/sci/ - Science & Math

Currently capital gives a better return than labour.

Because some people have higher IQ than others.

>Prevent someone getting paid
>Call them poor
Such is life in great shitstain.

>>7030052
read Marx

>>7030059
Is Miley Cyrus more intelligent than us?

>tfw you will never live in market socialist utopia
>tfw it will never happen because of muh rugged individualism
>tfw all the people that would benefit from it believe they're millionaires down on their luck

because we aren't giving enough tax cuts to the upper echelon. How can we expect money to trickle down if there isn't enough to overflow

We are intelligent humans yet we still have not reached a utopian society. I don't know why we are not striving towards that. That's all that our current objective should be. People should never have to work two full time jobs JUST to live. What a fucking waste of time

>>7030058
>muh thomas piketty

>>7030064
>2015
>unironically being a commie

>>7030074
>tfw you were born in the capitalist west and not in utopian socialist north korea

>>7030079
I know you say that in jest, but you're correct

>>7030059
Also correct

>>7030093
We are living in an utopian society today. Free market capitalism allows you to enjoy the highest standard of living that there has ever been on earth.

>>7030130
Thanks, everything expect capitalism prevents progress

>>7030130
Authoritarianism is to monarchy is to democracy as communism is to capitalism is to market socialism. You shouldn't have to be born with capital to be productive economically.

Also >>>/pol/

>>7030052
Luck
Some people are born with everything and are smart and have enough opportunity to become richer
and some people have 0 luck and have a low chance of making it

>>7030158
Luck is strongly correlated to billions of dollars.

>>7030059
He said mainstream economic theory, not American social darwinist economic theory.

>>7030158

I think hereditary intelligence is one thing but being born with no opportunities is another.
Parents should be sure that they can give thier child good opportunities in life BEFORE HAVING HIM. If two poverty parents hve a kid, that's fine, but they hve to accept that thier child won't have the oppurtunities as other kids born Into wealthier families

>>7030052
labor economics perspective: some have 1) a higher preference for work over leisure or 2) a higher marginal product because of intelligence or human capital investments.

asset pricing perspective - returns from all kinds of investment, with a clearing market and no external intervention, are dictated by a market-wide risk-return relationship where individuals choose how much risk they are willing to to take for a particular expected return

brief critique of picketty's style of economics is that it omits intangible capital viz knowledge and education. which belongs to labor (and not firms). including this would improve expected return to owners of labor

>>7030150
Pretty much. Capitalism has provided much better results than socialism

>>7030157
Who says you have to be born with capital to be productive economically? Plenty of people start out from nothing and become rich.

Also kek'd hard at "market socialism". Leftist delusion at its finest.

>>7030162
It's undeniable that richer people tend to have higher IQs than poorer people. Statistical anomalies aside (celebrities, athletes,...), rich people are usually engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc...

You're not telling me that you think that doctors and janitors have the same average IQ, are you?

There is more total debt than there is money in circulation to pay off the debt. It is entirely built into the system. The powers that be use some slight of hand and indirection to prevent people from truly understanding. When the fed says hey we're going to do another round of QI some people just moan and parrot back what they heard (that they're devaluing the dollar by creating more money). What they're really doing is randomly creating indebted slaves via some cluster fuck musical chairs game where it seems so random and confusing that no one is held accountable. Honestly if tomorrow a movement began to bring back the guillotine, it would have my full support.

>>7030176
There is literally no reason why people should have to accept a lack of opportunity. That just indicates a catastrophic failure in our economic system's ability to accurately allocate capital where it's needed.

>>7030181

I think having well off parents is the best situation for college because thy can support you so you have full time for studies to get them internships. A lot of kids work full time while in school at some shit minimum wage job and get Cs while getting in debt. It's suicide. Your parents should hve the responsibility of saving up for your college

>>7030058
That doesn't make any sense. You don't get a return on labor unless you're paying someone for the privilege of working.

>>7030181
>You're not telling me that you think that doctors and janitors have the same average IQ, are you?

I thiink you assume that all differences in economic outcomes are due to innate genetic differences between individuals that cannot be changed. I think you make this assumption so that you do not have to question the social, economic, and political choices that the United States has made or listen to arguments for how we might prevent the negative consequences of our decidedly non-optimal distribution of wealth.

>>7030183
i am sorry you are such an angry person and that you never took a class on banking or monetary economics.

If you had, then you would understand why that is a good thing. Because: only lend money in order to get returns. The fact that there is more debt than money in circulation implies that people expect positive returns and are willing to fund investment in exchange for future money.

So functional debt markets are a force for economic growth. good luck friendo.

>>7030189
Sure, having caring parents always helps. I guess that goes in the "genetic heritage" category.

>>7030194
In a free marjet system, yes, the vast majority of differences in economic outcomes are due to innate genetic differences.

Can you refute this?

>>7030210
>Can you refute this?

I don't need to; you've made my point for me.

>>7030203
What he's talking about is devaluing the dollar, and now the euro, so that the government can buy bonds and by doing so inflate the value of the bond and stock markets. They are making whatever savings you might have worth less in order to shift the value over to the bond and stock holders. It's literally robbing the middle class to pay the rich.

>>7030214
I also assume that the earth is spherical. Is it wrong because it is an assumption?

Your assumption that my assumption is wrong is wrong. See what I did there?

>>7030210
well thats an empirical claim but imho education and hard work play a large role

>>7030203
When I was an undergrad in econ (a useless degree, I program for a living now), I felt the same way as you and even argued your same points with the same attitude as you. You've been indoctrinated, son. Of course there is a method to our economic system but it is morally reprehensible. Maybe when you grow up a little and see how many lives have been ruined and the truly demonic nature of capitalism you'll at least stop licking the ass of capitalists. You'll never break into the capitalist class, kiddo. Especially not with an econ degree.

>>7030222
tbh you clearly never actually learned the economic approach. perhaps that is why you could not turn your econ degree into anything more. I'm an investment banker now...do you even know how leveraged finance works?

>>7030219
I'm not sure why you're posting in /sci/ instead of /pol/. You obviously have no interest in or understanding of scientific ways of thinking. You made the claim:

> the vast majority of differences in economic outcomes are due to innate genetic differences.

You have no evidence that "genetic differences", whatever that means, directly cause the differences in economic outcomes. You don't even have the capability to test that hypothesis. When you say "genetic differences", you're only using scientific language to mask the fact that you mean "Christian virtue", "protestant work ethic", "only whites can be civilized", or some other such nonsense.

My claim is that you use these preconceived notions in order to avoid asking questions about your own society and why it is objectively less successful for most people than, say, European nations with more mixed economies. Which you do - you shut down any attempts to analyze these questions with a bunch of rhetorical nonsense.

>I also assume that the earth is spherical. Is it wrong because it is an assumption?

It would be wrong if you made it an assumption. It should be a working hypothesis (assuming we're early ancient Greeks or something) to be attacked by all possible tests. After carefully designed rigorous tests (as opposed to wishful thinking), we would discover that the hypothesis "the Earth is flat" is easily falsifiable, while "the Earth is spherical" survives any test we can come up with.

Don't try to pretend that your pseudo-scientific rationalizations for a just world theory of economics are anything like the hard sciences.

>>7030052
some people place a higher utility value on wealth and material goods while others place a higher value on entertainment, enjoyment and free time

>>7030246
>I'm an investment banker now
Be the cancer that is eating society.

Not him btw.

>>7030257
i am not cancer...i get paid twice as hard as you and take home 1.5x as much. I am in fact the one getting fucked here. brb gym, i'll be back in an hour

>>7030266
enjoy your 60 hour work weeks


pretending to be an investment banker on 4chan is not that great an idea, it is pretty unbelievable that someone with so little free time is wasting large chunks of it on 4chan and honestly if that is the state your life is in working your ass off all week and with no friends other than 4chan to share it with it's pretty pathetic

>>7030246
you're probably lying but being an ibanker doesn't mean you know shit about macroecon.

>the economic approach

lol what a faggot. I hope they work you 80 hours a week and you blow your brains out like all the other finance plebs.

>>7030052
>>7030162
Those problems are not external at all. Not having enough money is caused by you being a lazy dumbfuck who doesn't bother getting a job or education. You being a virgin is caused by you being ugly and an unsocial loser. Those are all your own faults. Stop blaming them on society. If you're inferior, your genetics will go extinct. That's evolution. Deal with it.

>>7030251
I'm on mobile but I'll adress your claims one by one.

First of all, I post on /sci/ because I like science. I'm actually studying physics in university. Your claim that I have no interest in the scientific method is rich considering you have provided absolutely no refutation to my original claim, which was I remind you : "In a free market system the vast majority of differences in outcome is due to innate genetic differences"

>you have no evidence
I do actually. There are plenty of studies about IQ results by occupation, which consistantly show that highly skilled professionals (doctors, engineers,..) have a higher IQ than janitors and buger flippers. Since these highly skilled professionals are much richer than the low skilled workers, these studies show that people with a higher IQ tend to ve richer than people with a low IQ. And since IQ is largely genetic (though it can be impaired by factors such as chronic malnutrition, but such factors do not exist in the western world today), we can conclude that this provides a convincing argument that the difference in economic outcome is due to genetic differences.

>you're a christfag blablabla
Nope, I'm an atheist. I believe that a buddhist japanese will, on average, fare much better in life than a christian african (once again, due to genetic differences)

>europe is "objectively" better than america.
Lol! As a frenchfag this makes me smile.

It's true that europe is better for low IQ people, but it's far worse for high IQ people.

>i shut down any attempts to ask questions

What attempts? All you do is strawman and make wild claims without any evidence.

>earth is round assumption
I agree with you, assuming something does not make it real. What I was trying to illustrate was that assume something does not necessarily make it wrong either.

I'm anxiousmy waiting for your evidence which shows how janitors are totally as smart as nuclear phycisists ( on average)

>>7030272
You come off as a butthurt prole

Enjoy your poverty, faggot

lol you dumb faggot. You're job is to take the millions of excess dollars amassed by greedy people and game the stock market to make the rich richer... and they cut you a tiny slice of the profits. hahahhahahahahhahahaha. and this stuck up faggot is in the thread about the very problem he is a central player in.

I hope you get knifed by one of the hobos you walk by on your way to work every day, faggot.

>>7030052
Actual answer:

Some jobs are more "valuable" than others, because there is higher demand (people value their services more) and lower supply (fewer people have the ability or training to do it). Generally, the more difficult or training-intensive a job is, the more workers will charge for it: After all, if it paid just as well as an easier job, there'd be little reason to spend your time doing it.

This means that some people necessarily get paid more than others.

This disparity expands further because you can use your money to make more money: You can save it, invest it, or even start your own business. The more money you have, the more you can get out of it, and the more wealth you have the easier this is to do because you can afford to risk losing some of it.

Furthermore, people can get lucky or unlucky when investing their money.

>>7030294
I have also studied physics, so your wacky political beliefs are not at all surprising to me.

If you go back and read carefully, you'll see that I never actually made a positive claim about anything but your unwillingness to consider alternatives to free-market economics because you've bought into a ridiculous non-scientific worldview. Congratulations, you're free of traditional religious beliefs, but being an objectivist or whatever isn't much of an improvement.

If you're so interested in science, I shouldn't have to find the ten thousand sources that discredit IQ tests in general, and using them to show a link between genetics and economics in particular. You might as well use phrenology, and you should know that.

Let's be honest guys, all this reasons posted have SOME truth given to them.


But at the core of it, we are talking about people and economics here. We can approach OP's question from an economic standpoint, which is great, or a psychological one, which is just about a bit more controversial.

But, back to economics, surely, there are different sets of poor people; people born poor, people that were once rich but are now poor, people that can't work because of some incapacitating disease (either physical or mental), or people that are "lazy" (whatever that means).

There are also a lot of rich people: those that were born rich, those that worked to become rich, those that inherited money, etc etc.

How can one theory explain all of these different scenarios? Especially since for some of them, the principle events were out of their control.

>>7030322
You answered your own question: everyone is in their own situation for their own reasons. You don't need an umbrella theory for that.

The real question that economists don't ask enough is how do we make everyone better off?

>>7030322
>How can one theory explain all of these different scenarios? Especially since for some of them, the principle events were out of their control.

This is essentially correct. I would only add that we should be considering this issue from the standpoint of "What will lead to the greatest success and progress for our civilization in the long run?"

We cannot tell who will make great contributions to our society. That's why we should be trying to ensure that everyone has economic and educational opportunities. As we get better at automating labor, we should even be considering simply providing everyone with the means for subsistence living so that they can focus on their talents. We should build communities of practice and inquiry so that people feel motivated to contribute again instead of crushed beneath the wheel.

When we make our economies a winner-take-all darwinian contest of moral virtue rather than an engine driving progress, these chest-beating claims of individual superiority will eventually become irrelevant. What we are actually doing is breaking the spirit of a large majority of humanity. It will end in violence, revolution, and the collapse of Western civilization. In the long run, we aren't glorifying ourselves for our accomplishments, we are making sure there will be nobody left to remember them.

>>7030367

/thread

there's a top down understanding, and a bottom up understanding

one is true

there are much fewer means to produce than there are people. these few means to produce are controlled by few people. a large amount of people do not control a means to produce. this large amount of people can't all be equitably employed, and frankly, the environment within which to trade is better suited toward investment and growth when not everyone is employed. it keeps the cost of producing in check by keeping the cost of laboring in check. because this large mass of people have to eat and have shelter, they must enter into competition against others to labor for the few who control a means to produce, and they must strike a bargain and work for those who own a means to produce. they're at a significant disadvantage in negotiating wages, because the labor pool - the people who don't control a means to produce - is so large. so the people who own a means to produce are constantly collecting profit, interest, and rent, and the laborers are collecting a small fraction of the revenue.

this is why wealth inequality and income inequality will not ever be solved as long as there aren't a means to produce for every single person, or unless every single person controls all the means to produce

>>7030272
>>7030283

back

the problem with your logic here is that u assume i am a normal healthy human being. and i am not. i was in fact addicted to 4chan in high school and i never lost the habit although i am in fact an ibanker now.

anyways, i have a masters in financial economics and i have solved and calibrated models in financial econometrics, dynamic macroeconomics, and asset pricing so i am 99pct sure i have more of an idea what im talking about here than you. why are you so defensive friendo? this doesn't have to be about me...we should actually just talk about economics. i don't know what your specialty or hobby is but tbh i'd love to hear about it in a different context, so why don't you have some respect in this conversation?

>>7030463
Yes, but all this means is that we do not need to devote our entire population to the production of wealth. Producing wealth is not our only reason for existing, and it is supremely wasteful to force everyone serve the economy or be lumped in with the "genetic mistakes" (who will, I can only assume based on the shocking beliefs of many of you crazy internet fellows, simply be gunned down in the future).

The production of tangible goods and services should be only one sector of a healthy economy. A minority of the population can produce enough for all if we could only get it through our primitive animal brains that surplus production should be shared with everyone. I mean, for fuck's sake, do researchers complain when the benefits of their research are shared with everyone for the benefit of all? Hell no. It's only the douchebags involved in large-scale businesses who live in Ayn Rand fantasy land that complain when their work is used to help everyone instead of only enriching themselves.

