capitalism

Out of context: Reply #327

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 1,312 Responses
  • hotroddy-12

    hotroddy -12Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • a_aNairn
    • LOL, that's totally how socialism works.zarkonite
    • let the downvoting beginhotroddy
    • LolPhanLo
    • What do you know...The same meme shared on Fox and Friends everyday for the past two years, then Epstein commits suicide.utopian
    • he committed suicide over this meme? more reason to upvote it.hotroddy
    • wrong threadfadein11
    • -1 for terrible screenshot cropfooler
    • Teach your kids about capitalism by making them clean the bathroomi_monk
    • Then, pay them 10 dollars
      Then take 7 of those dollars      i_monk
    • And give those seven dollars to their rich friend who didn't worki_monk
    • I bet your child won't be a a capitalist for long.i_monk
    • but i monk you just described socialism as well. probably the more realistic version of socialism. well maybe give 1 dollar to peopel and 6 to insidersdeathboy
    • once you allow a state to tax with impunity and redistribute wealth, it doesn't matter if it goes to the connected or the poor. thats socialism.deathboy
    • doesn't this meme relate to Cortez (not even an actual socialist) suggesting a 70% tax bracket? that kicks in > £550,000 income. relatable content.kingsteven
    • it's just so factually wrong, where do you start?kingsteven
    • Look at Lula, Kirchner, and Chavez all 'socialist' and embezzled millions. Their creed is 'capitalism for me. socialism for youhotroddy
    • Cortez is chavez re-incargnated. Same populist rhetoric. The white man's capitalist agenda is oppressing you and keeping you down.hotroddy
    • deathboy: you forgot about profit margins. The parent as the employer takes $7 for himself and pays his employee $3 then take half of the $3 in taxes, but onlyzarkonite
    • $1 from the employer because he's a job creator and deserves to benefit more from the labour of his workers than they do. That's capitalismzarkonite
    • the employer deserves to be rewarded. he's taking a risk. why else would you start a business?hotroddy
    • why do people world wide want to invest in US companies?hotroddy
    • no zarkonite the 7 taken represents taxes. You dont pay 10 than take 7%. Leaving the employer with 3% as profit margin before costs of business which lessen itdeathboy
    • the argument of the old 70% tax rate. But even after taxes if a job creator can only see maybe a 1% profit margin while risking everything is it worth it?deathboy
    • do you think many people will be employed if less job creators out there risking a lot for something worth it?deathboy
    • socialists think through high enough taxes they can create jobs and pay peopel to fullfill them outside market forcesdeathboy
    • you probably have a portfolio and understand risk. you wont get much gains in low risk investment. there becomes a point where the value isnt worth itdeathboy
    • the problem with central planning for labor is they cannot determine what is of value efficiently and quickly to provide incetives to guide marketsdeathboy
    • historically they ruin them through political squabble creating such low incentives no one has incentive to carry anyone.deathboy
    • oh jeez.. screwed up my own base. Employer pays you 10 dollars. Employer cost on those ten are more like say 12-13 w/ taxes. 7 is taken from the governmentdeathboy
    • leaving employee with 3. We do not know the profit margin of the labor. In this case not profit.. but as payer and taxer they take and redistribute labor todeathboy
    • others that didn't earn. splitting the 7 as tax to social program, universal income whatever you want to call it. the one earning wont be a scoialistdeathboy
    • those getting free shit will be. sad thing is you can see how majority rule will work here with one earner and 3 siblings. why democracy fails and republicsdeathboy
    • work. for the most part... still have entrophy to deal with. but it make sense on dog level treat incentivitizingdeathboy
    • entrophy isn’t a word. It’s entropy and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH ECONOMICSmonospaced
    • Physics and economics are separate fields and aren’t related. One is natural the other is not. One based on laws the other not.monospaced
    • @hotroddy - you hate the corrupt individuals, stop blaming the system.fadein11
    • jeez mono triggered by spelling? :( . Curious who told you economics is not natural? True markets are as natural AF. The problem is in the alteration of marketsdeathboy
    • is there a set entrophy(trigger tigger) to any system? Is a market a system? Could entrophy be the gov and regs that eventually ruin a free system?deathboy
    • do you really not see how it all works together even after explanation. i get before. but after? you haven't even expressed a rational hangup.deathboy
    • we humans are matter correct? we have energy and expend it correct? A closed changing system in which transfer from a ehalthy system can only be direct towarddeathboy
    • unhealthy.. or some say equal, science says inert which have quite different meanings. You dont need to talk physics to talk systems and if you google economicdeathboy
