down by the course of history. We do not have a population that is overwhelmingly illiterate peasant farmers, nor in developed countries do we have countless massive blocks of filthy, crowded, dangerous tenement housing filled with hungry factory workers. Countries can and do move from one stage to the other within one generation. You cannot ignore the material reality because it doesn't fit your idealism.

americans and ameri-larpers are truly a disease

>>19373752
Ability to do whatever your heart's desire is often confused with freedom. The former is just called being careless and spoiled in rich, safe country, the latter is dead serious affair.
A Roman was free. If he said "I promise" to a wrong offer, he could turn into a slave and there would be no court that would free him from this state - the same word in Ancient Latin was used for "contract" and "law" - as such Roman with full rights was a sovereign on his own. A Frankish freeman was free. Had he offended someone with bad choice of words, he could potentially start a blood feud - had the offended party killed him, accepting weregild from them would bring shame to his family. Free man has to be dead serious. Dead serious about his business, dead serious about his words, dead serious about his actions, dead serious about his honour, his and his family's.
Serf isn't free but he doesn't have to worry about such things. It is in the interest of his lord to have as many serfs as possible - it were the feudal lords who got homicide criminalised specifically for this reason. They would often force-marry their serfs as well, because you know, married people tend to have sex and that's where children come from. The bondage itself was a contract - as it started from usually a free man who fell into such dire circumstances that he decided that the dead serious freedom isn't worth it. So instead much more careless, although less spoiled servitude was preferred - in the last act of himself as a free man, the soon to be serf pledged himself to serve his newly acquired lord.

Obviously lolberts are wrong in their own ways, but please don't mistake utopian visions with freedom, freedom is a harsh mistress.

>>19376154
>nor in developed countries do we have countless massive blocks of filthy, crowded, dangerous tenement housing filled with hungry factory workers.
>Laughs in Manchester

>>19376101
>lolbert seething so hard he can't read
>"n-no ur a commie!"
Let's make it easier for you.
If you were rich (you aren't), your income would come from a variety of assets, and decent management would allow those assets to follow the market and thus easily outpace inflation.
But you're a wageslave, so your income comes from your paycheck, and you're too mediocre to get a small yearly raise so bit by bit you get fucked.
That's why you're afraid of inflation when any half-succesful investor laughs at you.

>>19376166
>If you were rich (you aren't), your income would come from a variety of assets, and decent management would allow those assets to follow the market and thus easily outpace inflation.
It's even better than that. QE disproportionately affects the value of assets. the more inflation the better.

>>19376135
>Inflation coupled with low interest rates? Yeah it's fucking great for me. Remortgaging at a lower cost while pulling out equity.
Yeah, its really good for people to increase the money supply, borrow more money they can't repay when interest rates go back up again. Yeah, bro, housing bubbles are so great. Then you shouldn't complain about the 2008 recession then.
>As opposed to letting them starve to death?
Does personal responsibility not exist anymore because of the consequences of not having it?
>e I AM NOT THE ANON YOU WERE ARGUING WITH YOU FUCKING SMOOTH BRAIN.
Maybe you should stop using his arguments then, you fucking samefagging cuckhold. Your economic policies caused a bunch of poor people be homeless. Why are you ignoring that if you care so much about them?
>Doing so prevents them from starving to death and gives them an education and better standard of living
You are making selfish arguments for housing asset inflation that harms them because they can't afford those house due to asset inflation, but now you're arguing you actually care about them? You can't have it both ways. You don't care about the poor, as you are saying, you are simply trying to bribe them and use them to vote for policies that fund your petite bourgeois lifestyle. You criticize the rich for being selfish, but have no problem pursuing economic policies that so called harms the poor if it benefits you. You're somehow too stupid to see the contradiction here.
>I am rich. I've made this point several times.
Imagine trying larp as a rich person, and thinking this changes anything in the discussion. The fuck does your personal life has do with this, retard? I don't give a fuck about what happens to you. Why you giving me a biography I never asked for?
> Rents work on supply-demand. House prices are an asset and are tied to credit cost and availability too which is why they work on 18-year cycles while rent
Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. Rent is tied to supply in demand; that's why rent control doesn't work. Landlords charge more for housing because there is a less supply of it. That's because there's too many people competing for it while supply can not catch up to it. Housing is purely a supply issue - you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

>>19376139
>An underclass exists because our genetics create low achievers and people with low ability. Poor would die if the rich did not provide for them because they don't have the skills to take care of themselves. The rich are the ones who pay for everything you have with their taxes.
sorry sweetie, this line of regression on a GDP graph allows abstract ideology to override empirical evidence of nepotism and fraud, despite that anyone who has worked or follows economic news can see it plainly. also it allows you to make a moral judgement that its the way it ought to be as well.

