/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2626244]

Previous OP deleted his thread a while ago. It was about how bloodsucking capitalists are taking 60-90% of the value off the blood and sweat of proletariat.

It turns out , that for USA amounts taxable by capital gain tax are 5% of the GDP. Doesn't it mean, that fuck it - 5% is nothing. Taking 5% is not fucking bloodsucking! It's not even a big deal.

Did I get something wrong? Are there some other numbers?

[Anonymous No.2626290]

>It's not even a big deal.
If your insider deal with goldman sachs give you a payout of 20 million USD you'll lose a whole million. As a filthy rich person that one million could be used for lobbying the tax to 0% or lowering the minimum wage.

The people in charge of the US all suffers a cash induced psychosis. Even if they had a literally infinite amount of money they'd still try to marginalise expenses so they can proudly display a profit of one million to add to their neverchanging total monetary value of infinity.

[Anonymous No.2626294]

taxation is violence and capital accumulation is what creates wealth

sage for marxist shit, marxist economics has been disproved for like 80 years.

[Anonymous No.2626302]

woops

[Anonymous No.2626309]

The economic calculation problem is a criticism of central economic planning. It was first proposed by Ludwig von Mises in 1920 and later expounded by Friedrich Hayek.[1][2] The problem referred to is that of how to distribute resources rationally in an economy. The free market solution is the price mechanism, wherein people individually have the ability to decide how a good or service should be distributed based on their willingness to give money for it. The price conveys embedded information about the abundance of resources as well as their desirability which in turn allows, on the basis of individual consensual decisions, corrections that prevent shortages and surpluses; Mises and Hayek argued that this is the only possible solution, and without the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources. Those who agree with this criticism argue it is a refutation of non-market socialism and that it shows that a socialist planned economy could never work. The debate raged in the 1920s and 1930s, and that specific period of the debate has come to be known by economic historians as The Socialist Calculation Debate.

[Anonymous No.2626318]

>>2626290
You wrote a long text and I still don't get it. Are you saying there is a massive tax evasion going on.

So capital gains are a larger number instead of 5% of the economy? Was your post about the tax evasion. What do you think the right amount would be if you were to take tax evasion into account and why?

[Anonymous No.2626327]

The poor outnumber the rich, so the poor vote to take away the property of the rich. The rich turn to the government to protect their property and decimate the lower and middle classes in the process.

Violence breeds poverty and exploitation. Dismantle the machinery of evil known as the nation state.

[Anonymous No.2626340]

>>2626302
Is this some manipulating graphic. I don't know USA laws - help me find the weasel words. I am guessing it is "state and local" taxes and that excludes federal taxes?

[Anonymous No.2626342]

taxing capital accumulation is a surefire way of stultifying the entire world into permanent poverty.

sounds like a plan.

[Anonymous No.2626365]

>>2626294
I think myself far from Marxist. I think quite the opposite. Comic is stupid Marxist and many posters in /sci/ are sadly Marxist.

Maybe I made a mistake, but it seemed to me earnings of capital are only 5% of the total earnings, and I asked why it is such a big deal for Marxists?

[Anonymous No.2626379]

>>2626309
There are many ways to organize a socialist mode of production. The only one attempted in the 20th century that I know of is central planning, but there are a wealth of other theories. Two examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentrally_planned_economy

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

[Anonymous No.2626395]

[Anonymous No.2626408]

>>2626379
why try so hard to emulate the market when you can just have the free market?

either way I don't care as long as people's economics aren't forced on me.

[Anonymous No.2626425]

>>2626395
The capitalist also takes a loss now (in paying his workers immediately) for a profit in the future (the products he sells weeks or months down the road).

i'd honestly love to see a voluntary socialist experiment in a free society, but we have more pressing matters (getting rid of religion and the state)

[Anonymous No.2626454]

>>2626395
>Capitalist1: Hey, I'm going to pay my workers 1 penny a day and reap HUGE profits
>Capitalist2: Hey, me too!
>Capitalist3: Hmm, if I pay my workers 2 pennies a day, I'll have a gigantic pool of skilled workers.
>Capitalist1: Hey, if I pay my workers 3 pennies a day, I'll have a gigantic pool of skilled workers!
>Capitalist2: Hey, if I pay my workers 4 pennies a day, I'll have a gigantic pool of skilled workers!
>repeat until the price of labor reaches an equilibrium

[Anonymous No.2626460]

>>2626408
The difference is the means of production aren't privately owned. Really, that's all that counts as far as socialism is concerned. Private ownership of means of production -> employment of wage-labor -> accumulation of surplus-value (exploitation). How goods are distributed is something to be freely experimented with.
>>2626294
Labor, among other things, is what creates value. It is not necessary for it to be concentrated in the hands of capitalists.
>>2626395
Yes, Marx never talked about how the capitalist has to re-invest surplus value taken from the worker into the production process. Congratulations, you've annihilated Marxism. I'll tell Castro to pack up his belongings.

[Anonymous No.2626479]

>>2626460
Labor is not what creates value. A man flailing away in a field doesn't create wealth. What creates wealth is the same man flailing away in a field with a hammer in his hand and a construction project in front of him.

and there's no "public ownership", only individuals exist, and someone has to "allocate" resources. either it's a few elites (the soviet model), or it's 7 billion people (the anarcho-capitalist model), or somewhere in between. The more centralized planning is, the more chaotic and wasteful/unknowable it becomes.

[Anonymous No.2626489]

>>2626479

Capital doesn't create value unless someone works with it.

[Anonymous No.2626491]

Solution: go to college. Be one of the top people who feed off the uneducated and don't give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.2626492]

>>2626489
I never said it did.

[Anonymous No.2626496]

>>2626491
>implying an employer would prefer some academic to someone with real-world job experience

LOL

[Anonymous No.2626497]

>>2626454

>he thinks the market has ever set wages at a fair price

protip: check the executive salary, bonuses and share dividends of a company's board of directors before you claim the market causes equality.

[Anonymous No.2626505]

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

Worked for the Spainiards.