    • and thermodynamics you see im not making shit up. ppl have come to some same conclusions. dont get caught up in the details, its abstract thinkingdeathboy
    • deathboy you are an absolute looper. most people get through their liberalism/economics... phase when they're in their teens.kingsteven
    • you're taking something like thermoeconomics (which models human behaviour top down) and twisting it in an attempt to prove a logical existencekingsteven
    • bottom up... you're picking and choosing theories simplify your agenda. try a bit of self-examination, altruism, understanding of other perspectives ...kingsteven
    • to me it seems that the views you express in theory support equality but assume an equal start in the race... it's not that simple and if your not continuallykingsteven
    • examining your own privilege and understand altruistic aims of socialism - to support the weakest in society first there's no conversation to be had.kingsteven
    • @fadein. Socialist policies lead to corruption. The power bureaucrats hold over businesses will corrupt inevitably corrupt them. humans are all falliblehotroddy
    • ha my agenda is truth. @king you had me altruism. show me such a thing is not a selfish independent desire. And in theory i do support equality in an equal racedeathboy
    • you seem to think your godlike central planner hand can alter the race to be fair. taking from some and giving to others. no reason to it. Just whim.deathboy
    • if anything age has taught me how stupid an idea that is. what infallable central planner is needed outside any balance of power to decide?deathboy
    • As far as my privilege.. the only privilege i have is being born in the us. im white trash as fuck and earned everything i've achieved.deathboy
    • and have you ever thought of basic darwinism when trying to support the weakest? or ever increased economics impact of negative gains?deathboy
    • humans have some concepts where they get selfish feelie dopamine hits chasing self defeating concepts. what you are chasing is one of thosedeathboy
    • these concepts are built in logical fallicies in language to describe and perceive the world. if you look at lesser evolved species you see they dont sufferdeathboy
    • from such BS. with greater intelligence comes greater responsibility. and unfortunately gov+educators not helpingdeathboy
    • hell explain how supporting the weakest is good for society understanding basic darwinism, or do you prescribe to the meek will rule religious doctrine whichdeathboy
    • socialism is a derivative ofdeathboy
    • mate, you are fucking brainwashed by 20th century anti communist economic ideology. i've explained multiple times that i'm not a socialist.kingsteven
    • a while ago you're trying to use thermoeconomics to prove your point, a massive part of what modern economic theories have shown is that homo-economicus is BSkingsteven
    • not only are you talking through your asshole your perpetuating theories that are destroying the planet. these theories may have struck a chord with you becausekingsteven
    • you're not a terrible person that feels powerful but needs to justify being a cunt to make a dollar. please read a book published after 1950.kingsteven
    • *powerlesskingsteven
    • Economics aren't natural, markets aren't natural, and thermodynamics has NOTHING TO DO WITH ECONOMICS. Entrophy isn't a word.monospaced
    • wrong again. laissez faire economics is so natural it's bordering on darwinism.hotroddy
    • @kingsteven - I live in California (liberal state) and you are correct that I pay as much taxes as my canadian brotheran. Public transportation is the shits.hotroddy
    • My checks get lost in US post office - only good and reliable for the 3 pounds of daily junk mailhotroddy
    • my point is I cringe to see what public healthcare would look like. We are not Canada, and not Norway.hotroddy
    • trust me it's better than your shack of shit system.fadein11
    • 'laissez faire economics' don't function though. Adam Smith never imagined an Absolutely Competitive Market. Gov't needs to pay for everything capitalism can't.Nairn
    • /won't.Nairn
    • king you say im wrong but you cant seem to articulate why a single pint i make is incorrect. where did my reasoning fail?deathboy
    • like state why altruism is real thing devoid of self interest? Throughout history can you name the perfect central planner? Or best outcome you have seen so wedeathboy
    • can measure in stance to our current standards and look wether its worth it?deathboy
    • And also explain why so many central plans have failed and doomed civilians to poverty and despair?deathboy
    • Definitely need to look at success rate and failures and see what is the difference. One big one is nordic systems praised rely heavily on free market economicsdeathboy
    • where huge failures took free markets out of the picture and tried full control. You say Im wrong, but you need to back it up with some substance. you cant justdeathboy
    • say youre wrong.real world doesnt work that waydeathboy
