Under capitalism, if a person has more than a million dollars, he can slap that onto a bank account and live off the interest. He then becomes human scum, consuming resources and contributing little. How do we stop this /sci/?

File: 159 KB, 1024x768, paris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:05:27 2011 No.2954499 [Reply] [Original]

Under capitalism, if a person has more than a million dollars, he can slap that onto a bank account and live off the interest. He then becomes human scum, consuming resources and contributing little. How do we stop this /sci/?

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:07:27 2011 No.2954503

But he is contributing. His million dollars are being lent out to others, who then can use them to improve their lives and generate more income. This is why he is paid interest.

Also, the chances of someone with over a million dollars being content to live on 50k a year are not very good.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:07:27 2011 No.2954504

...except he's contributing a shit ton. He's giving out his million dollars to banks so they can lend it out to provide growth in the economy. A person who wins the lottery and puts it in the bank is contributing more to society than the hardest workers who make less than 100k a year.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:07:27 2011 No.2954505 we don't, that would defeat the entire purpose of capitalism

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:08:27 2011 No.2954510 Tax rich people \thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:08:27 2011 No.2954517 File: 3 KB, 126x126, 1268815127658.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You clearly have no idea how the economy or society works and sound jealous as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:09:27 2011 No.2954522 File: 9 KB, 271x260, 015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2954503 >>2954504 >>2954517

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:11:27 2011 No.2954529

If I had my way I'd build everyone a mansion. Why don't these faggots do that? It saddens me to see people working 9-5 jobs they hate day in day out just to support themselves enough to live in some squalor. :(

Maybe some kind of cap where for every $1 you earn after that point (after tax), a second tax of 50% is imposed that goes specifically towards improving housing for the entire country/pension funds etc. Most people deserve to not die in some shitty place.

I also understand not everyone places the same value on housing, but for me it represents progress. If you are in the same shitty housing you have been in for the past 30 yeasr your life may feel very stagnant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:11:27 2011 No.2954532 >>2954522 Except we aren't trolling. There are more input factors to societal progress than just hard work or intricate scientific research. There needs to be a financial capital backbone to make it all happen

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:16:27 2011 No.2954554 >>2954532 But all the guy is doing is giving his money to a bank, we don't need him at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:16:27 2011 No.2954555 It's easy to support yourself when you have no kids. Idiots shouldn't have reproduced. Now they have to pay for their mistake. Literally.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:16:27 2011 No.2954558 >>2954529 Some people like to leech off of others. Have you ever seen people getting food with food stamps? Lots of food that the "needy" people don't like gets thrown in the dumpster. There's clearly something wrong here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:17:27 2011 No.2954561 >>2954529 We did this. They're called McMansions and they're part of the reason for the current financial crisis.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:19:27 2011 No.2954570 Under socialized welfare, if a woman has a lot of babies, she can ask the government for financial help and live off the money she didn't earn. She then becomes human scum, consuming resources and contributing little. How do we stop this /sci/?

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:21:27 2011 No.2954582

>>2954554
He owns that amount of money and the decisions he is making with it will ultimately lead to a more comfortable infrastructure for society to build upon. The economy would be worse off without his money invested.

It costs money to do scientific research. It consumes resources and the funding has to come from somewhere. Even if there isn't a direct correlation between the guy's money and the research, the stronger economy that the guy's money made happen ultimately leads to more research through funding.

It doesn't have to be research either, you could look at the economy being better to provide a better base for technological access. Either way, you idiots that think someone's worth should be 100% directly related to how much they contribute through knowledge or labor are fucking retarded. The world is more complex than that because the world would fail otherwise.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:21:27 2011 No.2954584

The basic problem with capitalism is that people can give money to other people.

Thus, a man who earned his wealth can pass it to his son, thus creating a line of rich people who don't work to deserve their wealth.

The solution is to make money non-giftable, and have everyone start life with the same amount.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:22:27 2011 No.2954587

1. Impose laws on reproduction
2. Improve current state of life for all
3. Modify law imposed on step 1 to suit current number of population

I know it might sound a bit heartless but the quality of life could seriously be raised this way. Definitely needs to be done in all those shitty African countries, the more we give them the faster they reproduce. We need infrastructure imposed. Not hand outs that just allow them to breed until those handouts no longer support them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:23:27 2011 No.2954593 >>2954584 >have everyone start life with the same amount. But some people will exploit it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:23:27 2011 No.2954596 >>2954587 That's not at all heartless. It just makes sense. Can't support this many people. China has the right idea.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:25:27 2011 No.2954601 >>2954584 Sounds like the basic problem with socialism is that people are jelly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:25:27 2011 No.2954604 So what OP is saying is if you invest in something that makes money for you then you are scum.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:26:27 2011 No.2954610

>>2954593
Well sure, maybe. I'm not a fan of capitalism anyway. I'm just saying how it could be made better by really allowing for all that "earning wealth" propaganda to be true.

Of course, as soon as you propose this, the heriditarily rich people who like to talk about "working for success" will claim it is inherently non-capitalist to prevent money gifting. In fact, it is the most capitalist thing imaginable, it's the logical conclusion of capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:26:27 2011 No.2954611 File: 37 KB, 600x704, wat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2954584 .......wat?

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:26:27 2011 No.2954613

The basic problem with socialism is that people can take money away from other people.

Thus, a man who earned his wealth will get stolen by a stranger, thus creating a line of lazy bums who don't work to deserve their wealth.

The solution is to make money private property, and have everyone start life with their own means.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:27:27 2011 No.2954616 >>2954604 More like when you stop doing anything but sitting on top of money then you are scum.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:27:27 2011 No.2954617 The man with millions in the bank contributes more to the economy than you ever will. L2economy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:29:27 2011 No.2954622 >>2954616 who would be stupid enough to sit on cash instead of investing it at least in banks/bonds? >inb4 investment is leeching

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:30:27 2011 No.2954631 >>2954622 Look at >>2954604

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:31:27 2011 No.2954639 >>2954622 sit on money = invest it in an easy way and let real men earn your money for you

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:34:27 2011 No.2954641 >>2954610 what if your family has more connections than others? should the government step in to regulate that as well since it would have a dramatic effect on your future?

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:34:27 2011 No.2954643

>>2954613
The basic problem with capitalism is that people can take money away from other people.

Thus, a man who earned his wealth will get stolen by a stranger, thus creating a line of lazy bums who don't work to deserve their wealth.

My solution is irrelevant to what my stated problem was.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:35:27 2011 No.2954647 >>2954639 People work to become rich so they can stop working.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:35:27 2011 No.2954649 >>2954584 Has this ever been implemented successfully? It feels like the law is going to be extra-harsh or that there will be plotholes to exploit.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:35:27 2011 No.2954651

>>2954616
Honestly, while "scum" is obviously a knee-jerk reaction because you're poor, I think most people would agree that if someone isn't really retired and isn't doing anything with themselves except living off their investments is a lazy leech, that is an even rarer case than the welfare queen having babies for money, and significantly so, because single mothers with multiple kids are stupid and lazy much more often than millionaires are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:36:27 2011 No.2954657 >>2954647 people work to eat more candy

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:39:27 2011 No.2954669 >>2954651 welfare mothers are a drain, whereas trust fund babies break even at the very least

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:41:27 2011 No.2954682

>>2954649
No, it hasn't, because the desire to make the best possible life for your children is extremely fundamental, and everyone who isn't closed-minded and bitter or just retarded is capable of understanding this, and people who think trying to prevent this is a good idea let alone remotely practicable are stupid and not worth trying to convince.

That's not to say an estate tax isn't a good idea, I fully support an estate tax of around 50% over a million dollars, but the point of that isn't to stop lazy rich people from failing to contribute but rather to tax the wealth that is never otherwise actual income for the heir.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:41:27 2011 No.2954689

>>2954643
Capitalism doesn't work because $x applied to work y is not equal to $x applied to work z.

$x depends on a unitless inflation which instantaneously changes position, speed and velocity at whim, because $x is a figment/fractal of human psychology.

e.g. $800 billion dollars to fund education does not equal $800 billion dollars to fund a war. Comparing these two $x for different work is inane.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:43:27 2011 No.2954695 >>2954669 I didn't mean to imply that the actions of the two are equivalent, only that both are rare and mostly irrelevant fringe cases brought up by their opponents as strawmen based in reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:43:27 2011 No.2954697 >>2954657 >>2954647 some folks like more candy, some folks like to retire early. MOST folks like both but are too stupid to manage their money. They end up using credit or loans when they shouldn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:44:27 2011 No.2954708 >>2954669 Welfare mothers would be a drain if more successful people could manage to reproduce at something moderately approaching replacement rates, but alas, it isn't so.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:48:27 2011 No.2954731

If we accept that the means by which people acquire such funds is fair, then who cares if you live off the interest, or you live off your fathers fortune?

But so long as the people who already have money get to write the laws by which business and capital are regulated, they get to take risks that they don't get held to account for, and they get to set up barriers to entry for entrepreneurs, and they get to keep a larger portion of their money from the taxman than any other group, THEN it is unfair.

But more legislation won't cut it, only less. The oligarchs already have a veto on legislation. If they were forced to compete more fairly, they would return to a level of wealth that reflected their contribution to society.

Capitalism, yo.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:52:27 2011 No.2954754 >>2954731 How do you force someone to compete fairly? Legislation. How do you force someone to compete fairly when they control legislation? Revolution.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 21:52:27 2011 No.2954755

I would have entered this conversation a lot earlier if OP's image wasnt of something stupid. I have a natural propensity to ignore any messages associated with stupid shit.

The money that he puts in the bank gets loaned out to other people. By putting a million dollars in the bank, there is essentially 10 million dollars worth of loans in circulation.

If you had a town, of medium quality, and a rich guy shows up with a million dollars and does nothing but puts that money into the local bank. The community as a whole increases in quality.

Actually I dont want to make any blanket statements. I just want to point out how banking practically works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:54:27 2011 No.2954772 >>2954754 Agreed. When throwing more fuel on this fire fails to put it out, maybe we should start throwing some water.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:57:27 2011 No.2954789

>>2954755

Yeah. He's just like a very hands off venture capitalist. He gets to not worry about losing on bad investments, and to not have to worry about picking investments, and in exchange he earns a lower rate of return than if he had directly invested in the same portfolio.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:58:27 2011 No.2954802 >>2954755 Why pay the man interest? He's doing no work at all.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 21:59:27 2011 No.2954806

>>2954754
>How do you force someone to compete fairly?
>Legislation.
Translation: Anyone who works harder than others or is too intelligent will have to be killed.

>How do you force someone to compete fairly when they control legislation?
>Revolution.
Translation: Kill anyone who disagrees with you.

nb4 communism

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:01:27 2011 No.2954815 Can someone please explain to me what exactly is meant by fair competition, and how the threat of violence is used to induce such a state?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:02:27 2011 No.2954824 >>2954815 Similar to how violence has been used to avoid such a state, only in the opposite direction.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:03:27 2011 No.2954831

>>2954755
i just want to point out that prior to hank paulson tres. sect, the leverage ratio was 8:1(1million in bank = 8 million in loans),

hank paulson changed that ratio to 40:1, which many economists believe was the most fundamental regulation leading to the recent banking failure and loan crisis.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 22:03:27 2011 No.2954838

>>2954802

I think there are multiple adequete answers, and I just dont know enough banking.

First of all, $1 that you spent today has a difference value of $1 you will spend in a year. Finance people know this, and when dealing with money they know they cant work until a certain period of time, they will re examine the value of that money.

If you put $400 into a bank. The value isnt really $400, because with the $400 the bank can invest in something that will generate more wealth. To the bank the $400 could be worth lets say, $420. You get interest to incentivize you to give them money that they can loan out to other people.

Its like "I made money with your money, and to treat you right, I give you a cut of what I did with your money"

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:03:27 2011 No.2954839 File: 21 KB, 469x313, gaddafi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2954806 I am so smart, they'll kill me!

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:03:27 2011 No.2954845

>>2954806

Well, he's wrong about the first part. Legislation does not work to make people compete fairly. Because it is ALWAYS written by the very people it is supposed to regulate.

The only solution is no legislation, or incredibly minimal legislation devoted to ensuring a fair system to resolve contract disputes and damage claims.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:04:27 2011 No.2954849 >>2954802 Because he's letting you loan out his money instead of keeping it for himself in his basement.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:07:27 2011 No.2954861

>>2954802
Why put money in a bank at all? You could find a pretty safe place and hide your money there.

Interest is the incentive to put your money in the bank so that they can make loans, make interest on those, and pay you out of that interest. Banks are a business, you know.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:07:27 2011 No.2954863 >>2954845 So because the guys are legislating themselves, let's just have them legislate themselves by having no legislation at all. That should solve the problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:08:27 2011 No.2954874 File: 157 KB, 902x814, 1294852333385.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2954532 >There needs to be a financial capital backbone to make it all happen No, there really dosent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:08:27 2011 No.2954878 >>2954861 Because in a bank your money is safe and credit cards and internet banking and all the other services. inb4 banking crisis

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:09:27 2011 No.2954883 >>2954861 And the loaning business helps the economy. I don't understand why some people view investment as an exploitative action.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:10:27 2011 No.2954885 >>2954874 That image - strawman fallacy

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 22:10:27 2011 No.2954889 File: 47 KB, 400x400, 1285395598115.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2954874 >>2954874 I will await elaboration

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:11:27 2011 No.2954894 >>2954874 Then there needs to be a ruthless dictatorship.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:11:27 2011 No.2954895

>>2954772
>>2954755
Yes, a very hands-off venture capitalist is indeed the same thing. This is the rentier class.

In these examples what you have is someone who is charging rent on the use of his liquidity - he loses the option to use the money, and in exchange gets it back with interest.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:14:27 2011 No.2954915

>>2954806
>Translation: Anyone who works harder than others or is too intelligent will have to be killed.

Let's look at an example. I start a burger joint called mcdonalds. I work hard and get customers because I have good burgers. I expand. I build more restaurants. Eventually, I just hire other people to make the burgers and sell them.

I'm smart, so I make a large portion of the profits all go to me, even though I'm not doing work anymore. A burger costs .10 to make, and I sell it for $1.00. 30 cents goes to me, and the rest goes to my workers & business costs.

I end up with $30 Billion dollars for being smart, and working hard initially.
I teach my son Roger how to keep the company inline and keep the income. I teach him how to invest so we never have to do real work again. I teach him to loan money at high interest rates.
Billy, my minimum wage worker thinks this is unfair because I just sit on my ass all day. He can't start his own burger company, because this one is already super efficient, and he doesn't have any extra money after paying his mortgage. (mortgage money that is lent by your son, Roger)
I call billy a lazy fuck because the system is working for me.
I call anyone who wants my system to change a violent communist.

This story illustrates that all those who work hard or work smart are rewarded. For eternity. (Read sarcasm)

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:14:27 2011 No.2954916 >>2954883 It's not the investment that's exploitative, but that the investor does nothing except reap the rewards and consume. The income does not match the contribution. Anybody can carry his money to a bank if he has money.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:16:27 2011 No.2954924

>>2954863

Without legislation, they are regulated by the market. Providing there are fair and just courts to deal with any suits or disputes involving businessmen, that would be sufficient.

Right now, they get to legislate themselves, and they have a government to back this up with force.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 22:16:27 2011 No.2954928

>>2954915

Like my randian peers I find nothing wrong with this and I assume it is absolutely correct. I have no sense of sarcasm for it was lost during the creation of a new brain lobe. One which perpetually sits in awe of industrialists.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:17:27 2011 No.2954932

>>2954915
>Billy, my minimum wage worker thinks this is unfair because I just sit on my ass all day. He can't start his own burger company, because this one is already super efficient, and he doesn't have any extra money after paying his mortgage. (mortgage money that is lent by your son, Roger)

Billy gives you and your son finger and gets a loan from someone else at a lower interest rate that he can afford.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:17:27 2011 No.2954936 So now someone letting you use his money is considered 'work'.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 22:18:27 2011 No.2954945 >>2954916 How do you determine if an income matches a contribution?

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:20:27 2011 No.2954962

>>2954915

So you start a successful business.

One that is so successful, and has such a great business model that even an idiot can run it, and you can take most of the profits. You then become a virtual bank, and start lending money, which is now the source of most of your wealth.

And nobody can copy this model and make it more efficient by choosing to take less of the profits? There are no people interested in getting in on the ground floor of this investment, in a market proven to be worth billions?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:23:27 2011 No.2954965 >>2954932 Except Billy's starting out with no education because he can't afford it and no credit history and no one will give him a loan that he will actually be able to afford to pay off.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:25:27 2011 No.2954981 >>2954945 in a smart way?