>>19376154
>Hereditarian, elitist narratives about the class divide have been shot down by the course of history.
Then, feel free to leave your overwhelmingly white country to live in African one.
>We do not have a population that is overwhelmingly illiterate peasant farmers
We do in Africa and India though? Those countries tend to not have high IQS.
>Countries can and do move from one stage to the other within one generation.
Africa hasn't really changed much bro, nor have many black cities, do you live in reality? You clearly live in the suburbs because there's no way this is true for you.
>You cannot ignore the material reality because it doesn't fit your idealism.
You probably should have told the idiots running the Warsaw Pact that. They might still be around.

>>19376166
>Inflation good because it makes my assets richer
So, you don't care about the poor, so, again idiot, why are you making this argument? You can't argue you're helping the poor for moral reasons, and then chastise rich people. You are not being consistent; you're defending gaming the system, but then crying when Bezos, corporations and Musk do it for their interests. It must be your autism that makes you lack this amount of self awareness.

>>19376186
QE is literally helicopter money. So, yeah, you really are a dumbass. Its amazing to me you think the government buying shit by printing money is show you create wealth.You really are a dumbass. You're just going to complete ignore the long term inflation that comes the lack of productivity from over-spending. Good job.

>>19376201
You're tranny defending easing, and the fed printing money, literal government nepotism to bail you out. You can't really complain about the rich being smart enough to do the same . You're just jealous you couldn't reach their class.

>>19376212
inflation benefits the poor more than the rich tho since it makes debt owed is worth less, and while some assets like houses or gold might appreciate on paper they are now subject to capital gains tax when the increase is realized even tho the equivalent purchasing power did not increase. inflation is essentially a wealth tax. i don't get how leftists who are supposedly these big critiquers of the economy are not aware of this.

>>19376202
The third world has changed a lot even in the last 30 years. Africans and Indians are really starting to try and take part in the global markets. You're a capitalist, so why are you unaware of this?

>>19376189
>Yeah, its really good for people to increase the money supply, borrow more money they can't repay when interest rates go back up again. Yeah, bro, housing bubbles are so great. Then you shouldn't complain about the 2008 recession then.
>Can't repay
Mortgage is around 30% of monthly income for properties. Not a concern.
>Yeah, bro, housing bubbles are so great.
It's not a bubble. Lending and banking rules are FAR stricter than pre-2008.
>Then you shouldn't complain about the 2008 recession then.
Who's complaining? It was a great time to justify going to university to get a better paying job to save up for investments.
>Maybe you should stop using his arguments then, you fucking samefagging cuckhold.
Google samefagging. Two people can share an opinion you teenager.
>Your economic policies caused a bunch of poor people be homeless. Why are you ignoring that if you care so much about them?
And what policies are those?
>You are making selfish arguments for housing asset inflation that harms them because they can't afford those house due to asset inflation, but now you're arguing you actually care about them?
They'll get their chance after the next crash in 2026. Home ownership isn't for everyone.

>You can't have it both ways. You don't care about the poor, as you are saying, you are simply trying to bribe them and use them to vote for policies that fund your petite bourgeois lifestyle.
There is no incongruence here. My support for helping the poor helps us both. Intentions are a feeble way of judging ideas.
>You criticize the rich for being selfish
Not once in my entire life have i done this. I am not the anon you were arguing with.
>Imagine trying larp as a rich person, and thinking this changes anything in the discussion. The fuck does your personal life has do with this, retard? I don't give a fuck about what happens to you. Why you giving me a biography I never asked for?
You keep insinuating I hate the rich or blame them for the 2008 crisis when I have done no such thing.
>Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. Rent is tied to supply in demand; that's why rent control doesn't work. Landlords charge more for housing because there is a less supply of it. That's because there's too many people competing for it while supply can not catch up to it. Housing is purely a supply issue - you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
I'm a fucking property developer. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, rent controls don't work. again - rental prices go up because they work on supply and demand. House prices fluctuate on 18 year cycles because they are an asset and pricing them involves credit and QE.
https://www.propertygeek.net/article/the-18-year-property-cycle/

>>19376186
Our LARPing friend can't understand such complex concepts, go easy on him.

>>19376212
I'm having a laugh at you, there's no further argument.
You seeing communism in my mockery only makes it funnier.

Death to commies.

>>19376189
>the housing bubble was caused by inflation and not by reckless lending
Why are lolberts so economically illiterate?