[Anonymous No.2626506]

>>2626496
That's why you work while you get an education. It's not that hard. If you're not working, you're being an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2626517]

>>2626497
is there something wrong with an executive making a lot of money? what is "unjust" about it?

and I can't defend any kind of executive pay in a statist system; almost every major corporation (a statist legal fiction) lobbies the government for privileges

[Anonymous No.2626519]

>>2626506

The government pays for 80% of my student fees and I only have to pay the rest out of taxes when I'm earning the median wage or higher.

Fuck I love socialized education.

[Anonymous No.2626530]

>>2626519
Benefiting from violence probably is a pretty cushy job.

That is until economic reality sets in and the collapse of european "socialism" begins.

[Anonymous No.2626537]

So all you mean and dirty commies are pickering about this 5%, right?

Well fuck you, mean assholes! 5% is not a big deal! Don't fucking be so envious.

[Anonymous No.2626550]

>>2626530
When you say violence you mean as in executive branch?

[Anonymous No.2626551]

>>2626517

Okay, you seem reasonable.

An executive does not work longer hours than the engineer or builder. They do not earn this extra money in any way.

You might argue that they are educated and perform a vital function, but so do many skilled workers below them.

They get it simply because they own a large amount of shares in the company, because they are wealthy. And because this is capitalism, people with money can make sure they get paid extravagantly high incomes soley because they own things.

If you don't accept that, consider Keyesian economics. The amount of jobs an economy has depends on the demand for goods and services. The more people with the purchasing power to afford them, the more spending, the more businesses can survive and the more employment. Because poorer sections of the population spend their money quickly on vital things like food, and the middle class spends it on consumer goods, if you want to improve the state of the economy, increase that equality.

[Anonymous No.2626557]

>>2626530

Didn't that already happen?

[Anonymous No.2626592]

>>2626395
Holy fuck. You're exactly why I hate talking to capitalists.

>I have to pay for ...
And where did he get the money for that? BINGO! Good job little buddy, here's a lollipop!

Paying monthly bills is not quantum mechanics; and self-managing worker union could do it. Same goes for weeding out incompetent workers (actually, this would be done more efficiently), paying parts, etc. Actually, those would be better done by the workers, as they universally have more expertise than managers about the actually technical demands of the labor.

Automating the workforce is an argument against wage slavery.

But what are the returns? People producing the wealth reap the rewards; better working conditions; better products, etc.

Go infest some other board with your retardation.

[Anonymous No.2626602]

>>2626551
>An executive does not work longer hours than the engineer or builder. They do not earn this extra money in any way.
A dentist does not work as many hours as a manual laborer either. In a totally free market economy, wages always tend toward equilibrium.
>people with money can make sure they get paid extravagantly high incomes soley because they own things.
And how do people originally get money? Either they added so much value to society that capital flowed to them, or someone that created that value left it to them (inheritance).
>If you don't accept that, consider Keyesian economics.
I take any statement about Keynesian economics with a giant grain of salt. Though:
>The amount of jobs an economy has depends on the demand for goods and services.
Demand is infinite. The reason I don't buy thirteen ferraris right now is because they are so expensive (their cost reflects the scarcity of the resources -land,labor,capital- to produce them.
I don't know exactly where I'm going with this, but as for your point about wealth "equality", check the wealth "distribution" in Singapore, one of the freest markets on earth.

>>2626550
Well sure, every law, regulation, or tax is worthless unless it is enforced. You cannot choose to "opt-out" of the government, so it is a unilateral "contract" (similar to rape).

>>2626557
Yes.

[Anonymous No.2626616]

>>2626592
>And where did he get the money for that? BINGO! Good job little buddy, here's a lollipop!

You didn't even answer your own question. Where DID that wealth come from? (I hate to use the term money as a standin for wealth, because it implies that pieces of paper is wealth).

And you can do this now. People can set up these types of communally-owned businesses now. Why don't they?

[Anonymous No.2626624]

>>2626616
>People can set up these types of communally-owned businesses now. Why don't they?

Because of Jews. Once we get rid of them everything will be fine.

[Anonymous No.2626633]

>>2626592
If CEO's could be paid less and companies would still do as well as other companies, why do you think companies who pay their executives exorbitant amounts do not fail (in a perfectly free market)? Wouldn't it be the case that these companies who pay their executives so disproportionately much would have to either raise the prices, resulting in less sold, or lower their wages, resulting in workers finding better-paying jobs?

[Anonymous No.2626634]

>>2626616
not that guy, but some have, but this model is only more efficient and competitive in certain industries, not across the board.

[Anonymous No.2626635]

>>2626624
right well that's not an argument

while we're going on non-proven bigotries, i'd say marxists are working on 14 years of state "education", rather than any kind of rational analysis.

[Anonymous No.2626639]

>>2626633
This is correct.
>>2626634
That's very interesting, do you have any examples?

[Anonymous No.2626644]

>>2626616
It happens; not often, but it does. Usually outside the west.

The most recent example that comes to mind are the factories in Argentina. During the economic struggles of the early 2000s, several all-women factories took over production after their managers fled. Production skyrocketed, and the towns they lived in prospered.

The reason it doesn't happen in the west is that 1) means of production is owned in the hands of the few. Loaning is out of the question; no bank would trust workers with it. Government won't subsidies it either.

2) It's discouraged. The working class is generally under-educated, sedated by mainstream media to find their place, do their job, and stay quiet,

[Anonymous No.2626647]

If: Paying executives a lot of money was overhead, then:

Those that paid their executives LESS would be able to:
a) increase the quality of their products, increasing market share, or
b) pay their employees more, drawing in more productive employees, increasing market share

[Anonymous No.2626651]

>>2626633
...because the CEO's are the primary beneficiaries of their products? It would kinda defeat the point if they lowered wages for more profit. Besides, CEO wages don't have a big effect on total revenue.

[Anonymous No.2626652]

>>2626644
>The working class is generally under-educated, sedated by mainstream media
Right, so the first thing we should do is eliminate public schools? Agreed.