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:26:27 2011 No.2954986

>>2954936

It's capital.

If I directly invest in your enterprise, am I entitled to a cut of the profits? I would only agree to fund you if I were.

And if I give my money to a stockbroker, and he makes investments on my behalf, am I entitled to a share of any profits that might arise?

And if I put my money in a bank, and they lend it out, and they make a profit thanks to my money, am I not entitled to some of those profits too?

You must be angry at entrenched power and wealth. Then your enemy is governments using force to keep people there, and keep everyone else out.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:27:27 2011 No.2954990

>>2954915
But under capitalism, there are the least amount of losers compared to other systems. Once you eliminate the incentive for getting more money, there's no reason to work hard any more. Acquiring wealth becomes pointless because you know the gov't will take it away from you eventually. Tough luck if you want to pay for your child's life-saving surgery or if your child has Down Syndrome.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:27:27 2011 No.2954991

>>2954932
Okay, I'll continue the story for you then.
Billy, gets a low interest loan from another guy. Great!
He starts his burger joint, and it does well! We'll call it Burger King. Billy does so well, that he expands, and he starts hiring new workers.
He sees that the owner of Mcdonalds pays himself .30 a burger, and sees no reason to pay himself .29 a burger.
Billy pays himself .30 a burger, and ends up with 30 billion dollars as well.
His worker Joe, complains that he doesn't deserve that since Billy just sits on his ass all day.

The burger market is now saturated, and at a level of equilibrium.
Joe doesn't want $30 billion dollars and his own burger joint, he just wants his wages to be better so that he doesn't have to work until he is 70.
What should Joe do?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:27:27 2011 No.2954994 >How do we stop this /sci/? It's simple - progressive taxation.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:28:27 2011 No.2954997

>>2954965
If you are over 24 you can go back to college on uncle sam's tab. If you are not claimed as a dependent for 5 years the government considers only the person's income ad the factor for whether or not they get aid.

There are also plenty of well of people who started their own business with only a high school education.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:28:27 2011 No.2955004 >>2954986 > he has not heard about democracy

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:29:27 2011 No.2955005

Wrong perspective, but on the right track OP. See, to have made that money he probably had to have done something worthwhile meaning he's not entirely worthless. HOWEVER, many large corporations and lucky individuals simply get more money than they really deserve. i.e. kid makes iphone app that plays fart noises and makes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sure it had a certain degree of brilliance and catering to the right market, but I really don't think that cent for cent the guy deserved all that money.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:30:27 2011 No.2955018 >>2954916 So, helping companies grow by investing in them (which leads to the creation of jobs) isn't productive?

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 22:30:27 2011 No.2955024

>>2954981

Well Im convinced.

>>2954986

>am I entitled to a cut of the profits? I would only agree to fund you if I were.

Okay I want to make something evident, because many of you keep saying this over and over again

>start business keep profits
>take the profits
>grow and keep all the profits

This isnt how reality works. People dont make deals that say "And X gets to keep the profits"

People make loans, with interest, or they sell stock. A profit is something the business generates if its lucky. Its not some implied end goal.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:31:27 2011 No.2955025
File: 38 KB, 351x450, Russel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I mean, the ultimate question here is whether a system which rewards people for hoarding and for maximizing profits is good Capitalism.

I would submit that the answer is no, but I would also submit that the reasons are ones which can be addressed within Capitalism by reconsidering our notions about liquidity hoarding, investment, debt/credit, speculative markets, etc.

These are human institutions and as such we have ways of changing how they work to make them work better. That's all. The rentiers, however, are clearly not productive no matter how much we may believe they are entitled to "do what they want with their money."

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:31:27 2011 No.2955026 >>2954990 So are you getting tens of thousands of dollars for putting money to a bank?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:31:27 2011 No.2955027 >>2954883 not exploitative =/= not constructive

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:31:27 2011 No.2955028

>>2954991

Get a better job. Save up money. Start a restaurant offering something slightly different.

Move into a different field entirely. One with better prospects that suits him better.

Try to get promoted to manager of that franchise. Then regional manager. Then who knows?

I mean, do you really need explaining that not everybody in the world can succeed? It's a matter of luck and skill. You need both.

How would, for example, extra legislation help the matter?

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:31:27 2011 No.2955032

>>2954991
Billy realized that if he wants good employees he has to pay them good money. Otherwise they leave his company and work for someone who pays better.

McDonalds and walmart turn over the low level employees like crazy because they don't pay. Companies that pay better have more loyal employees.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:32:27 2011 No.2955035

>>2954962
The owner of mcdonalds now has enough money to buy legislation. He can afford to fund congressman and presidential campaigns.
If Billy gives himself less money per burger he sells, then he won't be able to fund as many politician campaigns. He'll be less powerful than the owner of mcdonalds
So now billy has an incentive to compete with the owner of McDonalds and get as much money as he can

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:33:27 2011 No.2955041 >>2955024 A business is not a person. Why should a person be allowed to have huge possessions when clearly letting a business have huge possessions is more beneficial?

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:34:27 2011 No.2955042

>>2955024

But people don't expect to get all the profits.

They expect to get a return on their investment, and accept that this doesn't always happen.

When you make a direct investment, that's how it works.

When you save money in a bank, and they lend it out, you are doing the same thing, but separated from you by a few layers. So you get less back, and you personally take less risk.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 22:34:27 2011 No.2955043 I have a story. One day Cory needed a job. No back story here. Cory got a job and made money. He never got married but on his dead bed he said "my job was pretty cool" Story over.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:35:27 2011 No.2955044 >>2955035 > this is what libertarians actually believe maybe try voting instead

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:35:27 2011 No.2955046 >>2954991 OO OO! START A HOTDOG JOINT.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:36:27 2011 No.2955055

>>2954991
>What should Joe do?
Ask to government to force Billy to give a share of his income. Billy loses money, so he has to fire some workers and raise prices. Joe responds by asking the government to freeze prices and threaten Billy with the workers' union. Billy has no options except committing suicide.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:36:27 2011 No.2955056 >>2955044 If vote were worth as much to politicians as bribes, we wouldn't be in this mess.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 22:36:27 2011 No.2955058

>>2955041

I dont understand your words at all.

I dont think I said anything that implied businesses were or were not people.

Is letting the business hold massive wealth more beneficial than letting an individual hold massive wealth? I dont know. Am I asserting that? This just seems like non-sense to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:41:27 2011 No.2955067 >>2955025 What century are you living in? The economy has detached itself from human involvedment >darkpool

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:42:27 2011 No.2955068 >>2955055 If Billy had actually put in effort he would have been successful, but no. Suicide, a fitting end for a leech.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:48:27 2011 No.2955081 >>2955056 Then start a new party whose campaign exposes the corruption of the old ones.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:48:27 2011 No.2955084

>>2955028
The point is that there can only be so many regional managers. or business owners.
We should treat the bottom rung of the scale as human beings. Someone has to flip the burgers, but I wish it wasn't so hard to survive on flipping burgers. The money is there, it's just going to the owner.

Yes I recognize there is no magic legislation to repair the flaws that come with capitalism.
My idea would be an income limit. $20 million a year is as much as any one person can make. The rest has to go to your workers.

I don't think it's too bad an idea because really, who needs more than X million dollars?

I am open to other ideas.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:49:27 2011 No.2955087 >>2955056 If the voters had brains, then corrupt politicians be in the office in the first place

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:49:27 2011 No.2955091 >How do we stop this /sci/? I think the real question here is why are people on /sci so hostile towards markets?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:50:27 2011 No.2955096 >>2955028 Everyone is entitled to the right to succeed in life.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:50:27 2011 No.2955105

>>2955055
What Joe needs to do is gather enough money to short sell both mcdonalds and burger king, then pay a retard to perform jihad on burgers, by blowing himself up.

Stock falls massively, Joe sells during the brief mmarket panic, invests million dollars in bank, never works again.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 22:55:27 2011 No.2955116 >>2955084 >The money is there, it's just going to the owner. How do you know this.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:56:27 2011 No.2955119

>>2955081

If you could find an incorruptible group of people to fill this party, that would be fine.

Personally, I don't think the best solution to corruption and exploitation is to declare one group of people to be beyond reproach, and then give them sole control over making laws and commanding a monopoly of violence over the population.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:57:27 2011 No.2955123 File: 31 KB, 250x324, Uncle_Joe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2955091 I'm more hostile to market utopianism, to be fair. Everyone else is a filthy communist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:57:27 2011 No.2955133 >>2955091 The education system has been brainwashing impressionable people with Liberal bullshit

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:58:27 2011 No.2955138

>>2955028
The point is that there can only be so many regional managers. or business owners.
We should treat the bottom rung of the scale as human beings. Someone has to flip the burgers, but I wish it wasn't so hard to survive on flipping burgers. The money is there, it's just going to the owner.