>>19373704
>>Capitalism has never been tried
see whenever taxcuts for the rich and deregulation dont work this is what the say, its a combination of 'no true scotsman' and 'do it again but even harder'
People need to wake up to this failed ideology that exists to serve the interests of the rich and powerful

>>19376239
>Mortgage is around 30% of monthly income for properties. Not a concern.
Okay, so you're just going to dodge your hypocrisy by being a sophist. Don't push goalposts to defend your inflationary policies. You know exactly what it leads to, retard.
>It's not a bubble. Lending and banking rules are FAR stricter than pre-2008.
You really don't understand what's being discussed here; you defended policies that will to increase inflation long-term. Keep up.
>Who's complaining? It was a great time to justify going to university to get a better paying job to save up for investments.
This is so odd to see your ethical philosophy fall part when the benefits of inflationary policies benefit you at the expense of others - the poor.
>And what policies are those?
Inflating the money supply with government spending and low interest rates to encourage borrowing too much borrowing. This is what led to the 2008 recession because it idiots like you because money to people who could not make those payments back from the property they bought with those loans.
>They'll get their chance after the next crash in 2026. Home ownership isn't for everyone.
And, retard, this the point you keep missing. That applies any handout you are defending. Food isn't for every one, jobs aren't for everyone, going to university on taxpayer dime isn't for everyone, Obamaphones aren't for everyone. We don't have to, or need to have, an obligation to take care of people who can't feed themselves. How are so you fucking stupid not to see the consequences of this thought? This is especially true because subsidizing people who take more than they put in makes the economy unsustainable.
>My support for helping the poor helps us both. Intentions are a feeble way of judging ideas.
Increasing the cost of living of basic necessities for the poor doesn't help them.
You honestly rising food, gas and housing prices due to hyper-inflationary spending helps them? That's your argument.
>Not once in my entire life have i done this
You're doing it right now, and you're backtracking after making morality claims about the poor needing not be hungry while simultaneously defending inflationary policies that make it harder to get food.
>I'm a fucking property developer. I know exactly what I'm talking about.
You being a property developer doesn't mean you understand the economy works. You clearly don't because you keep defending inflating the money supply, and acting like that's no big deal for poor people when they see their cost of living go up.
>>19376232
>inflation benefits the poor more than the rich tho since it makes debt owed is worth less
Lmao, according to socialists, the poor are better off when they live on credit and borrow more to buy things? Socialists hate the banks for being greedy, but support policies that make their lives more and more dependent on them?

>>19376242
>Our LARPing friend can't understand such complex concepts, go easy on him.
Kid, you're a ChapoTrannyhosue fag. You're not even from this website. You're just using this thread to shill because you get bullied on the faster boards. You're not doing anything here special by encouraging circlejerking with your out of site from here. It just makes your redditor status more obvious.

>>19376272
It was caused by reckless lending encouraged by government social justice initiatives such as the Community Investment Act that forced banks to lend money to stupid people like yourself who ended up scamming the banks out of their money

>>19376318
>>19376326
>>19376335
>this is your mind on 'murica
It's a shame the cold war never went hot, can you imagine a world without vatniks and burgers?

>>19375831
>It was so wonderful that people were willing to risk their lives crossing the Atlantic to get away from it.
Neo-Feudalists? Monarchies were getting rid of that for Absolute Centralized Models, which is why they eventually imploded.

The slumlord property developer thinks its cost effective for the government to subsidize free riders with welfare spending when they are revenue negative versus cutting taxes, and letting people have the personal responsibility for their own economic choices. This retard really thinks you can print money forever , and things will just keep getting better as GDP/DEBT makes borrowing to pay for all this garbage more expensive, causing us to jack up taxes to the point that kills American economic competitiveness. Like, yeah no, you're a dumbass.

>>19376018
>If you agree poverty is bad; you should support sterilizing poor people then.
Only mentally ill former middle class now insecure new rich types think like this.

>>19376376
>now insecure new rich types
>new rich
>rich
You're being generous

>>19376425
Mocking people for not being rich is ironic coming from leftypol trannies like you who seethe at Elon Musk when he does it to you