[Anonymous No.2626654]

> using capital = currency
> right-wing as fuck

[Anonymous No.2626659]

>>2626654
saying capital = currency is incorrect in the current state of things, but not incorrect in a free-money society.

[Anonymous No.2626664]

>>2626652
No; it just need to change drastically. It's a system of subordination, carefully intended to make people smart enough to do their duty, but not smart enough to question.

[Anonymous No.2626665]

Most things aren't that simple OP. Stay away from ideology, especially ones that dictatorships have been using to indoctrinate the masses with for nearly a century.

[Anonymous No.2626669]

>>2626664
And you're saying these people would be happier if they realized that they were living in a state of horrible slavery?

[Anonymous No.2626671]

>>2626602

>A dentist does not work as many hours as a manual laborer either.

In a totally free market economy, wages always tend toward equilibrium.

Except that there has never been, and never will be, an ideal free market, because of the social stratification and power that wealth brings. I was not talking about dentists, remember, but capitalists.

>>And how do people originally get money? Either they added so much value to society that capital flowed to them, or someone that created that value left it to them (inheritance).

In many cases wealth has been inherited centuries after it was made with slavery or the profits of empire. Outright invasion and stealing of land is another common theme.

Note that the first world consists of previously-colonial powers: the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, the UK, France and Germany.

>I take any statement about Keynesian economics with a giant grain of salt

sounds like an ideological bias

>>Demand is infinite. The reason I don't buy thirteen ferraris right now is because they are so expensive (their cost reflects the scarcity of the resources -land,labor,capital- to produce them.
I don't know exactly where I'm going with this, but as for your point about wealth "equality", check the wealth "distribution" in Singapore, one of the freest markets on earth.

Demand is not infinite. That's clearly bunk. Given the ability to eat all they wanted, people would stop after a certain amount. Buying multiple cars at some point becomes pointless. In fact, the wealthy, having most of what they desire materially, save most of their income instead of spending it, when it could be spent by people who would get some happiness from their purchases.

[Anonymous No.2626676]

>>2626671

If you are arguing that neoliberalism causes equality, we can look up some statistics. The Gini Coefficient represents equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_Coefficient
There is a graph on that page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png

Note that the most equal nations are social democracies, especially Sweden. For neoliberal countries look at China, the United States and Argentina (this one as a result of IMF intervention).

[Anonymous No.2626686]

>>2626669
No, but he would be compelled to change his society, to act in revolt

.>>2626665
Don't confuse USSR with socialism

[Anonymous No.2626693]

>>2626664
The public schools have no incentive to teach people how to think critically, as it would lead to the end of the bigotries of society (religion, statism, culture as a whole), and every interest in teaching them to not think critically (the teacher's salaries are paid with blood money stolen at gunpoint from the populace).
>And you're saying these people would be happier if they realized that they were living in a state of horrible slavery?
I'm not who you're quoting but ill answer. People already know they are slaves; the body does not lie. You can tell yourself all day that, "Cookies are healthy, cookies are healthy, cookies are healthy!!", but you will get fat as shit if all you eat is cookies.

In the same way you can tell yourself that, "I'm free, the state is virtuous!" but you will still be horrifically depressed. We can only meet in reality.
>>2626676
>correlated with economic freedom
http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking

[Anonymous No.2626694]

>>2626686

I guess you could say they seriously tried to get socialism, but they ended up confusing workers' control with state control and assuming they were the same thing. In a repressive dictatorship that was disastrous.

[Anonymous No.2626698]

>>2626686
So that would make him happier? You're saying it would somehow be in the interest of society to produce a revolt within itself rather than keep both the masters happy (because they have obedient slaves) and the slaves happy (because they don't know they should be sad)?

[Anonymous No.2626702]

>>2626693

>>taking data from right-wing think tanks

man, I remember when economics was taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.2626706]

>>2626676
>Gini Coefficient
>Africa has some very equal wealth "distributions"

Yeah, sounds great.

[Anonymous No.2626708]

>>2626694
I very much doubt there was any intention of establishing socialism. If there was, then the state corrupted them; which is all the more reason why we shouldn't have states.

[Anonymous No.2626709]

>>2626693
So the masses already know the reality of their slavery, therefore the issue of public education not providing them information about it does not exist.

[Anonymous No.2626713]

>>2626698

'happy'. I could laugh if it wasn't so sad. What 'happiness' means in this context is not blaming the system while you starve in the streets.

Even if they dont know the cause, they bloody well have to eat and drink without fear of getting sick.

[Anonymous No.2626714]

>>2626665
What a troll. Marx wasn't a marxist and his writings are far from dogmatic. I'm not saying that he was perfectly right but his ideas were, at the time, rather original and subtle.

[Anonymous No.2626720]

>>2626709
>masses already know

what drugs are you on?

[Anonymous No.2626724]

>>2626706

I don't see what you're trying to argue here. Africa is shit poor because of repeated colonial activity. We know this. It is unrelated to their 'equality' which is far less than the social democratic first world.

[Anonymous No.2626725]

>>2626709
You may know nothing about nutrition but you'll get diabetes if all you eat is sugar cubes.

In the same way, society is gorging on the effects of violence and is catastrophically sick, but they don't know why.
>>2626702
I just googled "economic freedom"

[Anonymous No.2626726]

>>2626592
> self-managing worker union could do it.
Why don't they then? Huh? Huh?
Oh right, they can't. Because the head of that union is the guy in the black suit.

[Anonymous No.2626729]

>>2626698
To begin with, the slaves aren't happy, but they're taught to blame themselves for their misery, rather than the system. The elusive American Dream means that everyone can be a rock star; if they don't, they fucked up.

Secondly...yes, obviously, not having master, not having to regard co-workers as adversaries, not have to mediate social interactions with commodities, not seeking material wealth over genuine human connections will make a man happier. If you disagree, then we have no grounds for a discussion.

[Anonymous No.2626730]

>>2626713
You're saying our public schools both a) raise people who starve to death in the streets (because of the capitalists?) and b) are so effective that starving people are so stupid that they don't see people with food and realize that that person has food?

