These are generally just socialist rallies, aren't they? Why don't we just fire into the protesters and execute anyone taking place in it before they try to revolt and enact an oppressive government?

File: 28 KB, 500x375, cancer-kids-wall-street-occupation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:04:28 2011 No.3836065 [Reply] [Original]

These are generally just socialist rallies, aren't they? Why don't we just fire into the protesters and execute anyone taking place in it before they try to revolt and enact an oppressive government?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:08:28 2011 No.3836079 >Impose oppressive policies to prevent oppressive policies. Did I go to sleep and wake up in Algiers, 1991?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:08:28 2011 No.3836080 Because imitating Arab dictators is always the answer.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:10:28 2011 No.3836085

>>3836079
Well if freedom and liberty is threatened, you're going to have to take away the freedoms and liberties from those threats in order to save it. Why do we put criminals in jail, a place where they have virtually zero control over their lies? So they can't go on committing crimes that ends up taking away the freedom and liberty from their victims or innocent in general.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:10:28 2011 No.3836088 Or just announce fire sale at American Apparel. The irony.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:11:28 2011 No.3836092 Nothing wrong with socialism. Communism on the other hand ....

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:13:28 2011 No.3836098 >>3836092 Socialism is just hardcore communism. Know what the USSR stands for? "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics," and they oppressed anyone who they saw as "threats to socialism."

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:13:55 2011 No.3836095 File: 47 KB, 429x410, fancy troll.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >implying its socialist (in America read as "evil and jesus hating) to want a Jew banker worth billions to pay a comparable tax rate to working students >mfw

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:14:28 2011 No.3836099 >>3836098 Yeah, but at least it's not Communism.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:15:28 2011 No.3836103

>>3836085

Freedom and liberty to what?

We put the criminal in prison because we don't recognise the freedom and liberty to rob and murder. But we DO recognise the freedom and liberty to protest and assembly. Until they actually start getting violent you can't do intervene without being a hypocrite.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:15:28 2011 No.3836106 >>3836099 They're both bad, but socialism is worse. Much, MUCH worse.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:19:28 2011 No.3836119

>>3836103
>Freedom and liberty to what?

Freedom and liberty FROM oppression by the common man.

>We put the criminal in prison because we don't recognise the freedom and liberty to rob and murder.
No, we do it because robbery and murder is one man oppressing another, and in this case resulting in an undeserved death of a citizen. Therefore, we have to take away the rights from the criminal in order to preserve the rights of your average Joe (unless he ends up committing crimes as well). Also there's no such thing as freedom or liberty in criminal so "because we don't recognise the freedom and liberty to rob and murder" makes no god damn sense.

>Until they actually start getting violent you can't do intervene without being a hypocrite.
But such protests under an oppressive ideology is a threat to freedom and liberty, therefore we have to step in before it goes any further, we have to protect our country at any cost.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:21:28 2011 No.3836123 >>3836106 I prefer Socialism. Anything but Communism, tbh.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:23:28 2011 No.3836133 >>3836098 Know what North Korea's full name is? DEMOCRATIC republic of North korea. :. Its democratic, just like the USSR was socialist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:24:28 2011 No.3836139 >>3836123 Then I fear anything that lets you obtain any amount of power coming across you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:24:28 2011 No.3836142 >>3836106 care to explain how socialism is worse then communism? I'm genueinly curious as to how you came to this conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:25:28 2011 No.3836148 >>3836139 Socialism gives me power. And takes it from you. Be scared, little man, be very scared. Be scared of Communism, that is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:26:28 2011 No.3836154 >>3836119 > we have to protect our country at any cost. >Giving up a little liberty, etc

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:27:28 2011 No.3836156 ITT: we confusion socilism with communism Then Confuse communism with stalinism to come to the conclusion That socialism is stalinism.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:28:28 2011 No.3836164

>>3836142
Like the other people said, it's really just communism. In fact, there's no difference between the two other than that socialism is a magnified version of it, so logically it would be worse. And government that had socialism in their title or were socialist have killed the most people in the 20th century (National Socialist Germany, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Maoist China).

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:29:28 2011 No.3836165 >>3836156 >>socialism Curse my shitty proofreading.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:31:28 2011 No.3836176

socialism = wide range of ideologies and economic ideas centred around worker's control of the means of production

communism = either the policies of the communist parties and the comintern or a proposed advanced stage of a socialist society

democracy = political power is vested in the masses and government is controlled by their votes

totalitarianism = society where individual rights are severely curtailed to advance social cohesion

Now, why can't we have a socialist democracy? It would seem ideal to unite political equality and economic equality.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:31:28 2011 No.3836180

>>3836164
>>Like the other people said, it's really just communism. [citation needed]
>> In fact, there's no difference between the two other than that socialism is a magnified version of it, so logically it would be worse.

you have yet to present what makes socialism (or communism) bad. nothing Magnified as nothing

>>And government that had socialism in their title or were socialist have killed the most people in the 20th century (National Socialist Germany, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Maoist China).