Yes I recognize there is no magic legislation to repair the flaws that come with capitalism.
My idea would be an income limit. $20 million a year is as much as any one person can make. The rest has to go to your workers.

I don't think it's too bad an idea because really, who needs more than X million dollars?

I am open to other ideas.

gahhhh takes so long for post to post why 4chan so slow

>>	снайпер Tue Apr 26 22:58:27 2011 No.2955139 >>2954990 >Once you eliminate the incentive for getting more money, there's no reason to work hard any more Utterly incorrect, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:58:27 2011 No.2955148

>Someone has to flip the burgers
No they don't. Your wage is determined by your productivity. The more captial there is, the higher your productivity, the higher your wages. Saying someone has to flip the burgers is like saying in the 1900's that 90% of the population has to grow food. Just give it time, and don't demonize the people who invest in new capital.

The way it's set up now, the government takes 50% of what you earn and spends it on wars, and special favors to their friends. Imagine if that money could actually be invested into things that benefited people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:58:27 2011 No.2955152 >>2955084 An income cap would stifle innovation and growth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 22:59:27 2011 No.2955153 >>2955084 >I don't think it's too bad an idea because really, who needs more than X million dollars? People who want to start a charity or their own company.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:01:27 2011 No.2955161 >>2955096 what about quadrapalegics?

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 23:02:27 2011 No.2955164 I think the united states should switch to the dog standard. Everyone likes dogs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:02:27 2011 No.2955165 >>2955138 >$20 million a year is as much as any one person can make. The rest has to go to your workers. The owner would have no incentive to make more than $20 million a year, which means that the law would be pointless.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:03:27 2011 No.2955166

>>2955153
They have this cool feature where you take your money and then instead of keeping it for yourself, you give it to an organization or a person and they take it and use it themselves and if they're making a profit they give you part of it, there's a word for it, starts with an i, what was it, invert, incest....

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:03:27 2011 No.2955167
File: 30 KB, 646x365, 18263947812638.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2955116
the market is simply a differential equation.

Things are the way they are now because of the current rules.
If the top 1% wasn't earning or saving 33.8% of all the wealth, they wouldn't own 33% of the wealth.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:04:27 2011 No.2955171

>>2955084

Well, pure capitalism would not see such a large disparity between the richest and the poorest. It's the corporatism we get now that leads to such a stratified upper class, or monopolies existing at all.

You can never eliminate the bottom twenty percent. The best you can do is make sure they are living a decent life, and that the most talented move up a few quintiles. And that the least skilled of the top twenty percent move down a few quintiles.

But we can't forget that a healthy society has most money and power in the middle classes. They also tend to be difficult to govern.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:04:27 2011 No.2955172
File: 8 KB, 225x224, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2955119

But its the only real solution. Perfect, Incorruptible, Wise, Intelligent and Ethically upstanding Philosopher Kings. Of course, these Kings would have be be non-human. They would have to be something that is better than human.

Anything else is just imperfect humans bullshitting around with various forms of socio-economic plutocracy (some more civilized than others).

You see, you can have a perfect society. Just Eliminate all the bad people and let the perfect people have control. Everyone else left over after the purge will be so close to perfect that they won't have any issue in going along with the Kings ' plans because they are smart enough to understand them as well as know that they are the best solutions.

No troll, so sarcasm. Just saying.

Pic related for lulzyness

>in b4 its not possible implying I'm implying it is possible blah blah

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:05:27 2011 No.2955177 >>2955152 innovation like the Fart APP and growth in medical research into obesity

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 23:07:27 2011 No.2955187

>>2955161

They dont have a right to succeed, in fact, if I ever saw one of them even think about over coming their disadvantages I'd slap him on his non-paralyzed side.

>>2955167

Nevermind. You guys are crazy

The market isnt simply anything. Its plain not simple at all. Its really complicated.

I keep trying to point out that companies often dont have owners, and even when they have profits it doesnt just become the property of the richest person present. But nevermind.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 23:09:27 2011 No.2955190 >>2955171 >implying, monopolies wouldnt exist if corporations didnt exist >implying very rich people wouldnt exist if corporations didnt exist

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:13:27 2011 No.2955208 Hey /sci/, where does money come from? How can someone make money without another person or group losing the same amount? srs question.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:13:27 2011 No.2955209 >>2955190 Monopolies, except for natural monopolies, only exist with force. And rich people will always exist, I explicitly said that. They just wouldn't become immune to competition or failure once they pass a certain critical mass, as occurs now.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:15:27 2011 No.2955213
File: 79 KB, 473x351, vulcan-pussy-taste-like-tofu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What we need is a system where humans don't have to work to survive, so we can but all our energy towards cultural advancement (witch includes physical expansionism and scientific endeavor). Technological progress can help us create this kind of world.

Assuming that the pressure of survival is needed in order to incentivize adaptation and advancement is a straw man.

humans currently have the technological and social means to move beyond survival pressures by directing our own evolution. We need to start working together cooperatively in order to break our species free of the need to survive on scarce resources. We truly will become a master race, but only if people stop making excuses for the unjust and inter-competitive power structures that hold us all back (such as capitalism and authoritarianism).

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:19:27 2011 No.2955224

>>2955187
it was less a comment on the "market" than
money in = money out.
A burger company makes $1 Million a year.
X goes to the upper rung
Y goes to the middle rung
Z goes to the bottom rung

If we pay X less, than either Y or Z will be paid more.
Money is conserved.

That was my only point. The only reason that the wealth disparity could be as bad as it is now is because X is getting paid a lot.

don't go dreaming off into the "complexity of the market", that's irrelevant.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:19:27 2011 No.2955227

>>2955208

Whenever a government wants more money, they print more.

This causes all money to lose a bit of value, and results in inflation.

It could even be considered a form of taxation, since the government it costing everyone some money, and is getting some money for them to use.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:20:27 2011 No.2955229 >>2955208 The government makes it, and they can make as much money as they want. Problem is that the government is a greedy hoarder.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:20:27 2011 No.2955230
File: 72 KB, 477x768, Ted11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2955208
Debt. It allows balance sheets to hang out in a mysterious place where they don't clear, that's why when speculative bubbles burst things get ugly, because people start calling in those debts and trying to clear balance sheets.

It's like musical chairs, only the chairs are gun turrets, and you can start firing on the people in the middle when the music stops.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 23:20:27 2011 No.2955232

>>2955208

I know where money comes from.

A person can make money without another party losing money by just creating something of value.

>>2955209

How do you define "with force"?

I got a question. What is a monopoly that was not a natural monopoly. Just tell me one. Bonus points if you dont search the internet.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 23:21:27 2011 No.2955252

>>2955213

Hello friend, did you know tungsten has the highest melting point of all the elements? I find this interesting

>>2955224

>If we pay X less, than either Y or Z will be paid more.

Thats not true. You could pay X less, with Y and Z constant. Or you could just cut all their salaries by 20% or do whatever you want. Why would it be any other way?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:21:27 2011 No.2955254 ITT high school kids troll adults

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 23:23:27 2011 No.2955262
File: 48 KB, 675x612, 1301963377259.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2955254

You are so right. I just feel like crying. I didnt get any sleep and I went to all my classes which revolve around business. And then I come here and find so much bullshit.

Its unbearable. People just dont know anything. I cant keep up with...

>mfw

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:25:27 2011 No.2955277 >>2955232 Wouldn't that be a question you have to answer and not him?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:25:27 2011 No.2955279 >>2955232 Ma Bell. They were a government sponsored monopoly on telephony, and they were later broken up by the government. Many european countries have state corporations that are monopolies, though this is changing lately.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:26:27 2011 No.2955289 >>2955252 So.... 200000 dollars just disappears? No one gets it? >inb4 the business gets it >business is still someone because it is controlled by people can't tell if you're being intentionally vague

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:27:27 2011 No.2955303 >>2955279 here >>2955232 Oh, and 'with force'. If the company attempting to enforce a monopoly sends guys to threaten you or beat you up. Or if the government imposes artificial barriers to entry, and will prosecute you if you don't comply.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 23:28:27 2011 No.2955308

>>2955277

I asked multiple questions you are going to have to point out which one you are refering to.

