/sci/ - Science & Math

[Crazy Indian Comp.Scientist No.11981875]

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! SOCIALISM!

[Crazy Indian Comp.Scientist No.11981878]

[Crazy Indian Comp.Scientist No.11981880]

[Anonymous No.11981881]

[Anonymous No.11981884]

i'll just leave this here

[Crazy Indian Comp.Scientist No.11981886]

[Anonymous No.11981888]

bring back monarchy already, I'm sick of this degenerate crap allowing the corrupt the most power

[Crazy Indian Comp.Scientist No.11981889]

[Anonymous No.11981890]

>>11981886
Where are the rockefellers and Rothschilds?

[Crazy Indian Comp.Scientist No.11981894]

[Anonymous No.11981896]

>>11981884
it was destroyed because media didn't talk about the protests in any way except "lol they have no coherent single-line agenda" and eventually the cops shut it down

[Anonymous No.11981897]

>>11981875
>t. someone who thinks net worth = money in the bank you can spend
I'm a progressive liberal and I'll be the first to say that socialists and communists are fucking retarded beyond belief. Also gtfo this board this is for math & science not retarded antifa propaganda

[Crazy Indian Comp.Scientist No.11981904]

[Crazy Indian Comp.Scientist No.11981908]

[Crazy Indian Comp.Scientist No.11981912]

[Anonymous No.11981915]

>>11981894
I don't think those people(s) directly manage the working conditions of the workers.

[Crazy Indian Comp.Scientist No.11981924]

[Anonymous No.11981955]

>>11981896
not quite, ows was destroyed internally because the progressive stack was forced upon protesters by sjw infiltrators. it fell apart after that instead of gaining the momentum it needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W81A1kTXPa4

[Anonymous No.11981964]

>>11981955
>because the progressive stack was forced upon protesters by sjw infiltrators
OWS was SJW from the start you dipshit.

[Anonymous No.11981968]

>>11981964
no it wasn't. ows had everyone under the sun, left and right. there were a lot of libertarians involved there.

[Anonymous No.11981980]

>>11981968
a libertarian can be an SJW

[Anonymous No.11981991]

>>11981980
ok, but the pt stands ows was not sjw from the start. if you actually paid attention to the movement it started as a vertical class revolution of everyone in the 99%. sjws hijacked that with identity politics and are now distracting from the 1% elephant in the room for a horizontal revolution.

[Anonymous No.11981996]

>>11981924
>Halting global warming would cost $300 billion
lol, not even close

[Anonymous No.11982001]

>>11981991
no, I fundamentally don't agree with your characterization that way.

[Anonymous No.11982009]

>>11982001
well it's what happened. it's why blm is embraced by megacorps like amazon. bezos et al know that they are safe while everyone quibbles over race and gender nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11982010]

I keep seeing people say billionaires could "end homelessness" or "end poverty" for some dollar amount that they could easily afford, but how is this supposed to really work? It seems like they have the idea that money is some kind of magic dust that can just make houses and food appear out of thin air and billionaires are hoarding all the magic dust in giant vaults because they're evil.

How is the ending of poverty or whatever supposed to actually be achieved logistically? Money is only useful in that you can use it to get people to do things.

[Anonymous No.11982014]

>>11982010
just print more money, we can all be millionaires when a million dollars is worth a bagel.

[Anonymous No.11982015]

>>11982010
there's more vacant homes in the USA than there are homeless people and there's more than enough food to end hunger on a global level. the problem is distribution, not supply

[Anonymous No.11982020]

>SOCIALISM

literally /pol/ thread on /sci/

[Anonymous No.11982029]

>>11981884
BASED

[Anonymous No.11982030]

>>11982020
science is socialist

[Anonymous No.11982039]

>>11981878
Not spending money doesn't mean you're hoarding money. Money not spent is loaned out by banks to help businesses grow and people buy homes.