Having socialist in your name doesnt make you a socislist any more then the GDR or North Korea are Democratic

So far you have not presented an argument, Just vauge statements.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:39:28 2011 No.3836219

>>3836180
No I did not provide arguments, I provided proof to these statements. I provided proof of what liberty and freedom means, and why we should take it away from people that threaten it. I provided proof of past regimes that were socialist and used the ideology to commit mass murders, proving that the ideology itself is a threat to everyone. I have provided nothing but proof in this thread and if you can't see it, you're either a liberal trying to sloppily defend an ideology he doesn't understand, or a conservative tackling arguments or proofs without actually reading them. You're either the type here that supports high taxes for the sake of equality, or doesn't believe in evolution, either way: you're still a bad person.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:42:28 2011 No.3836230 >>3836219 Oooh I know this one. This is where I point out how many people suffer deprivation because of capitalist ideologies. Then you call me a filthy commie propagandist

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:48:28 2011 No.3836251 File: 364 KB, 350x236, alwaysunny-kittenmittens-3.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] dear god, there is a lot of trolling going on in here or everyone is ignorant as fuck

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:48:28 2011 No.3836252

>>3836219
>>No I did not provide arguments, I provided proof to these statements.

You have cited no peer reviewed proof. Try again, nor provided any proof.

>>I provided proof of what liberty and freedom means, and why we should take it away from people that threaten it.

You have not provided any proof of this either.

>> I provided proof of past regimes that were socialist and used the ideology

You have not provided proof they WERE socialist, just that they CLAIMED TO BE socialist. This is no more to the point then the GDR and North Korea Claiming to be Democratic.

>> to commit mass murders, proving that the ideology itself is a threat to everyone.

Even if they WERE socialist this argument would still be a logical fallacy. A generalization. Consider this - One person uses paint to produce an offensive picture. By your logic, Paint is now a threat to everyone.
It’s like claiming the Westbro Baptist church represents all Christians.
>>I have provided nothing but proof in this thread

You have provided nothing but vague statements,

>> and if you can't see it, you're either a liberal trying to sloppily defend an ideology he doesn't understand, or a conservative tackling arguments or proofs without actually reading them. You're either the type here that supports high taxes for the sake of equality, or doesn't believe in evolution, either way: you're still a bad person.

Baseless ad homimem attacks. Even if these were true, they would be irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:48:55 2011 No.3836250 [DELETED]

File: 37 KB, 600x431, 389053.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>mfw Ameritards can't tell the difference between social policies and socialism
>mfw Ameritards think the founding fathers were infallible
>mfw Ameritards print God on their money, even though Jesus told his followers to give up their money
>mfw Jesus was a radical pacifist and favored redistribution of wealth
>mfw Christianity in its roots is an extremely apolitical religion, but is routinely being used to push through political agendas
>mfw Ameritards calling themselves Christians favor death penalty
>mfw Ameritards say taxes are a form of oppression even though Jesus advocated giving government its due
>mfw Ameritards skip every inconvenient part in The Bible, mostly focusing on the Old Testament, because it suits their merciless and violent natures better
>mfw Ameritards gonna Ameritard

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:55:28 2011 No.3836286

Communism and socialism were always synonyms. Then, with the fall of the USSR, the term "communism" got discredited, and the leftists, who all vehemently supported USSR during the Cold War, started to turn labels and are now trying to make it seem so social democracy = socialism, when that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 03:58:28 2011 No.3836299

>>3836230
Well it is propaganda because there's no such thing as capitalism as an ideology being used to kill others, just people under a capitalist system breaking the laws.

>>3836252
The arguments themselves are proofs. And peer-reviewed citations only work in science and mathematics. And it's still the fault of the socialist ideology by association.

>One person uses paint to produce an offensive picture. By your logic, Paint is now a threat to everyone.
Sort of, you would just prevent that person from possessing such materials to enact such an act, much like who you would prevent an murderer from owning any weapons or sharp objects so we wouldn't be able to use them. Also there's no censorship under a true capitalist system, so you're allowed to produce offensive artwork, just not allowed to attack people for or because of it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:00:28 2011 No.3836311 >>3836180 North Korea is democratic. They have elections..it's just that there's only one person to vote for...

