/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3737718]

[Anonymous No.3737724]

we have billioanires, deal with it

[Anonymous No.3737729]

So? the richest 1% own 35% of the wealth because they work the hardest, you fucking commie asshole

[Anonymous No.3737733]

>>3737729
>mfw this is actually what most Americans believe
>mfw I have no face

[Anonymoose No.3737734]

>>3737729

go back to /b/, your trolling will be more welcome there. distribution of wealth shouldn't be equal but it shouldn't be unfair. l2not-be-an-extremist-asshole.

[Anonymous No.3737745]

>>3737734
It should be according to the work done, so that we wouldn't have top CEOs with incomes off the chart, and super-rich singers. People should be paid according to the value which the society assigns to their labor.

[Anonymous No.3737754]

The top 1% are not individual people, it's under company names

[Anonymous No.3737756]

>life isn't fair

I hope I'm not breaking the news to anyone.

[Anonymous No.3737759]

>>3737745
>People should be paid according to the value which the society assigns to their labor.

that is EXACTLY how it works already. What do you think currency is?

[Anonymoose No.3737765]

>>3737745
precisely my views. certain skill sets shouldn't yield exponentially higher salaries. unfortunately, because of the republicans, we can't take any steps in the socialist direction, so i plan on sitting here watching my economy fall to pieces over the next few years as i work some dead-end job despite my incongruous intelligence and marks.

[Anonymous No.3737767]

>>3737759
IIRC it's that stuff that I steal from rich people.

[Anonymous No.3737771]

>>3737759
No, it isn't how it works. The employees' wages are set by the employers, as low as it's possible for them to set without legal sanctions.

On the other hand, the employer takes all the profits of the company.

This is the reason why there's such inequality.

[Anonymous No.3737778]

>>3737745
some corporations are passed down through families, where the father passes on the company to the son, just like Coke-a-cola did

did that kid of his do any work to get there? fuck no, he just inherited it.

[Anonymous No.3737790]

>>3737718
We should employ a 100% free market.

Meaning that the bottom 90% should be allowed to trade lead in return for the assets of the top 10%.

[Anonymous No.3737791]

General Electric paid NO taxes last year and didn't hire any where near the amount of money they saved in jobs.

"cut the taxes, it will create jobs"

no it will just give them more profits

[Anonymous No.3737796]

>>3737790
100% free market was already tried, it lead to massive fucking monopolies like Steel and Oil and even Telephones years later.

that doesn't promote competition assuming everyone has an equal chance, that just stops innovation and drives up costs.

[Anonymous No.3737799]

>>3737791
>no it will just give them more profits
But the wealth will trickle down! A politician told me!

[Anonymous No.3737801]

>>3737729
I've worked 60 hours a week for the past 10 years, do I get that kind of money? no I make 90k a year

Once those companies took off, the CEO's COO's and CFO's just let it run on its own.

[Anonymous No.3737804]

>>3737791
do you know why they paid no taxes? green energy writeoffs
thanks obama!

[Anonymous No.3737807]

>>3737799
loved that sarcasm.

Trickle down never worked, didn't work under hoover during the 20's or 30's.

[Anonymous No.3737809]

>>3737771
see
>>3737756

[Anonymous No.3737810]

>>3737804
No, obama didn't give them that, that type of program already existed, and when the "green" technology expanded, they wrote them off as green to the IRS.

[Anonymous No.3737812]

>>3737729
with that logic, quarry, oil workers, contractors and construction laborers should be making the most, not to sit behind a computer all day and allocate shit.

[Anonymous No.3737813]

>>3737756
>realize life isn't fair
>see no reason to try and make it more fair

i see no problems with that logic at all

[Anonymous No.3737814]

>>3737807
what about the 80s and 90s?

[Anonymous No.3737816]

>>3737813
ok you go make it more fair.

we'll wait here.

[Anonymous No.3737818]

>>3737814
trickle down never worked then, lobbyists still poured tons of money ino polititians to get tax breaks and you know what? all the money that was cut was not equal to the jobs created

and during the 80's minimum wage was like 4 dollars

[Anonymous No.3737829]

>>3737818
>>3737818
>trickle down never worked then

[Anonymous No.3737834]

>>3737756
>life isn't fair

>I hope I'm not breaking the news to anyone.

Let me fix it for you:
>capitalism isn't fair, it's inefficient and crisis ridden - the very few prosperous capitalist countries get their wealth through cheap 3rd world labor, and the vast majority of the capitalist countries are poor

>I hope I'm not breaking the news to anyone.

[Anonymous No.3737835]

The main problem I have with big companies is this trend of "intellectual capitol" they generate by taking patents of their workers. No matter where you work, they get your patent and you get jack shit for it. Intel used to have a policy where if you saved the company money, you got 10% of the money saved, they stopped it because of Jews. My dad saved his company 200k-300k by producing documentation so thorough and scientific that government testing was no required to implement a product. He received a $300 bonus because someone in middle management thought he didn't deserve a few thousand. The difference in income between Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers(the most productive members of society) and CEOs is astounding.

I never agreed with the specifics of Karl Marx's views, but the older I get the more I realize that his description of the problem is very accurate.

[Anonymous No.3737838]

I don't understand why these never indicate the actual income levels / net worth.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3737842]

>>3737718

> everyone can have the same amount of wealth

Democrats actually believe this.

[Anonymous No.3737845]

Slavery is just part of life, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3737847]

>>3737829
Only 10-20% of the population benefit from the GDP growth. Look at the wages, which are the income source of the vast majority.

The GDP is rising, and the wages are falling. Why? Because this enormous difference between wages, GDP and investments is accumulated by the owners of the means of production - the capitalists.

[Anonymous No.3737848]

Somebody who makes a million dollars per year clearly works fifty times as hard as somebody who makes twenty thousand dollars per year.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3737850]

>>3737835

I do believe they contractually agree to give up the rights to those patents upon being hired.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3737852]

>>3737848

Value is subjective.

[Anonymous No.3737853]

>>3737834
let me fix that for you
>life isn't fair

capitalism isn't a form of economy, capitalism IS economy, and economy is a simulacrum of life.

[Anonymous No.3737855]

>>3737829

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3737856]

>>3737847

A body is a means of production. This is why all people are capitalists (a person that owns capital).