If you're too selfish to live in a world of wealth redistribution, then go move to a fucking desert island, because we don't need your shit. I don't care how much of a genius you think you are - we'll be just fine without you. Stop threatening to pack up and leave and just fucking do it.

Lack of drive, intellegence or long term planning.. add in poor decision making by themselves or their forebears and the fact most people want to be told what to do and not take responseablity themselves

>>7030059

>Because some people have higher IQ than others.

At best that only explains the linear mechanics not non-liner mechanics for economic theory and even then it assumes a perfect system is employed.

I.E. two kids go to school one gets high marks because he has a high IQ the other gets mediocre/low marks because he has a low IQ. This continues until graduation where the high IQ kid gets a free-ride to havard because he aced the SAT and goes into law. The low IQ kid does sub-par on the SAT, has to get a loan and goes to a community college for nursing.

In this "linear" scenario it makes sense how IQ explains the economic theory. But the problem is we don't live in a perfect system. Most of the wealth that's been created is from "non-linear" scenarios where IQ only explains part of the reason and not the whole reason.

This is where I suspect op is trying to go towards in their question. What are the other parts involved? How do the individuals in our society that don't follow through the perfect/linear system achieve wealth or not achieve wealth?

If IQ explains the linear what explains the non-linear? Random chance maybe? A series of unfulfilled niches in society maybe? Some form of limited determinism where events that happened centuries and thousands of years ago set the foundations for the winners of today maybe?

I like to know too, though I have my guesses the unfulfilled niche and determinism possibly.

>>7030181
>Capitalism has provided much better results than socialism

Depends how you define both capitalism/socialism and results.
The American government at times has been pretty socialist - all those big road building programs and moon launches.
Also the Nordic countries claim to be socialist and they have better results in terms of human health and happiness than the US.

>>7030190
One example that happens in the UK to a lot of people is the following:
Your house earns more than you.
Meaning the value of the asset increases faster than you're earning.

>tfw you realize that socialism/communism doesn't work
Now what am I suppose to believe in? Libertarianism? Anarcho-Capitalismreligion?

>>7030610
A hybrid system?

>>7030642
If you make a measurement that tells you that system A is better than system B, I don't see why you'd assume that the average of the two should be best.

System-wide economic experiments are colossally expensive, so we can't afford to do more than necessary to determine the optimal system. Our "experiments" of the 19th and 20th centuries points toward the rule "more free market is better." Given that data, to assume that the correct solution is "less free market than we have now" could only be supported by an extremely skewed prior, biased heavily against free market capitalism and heavily in favor of a system in which the state has power.

>>7030203
note the ibanker douche never contested the main point that there is more debt than could possibly be paid off. he merely states that this systematic butt fucking of some % of people is a good thing because then the rich can continue to invest in things and increase their own wealth. He then derails the thread about how great and smart he is.

>>7030692
Except of course that some of the hybrid systems that do exist, namely Scandinavia's "third way" have been hugely successful for the past century, with some of the highest standards of living, lucrative business/labor relations, and Swedon was the only country not to be affected by the recession.

Your point is silly. How is going "let's do the opposite!" any less of an economic experiment than "let's do something in the middle."?

>>7030480
So you're specialized in microeconomics, no? How can you take that and make claims about what is morally best for society as a whole?

>>7030708
True, but he did unintentionally answer our original question:

>why are some people rich and some people poor?

Now we know.

>>7030743
>Except of course that some of the hybrid systems that do exist, namely Scandinavia's "third way" have been hugely successful for the past century, with some of the highest standards of living, lucrative business/labor relations, and Swedon was the only country not to be affected by the recession.

All of your assertions are false. You have nothing to back them up. I mean,

>Swedon was the only country not to be affected by the recession.

How retarded do you have to be to write these words?

>>7030786
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/five-economic-lessons-from-sweden-the-rock-star-of-the-recovery/2011/06/21/AGyuJ3iH_story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
>norway #1
>denmark #10
>sweden #12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltsj%C3%B6baden_Agreement

I'm not sure what your point here is. How is being consistently ranked in the top tier of standard of living not an indicator of the success of a country? I'm really not getting why you think everything I said was so blatantly false. These countries have very mixed economies and are doing, by almost every standard, very well economically. What is problem do you have with this fact? I wasn't saying they were the best, I was saying they work. And they do.

>>7030692
However it is not a binary black or white system. You will not find a pure capitalist or pure socialist system anywhere in the world so the data is not good.

>>7030802
This. The only person I'm aware of who advocated for pure capitalism, anyway, was Ayn Rand. It's essentially a form of anarchy. Even Adam Smith and Hayek thought the government had to come in at some point.

I'd imagine it's similar on the left side of things. Just from a feasibility standpoint, a 100% controlled economy is impossible as there will always be local markets and such.

>>7030052
>why are some people rich and some people poor?

the vast majority of people don't actually value wealth.
they value comfort.
they value relationships.
they value entertainment.

a tiny percentage of people value wealth over all of these things. these are the people who manage to acquire wealth more than other people.


also, stop thinking about society in terms of individuals and start thinking in terms of families. then wealth inequality becomes pretty much self-explanatory.

>>7030819
This. Leisure (in the very broad sense) is more important than consumption at some point for everybody. (few people are willing to work 70 hours a week just to make a lot of cash.) Some people, namely wealth-seeking entrepreneurs, value consumption far more than leisure most of the time. So they work harder for it. But that's soooo over-simplified and really only works in a model that assumes all people start at the same level and there are no barriers like IQ and personality type, etc. But you get the point.

Oxfam last report on world wealth inequality.
the top 1% owns most of ressources

>>7030834
they actually said something like "by 2016 the top 1% wealthiest people in the world will own more wealth than the bottom 99%"

which isn't sustainable, and social unrest is a guarantee

redistribution is an inevitability, our only questions are "what kind?" and "how do we want to do it?"

the longer the powers that be ignore the problems or kick this can down the road, the more we can guess things are going to get ugly

marx may end up being right after all

>>7030210
Do you have any education in genetics at all?

>>7030856
>which isn't sustainable
[citation needed]


>social unrest is a guarantee
true, though usually due to religious/ethnic tension, not money.

>redistribution is an inevitability
do you think endlessly repeating your marxist mantra makes it more true?
commies have been talking about how their way is inevitable, how capitalists are on the wrong side of history and how the soviets will bury the americans for decades. we know how that turned out.


'redistribution' - the word alone shows their lack of understanding of reality. wealth is not 'distributed' by some kind of entity. wealth is created and traded between individuals. 'redistribution' is just newspeak for organized theft.

>>7030221
they do. Self control is a better predictor of success than IQ. Doesn't change the fact that IQ is a predictor

>>7030874
>'redistribution' - the word alone shows their lack of understanding of reality. wealth is not 'distributed' by some kind of entity. wealth is created and traded between individuals. 'redistribution' is just newspeak for organized theft.
I mean, land reform is a cyclic thing in history...

>>7030059
>>7030527
>high IQ means people are putting in the effort needed to succeed

Are people really this retarded?

>>7030897
high IQ just means you need less effort.

>>7030896
[citation needed]

>>7030874

It is sad to think that even after the world explodes into the chaos of anarchic violence, erasing thousands of years of progress, people like you will still not realize how wrong you were. It will still always be the fault of the non-believers.