[Anonymous No.11982044]

how about we force billionaires to invest in smaller companies so they actually do some good for the economy and dont just soak up money like fat retards

[Anonymous No.11982063]

>>11981889
>>11981894
Awesome, so all it takes to be a billionaire is to be a shitty boss?

[Anonymous No.11982067]

>>11982044
That's retarded and you clearly don't know what an economy is (or at least, a functioning one).

>You MUST give YOUR money that YOU earned to this tiny store in ohio selling windchimes that's run by an autistic blind man and his dog. They haven't had a customer in 10 years, because they produce nothing of value for anyone. Why, you ask? Well for the good of the economy of course! If you give them money, they'll be able to afford being useless even longer!

[Anonymous No.11982070]

>>11981904
So creating software that everyone wants to buy is "exploiting the poor?"

[Anonymous No.11982072]

>>11982015
There is enough resources in the world to guarantee a decent lifestyle for every single human, but the evil whitey is hoarding them all for his lavish lifestyles.

[Anonymous No.11982076]

>>11981894
Just stop buying from amazon then you fucking pathetic loser.

[Anonymous No.11982084]

>>11981875
Ray Kroc makes hamburgers. He makes a dollar off each one sold. He's sold over a billion of them.
I have no trouble seeing what's wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.11982085]

>>11982072
I've heard being a white meth head in Appalachia is very lavish indeed.

>Stop blaming others for your own misfortunes or you are doomed to live a life of bitter misery

[Anonymous No.11982091]

>>11982067
The investments would be for people in the same industry as you, so google would have to invest in firefox or some shit like that. You also have the option to not pay however your investments lower your taxes (investing 5000 gets you 7000 off of your taxes for example)

[Anonymous No.11982094]

economics might be the dismal science, but it would be nice to have an actual discussion without mucking it up with sjw nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11982098]

>>11982085
compared to niggers in africa, it probably is
>>Stop blaming others for your own misfortunes or you are doomed to live a life of bitter misery
Applies to the homeless in Murica too.

[Anonymous No.11982107]

>>11981908
>>11981924
So for taxes it's OK to compare the percentage of income of a billionaire to the percentage of income of the average American...

But at the same time giving away 50% of wealth is no big deal. So should the average American give away 50% of their wealth to charity? If not, why is the percentage of income paid in taxes of the average American relevant in the first case?

[Anonymous No.11982113]

>>11982091
>The investments would be for people in the same industry as you, so google would have to invest in firefox or some shit like that
Yes let's create perfect competition. That worked out so well for the airline companies that are constantly on the brink of collapse.

>You also have the option to not pay however your investments lower your taxes (investing 5000 gets you 7000 off of your taxes for example)
So your solution is for massive corporations to pay less taxes and instead give that tax money to other massive corporations? Like Google evading taxes by giving money to Firefox? I'm sure Firefox would love to play the exact same game and give the money right back to google. That way, neither Google nor Firefox pays any taxes, and ultimately both get to keep the money. What a brilliant idea, fuckhead

Look kid at least pick up a book on basic economic theory before talking about something you clearly know nothing about. It's just embarrassing for everyone involved.

[Anonymous No.11982120]

>>11982113
alright fair fucking point i concede

[Anonymous No.11982122]

>>11982091
As an addendum: Your post is exemplary of all the socialist/communist larp bullshit. It always lacks that critical piece of actually having ANY THOUGHT PUT INTO IT WHATSOEVER

[Anonymous No.11982123]

The fact that jannies have deleted this thread yet is proof they are tranny commies. I could dismantle every one of your points politically, but I don't want to bump this shit so I'll just dismantle one mathematically:
>>11981908
23% of a billion >>> 28% of 30k
Dilate and sage.

[Anonymous No.11982132]

>>11982030
No. Marx tried to make it so and failed. Economics today is based on rational choice theory and praxeology bullshit. It's just an atheistic religion like satanism.