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:10:28 2011 No.3836359 >>3836092 >Nothing wrong with socialism Shut up

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:12:28 2011 No.3836374 >>3836176 >social democracy >the uk is a social democracy >the most totalitarian first world country by far

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:15:28 2011 No.3836385 >>3836311 The fools. Everyone knows the optimum number for Freedom is two.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:17:28 2011 No.3836397 >>3836374 >the most totalitarian first world country by far The UK isn't the USA though.... Or Spain....

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:20:28 2011 No.3836405 >>3836397 >USA >Spain >First World

>>	GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg Sun Oct 2 04:20:28 2011 No.3836410 A lot of jevvs ITT trying to attack socialism. meh Marx did predict that income inequality led to higher likelihood of revolution.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:21:28 2011 No.3836412

socialism is more of an ideology about a people working together in a community to better the community.
-- government health care is socialist because it is put on everyone to contribute so everyone shares everyone's debt thereby diminishing everyone's individual debt

communism is an economic system pushing socialism to concentrate power in the government.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:21:28 2011 No.3836414 Socialism works for ants. But not for human beings. Give it up.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:22:28 2011 No.3836416

>>3836176
>totalitarianism = society where individual rights are severely curtailed to advance social cohesion

But what's wrong with that? Individual freedom is a failure. Virtually every action the individual makes has impact on others, and about 60% of these actions have negative impacts. Actions which have negative impacts must be forbidden. People aren't equal, and those who are the most fit to rule (the wisest and the most intelligent ones) must rule. Democracy, freedom and equality are all failures.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:24:28 2011 No.3836420 >>3836410 >likes socialism >reads marx >trips as gay emo bitch

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:24:28 2011 No.3836421

>>3836405
Well they're not as poor or underdeveloped as third world countries, nor are they former soviet states as second world countries, so by definition the US and Spain are first world. Probably the least first world countries, but still first world.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:24:55 2011 No.3836423 >>3836421 NATO - First world Warsaw Pact - Second world Everyone else - Third world

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:26:28 2011 No.3836432 >>3836423 That definition was good, but it's getting very dated now. For instance, there isn't a large wealth gap between "first" and "third" world anymore. Most people are in the middle. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:28:28 2011 No.3836441 >>3836432 are you trying to reply to >>3836421? I'm confused here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:29:28 2011 No.3836443 >>3836441 It was a guy defining first/second/third as NATO/Warsaw/other. Post got deleted for some reason.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:29:28 2011 No.3836445 Anders posting from jail ITT.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:31:55 2011 No.3836450 America has all the guns. Why the fuck aren't you shooting this stupid hippies with no understanding of economics who think meditating will help anything? >mfw America will burn fairly soon >mfw no face

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:33:28 2011 No.3836459 File: 65 KB, 400x388, sadfrog.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3836443 I wish to see it. :(

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:34:28 2011 No.3836461 >>3836459 I pretty much got the entire post in my summary. It was very brief.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:36:28 2011 No.3836466 File: 14 KB, 375x356, world_income.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3836432 >here isn't a large wealth gap between "first" and "third" world anymore. Most people are in the middle. Really? Take a look at my graph.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:37:28 2011 No.3836469 >>3836466 Your graph looks like a wine glass, which is putting me in the mood for some zinfandel.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:38:28 2011 No.3836473

>>3836466
That graph is 22 years old, and doesn't even contradict what I'm saying.

I said most PEOPLE are in the middle (actually referring to comparisons of different countries), wealth-wise. Not most of the wealth. You're right about that.

The data I'm referring to is in
>>3836432

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:38:31 2011 No.3836475 Why don't you be like Fidel, Che and all the friends, and overthrow some corrupt governments, take control of them, and then use the resources of these governments to overthrow more governments?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:40:28 2011 No.3836483 >>3836432 Then we should stop using it and switch to developed/underdeveloped/developing etc. The cold war is too recent to start misusing those terms.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:41:28 2011 No.3836484 File: 18 KB, 432x432, 008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3836473 Let's look at the US. 10% of the population owning 71% of the wealth. The graph is from 2001.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:41:28 2011 No.3836486

wats with this obsession with pushing democracy

the US is more of a republic (representative democracy) which is highly influenced by large corporations and politicians forcing there own agenda.

the involvement of corporations in this republic has served those corporations well giving them a higher percentage of the money by having it given to them by the government. which is taxpayer money. as if large corporations didnt have enough money. the lowering of regulations given by the FCC has allowed a corporation to won up to 1/3 of the news media. monsanto is close to monopolizing gmos by buying out other companies. were in a global economy with these multinational corporations spreading and moving jobs to where they can get even more money, for the most part to where people have little choice over what to do. its not the governments necessarily that have too much power its the corporations in influencing them. with so many special interests influencing the government it looks a lot less like a democracy and looking more an oligarchy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:42:28 2011 No.3836487 File: 91 KB, 464x275, 1316456962770.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why does she believe that she is entitled to this sort of money? What has she done to prove that her existence is of any value?

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:43:28 2011 No.3836494

>>3836475
Yeah, 'cause Fidel is such a bro.

Also, Che died trying to start a revolution in a country that already had a democratically elected government (Bolivia). After being kicked out of the Congo because the revolutionaries didn't want his help.

>>3836484
Now this graph is people within the US, and is looking at wealth distribution across people, not the distribution of people on a wealth scale.

Look, I'm not even contradicting you. Just watch that video, it makes the only point I'm making. There really isn't an "us/them", "first/third world" gap between groups of countries anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:43:28 2011 No.3836495 >siding with the jews stay classy op

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:43:28 2011 No.3836496 >>3836475 Because that would be a constructive course of action.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:51:28 2011 No.3836526 File: 158 KB, 505x380, sbcpcrush.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3836486 Your post has more truth then will be heard unfortunately.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:53:28 2011 No.3836537 WHY IS MY FUCKING POST NOT HERE ANYMORE!?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 04:56:28 2011 No.3836553 >>3836484 They also pay 70% of all taxes. I don't see the problem.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:00:28 2011 No.3836559

>>3836553
Don't confuse wealth with income.

Does the bracket of highest-income people composing 70% of ALL income pay 70% of ALL taxes? Then it's a flat tax. It's not about net worth or wealth.

But thanks to low capital gains taxes, Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary without even trying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:00:28 2011 No.3836561 >>3836526 unfortunately....

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:01:28 2011 No.3836564

>>3836553
Paying 70% of the taxes doesn't mean that 70% of their wealth is taxed. They could be paying, say, 10%, and as their wealth is largely superior to that of the 9 out of 10 population, they would end up paying far more than everybody else if everybody paid 10%.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:02:28 2011 No.3836566 >>3836559 >But thanks to low capital gains taxes, Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary without even trying. Watch less Daily Show.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:04:54 2011 No.3836570 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS43ur1RI7M A storm is coming. Our storm.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:05:28 2011 No.3836572 >>3836566 It's true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s >>3836570 Get fucked, commie. We've done this experiment enough times already, and millions of people die every time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:05:32 2011 No.3836571 If you don't think there is a problem with the finical sector you haven't been paying attention. I don't see how a rational person could deny thins.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:08:28 2011 No.3836582 >>3836559 Low capital gains tax encourages people to invest long term in companies. People buying and selling in a day market pay normal income tax. Goldman Sachs pays regular income tax, unless they hold a stock for a year, which they don't.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:08:28 2011 No.3836583

>>3836572
>Get fucked, commie. We've done this experiment enough times already, and millions of people die every time.

When? The same economic model has been used in all the experiments. Even though it worked, there was a problem with setting proper prices. Now, we will try an economy which would adapt to the consumer demand, remain more egalitarian and reward for work, while assuring that every person's basic needs are fulfilled regardless the work.

http://www.dominic.lopez.net/cyber.html

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:09:28 2011 No.3836584 If you don't think there is a problem with the financial sector in the US you haven't been paying attention.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:10:28 2011 No.3836587 i'd rather be a commie then a filthy jew

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:11:28 2011 No.3836589 >>3836587 >lower case I >then

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:12:28 2011 No.3836592

>>3836583
>Even though it worked
What worked? Stalin's purges and breadlines? Mao's "Great Leap Forward" that ended in the starvation of millions? The Khmer Rouge?

> there was a problem with setting proper prices
That's an understatement.

>Now, we will try an economy which would adapt to the consumer demand, remain more egalitarian and reward for work, while assuring that every person's basic needs are fulfilled regardless the work.
Sure. It's called social democracy, AKA welfare capitalism. Progressive taxes, good social programs and support, mostly free market.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:13:28 2011 No.3836595 >>3836572 He has billions in stocks, they are taxed at 15%. He pays the same income tax rate as anyone else.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:14:28 2011 No.3836598 File: 80 KB, 977x1553, neato.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'll just leave this here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:15:28 2011 No.3836599 >>3836595 Agreed. So fucking what? The super-rich can shunt almost all their income to a low-tax-rate channel, achieving a low effective tax rate, and no one else can. This is not OK.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:15:28 2011 No.3836600

>>3836592
>What worked? Stalin's purges and breadlines? Mao's "Great Leap Forward" that ended in the starvation of millions? The Khmer Rouge?