>>7030913
since the worst events considered chaos and anarchic violence (from the french revolution to that in russia, from mao in china to the khmer rouge in cambodia) were brought about by leftist revolutionary forces in favor of 'redistribution', i'm pretty sure that it won't be the proponents of freedom and voluntary transactions who bring about the downfall of civilization. no, it'll be the same people who have campaigned for violent upheaval for hundreds of years now. the same people responsible for the terreur in france, the atrocities in cambodia, the holodomor in russia/ukraine, and the great famine in china.

and as always, it will all be in the name of 'progress', of 'social justice'. and again it will be the 'global financial elite', the 'unreformed kulaks' or the 'reactionary sabotagers' who you blame for it, right?

Hey guys!

The direction known as "Up," is actually Down!

>>7030909
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country
The gracchi brothers.
Solon.
I forget who did it in Egypt.
It was a thing in Babylon and Sumer.
Rich people tend to accumulate all the shit, because they start off with more shit, so they can either share or get lynched.

The rich people have more money than the poor people, you see.

>>7030052
Mainstream economic theory is based on neoclassical economics, but takes into account certain market frictions and externalities. However, since it is based on neoclassical theory, it is considered approximately true that people are rich or poor to the extent that they generate value for others (or were born with money).

For example, a person who works in a McDonalds does not create as much values as a computer programmer.

So the key question is why some people generate more value than others. There are many reasons. Some people lack the education to contribute as much as they might (and lack the money to get education). Some people are less capable or intelligent.

In addition to this there is a lot of randomness in the world in general, so of two identical people one might get lucky. This is especially true for entrepreneurs.

>>7030930
Well, people like you will never allow sensible reform to occur when it is logical and appropriate. You absolutely refuse to recognize the long-term instability of unregulated capitalist systems with the blind faith of a fundamentalist fanatic. You suppress dissent and keep the citizenry fighting each other so that they don't organize - until the whole thing explodes. Then it's anger and bloodshed and purges.

Plenty of people have made good suggestions about how to preserve a sensible capitalist system within a broader society that is beneficial to all yet retains rewards for the economically productive. But that will never satisfy you.

No, you make a revolution of the oppressed inevitable. The cycle turns again. Only this time I'm not so sure Western civilization will survive the upheaval.

>>7030988
I don't have a horse in this fight, but dude, you sound like a fucking child.

"I bought stuff from you and now I'm gonna burn shit down if you don't give me my money back. But I get to keep all the cool shit I bought! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH"

Cause that's what you are basically saying. The Waltons bought shoes from china, you bought the shoes from the Waltons. and now you want to keep those shoes, but the Waltons need to give back the money. Because.....you'll throw a tantrum otherwise. Basically.

>>7030988
>You suppress dissent
>you make a revolution of the oppressed inevitable

we dont 'suppress'. we dont 'make' anyone do anything.
the only thing we demand is that you don't take our property by force. the only thing we demand is that you dont steal and rob. apparently, asking you to not commit violent crime is too much?

>>7030988
You are posting on a virtual message board using a technologically miraculous machine from inside a climate controlled domicile with temperature regulated running water and 24/7 cheap electricity. You have the right to say whatever you want and do pretty much anything you want without fear of government intervention. So oppressed, you are.

>>7031001
>I don't have a horse in this fight, but dude, you sound like a fucking child.

.....yeah

Well, it's starting to become fairly clear in both economic thought and in just looking around within the society of the modern United States that a concentration of wealth can purchase political power to further accelerate the concentration of wealth. That's the runaway process that ends in starvation and revolution.
It's not greedy hipsters that are going to start tearing everything down, it's the ordinary working poor who can no longer work enough to feed their families. You think they will just lie down and starve? They don't all want to be rich as Croesus, they just want to be able to live like human beings in exchange for contributing to society.

If you think about it just for a second, you'll realize that the children are the followers of Ayn Rand, that is:

>>7031001
>>7031005
>>7031008

who say "this is mine and I don't care what you say!" Your petty emotional states won't allow you to recognize that everyone would be better off through the redistribution of wealth. We might be able to avoid catastrophe and, furthermore, increase the ability of everyone to contribute to a successful society.

Because in the thing that really matters is whether humanity will survive and prosper over the next century, the next millenium. What do your feelings of "fairness" or your beliefs in "the virtue of selfishness" matter in comparison?

>>7031022
>followers of Ayn Rand
Yeah the concept of trade and wealth all started with her. You haven't been brainwashed by anyone. Right.....

>this is mine and I don't care what you say
Well, you gave them that money voluntarily, so it is theirs. No matter what you say....

>better off through the redistribution of wealth
Using euphemism shows that you can't face your own beliefs head-on. That's a pussy-out phrase. You mean that we would be better off if we took things from other people at gunpoint. Theft. Robbery. Do things for me for free or I kill you. Say it. It's what you believe. Admit it to yourself.

Communism works great until you apply it to humans.

>>7031041
>Yeah the concept of trade and wealth all started with her.

Of course not. This may surprise you, but the critics of capitalism often know quite a bit about it. The difference between Ayn Rand, who I might be generous in calling a thinker, and virtually every other economic scholar is that she believes that an entirely free-market system will necessarily lead to utopian social outcomes (for all but the takers, who must be cleaned from the Earth I suppose) and moral virtue for all. Nobody else thinks that. Even Adam Smith believed that an entirely deregulated free market would run into severe long-term difficulties instigated by the business leaders themselves.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/09/adam-smith-vs-crony-capitalism

I mean, seriously, show me serious economists who argue that the operations of the free market themselves automatically guarantee maximized social utility. No non-crazy person would say that.

>Well, you gave them that money voluntarily, so it is theirs. No matter what you say....

Again, I know that you will insist that this is true and will stubbornly refuse to even consider alternative lines of thinking - even after our civilization burns to the ground down around us. What else would I expect from a zealot?

>Using euphemism shows that you can't face your own beliefs head-on. That's a pussy-out phrase.

I don't know what you're talking about, truly. I've made definite claims. I've tried to explain the thinking behind my claims. Meanwhile, your response has been "fuck you" and "that's not fair" and "I'm not going to listen, Ayn Rand knows better than you". So which of us is refusing to confront his beliefs?

>>7030070
Miley is a product being sold by people smarter than us.

>>7030052
The answer in a broad sense is simply 'variables'.
There are a fuckload of variables in life.

>>7031022
>who say "this is mine and I don't care what you say!" Your petty emotional states won't allow you to recognize that everyone would be better off through the redistribution of wealth.

sure, i'm totally going to be better off after you take away my property at gunpoint and give it to some junkie in the streets so he can shoot up more heroin. totally makes sense.

>>7031062
>I mean, seriously, show me serious economists who argue that the operations of the free market themselves automatically guarantee maximized social utility. No non-crazy person would say that.

define "social utility"
free markets maximize efficiency of production. that's it.

you call the idea of free people making their own decisions "emotional" and "dogmatic"? and you argue that forcing YOUR ideas upon them instead is the morally superior way?
don't you see the hypocrisy?

>>7031062
>I don't know what you're talking about, truly.
he's referring to you saying things like
>redistribution will benefit all of us!
when your redistribution actually boils down to
>give me the money you earned, i'll give it to people i like better than you! if you refuse i shoot you!

>>7031085
>free markets maximize efficiency of production. that's it.

Yes, that is precisely my point. In particular, they do not ensure the optimal outcome for individuals or for society as a whole.

>you call the idea of free people making their own decisions "emotional" and "dogmatic"? and you argue that forcing YOUR ideas upon them instead is the morally superior way?
don't you see the hypocrisy?

Ownership of ideas is immaterial (although you might disagree - ownership seems to be the only social construct you're aware of). If an idea leads to a more successful society, I would choose it whether or not I had argued for it before. And I do not claim that free people are emotional and dogmatic; I claim that the objectivists in this thread are being emotional and dogmatic in their arguments, and are refusing to recognize the impending economic crisis that is staring us directly in the face.

