Serious question to all economic right-wingers out there:

A Jew pushing for communism. Color me surprised.

Attached: jewish bolshevism.png (1510x8184, 1.67M)

I am not talking about revenue as a whole. I am not even talking about reinvestment of excess revenue into R&D or into other companies and whatnot. I talk about pure net profit going to the shareholders through dividends or stock buybacks.
Indeed even under your framework, it still doesn't explain why CEOs get to enjoy literally tens of millions of dollars in compensation. Wouldn't companies that invest those millions into "better products" outpace the competition?

>Capitalism = delivering best products at lowest costs
Capitalism = delivering cheapest possible products at highest prices feasible

You forgot the flag..

Profit is a signal for the unmet wants and needs of society.

So yes when we need apples and have none, producing them will net you a lot of profit until competition drives costs towards equilibrium and then you go off to the next thing, maybe bananas.

This doesn't happen in a vacuum though, every person born adds more wants and needs to society so the trajectory to equilibrium is the trajectory to efficiency. One thing you do have is government intervention which prevents competition but what you also have is growth into new industries, services and technologies.

Becuase they form collusions and regatory capture and other such things.
Stop pretending we live in a free market, we don’t, but having a somewhat free market is still miles better than a centrally planned distopia.
More that that though you are straw manning a bit.
>If there is ALWAYS a competitor willing to do sell for less
That’s not exzactly the ideal, more like always a competitor willing to sell to some basic lvl of profit after expensives but not lower. No is claiming a free market will create companies willing to work for feee.

Capitalism = actually a socioeconomical system based around the private accumulation of capital in a market environment.

My point is that several standard capitalist apologist talking points ("there's always a competitor willing to sell more for less! monopolies are ALWAYS created by the state!") make no sense if you take them to their logical conclusion. Surely there IS some friction and brakes on the "efficiency" of capitalist production even under supposedly "free" market conditions, otherwise the TRPF would kick in and disassemble capitalism from the inside out.

Profit doesn't tend to zero in capitalism. When a superior competitor enters in they make even more profit than the others. Also people change and technology advances. Profit is just an indicator signaling to other entrepreneurs that it's a high-demand market worth entering.

As prices decline, people want more stuff because they can afford more, so other markets will fluctuate to accommodate consumers changing demands.

If you can perfectly define everyone's (including the government's) needs and demands and they are never changing, then communism will work.

CEO pay is broken. That doesn’t mean your system is better.
But at least CEOs still work for a living, often doing 80 hour weeks.

Attached: 5128322C-EA7D-4B7A-BF72-FAA60D95EC4C.jpg (317x499, 35K)

I suggest you go to Jow Forums for this kinda question.

Human wants are endless but we live in a world of scarcity so it will always fluctuate.

Because obviously if you go too low to the point of zero profit or loss you'll go bust so getting more sales means fuck all.

Why do you bother arguing with these retards, don't you have better things to do? To play the devils advocate one could say that the process you describe takes time meaning that new sectors of economy which are constantly created will have profit margins above 0.

>If you can perfectly define everyone
Of course you could never do that, becuase the future is unknown and unknowable.
But more than that communism doesnt work for a deeper reason. It negates the intrinsic value of life and striving, and a compeltely rationalised society will always lead to death and murder

Nice try jewess
Saged and reported

Attached: raf 750x1000 075 t fafafa ca443f4786.u1.jpg (750x1000, 49K)

Oh good a yellow memeflag now we can get down to business!

>towards equilibrium
This is kinda my sticking point here.
Why is this equilibrium not at, or near, zero profits for the capitalist class?

>One thing you do have is government intervention which prevents competition
I am specifically talking about the hypothetical two-dimensional econ 101 model of a "free market" that lolbritarians always use to demonstrate how great capitalism is. In a frictionless world of unrestrained capital (and older industries like, say, steel production, so no "new products"), where does profit come from? Surely whatever invention is made to make production more efficient would only product profit for a very short amount of time before other firms pick it up and begin producing without siphoning revenue out for profit?

>your system
I have no "system", idiot. I'm not a communist.
I just posted that pic because it's guaranteed replies every time.

Though I'm not a right winger, I can explain the situation to you:
> Why hasn't capitalism made itself irrelevant yet?
To get a precise answer you need a precise definition of capitalism.