>>2955289

It doesnt disappear, the company does something else with it

the costs of labor are treated like all other costs. Like the costs of the machinery the labor are using. The costs of the electricity it takes to power such machines.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 23:33:27 2011 No.2955321

>>2955303

Alright, well my challenge still stands to tell me one unnatural monopoly. Im just curious to see what youll come up with. Im not trying to demonstrate that you cant do it.

How about a monopoly that maintained that monopoly "with force"?

I got another question for you, do believe artificial barriers to entry are inherently bad all the time?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:39:27 2011 No.2955332 >>2955308 workers should get a share in the profits of a company, instead of being written off as a liability.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:41:27 2011 No.2955350

>>2955262

Don't feel bad, the average 4chan user is what... 18? Young people are stupid and stupid people find communist principles appealing. One of two things will happen regardless of what you say:

1. They'll grow up. As soon as they learn more than two shits about the way the world works they'll forget all this bullshit and burn their Che posters.

2. They'll never change. Their stupidity is inherent and not just the result of their youth.

Neither group can be influenced by logic. I no longer waste intellectual energy on them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:41:27 2011 No.2955351 >>2955321 I'm with you. Artificial barriers can sometimes be good. Like safety laws and business licenses

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:42:27 2011 No.2955359 >>2954503 >>2954504 >implying banks have the money to back up their loans >implying it's not all just a game with imaginary money

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:42:27 2011 No.2955362

>>2955308
....
Okay, if you really want me to be that explicit. I thought it was a simple point I didn't have to belabor:
The sum of all money AFTER BUSINESS COSTS is constant.
When X is HIGH, y and/or z MUST BE LOW.

It is possible to reduce X's income and increase Z's income.
ITS POSSIBLE. THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT. THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT.

I guess that's why you're in business though, you don't understand that 1 + 1 =2.
Or if you do you have to bring up an entirely different point to make it like you're smart and no one understands anything about your beloved ineffable market.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:43:27 2011 No.2955366 >>2955321 THE DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 23:43:27 2011 No.2955371
File: 62 KB, 638x476, 1283110935451.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2955332

What if the company didnt make any profits?

Or how about this, what if they lost money like companies do all the time? Should the workers have to pay the company?

How about, the company made profits, but it has a loan to pay off? Do the workers get a share now?

How about, the market is aggressive, and if the company doesnt invest in some kind of expansion with their profits they go out of business? Should the workers get a share now?

I got an idea: How about profits have nothing to do with the employees at all.

>mfw

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:45:27 2011 No.2955387 >>2955359 Welcome to the thread... And yes, banks are leveraging themselves 50 times over but only in the US. Other industrialized countries aren't so corrupt as to allow private industry to write laws making such things possible.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Tue Apr 26 23:52:27 2011 No.2955399

>>2955362

>The sum of all money AFTER BUSINESS COSTS is constant

Is it? How do you figure that?

What do you mean by "the sum of all money"?

>ITS POSSIBLE. THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT. THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT.

You didnt say "its possible" you said "It must happen" which is very different.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:54:27 2011 No.2955415
File: 52 KB, 900x719, 1300517738396.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>As soon as they learn more than two shits about the way the world works they'll forget all this bullshit and burn their Che posters
>As soon as they learn more than two shits about the way the world works
>the way the world works

So many conservative - no, scratch that. So many free marketeers - no, scratch that. So many hardcore douche bags use this phrase so often without elucidation that it makes me herp my own derp. Please explain to us, oh old wise one, exactly "the way the world works", in a simple summary format that is relevant to the discussion.

Who does the world work, and what do i stand to gain from learning and accepting from this said secret bit of info?

That is, assuming that an appeal to "how the real world works" isn't just a thinly veiled appeal to ignorance and/or an ad homenim.
PROTIP: "it works trhe way I say it does based on my limited understanding formed from my limited experiance" is not an acceptable answer.

Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:56:27 2011 No.2955427

>>2955371

This is correct.

I think in the long run it helps a company to consider the psychological impact of its profit on its employees. The employees undoubtedly and rightfully (to a degree) see themselves as an indispensable precondition to that profit and probably feel that its only fair that they be able to share in that profit. Over time a lack of what they consider "proper" compensation may lead to resentment and may result in more trouble than it would be worth to just pay them more. Though the owners of the company are under no moral obligation to share profits they will no doubt reap benefits in various forms of increased productivity if they do.

So basically, profit sharing can be a valuable tool to increase productive capacity and worker morale but it's not a moral fucking imperative. If you believe that then you need to grow up and get a fucking job. Either that or come live in any other industrialized country besides the US. See what it's like when a society starts to believe people with money are evil and it's ok to punish them for working hard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 26 23:57:27 2011 No.2955431 File: 426 KB, 1228x1109, 1277972775662.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2954990 >But under capitalism, there are the least amount of losers compared to other systems. Whatever you say...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:09:27 2011 No.2955456 >>2955431 But history speaks for itself: under communism and socialism, people get even less and their living standards are shit tier.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:10:27 2011 No.2955459

>>2955427

Wow you're a fucking douche bag. Do you honestly think that it's not a moral imperative to help your fellow human beings survive if they are truly in need?

If so you are sociopathic scum, and you're just using the philosophical explanation of the status quo "system" and a excuse for your horrible behavior. But it's ok, there are a lot of others like you. They are call free market fundies and other such right-libertarians. All that people like you care about are protecting your own right to shit on others as a way get ahead.

Go back to /ne... oh wait that board doesn't exist anymore.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 00:10:27 2011 No.2955462

>>2955427

And who are these owners?

All you guys keep referring to "the owners" getting all these profits. What about corporations which account for a large chunk of the economy? They dont have owners.

This talk about needing to give employees money to make them feel better is weird. I dont believe its health for a business, or any stakeholder when the business doesnt treat its employees like human beings.

But does that make wages anything more than a pre-arranged payment? No. Employees arent entitled to more than theyve agreed to. If you want to make your employees feel better, you can usually do a bunch of different things before you start paying them more. If you treat them like crap, over work them, keep them in isolated cubicles. Force them through weird confusing standards and alien corporate language, paying them more isnt going to change anything.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:15:27 2011 No.2955485

>>2955415

What a young idiot thinks: Lolol gaiyz just because we're studying liberal arts at junior college that doesn't mean we're not in the "real world." This IS the real world LOLOL. LOOK HOW SMART WE ARE TURNING THAT AROUND LOL.

These people don't know what it's like to get up every day and work for at least 8 hours to earn an amount that never feels proportionate to the work done. Have you ever looked at the classified section of the newspaper? (protip: disregard this if you don't read the paper) Looking for highly motivated and skilled individual, must be fully biligual with university degree and 3-5 years experience in related field. 24k starting.

These people have no idea what it feels like to work for their living and then have their tax money taken and wasted time after time after time. It's one thing to lament about government waste. It's another kind of pain when it's your actual money. And it never goes down, always up. Every tax you pay it's always up up up. Property tax? That's gotta go up, no question. Oh I see you created a job at your small business. Add 15% on top of her salary as our cut, thanks.

You see what I'm getting at here? I'm talking about real life, kid. You fucking children need to take a break from maintaining the permanent dome of weed smoke hovering around your mom's basement / dorm / frat house / studio apartment and formulate some opinions that are based on actual facts and not half baked fucking idealism.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 00:15:27 2011 No.2955490

>>2955462

I worded that horribly

My point is if you want to be nice to your employees, throwing money at them doesnt help anything, nor are you under any obligation to pay them more.

If you want your employees to be well, just treat them well, and build business process that they will want to engage in.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:18:27 2011 No.2955510

Owners are workers too. They design the structure of production. They incur losses if they're bad at what they do. Profits are just the wages of the capitalist.

