/lit/ - Literature

>He thinks he understands something

>babby takes econ 101
Fug off.

>>9166023
Literally this, college freshman goes left.

>>9165967
>let's storm heaven (again)!
>surely we'll build a proper utopia this time!

>>9166122
And I assume in your enlightened college graduate years you turned into a retarded nazi?
Great arguments.

>>9165967
>he isn't a Hoppean libertarian
step it up pinko

/proletarianrevolution/ when?

>>9166145
You think you're a spookbuster but you haven't even abandoned the ultimate spooks of private property and individuality.

>>9166145
>material economic relations are spooks

The West has spent the last 100 years spreading propaganda to prevent leftist ideas taking hold. The result has been 2 different kinds of liberals fighting over identity, and the far right coming up as a counter-cultural response because, whoops we forgot about those guys, too busy fighting communists :^).

>>9165967
>democratically controlled enterprises

Fantastic until your democratically controlled enterprise that can't agree on a single goal or path gets outcompeted by a normal corporation run by a trained executive team.

We need a King desu. Corporate power isn't allowed to run rampant under absolute monarchies because it represents a threat to the throne and by extension the nation.

The neoliberal elite are the Jews, you stupid cuck.

You forget the contrarian, anti-social nature of this board as well as 4chan in general.

4chan ultimately wants the same as normal people but pretends it doesn't.

>>9166168
Actually, research shows cooperatives can be equally or more effective than corporate tyrannies, so you're full of shit.

>>9166152
Are you the one who is monitoring my torrent traffic?

>>9166154
No. Believing in the idea of material economic relations to the point that you orient your action around this idea makes you "spooked." I'm not denying the utility of Marxism as an economic lens, I'm saying it ceases to be used and becomes a user in the case of OP, who looks like he's trying to be a cipher for syndicalism.

>>9166146
>discussion of economic policies
>le nazi
kys yourself, cretin

>>9166169
>the jews are marxists
>the jews are liberal capitalists
>the jews are Thatcher-Reaganites too

Okay... Which political stance ISN'T Jewish, according to your literal insanity?
Evola was a jew too.

>>9166178
>research
p>0.05 for all left-handed grandmothers who cleaned up three times a week for a co-op, more like

If cooperatives are more effective/equally as effective than classical corporate structures, why haven't they risen to equal prominence? Try not to phrase your answer in the form of a conspiracy theory.

>When is this website going to stop following partisan identity politics of the right-wing and switch to partisan identity politics of Socialism?

Great idea, let's cure cancer with cancer.

>>9165967
Have you read about the problem of economic calculation yet? It's worth a go

>>9166186
>he thinks anything that happens to him is not a part of grand jewish plan

>>9166193
That only applies to centrally planned state capitalism, not decentralized systems like anarcho-syndicalism of market socialism.

>>9166191
>one's objective relations to the means of production is an "identity"

This is your brain on capitalism.

>>9166208
>market socialism
The great Yugoslavian meme surely delivered.
>anarcho-anything
Only useful to score points with your professor.

>>9165967
You don't get it nigga

a democratic society for the worker is NOT desirable. It's literal nihilism, and you are one of Tennyson's lotus eaters, willing sleep and peace rather than war and struggle

Read the prologue to Thus Spoke Zarathustra

>>9166193
The ECP was btfo by schumpeter in the 40's. Not an argument.

Although maybe the ECP and the TRPF are both correct.

>>9166186
Don't you get it? The rich banker jews want to use their rich banking power to spread communism throughout the Western world and debase the only source of their own power.

>It's a /leftypol/ acts as if class isn't an identity episode

I hate that one.

>>9166216
Hey, it's not Yugoslavia's economy's fault that there were a bunch of S*rbs living in it.

>>9165967
>democratically-controlled enterprises
Great idea, let's give factory workers who barely passed high school the lion's share of the say in how the most powerful entities on earth operate. Surely nothing will go wrong.

>>9166190
What does effectiveness have to do with prominence?

>>9166225
What?