    • maybe you think I'm unwilling to accept any social safety net. Im ok with a small one and one that doesn't encourage any dead beat behavior. and with anydeathboy
    • safety net one must be concerned a blowhard expanding such net for votes is likely to happen. I have no solution for prevention of that except red tapedeathboy
    • but altruism has nothign to do with such intentions. its quite selfish. ill pay school taxes without having kids because it keeps them from looting me while atdeathboy
    • work and hopefully keeping a strong foundation however edu, especially higher is worse than church on sunday.deathboy
    • and even that is jsut a rationalization for tax taking. do i really want to give up 200 a month to others kids daycare? If i had the choice i'd keep it and putdeathboy
    • razorwire and a healthy dog with big teeth. i think the way you see the post 1950 rhetoric is brainwashing of cake and eating it too. ignoring the individualdeathboy
    • and focusing on the collective similar to pre 1950s, just not many rationale voices these days that can say things any better than the past.deathboy
    • king you also seem accept real equality, but waver in terms of those born without certain tools. Many also born with tools that flounder as circumstance.deathboy
    • seems to me an emotional response devoid of reasoning. wanting the best for everyone and having a hard time letting go it wont happendeathboy
    • and mono you truely have showed your small understanding declaring markets are not natural. i expected as muchdeathboy
    • but im pretty positive im only giving you value through argument. like king i also hope for more but need to accept some ppl are worthlessdeathboy
    • and will never improve which is what really bites me in the balls. the idea if given every opportunity to improve and never happen.it hoenstly makes me want todeathboy
    • write you off. as lower class. a sentiment i can see amongst differing classes. however. to write off is to have blinders. rather not go all hamptons.deathboy
    • but you sure do make it hard with your non sense. I cannot implore you enough to truely look at what you think you know and why you think itdeathboy
    • okay, maybe you are just a cunt. no person is worthless. and mono is spot on with how he's trying to explain but honestly if you claim to have read any modernkingsteven
    • economic theory and haven't come to the conclusion that laissez-faire economics has failed. i'm not sure i can help you.kingsteven
    • maybe it failed for you.hotroddy
    • haha failed modern economic theory. a new age way of saying i dont know shit how to responddeathboy
    • king if you agree with mono that economics is not natural as physics please explain. id love to hear your reasondeathboy
    • when you simply say no no no i just will never accept that cowardice, reminds me of ppl scared of homos going no no no. ideas that are scarydeathboy
    • Economics deal with money, which is a purely human thought concept. Laws and constants that control and bind the universe are not.monospaced
    • Money and economics could disappear tomorrow and there would be no real impact. Alter even one aspect of physics and the universe doesn't exist anymore.monospaced
    • economics deal with much more than money mono its a social "science" and its aspects are bound by the same physical laws we see in science. the problem is thinkdeathboy
    • ing we are above it and can control it like baking a cake. demeaning its true role and what it is. Money and economics cant disappear, and if perception of itdeathboy
    • did it would have a huge impact. Im not saying its as easily alterable as physics. im just saying as natural as physics and physical lawsdeathboy
    • some politicians do think it can be easily altered. but such alterations exude great energy in closed environments and not practicaldeathboy
    • hell basic econ 101 is darwinism based in a rule of law society with a form of value with high liquidity that can not easily be altered.deathboy
    • here you go basic econ mono https://www.youtube.…deathboy
    • and entertainingdeathboy
    • and mono. if the economy went away and you wanted a little food. how do you get it? Purchase it with stocks? Abstract wealth that doesn't matter. through outdeathboy
    • history societies have gone through econ checks that you think don't matter. those who survived have a bit more common sense about what is necessary to survive.deathboy
    • i still think goethe nailed it. and value is only what you can hold and protect that providesdeathboy
    • real problem is people trying to discuss things they cant even keep up with. full of set opinions but no idea how they even got them.deathboy
    • yeah, you... you fucking toolkingsteven
    • uh huh king. u did notice you didn't even argue a point about modern economic theory vs laize faire. Go read some hayek make an arguement against itdeathboy
    • your "modern" is nothing new. Greek and romans both tried it. It didn't end well... Did you ever read goethe?deathboy
    • That shit wasn't as old as romans and greeks but late 1700s early 1800s is quite old to explain the idea of MMT so well. and its method is beautiful.deathboy
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread