Kino

>”What is Inflation” the post

Think of how stupid Sargoy acts with 120k. Now multiply that by 6. Then realize half the population is even dumber.

No, asiding from wealth acquired via politics or rent seeking, unequal distribution of wealth is optimal.

Attached: Sargon's quest.jpg (1804x660, 328K)

So when does Sargon finally kill Sargon?

>Think of how stupid Sargoy acts with 120k. Now multiply that by 6. Then realize half the population is even dumber.
Yeah but Sargoy's money is only worth $120k because no one else has $120k, if everyone had $120k wouldn't that make the currency worth virtually nothing?

If the wealth was divided equally, there would be $0 annually because no one would be working any more

i would like to give ana and her friend a mouth full so they can share the wealth of my load.

and within a year tops all those who can't into money will again have no gold whilst others will invest wisely and acquire more

>there would be
This phrasing tells me that this faggot has no idea where money comes from and thinks it magically appears in his bank account (because his dad puts it there)

Attached: 59C514E5-B104-4D3B-8EEB-293CF88008F8.jpg (1024x666, 94K)

There is a legitimate criticism in there. A knee-jerk MUH CAPITAL argument doesn't square the circle here.

The problem is that the vast majority of Americans do not deserve 700k/year for their contributions to society. Neither do the unbelievably wealthy.

Success has to be rewarded. Failure has to be punished. Anything else is just begging for a race to the bottom.

Capitalism has it's strengths and weaknesses; same can be said of socialism. Command economies are dumb, but so are plutocracies.

It is true that like 99% of people who say shit like that, should be gassed. But the same is true of inbred hillbillies with gas station tattoos talking about how niggers are mongrels and ruining this country.

Attached: 1534415460211.png (911x750, 610K)

>half the population is even dumber
>implying sargon has average intelligence

Yes, this is true.

Attached: Salute 8.jpg (736x778, 122K)

Is the only "counterargument" you have that the rich obviously deserve their wealth because the very fact that they have it "proves" that they provide value to society?

>the ultra rich are all there on merit
K

>Wealth should be divided evenly among the populace, banks are hoarding trillions of real dollars.
>Debt of 1.2 million per capita per annum? Its just a number.

Here's some equality for you.

Now everyone is equal.

Attached: Commie Tier3.png (600x480, 457K)

Not an argument

JEW SLIDE THREAD POST INFOGRAPHS
JEWS ARE ALL TRAITORS WHO WILL BE HUNG
JEW SLIDE THREAD POST INFOGRAPHS
JEWS ARE ALL TRAITORS WHO WILL BE HUNGJEW SLIDE THREAD POST INFOGRAPHS
JEWS ARE ALL TRAITORS WHO WILL BE HUNG
JEW SLIDE THREAD POST INFOGRAPHS
JEWS ARE ALL TRAITORS WHO WILL BE HUNG

Attached: circ1.png (3000x5000, 2.94M)

>Promotes most barbaric ideology in history
>Provides evidence that this is the case

>Stupid commie thinks that's not an argument.

I'm not surprised, desu.

Attached: Black pill Commie.png (1024x683, 802K)

How would a one time wealth distribution would provide annual income?

Even if we used GDP, people would only get 55,000 per person per year if everyone would be equal.

He is have black dontcha know?

>Still not explaining why unearned wealth is deserved
>still flinging a strawman

K

Threadly reminder that there are no intellectual property rights in communistm

Threadly reminder that Americans dont believe in IP rights either, the concept came over with europeans in the early 1900s and before that we were notorious IP thieves that make modern china look reasonable

Show your math faggot.

(((Merit)))

I think you used the wrong word there bucko. Do you think kylie Jenner merits being a billionaire? Or the kardashians? What about the Obamas or Oprah?

Or the motherfuckers who orchestrated the housing crisis and transfered the worlds wealth to themselves?