>>9166225
>muh technocratic meritocracy
This thread needs more idealistic retards divorced from reality we live in.

>>9166218
>The ECP was btfo by schumpeter in the 40's. Not an argument.
[source needed]

>>9166178
If coops were more effective they would be more commonplace as they would be more profitable, but they are not.

All power should go to a small elite caste of wise philosophical swole artists. Neither the bourgeoisie, nor the proletariat, nor anyone else can fully appreciate that power.

Debate me, faggots.

>the global elite is not a jewish conspiracy
Not so fast Soros

>>9166245
>Effectiveness is profitability
>Effectiveness leads to prominence
>Profitability leads to prominence

>>9166186
NEWSFLASH: ever since the assassination of JFK we have all been just puppets in one giant show completely planned and orchestrated by the international jewry, there is nothing they have not planned

>>9166233
A democratically-controlled enterprise is a business run by the workers. Workers tend to be undereducated. Businesses, especially large ones, are highly influential and can cause severe social/environmental/economic damage when run poorly. Putting the power of Goldman Sachs, for instance, behind its tellers would cause the company to either self-destruct (overspending on employees is the obvious problem, but there are several others) or do even more harm than it does now. Possibly both.

>>9166238
Capitalism is bad, but it's stable. This proposed solution, however, is bad and unstable. No idealism or belief in meritocracy required.

>>9166214
For orthodox Marxism to gain enough traction, it must stand on the side of the oppressed and the marginalized (despite the fact that no society can function without marginalization and oppression in some way) and the only way to do that is by picking up identity politics. If you reduce everything to singular causes and explain everything based on class struggle, you are engaged in identity politics.

Also what Capitalism are we talking, the Capitalism during the time of Karl Marx, the Capitalism during Lenin, Russian Capitalism, Icelandic Capitalism, Dutch Capitalism.

You can't reduce Capitalism to these transcendent ideals, Capitalism is not a unified entity but a practice and process.

Plus neither of us can make economic claims worth anything, we can grasp at basic economic interactions and maybe a little deeper knowledge of micro and macro economic concepts but no deeper than that.
You can say that Marxism sounds prefereable and that's fine, but to actively excercise the process of altering a society towards Socialism is unethical.

>>9166249
Why a caste lol what if at some point there ends up being a terrible bunch of people who belong to that caste speaking for it instead of some better philosophically swole artist born elsewhere

>>9166262
>Workers tend to be undereducated.
You step a little lighter than when you were saying 'barely passed highschool'

>social/environmental/economic damage
Yeah to the neoliberal system -- of course the structure of society and the economy would undergo a radical transformation if workers held the means of production. But something tells me that even the least educated workers aren't going to use GS to cause environmental harm.

>>9166266
I don't mean hereditary caste like in India. I mean a socially distinct class of society that's institutionally privileged above the rest.

>>9166249
And that would be different from the present how exactly?

>>9166265
>sex, race, creed, doesn't matter if you're either worker or owner
>It's identity politics!

>>9166283
Old crusty lawyers and businessmen are not wise philosophical swole artists.

>>9166289
its autism it what it is

>wahh i hate working for mister moneybags
>instead i want to slave just as hard for probably less compensation from the state

you people disgust me

>>9166208
Ok but how would you guarantee that this special version of socialism would thrive in a revolution? Most likely the consensus of state socialism would win and then we would all go to gulag or the wall
Or would it be implemented gradually, parallel to the actual system and slowly replacing it? How would that work? Is there a productivity-"humanity" tradeoff that makes it more difficult for this system to outperform the current one? Etc

>>9166297
So we're not talking about Marxism now?

Why did you jump to the workers council conclusion?

>>9166301
im not who you were talking to i just hate you people's obsession with working

>>9166227

>Effectiveness leads to higher levels of profit
>if it's more profitable more people will do it

Are you an idiot?

>>9166291
Fair enough.

The WPSA's, tho. So basically like a Brahmin class, but with more art and less prayer? Are they lazy fat geniuses or do they have to be like Guardians as well? Do you mean like visual art, or as in, 'I think this map would look prettier if Poland was a different color?'