>moral imperative to help your fellow human beings survive if they are truly in need?
Yes.
Do I think that I have the right to put someone in a cage if they disagree with me on that?
No.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:19:27 2011 No.2955513 >>2955459 Who ever said I didn't support helping people who are truly in need? Even YOU I'd help, if you needed it. Is the average worker truly in need? Not really. Go fuck yourself, kid. Read a fucking book.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:22:27 2011 No.2955525 >>2955485 So basically "knowing the way the world works" just means being an utterly jaded and bitter wage slave? Well, I guess I can see how someone in that position would feel the need to try to act like he's superior to others.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 00:23:27 2011 No.2955527 File: 61 KB, 640x480, 1280484849228.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2955510 >Owners are workers too This is a land where words mean nothing.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 00:27:27 2011 No.2955555
File: 20 KB, 319x191, always-open.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Owners are ripping off the workers

The owners are taking all the profits and not giving them to the workers

The owners are the workers

The workers arent paying the workers enough

>mfw

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:30:27 2011 No.2955571

>>2955485
>mfw when I see this post
>mfw I work in an oil field
>mfw 95% of the workers there are Leftist

You libertarian faggots are the ones that trully don't know what its like to be working class. I get up at 5:00 am and work till 5:00pm with no overtime pay (the company keeps getting sued but they don't give a fuck cuz the save more money not paying OT anyways). I make 14 an hour and do hard labor. You faggots are the ones who can't understand the real world. No matter what Reason or Cato say the fact is that most working class in this country are leftist so DEAL WITH IT.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:33:27 2011 No.2955578

>>2955525

That person isn't superior and isn't trying to act like it. That person's success is the result of hard work. YES it is, no matter how hard you wish all rich people were just legacies living off dady's tit. The vast majority of wealthy people in the west are self made.

Yes, a certain amount of taxation is morally imperative and necessary for the maintenance of public service and the support of the infirm, etc so why don't you just calm the fuck down. Yes a company has an obligation to pay its employees a living wage and safe and healthy working conditions. Does it have an obligation to share its profits? No. Wipe your tears and just grow up already.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 00:34:27 2011 No.2955587
File: 793 B, 125x125, untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2954499
>Under capitalism, if a person has more than a million dollars, he can slap that onto a bank account and live off the interest. He then becomes human scum, consuming resources and contributing little. How do we stop this /sci/?

Simple. We transcend capitalism.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 00:39:27 2011 No.2955597 File: 118 KB, 653x786, 129751656166.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2955587 How do we do that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:40:27 2011 No.2955598 >>2955571 Your country's fucked and can't really be used as a model for any kind of argument except how NOT to do something so whatever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:42:27 2011 No.2955606 >>2955571 Why do you work for a company that does immoral things?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:46:27 2011 No.2955621 >>2955598 >America >Richest Country in the world >Decent welfare and healthcare systems >Regulations that protect workers safety ya no I'm not fucked

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:46:27 2011 No.2955622 File: 13 KB, 200x198, DudeComeOn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2955597 His pic was related....

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 00:46:27 2011 No.2955627 >>2955597 Molecular assemblers and intelligent automation

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:50:27 2011 No.2955637 threads like this make me understand the Rothschilds' mentality. Subdue and control the beasts.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 00:50:27 2011 No.2955638 >>2955627 Couldnt you maintain capitalism, and have "molecular essemblers and intelligent automation"?

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:50:27 2011 No.2955639

>"The vast majority of wealthy people in the west are self made."

HA HA no.

>"Wipe your tears and just grow up already."

>Implying that a desire to change or improve a flawed social system is immature
> fallacious appeal to status quo detected
>philosophically conservative defeatist detected

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:55:27 2011 No.2955651 threads like this make me understand the Rothschilds' mentality. Subdue and control the collective beasts.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:55:27 2011 No.2955653

>>2955627

It's futile. most of the herp durps are too nerp to understand that post-scarcity is the future, it's possible, and it's coming , let alone understadn the massive societal implications of a post-scarcity world.

They them eat each other in a hellish competitive clusterfuck. Meanwhile the humane, ethical, intelligent ones among us will build the utopia that they said was impossible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:56:27 2011 No.2955656 >>2955606 oh wow typical libertarian argument. Hurr durr get a better job you lazy hippie. Its not easy when you don't have a college education payed for by the very people you libertarians are against ie the working class.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 00:57:27 2011 No.2955661
File: 4 KB, 316x299, lolowat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2955638
Intelligent automation takes care of all jobs humans don't want to do and mine materials and elements for the molecular assemblers.
Molecular assemblers absolutely create everything humans want to design.

It's practically post-scarcity. Capitalism usually has the whole 'supply and demand' thing going for it. Not if supply exceeds demand to the point where it's useless to demand it and still pay.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 00:58:27 2011 No.2955662 >>2955638 Nope. Also, you're an idiot.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 01:05:27 2011 No.2955680

>>2955653

I agree. Let me just go fluff up my ethical intelligent man chair so I cant wait for the coming wonders.

>>2955661

I dont think its possible for supply to exceed demand. Supply and Demands are like sticks on a graph, and they are curves than extend in each direction infinity.

>>	m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 Wed Apr 27 01:05:27 2011 No.2955682 Wow, the trolls are out in full force today.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 01:06:27 2011 No.2955693

>>2955653

I agree. Let me just go fluff up my ethical intelligent man chair so I cant wait for the coming wonders.

>>2955661

I dont think its possible for supply to exceed demand. Supply and Demands arent like sticks on a graph. They are curves than extend in each direction infinity.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:07:27 2011 No.2955697

>>2955621

>Economy going down the shitter
>Entire neighborhoods full of empty houses
>Gov bails out banks with 3/4 of a trillion
>They turn around and give themselves bonuses
>No punishment
>Fed can't grow the economy with interest rates that are literally 0%
>QE out the asshole
>Still spending tonnes of money fighting never ending wars

Yeah you're royally fucked. See you in a few years when you're no longer the world's super power.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 01:07:27 2011 No.2955698 >>2955662 ;_; >>2955680 I meant to say the are curves, not sticks.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 01:08:27 2011 No.2955705 File: 6 KB, 157x153, 1261990072154.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2955680 >I dont think its possible for supply to exceed demand. Nigga, you just went full retard. You NEVER go full retard.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:11:27 2011 No.2955714

>>2955639

The vast majority of western rich people are self-made. This is an absolute fact. Don't just say LOL NO to things you hope aren't true. Try looking it up for yourself. When you do then maybe you can be like me, with facts on the winning side of arguments.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 01:14:27 2011 No.2955731

>>2955705

I stand by my comment.

Im thinking about this in terms of a graph. On a supply and demand graph supply cant exceed demand. And Ill make you a little MS paint drawing if you want to demonstrate this.

In practical terms, for a given good. Like Pizza. I could imagine there being more than enough pizza to give everyone as much pizza as they want to the point of satisfying them perfectly.

But how could you ever make such a system bro? Think about it, thats just one good. The only way I can see people getting everything they want instantly is if you have a robotic pizza parlor that just produces pizza all day. Such a system will be immensely expensive, and will come at costs of other goods. Think about a productions possibility frontier.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 01:15:27 2011 No.2955740 File: 64 KB, 500x375, 1259328267537.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2955731 I'm aaaaalways going to direct you to Manna in times like this. http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 01:17:27 2011 No.2955746 >>2955740 Yeah but its not feasible. And arguably not optimizing the utility. Wont someone think of the utils?

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 01:21:27 2011 No.2955767 File: 48 KB, 370x429, trshelpsusa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2955746 Correction: not feasible today.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 01:24:27 2011 No.2955782

>>2955767

Not feasible EVER.

Okay okay okay okay...

Just think about how much it would cost, not in terms of money, but time, research, materials, effort, and implementation to build a system of robots that can make and serve pizzas to everyone on earth.

Now multiply that times... every single possible thing anyone could ever want...

Now take into account supply chain costs.

I would assert, there simply isnt enough stuff on earth to make such a thing.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 01:28:27 2011 No.2955801

>>2955782
Not feasible EVER.

Okay okay okay okay...

Just think about how much it would cost, not in terms of money, but time, supervision, materials, effort, and implementation to build a system of humans that can make and serve pizzas to everyone on earth.

Now multiply that times... every single possible thing anyone could ever want...

Now take into account supply chain costs.

I would assert, there simply isnt enough stuff on earth to make such a thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:43:27 2011 No.2955840 File: 41 KB, 500x372, libertarianimals.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 01:46:27 2011 No.2955860 >>2955801 Im too tired to think. Inurdaes you win this time. Someday I will take you to the future via time machine and smack you for ever denying the rules of economics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:51:27 2011 No.2955883 >>2955860 hey, i talked to you earlier today, i was the guy sitting at Noble, i have a question about the wp carey school....do they have any computing sites within their buildings?

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 01:52:27 2011 No.2955887 >>2955883 Yeah they do. There is a basement in BAC, which is the big square WPC building. Also for some reason the economics department is in the Computing commons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:54:27 2011 No.2955899 >>2955767 Why don't you ever talk about Australia?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 01:59:27 2011 No.2955922 >>2955860 No, he doesn't. You never concede an argument in /sci/. NEVER. You're threatening the fabric of /sci/'s morals, boy. OUR FUCKING ROOTS. I hope you feel ashamed.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 02:00:27 2011 No.2955930 >>2955883 Also I got a watermelon Italian Soda today I was disappointed. >>2955922 You are right. BRB while I report inurdaes for being a fine gentleman of reasonable ideas.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:01:27 2011 No.2955934 >>2955930 lol really? why didn't you like it? i always get cherry...so i wouldn't know watermelon

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 27 02:06:27 2011 No.2955954 >>2955934 I think they might have put too much club soda and not enough flavoring. Maybe watermelon is a failure flavor

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 02:12:27 2011 No.2955973 >>2955899 Why would I talk about Australia?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:16:27 2011 No.2955981 >>2955973 Well, it's your nation. And it owns the little island you want to establish your utopia in. Actually, I'm really just wondering why you focus so much on the United States.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 02:20:27 2011 No.2955995

>>2955981
For reasons better or worse the United States has far more going on in it in regards to scientific advancement and inventions than Australia or Europe. I live in my country, but I am probably one of the least nationalistic person you'll meet. As for owning the little island where I wish to establish the T.R.S, I'm not that deeply interested until I have to seriously start planning for it, not to mention any part of 'Australia' is nearly nonexistent on that portion of Tasmania.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:21:27 2011 No.2955997 File: 68 KB, 900x397, 192519_543680954000_214900690_31808302_5114841_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT: Moralfags, Stockholm syndrome economofags and people who haven't seen the Venus Project.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:23:27 2011 No.2956015

>>2955801
Nah, you're just not researching enough/reading enough. Go read a few science websites/scientific magazines. Science is still advancing at fucking thunderous pace, it's just the common folk that know nothing about it.

Within a century, we could have functional, next generation energy sources producing nigh infinite amounts of energy, like the HiPLER, or Atmospheric Vortex Engine, for example. First generation wet nanorobots are soon to appear. Space Elevators would make large scale construction in space incredibly feasable, and the next gen power sources would make trips to the asteroid belt easy. Asteroids contain amazing amounts of metals and minerals we could utilize. Which by attaching boosters, would get to earth relatively easily. The Space Elevators would make getting the resources to earth relatively easy.Robotics is already advancing amazingly, and AI is sure to appear within a century.

This is all without thinking about singularity shit.

Post Scarcity is a real posibility.

We'd just need to make real big changes as a society to accept it. The Powers That Be will not be happy with a post scarcity world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:27:27 2011 No.2956026 >>2956015 The Powers That Be will most likely attempt to use post-scarcity technologies to their own advantage, as they have used all others. You can make a lot of missiles with a molecular assembler.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:28:27 2011 No.2956029

>>2956015

Addendum- we're still going to have to lower Earth's population to at least 3 billion, max. We're already way above peak production of certain important minerals and resources- and way too many 3rd world countries are already raising their standard of living- consuming more of those rarer resources.

But yes, if you have nigh infinite resources from the asteroid belt, nigh infinite resources from the AVE, or HiPLER, or other next gen energy source, all humanity has to focus on is mantaining clean water and food production high, which we could easily do so.

Of course preparing for Extinction Level Events should be our priority.

That Yellowstone Volcano is gonna pop one of these days. And La Palma is gonna go down soon too, causing a supertsunami. Dealing with asteroids would be easier for us by then, tho.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:30:27 2011 No.2956041 >>2956029 We should move our excess population to orbital habitats and other planets.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:33:27 2011 No.2956051

>>2956029
Stuff like molecular assemblers is way, way too high tech and probably far off into the distance time wise.

We COULD have relatively post-scarcity societies, green, clean societies within fifty years with global cooperation, free exchange of information and a lot of hardwork.

Provided we reduce earth's population by a metric shitload, tho. We cant feed post-scarcity levels of comfort to more than 1-2 maybe 3 billion people. Post-Scarcity isnt exact- it just means that with certain technologies, we could have a real fucking comfortable existance for a CERTAIN NUMBER of people.

6 billion is way too much.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:35:27 2011 No.2956065

>>2956041
Going Starcraft on me, eh?
Moving people off to distant colonies?
Maybe a few orbital stations or deep space colonies?
Utilizing people as cheap labor and seeing if they survive at all?

Why, you card, /sci/.
Giving Post Scarcity to some and death to others?

Horrible.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:42:27 2011 No.2956093

>>2956065
What the hell are you talking about? If there isn't enough room on Earth, we can find the room somewhere else. Mars and Venus are both prime targets for colonization. Other bodies in the system would also be suitable. Colonies can be scratch-built and just set in orbit around a planet or the sun itself, for those that don't want to live elsewhere. Then there's the matter of other star systems...

>Utilizing people as cheap labor and seeing if they survive at all?

People? Labor? Get out of the dark ages.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:50:27 2011 No.2956119 File: 8 KB, 230x230, Instrumentality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This thread is now about Instrumentality.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:51:27 2011 No.2956123

Inurdaes talks about post scarcity as if it will actually happen. There's no way tech like that will ever go public. It's the scientists with government funding that make this and it won't go to civilians unless the government says it will. That will never happen.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 02:54:27 2011 No.2956128
File: 72 KB, 600x700, 1295871882688.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2955638
Probably could but why would you want to maintain a system which benefits an increasingly smaller group of people at the cost of everyone else?

By the way this pic is very related to this thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:25:27 2011 No.2956206 bump

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 03:29:27 2011 No.2956217

>>2956051
It doesn't necessarily matter how many people they are, rather, how efficient, recyclable and sophisticated the manufacturing base is.

>>2956123
>inurdaes talks about post-scarcity as if it will happen but it won't because there will always be a conspiracy of rich people to memorywipe the scientists minds who create post-scarcity technology and then steal it for themselves watch out for the NWO

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:40:27 2011 No.2956252 >>2956128 capitalism is the system that lifted the majority of people out of poverty no other system has done what it has done on such a large scale, ever

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:41:27 2011 No.2956253

>>2956128

except "freedom"

the worker is free to choose, he can work for a wage or setup his own communist business...no one gives a fuck

he has the freedom to decide

we don't need a force controlling the means of production telling people how to operate

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:42:27 2011 No.2956255 >>2956252 But communism is so super awesome. Like Russia was totally the nicest place to live in the world when it was communist. Everyone was so happy and well fed.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 03:43:27 2011 No.2956258
File: 52 KB, 324x246, 1259376428796.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2956252
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

>no other system has done what it has done on such a large scale, ever
Which means all the other systems were shittier. Doesn't mean capitalism is good.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:44:27 2011 No.2956263 >>2956253 But the worker wants to spend all his money on booze. It's unfair because you don't pay him enough money to start his own business + party every day

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:48:27 2011 No.2956275 >>2956252 The majority of people are still in poverty if you took a minute to look at some statistics and most of the first world population is only not in poverty because they reincarnated serfdom.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:51:27 2011 No.2956285 File: 300 KB, 1680x1050, 1276616433849.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2956253 >freedom I'm not even going to bother debating a word so devoid of meaning.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:51:27 2011 No.2956286 >>2956255 True. All those stories about millions of people dying were just fairy tales spun by the jelly Western countries who were jealous of Soviet Union's progress. This cause mass hate against the utopian country, which led to its downfall.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:53:27 2011 No.2956289 >>2956285 Then you'll have to live in North Korea for a while in order to learn to appreciate it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:53:27 2011 No.2956291 >>2956258 >Doesn't mean capitalism is good. Says the faggot who's reaping the benefits of the free market at this very moment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:55:27 2011 No.2956296 >>2956285 I'm not even going to bother debating a post so devoid of intelligence

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:55:27 2011 No.2956297 >>2956285 You do realize how fucking stupid that picture is? You can pretty much say that freedom is impossible because living makes it impossible using that line of logic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:56:27 2011 No.2956299 File: 180 KB, 800x449, 1278219194636.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2956289 Oh wow that's clever I never would have imagined such a well thought out rebuttle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:56:27 2011 No.2956300 >>2954570 I never understood this line of reasoning. How many single moms on welfare do you know? I know a few and let me tell you they don't save ANY money. EVERYTHING they get from the government is going right back out into the market.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:58:27 2011 No.2956306 >>2956300 >I know a few and let me tell you they don't save ANY money. EVERYTHING they get from the government is going right back out into the market. Yes and if you break a window, that's a good thing because now more people have jobs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 03:58:27 2011 No.2956307 >>2956299 Of course, people corrupted by leftist views tend to be very narrow-minded.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:01:27 2011 No.2956312