These people dont (((merit))) anything. They are essentially bad actors.

no it would not because a lot of people would spent their money frvolously and in the end the same people would end up getting richer again, and if you distribute again, well ufkc why should they produce for the other bloodsuckers? so now nobody will ahv eincentive to produce more than bare minum and the freeloader will evne suck up that,
welcome to simbabwe motherfucker

Attached: 23319462_1548071925275756_326069703110299063_n.jpg (800x800, 74K)

Ohhh and dont even get me started on how monetary policy and law create winners and losers and force monetery migrations from one group to another.

They pick the winners and losers for the most part. They designed the system to be that way.

(((Merit))) LMAO. So niave.

>unearned wealth,
>still not understanding tht organising the means of production is an ability not everybody posseses and therefore a valuable good.

>"unearned wealth" is deserved
Because they will manage that money a lot better than you fucking idiots.
That literally want to effectevely distribute resources, on a gobal scale, without money or profit.
Also, some of them actually do earn their money. There are plenty of fields (like computer science for example) where 1 guy will produce things worth a lot more than 1million average schmucks.

>Even if we used GDP, people would only get 55,000 per person per year if everyone would be equal.
GDPPC is gross domestic production per capita, not wealth per capita.

>the only people who get rich are entrepreneurs
You have no idea how much rent-seeking occurs in the economy.

>I decide which wealth is deserved
>Also, if you don't give me yours it's unfair

Capitalists aren't the greedy ones.

Attached: Commie Value.png (840x384, 182K)

You cannot distribute wealth every year. You can do it once... and that would destroy most of that wealth in the distribution process (wealth is mostly in housing / land, companies and company shares).

My point was you could only distribute money generated from production and services to everyone every year, i.e. GDP per capita.

>making strawman
no, the ability to organise the means of production is a valuable good. that's what i said,
it means that even people who inherited wealth if they lack any ability will ahve to give that welth to people with said ability, becuase they would just loose all their money, if they did not.
and if a rich guy has no idea what he does, he will usualy become poorer,
and yes there are cases where people use fraudulant acts to keep wealth,
still the system overall does work better than any state redistribution

You are arguing for complete redistribution of the productive factors income (capital,land and labour). Not only the redistributed value is not real because the model is static and not dynamic, but it is unfair.

First point: the model expects the same factorial productivity when individual income is completely based on the productivity of the colective instead of the individual. The optimum choice in order to maximize individual wellfare is to minimize costs and maximize profit. The profit responds very little to individual effort but the costs do. The optimum choice for the individual under a system of complete redistribution would be to lower his effort to the minimum possible. Not only that, because there is no benefit to be expected by raising effort the productivity would at best remain the same(highly improbable).

Second point: This redistribution is unfair because it ignores individual productivity and its causes while rewards people by their very existence. This system punishes excelence while rewarding incompetence.

Third point : People are born with different tastes and value goods in different ways. This is enough for the existence of progressive inequality(dynamic). We are not discussing inequality of potential here, which is also obvious and important.

Attached: 96ACEB6C-40A2-41C2-94E8-0F597170484E.gif (720x348, 1.33M)

>My point was you could only distribute money generated from production and services to everyone every year, i.e. GDP per capita.
Sure, but you could make a one time distribution of wealth that would be substantially more than GDPPC.

You're right that the picture is wrong, it couldn't be an annual distribution, but distributing wealth would give people more than just GDPPC.

>no, the ability to organise the means of production is a valuable good. that's what i said,
Yes, and the implication is that the people who have money have that money because they have this skill.

And that's wrong and retarded.

Can confirm. I inherited a decent amount, and squandered half of it before I realized what the fuck I was doing.

Many people go through similar with their first credit card.