There are two big examples of possible anarchist organization today: open source software and cryptocurrency
Every radical politics that deliberately ignores those is outdated from the start

>>9166313
>fat
No I already said they have to be swole.

>Do you mean like visual art, or as in, 'I think this map would look prettier if Poland was a different color?'
I mean art as in literature, painting, drama that kind of thing.

>>9165967
>babby forms conjectures about the economic system after the first few weeks into his intro to economics course

>>9166315
Neither are organizations and you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9166217
"I get off on Nietzsche's prose and this is literally why we should stop trying to minimize economic inequality and suffering."

This, when we pull down all the ideology, is at the basis of right-wing thought. They don't want a decent society for the maximum amount of people, they want everyone else to suffer. They'll come up with any amount of bullshit philosophy to distract themselves from the fact that we have every material basis to remove wageslavery altogether. "Muh struggle", "muh aristocratic spiritual strengthening from bloodshed and war", how about you stop LARPing you stupid fucking idiot.

>This entire thread

>>9166336
>how about you stop LARPing you stupid fucking idiot
How about you suck my fat Hyperborean nob, you plebeian.

>>9166336

>They don't want a decent society for the maximum amount of people

Utilitarian drivel.

Go fuck yourself, Mr Herbert Spencer.

>>9166310
>Effectiveness leads to higher levels of profit

Hahaha what?

>>9166327
They are organizations in the sense that they are ways of different people to organize towards a single goal

They are anarchistic in the sense that they are radically decentralized, without central organization (even though some OSS have internal hierarchy it's spontaneous, and you can always just fork the project and make your own, as it happens normally)

And they are possible in the sense that they actually exist, actually produce results and actually work for the people involved in it

>>9166346

>If I call myself anti-political, it means I am!

Sorry, but Nietzsche was a proto-fascist. He was just smart enough to ignore racism.

>>9166358

Well in the free market sense you measure effectiveness by profitability

What sense of effectiveness were you referring to when you said that co ops are more effective than traditional companies?

>>9166358
If you define effectiveness as doing something with the least amount of effort and waste possible it trivially leads to higher profit

>>9166152
>private property
it's easy to see that it's not an end in itself and can easily be operated with as tool in a non-spooky way
>individuality
It's necessary to defend it as long as there are power structures trying to lead you into machine-like wage slavery.
So it's a just defense mechanism

>>9166372
>>9166387

I'm not the guy who initially said that so my argument has been that you haven't been careful enough if you're equating 'effectiveness' (whatever he meant) with profitability without understanding what he meant by effectiveness.

To me though it seemed effectiveness preceded profitability and even though profitability may result from effectiveness it's not the same thing. and shouldn't be interpreted as such.

But since I took over he probably left.

>>9166281
>You step a little lighter than when you were saying 'barely passed highschool'

I'll admit, that's an overstatement. But the point remains, these people aren't qualified to make difficult decisions.

>But something tells me that even the least educated workers aren't going to use GS to cause environmental harm.

Decisions about efficient use of electricity, paper, etc. involve lots of complex analysis, and, left to a vote, will probably wind up being made incorrectly. Even if it isn't deliberate, non-trivial harm is still caused. Besides, most people don't care about the environment in the first place, so optimizing these types of things would only be under consideration in the first place if it had the potential to save money.

>>9166408
>Effectiveness """"leads"""" to higher levels of profit
>you're """"equating"""" 'effectiveness' (whatever he meant) with profitability
Why are you on /lit/ if you can't read yet?

>people still exist who aren't economically centrist
Explain this

>>9166423
You're the one taking shortcuts son. Effectiveness is a quality separate from profitability.

>>9166436
Nobody argued otherwise, you absolute dunce.

>>9166174
underrated

>>9166450
>If coops were more effective they would be more commonplace as they would be more profitable

Something can be effective at making decisions and being 'competitive' without being profitable.

It depends on the research the guy didn't post.

>>9166435
>economically centrist

What did he mean by this?