How is it in the interest of capitalists or the government to have people dying in the streets?

[Anonymous No.2626745]

>>2626730
People don't starve to death in the streets of any western city, chap. And homeless people are mentally deranged or ex-soldiers (but I repeat myself).

[Anonymous No.2626750]

>>2626730

Not the same person. I was saying that it does the ultra poor no good to be 'blissfully ignorant' when they need food.

[Anonymous No.2626754]

>>2626745

Not the West, no. Happens often enough in africa and asia.

[Anonymous No.2626756]

>>2626706
> capitalists destroy africa with imperialism
> insult their ideologies because they aren't doing well

[Anonymous No.2626762]

>>2626745
What's your point? 1) Slaves didn't starve in the 19th century either. Hell, their masters gave them roofs over their heads, and a meal! They should be canonized.

Second, people are starving to support our society, but we have the benefit of not seeing them

[Anonymous No.2626766]

>>2626750
The "ultra poor" is a fiction in the west. The standards of poverty increase yearly. If you define "poverty" as the bottom 20% of society, then yeah, there will always be poverty.
>>2626756
>implying Africa isn't full of glorious socialist nation-states

[Anonymous No.2626769]

>>2626729
When exactly do public schools tell people that it is their fault if they are poor? In what capacity is it not their fault? Is it not in the interest of their employees to keep them well-fed and healthy, therefore more productive?
>>2626725
I'm making points against the criticism of capitalism, not criticism of government.

[Anonymous No.2626778]

>>2626762
Are you referring to sweatshop workers? How much do people in sweatshops make? How much do people in comparable situations in the same countries make compared to that of people who don't work in sweatshops? I'll answer this for you - it's a lot more.

[Anonymous No.2626782]

>>2626769
Yes, but you don't understand the effects that the state has on a free society.

[Anonymous No.2626785]

>>2626769
That it's their fault is a media thing. But the schools should be challenging people to make claim for their future. If you haven't been to a public school, then this may be foreign to you, but there's an atmosphere of reluctant acceptance of your fate.

Second, slave owners would ensure that their subjects were well fed. Does that justify them? There's more to life than eating, and certainly food and shelter (basic human rights) aren't enough for the labor and abuse put up with.

[Anonymous No.2626786]

>>2626782
I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Is there something I've said which hints at my lack of knowledge?

[Anonymous No.2626798]

>>2626786
I'm sorry, I read your statement as the opposite and posted haphazardly.

[Anonymous No.2626807]

>>2626785
I went to a public school, and no one ever told me to reluctantly accept my fate. They told me to do my homework.

It seems to me that either these idiot slaves (once they are employed) will either know that there is more to life than productivity-increasing facets or they will not know. If the case is the former, they will do what is in their power to attain those things. If they prove incapable of attaining those things, by what metric do we say they "deserve" them? If the case is the latter, then they will be perfectly content.

[Anonymous No.2626808]

>>2626778
That's simply not true. Sweatshop workers make the same as all the other people. And the reason that they have to settle for such low wages is that the industries are privatized in order (usually) to pay off depts to the world bank

[Anonymous No.2626822]

>>2626808

Slight factual error here. The World Bank makes governments privatize as a condition of lending money. It's basically bribing nations to convert to neoliberalism for the good of the western corporations.

[Anonymous No.2626825]

>>2626808
That's an interesting hypothesis. What do you think of this data http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369 ?

[Anonymous No.2626831]

>>2626786
>anarchism
>capitalism
pick one

>>2626807
That's my point. Do your homework, however stupid it may be. Do what you're told, or else detention or bad grades. To do well, you have to do what the teacher tells you. Rote learning, no creativity. Familiar?

Obviously, not everyone's mind becomes shackled like this. But I think you'll agree, for the vast majority this is the case.

[Anonymous No.2626835]

Objective impartial scientist here.

There will never be a pure free market or perfect democracy just as there will never be perfect equality or complete security, if you try to bring one of these values to their "logical conclusion" you quickly discover out of necessity other priorities that you have dismissed, at which point continued ignorance would result in disaster. We are not looking at a dichotomy, we are looking at a plethora of known and unknown factors all variable and all interacting with each other, this concept is similar to structural functionalism I guess except concerning government policy rather than social norms.

This entire discussion is probably amusing because you have taken sides like you would support a sports team but it will be inconclusive until you start taking the pragmatic perspective, we should be looking at the actual effects of the free market and democratic institutions, how they work, their advantages and disadvantages, accepting that our models of the real world are inaccurate and attempting to evaluate their accuracy and methods to improve accuracy. All to develop specific policies and actual actions that can be undertaken to achieve well defined objectives.

Just saying.

[Anonymous No.2626842]

>>2626825
>The Independent Institute
Yeah, no.

[Anonymous No.2626845]

>>2626831

hey buddy fuck you. I went to a public high school and had a damn good education. I enjoyed it, the teachers were engaging, answered questions and discussed the material.

Though I'm not in the US, and I *have* heard reports of just how fucked up the system is there...

[Anonymous No.2626849]

>>2626825
link is broken
>>2626831
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://mises.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard
freedomainradio.com

I quite honestly don't even understand how you can have structure in an anarchist society without market forces.

[Anonymous No.2626859]

>>2626849

Corporations are hierarchies. Anarchism would eliminate them.

[Anonymous No.2626860]

(On another note)
This is all good stuff, requesting archive

[Anonymous No.2626861]

>>2626831
I think capitalism arises naturally from a properly anarchist state.

I wouldn't agree that for the vast majority it is the case that they are taught and convinced that they don't deserve more than what they work for, and that these convinced people feel sad.
>>2626842
I apologize. I didn't know my source was bad. Can you please provide me with a source that shows that sweatshop wages are the same?

[Anonymous No.2626862]

>>2626835
We are, in fact, looking at a dichotomy.

There is a society organized by whims enforced with violence,

and there is an anarchist society. Left/right after the elimination of the state is just preference.