>If the "free market" is so efficient, why haven't all profits been ground down to 0 by now?
>No, think about it! If there is ALWAYS a competitor willing to do sell for less, why haven't all companies been undercut by other companies providing the same product/service for almost-zero profit?
Firstly, intellectual property laws ensure that there isn't always a direct competitor.

Secondly, where there is a competitor, undercutting the competition isn't always the most profitable strategy. Making better quality products (or trying to convince your customers that your products are better quality) is usually more lucrative.

Thirdly, there are significant barriers to entry. Machinery can be expensive and loans can be hard to get. Technical experience is usually needed.

Fourthly, there is significant risk involved, so people won't bother investing in things they don't expect to be really profitable.

Hi i would like a loan so i can start a business that makes no money, sells at a loss and can never pay you back
Hi i would like to hire you to run my company for less wages than working at McDonalds

There's no logical conclusion to capitalism. It's just a more efficient (more people get what they want/need) to allow people to make their own individual choices on what they buy/sell/produce than have the state control everything in an effort to make everyone equal.

>Why is this equilibrium not at, or near, zero profits for the capitalist class?
if it wasn't what would be the incentive for the capitalist to take a risk like opening a business?

>hypothetical frictionless unrestrained capital without innovation
Goal posts?

Name a better system than capitalism. How does capitalism not giving us a ton of anything we want for $1 justify government intervention?

Thanks for shining the spotlight into the twisted mind of the Jew.

Because why would you work for 0 profit? Are you retarded?

Oh no! There is a measurement of everything called money. Shut it down!

Wow youre a new kind of dumb. This board is 18+ btw.

"Economics" is a pseudo-science.

>the conspiracy theory called "economics"

What magic are you advocating for?

commies always fuck up cause they always start with the advanced shit before knowing the basics

If communism is so good why doesn't Isreal become the world leader in it and do it the right way.
Actually, why don't you all become good communists?

why it is so hard to understand this--->
youtube.com/watch?v=aUN1I5skKZs

We have to get (((fiat))) currency, ruling slavery system out and it is happening!

Attached: pepe.jpg (556x434, 55K)

>When a superior competitor enters in they make even more profit than the others
Why would it?
Suppose producing a product costs [Y] per unit. That [Y] is composed of wages, material and the final profit taken by the producing firm, so [Y = W + M + P]. When a "superior competitor" enters the market, they can produce the same product, but for reduced wage and/or material costs, so you have a new [y = w + m + P], wherein [y < Y; w

Attached: www.epi.png (608x553, 218K)

Communist economy depends on the Gulag forced labor system.

Attached: 1528378981475.png (644x598, 112K)

>makes fun of right wing making fun of the left wing for not understanding basic economics
>literally does not understand basic economics

of course the retarded kike is a commie.

>communism
>literally "economics aren't a science, it's a bourgeois scam" the ideology
>reading advanced economics

Some inputs, such as human talent, are scarce, hence higher returns to those with more talent.

Some industries have barriers to entry, such as economies of scale or patents, that keep the numbers of competitors low and prices high.

Fuck off jew

Capitalism growth GDP: 4%
Socialism growth GDP:

That vid is a mockery of macroeconomics.
I mean what the fuck do you want? For the economy to deflate itself? Why do you think fiat currency was implemented in the first place?

I mean, it's not like reverting to the gold standard would even magically bring "the economy under control" or whatever the fuck these people seem to be advocating for. How would you even do something as insane as "ban fractional reserve banking"? You do understand that pretty much ALL "big money" in the economy is debt, right? How do you propose we do it without chopping off a good 80+% of the GDP? And even if/when you actually accomplish it, well, surprise surprise, you'd quickly discover that all the money-creation has been shifted to the shadow banking industry. And if you want to put THAT under control, well... Welcome aboard comrade, because the realization that our global monetary system is one massive, illogical, ad hoc and absurdly complex privately-owned system is a big sticking point to left-ish economists everywhere.

Of course the goldbugs don't REALLY care about it. They are just mad that DA GUBBERMINT is in any way involved in any of this byzantine labyrinth of finances. Paradoxically, they often advocate for competing currency markets, something that doesn't square with their hatred of fiat money creation. I mean, even if you do someone break the entire thing apart only to let the private sector issue currency, what exactly would prevent it from become just as abusive and fiat and fractional-reserve and "wrong" as our current system is?

Yes, three actually!

1.) What sort of "Socialism" are you referring to? Is "Socialism" somehow an alternative economical system? (yes, this does lead to Real Socialism bullshit debate, but it's important to have this conversation!)

2.) Where has this growth been? For much of the past several decades, most western countries GDPs have been treading around 1%-2%, and at times dipping into the 0% and even negative values. The overall trend seems to be going down.

3.) How is this GDP growth distributed, and who gets to enjoy it? Is it not possible that even positive GDP growth rates mask a reality where most wage workers' real wages have actually been FALLING for almost 30 years now?

Why do you bother to reply to somebody with a iq lower than a gorilla?

>there's always a competitor willing to sell more for less!

It's not about willing to do something, is about the capability to do it. Only if the market dominant company abuses their position to the point where it allows other, less efficient alternatives to take over.

You see, this response you quoted is given in a context, this context is the one where companies abuse their position in the market to raise the prices, you can only rise the prices up to the level where your competition can begin beating you.

Feels like you saw someone reply that and you tried to remove all context from the claim in order to fit your narrative.

Equilibrium theory is a totally inaccurate depiction of how economies function and it's not really a "right wing" position.

I don't believe in IQ.

But you must acknowledge that some people are just human cattle that cannot be reasoned with?

>Capitalism does not produce "pure efficiency" as the common talking points of the right seem to imply.

This is another strawman. Capitalism does not produce pure efficiency, neither does any other system.

Capitalism tends to increase efficiency by the market tensions of supply, demand and competition, but there's no such thing as pure efficiency because that would require resources such as capable workers to be infinite.

Since resources are finite, price and compensation are required, thus pure efficiency cannot be achieved.

hehe

Uh, no.
Sorry, I'm not a psychotic fascist.

He means pareto efficient. Look it up; your post is just rambling nonsense.

capitalism =/= free market
capitalism = private market as opposed to public or state controlled market

capitalism isn't irrelevant ability to govern is beyond any government, adding on top of that the responsibility to also manage the entire economy is inviting disaster.

There are many, many different ways you can organize a society or government and still call it capitalist because capitalism is a state of being, while communism is a very specific political doctrine. That's why communism has failed, specific capitalist systems have failed but capitalism as a concept hasnt.

Not all industries are perfectly competitive. Even if the industry is perfectly competitive, you would expect the long-run equilibrium economic profit (economic profit includes opportunity cost) for firms to be zero, but not their accounting profit.

My point is that even with the "tensions of supply, demand and competition", capitalism is limited by human factors that are not accounted for by the two-dimensional models of ideological economism.

Same reason Communism ends in genocide... "greed and corruption"

That is the reality of the state of affairs whether you choose to believe it or not.

>same reason communism doesnt work, the commisar shoots you in the back for fucking his wife.

Most people you dismiss as "human cattle that cannot be reasoned with" actually CAN be reasoned with if you approach them in the correct circumstances.
The idea of "human cattle" is really disgusting either way.

>OP thinks profits should go to 0 in a capitalist system.
>OP's flag

Attached: 6b8.jpg (640x788, 73K)

>LIVING WAGE!!!

Your point so far is that capitalism is limited by scarcity. Which is fair, but there's no system that's not limited by it sadly.

A scarcity of bright minds creates inefficiencies since CEOs and really capable workers want compensation in accordance to their ability to fulfill people's needs, for you this causes inefficiency, but it seems you're arguing with a straw man because nobody has ever claimed to reach maximum efficiency in a field.

what..?

Usually when those "right circumstances" appear it just becomes a shouting match between people who try to fix it with no guarantee that the most logical course of action will be taken. Furthermore even then one cannot convince people through logic and reason, one needs to use emotional manipulation to get anywhere. Studies have consistently shown that people are mostly swayed through emotional messages.

You didn't have retards in grade school? You're missing out.

because there are market frictions, barriers to entry, and branding stratification. These lead to "trust gaps" wherein an established brand can and will sell their goods for more, having established good faith from their customers. This was exactly the phenomenon that made rockefeller his billions

Here is a quick summary:

Attached: 1530871455420.jpg (640x635, 65K)

He's referring to neoclassical perfect competition model, retard. Mainstream economists teach that firms will earn zero economic profit in the long-run equilibrium in a perfectly competitive industry.