>>9166371
>nietzsche
>fascist

Fascism is a populist movement for plebs. Hardly Nietzsche.

>>9166466
>Effectiveness
>The degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result; success.
For organization whose goal is generating profit effectiveness and profitability are synonymous.

>>9166519
This. Why the fuck did we need ten posts to establish that when I said "effectiveness" in the context of group entities functioning in a capitalist medium, I meant effective in the natural-selection, Darwinian sense of "If this idea was such a good one why doesn't it dominate the market?"

This question will never be answered because the only way to say "syndicalism/everything-is-a-democratically-operated-coop-now-ism is better at making money than a traditional hierarchal corporation AND hasn't outcompeted all other corporate organizations is because of [grand conspiracy theory]," which is something I knew a was coming and headed off at the pass when I said the guy wasn't allowed to use conspiracy theories.

>>9165967
The problem is we think we're separate from the world and from each other

All we need is food clothing and shelter.

You don't need to have all this extra ultra-nightmare infrastructural military industrial prison bullshit around

We just need to grow food. Everything else is a massive unnecessary complication

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21j_OCNLuYg

>>9166543

He's likely using some other measure of effectiveness like the actual quality of product produced to measure effectiveness, and I can't see why a co-op type system would necessarily move towards that.

>>9166562
>being a dirty hippie in 2017

>>9166572
>not having a real rebuttal
>current year

>>9166568
What product when we're solely discussing organizational structures over completely empty abstracts? Are you mentally ill?

>>9166585

I'm trying to have a civil discussion here. If you are who I was replying to then I whole heartedly agree with you, so stop acting like a confrontational prick.

What I'm saying here is, that in the context of a production based business (as an example) a measure of effectiveness could conceivably be the higher quality of product produced.

>>9166580
Not him, but do you have any suggestions for how your ideas could be feasibly implemented?

>>9166585

Everybody can read his post and then yours retard, you look like a pants-shitting fool

>>9166595
You're right. There's literally no other way to define "effectiveness" in this debate besides:
>profitable
And the syndicalist gesturing vaguely towards "research" that "proves" the superiority of his organizational structure over the dominant form, despite the absence of any citation or even real-world examples of his structure outperforming corporations, isn't inspiring great swells of leftist thought within me.

>>9166601
Yeah put seeds in the ground and water them

>>9166562
>unironically anprim in current cyberyear

read land

>>9166638

Scundered desu

>>9166023
The problem is that most people in society don't even have a 101 understanding of economics. This ignorance is how things like trickle down economics gains credence.

>>9166644
more like read moldbug to be honest family

>>9166653

Trickle down is legit.

>>9166595
Business always aims to maximize profits. Effectiveness of a business is always measured in profitability indicators. Spec quality of products/services is another characteristic which doesn't necessary correlate with effectiveness. You can redefine terms however you wish, but it doesn't add anything to discussion really. Agreed upon terminology is there for a reason.

>>9166665
Look around, my guy, does it look like it worked?

>>9166665
Rich people merely accumulate wealth to no greater purpose when they don't have to give as much to the government.

>>9166665
It depends
If you are talking about free markets its about right
If you are talking about government subsidizing big corporations (like trickle-down was in reality) then it's clearly bullshit

>>9166668

Yeah, but we're talking about communist utopia land, where the revolution has happened and profit is outlawed, remember

>>9166665
>i don't know what marginal utility is: the post

The more money you have, the less useful that money is to anyone, including you.

Imagine you have $50
This means that you have food and water, but not rent, so you're sleeping outside.
Imagine you have $500
This means that you have food, water, and rent, but you're not making a car payment yso you're probably not working.
Imagine you have $5,000
This means you have food, water, rent, and a car, so you can work.
Imagine you have $50,000
This means all your basic needs are taken care of. Further expenditures will be of less overall utility.

Imagine you have $5 billion. What could you possibly spend your money on that will provide you with utility at the same rate as food and water and housing but requires $5 billion? There is no such thing, at this point you're just buying bigger yachts, houses, etc. these things offer SOME utility by giving jobs to others, but luxury items do not an economy make.

>>9166697
No, we're not. We made no explicit assumptions about the economic structure overall and we were solely discussing profitability differences between coops and classical corporations, which is clearly only possible in a system where profits are not outlawed.

>>9166704

>What could you possibly spend your money on

None of your business, Pinko.

>>9166721
I'm a monarchist, actually.

>>9166704
>a poorfag pleb doesn't understand the central role of solid gold toilet bowl in the satisfaction of aesthetic needs
You have a lot more growing up to do, kiddo.

>>9166732

Monarchy exists because we allow it.

If they step out line, they'd better get ready for the invisible hand, followed by the invisible fist and the invisible boot if necessary.

>>9165967
Oh anonymous, that's it. Congratulations on waking up.

>>9166760

>2017
>Unironically espousing ressentiment

>>9166178
source?

>>9166262
>capitalism
>stable

what?

>>9166785
>2017
>Unironically espousing ressentiment

>>9166562

CHAP. VII. 1. Tsze-kung asked about government. The Master said, 'The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.'

2. Tsze-kung said, 'If it cannot be helped, and one of these must be dispensed with, which of the three should be foregone first?' 'The military equipment,' said the Master.

3. Tsze-kung again asked, 'If it cannot be helped, and one of the remaining two must be dispensed with, which of them should be foregone?' The Master answered, 'Part with the food. From of old, death has been the lot of all men; but if the people have no faith in their rulers, there is no standing for the state.'

>>9166752
t. lizardman illuminatus

>>9166893
Master Kong was wrong here for the obvious reason that a hungry populace loses faith in its ruling class because it's the sage ruler's blessing from Heaven which results in national prosperity. Also, they can't have faith in their rulers if they're dead from starvation. If the people are starving, the Mandate has been revoked and a new ruler should be installed.

>>9166924

If the ruler is without virtue, it doesn't matter how much food there is. For example, during the Irish potato famine, Ireland was a net exporter of agricultural products. Why? The British landowners already had export contracts, and refused to reconsider them.

When the ruler is faithless, the people can starve even during a time of plenty.

>>9166398
>private property can be easily operated with as tool in a non-spooky way

You can't operate any concept in a non-spooky way. "Le spook" is a meme used by stupid /pol/fags to engage ideologies they dislike without actually creating valid counter-arguments.

So do everyone a favor and fuck off.

>>9167019
Another reason why Kongzi was wrong to privilege the ruler in the above quotation. Although I think he does advocate for the replacement of the ruler when they are without virtue, iirc. How that's achieved harmoniously, however, is another question. To be fair to him, I'm not so sure he was out to write a gospel so much as pieces of wisdom that should/could be regarded in most situations.

>>9166704
>Imagine you have $5 billion.
Great! I can finally start that business! And I bet I can hire a lot of employees!

>>9166475
Oh my god I'm dying, is that a whole wheat crust in the collar of his shirt?

>>9166845
>Economic system which, since its introduction, has spread across the globe and remained in place for centuries.
>Stable.

That. And even post-marxists know it.

>>9166849
If you're retarded enough to think you can just make a reverse ms paint graphic, copy the greentext, and that these two coupled somehow form a coherent response, you're as autistic as, well, Karl Marx.

His criticism of Stirner, for instance, is only hilarious; it's like Autistic Manchild Fails to Comprehend Sarcasm: The Essay

>>9167418
>invest
>be rich forever
Why even bother with your own business? Just fuck 11/10 grills in the sex dungeon of your palace and cruise around in a golden Ferrari consuming cocaine and running over careless grandmas. Mindless hedonism and self-indulgence is really the best thing out there.

>>9165967
read friedman and hayak

>>9165967
>I read a book and now I understand the world: the post

>>9167436
>system that depends on constant growing forever
>stable

>>9167492
Don't do that, actually it sounds like OP understands the essentials of economics as explained by Henry George. The reality of the situation is, if we didn't have the 'speculative' motive guaranteed by speculators rewarding group-think situations, inhibiting the effects of a fluid quantity of money, you would have a higher percentage chance of policies utilizing the quantity theory of money be correct.

Keynes proposes static holding rights for stocks, inhibiting the quantity of transfers. George understands interest and rates of return as being solely derived from the productive powers of nature, to add any 'pure inflation wage' positions to the pecuniary (leisure; see: Veblen) class, is just bad economics. A service based economy isn't fair to anyone or any country, isn't sustainable, and the morality it espouses is despicable.

Fuck you, and fuck your ancap libertarian paradises built on inequality and misery

>>9167505
Population growth isn't as much of a problem as you think it is. Maybe capitalism IS sustainable, but is capitalism in the decrepit state it's currently in, advisable in the future? Everything people do with any financial institution these days is just lower the interest rate. We have bad economic policies. We need change. We need to get out of this system and we need to now.

>>9167531
I'm not talking about population growth, but about economic growth, interest needs to be paid, you know. With automation coming on soon billions of humans will be of little use to capital except as human lab rats and harvestable organ sources. Those pot smoking billionaires over in the San Fransisco bay area are already stocking up on the blood of the young, you know as a longevity treatment. Universal basic income's under discussion to. With no work to do, we will be condemned to unlife inside the skinner box that is spectacular hypermedia capitalism. Human Lab Rat Hell.

>>9167505
>Implying private ownership of the means of production necessitates eternal growth.

Or, you know, we could just reach post-scarcity and meet everyone's needs.

Can you people discuss something without attacking each other? Have you never had a debate?

>>9167647
Right. I take generally speaking a Keynesian view of economics. But there has to be some controlled direction of technology in my opinion, lest it becomes consumed by chaotic globalistic free marketism.

Even I disagree fundamentally, and many would, of a basic income. That doesn't work within the current system. It just would be a horrendous idea economically.

Clearly there is a general truth in regards to occupation. Henry George stipulates the only real productive return rate on capital is furnished by the productive powers of nature. This is problematic indeed, if the landed plutocracy who controls government decided that the rate of return is just a figment of a trademark rate over the set interest rate. Thinking about it now it makes sense, the Federal Reserve should have a functional system, but because of the binary, universal nature of money...

Ahhh but this is interesting. Money doesn't have to be that way. The monetary unit should be a free market, and the individual units should reward progressive thought that works coeval with nature.

>>9167659
Henry George's argument is that we may have reached post-scarcity certainly by this point already, but it is the accumulations of the rate of rent and salaries of entrepreneurs making their way into the prices of goods that drives everyone else down as the rate of productivity goes up. It's unbelievably complex and pure free market capitalism is going to laissez-faire a lot of people into the depths of misery and despair.

>>9166636
Profitable for who is a fair way to characterize the discussion as well, for a company making a single man ten times more wealth than he would make in a co-op but having everyone else make a hundredth of what they would make in a co-op is, arguably, a subpar arrangement for most of the people involved and therefore it's fair to say that while overall less profitable, the co-op is out performing the other model by far. Thus, median stakeholder wealth generation, which is a co-op is more likely to maximize due to its structure, is a perfectly valid standard of measurement which doesn't imply the company is necessarily the most profitable.

>>9167659
Or you could make everyone transform into a bisexual unicorn and live out your worse /mlp/ fantasies, because both of these things share the same thing: they are pipe dreams. Until matter and energy can be created from the void, time can be stretched indefinitely, and a human's processing capacity can be made infinite, scarcity will always be a thing at some level or another

>>9167716
But some animals are more equal than others, kiddo. Entrepreneurship should be considered one of the high arts, shit's difficult. That's why only a true aphex predator can rise to the top of the business world. There is no place for sheep in here. Think Edison, Gates, Jobs, Musk, Carneige. All have done more than you could ever dream of kiddo.