The economy worked. This isn't the economy, this is the political part, which has no relation to socialism. Socialism an economic system.

>That's an understatement.

No, not really.

>Sure. It's called social democracy, AKA welfare capitalism. Progressive taxes, good social programs and support, mostly free market.

No, it's called cybernetic socialism. All the private property of the means of production would be against the law, and the means of production would be socially-owned to serve the people, and reward according to work. Also, the most basic needs would be fulfilled regardless the work. Real-time economic planning and variable prices would be present.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:16:28 2011 No.3836606 >>3836600 >The economy worked. No, it most certainly did not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:17:28 2011 No.3836607 >>3836600 >The economy worked. I'm sure all the people starving in the streets agreed with you. The economy did not work. >No, it's called cybernetic socialism. This is not something that exists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:17:28 2011 No.3836608 >>3836599 anyone can buy stocks faggot and get that 15% rate. He is investing money in companies and providing them capital, he shouldn't be punished for that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:17:28 2011 No.3836611 >>3836600 Is this a command economy? If not, please describe how economic decisions are made.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:19:28 2011 No.3836613

>>3836608
>anyone can buy stocks faggot and get that 15% rate.
You can't live off of your investments. You're not rich enough. That's the point.

Only people in a position of enough power and/or wealth to choose their primary income source (like Warren Buffet) can get a low effective rate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:19:28 2011 No.3836614 >>3836611 inb4 supercomputer

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:19:28 2011 No.3836615

>>3836607
>I'm sure all the people starving in the streets agreed with you.

But this wasn't the case except for the times of transfer from market to planned economies, you fucking moron.

However, in capitalism, millions die due to the lack of clean water, food, shelter and sanitation, as well as proper safety.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:19:28 2011 No.3836616

>>3836608

>anyone can buy stocks

You need space cash for stocks to really go anywhere.

I don't have a spare 20000 lying around. He does.

Investment is exponentially easier the more cash you have lying about. And it accounts for a big part of his income/worth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:20:28 2011 No.3836618 >>3836598Bar should continue off the page for 62 more feet

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:20:28 2011 No.3836619 >>3836611 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:21:28 2011 No.3836621

>>3836615
>However, in capitalism, millions die due to the lack of clean water, food, shelter and sanitation, as well as proper safety.
Really? This is what is happening in the USA right now? In Europe?
Oh no, it isn't. It's what's happening in Africa.
Weird huh, how capitalism is doing fine everywhere but Africa? It's almost as if capitalism isn't the worst problem Africa has to cope with!

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:21:28 2011 No.3836623

>>3836599
No they can't shunt their money anywhere. They have to pay taxes on their income( salary), and they pay a higher rate than their secretaries. They can then put the extra money into stocks or bonds which will accrue, they they get taxed again.
The billionaires in the country aren't making 500,000,000 a year salary, but they are making that on their investments in stocks/bonds. And that changes the percentage rate dramatically.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:21:28 2011 No.3836625

>>3836600
>No, it's called cybernetic socialism. All the private property of the means of production would be against the law, and the means of production would be socially-owned to serve the people, and reward according to work. Also, the most basic needs would be fulfilled regardless the work. Real-time economic planning and variable prices would be present.

If I want to buy a 3D printer for $50k with ten other people for a local copyshop how would I do that? Apply to a centralized institution to buy it for us? Pay for it out of our pockets and see it confiscated upon arrival? Don't say the goverment would've already bought it because it's a new technology and goverments have a glacial rate of adopting new tech.

You can't throw away private ownership of the means of production just like that with legislation. You could perhaps have several national companies that provide certain basic services, but BANNING all means of private production is flat out retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:22:28 2011 No.3836627 >>3836619 >computer-controlled planned economy Yep, it's a command economy. Nope. Not until you have superhuman AI that can actually pull it off. We need to stick to decentralized methods for information processing and decision-making until then.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:22:28 2011 No.3836628 >>3836613 >Only people in a position of enough power and/or wealth to choose their primary income source (like Warren Buffet) can get a low effective rate. He made his own billions. Why can't you?

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:22:28 2011 No.3836631

>>3836621
>Weird huh, how capitalism is doing fine everywhere but Africa? It's almost as if capitalism isn't the worst problem Africa has to cope with!