How about this. If you prefer, think of highly progressive income taxes as use charges for utilizing human knowledge accumulated over centuries and infrastructure passed down from previous generations in the production of the wealth leading to very high incomes. Does that satisfy you? Or should the rich be able to use the all these results of human labor and intellect for free? Do you claim that only the work of the billionaire is valuable as evidenced by the fact that he has all of the money?

>>7031079
>sure, i'm totally going to be better off after you take away my property at gunpoint and give it to some junkie in the streets so he can shoot up more heroin. totally makes sense.

This is your conception of a civilized person's responsibilities to the community in which he lives. It's no wonder the West and in particular the United States is in decline.

>>7031062
>she believes that an entirely free-market system will necessarily lead to utopian social outcomes
>Even Adam Smith believed that an entirely deregulated free market would run into severe long-term difficulties instigated by the business leaders themselves.
>http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/09/adam-smith-vs-crony-capitalism

Uh.. not sure what you're saying here. Ayn Rand recognized the threat of Crony Capitalism... that's why she wanted extremely limited government with little to no avenues for rent seeking behavior.

Also, she absolutely did not claim that a free market system would "necessarily lead to utopian social outcomes and moral virtue for all". She spoke of higher 'social' benefits compared to other economic systems as a side effect barely worth mentioning. She wasn't concerned with utopia or the well being of the collective. She simply wanted a system wherein the intelligent/inventive and hardworking could be free to pursue their endeavors and own the fruits of their labor.

Not an Ayn Randian by the way... but I've read collections of her essays.

>>7031085
Anon, not even Adam fucking Smith thought the market answered all problems.

Even Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, the patron saints strict laissez-faire economics believed that the government had to interact to fix market failures. They even advocated for a reverse income tax which would give money to the poor--implemented by the government.

Any economic thinkers who go even further than those three are fringe. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but it means a whooooole lot of folks think they are--including the vast majority of economists.

>>7031106
>should the rich be able to use the all these results of human labor and intellect for free?

of course. everybody is.
knowledge that is free, must remain free.


>Do you claim that only the work of the billionaire is valuable as evidenced by the fact that he has all of the money?
what is valuable is not up to you or me to decide. i dont think an actor or artist is worth millions of dollars, yet others do and are willing to pay that much.
who are you to tell the billionaire that he does not deserve the money that millions of people have voluntarily given to him?

>>7030937
Friendly reminder that land reform is a thing.
Either the rich share, or poor people kill them.

>>7031085
Tell me, because i'm interested. Most supply-side economists argue that the government HAS to step in to prevent trusts and monopolies, as well as fix market failures. It's blatantly obvious to even the more conservative economists that while the market can account for most needs naturally, there are several situations which it cannot. Particularly any market that requires large amounts of capital to enter. (you try starting a cable company and see how far that gets you), so my I ask you what you think about this? Do you concede that the market does have a role in trust-busting, at the very least, and helping out in situations when the market simply does not fix the problem? (i'm thinking infrastructure here, as have all mainstream economists)

>>7031101

You are refusing to see this from any other standpoint than "taxes are the government robbing me". My only interest is in designing a society that is stable, will allow people to contribute and thrive, and has a promising future. That just isn't free-market capitalism at all. It doesn't play out that way. You can curse the evil parasites all you want, but we would all do much better by contributing to our communities and working together.

>>7031112
the west is in decline precisely BECAUSE we waste a tremendous amount of wealth on useless human garbage that will never return any of it.
the west is in decline precisely BECAUSE we allow the state to take away from those who produce and give to those who do not provide any value in return.

>>7031123
>voluntarily given to him
Not that anon, but it seems to me that your ideology here depends on something infamous in economics: assumption. I think you give people far too much credit. You seem to assume they have perfect knowledge of what they're doing. In fact, that assumption is what girders a lot of the economic models that support your claims.

You and many other objectivity also seem to believe that nearly all goods are perfectly flexible, as if when anyone doesn't like x business, they can vote with their dollar and go somewhere else. That's simply not true. Very few, if any goods are perfectly flexible. And plenty of goods are VERY inflexible, where the consumer must take whatever price is givven by whoever owns the monopoly of the good and accept it.

>>7031116
Yes, I am aware, which leads to what I think is the most naive unstated assumption of this whole philosophical system of life, the universe, and everything. After we let our free market run for a while and we get the kind of wealth accumulation we see in our present economy, you assume that, in a total political vacuum, the rich won't start dividing up territories and declaring themselves kings. A brief survey of world history would show you that this is precisely what happens when individuals gain large amounts of power within a nation without any central political authority.

>>7031133
>You are refusing to see this from any other standpoint than "taxes are the government robbing me".

no my friend. taxes are necessary because government is necessary. certain tasks require public funding: law enforcement and national security.
what is NOT necessary is the government forcing working people to feed a bunch of lowlifes who won't return the favor, ever.

i am perfectly fine with paying taxes that fund the police and the military. because i know that without law, there would be anarchy.

i am not fine with paying taxes that fund tyrones meth habit and shaniquas five children. these people have no value to society, and we would be better off without them. paying for their living expenses is a waste of resources.

>>7031134
But anon. History doesn't back that up. We peaked in terms of applying Keynesian economics half a decade ago. The tax rate in the 50s on the top .1% was literally in the 90% range. In the UK, the state-run pension program was running at full capacity.

Since the 70s we've been moving more toward what you're advocating. In fact, the only countries I can think of that hasn't at least partially abandoned the type of economic policy you find so destructive are the scandanavian countries, and Sweden came out of hte recession better than any other developed nation.

You can make your arguments, but there's absolutely no evidence to support them. The middle class has long been the economic engine of a society. The upper class has long been the group that hordes their money instead of pumping it back in.

>>7031134
That's empty rhetoric not supported by evidence.

>>7031134
And so the only cure for the patient is what's killing him in the first place.

Tell me, do you honestly think that the 21st-century United States is one step removed from communism or something? That there is some vast socialist regime funneling money to a class of nouveau poor that sit around sipping champagne, laughing at all the hard working Americans out there?

I mean, of course you would have to think that. There's no way you'll recognize that the social problems we face are caused by how we have thoughtlessly allowed capitalism to run away with our society.

I mean, honestly guy, look at the wealth distribution in the United States. Only enough money is being given to the poor to prevent them from starving and rioting.

>>7031135
>assumption
assumtion of innocence is fundamental to the rule of law.
so unless you explicitly talk about someone like al capone or other organized criminals, you're talking about people who have earned their wealth as law-abiding citizens. aka others have given to them voluntarily in exchange for goods or services.

>>7031140
>Muh welfare niggers!
Anon, the programs we refer to as "welfare" are actually extremely limited. TANF, the one we most commonly site, gives a monthly check to poor PARENTS and has a 5-year lifetime maximum. Once your time is up, you're off. Period. The other major program, food stamps, is limitless, but gives only about 200 dollars worth of food a month, and can only be used selectively. So if you're jobless and have only food stamps, you're certainly not going to be able to live anywhere with that. The US welfare program isn't this blanket where everyone jumps down and gets a nice government check to live off of for the rest of their lives like you folks seem to think it is, and most people who get on TANF or food stamps get off of it in a few months time as they find jobs.

>>7031138
>>7031138
Agreed. That's what I can't stand about "anarcho capitalism". Without a strong central government from the start, what's to stop the slow creep of serfdom and marauding hordes? People get so tied up in theory that they forget the human element, which is extra-legal.

>>7031140
>what is NOT necessary is the government forcing working people to feed a bunch of lowlifes who won't return the favor, ever.