Attached: Nat.jpg (584x410, 48K)

no it wouldn't.
It would be a one-time payment of $300,000

well disprove it, disprove that they have some kind of skill that allows them to accumulate wealth?
i mean personality traits are about 50% heritable so this means 50% of the differences between people charakter is genetic.
the likely hood that a person with traits that allow to acumulate wealth for example intleligence, wich is about 80% heritable, will have descends sharing these traits is higher than that those who lacke those traits will have descends having these traits,

ashkenazi kikes are for example extremely good traders compared to other etnicities, but they tend to use social structures for their political purposes which we dislike.
and it seems to be a tendency.

You wouldn't have to do this, just build the effing wall, deport all illegals, jail all business owner/religious citizens who harbor/hire the stragglers and watch the annual average income skyrocket.

this is why the jewish banks like to hand out credits, they employ this strategy for a long time it seems.
many people are not able to deal with it because they did evolve as farmers or craftsmen who had to deal with whatthey got, and were better off reinvesting resources fast into status and production stuff.

commies steal it off the front end and corporate capitalists steal it all off the back end. Two sides of the same shekel.

to be honest i think feudalism was a more just and fair system than capitalism we are stuck with, also feudalism was more honest in its hadays

>well disprove it, disprove that they have some kind of skill that allows them to accumulate wealth?
That's not the question.

The question is whether their skill is
1. valuable enough to justify the absurd amounts of wealth that they have hoarded
and
2. better enough than the levels of the same skill possessed by other people to justify the absurd amounts of wealth that they have hoarded

You'll find in both cases that it's very difficult to argue yes.

Some people are better than other people, but nobody is that much better than other people. Furthermore, as you so astutely point out these people didn't earn their skills either. They are the beneficiaries of a genetic lottery, not hard working "PULLED MYSELF UP BY MUH BOOTSTRAPS" boomer caricatures. IQ, for example, is to a huge degree heritable - and the part that isn't heritable still seems mostly fixed, largely by things like nutrition. Yet IQ predicts income to a huge degree. Why should people be paid more simply for winning a genetic lottery and being gifted a high IQ? It's hardly fair.

>"but smart people are more productive/deserving/valuable/etc. etc."
Sure. And yet all of that is simply a consequence of winning the genetic lottery. You can argue it's more practical to pay them more, because it makes life better for everyone if smart people are encouraged to work hard, but you'll struggle to argue that it's more just outside of the Rawlsian argument that inequality is only justified insofar as it makes everyone better off. And if you do that, you'll find that even these justifications don't justify the current status quo.

Like it or not, the current distribution of wealth is an unjustifiable problem.

Like Thomas Edison, right?

she said naughty, not completely retarded

who are you decide over the value of a skill?
value is situational and personal.
what use does a bottle of water hve on a clear lake? none
but in the desert you might value a bottle of water immensely more

No they wouldn't. Why the fuck would they continue to do anything? They would literally earn themselves the hypothetical 700k and then stop all business. There would be zero incentive to continue working if you remove the ability to climb to the top. You're retarded.

"Unearned wealth" is deserved because fuck you. You don't decide what is deserved. Only whining bitches who don't want to get a job complain about others being rich. You're probably one of those faggots that moans about the cash-me-outside girl being rich. Stop being a faggot that is jealous of everyone else's success.

Wealth is not a zero sum game retard. It's not that complicated.

So the money can fund the specific industries that the people deemed worthy with their purchasing power.

>who are you decide over the value of a skill?
Who are you to dispute my decision?

Socialist scum detected

Attached: ocasio_cortez_socialist moron.jpg (2040x1509, 743K)

>but nobody is that much better than other people.
Yes they are. Oftentimes the renumeration scales far less than the relative skillset.

As an extreme example, consider the trillions of dollars of value apple has provided. Jobs was never a trillionaire.

IDK what shit career you're in, but I've seen this apply in even the most menial career.

Attached: Asian5 (3).jpg (1600x900, 282K)

Lol theft is gonna be the least of your worries when the proletariat finally rise up

Literally someone else. Now what faggot.

>hurr durr everything is bad
>reddit spacing

> genetic lottery
ok so are you also wanting to distribute wealth to other species? because we humans actualy just have won the genetic lottery, why not give basic income to plants?
this argument is ridicolous, 1. genetic recombination is no lottery. there are no equal chances to anything and it is not random.
your genes make your person.
even your envirement is largely dominated by the exression of the same genes you bear if your parents are raising you.

it's like saying a 64 IQ average somali is somehow equal to a white westener like me
which is outright repulsive.

are you realy making the argument that people that are better by law of nature should not profit from that? kek
have fun being a slave.

someone who is ready to treat on lesser men.
someone who has no need for fairness.
someone who hasn't the mindset of a slave.

No you see, nature and competition are evil and we are all equal, just like we evolved.

see That wealth is not just money they use on cars and shit.
They know how to produce wealth with it better than you commie fucks, in your retarded commie system.

>As an extreme example, consider the trillions of dollars of value apple has provided. Jobs was never a trillionaire.
Because Jobs never provided those trillions of dollars of value alone.

Furthermore, Jobs probably wasn't the only one who could have done it. In fact, we know he wasn't, because he's dead now and yet Apple continues. And what exactly did Jobs himself do? Is what he actually did so valuable?

Why should I care about your opinion?

If you keep posting in such a disjointed and disorganised manner I'm going to stop replying to you. I've got no need to nor interest in keeping up with your psychosis.

>ok so are you also wanting to distribute wealth to other species?
No.

>it's like saying a 64 IQ average somali is somehow equal to a white westener like me
No it isn't. He's not equal to you. But you didn't earn your superiority, so why should you get paid for it?

>are you realy making the argument that people that are better by law of nature should not profit from that?
I'm challenging you to justify why they should. You will find that you can't, except on pragmatic grounds, and this will lead you to realise that the current market system is not pragmatic.

>someone who is ready to treat on lesser men.
>someone who has no need for fairness.
>someone who hasn't the mindset of a slave.
I don't care about any of that dumb shit. To me you are nobody.

Please don't attempt to argue points that you don't understand.

The answer is yes. The amount of wealth already accumulated gives them greater alocative opportunities. Inequality is its own root and because of that it reproduces itself. It is progressive, i.e temporaly dynamic, and those that are rich get richer in proportion to their allocative skills and accumulated wealth.

My point is that you should go back to the very formation of wealth. This process is accumulative and the possible rewards increase with the number of possible rival uses of the acumulated stock of capital goods. Even without corruption wealth would create more wealth and the rich would get richer. Your point is flawed because it relies on the lack merit. Merit is always present in one way or another. Merit is not the point but the generative process of inequality.

Inequality simply is. It does not become. It simply reproduces. The question is: should we interfere with its generative process?

I think we should. My method is hpwever vastly different as it relies on ethics rather than coersion/violence.

I'm absolutely shaking in my boots

Attached: 1498521407529.jpg (517x768, 65K)

literally nothing wrong about spacing
t.someone who has never browsed reddit

That's the justification on pragmatic terms that I alluded to, but you'll find that it fails in a lot of important ways when you try to explain aspects of modern society.

If you justify inequality on pragmatic terms then you only justify inequality where inequality makes everyone better off, and you'll find that inequality is destructive in many cases around the world. If you're attempting to justify the current status quo exactly as it is, then you've failed.

You also only justify inequality to the extent that it makes everyone better off. If a wage ratio of 1:5 (the boss earns 5 times more than the worker) is just as motivating as a wage ratio of 1:500, then only the 1:5 is justified.

>implying redistribution equals continued wealth
They'd be able to do this once then there's be nothing left.

Young boomers had an annual single income of 12,000 average home 28,000 average car 3,800. Now average single income is 30,000 average home 250,000 average car 30,000. Add to that 4 decades of them voting for ever increasing gibs while at the same time voting for tax cuts......you would have to make 90,000 now to do what they did with 12,000.this is why you're poor kids.