[Anonymous No.2626872]

>>2626849
The link works for me. Are you copying the question mark or anything? Also, you could google "sweatshop wages median."

[Anonymous No.2626877]

>>2626859
Corporations are a statist legal fiction*

Agreed, even the problem of economic calculation in a socialist commonwealth applies to large corporations. The further devorced transactions are from the price mechanism, the more uncertainty there is. This is why the trusts in 1900s America were unsustainable and broke up before they got beneficial legislation.

[Anonymous No.2626897]

>>2626835
>but it will be inconclusive until you start taking the pragmatic perspective
In fact, quite the contrary. I take the argument from morality (taxation is violence, violence is evil). If you were to take a pragmatic perspective, since humans operate on an individual basis, the state is incredibly efficient for the rulers, as is slavery, or rape.

[Anonymous No.2626898]

'anarcho capitalism' is essentially neoliberalism taken to the extreme. It means complete free rein of business interests. No minimum wage, no protected right to strike, selfish profiteers in control of food and water...

I don't quite see how this is remotely close to desirable. Imagining that all problems are caused by governments is as dumb as saying that all problems are caused by class division.

[Anonymous No.2626904]

>>2626897

Pacifism is retarded. There are things worth fighting for, damn it.

[Anonymous No.2626907]

>>2626861
>>2626861
Well, I can actually use your own data. the only time income really exceeds national average is when they work 60+ hours/week, which is above national average. Most people don't have the employment to work those many hours.

[Anonymous No.2626912]

>>2626898
It's how nature works. I'm in favor of social darwinism at its most extreme level. Also, it doesn't exclude workers' rights by its very nature. Independent companies can be paid to, let's say "pressure," other companies into helping their workers more.

[Anonymous No.2626915]

>>2626898
'anarcho capitalism' is essentially non-aggression taken to the extreme. It means complete freedom from institutionalized coercion. No barriers to entry, no one can use force to keep you from scabbing their strike, and important resources allocated in the most efficient means possible.

I don't quite see how this is remotely close to undesirable. Imagine that all problems are caused by businessmen is as dumb as saying that all problems are caused by [whatever].

[Anonymous No.2626923]

>>2626904
Like freedom from coercion? I agree.

[Anonymous No.2626928]

>>2626907
Err, no. Here's a paraphrase "9 out of 10 countries have wages which exceed the national average at 50 h/week." Anyway, these wages exceed the national average per hour worked. You can perhaps argue that most people can't work that long (why not? are they busy starving to death?), but that doesn't mean sweatshops have wages identical to other jobs.

[Anonymous No.2626933]

well i think the biggest problem is the fucking trillions of dollars of debt your country is in

[Anonymous No.2626935]

>>2626933
the debt accrues to no one, the government doesn't even exist. only individuals exist, and no individual is responsible for the debt.

it's called being plundered

[Anonymous No.2626937]

>>2626928
Okay wait, what? There's some misunderstanding here; what are you trying to argue here?

[Anonymous No.2626940]

>>2626937
he's saying that working in a sweatshop is preferable to not.

[Anonymous No.2626942]

>>2626937
That the statement "People working in sweatshops are suffering [make the same amount as] the same amount as people in the same countries who work elsewhere" is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.2626952]

>>2626915
The only reason workers have ANY rights what-so-ever (read; health, worker safety, insurance) is because the government forced them to adopt it. Without any accountability, there would be no such rights.

Look at all the shit corporations are doing now, for profit. You'd have to be retarded to think it'd be better without government. I'm anarchist btw, but anarchism means no hierarchy PERIOD

[Anonymous No.2626957]

>mfw I don't give a shit about the poor.

Seriously guys, there's too much Marxist bullshit on this board. Complaining about the plutocracy is humiliating and pointless. Go to work. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.2626961]

just stopping in to say fuck the capitalist pigs.

-friendly neighborhood marxist

[Anonymous No.2626964]

>>2626952
The government derives its power from the masses. The government used its power to force companies to provide workers with rights. Therefore, the power of the masses was what forced companies to provide workers with rights. Anarcho-capitalism just cuts out the middle man.

[Anonymous No.2626975]

>>2626942
I'm sorry, although I didn't go through all the article, they all seem to be comparing to national income per capita, and, because from my understanding is that it's hard to get work at even 40 hours per week, although I could be wrong. I'll look into it when I have time, I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, but it doesn't change anything about sweatshops or globalization; the poor conditions across a country is the responabiklity of the corporations who invade it.

[Anonymous No.2626985]

>>2626952
>The only reason workers have ANY rights what-so-ever (read; health, worker safety, insurance) is because the government forced them to adopt it.
If that were true, there would be NO health/safety/quality of life standards outside those that are coerced.

>Without any accountability, there would be no such rights.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but you're implying that some coercive hierarchy holds people "accountable" to some kind of imagined exploitation, and that's incorrect.
>Look at all the shit corporations are doing now, for profit
Um, providing food to entire cities? Can you give me specific examples of these evil things that aren't indirectly caused by some kind of misregulation?
>>2626952
>anarchism means no hierarchy PERIOD
this isn't even correct by definition
>>2626957
There's no one that cares less about the poor than a marxist. There's no one that cares less about the poor than a statist.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I don't give a fuck about the poor but that's because they choose it. The fiction of the "deserving poor" is just that, a fiction.
>>2626964
Yeah, this is more or less true.

Why would there be health and safety standards without a government? Because people want them. Why would there be charity without the government? Because people want to give it.

Besides, this all begs the question that the government provides these services anyway, rather than being the sole cause of the existence of poverty and injustice in the world.

[Anonymous No.2626999]

>>2626602
>>>>2626550
Well sure, every law, regulation, or tax is worthless unless it is enforced. You cannot choose to "opt-out" of the government, so it is a unilateral "contract" (similar to rape).

Your bullshit analogy aside, I was asking because some time ago someone in my class said "Yes" to "attending" some "day against child abuse" on Facebook. Their demands were stricter / harsher laws against child abusers, yet they were at the same time against "all forms of violence". I lol'd at this, she deleted me from Facebook. Probably didn't even get it.