[Anonymous No.3737859]

>>3737842
Is a CEO really worth as much as 500 doctors? Do you really like the idea of an "good ole' boys" network deciding who gets the highest paying jobs in the world?

[Anonymous No.3737860]

>>3737835
>The difference in income between Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers(the most productive members of society)

You're seriously putting lawyers above farmers in terms of productiveness? Jesus

[Anonymous No.3737862]

>>3737848
they probably produce 50 times as much value or utility.

[Anonymous No.3737870]

>>3737829
>flood detected x5
>endless rage.

[Anonymous No.3737872]

God it's just like /new/
I can only pray you are all trolls instead of people honestly brainwashed to the point that you think this.
I guess some people cope with horrific inequality by assuming it's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.3737875]

>people getting side tracked on what profession is more valuable

Dont get distracted from the face weve established the current system is injust according to the majority

[Anonymous No.3737877]

Go fuck yourself, commie scum.

[Anonymous No.3737878]

>>3737842
Not the same amount, just closer. It works in other countries. Look at Scandinavia.

The only way Republicans are capable of supporting almost all of their beliefs is by ignoring the existence of other countries, and the fact that they can actually see what the results of the things they oppose if they so choose.

[Anonymous No.3737880]

Wealth being concentrated in the hands of the few is bad because it slows down consumer demand.

The rich do not spend as much of their income as other tax brackets do. And by the rich I mean the Top 1%.

There comes a point that you just don't need more income to satisfy your needs and the money, especially in lower income countries, tends to sit idle and not invested.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3737882]

>>3737859

If value is subjective, then they can be.

>>3737875

Majority force rule has nothing to do with facts, logic, or reason. 51 rapists telling 49 women rape is now legal does not make rape just.

[Anonymous No.3737885]

>>3737878
Please ignore Liberty.

[Anonymous No.3737887]

>>3737862
>write high-frequency-trading algo for my wealthy friends.
>algo creates 25000 quotes in a microsecond, selling to the computer nextdoor that's in on this scam(meaning no actual transfer of value). Stock rises in value by a few points, triggers stoploss of some flesh-trader. Profit $10000k dollars in the span of a microsecond.
Repeat every day.

>mfw when the HFT creates 150times more utility than a elderly care worker.

[Anonymous No.3737889]

>>3737842
Not the same amount, just closer. It works in other countries. Look at Scandinavia.

The only way Republicans are capable of supporting almost all of their beliefs is by ignoring the existence of other countries, and the fact that they can use this to see the results of the things they oppose if they so choose.

[Anonymous No.3737890]

Average monthly salary in Eastern Block in the 1990 was around 10$. But I guess you commies are happy with that.

[Anonymous No.3737886]

>>3737835
What motivation does the emploee have to produce patents?

[Anonymous No.3737892]

>>3737886
Food on table, gas for car, rent paid.

[Anonymous No.3737893]

>>3737860
A robot can do a farmer's job. It can't do a Lawyers job. Even if it couldn't, I am not a believer of the agrarian myth that the farm lobbies are so delighted to perpetuate. Farming is big business.
Agricultural Engineers are much more important to farming than farmers.

[Anonymous No.3737896]

>>3737829
GDP is not synonymous with job creation

[Anonymous No.3737897]

I have plenty of libertarian leanings but the various trickle-downers, Reaganites, neocons, etc that champion and exemplify the libertarian cause really embarrass me.

Where is my fiscally-progressive socially-libertarian tea party-type movement, ffs?

[Anonymous No.3737898]

>We used to make shit in this country. Build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket.

Does /sci/ watch The Wire?

[Anonymous No.3737901]

>>3737897
Welcome to the democratic party.

[Anonymous No.3737904]

>>3737901
Fucking fractured left.

[Anonymous No.3737906]

>Implying money-movers have more worth than the people actually responsible for growing the food we survive on
>Implying the market always knows what's more valuable, like how football players are worth more than teachers
Seriously, you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3737907]

>>3737890
Neither the Soviet Union or the Eastern Bloc weren't communist nor socialist. They were state capitalist.

Oh, and, let's not forget that they didn't have the entire manufacturing sector redirected to the 3rd world exploiting the 3rd world population.

[Anonymous No.3737908]

>>3737898
We still build shit, we build ideas. But then the fucking Chinese just steal them and we look the other way. I bet the trade deficit would look a lot different if it were adjusted for intellectual property violations.

[Anonymous No.3737911]

>>3737908
Their IP theft only hurts themselves. Why make indigenous technology for less when you can steal it for free?

[Anonymous No.3737912]

>>3737908
China has bonds invested in the US because they are more secure than any other country.

problem is, its like jamming some handcuffs around the ankle of the US and china, no one is fixing it and the handcuffs are getting rustier and rustier and the problem is getting worse

[Anonymous No.3737915]

>>3737860
>>3737860

While I may not have a source, organic food markets are starting to explode, self-employed farmers may actually start making low 6 digit figures in the future.


Also 80% of billionares are self-made. Remember that.

Fuck, look at Craig Venter, he's a fucking billionaire and look at all the shit he has done.

[Anonymous No.3737918]

>>3737907
Go fuck yourself and your fucking lies, shithead! I am on to you, motherfucker. You're one of those "communism has only killed 100 million people, let's give it another chance" crowd.

I fucking broke one of your faggots nose, when I was visiting San Francisco.

Fuck you!

[Anonymous No.3737919]

>>3737908
> intellectual property
I lol'd.

[Anonymous No.3737923]

>>3737912
Not to mention that it contributed to the extremely cheap money that we saw being lent before the crisis.

[Anonymous No.3737926]

>>3737890
Sweden ($5,279 per month) would be a better point of reference, since it has the benefit of being a first world country and has the most equal wealth distribution in the world. But even then you wouldn't be able to convey the standard of living through that alone, due to the quality of their government services.

[Anonymous No.3737929]

>>3737915
thats only billionaire, and I would like a sauce on that 80%

I'd like to argue that it would be impossible for them to exist if they had not entered the market at the right time and place, just like computer technology, it boomed back then, and today its almost impossible to start your own company unless its just in computer repair.

As long as american people remain uneducated in computer products, they will continue to make loads of money, and if and when they do become educated, then the profits will slow down a lot because there are so many of their products that are so terribly overpriced its ridiculous

[Anonymous No.3737932]

>>3737926
What the fuck are you even talking about? Try to make sense, please. Right now you were not saying anything.