>>2956285
>Be born to a family, gender and life that you never choose to born into
>Be born with genes you never choose
>Be forced to consume resources in order to survive
>Drink water, kill animals, and cooperate with other groups of people to survive
>Work in order to achieve these goals
>Do this for the remainder of your life
>Say to yourself that you are free

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:03:27 2011 No.2956318

>>2956300
Of course they can't save, at least not in the bank, or else the gov't will be suspicious. While they might help the economy by buying stuff, it's not fair in any sense of the word when they can buy luxurious goods and live easier lives simply because they're moms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:04:27 2011 No.2956320 >>2956312 An hero now. That's the only way you'll be free from those things.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:07:27 2011 No.2956327

>>2956312
When a woman stupidly gets herself knocked up and is unable to support herself and the kid, instead of the government saying "Hey, let me give you tons of free money" they say "Hey, I'll take those kids off your hands and put them in foster care".
Problem solved.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:09:27 2011 No.2956334 >>2956312 >comparing physical reality with man made constructions

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:13:27 2011 No.2956357 >>2956334 >Implying "manmade" constructions don't arise from the physical constraints of life.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 04:15:27 2011 No.2956364 >>2956291 Oh wow, I've got acceptable living standards. Believe it or not, we could be doing a lot better with different systems.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:18:27 2011 No.2956375 >>2954499 Money is worth labor. Labor generates money. Your suggestion is similar to a handicapped person suggesting to cut of healthy peoples arms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:21:27 2011 No.2956385 File: 66 KB, 732x646, 1303498004039.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Like I said a thousand times before.../sci/ don't know shit about economics. Fuckin economic-liberal debt loving, inflation embracing fags.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:21:27 2011 No.2956386 >>2956375 >money is worth what delusional people think it is >money is actually worth nothing Fix'd. Everything is fine so long as you don't fall out of the delusion though...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:23:27 2011 No.2956390 >>2956385 that pic looks like new/ shit. gtfo

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Apr 27 04:26:27 2011 No.2956405 File: 171 KB, 730x562, 1277842753076.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2956385

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:28:27 2011 No.2956410

>>2956385
.....riiight.

lets do some empircal tests. who's more rational, Barrack Obama, and Bill Clinton, and 90% of scientists,

or Palin, Beck, Oriely, ect ect.

republicans may be more rational in theory, but in reality democrats are FAR more rational.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:29:27 2011 No.2956414 >>2956386 >Implying you can't get people to do work for money. >Implying you can't get money for doing work. gtfo you retard

Frisco Wed Apr 27 04:30:27 2011 No.2956416
File: 61 KB, 636x477, gold-bars-india.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2954499
Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the people who vehemently and without guilt, use and abuse welfare, who claim your product by tears, or of the so called "Robin Hoods" where the ends justifies the means types, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the welfare recipients or "Robin Hoods" who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:34:27 2011 No.2956429

>>2956385
I know right.

Not like these parasites ever rescued themselves from the worst depression known to man by spending the fuck out of things like weapons and roads.

Those Lenin loving Chomskytards never realized how the country ever incurred a debt so high that it wasn't paid off for decades despite rises in living standards and GDP.

Not like economic regulations ever prevented the excesses of capitalism and environmental degradation. Man those commie fucks won't understand.

I mean, those socialist collectivist leeches didn't even embrace glorious unregulated banks and their subprime mortgage defaults.

Only deregulation and the freemarket can save us.

It never existed before, but it sure as hell can exist now.

Frisco Wed Apr 27 04:38:27 2011 No.2956442

>>2955208
Some say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able and willing at the expense of the incompetent and disinterested? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made – before it can be taken as "welfare" for the "common man" or "Robin Hood-ed" – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of someone elses misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods.

Frisco Wed Apr 27 04:45:27 2011 No.2956468
File: 30 KB, 500x381, silver-coin-pile.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2956429
Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what most consider evil?
But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality – the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not, literally, buy intelligence (the ability to comprehend ideas) for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it?

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:46:27 2011 No.2956471

>>2956416

i agree with everything you just said except for the last part, where you said man's mind is the root of all the wealth that ever existed on earth. because without the earth itself wed have nothing. but thats pretty obvious, maybe i just misinterpreted your last sentence

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:49:27 2011 No.2956480 >>2956414 >implying I implied that I pretty much stated delusional people is all that's needed for the system to work

>>	Frisco Wed Apr 27 04:49:27 2011 No.2956481 >>2956429 Or did he corrupt his money?

>>	Frisco Wed Apr 27 04:53:27 2011 No.2956490 >>2956471 It is implied, as you stated. Humanity would need something to work with - i.e natural resources, the physical surroundings around us; the Earth - to produce wealth besides effort and thinking skills.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:57:27 2011 No.2956501 >>2956429 And the former Soviet Union was a utopia

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 04:59:27 2011 No.2956505
File: 22 KB, 317x455, G_Frege.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ITT: Continuing proof that all utopianiasm is dangerous and seductive nonsense, be it anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, Communism, minarchism, etc.

Put down your ideological arguments for a few minutes and actually consider what you're saying.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 08:04:27 2011 No.2957002 ITT > OP makes a fair and agreeable point that has nothing to do with communism >> THAT SOUNDS LIKE COMMIE TALK TO ME > OP: no it doesn't >> YOU MUST BE STUPID OP BECAUSE ALL COMMUNISTS ARE HURR DURR > ohherewego.jpg

снайпер Wed Apr 27 09:43:27 2011 No.2957291

>>2956051
>Provided we reduce earth's population by a metric shitload, tho. We cant feed post-scarcity levels of comfort to more than 1-2 maybe 3 billion people.

Full on bullshit. Whenever people claim this, they've never got anything to back it up besides "Well, that is how I THINK it should be".

We *already* produce more than enough food for every person in the world to never have to starve. We have technologies that can be [and are being] implemented that increase the production of food allowing support of even larger populations. Projected population growth is expected to peak at 9 billion in 2050 and then begin to decline, with the majority of that population growth in China, India, and Africa.

We can move to a post-scarcity society without murdering 3/4ths of the world population.

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 10:06:27 2011 No.2957341
File: 111 KB, 500x497, 1302239459235.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Grandpa loses everything in divorce
>Runs a research team in oils and lubricants for 18 years
>Only buys things in cash. Including his cars, house, and property
>mfw

But OP is right. Although he doesn't live a life of Veyron driving luxury(2 bedroom house, garage, 2 "sports cars," new truck, hunting property across the state), he did pretty well for himself off a couple million, and currently lives off interest/retiree checks.

I always told my friends that all I want is a track car, reliable daily driver, moderate house, and enough for my kids to go to college, and I'll be set. Hope to take a pay-cut after a few years working in the field, and going on to do research to benefit man. But who knows, maybe I'll get greedy along the way

Anonymous Wed Apr 27 10:11:27 2011 No.2957348

>>2957291
>Projected population growth is expected to peak at 9 billion in 2050 and then begin to decline, with the majority of that population growth in China, India, and Africa.

You fog-minded optimist. Do you honestly see no problems arising due to population between now, and when we hit 9 billion? If anything, overpopulation is the largest threat facing humanity. It leads to increased numbers of warring, famine, death, and starvation. When it reaches 9 billion, it'll only be increasing the numbers. Then again, I guess we all have the drop to look forward to; nevermind the utter destruction it'll leave in its wake.

>We can move to a post-scarcity society without murdering 3/4ths of the world population.

Post-scarcity idealism damages another mind.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 10:12:27 2011 No.2957350 We can tax them

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 11:02:27 2011 No.2957470 >>2957348 The world produces more than enough calories to make everyone fat. This second.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 13:45:27 2011 No.2958149 >>2957350 Yes, we can, but won't. Because guess who gets to set the taxes, I'll give you a hint: not poor people.

>>	Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Wed Apr 27 13:50:27 2011 No.2958175 >>2957348 >overpopulation is the largest threat facing humanity. [Citation needed] Opinions presented as hard fact is the largest threat facing humanity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 14:54:27 2011 No.2958423 You raise your son and protect your family, that's what families do. Passing them on your wealth is work built up over time through lineage that is nature. Go work and secure the future of your ancestors.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 27 17:11:27 2011 No.2958921 >>2958423 > on /sci/ > prefers nature to progress

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math