[Anonymous No.11982138]

>>11982132
marx had nothing to do with science. he died long ago. that doesn't mean the scientific reality today isn't socialist

[Anonymous No.11982143]

Anyone with over 10 million dollars in personal liquid assets needs to be rounded up and their money forcefully distributed to everyone in that country.

[Anonymous No.11982170]

>>11982138
The only reason why anybody knows Marx's name is because he tried to establish "scientific socialism" as distinct from the utopian socialism others around him and before him professed.

[Anonymous No.11982177]

>>11982170
and that has nothing to do with what i meant when i said that science is socialist

[Anonymous No.11982189]

>>11981875
A millionaire will likely have 1 million in cash. A billionaire will almost never have 1 billion in cash. That's the subtle difference that these communists don't see. Billionaire's wealth is similar to Stalin's "wealth" as the leader of Russia. He doesn't have money, he owns a business. A machine that produces jobs and money for other people. A machine that many others would rather have and that's why billionaires have "billions".

In reality, if billionaires wanted to just sell their entire stock no one would take it, and just from the announcement of the founder leaving the value of the business would be decimated. What's better, from the nature of an illiquid asset it is literally impossible for a billionaire to spend their billions. The billionaire will just die with that stock going to charities and heirs. Charities that will sell and spend and heirs that will also die.

In a sense, I agree. If there is a billionaire hoarding literally billions of US Dollars then absolutely let's go kill that bastard because those dollars should be invested in our economy creating jobs. The entire point of billionaires is that they create value to society and the only reason they can buy yachts is that banks lend to them with their stock as collateral.

For anyone reading this I urge you to think about your job, or your dream job if you are still a student. Did that job exist in nature? Or did a visionary, be it 1000 or 10 years ago, had to come in and bring the conditions for that job to exist?

[Anonymous No.11982191]

>>11982177
There's no connection. Socialism isn't science and science isn't socialist. They're apples and oranges.

[Anonymous No.11982206]

>>11981878
>socialists unironically believe rich people have giant scrooge-mcduck-esque vaults of money

[Anonymous No.11982214]

>>11982191
the scientific funding method uses publicly-generated funds distributed to the scientific community according to the needs of their research requirements and the importance of their work to society. it is quite literally a socialist system

[Anonymous No.11982222]

>>11982214
Socialism is publicly funded research grants? I thought it had to do with ownership of the means of production. Please enlighten me more.

[Anonymous No.11982233]

>>11982222
in the purest form, socialism is public ownership of the means of production. the fundamental conflict between different flavors of socialism/communism (and there really is no difference between the two except messaging) is whether that should be an emergent phenomenon from low-level governance (either on the level of individual businesses through union leadership or local representative boards) or high level governance (the soviet model). at the end of the day, though, it's about redistribution of the fruits of labor through criteria determined not by abstract or emergent market behavior, but by the decisions of people who represent the laborers.

obviously the metaphor is not an exact match to the funding model. no metaphor is. but in scientific funding, you have a budget derived from the people, and you have the scientific community deciding how to apportion it according to need. researchers compete for funding by demonstrating the utility of that funding to produce and support the production of basic research results, not economically beneficial research.

[Anonymous No.11982263]

>>11982233
>but in scientific funding, you have a budget derived from the people
Are you talking about crowd funded research where money is actually coming from the people, or the government as an actor on the people's behalf? Capitalism can and does facilitate both so it doesn't completely implode. Socialism can accommodate both as well also so it doesn't implode like it did when concepts like "bourgeois pseudoscience" were introduced. There isn't anything about science that is oriented towards one economic system or the other. In fact the question is what economic system best captures science, and the survival of capitalism can be attributed to its ability to capture scientific progress just as socialism could in some other aspects.
>researchers compete for funding by demonstrating the utility of that funding to produce and support the production of basic research results, not economically beneficial research.
Basic research is economically beneficial in the long term. The goals aren't always the same but there's significant enough overlap that gives incentive to fund it. This is true of any economic system.

[Anonymous No.11982265]

>>11981924
>Halting global warming would cost $300 billion

bruh wat

[Anonymous No.11982276]

>>11982189
I have never read a more misleading post on this website yet. Good job, you've really outdone yourself.
>In reality, if billionaires wanted to just sell their entire stock no one would take it
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-12/saudi-fund-is-said-to-be-in-talks-to-invest-in-tesla-buyout-deal
>and just from the announcement of the founder leaving the value of the business would be decimated
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/tech/alphabet-google-co-founder-larry-page-step-down/index.html
https://www.cnet.com/news/ebay-picks-up-paypal-for-1-5-billion/
>What's better, from the nature of an illiquid asset it is literally impossible for a billionaire to spend their billions
https://www.autoblog.com/2020/07/21/elon-musk-tesla-stock-options-2-billion/
The ONLY reason why he wouldn't sell this stock is to prevent a market panic that reduces the market value of the REST of his stocks. To pretend that billionaires are somehow not available to sell their stocks when charities, by your own admission, do it all the time, is fucking asinine. Again, Saudis are available to buy them at any time.
>those dollars should be invested in our economy creating jobs
Except there's no punishment when that money is being held as a pure paperweight against hostile takeovers, or better yet used for reasons that have nothing to do with "job creation" such as buyouts.
>The entire point of billionaires is that they create value to society and the only reason they can buy yachts is that banks lend to them with their stock as collateral
This is literally self contradictory to the "billionaires can't sell stocks argument" before. If I hold 50b in stocks, use it to borrow 45b from the bank, default on my loan and hand over my stocks, guess what? I just sold my stocks. That the money is being held in the form of stocks is meaningless if it still grants its holder proportional purchasing power - power that's not being spent.

[Anonymous No.11982283]

>>11982263
Mmmmmm, fair. good points.

[Anonymous No.11982284]

>>11982015
That seems like a systemic issue though. Like what is supposed to happen, billionaires just buy all those houses and then go around homeless people in the streets and distribute the deeds? I suppose that would "end homelessness" for a brief moment, but you'd soon be back in the same predicament.

[Anonymous No.11982286]

>>11981889
>>11981904
>>11981924
Why don't these retards understand how economics work? He/she believes billionaires literally own a billion dollars in their bank accounts. The wealth of billionaires comes from their assets and stocks, not actual physical cash.

Jeff Bezos isn't gonna sell all of his Amazon stocks so shareholders can kick him out of the company.

[Anonymous No.11982303]

>>11982189
Even a billion in liquid assets is pretty shitty. Like what can you even buy with billions of dollars without the price skyrocketing to the point of making your money pretty useless.

[Anonymous No.11982304]

>>11982189
>Or did a visionary, be it 1000 or 10 years ago, had to come in and bring the conditions for that job to exist?
There is a very good argument that resources need to be allocated to innovation.
The problem is that innovation isn't a market incentive for billionaires (or billion dollar networth corporations). Bill gates famously made his money STIFLING innovation. As did most other industries (AT&T breakup, monsanto, warren buffet talking about moats like he's not talking about digging graves for competitors, rockerfeller/standard oil, the list goes on). We're not putting resources into the people that innovate, we're putting resources into the people that have every incentive in the world to NOT innovate. Hell, just look at tesla - a billion dollar modern success story. You know their main competition? BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS IN THE FORM OF THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY, WHO HAVE AT EVERY TURN TRIED TO ABORT THEM.
The guys that were screaming for electric cars for years? They didn't have the billions of dollar that Musk had from his dot com days to start the business. Banks didn't give a shit so long as they could have their finger in the pie. Musk was at least as much a venture capitalist as he is an innovator - and you can't be an innovator unless you have a venture capitalist. Isn't that the fucked up part?
Lastly, the worst part about all this isn't that billion dollar companies are allowed to shift their weight precisely to kill competitors, it's that successful innovators inevitably turn into billion dollar companies that have a vested interest in killing competition. What stopped the microsoft stranglehold on practically everything wasn't some change of heart, it was a monopoly inquiry. Regulations. Do we need more? Not really. Actual enforcement would be a nice start, though no amount of enforcement gets rid of this perverse corporate economic structure where competition is a zero sum game. Innovation is the anti zero-sum.

[Anonymous No.11982432]

>>11982276
>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-12/saudi-fund-is-said-to-be-in-talks-to-invest-in-tesla-buyout-deal
Elon Musk is not selling all of his stock here. He wants to take Tesla private. To take a public company private you must buy all outstanding shares held by public investors and obviously Musk does not have enough cash so he needs more buyers to help him.

>https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/tech/alphabet-google-co-founder-larry-page-step-down/index.html
Nice counter example I guess but in this case the founders were so inactive and Google had already been so professionalized that the market was happy to see them take a more remote position in the board which allowed someone more active in growth to take their executive positions.

>https://www.cnet.com/news/ebay-picks-up-paypal-for-1-5-billion/
When a bigger company buys out a smaller company that always drives up the value of the smaller one. It's essentially a better billionaire replacing a smaller one. Both of these examples miss the essence of my point deliberately.

>To pretend that billionaires are somehow not available to sell their stocks when charities, by your own admission, do it all the time, is fucking asinine.

Charities that take these types of donation set up funds that periodically sell very tiny amounts of the stock over time. During COVID I saw once such case where the fund sold off less than 1% of assets to donate for COVID-related causes. Do you think that charities just liquidate donations immediately?

>Except there's no punishment when that money is being held as a pure paperweight
Yes there is. It's called inflation. Holding cash is literally retarded.

>yet used for reasons that have nothing to do with "job creation" such as buyouts.
Buyouts are good in my opinion but I will spare you the details as this is not a finance forum. But if you ask I'd be happy to explain why you are wrong.

cont..

[Anonymous No.11982447]

>>11982276
>>11982432

>If I hold 50b in stocks, use it to borrow 45b from the bank, default on my loan and hand over my stocks, guess what? I just sold my stocks.

And that's why no fucking bank will lend you 90% of your net worth (your example). Banks have whole departments to serve their clientes and they monitor their lines of credit against their net worth constantly. You probably wouldn't even come close to making the bank have to deal with a 1B default.

[Anonymous No.11982457]

>>11982284
it'd be a short term fix, yes. there would have to be other systemic reforms to taxation and the welfare systems to really address the problems

but i think the idea would be that in the short term, the government could use eminent domain to purchase empty lots, raise taxes on the highest tax brackets to compensate, and offer free housing to anyone who wanted to relocate to a place where there was an available house

[Anonymous No.11982469]

>>11982304
But now you are talking about human nature. If I had a company that made 1 million dollars every day then I as a human being would do anything it takes to ensure those 1 million dollars kept coming into my pocket every morning. The question is how your system deals with this fact of human nature.

Capitalism: The market is always right. Maybe right now, when your smaller competitors can barely offer 0.1% lower prices and slightly better customer service, you can kill them off. But give it 10 years and technology will have advanced so much that your new competitor will be offering a better product entirely. In fact, you (the greedy billionaire) may even notice this and decide to invest in the new company as a hedge (as all you really care about is your future wealth, regardless of where it comes from). And you can see this from how traditional energy companies and families are huge investors in green energy.

Communism: There is none. The richest is always the dictator at the top. No one can even come close because wages are mandated. You can't even innovate! The closest thing I can think of this situation is Castro who was Cuba's only billionaire (even from just his offshore accounts, never mind the real value of his absolute power). How was he toppled? He wasn't. He died. That's it. How do you stop a greedy billionaire in communism? You wait for him to die because you gave him absolute power so now not only does he have all the money in the world, he also has the legal and military means to fuck you anyways.

[Anonymous No.11982474]

>>11981881
If you say the real reason on your poster is If you're unemployed it's because you don't add any value to solving these problems, aint gonna get you votes.
I don't think leftist or whichever political allign believe 90% of this stuff they post, its just to rally support from simpletons at the balot box.

[Anonymous No.11982519]

>>11981884
Thank you Tucker Carlson

[Anonymous No.11982536]

>>11982206

They honestly seem like the dumbest and most easily manipulated. I've dealt with people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and I'm certain they are leagues smarter than socialists.

[Anonymous No.11982539]

>>11982474
>simpletons at the balot
>balot

[Anonymous No.11982542]

>>11981894
Jeff still only gets 100k a year. He mostly lives off the security expenses of Amazon. His wealth is almost entirely stocks.

[Anonymous No.11982661]

>>11982206
The rich have socialism for the rich you idiot.

>>11982536
Goldman Sachs just made 2.4 billion in profit during the pandemic while the average American is getting destroyed by unemployment, the worst pandemic probably ever and a president so incompetent and who has sold out so much to his richfag corrupt criminal friends that life expectancy in the U.S. has actually gone down for the first time ever.

You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.11982664]

>>11982542
Bullshit, Jeff Bezos made 13 billion in a single day this year and richfags like him don't pay their fair share of taxes.

[Anonymous No.11982670]

>>11982457
Also what the people of the U.S. really need is a Capital Gains tax on the ultra rich.

[Anonymous No.11982674]

>>11981875
>>11981875
lmao this retard commie actually thinks that billionaires exist.

There's a difference between net worth and actual wealth socialists. self made billionaire's literally only exist due to stocks, the value of their stocks give's them their apperant wealth, but in reality, most of them couldn't even sell a fraction of this stock or they would loose power within their companies and plummet the stocks value, this means that in practicality billionaire very rarely have any more money to spend than a regular millionaire. While the value of their property is "higher" (not really since if more than 50% of their wealth is stock than the majority of it is just monopoly money), the ammount of liquid assets they have can never be higher than that of of a regular millionaire. Except for royalty and exceptions like those, but that is a completely different issue. A billionaire just has a bunch of monopoly money, and his job is to keep people believing in it to keep it from becoming worthless. This job keeps the company running, food on the table for the employees and stockholders, and produces a net benefit for someone in society that required their services. Limiting wealth would mean abolishing stock all together, which we know is what you really want to do, since you don't believe that anyone deserves anything (property rights), since in your mind everyone must be the same, so any difference in outcome is do to oppression.

[Anonymous No.11982679]

>>11982674
Also, who the fuck gave you the right to manipulate government into trying to implement your world view onto others by limiting our freedom of purchase and ownership?

[Anonymous No.11982680]

>>11982084
Maybe the problem is that undernourished fast-food eaters make for terrible scientists, so terrible that now El Arcon wants to disembowel every one of them. I dunno, making your own race hate your guts (literally) to the point that can't wait to use weaponry to turn you into ground beef so that Ray Kroc can sell burgers sounds like a really stupid plan.

[Anonymous No.11982692]

>>11981875
Good thing at least Biden will start taxing the obnoxiously rich in January 2021 if he gets elected.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/liberals-arent-giving-joe-biden-credit-for-a-radical-tax-plan-that-goes-after-the-indolent-rich-2020-07-02

[Anonymous No.11982969]

three questions from Thomas Sowell for any leftist considering policy changes
>I’ve often said there are three questions that would destroy most of the arguments on the left.
>The first is: ‘Compared to what?’
>The second is: ‘At what cost?’
>And the third is: ‘What hard evidence do you have?’
>Now there are very few ideas on the left that can pass all of those…”

[Anonymous No.11982985]

>>11982692
Everybody says this and nobody ever does it. Is this your first election, anon?

[Anonymous No.11983002]

>>11981889
Not everyone's labor is of the same value.