>i am not fine with paying taxes that fund tyrones meth habit and shaniquas five children. these people have no value to society

What all of these anti-redistribution posters have in common, I'm sure we notice, is a fundamental hatred of an entire class of their fellow countrymen. An assumption that there is an entire subhuman class of person out there which we would do well to exterminate.

This is the thinking that is being nurtured by reactionary right-wing fantasies about how the world works. Not only is our present course dangerous, but this type of hatred leads to an entire other class of problems, as the 20th century showed.

>>7031140
There's also infrastructure creation and maintenance, schooling, enforcement of industry regulations and contracts, healthcare, and so on. Even when it comes to welfare, it's usually a temporary measure which functions to stabilize the market and increase the productivity of society in the long term. While it's true that there may be people who never 'pay it back', they're the minority exception, and overall the benefits far outweigh any harm they do.

>>7031156
i know it isn't like this. but this is exactly what you're advocating with your 'redistribution' - take from those who earn, give to those who don't.
take from workers and investors, give to junkies, criminals, alcoholics, and related lowlife scum.

>>7030052
Because a flat share of collective resources provides no economic incentive for competitive production, full automation of production isn't/may-never-be possible, and populations usually increase as a function of available resources

Also globally, and locally in large economies, wages have not kept pace with production and capital is the best means of accruing wealth.

>>7030874
history is not your friend, i see

>>7031154
What hte hell are you talking about nigger? I'm picking out VERY specific assumptions that your idea that "markets fix everything" makes: 1. that the consumer has perfect knowledge of the goods they are consuming and 2. that the goods are highly flexible and therefore a consumer can simply choose a different firm if they're not happy with the one they're using.

I have no idea what the fuck you're rambling on about with your assumption of innocence. I'm saying that those two assumptions are blatantly false, and therefore the models they're based on are highly flawed--a fact that the economists who created them are fully aware of and therefore do not advise using them to govern a fucking country without realizing the realities of market imperfections.

You refuse to accept those realities, however, and so I have no further desire to speak with you.

>>7031154
What does that have to do with anything?

>>7031156
Absolutely this. People who think we've been taken over by socialism have no conception of how small transfer payments and aid are in this country. And the vast majority of that money goes to retirees who paid into the system, and the working poor, who are being crushed into poverty by the current economic climate. We've all read about how programs for the poor have been subsidizing Wal-Mart by keeping its workers alive.

>>7031165
I'm not advocating for anything of hte like. In fact, I personally advocate for social democracy, in which we pump more money into the middle class than any other group. Sweden, for instance, spends less relative to its GDP on "welfare" than the United States does. All of its social spending goes to childcare, retirement, healthcare, social insurance, education, etc to the middle class.

>>7031163
go visit your local 'hood'. every bigger city has one.
go watch these 'poor working class people' you seem to love so much. go watch them inject in dark alleys, go watch them down a bottle of gin at 10AM. go watch them beat their kids and smoke crack.

there is no need to 'exterminate' any of them. just leave them to their own devices, and the problem will be fixed within a year.
the constant stream of money that we give to them is what enables this lifestyle. stop that, and the problem fixes itself.

>>7031179
>and the problem fixes itself
But not before the crime rate explodes

Need to arm the middle class first

>>7031179
Actually, anon, I did go to the hood. Over the summer I had an internship at a non-profit which involved talking to people on the street. And so i did that for 3 months. And yeah, there were some sketchy, shitty people. But for every one of those, I spoke with no less than 3 people who were working. Some had two jobs and still couldn't make ends meet. The vast majority, however, asked me how I got the job and if they were hiring. The crack heads were shit. But they were few. it seems to me that YOU, anon, are the one who hasn't been to the hood. At least not really. You've clearly never stopped and spoken to the people in it, at least.

Look at it this way. 100 years ago, downtown had industry. It's where everybody worked. Poor immigrants and former slaves flocked to industrial cities to work decent-paying jobs in factories. Their families stayed there and did the same. About 40 years ago, those jobs started leaving. Instead, new jobs started popping up: service industry jobs. The service industry jobs aren't located in the hood. They're in the suburbs. So you're a poor family in the hood and you need a job. You don't have a car, and without a job you can't afford to buy one. So how do you get out to your job in teh suburbs? The bus? You mean the public transit system that is unreliable at its best and non-existent do to budget cuts at its worst?

It's not as fucking easy as you make it seem. These are real people, and only a minority are what you make them out to be. You are shit.

>>7031185
of course, adequate police presence to crack down on criminal activity is to be provided. protection from crime is one of the core responsibilities of the state, after all.

>>7031179
It seems like you're just talking out of your ass. Not to say that some people like that don't exist, but you're overstating their influence and population, and statements like "within a year" seem to be based on nothing but your own imagination.

>>7031179
Of course, this is all assuming that you're one of the virtuous John Galts and not one of the "parasites" who cannot feed himself. I'm certain that once automation puts you out of a job and you're not able to find work you'll change your tune quickly.

Killing off a whole population is fine with you unless you're one of them, huh?

>>7031187

>You are shit.

That pretty much sums up the objectivist loonies in this tread. I kinda wish they'd fuck off to Galt's Gulch and let us institute the reforms needed to fix this screwed-up post-capitalist rustbucket of a country.

>>7031187
>for every one of those, I spoke with no less than 3 people who were working

oh wow, just 25% crackheads. totally alright.


>it seems to me that YOU, anon, are the one who hasn't been to the hood
not to your american ones, since i live in germany. been to the equivalent here, though. areas where more than half of the people are muslims who dont even speak proper german. areas where the police only go in body armor because they deem it too dangerous otherwise. areas where crime and drug use are so persistent that people don't even bother hiding it anymore.
all financed by glorious social programs. rent assistance, public health care, transfer payments, public housing programs. all so we can have these nice people who don't speak our language live here, take drugs, and mug people for a living. very nice.

>>7031192
>Killing off a whole population

i literally said "no need to kill anybody", so where are you taking that from?
oh right - refusing to feed a bunch of people for years without getting anything in return equals killing them off in your eyes, huh?

>>7031195
At this point it's obvious you're speaking based on emotional anecdotes rather than statistical data, expert analysis, or anything else remotely worthwhile.

>>7031195
>German
>claims Germany is infested with a subhuman cultural group
>thinks they should be segregated into small areas and starved so they problem will "take care of itself"

Yeah, totally, this couldn't go wrong at all. Good thinking, you.

>>7031195
>25% crackheads
I'll admit that I did make that ambiguous. 25% was referring to the people who weren't so nice to interact with, as in "sketchy". Many of them were just annoying, or smelled bad, etc. A lot were mentally ill, as is common in the ghetto since the US no longer has extensive mental health programs. Many were veterans with PTSD, etc. I don't like talking to those people for obvious reasons.

The crackheads, as I said, were few. I probably saw 4 total. Two were a white couple who asked me if I had any crack when I was talking to people at a bus stop, the other two were just random encounters. They could have been schizophrenic, I suppose.

But I digress. That was my bad for not making it clearer.

>all so we can have these nice people who don't speak our language live here
aaaaaand there it is. Good ol' fashion German xenophobia. Fuck those Turks! eh?

>>7031204
and this is different from your "all these hoodrats i met were totally cool people who work hard!" anectode how?

>>7030052
Because we are over specialized and nobody bothers to stop and think about how the parts interconnect.

To make matters worse we are not just disconnected by markets or departments, but in all aspects, even time. This creates so much confusion and inefficiency that a few can exploit it to get rich while everyone else is left so ill informed they hurt themselves with no real alternative.

Who makes things/performs services so they can make money?
That is a much harder question now then ever before.