No, it isn't just Africa. It's a great deal of the third world, where private companies of the 1st world pay the workers very low wages, for which they can barely survive.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:22:28 2011 No.3836630 >>3836628 >He made his own billions. >Why can't you? Right back at you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:23:28 2011 No.3836635 >>3836623 Income is income.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:23:28 2011 No.3836636 >>3836616 By definition anything that needs money is easier when you have more money, I don't see your point. You are mad because he can do something you can't?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:23:28 2011 No.3836637 >>3836630 >implying I'm not a billionaire

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:23:28 2011 No.3836638 >>3836627 >Nope. Not until you have superhuman AI that can actually pull it off. Nope. Around 1995, we already had supercomputers powerful enough to set correct prices and make correct prices for the entire Eastern Bloc.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:24:28 2011 No.3836641 >>3836635 He already paid tax on it once. You are double taxing him.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:24:28 2011 No.3836643 >>3836631 So your alternative is to dismantle these corporations and adopt communism, so they get paid NOTHING? Yeah, I'm sure that will improve their situation!

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:25:28 2011 No.3836645 >>3836641 What "it" are you referring to?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:25:28 2011 No.3836647 >>3836638 It's not about number-crunching power. It's about intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:25:28 2011 No.3836648 >>3836638 >implying the Eastern bloc in the late 90s was a command economy

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:26:28 2011 No.3836650 >>3836636 I mean I can't become a stock-market speculator. I do not have the means to do that. That is not a feasible option for me. It is an extremely feasible option for it. It wasn't how he got rich. It's how he got richer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:26:28 2011 No.3836651 >>3836648 I never implied that, dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:29:28 2011 No.3836656 >>3836638 The issue is having a method that actually 1) Has access to the necessary information 2) Makes good decisions based on that information Decentralized methods do far better than centralized ones with currently available intelligence, IMO.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:29:28 2011 No.3836657

capitalism as an ideology will always be fucked up to the people which reside in it unless it has socialist views which protect those of lower income/wealth.

n b4 i get ne trolls socialism is not communism. socialism more of a philosophy/(social ideology) while communism is an economic system

(not meant to be a tautology just sounds better)

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:31:28 2011 No.3836662 >>3836657 Social democracy (welfare capitalism) seems like a good system. Free education, universal access to health care, progressive taxes to keep inequality down, but a mostly free market for efficiency, innovation and responsiveness.

>>	EconPoser !nHKvW0t1cI Sun Oct 2 05:31:28 2011 No.3836663 >>3836631 Which is still better than having no work and income at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:33:28 2011 No.3836673 >>3836638 >Nope. Around 1995, we already had supercomputers powerful enough to set correct prices and make correct prices for the entire Eastern Bloc Even assuming it is true, supercomputer is an unnecessary middleman, since market can do it too.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:34:28 2011 No.3836675

>>3836645
The money.

He made 500,000. Paid his 38%. He invests the remainder, 310,000 in various companies and helps them succeed. He takes the year off to spend with his family and friends. Next year this 310,000 is worth 400,000 on paper. He sells the stock. He has a capital gain of 90,000, he pays 15% on. which is 13,500.

He could just have easily put the money into a government municipal bonds which would be tax free and offer nothing to society.

What would you rather have him do?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:35:28 2011 No.3836679 >>3836675 It's in his interest to invest in vehicles with a higher return, not matter how much the gains are taxed. Stop suggesting that if we tax the rich people too much they'll stop wanting to make money.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:41:28 2011 No.3836692

>babbys in debt or an unideal living situation want someone else to give them money to make all their problems go away

>rich people like jerking off on 100 dollar bills and such and like to hoard the shit out of it

>both try to justify their beliefs by pushing a political agenda on everyone else

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:42:28 2011 No.3836696

>>3836065
No, OP, these protests aren't about reform now renewal; they are about the upheaval of humans being sovereign and responsible for themselves. All the suffering in the world comes down to how much profit someone else makes from them.

If you don't understand, you will soon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:43:28 2011 No.3836698 >>3836696 >they are about the upheaval of humans being sovereign and responsible for themselves. Indeed, these protestors shun responsibility. They got themselves into trouble, and now they want the rich to get them out of it.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:44:28 2011 No.3836700

>>3836673

Market manipulation and volatility is of less concern if a computer was the boss.

>>3836675
He could just let the stocks sit around and earn dividends from them. If he invest $1M in stocks for $25 each he gets 40k stocks. If those have a dividend payout of $0.5 per stock he earns $20k a year without lifting a finger ever again provided the company doesn't dissolve. The dividends would probably be higher too than 0.5 per stock.

In addition to this income he could also sell the stock once it have gained in value. His money works for him by constant payouts, by increasing in value and on the side he could even have a normal job. Now warren buffet have a shitton more money than just $1M so guess how this stacks up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:45:28 2011 No.3836703 >isms everywhere You humans, always clinging to some sort of collective belief. Every person is free to pursue their own path of life. Anyone who imposes on that is the real criminal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-gKXlaEExY

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:46:28 2011 No.3836709

>>3836679
The higher the tax rate, the lower percentage he will make. So 30 year no interest bonds are a better investment than the stock market.

Also Buffet's rate is calculated with paper money, and not the actual amount he was taxed. He "made" money on his investments, but he hasn't cashed them out, but he still factored it in the percentage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:47:28 2011 No.3836712 >>3836709 >So 30 year no interest bonds are a better investment than the stock market. Only if you tax gains at nearly 100%.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:49:28 2011 No.3836718

>>3836698
Taking a loan to go to school, putting yourself in debt isn't lack of responsibility nor is taking on the debt of a deceased family member because that's what's imposed on you by collectors.

Lack of responsibility is when a team of people fail to balance the budget of an entire nation when every person has to balance their checkbook on a weekly basis.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:51:28 2011 No.3836726 >>3836663 And now we think about how they came into that situation in the first place.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:51:28 2011 No.3836727

>>3836718
>study philosophy
>take out loans to cover the 40000 a year expenses
>graduate
>trouble finding a job
>be surprised when people want their money back

one of the inherit problems that needs to be fixed is the idea that you can go study whatever you want and make a living off that. if you're family cant cover 100% of your expenses and allow you to graduate debt free, you should invest your time in something that will yield a higher starting salary out of college

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:52:28 2011 No.3836728 >>3836726 They were poor before.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:55:28 2011 No.3836741 >>3836712 The Dow is up 1.3% in the last year. And it is only up 5% since 2004

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:56:28 2011 No.3836743

>>3836727

This. In Norway higher education is free and it has led to the government subsidizing thousands of useless degrees with no real world applications. If people have to incur a higher cost when taking their degree they will only take ones which lead to good job prospects in the future.

Also, where is everyone getting these 'i am the 99%' pictures from? I've seen loads today.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:57:28 2011 No.3836746 >>3836727 College bubble is worse than the housing, as students can NEVER default. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpZtX32sKVE

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:57:28 2011 No.3836747 >>3836743 Then perhaps instead of free education, we have interest-free or very-low-interest loans.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:57:28 2011 No.3836749 >>3836727 All degrees are useless now, dear.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:58:28 2011 No.3836750 >>3836741 A few percent is better than no percent.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:58:28 2011 No.3836751 File: 19 KB, 400x400, suicidemacro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3836749

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:58:28 2011 No.3836753 >>3836750 But a few percent can also be as valuable as no percent at times. :(

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:59:28 2011 No.3836754 >>3836743 they are from liberal capital of the internet- reddit

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 05:59:28 2011 No.3836756 >>3836754 Link?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:01:28 2011 No.3836762 >>3836750 Bonds would have given the same/better rate and be insured and they would pay no taxes on them. But they chose to invest in companies, and didn't get the return they hoped and still paid 15% taxes that gain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:02:28 2011 No.3836766 >>3836756 redd.it

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:03:28 2011 No.3836769 >>3836747 which would lead to the exact same conclusion. People getting degrees with loans that they will never be able to pay off because they got a degree in under water basket weaving.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:04:28 2011 No.3836773

>>3836762
Now we're moving the goalposts. In that situation, I agree.

But we're not in that situation. No one is suggesting taxing capital gains so highly that tax-free bonds give a better return.

>>3836769
It's all a question of how high the interest is. More interest = more pressure not to take a loan frivolously.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:05:28 2011 No.3836779 >>3836746 Funny thing is you can if you become horribly disabled after you take out the loans. Another funny thing, such requests are automatically rejected and lost and mangled. much like your body.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:08:28 2011 No.3836795 >>3836773 You would be surprised. People want 80% capital gains tax, 50% on 401k, and they are on news shows everyday trying to convince people. It's scary.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:10:28 2011 No.3836802 >>3836795 Would bonds be more attractive even at those rates? Though I agree that that's extreme.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:17:28 2011 No.3836842 >>3836802 I would have to check the numbers but I assume so. You can get US bonds @ 3% tax free. At 80% tax on capital gains you would need to make you would need to make 15% ROI to break even.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:20:28 2011 No.3836851 What selfish fucking kids would let their mum do this?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:21:28 2011 No.3836858 Dude. When you're that sick there's no point receiving treatment. She's not going to bounce back from that; she's just being smart

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:22:28 2011 No.3836861

>>3836842
How long does it take for those 3% bonds to mature?

I might be exposing some ignorance, but this says that's the yield on 30-year bonds if I'm reading it right.
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us/

Getting more then 15% ROI over 30 years in the stock market is pretty much guaranteed, isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:22:28 2011 No.3836862 >>3836851 self entitled leftists

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:26:28 2011 No.3836876 >>3836851 Allow her to reduce her lifespan one or two years in order to increase their quality of life greatly? Anyone who thinks logically.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:27:28 2011 No.3836877 >>3836876 she is going to die at 40 instead of 72. So her children can get degrees in African Studies

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:28:28 2011 No.3836879 >>3836877 You're assuming their education is worthless. But her death in a few years is a foregone conclusion. She's not making it to 72, no matter what medical treatment she gets.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:41:28 2011 No.3836925
File: 37 KB, 412x416, 1314201084319.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

American peons are brainwashed into thinking its unamerican to give rich people taxes.

The rich people are the ones telling them its unamerican.

They listen.

This is the downfall of your country, the tax thing is just one example, majority of your citizens are dumb and watch tv and believe it no matter what and then these people are allowed to vote, your politics are a popularity contest nothing more, you have two parties that are forever opposing each others ideas thus nothing ever gets done even if on the off chance someone who could do something gets voted into a position of importance, but then when you are stupid enough to believe in a magical man in the sky i guess you would believe whatever the tele tells you aswell.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:53:28 2011 No.3836960

>>3836925

this guy is jesus in this thread. Murrikans are too dumb to see that richfags are telling them it's ok that only poor pay taxes because rich are creating jobs and shit like that, but guess what niggaz, why dont bill gates not buy his 50th ferrari and employs new workers? HE DOESNT GIVE A FUCK! he found optimum workforce and collects extra profit, taxing him would only prevent him to buy his 456 million household and he would but 300 million house instead

damn, you murrikans are so easy to troll

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 06:53:28 2011 No.3836962 >>3836879 And her kids couldn't pay their own way, or put off their education slightly to give their mother a comfortable exit from life? Her kids are lowest of low.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 07:00:28 2011 No.3836980

>>3836962
...says the teenaged, basement-dwelling, future neckbeard who will never have kids.

Just so you know, that woman shouldn't have these problems in the first place. She DOES have these problems because of insensitive, worthless, enslaved to people who will never see you, television-whoreshipping, scumbags like yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 07:02:28 2011 No.3836985 >>3836962 Comfortable exit? There's nothing comfortable about dying from cancer, regardless of the drugs she's on. To be comfortable she should be euthanased before the shit hits the fan

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 07:21:28 2011 No.3837044 >>3836985 but that would be illegal because then the big pharma can't make a bundle of your last twitches errr: i mean they say god is against it see how easy that works

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 07:35:28 2011 No.3837080 >>3837044 I'm sorry, but religion is not a big pharma conspiracy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 2 07:46:28 2011 No.3837108 >>3837080 Religion AND big pharma are BOTH money thieving liars who get people killed for profit.

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 07:46:28 2011 No.3837109

What's with the hate on socialism here? I'm quite happy living in a socialist country.

Did I mention it's ranked as the best place to live on the entire planet by the UN five years in a row? And that it has the highest ratio of wage/cost of living in the world?

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 07:58:28 2011 No.3837132
File: 549 KB, 798x4160, monstrous_discrepancies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3836098
>This is what some Americans actually believe.

>>3836727
Yes, and the ideology was forced into the mentality of young ones by claiming capitalism works this way. You do whatever you like and get payed for it.

I'll just leave this here:
How can you call the system in which you can see lobbyists of a certain group achieve in getting the rulers to take money from one and give it to another, system which has different levels of taxations, some subsidies, a finitely efficient legal system, is finitely large and has finitely large undeveloped world countries to exploit a "self-sustaining free market".?

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 08:18:28 2011 No.3837152

>>3837132
The question of a free market is a deeper one since we understand that the problem was of mathematical nature. It was known to be mathematically wrong to have the policy that bank had and yet we seem to try to maintain that very same model. Do we bail out the banks that went overlooked the logical falacies?

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all

Anonymous Sun Oct 2 08:29:28 2011 No.3837171
File: 318 KB, 463x343, wallst2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Over 700 protesters are arrested, the protests turn violent and injuries are reported. Several government offices are captured by the protesters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15140671

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/01/500-arrested-after-wall-street-protest-on-nys-brooklyn-bridge/?
test=latestnews

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/02/national/main20114436.shtml

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