[Anonymous No.3737935]

>>3737915
It doesn't matter if they're self made. I mean, it's better than just inheriting their wealth of course, but it still doesn't mean they're hundreds of times more deserving of that quality of living than a poor person.

[Anonymous No.3737937]

>>3737911
Because it frees up the rest of your country for economic warfare without having to worry about your own scientific advancement. Let those stupid Americans/Europeans do all the leg work, well just steal it.

The main thing the western world has on the east is the brain drain, the neglected world class University system that keeps the US afloat with pure talent. Sadly, all of that talent is just seen as capitol by some asshole with a head start, but at least its something.

[Anonymous No.3737938]

>>3737926
>But even then you wouldn't be able to convey the standard of living through that alone

Here you go. Better measurement.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Table1_reprint.pdf

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3737939]

>>3737718
>>some people have more stuff than other people
Yeah, that's profound

>>3737734
'Fair' describes the weather, not life

ITT: People who think they could magically make life fair if people would just do things their way

Guys, read up on Distributism, OK? Thanks

[Anonymous No.3737962]

>>3737932
I'm saying who gives a shit about the Eastern Block.

Whenever somebody mentions the idea of a better system conservatives go BLUH BLUH BUT PEOPLE WEREN'T HAPPY IN THE SOVIET UNION or JUST GIVING PEOPLE MORE WELFARE DOESN'T HELP THEM, like the only concepts they're familiar with are balls to the wall laissez-faire, USSR style communism, and welfare. There are socialist (by American standards) nations that exist today that work extremely well.

[Anonymous No.3737963]

>>3737918
Those 'faggots' will break your country when they stage a coup in a nuclear superpower with a revolutionary situation, so be careful. Coups are very easy in countries with revolutionary situations - one small spark and the revolution is on, as we've seen in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and other Arab countries recently.

[Anonymous No.3737965]

>>3737926
Ok. Now I am sort of getting what you wanted to say. You want to claim Sweden to be socialist. Sweden, that up until 70s had the lower tax percentage of GDP than even USA! The same Sweden that has enjoyed having no wars for close to 300 years, notably staying out of both world wars and making a bundle of it.

This fucking Sweden that was filthy rich long before they went high tax in the 70s while still being one of the most free market free economy countries in the world.

Go fuck yourself with a rake, filthy lying commie scum.

Those interested in Sweden might want to read these articles.

http://mises.org/daily/2259/The-Sweden-Myth
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=151

[Anonymous No.3737979]

>>3737963
By Heritage Foundations rank of economic freedom:

Egypt 96th
Tunisia 100th
Libya 173th

Sure is free market capitalism there, faggot!

[Anonymous No.3737982]

>>3737965
What is needed is a HEAVY PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX, so that the poor, and the middle class would get virtually no taxes, and the rich people would get taxed to hell.

[Anonymous No.3737989]

now that the cavalry has arrived im leaving

[Anonymous No.3737990]

>>3737979
There shouldn't be government intervention in the market.
The capitalistic market should be abolished and replaced with the socialist mode of production and wages based on contribution - people would vote on the production targets/good produced, and the wages.

[Anonymous No.3737994]

>>3737982
yeah so then all the money can leave our country and we'll finally be equal

[Anonymous No.3737999]

>>3737994
No, so that then the capitalistic market would be abolished and replaced with libertarian socialism.

[Anonymous No.3738000]

>>3737990
>there shouldn't be government intervention
>there should be government intervention

do you have any idea how much you just contradicted yourself? jesus. logic fail.

[Anonymous No.3738005]

>>3738000
What I said was
>There shouldn't be government intervention in the market.

Moron.

[Anonymous No.3738016]

>>3738005
the you proceeded to say that you want government intervention in the markets

make up your mind.

acually, you need to learn a LOT more about economics. THEN make up your mind.

[Anonymous No.3738021]

>>3738016
>the you proceeded to say that you want government intervention in the markets

And this is where you're wrong.

Moron.

The market itself would be abolished in socialism, and the economy would be planned in a decentralized manner.

[Anonymous No.3738028]

Socialism wasn't viable in the 20th century or prior, and it isn't quite viable now. It will be viable soon though, once technological advancement makes all work information oriented, and it will be just about the only way if lifelike virtual reality ever becomes commonplace.

[Anonymous No.3738039]

ITT: DER DER DER DER DER DER DER

[Anonymous No.3738045]

AMURRICA.... AMURRICA.... PLACE OF CAPITALISM... AMURRICA... AMURRICA...

thats what happens when you apply the capitalism 100%

in my country (eurofag reporting) if i have headhache im going to the fucking hospital, u jelly? sure you are

im going to the dentist twice in a year, and i algo go to the oculist twice or third in a year, just because its fucking free

u jelly? sure you are

[Anonymous No.3738061]

I understand people thinking that capitalism is dandy and wealth can't be too heavily distributed. But how many of you actually think the OP image is a good thing, and support further tax breaks on the wealthy and the like, and just think poor people need to work harder?

[Anonymous No.3738069]

Since this thread has devolved, il just insert this here.

Market socialism is best socialism!

[Anonymous No.3738072]

>>3738045
i go to the dentist twice a year.
cause im an american and we can afford it without welfare.

sure feels good to pay for things yourself

[Anonymous No.3738074]

>Why do liberals hate the rich? Perhaps because liberals were the "smart" but nerdy and socially awkward kids in high school, the ones who aced the SATs but did not excel at sports and rarely got asked to the prom. Some of their "dumber" classmates, meanwhile, went on to make more money, marry better-looking spouses, and have more fun.
>Liberals find all this unjust because it rekindles their emotional insecurities from long ago. They do not have the honesty to accept that those with less SAT smarts might have other skills that the marketplace values. Instead, they resent wealth and convince themselves that large financial gains are ill-gotten.

[Anonymous No.3738080]

>>3738074
But most large financial gains are ill gotten.

Unless exploiting people isn't bad.

[Anonymous No.3738083]

>>3738080
All business is based on exploitation. In fact, there couldn't be business without exploitation, as then, there would be no profit. Any profit is money which isn't paid to the working people for their effort.

[Anonymous No.3738090]

>>3738080
People who let themselves be exploited deserve to be exploited.