>>7031196
What did you mean by "the problem takes care of itself" then? You mean that you let them starve.

>>7031214
Oh anon. Now you're assuming there's only one person you're fighting with and not like 4 of us.

>>7031196
If someone starves because you refused to feed them then arguably you are responsible for killing them. That's not the point though; not many people stay on welfare for very long. Eventually they enter the workforce, and in the meanwhile keeping them in working condition ensures they will be available for the labour force later and helps keep the grocers etc in their neighbourhoods in business in the meanwhile. It's not just an issue of 'being nice', it's a practical approach to running an economy.

>>7031211
>>7031207
>what? you dont want to accept and feed hundreds of thousands of foreign criminals in your cities? you evil nazi!

>>7031225
That's where it starts. Come on, you don't see any obvious parallels? I'm just saying you've already tried the genocide route - how about you try a different, smarter solution this time?

>>7031224
>If someone starves because you refused to feed them then arguably you are responsible for killing them.

you don't even see the fun huh?
>feed some methhead for years
>he keeps doing meth and asking for money
>finally refuse to give him money
>he dies
>WOW YOU EVIL MURDERER YOU DIDNT HELP HIM!

>>7031225
>i bet if i use hyperbole everyone will realize i'm right!

>>7031232
remove kebab
not kill
remove
very different
more effective

>>7031241
Totally different. Totally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

"Huh. Turns out it's impractical to transport an entire population and drop them off in the middle of nowhere. Oh well, guess we have no choice but to gas them now."

>>7031236
Anyone with a Christian or humanitarian moral system (and I assume most others) would indeed view "watching someone die without helping them when you easily could" as murder. And, in fact, in some cases such a thing would be a crime. And since most people in the west have some combination of the two as their moral system, yes. It's not an absurd thing to say. You're the minority for thinking it's okay to let people starve.

Oh look. Another discussion with a german degrades into ranting about the merits of killing Turks. color me surprised.

>>7031236
Whether you think it's a big deal or not, you still have some responsibility for killing him (or at least not saving him). But very few of the people you want to withdraw support for are actually doing nothing but taking meth for the rest of their lives, so it's a dishonest argument to begin with.

>>7031248
you really don't see it?
>feed methheads for years
>cant stop because muh morals
>more methheads come and demand feeding
>feed them too because muh morals
>more and more keep coming
>more and more demand feeding
>more more more

you cant possibly demand the working people to indefinitely and unconditionally give away their resources for no trade-off at all

>>7031252
there's a billion africans whose economic capability pretty much equals that of a methhead
they're still growing exponentially in numbers
you wanna feed them all with your money and keep doing so until you're broke? be my guest. just don't expect the rest of us to throw away our hard earned cash the same way.

>>7031256
That doesn't actually happen though, and there is an economic benefit.
All your arguments are based on things you imagine and things you feel. It's not very compelling.

>>7031261
>there is an economic benefit
oh please, tell me more about the economic benefit of people who can't read or write properly and are commiting crime on a regular basis

>>7031260
That's not really the same thing, but even if it were I'm not seeing your point.

>>7031262
They learn to read and write, get jobs, and stop committing crimes.

>>7031256
>>7031262

You're making fundamental assumptions about human behavior that aren't really supported--particularly that the behavior exhibited by these people is inherent, and that if they escape the ghetto, they won't change. The Irish and Italians were crime-ridden "scum" as you'd say in the ghettos of American for generations before they rose above it, and now they're just normal "white people".

>>7031260
He's just calling for the world's poor to be starved. A smarter thing to do would be to use the world's wealth to promote cultural, social, and economic development. The first world can barely sustain its own population. Except for the United States, which has created a large third world inside a nominally first world nation.

>>7031264
>I'm not seeing your point

if you provide unconditional, unlimited resources to a population, that population will grow.
the bigger it grows, the more resources you need to pump into it to sustain it.
by doing that, you simply increase the problem in the future, until the population eventually grows so big that you can not sustain it anymore. and THEN you get your violent collapse of society, only now with a much bigger amount of underclass welfare queens who demand their living expenses be paid by others.

>>7031269
>The Irish and Italians were crime-ridden "scum" as you'd say in the ghettos of American for generations before they rose above it, and now they're just normal "white people".

which they did precisely because there was no welfare state. had there been the option of just sitting back and let the welfare state take care of feeding them, they would still dwell in ghettos today.

>>7031281
That's not how social assistance usually works though. It's temporary, pays less than an actual job, and is usually supplemented with job training or the like.

>>7031281
[citation needed]

>>7030266
>I get paid twice as hard as you.

Yep.

>>7031274
Not only is that supposition, it also doesn't describe what's going on in Africa OR the first world.

>>7031289
>That's not how social assistance usually works though

across europe, it literally is.
as long as you claim you're looking for work but not finding any, you get unemployment benefits plus rent money.
they sometimes make you participate in some 'qualification program' or get you a job, but if you just drop out of these and get fired from the job, nothing happens and you get your benefits.

>>7030593
That's because he means (even if he thinks that he means something else) that McCarthy's AmeriKKKa is better than those damned Communist Ruskies!

>>7030819
Families are only one of the kinds of institutions within societies.

>>7030874
>'redistribution' - the word alone shows their lack of understanding of reality. wealth is not 'distributed' by some kind of entity. wealth is created and traded between individuals. 'redistribution' is just newspeak for organized theft.

THIS PIECE OF PAPER SAYS YOU HAVE TO PAY ME TO LIVE HERE.

I DID NOT BUILD THIS HOUSE, BUT THIS PIECE OF PAPER SAYS THAT MEN WITH GUNS WILL KICK YOU OUT BECAUSE I HAVE A PIECE OF FUCKING PAPER!

IF YOU INVALIDATE MY PIECES OF PAPER, YOU ARE STEALING FROM ME!!!!!!!

>>7031063
Hahaha, who actually pays anything for Miley?

>>7031134
>useless human garbage that will never return any of it.
Sounds like most of the salesman-scammer-wall-street-1% that I've ever met.

>>7031300
I'll just say that's an issue of execution rather than concept then.

>>7030059
>slave mentality

>>7030058
underrated comment.

>>7030052
/pol/
econ might have stem size dollar signs, but it still aint /sci/

>>7031314
Yeah, seriously.

>but they're hard-working white folks!

>>7031256
Most of the methheads I've met over the years work a lot of overtime.

>>7031318
economics is a science by the standards of most of society, including the moderators of /sci/.

>>7031324
>science
im talking /sci/, baby boy

if this board were about "science" in anything other than name, the biologyfags wouldnt be so disenfranchised.

furthermore, there is little to no "science" in this thread. i appreciate you having the most cogent response on this page, but this is a /pol/ thread.

>>7031338
that may be, but i'm talking about the technicality of the rules.

>>7031338
Qualitative discussions to find common ground to begin to define quantitative relationships are necessary before you even begin to think about even the most elementary quantitative analysis.

>>7031344
well im talking about the unruliness of the technicality.

>>7031351
>qualitative discussions
>4chan
that shit happens upstream.

>>7031383
>shit

You're swimming in it. 4chan is the sewer of the internet, but there's gold in them thar woods.

>>7031410
The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of (bad / fucked up / nsfl) ideas!

>>7031426
I mean, kinda.

>>7031432
No, I was agreeing. It's time for someone to agree with someone else in this thread.

>>7031364
not even hard.

>>7030874
Please explain what will happen to the living condition of the 99% when the trend of the 1% owning most of the wealth continues. You cannot stretch the money out that thinly to so many people without poverty and eventual famine because of either lack of money or how watered down it will be.

>>7031481
this happens >>7031125

>>7031307
I paid for a house so it is mine.
>NO IT ISN'T!
>YOU JUST HAVE A PIECE OF PAPER! >YOU SHOULD LET ME LIVE THERE EVEN THOUGH I'M JUST AN EDGY, UNEMPLOYED 18 YEAR OLD

>>7031472

I know this is probably a troll but..

>the middle house goes without water

As much shit-flinging as there is I'm this thread, this is definitely the best discussion that I've seen on /sci/ in a while.

>>7031123
>voluntarily given to him
Is this the same kind of "voluntary" of which the workers at Carnegie steel could choose to find well paying work somewhere else without worrying about starving? The fact that monopolies can form and cause dependance to the people who work for and generally depend on them is enough to cause me to doubt this.

>>7031569
yes.

>>7031582
This thread is brought to you by /pol/.
/pol/ where hatred breeds friendship.
I can't find the rainbow graphic.... am sad.

>>7031410
isnt that the truth.
and while we're mixing metaphors: theres a harmony to the dissonance.
as a matter of fact (i know this isnt the place to share it), i met my girlfriend on /b/.
today is our fifth anniversary.

tfw 7 years and still shitposting

>>7031568
It's not hard to fix
Just route the water to the left and inside of the two electricity lines.

>>7031364
What kind of mathematics deals with these kinds of problems? Graph theory?

>>7030079
top kek

>>7031743
>autism theory
kek

>>7031294
>>7030266
>paid twice as hard
>SHUTUPANDTAKEMYMONEY.jpg

>>7031364
didn't say how they needed to connect

>>7031364

tl;dr thread

Actual economist here.

The answer you are seeking is more philosophical than anything.

There will always be poor people because absolute equality cannot exist. Even in the most perfect utopia you could imagine, there will always be some minor difference making people jealous of each other, it could be one more pea on their pea soup, or the other guy's identical home being located closer to the river than mine, but people will always find some minor difference to distinguish each other, thus there will always be poor and rich.

The definition of "poor" also varies depending on time and place. A wealthy Roman Senator would be considered poor nowadays, and while modern third world poor live like shit, their lives are actually better than those of poor European peasants a hundred years ago. An average poor Swiss nowadays would be considered well off in a country like Haiti.

All of this is to say that "poor" and "rich" are relative terms.

We can work to reduce inequality and guarantee more opportunities and an equal footing for everyone. But there will always be "poor" and "rich" as long as those words exist.

>>7031307
>work and save up money for 20 years
>buy house
>along you come and demand to live in my house for free

totally makes sense

>>7032903
>A wealthy Roman Senator would be considered poor nowadays
Not really. Unless you want to claim because he didn't have a car and a refrigerator he was poor. But acres of land, all the horses, slaves, gold and land you want... sounds like a good deal to me.
Do you know how much a talent of gold is?

>>7033062
Apparently it's roughly $660,000 in US

>>7031187
>>7031187
>>7031187
Oh this ignorant little liberal faggot.

They were LYING TO YOU.

Their two jobs were living on welfare and dealing drugs

>>7033062
Agreed. The fella you responded to also implied that rich and poor are purely relative terms then proceeded to make an absolute comparison between resources/buying power/luxuries

>>7032903
>The definition of "poor" also varies depending on time and place.
>A wealthy Roman Senator would be considered poor nowadays,

You have failed to define what rich and poor is within that assumption, but you are making a comparison? If you are wealthy Roman Senator who has gold and you later become someone without gold, then it would be fair to assume that you were rich then poor. Please be clearer in you explanations.

>>7030190
just go

>>7031063
>implying she doesn't still make more than you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNESB3yBCAs

>>7033281
>autism
lol no

>>7033177
>caps lock
>lack of life experience
>being a little cunt
>off topic
this is the kind of person that believes that some people deserve poor living conditions.
this is the kind of person that believes that welfare is a reward and not a mechanism to reduce crime.

>>7032813

magnificent

>>7033177
stop being a fucking american fggt and call american progessive socialsts liberals

>>7033393
Yo, I've worked with black people in the city. He's probably right. There are some good ones. But most of them just don't care.

>Economy.
>Everybody speaking in absolutes terms.
Go back to /pol fucktards.

Some people are fuckers and some people get fucked.

>>7032903
>The definition of "poor" also varies depending on time and place. A wealthy Roman Senator would be considered poor nowadays, and while modern third world poor live like shit, their lives are actually better than those of poor European peasants a hundred years ago.

You may be an economist but you're sure as fuck not a historian.

In reading this thread, I can see why economics is called "the dismal science". is it entirely possible that the solution to the problem is that there is no solution? Perhaps the very nature of humanity prevents the any sort of ideal, optimized society where the greatest number of people are happy and live well.

There's just no solution to the problem.

>>7035040
100% No.

>>7030059
it's not only about higher IQs
but lesser conscience and social behaviour

>>7030059
nope!
it's also about greed and social misbehaviour

>>7030874
>'redistribution' is just newspeak for organized theft.
serves you right for being a greedy fucking kike then doesn't it

>>7030064

Read Marx.

>>7031005
>>7031001
>waa i want to continue being greedy
I'll bet you believe that the starving man enters into "perfectly reasonable and negotiated contracts" for bread and water.

On rope day you will understand just how foolish you have been.

>>7036330
Read Marx.

>>7032903
>wouldn't want to be a wealthy roman senator
ok anon

This is the worst thread on /sci/

>>7036780
Why not just ignore it if you don't like it?

>>7030190
You get a return on your labor when you sell it, i.e. when you work. lrn2econ

>>7030210
Free market systems are usually susceptible to the social attitudes of the people who are in charge of them. Many of the people who have been in charge of global capitalism since its inception in the modern era have been white christian dudes, who represent a stark minority of the global population and, you may have heard, weren't (and oftentimes still aren't) the nicest to their peers of other social strata

>>7036294
don't ZOG conspirators usually accuse jews of being communists? also go back to 420chan's political board or whatever

>>7036840
Why don't you just shut the fuck up?

>>7036881
quality post anon

>>7030052
Labor, price, and demand fluctuate differently at different times giving people different paybacks/deductions on their investments, but government meddling has caused it to fluctuate in such great manners that crashes are bigger, but so are booms. On the flip side, prosperity doesn't last as long.

Just thought this was a suitable quote for this thread.

“Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.

If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.”

>>7030593

We don't claim to be socialist. Our economies are pretty capitalist, but we have some socialist ideologies and values. Happiness is actually not really high here. Comparing to the rest of the world, we have pretty high suicide rates.

>>7037408
but im guessing comparatively low murder/suicide rates

>>7037408
Could that be due to the darkness and the cold?

>>7037484
Why does it list narcotics as assaults?

>>7037500
ass salts
>new super drug

>>7038934
kek

>>7037484
that is interesting but not neccesairly a revealing fact, could you please make a histogram of the day of an interval of ozone. Because if there are a few days in that bar then statistically is not really impresionant

>>7030052
because some people have no skills and are bred from poor, unskilled parents. Some people come from parents who are already sucessful and have the same genes, so they also become sucessful

>>7038998
genes have nothing to do with intelligence.

>>7039097
jew pls go

>>7039107
I'm a jew because I think genes have nothing to do with intelligence?

>>7039113
Either that or you're retarded

>>7039163
so what gene is responsible for intelligence?

>>7039194
there are quite a few of them.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=IQ+gene+intelligence&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C8&as_sdtp=
Here I googled for you. Are you seriously trying to imply that there wouldn't be genes that would cause higher intelligence?

>>7039097
Are there people who seriously believe this?

>>7031266
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, it's that easy?

Kid go watch the 4th season of the wire. You'll see why some cultures simply don't belong in the progressing world.