[Anonymous No.2627002]

>>2626975
The graphs that give statistics like 700% higher than the national average (GDP/population I think) are based on that, yes. The second graph directly compares wages, where sweatshops look about like 150%. The idea that the entire wage-scenario of a country is because corporations invaded (???) is a bizarre one. Why did people start working at these corporations with awful wages?
>>2626985
The "deserving poor" is not a fiction. Every poor man deserves to be poor.

[Anonymous No.2627005]

>>2626985
Do you really believe that, in an anarcho-capitalist system, companies that are powerful enough would not, for example, hire squads to enforce their wishes? Or that they would not monopolize other businesses? The corporations would end up becoming the dictators.

[Anonymous No.2627019]

>>2627005

yea, the problem with any anarchic system is it only exists for about a tenth of a second, until human nature kicks in again

[Anonymous No.2627023]

>>2627005
Aside from the obvious moral condemnation of these actions:

They would have to increase their rates above their competition in order to fund these "elite death squads".

Without the illusion of sanctuary provided by the nation-state, people would be much more careful about who they give their money to. There may even be contractual obligations with certain defense firms that included things like:
a) totally open warehouses,
b) "we will pay anyone who finds a miscalculation in our published records 1 million dollars"
etc.

No, it would not be possible for these doomsday scenarios, but even if there were, compared to what? We're staring down the barrel of the most overwhelmingly brutal states in the existence of Man.

How about you propose your system and have me poke holes in it?

[Anonymous No.2627031]

>>2626985
'While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." [Op. Cit., p. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule." [Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 13] Hence David Weick's excellent summary:

"Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique." [Reinventing Anarchy, p. 139] "

(con't)

[Anonymous No.2627033]

>>2627005
I don't believe that such a system can competitively provide goods to its members. Think of it like a weeding-out of poor systems, where we have a ton of anarcho-capitalist law-making bodies throughout the world. Those societies which employ violence in ways which oppress the working class will generally find 1) poor productivity 2) low demand (the oppressed working class has no money, who are they making things for?) 3) an extremely privileged class of violence-users (the people who own the corporation cartels). I am of the opinion that if such a system will prove stable (which seems unlikely), then its stability will be a sign of its worth.

Even if we have an elite class who, say, enslaves the bottom 99% to make them products, we will find that that elite class will either be disposed toward increasing their own happiness finitely or infinitely (they either have finite or infinite demand). If their demand is finite and reachable, there will be leftover man-hours for the bottom class to tend to its own desires. If demand is either unreachable or infinite, then they will orchestrate things such that productivity reaches its highest possible level. This involves such things as workers not being dead, starving, depressed, etc.

[Anonymous No.2627034]

>>2627005
and monopoly in a free market is also a fiction. no business has ever been able to sustain a monopoly without the aid of the state (violence).

[Anonymous No.2627036]

>>2627031
>>2627031
As for your other points, I find it difficult to dignify them with a response.

The gov't imposes laws which maintain a minimum quality worker environment. Not all countries have that. Those that don't, have sweatshops. How doesn't that make sense? There happens to be small sectors of the government that aren't completely corrupt, and they forced corporations to follow certain standards, albeit small ones. It's inconceivable as to how you'd manage to get corporations to do the same, without created a beaurocracy as large as the current government, which does very little.

As for examples of those evil things, just turn on a fucking television. CO2 emissions? Toxic waste disposal, factory farms, wage slavery, GM crops...any of this familiar?

Something as powerful as a corporation can't be stopped. It has all the resources, and everyone will be at its disposal.

[Anonymous No.2627043]

>>2627036
If there were "safety and health" "standards" during the industrial revolution, we'd all still have the standard of living of a 1700s peasant.

[Anonymous No.2627045]

>>2627002
Well, the idea is that, in order to pay off debts to the World Bank, countries had to agree to open their industries to privatization. Then domestic industries fell, which only left foreign industries + a government that couldn't care less about the interest of its people.

[Anonymous No.2627050]

>>2627033
There is no need for violent imposition of "laws" in an anarcho-capitalist society. For example, check out DRO theory (Dispute Resolution Organization) or some other insurance company theories.

It basically comes down to this:
DROs insure your contracts and give contract ratings, those that do not fulfill their contracts are in effect "ostracized" from the economic world.

[Anonymous No.2627061]

>>2626961
It really would take a pseudo-intellectual to think you can just "spread" capital around and solve problems.

[Anonymous No.2627062]

>>2627045
So the fault lies on the government rather than the corporations.
>>2627050
I didn't say it was necessary, but I do find it improbable that such scenarios (doomsday violence) can reasonably be excluded from the realm of possibility. We might not need "defense companies," but denying that one could come about which might act cruelly seems shortsighted.

[Anonymous No.2627073]

>>2627061
> implying food doesn't solve hunger

[Anonymous No.2627075]

>>2627062
I don't think you understand the power of economic ostracism without centralized currency or a state.

Imagine not ever being able to use a currency because you raped and murdered someone. You'd have to grow your own carrots in your back yard.

You also underestimate how incredibly expensive war is. Without the power of taxation, it is economically impossible.

[Anonymous No.2627080]

>>2627073
>implying give a man a fish etc

[Anonymous No.2627081]

>>2627061

It's called a welfare state. You should move to the civilized world sometime.

[Anonymous No.2627094]

>>2627081
Yep. Welfare sure is solving the problem of poverty and illiteracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B1CUJtXPgU

[Anonymous No.2627097]

>>2627075
Oh, but what if you find a large oil field? You have stumbled upon commodity currency, as that is what would be used in an anarcho-capitalist system, and you have brought your value back to society.

[Anonymous No.2627099]

>>2627075
Imagine with me, for a moment, a world in which a business found it its in best interest to enslave exactly one (1) of its employees indefinitely. This employee would, say, sew shoes in the basement of the company, so no one knew it was happening. The company feeds him enough to not die, etc. In what way does this sort of scenario present itself as entirely impossible? I don't think it's inevitable, but I do think the idea is worth considering.