>>19376318
>Okay, so you're just going to dodge your hypocrisy by being a sophist. Don't push goalposts to defend your inflationary policies. You know exactly what it leads to, retard.
Stop using the word sophist just because you don't have a response. It's tiresome. I have zero hypocrisy in my arguments because i'm not making moral arguments.
>You really don't understand what's being discussed here; you defended policies that will to increase inflation long-term. Keep up.
Not letting poor people starve to death is not the reason for inflation you cancerous polyp.
>This is so odd to see your ethical philosophy fall part when the benefits of inflationary policies benefit you at the expense of others - the poor.
Who was making an ethical argument? these strawmen aren't helping your case.
>Inflating the money supply with government spending and low interest rates to encourage borrowing too much borrowing. This is what led to the 2008 recession because it idiots like you because money to people who could not make those payments back from the property they bought with those loans.
No. it isn't. Unregulated lending and banking were what led to the 2008 recession. you have no idea the sort of shit that was being pulled at institutions around the world before the government stepped in and made them play ball.
>Food isn't for every one
This is your brain on America.
>How are so you fucking stupid not to see the consequences of this thought?
I have - mass starvation. Again - most developed nations find the idea unpaletable. It will also lead directly to revolution. Keeping the populace happy is an important part of governance and keeping them well-fed is priority number one. Russians didn't join the Bolsheviks on a full stomach.
>Increasing the cost of living of basic necessities for the poor doesn't help them. You honestly rising food, gas and housing prices due to hyper-inflationary spending helps them? That's your argument.
2-4% is not hyperinflation. Yes, not letting them starve to death helps them.
>You're doing it right now, and you're backtracking after making morality claims about the poor needing not be hungry while simultaneously defending inflationary policies that make it harder to get food.
No, i'm not. No I wasn't. I have never once claimed the rich are selfish.
>You being a property developer doesn't mean you understand the economy works. You clearly don't because you keep defending inflating the money supply, and acting like that's no big deal for poor people when they see their cost of living go up.
Now whose the one who is backtracking? We were talking about the housing market. Inflation isn't much of a big deal for the poor so long as welfare payments go up to math.
I'll end this with a quote from you because it's hands down the most autistic thing I've read on the internet.
>>Food isn't for every one
>>Food isn't for every one
>>Food isn't for every one

>>19373704
He's actually right, within the framework of his overall theory of prices - true capitalism has never been tried because governments have a responsibility to curb rentiers which they have abdicated completely.

Leftism does not work. Authoritarianism does not work. Less freedom does not work. Top-down systems does not work. Central planning does not work.

What is so hard to understand these facts? Why is it so sought after even after we have hundreds of years of tries with a success rate of 0%?

Seek help, better yourself, stop being so hateful.

>>19373704
>Governments around the world have abandoned monetarism because it doesn't work
Why do we still talk about this hack?

>>19376430
>everything I don't like is leftypol
Shut the fuck up with your internet blood feuds, you're all faggots anyways

>>19375892
Gish galloping is literally impossible in text form you illiterate nigger pseud

>>19376464
China

>>19376479
>he says as inflation is double digits

>>19376464
The best outcomes in the world seem to come from social democracies.

>>19375374
Exactly. Some guy lost his shit in the shelf thread last night because he said reading too much was an affront to the Christian God. Makes you wonder why people who hate reading and/or intellectualism come to a place where the main point is READING AND INTELLECT

>>19374465
Isn't that obvious? Libertarian Capitalists often complain that we are not in Capitalism, that today big industrial conglomerates unite in order to control the market. But, isn't this exactly how Capitalism is supposed to develop? Enterprises getting bigger and bigger, until they merge in order to rival with an other super corporate, up to the point were all the actors are a handful, controlling the market?
>>19374424
>competition instead of monopolies colluding with the state
This exist since the British East india company, which was created, in 1600. Also, libertarian Capitalists often complain that the State mingling with business. Truth is, the State is controlled by big dollar. Not the other way round. If there was no State at all, Global companies would create one, in order to control the working class, make sure they keep in line, and take their vaxx. The State is not the enemy of big dollar. It is it's ally. Both the State and the Capital are the enemy of the working class. Because big dollar wants to exploit the proles, and the State control them. Big dollar is the owner of the sheeples. The owner of the sheeple's labor force. Which is their wealth. The State is the shepherd. The police is the shepherd's dog.
Without a State, the global corporates would need a police. Would need laws, to keep the sheeple in line. So they would create a State.

>>19375959
a lot of germanic migration to the west was because they thought the Franco-Prussian War was gonna be a bloodbath.

>>19375356
>much more faster

>>19377254
If capitalism is an expression of human nature then so are the values that lead to the creation of anti-trust laws. Can't have it both ways.

>>19377254
Also, libertarian Capitalists often complain that the State mingling with business. Truth is, the State is controlled by big dollar. Not the other way round. If there was no State at all, Global companies would create one, in order to control the working class, make sure they keep in line, and take their vaxx. The State is not the enemy of big dollar. It is it's ally.

Bingo, and the capitalism worshipper literally said:
>Wall Street, and corporations, should dictate your life because they are the wealthiest members of society.
>>19375218

>>19377701
Meant to green txt what you>>19377254
said*

>work or die
>this is not slavery

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/346968929