[Anonymous No.3738091]

Does this make the USA a Plutocracy?

[Anonymous No.3738092]

>>3738072
Meanwhile free dentistry organisations that also work in the third world have to work in rural America, where the situation is worse than in most of Africa.

Your cuntry is shit, there's no way around it.

[Anonymous No.3738098]

Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.

[Anonymous No.3738102]

>>3738083
Good, you are getting the point then. All profit is ill-gotten.

[Anonymous No.3738106]

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.

[Anonymous No.3738109]

>>3738083
Business could be based on a contract. I know exactly what I'm getting and exactly what you're getting. In which case it is fair. This is very rare.

[Anonymous No.3738110]

No time to read this thread, but I have a (bad) blanket opinion on this sort of subject:

So fucking what if a bunch of rich dicks have 9 helicopters. Do you care? I'm fine with my fucking $9/hr job. You may think the upper class is a bunch of old guys with white beards that look down on us, letting us have just enough to forget that we have nothing, but I look at it the other way around; they are the ones that have so much shit that they don't know what the fuck else to do than play with their toys like children. I'm fine with my shit, niggers, so you can do whatever the fuck you want.

[Anonymous No.3738117]

>>3738091
>implying it was ever anything else

see the founding fathers.

[Anonymous No.3738121]

>>3738110
>So fucking what if a bunch of rich dicks have 9 helicopters. Do you care?

Any money that they have is the money that other people can't have access to. Some of these people who don't have access to this money are starving.

[Anonymous No.3738127]

Pro-economic-disparity opinions:
1. I'm not suffering as far as I know from this, so nobody should care!
2. Money = absolute value as beings
3. I have absolutely no rebuttal so I'll just say "deal with it"
4. Obviously the billionaire works 300 times harder thus his wage is accurate
5. COMMIE!

You make the tea party proud.

[Anonymous No.3738128]

>>3738110
when there are people without basic shit then it becomes a problem. I wouldn't mind if these people had 9 helicopters each as long as everyone in the country gets decent food,water,shelter,education,healthcare and social mobility.

[Anonymous No.3738129]

>>3738121
I agree with the heart of your post, but death by starvation isn't a problem in America, although poverty does effect general life expectancy.

[Anonymous No.3738132]

Fuck, Karl Marx was right - the capitalists accumulate all the wealth in the society

[Anonymous No.3738136]

>>3738121
I'm against these guys, but you're just using a stupid argument. Economics is not a zero sum game.

[Anonymous No.3738144]

>>3738110
You're pretty self absorbed.

[Anonymous No.3738151]

>mfw retards don't realize that most of the opinions on socialism they have were taught to them by their parents and other adults when they were children, who were shoved these opinions down their throats during the Cold War by the Department of Defense propaganda

>mfw they don't realize that Russia became like a 3rd world country since the fall of the Soviet Union, with the minimum wages of around 90 euro per month, even though the GDP is still high, because all the wealth is accumulated by the rich minority of the population

[Anonymous No.3738153]

>>3738072

>cause im an american and we can afford it without welfare.

Speak for yourself.

I make a modest yearly wage. If I wanted to include dental and eye care on my medical coverage, that would nearly double the price.

And yes, I know there are cheaper plans because I've had them. There is nothing like the insurance covering the dentist looking at your teeth and then getting charged $300 if he, god forbid, has to do a his job and fix something because they don't cover "basic procedures."

[Anonymous No.3738164]

>>3738136
Are you a retard?
Here's an example:
Imagine there's a kindergarten, and 50 toys are distributed among 30 kids. The bully kids often take toys away from other kids. In the end, the 4-5 bully kids end up accumulating about 40 toys, and the rest is left with barely any.

[Anonymous No.3738178]

>>3738164
There are so, so many things wrong with that analogy

[Anonymous No.3738190]

>>3738178
Virtually none. Only maybe the fact that the kids are usually not as aggressive as the people in our modern society.

[Anonymous No.3738205]

>>3738190

Actually, I find the system somewhat unfair but your analogy is wrong.

The bullies in your analogy TAKE the toys.

No corporation FORCES anyone to buy their products. Unless, of course, they have a monopoly on it and it is an essential for survival (I'm looking at you Myriad Genetics).

[Anonymous No.3738215]

>>3738205
However, the employees are forced to be employed, where their labor is being appropriated by the employer, as without being employed they're unable to survive or have proper living conditions.

[Anonymous No.3738217]

>>3738136
>Economics is not a zero sum game.

Yes it is. Show me a transaction that creates money.

[Anonymoose No.3738219]

>>3738151

>mfw you called russia a third world country
>mfw you're either a terrible troll or the stupidest person, probably, ever.
>mfw first world is allies
>mfw second world is axis + russia
>mfw third world is everywhere else
>mfw YOU'RE SO FUCKING STUPID YOU SHOULD GO BACK TO /b/ YOU FUCKING SHITFUCK

[Anonymous No.3738221]

>>3738205
>I find the system somewhat unfair

1% own 33% of the wealth

>somewhat unfair

lol

[Anonymous No.3738226]

>>3738205
Not forced in the immediate sense, but they are forced by circumstance.

[Anonymous No.3738227]

>>3738045
>Tarrifs and subsidies and bailouts
>capitalism
Yea no

[Anonymous No.3738233]

>>3738217
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

[Anonymous No.3738235]

>>3738219
Your post was based on misquoting my post. I haven't said any things you implied I said.

[Anonymous No.3738260]

>>3738045
>oculist

Occultist? Optician?

[Anonymous No.3738263]

>>3737999
Your intentions might be good, but it's results that matter.

[Anonymous No.3738291]

Wealth inequality will be solved in the future when a government of artificial intelligence (capable of understanding all aspects of humanity) establishes a new structure for society.

[Anonymous No.3738302]

>>3738291
>artificial intelligence
>not a cloud of uploaded and synchronized human minds

[Anonymous No.3738309]

Replace all welfare with negative income tax.

----Milton Friedman.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738310]

>>3738291

> i want a planned economy

Why?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738320]

>>3738226

Natural forces are not the responsibility of others to correct. You need to eat to survive, that does not mean that a person must give you food or they force your hand into slavery.

[Anonymous No.3738323]

>>3738310
Some people want to stay children and be handfed.