[Anonymous No.2627101]

>>2627094

It did in Scandinavia

[Anonymous No.2627103]

>>2627097
I doubt oil would be used as a currency, something more like voice-activated debit cards that hold your e-currency
>>2627099
How would a statist system handle the same situation?

[Anonymous No.2627111]

>>2627103
I don't find "the current system is worse" arguments to be the greatest, but I imagine it would devote an inordinate amount of resources to discovering the whereabouts of this man.

[Anonymous No.2627118]

>>2627103
with an audit

[Anonymous No.2627120]

>>2627111
There will always be these "lone gunman" scenarios and they apply to any society.
>I imagine it would devote an inordinate amount of resources to discovering the whereabouts of this man.
Insurance? And do you really think the police give a fuck about some missing person? They put on the appearance, but nobody is going to lose their job if they don't find them.

[Anonymous No.2627126]

>>2627118
Bribes.

[Anonymous No.2627135]

>>2627120
What I was trying to say was that I think that I can reasonably engineer the situation such that it is not in anyone's financial interest to discover the slave.

[Anonymous No.2627136]

>>2627103
Where would the value for this currency come from without the state? Why would people uphold it and who would produce it?

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio..."

[Anonymous No.2627140]

>>2627126
honor and different auditors every time

[Anonymous No.2627141]

>>2627136
You're asking me to centrally plan an entire monetary/insurance system and I'm telling you it's not possible.

[Anonymous No.2627146]

>>2627101
No it didn't. Scandinavian countries have tried welfare state for only very short time. They were rich before they started it and it has been pretty disastrous.

For example Sweden used to be good old low tax country during the time it got rich.

[Anonymous No.2627147]

>>2627140
The problem of "who watches the watchman" isn't answered by anything other than the free market, where an independent agency is paid to be as absolutely unbiased as possible

[Anonymous No.2627152]

>>2627146
It also used to have some of the freest markets on earth. #1 on the economic freedom scale, now it's down to #22.

[Anonymous No.2627161]

>>2627146
Sweden has one of the most productive economy in the world....

[Anonymous No.2627169]

>>2627146

Yeah, no... Please get your facts straight.

The Scandinavian welfare systems were initiated in the 1930's (Denmark 1933, Sweden 1938) and their level of welfare peaked around the 70's. Interestingly enough at the time when your graph shows the highest level of disparity between American and Swedish wealth.

So please go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.2627171]

>>2627161
GDP (a government statistic) has Sweden as #16 GDP per capita. Singapore, Luxembourg, and Qatar (the most free markets on earth) are 1, 2, and 3 respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

[Anonymous No.2627183]

>>2627169
the United States has a giant military industrial complex

[Anonymous No.2627185]

>>2627169
> massive cognitive dissonance
Scandinavian countries continue have a great standard of living.

[Anonymous No.2627189]

>>2627169
and also GDP counts parasitical government workers as productive.

[Anonymous No.2627190]

>>2627169
>So please go fuck yourself.

My graph showed tax burden as percentage of GDP. If you can't even read that ...

[Anonymous No.2627210]

>>2627190

Are you honestly that biased?

You made the absurd claim that the Scandinavian countries were rich before their welfare programs started.

Yeah right, I'm sure those Scandinavian countries were loaded during the depressed thirties and in the postwar years, when the system took off.

[Anonymous No.2627213]

Posting facts.

OECD Quality of Life Index. Social Democracies (capitalist states with strong public programs) rank highest in terms of subjective happiness.

[Anonymous No.2627215]

Gini Income Inequality Index. Green is most equal.

[Anonymous No.2627219]

Global Innovation Index.

[Anonymous No.2627224]

Corruption Perception Index.

[Anonymous No.2627228]

>>2627210
Sweden scooted through WWII peacufully, so it really was wealthy. Finland, Norway and Denmark were not.

[Anonymous No.2627229]

Heritage Economic Freedom Index.

[Anonymous No.2627238]

>>2627228

And yet they too were able to establish a functioning welfare state

[Anonymous No.2627241]

Social Mobility. A nation scoring 2 would have twice as many citizens (per capita) improve economic standing over a generation, relative to the United States.

Full report:
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf

[Anonymous No.2627243]

Press Freedom Index.

[Anonymous No.2627248]

National vacation and holidays laws.

[Anonymous No.2627249]

>>2627213
>Social Democracies (capitalist states with strong public programs) rank highest in terms of subjective happiness.

But that's because there are a great number of social democracies, not causal due to the fact that they are social democracies. Look at any of these graphs. Some social democracies are high like Finland and Denmark. Others are relatively low, like Brazil, Greece, or the UK.

[Anonymous No.2627251]

Nations with universal health care, health spending as percentage of GDP, life expectancy, and doctor visits.

[Anonymous No.2627252]

Let's get this started:

> America
> American Dream
> Poverty
> No Social Mobility
> Less Economic Freedom
> Less Happiness
> Less Innovation

[Anonymous No.2627254]

None of these graphs can tell you anything about anything. All you can see is 'durr this country is at the top of a bunch of these'.

They're also all mixed in with free market countries like Norway, Switzerland, Hong Kong (pseudo-country).

I don't really understand what you're trying to say? Even the Soviet Union lasted like what, 70 years?

[Anonymous No.2627255]

Various statistics.

[Anonymous No.2627259]

>>2627251
>numbers reflect all public and private spending
>government spends 60-70% of all the money in the health care industry

[Anonymous No.2627261]

>>2627210
Yes, Sweden was filthy rich before their welfare programs and they had very low taxes until the 60s.

A good article to read about Sweden - http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=151

[Anonymous No.2627264]

>>2627254
Social Democracy, a healthy blend of capitalism and socialism, demonstrably yields the best results.

[Anonymous No.2627265]

>>2627249

You are really grasping at straws here.

The UK isn't a social democracy by European standards, most Europeans consider UK closer to the US political system than the continental system.