>work for people for paper to begin your own endeavors
>never save the paper or have ambition to start own endeavor to risk the paper
>never makes as much paper as those who risk their paper
MARX WAS RIGHT! WE ARE JUST HIGHLY ADVANCED!

Attached: kwality.jpg (253x253, 19K)

>GIBS ME DAT

Uh, yes, sure. People are human, humans are emotional creatures. No person is a calculating logic-reason machine.
Incidentally, that's one more stick to the ever-growing pile of "Reasons Why Conservative/Neoclassical Economics are Dumb"

Literal retards are one thing, but the Finn seems to imply there are entire swaths of the population who can/should be written off as "intellectually irredeemable" or whatever.
It's just a very anti-humanist and elitist idea.

ITT: Jow Forums is unable to answer this

Currently browsing the catalog and saw this thread. Looked at the meme and couldn't be arsed to read the post. Daily reminder that the left can't meme because memes tell the truth and leftists are full of shit.

Jow Forums has actually answered this correctly several times, but the implication of the answer will be lost on them the next time someone tries to advocate something against free market dogma.

Neclassical economics indeed are horrible for pretty much the entire population, yet pople keep supporting them en masse and as seen in this thread they do it with quite the zeal. The question then becomes that why does one bother to argue with idiots who will just dismiss you based on emotional reasons?

See this? They don't even read your post, how can you think of such a creature as anything else than cattle?

Because overhead and profit I thought you kikes were supposed to be smart

>NO JUSTICE!!! NO PEACE!!!

10% of the USA has a

Capitalism is not right-wing, the only system that can be considered right wing is feudalism, the people work for their lord and in return they receive his protection, health and other services are handled by an independent third party that doesn't intervene in the lord - subject relationship, money is mostly irrelevant for the subjects because they are mostly self sufficient.

>10% of the USA has a

Nobody with a good understanding of Capitalism has ever claimed the nonsense of "pure efficiency" you're arguing against, it seems like you picked the worst defense possible for Capitalism and through debunking that you believe you debunked Capitalism.

Would be like if I said I debunked socialism cause I can prove socialism doesn't produce "free shit".

Your entire comment is correct if you change neoclassical to marxist

>tfw no mommy furry doggo gf

>it still doesn't explain why CEOs get to enjoy literally tens of millions of dollars in compensation.

So you're saying you can't grasp the concept of supply and demand? Yep, typical communist.

Seriously though, this seems like typical Jew pilpul.

Attached: communist jews 3.png (606x772, 201K)

People only defend it because neoclassical "economists" all but took over economic thought in academia preceeding and during the Washington consensus era--so much so that they managed to get the core of their unemperical doctrine referred to as "the laws of economics," in the same vein as the laws of physics. You can hardly blame people for ignorance when economics in academia is like being indoctrinated into a church they didn't know existed.

constant transient state

Capitalism was never 100% efficient and even then every "capitalistic" system is really a mixed economy.

That being said, almost every communist government somehow caused a terrible famine at least once. I can't see any proof that communism is more efficient at all considering that all of them either collapsed or turned to socialism/fascism

> If the "free market" is so efficient, why haven't all profits been ground down to 0 by now?

Because that's not how an economy works, doofus. Monetary value is imaginary, not real, and constantly fluctuates with each individual's needs and desires. There is always a person with too much of one thing and not enough of another, and as long as that exists, so will profit, unless it's outlawed by a centrally controlled government regulated economy.

Profits have been ground down to zero, Jew user. What are people getting for their production, exactly? Digits on a screen? Fake gun skins? What can you buy that you feel is worth it? After they get to a certain point, the reason most upper crust capitalists become hedonistic is because there are no goals to pursue. Get into space travel like Elon Musk? You are a kook and get attacked every month (and social capital is important these days, otherwise you get boycotted and personally destroyed).

So yes. Capitalism HAS advanced to the point that profits are zero. That's why they are hiring robots who have minimal upkeep - there is nothing worth buying once the things that create it will do so without much inputs. You no longer require HR, time off, work managers, or anything. Program some bots, make some supervisor software, and you are done.

And then you have no one to sell it to because there are no jobs. This is the end of Capitalism - the free market is so efficient, it met all of the needs of the process within the means of production.

>If the "free market" is so efficient, why haven't all profits been ground down to 0 by now?
what

Attached: 1527385182780.jpg (414x500, 151K)