[Anonymous No.3738330]

>>3738323
Please don't respond to Liberty.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738332]

>>3738330

> mfw you have to mention me

[Anonymous No.3738335]

>>3738323
Results > how nice it makes you feel to be self reliant

If there were an AI capable of creating an efficient and near-equal economy, I wouldn't turn it down just because I'm too much of an arrogant dickhead.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738338]

>>3738335

> near-equal
> efficient

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3738339]

>>3738335
I directly want to walk the path of an all mighty malevolent god.
And then proceed to give myself the results I want.

[Anonymous No.3738361]

>>3738332

It's desperately sad that such a thing would please you so much. Still, guess being mentioned on 4chan is the closest you'll ever get to a real friend.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738368]

>>3738361

You are literally uncomfortable with people responding to me. It is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.3738370]

>>3738217
A bank accept the deposits of 3 individuals, each depositing 100 dollars. The bank loans out to another individual 250 dollars, with an interest rate of 4%. Effectively increases money supply
>mfw money is created

[Anonymous No.3738373]

>>3738338
It might or might not be possible.
But how much do we know?
Weather forecasting is only reliable up till 4 or 5 days.

[Anonymous No.3738378]

>>3738368

I'm not the same Anon. I think you're a pathetic loser, but I don't care if other people waste their time talking to you.

[Anonymous No.3738379]

>>3738219

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738387]

>>3738373

Efficiency cannot exist within equality because people are not equal, cannot be equal, and cannot be regulated to be equal.

[Anonymous No.3738390]

>>3738368
I think you're actually pretty ok for a tripfag.
Don't let the other anons foul words penetrate you.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738393]

>>3738378

[Anonymous No.3738395]

>>3738091
Yes

[Anonymous No.3738402]

>>3738338
By the time we'd have an AI capable of doing that, the economy would have already been restructured entirely around information based products and what the majority of our workforce accomplishes currently wouldn't be an issue. That's putting aside the possibility of us existing primarily within a simulated reality (if we have an AI capable of controlling the economy we almost certainly would be), in which case almost all personal needs could be met without any cost.

Economy would be nothing like what you're familiar with, and your current beliefs would be completely incompatible.

[Anonymous No.3738405]

>>3738368


He might be Amish, you know.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738408]

>>3738395

No. Poor people have a bigger say in elections.

[Anonymous No.3738411]

MFW nobody in this fucking thread is snart enough to be a balanced centrist.

[Anonymous No.3738412]

>>3738387
>Efficiency in general describes the extent to which time or effort is well used for the intended task or purpose. It is often used with the specific purpose of relaying the capability of a specific application of effort to produce a specific outcome effectively with a minimum amount or quantity of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. "Efficiency" has widely varying meanings in different disciplines.

If everybody/everything was equal their efficiency would be all the same.Which equals into efficiency not existing.
You're right.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738414]

>>3738402

> god does not exist in our realm, so logic cannot be thrown at him

sigh

[Anonymous No.3738417]

>>3738393
i think youre alright liberty

and i cant wait for democrats to realize that they are essentially fascists

[Anonymous No.3738423]

To be a libertarian, you must lack any semblance of empathy. It is because of this that I have come to the conclusion that Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs is an asspie.

[Anonymous No.3738424]

>>3738414
The negative consequences of socialism are severely diminished in a world where things can be willed into existence, dealwifit.

[Anonymous No.3738427]

>>3738411
here's a fool's errand for you, define "centrist".
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

>>3738408
>Voting isn't a federal holiday
>Implying poor people can just skip work that day
>Implying there hasn't been an obvious effort at disenfranchising voters in poorer communities with a lack of equipment
>Implying that assholes haven't been trying to make voting a white man's privilege since slavery ended
Were you asleep in 2004?

[Anonymous No.3738428]

>completely irrelevant picture of Obama, green text blah blah
DISCLAIMER. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development

[Anonymous No.3738431]

>>3738411
>mfw centrist think they're better by default
source: I'm a geneticist

[Anonymous No.3738439]

>mfw communism is the same as libertarianism

[Anonymous No.3738440]

>>3738417
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
You do realize the first two paragraphs describe Republican ideals pretty well. Family Policy? Doesn't sound like what the Democrats talk about.

[Anonymous No.3738444]

>>3738423
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUBK9_4OQIs
But it's results that matter.

[Anonymous No.3738446]

>>3738309

>Replace all welfare with negative income tax.

Yes. NIT welfare is superior to current welfare systems. Especially this implementation:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/64994876?access_key=key-i1up88z6zx3irw8pcvv

[Anonymous No.3738450]

>>3738439

[Anonymous No.3738454]

Fascism is anti-anarchist, anti-communist, anti-conservative, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentary, anti-bourgeois and anti-proletarian.[15] It entails a distinctive type of anti-capitalism and is typically, with a few exceptions, anti-clerical.[16][17] It rejects egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favour of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit and will.[18]

fascists gonna hate.

[Anonymous No.3738455]

MFW the whole thread

[Anonymous No.3738456]

>>3738411
American centrism is the dumbest fucking thing. HURR HURR LOOK THERE'S TWO ENDS OF A SPECTRUM THAT MUST MEAN THE MIDDLE MUST BE INHERENTLY SUPERIOR DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE SPECTRUM IS CONSTANTLY PLUNGING FURTHER RIGHT.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738460]

>>3738423

> to be libertarian, you must lack a subjective term

Haha.

>>3738424

I agree 100 percent with, for example, that if everyone was given everything they ever wanted or dreamed for, ever, they would not work for a wage.

>>3738427

> implying the date to vote is not set in stone
> implying getting off work with years of notice is impossible
> implying voting has been gradually going away from just whites since the beginning

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738465]

>>3738456

> inb4 you talk about socialism vs capitalism

[Anonymous No.3738472]

>>3738444
The results are what's depicted in OP's picture.

Capitalism is dependent on the idea of "You can accomplish anything if you just work at it," it's entirely a case of people prioritizing how good the idea of it makes them feel (because everybody overestimates their own ability to succeed) over end results.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738484]

>>3738472

That is not the idea, that is the result.

[Anonymous No.3738491]

>>3738460
Oops. Your asspie is showing.

[Anonymous No.3738494]

>>3738460
Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. It's subjective in that individual feelings are subjective, but the concept on a whole and one's ability to possess it is as objective as any human emotional trait.

I'd disagree on the idea that a libertarian can't possess empathy, though. A libertarian can possess either empathy or an understanding of the power of various social structures. Not both.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738495]

>>3738491

Go on.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738506]

>>3738494

That is an emotional want by those that claim to have empathy.

[Anonymous No.3738508]

>>3738495
This guy sure does love attention
let's all reply to him some more and really make his day

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738510]

>>3738508

[Anonymous No.3738514]

>>3738472
>Capitalism is dependent on the idea of "You can accomplish anything if you just work at it,"
>mfw social mobility demonstrates that this is not the case

[Anonymous No.3738522]

>>3738484
Hahaha, so you're one of those people who actually believes that the free market is a flawless indicator of what a person deserves?

I was figuring you were just a libertarian because of the its ability to prompt productivity, but you actually think it's a morally just system?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738525]

>>3738514

> mfw you think a mixed economy welfare state is capitalism

[Anonymous No.3738534]

>>3738525
>using money
>not capitalism

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738536]

>>3738522

I make no argument for what a person deserves as it hilariously subjective and not at all definable in any logical or rational way.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738548]

>>3738534

> the definition of capitalism mentions, or requires money

[Anonymous No.3738549]

>>3738536
So instead you're just complacent with the ethics of any system, because hey it doesn't matter because ethics are subjective?

[Anonymous No.3738553]

>>3738536
Oh Liberty it's so funny to read you, your mom must be really proud of yourself.
But really, educate yourself, it would be simply retarded to say what you say as an adult.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738562]

>>3738549

I prefer Liberty.

>>3738553

Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.3738570]

>>3738525
>mfw you think removing the welfare state would improve social mobility

[Anonymous No.3738577]

>>3738562
Your understandment of socioeconomics is stuck in Smith and Ricardo, and in 2011, that is not acceptable for an educated adult. You perceive economy as an entity separated from society.
You should begin reading Marx, then some Keynes, then some Marx again. Some Lenin wouldn't hurt.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738579]

>>3738570

> mfw the last year black unemployment was lower than white unemployment was the year before the first minimum wage law

[Anonymous No.3738582]

>>3738548
>wonder how long it took you to collect all these pictures of obama's face
>you know thats a sign of aspergers
>just think of all the productive things you could be doing away from this imageboard
>oh wait you wouldn't because you have aspergers
>capitalism doesn't treat your kind well. you know people with no skills
>i guess you're just gonna have to live off our welfare system, claiming you need help cause of your disability
>dats sad bro

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738585]

>>3738577

I agree that without economic freedom there is no social freedom.

[Anonymous No.3738593]

>>3738585
Economic freedom does not mean that an individual or assossiation can fuck up another one, that's why we need the State, to prevent people to fuck other people in economic terms, not only social.
What you propose is economical anarchy and regulated society, pretty close to a totalitarian government.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738594]

>>3738582

Maybe 2 minutes.

I guess I could have given money to a charity without being forced to.

I am a "skilled" worker though, that is why I do not support theft of labor.

[Anonymous No.3738600]

>>3738585
AND THE AWARD FOR MOST DEDICATED TRIPFAG TROLL GOES TO...

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738604]

>>3738593

I do not support initial acts of aggression. But, sadly, you most likely mean fuck over in a very broad illogical way, instead of a legitimate one.

I support no state regulation pertaining to anything, for any reason, ever.

[Anonymous No.3738611]

>>3738579
>mfw racist white employers don't want niggers in their employ costing the same as their good white workers
>mfw this is a problem exacerbated by anti-AA types such as yourself

[Anonymous No.3738612]

capitalism is unfair thats why we need communism

[Anonymous No.3738616]

>>3738604
So rape and murder wouldn't be punished in your world.
Funny, you are an anarchist, a ridiculous anarchist.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738625]

>>3738611

> the state is the problem

Yep.

>>3738616

> would rape and murder be punished

Not by the state.

[Anonymous No.3738633]

>>3738625
>>the state is the problem

Nope. State legislation requiring equal terms of employment is the solution.

[Anonymous No.3738635]

[Anonymous No.3738640]

>>3738625
hey liberty you wanna be in my militia?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738647]

>>3738633

> everyone is equal and performs the same amount of work in the same amount of time by using the same amount of energy, etc, etc, etc

[Anonymous No.3738654]

>>3738647
>implying it matters and humans should not be given equal wealth just because they are humans.
That's evil.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738665]

>>3738654

> wealth should be taken
> wealth should be distributed


Morals, morals everywhere.

[Anonymous No.3738670]

>>3738665
And what's the problem with that?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738678]

>>3738670

> basing arguments on hilariously subjective idea
> i see no problem here

You wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.3738690]

>>3738678
It's the only way to end poverty and advance the specie. And it's objective, if you give people what they need, you stop poverty, therefore, poverty crimes and other barbarian things of modern world.

[Anonymous No.3738692]

>>3738647
>implying things that were not implied

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738697]

>>3738690

Things have a cost.

> mfw rich people commit crimes too

[Anonymous No.3738707]

>>3738697
Cost is subjective to scarce.

[Anonymous No.3738709]

Mfw ultracapitalists trying to justify extremes of wealth inequality. People living like kings while their countrymen live on the street.

Must be deontological ethics in here. No utilitarian calculus can ignore the potential for a better society.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738711]

>>3738707

A cost is a cost is a cost.

[Anonymous No.3738714]

>>3738711
A retard is you.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3738720]

>>3738709

Utilitarians do not exist.

[Anonymous No.3739044]

>thinks disparity is a useful metric

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv5t6rC6yvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8

[Anonymous No.3739124]

Stealing other peoples money and giving it to other is called empathy
------- A socialist

[Anonymous No.3739191]

lol @ mediocre folks who realize under capitalism, their shitty station in life is their own damn fault.

[Anonymous No.3739194]

Do you think patents are distributed evenly across all companies working in any market sector?

Is your friend that won the lottery obligated to share his winning with you because you were physically next to him when the news broadcast the winning numbers? Did you pay for a lottery ticket?

Not all wealth is accumulated based on being better, or more deserving. However, most of it is accumulated through risks. If you aren't taking these risks, then you should not feel entitled to the fruits of such labors. If you risk too much, you should be prepared for failure, as not everyone is obligated to cover your bad bets.

Risk exists because big success can just as easily be big failure. The people at the top may not have "earned" their fair share of the wealth they posses, but this doesn't mean that there weren't risks taken in the process of amassing that fat stack.

You want to share the rewards? Then you should share the risk.

[Anonymous No.3739208]

>>3739191
yeah, it's totally my fault that millionaires and billionaires constantly collude with the government through lobbyists to further the concentration of wealth in this country

[Anonymous No.3739219]

>>3739208
I'll give you a 15% discount on the shits I give, if you purchase them 20 at a time.

See what I did there? I'm giving you the ability to use your purchasing power to get a leg up on poor saps. What a monster I am.

[Anonymous No.3739240]

In a healthy economy, the top 1% owns 50% of the wealth. We need more freedom to make this happen. Ron Paul 2012!

[Anonymous No.3739252]

I'm actually fine with this. The bottom 90% of humanity is dumb as fuck, so I don't really care that they don't have much to enjoy. The only way I would support socialism is if we killed off all the idiots first.

[Anonymous No.3739256]

>>3739194
>You want to share the rewards? Then you should share the risk.

Don't you think this is an argument for wealth distribution, rather than the alternative? I mean, if the rich do create the jobs around, the failure of a capitalist enterprise is not just the owners' problem, but also every worker's problem. Even further into the paradox, if the workers are limited to a living wage, then the risk posed by economic failure is much greater for them than it is for the capitalist, as they have no reserves on which they can live off while they are inactive. The entrepreneur, however, whose fortune has surpassed the living threshold long before on the collapse, is pretty safe from the economic effects of poverty.

Sorry for cutting up your post. I just needed to say this.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3739266]

Hey guys whats goin-

Oh.

Could someone tell me whats wrong with such a massive unequal distribution of wealth? I feel like it is a bad thing, but I cant think of why. I remember when I went to go see Dan Ariely talk, he said when people are surveyed they typically way over estimate the amount of wealth the bottom have. And when asked what an ideal one would look like most people (even regardless of political stance) showed one that was about half as unequal (if that makes any sense), and resembled Sweden in real life.

[Anonymous No.3739292]

>>3739256
>...economic failure is much greater for them than it is for the capitalist, as they have no reserves on which they can live off while they are inactive.
This bit is a little trickier that it may seem at first glance. Capitalists make money by investing money. Laborers make money by laboring. If a laborer loses their money, they still have an income source. However, if the capitalist loses their money, they have lost their income source.

During the writing of this response I came upon an interesting idea. It was in the moment of pondering the nature of moral hazard with regard to the risks of the laborer's duties being absorbed by the business. If you break part -assuming it's not too expensive- while working, you don't necessarily need to pay for it. Even if you did, the cost of parts going into a final product are by necessity less expensive than the final product.

What if workers purchased the materials used in their job duties, then sold them to the next step in the process. Each step in the assembly line being carefully monitored by the workers as they now share a direct risk/reward connection with each passing cog. The business benefits by charging for use of equipment and the extra leverage afforded by avoiding the majority of the costs of goods sold.

Hmmmmmmmmmm, thanks for the post. Now you've got me thinking.

[Anonymous No.3739293]

>>3739266
>whats wrong with such a massive unequal distribution of wealth?
Money = power
Having all the power in one place is just a recipe for disaster

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3739328]

>>3739292

>This bit is a little trickier that it may seem at first glance. Capitalists make money by investing money. Laborers make money by laboring. If a laborer loses their money, they still have an income source. However, if the capitalist loses their money, they have lost their income source.

Very intradasting

>What if workers purchased the materials used in their job duties

I think perhaps, a central financing/engineering/design department might be significantly smarter and more efficient about what they are doing. If a normal worker did this they have the responsibility of making something AND figuring out what needs to be made, which would be really hard to know if that depends on what maybe 1,000 people are thinking.

>>3739293

Okay, I can accept this. But here is a hypothetical question, if there was extreme wealth inequality, and I could promise you extreme stability and safety for the individuals on the bottom (I dont know how anyone could do this) would that gain your approval?

[JUSTINBIEBER !2DGODF8xik No.3739350]

>implying the poorest households don't see the most gain in income over time
>implying people don't start out poor as fuck and become wealthy
>implying you arent a big baby crying about relative wealth and can't be happy being way better off than nearly anyone else in the world
the standard of poverty in america is ridiculous compared to the rest of the world

[Anonymous No.3739355]

>>3739292
>If a laborer loses their money, they still have an income source. However, if the capitalist loses their money, they have lost their income source.

Even though the workers do maintain their income source, it only exists while they can sell their labour. So if something bars them from getting work, they might be in quite trouble. Also, I find it hard that one would loose large amounts of capital unless in case of an economic meltdown. A sad thing, since it happens when everyone will need it the most.

>What if workers purchased the materials used in their job duties, then sold them to the next step in the process. Each step in the assembly line being carefully monitored by the workers as they now share a direct risk/reward connection with each passing cog. The business benefits by charging for use of equipment and the extra leverage afforded by avoiding the majority of the costs of goods sold.

That would look like a workers' factory. It's certainly possible in a sense, but one should look into the whole thing to see how it would work.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3739383]

>>3739355

>Also, I find it hard that one would loose large amounts of capital unless in case of an economic meltdown

Capital is the physical stuff people use to run their businesses right?

When the economy goes bad, and businesses are going bankrupt, their capital doesnt disappear. They just have to sell it off. The capital market's supply grows and it becomes cheaper to buy equipment if you were looking to grow your own business.

I mean, recessions are bad, Im just saying it heals itself.

[Anonymous No.3739460]

>>3739383
>When the economy goes bad, and businesses are going bankrupt, their capital doesnt disappear. They just have to sell it off.

Well, that's exactly my point. Unless there's a major crash, businesses will just liquidate their assets before they loose too much and move on to the next their enterprise. They would probably still have money to give to their employees.

>Capital is the physical stuff people use to run their businesses r

Not really. The "physical" tag doesn't really fly as assets are measured by their market value, not their worth. See Smith's Paradox of the price and worth of water and diamonds.

[Anonymous No.3739506]

>ITT: Defending Communism even though they started wars
>Attacking America despite the fact that they saved us from Commie nukes
>MFW

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3739513]

>>3739460

If there wasnt a major crash, why would they liquidate their assets? They are going out of business?

>The "physical" tag doesn't really fly as assets are measured by their market value, not their worth. See Smith's Paradox of the price and worth of water and diamonds.

Okay I just read about that paradox. I think that maybe we ultimately agree, but, I dont want to acknowledge a distinction between value and worth. I would argue instead that there is value that businesses naturally dont consider in production, which manifests itself in a market failure. Like the moral value that exists when everyone has access to water. Moral value that doesnt exist when a market distribution that leaves some people without water.

[Anonymous No.3739522]

>>3739506
>Commie nukes

[Anonymous No.3739630]

>>3739513
>If there wasnt a major crash, why would they liquidate their assets? They are going out of business?
By a major crash, I meant everyone is going down. In such scenario every business owner would try to sell their assets to recover some of their capital, something that would drive the prices down to a point where their capital losses would become significant.

>Okay I just read about that paradox. I think that maybe we ultimately agree, but, I dont want to acknowledge a distinction between value and worth.

You don't need to. Value is tied to worth, it's only that a product's worth diminishes once the demand for it is fulfilled - it has diminishing marginal utility. When you suggest a situation where a population suddenly suffers from a great drought, people will value water much higher. Back to capital however, it's the fact the existence of monetary capital itself that makes me inclined to say it's non-physical. Not that it's worth less because of this.

Sorry if I might sound confusing, I'm just throwing out around some econ concepts aimlessly. I just hope to educate myself and others.

[Anonymous No.3739650]

Sept 17th meet at Bowling Green Park at noon

At 3pm, meet at One Chase Manhattan Park for a people's assembly

There's something beautiful about an eruption of democracy in what is practically a global nexus of plutocratic power

Occupy Wall Street

Be there

[Anonymous No.3739661]

>>3739650
Democracy is retarded, the common man can be convinced to vote for anything.

[Anonymous No.3739688]

>>3739661
Democratic control of society is preferable to being ruled by a minority of elites

This is basically the dividing line of the struggle of our times

Those who thirst for democratic governance, and those who are afraid of it

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3739709]

>>3739630

Yeah I guess it is confusing since we measure capital in terms of dollar value. I think we do that so that we can make models. Otherwise if I made a model describing the literal number of inputs it wouldnt have any application.

I agree, that, the value in the capital itself. The value in a band saw for example exists despite it is monetary value. I can kind of justify this to myself by saying that monetary value isnt absolute value, its relative value. A dollars value only exists relative to where the other dollars in the economy are.

It would be healthy if the total amount of money grew proportional to the growth of the total actual value. Then I dont think we would have such concern about the distinction between capital as a dollar figure and capital as a physical thing. Of course stuff goes wrong and we have recessions/booms that change everything.

I dont know if we even have a topic of conversation anymore. I think I was just kind of rambling. What do you think?

[Anonymous No.3739725]

>>3739709
Hmm

Like use-values and exchange-values?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3739726]

>>3739688

> run by 50.01 percent of idiots
> run by 49.99 percent of elites

False, dichotomy.

I choose not to be controlled by others. You accept control by others of your life. Those are the actual sides.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3739762]

>>3739725

Yeah

and I mean, use value is meta physical, indescribable. Not really applicable in science at all. Its not bad, its just not a part of the mathematics.

[Anonymous No.3739770]

>>3739726
Your political power is minuscule in comparison to the political power wielded by the top 1%

You voted in 2010, they created Super PACs
You voted in 2008, they used their businesses to pour money down campaigns
You'll vote in 2012, while they use lobbying firms or even create them to affect ongoing legislation since before you were born

This is called plutocratic control of society, not democratic

Also, you have little choice to be controlled

For example, you do not have the means to produce your own subsistence. You do not own productive assets. So you must enter the market to sell your ability to work in order to earn your wage to turn around and buy your satisfaction in the market - because production occurs not to satisfy human needs, but to meet the demand of the market

Too bad the number of unemployed workers outnumbers available jobs 6 to 1, otherwise I'm sure demand might be higher

Democracy Now

[Anonymous No.3739780]

>>3739709
>It would be healthy if the total amount of money grew proportional to the growth of the total actual value. Then I dont think we would have such concern about the distinction between capital as a dollar figure and capital as a physical thing. Of course stuff goes wrong and we have recessions/booms that change everything.

I think it's hard to imagine what you're saying, since it would effectively require an entirely different financial system and mindset. We currently trade papers that are worth people's guarantee's to pay, to sell and to buy. One might invest his capital without ever building something, so from an individual perspective, capital seems truly ethereal. Anyway, since there are large amounts of money to be gained from bets on market prices, people throw themselves against the financial market in hopes of large profits, fuelling bubbles. Until the day the house starts winning.

>I dont know if we even have a topic of conversation anymore. I think I was just kind of rambling. What do you think?

I think the point was forgotten after we walked away from discussing whether or not workers should receive what in fact is unemployment insurance and into a loose discussion about capital. Overall it was a healthy discussion.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3739822]

>>3739780

>I think it's hard to imagine what you're saying, since it would effectively require an entirely different financial system and mindset.

Yeah, central banking, like with the federal reserve is a bad idea. Basically the fed just guesses how much money their should be. They are not very good at it, there is always a margin of error between how much money the fed should have made, and how much they did make.

There are multiple solutions, I think we should go back to a standard, like the gold standard.

>people throw themselves against the financial market in hopes of large profits, fuelling bubbles

There are also large potential losses. I dont want to act like the market is hyper intelligent, and is always smart enough to avoid bubbles, but I do think its pretty intelligent, and it could behave more intelligently if bubbles like the housing bubble werent catalyzed by poor fiscal policy from the government.

> unemployment insurance

Unemployment insurance is really good. I feel that way just because I morally want people to be taken care of if the economy goes bad. Thats one of those metaphysical values I hold that I think the market would fail to appreciate.

[Anonymous No.3739836]

>>3739822
Gold standard and anthropomorphizing the market?

What's next, bro? Ron Paul and lizard people?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3739864]

>>3739770

I do not vote, it is an initial act of aggression.

And just to clear one thing up for. The declaration of independence and the constitution never mention democracy. This is because majority force rule is silly, and best left to lesser animals.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3739868]

>>3739836

Maybe I shouldnt have called the market intelligent. The individual investors arent dumb.