As for comparing Brazil and Greece with Scandinavia, that's like saying capitalism doesn't work because people in Burkina Faso are poor. No system will work if it's managed by retards.

[Anonymous No.2627272]

>>2627254

Norway is a social democracy

[Anonymous No.2627275]

>>2627264
"In any compromise between food and poison, death wins"

You really can't mix whimsical violence with freedom and expect long-term goals. The entirety of Europe is running on catastrophic debt; their entire quality of life is false.

[Anonymous No.2627279]

>>2627272
I meant Denmark (all the same to me)

[Anonymous No.2627280]

>>2627275

As opposed to the healthy and stable American economy

[Anonymous No.2627282]

>>2627280
>implying America isn't a fascist nation-state
Only supporting my argument.

[Anonymous No.2627289]

>>2627249
Scandinavian countries having free education all the way through and giving a lot of straight monthly monetary support to students has a lot to do with it.

[Anonymous No.2627292]

>>2627279

Denmark has the highest tax rate in the world

[Anonymous No.2627295]

>>2627292
These things are not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.2627303]

>>2627295

Of course they aren't, all social democracies are free markets, that's the whole point.

Denmark is the biggest social democracy in the world.

[Anonymous No.2627309]

>>2627289

It's not the educational system.

As some guy posted in another thread, the percentage of populace with a tertiary education is higher in the US than it is in Denmark

[Anonymous No.2627313]

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

per capita $
Norway 113,174
Denmark 110,216
Sweden 72,594

USA 46,577

You guys are missing cause and effect. "Social democracy" did not make Sweden rich. It was rich before and relatively richer on global scale. Social democracy made it unsustainable and deep in debt.

[Anonymous No.2627314]

>>2627265

OK, How about France, Italy, and Germany? The US has higher subjective happiness than all those countries. Are they not "a social democracy by European standards"? Similar trends exist for almost all the graphs, the US beats some social democracies and loses to others.

You are disingenuously cherry-picking which social democracies you compare the US with and ignoring the others.

[Anonymous No.2627331]

200 years from now it will accepted established fact that Capitalism is an exploitative system that violates human dignity rights.

[Anonymous No.2627340]

>>2627314

Actually no.

Southern European welfare is based on relations with family and church, rather than state.

French and German welfare requires a relationship with the labor market.

Scandinavian welfare is simply a given right from birth.

[Anonymous No.2627353]

>>2627313
There's a difference between external debt and public debt. It's proportional to the popularism of the governments.

[Anonymous No.2627356]

>>2627313

Two years ago those numbers were the other way around.

The Scandinavian system is more vulnerable to recessions because public spending doesn't decrease with a decline in gdp

[Anonymous No.2627364]

>200 years

Doubt it'll take that long. A century at the most.

[Anonymous No.2627375]

>>2627314

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

Nordic Model =/= Mediterranean Model

[Anonymous No.2627379]

>>2627356
because you can't buffer funds

[Anonymous No.2627381]

>>2627340
>only Nordic countries are social democracies

You have a very self serving definition. Your claim that

>Southern European welfare is based on relations with family and church, rather than state.

is especially groundless.

[Anonymous No.2627383]

>>2627379

exactly, that's the weakness of the system.

[Anonymous No.2627409]

>>2627375
>Nordic Model =/= Mediterranean Model

Did you even read your own link? They are both social democracies.

[Anonymous No.2627416]

>>2627309
The US is more educated because the alternative of being uneducated in the US is not nice all.

[Anonymous No.2627420]

>>2627331
>>2627331
>>2627331
>>2627331
>>2627331

[Anonymous No.2627425]

>>2627381

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

Explains the differences in system.

http://www.icps.es/archivos/WorkingPapers/WP_I_185.pdf

Explains the Mediterranean model.

Social expenditures are considerably lower, because one person households aren't very common. (in other words, the system is designed around a nuclear family).

[Anonymous No.2627439]

>>2627409

They are different forms of social democracies, you wouldn't say the US had the same financial system as Burkina Faso because they are both capitalist states either, would you?

I honestly shouldn't have to explain this to you

[Anonymous No.2627446]

>>2627425
They are all social democracies. Your link says it. Why do people keep posting that wikipage without reading it?

And your paper does not say the Mediterranean model is based on relations which church rather than the state. I don't know how you think THE STATE giving social expenditures based on assumptions nuclear families proves that.

[Anonymous No.2627462]

>>2627439
I never claimed they were the same. But an anon claimed that social democracies preform better than the US on a variety of measures, when plenty of comparable advanced European countries with social democracies (France, Germany, Italy) do worse.

If your claim is instead that most types of social democracy are worse than captialism but Nordic is better, say that instead.

[Anonymous No.2627483]

>>2627446

The main difference between the Nordic model and the Mediterranean model is that the Mediterranean model is designed for a system where church and family are institutions on the same level as state.

The biggest difference between the two systems is therefore that family expenditures are lower. Child care benefits being the obvious example.

In Scandinavia the system is designed to ensure that both parents can maintain a career. This is done by the state guaranteeing paid maternity leave for both parents.

In the Mediterranean model the system instead relies on FAMILY or CHURCH to help out in such a situation because these institutions are stronger and because there's typically only one working parent.

What is it you don't understand?

[Anonymous No.2627489]

>>2627462

Never claimed otherwise, everyone knows Southern Europe is full of failed states.

[Anonymous No.2627496]

>>2627462

I never claimed otherwise, everyone knows southern Europe is nothing but failed states

[Anonymous No.2627516]

>>2627483
You're just making baseless assertions. Social remittances per family by the state are lower, therefore the Church is more important than the state? Even if I accepted your claim that to pay for maternity leave, in addition to state remittances, people expected to get some money from the Church (which I repeat, is still baseless), it doesn't follow that the Church is more important than the state.

>>2627489
Ha, well at least you're consistent.

[Anonymous No.2627530]

>>2627516

It's not more important than the state, it has a higher relative importance compared with Nordic countries. Why is that even important anyway?