>>9167734
That's irrelevant to the argument being made that the sole way to analyze the pros and cons of a corporate organizational scheme is by means of its total profits. That, the MWG is but a single other way to evaluate such a thing. Hell, you could prefer evaluating it in terms of how many individuals you can employ while still being able to pay the bills, which maximizes neither of the ones before, but does ensure that a large swath of people do get something. Not one post has shown either of these two alternatives are inferior ways to gauge effectiveness other than convention.

>>9167680
I'd have to read up on this, but it's definitely plausible. Doesn't change the fact that non-capitalist economies aren't currently viable, though.

>>9167731
Post-scarcity doesn't refer to a time when resources are infinite. It refers to when the poverty level is so high that even the poorest portion of the population can afford a healthy, happy lifestyle. Please google terms you aren't familiar with before jumping to conclusions.

>>9167734
Right but we are trying to discuss ways where that is NOT the case. The entrepreneur's salary, under every economic system, makes it's way into the price of the good, under either the portion of the good being reflective of the full salary of the entrepreneur multiplied by the product sold (Menger's system), or the salary being implicit in the 'profit' of the entrepreneur's capital (Smith, Ricardo, Mill).

Fundamentally, economic systems analyzed from a perspective that fails to account for the widening insertion points of proportional advantage to higher classes fail to grasp the true flaws of the current economic system. On top of this, these types of wages, as they grow larger, are inherently inflationary.

>>9167734
I don't disagree with you, but please stop saying "kiddo" so often. It's causing me physical pain in my sides.

>>9167802
>Doesn't change the fact that non-capitalist economies aren't currently viable, though
It's tough, but I don't exactly know what you mean by this. You certainly can't be saying every single form of socialism is inherently invalid. But at the same time, I wouldn't want to make you think that the remedy cannot be a fixed form of capitalism in itself, I am NOT a socialist.

A couple things need to happen
1)the inflationary wages of service jobs which do not return any productivity need to be lowered
2)inheritance needs to be fully taxed before the baby boomers start dying.

>>9167812
I'm not saying socialism (or any other economic system) is invalid, or even bad. Just impractical.

I do think reform is probably the best bet (specifically, the universal basic income), and I think it could be accomplished pretty well, but this immediately raises a lot of hairy questions all its own.

>People forget that most people are selfish, petty, and/or apathetic to the suffering of others - especially of those who are not family or friend.

A situation like communism or large scale co-op societies will only work in the absence of human desire, want, hatred, selfishness, pettiness, apathy, inborn inequality (even something as simple as some people not learning as quickly as others, or some not having certain skills) etc.

So, it will never happen. Not without large scale hypnotism or something equally impossible.

We are too fickle.

>>9167831
No no, basic income is a horrible idea. Lowers the value of money geometrically.

Every economist agrees it's a bad idea, Mises, Keynes, Mill

>>9167803
I have a USDA prime model quality gf, a sweet deluxe apartment and a fully equipped lakeside cabin in colorado. I went to a good college and have a wine cellar worth over 20k. I'm what you'd call a member of the capitalist class, and I fucking earned this kiddo, earned it by the sweat of my brow. See what's going on in Venezuela? the spics gave up on the breadlines and literally eating rats by this point.

>>9167842
Right and I'm saying the unbelievably rapid accumulation of wages in the entrepreneurial sector are extremely inflationary. ESPECIALLY if you aren't actually investing in productive capital. This is a trend which hurts the growth of the economy overall. Trust me, I know what it means to work for something, we want to reward hard work in this country, but we do not want to impoverish everyone else in the country to reward speculations being made on securities passing around in circles in a class which is known as the Veblenian 'leisure class'.

>>9166336
>a decent society for the maximum amount of people

>If not everyone is happy, then no one is allowed to be happy
Collectivists and utilitarians are cucks.

>>9167854
You gotta have the grown ups running the show, because then you get Venezuela. I'm an aphex predator right at the intersection of tech, media, lifestyle branding, finance and biomedical engineering, you wouldn't believe the shit they are coming up with right here, it would blow your fucking mind, kiddo. The next Uber or Microsoft big. You realise most people are fucking scum, they just don't get it man.