Wow nice reaction image faggot

Any political system that does not deal with the tecnological and enviromental questions should be ignored. This entire discussion relies on the existence of social and international division of labour and the global technogical industrial complex.

Take the kaczynski pill.

Attached: ted.jpg (500x336, 36K)

Heres another nugget:

If the wealth was divided equally between retards who do nothing and innovators and producers, then we would lose all our innovation and production because there's no motivation.

>Your point is flawed because it relies on the lack merit. Merit is always present in one way or another. Merit is not the point but the generative process of inequality.
>Inequality simply is. It does not become. It simply reproduces. The question is: should we interfere with its generative process?
If I understand what you're saying, it's that wealth is a positive feedback loop where wealth begets more wealth. You say there is a seed of merit at the core which leads to the initial wealth, which then spirals out of proportion to the original merit because of this positive feedback loop.

I agree with that. My argument is that the fact of the disproportion is on the face of it unjust, and becomes more unjust the more you look at how it manifests in the world. Money is power, after all, and any wealth inequality is a power inequality as well - democracy isn't worth much in the face of that.

I'm not sure what you mean referring to interfering in the generative process - what would this look like as a policy outcome?

>If you keep posting in such a disjointed and disorganised manner I'm going to stop replying to you
>his own posts are nothing incoherent garbage
I guess they let abos use the internet now.

So that 700k would dwindle quickly until we we start eating zoo animals to survive.

Marxist scum never learns

Attached: jt1ODRk.jpg (884x642, 967K)

> you only justify inequality where inequality makes everyone better off, and you'll find that inequality is destructive in many cases around the world.
Yes, and I believe that history has enough evidence to show that it is justified, given the alternative results of communism.
I also think that anarho-communism is retarded, has exactly the same problem but would be more chaotic, although I can't use history to prove that, as it has (and probably never will) be achieved in such a large scale.

Having said all this, I am all for unions, strikes, and people fighting against bullshit that corporations do. I am NOT however, in favor of replacing our current state of afairs with socialism.

to ensure long term stability of the system.

Most of that money is bound up in foreign assets, and money is simply a means of exchange for work done. If it loses its backing then it becomes worthless, and that's what would happen in the case of any proletarian revolution. The end result of radical asset seizure of this type would be the loss of the nation's wealth and an economy that trades in goods and resources instead. Of-course the communist doesn't tell you this, instead he promises you all kinds of goodies that he can't deliver.

Attached: 1539911701477.png (480x605, 685K)

>Yes, and I believe that history has enough evidence to show that it is justified, given the alternative results of communism.
False dichotomy. There's more to the world than neoliberalism or Stalinism.

>Having said all this, I am all for unions, strikes, and people fighting against bullshit that corporations do. I am NOT however, in favor of replacing our current state of afairs with socialism.
What about market socialism?

It would be absolutely retarded because if everyone has only 700k then how do you determine what is worth that? Some businesses are worth billions or millions right now, would you just scrap them and take their assets and such to redistribute? How do you determine what of 700k of something a person gets? Will this guy get one 700k car and another a 700k house and another in shares and another in cash? Would one be random things that add up to 700k?

Commies have no idea how wealth even works, they think it means giant sacks of money in a bank vault.

Attached: 1520172290806.jpg (720x468, 43K)

Delusional faggotry at its finest

Attached: 1543623812081.gif (380x285, 1.97M)

t. (You)

Attached: leftypol goes shopping.jpg (600x1067, 302K)

Market socialism is actually something I am very interested in but never got to read.

>There's more to the world than neoliberalism or Stalinism.
Yes which is why I talked about anarcho-communism.
I also have graphs/studies about negative consequences of pseudo-socalist measures such as welfare, high taxes and shit like that but people like you usually just dismiss that info as forged

Inequality is not inherently unjust. My point is that it generates and reproduces itself. We are unequal and nothing will change that. Our inequality creates different patterns of wealth accumulation. This do not require theft and coersion.

Greater inequality of wealth does not equal theft or injustice. I agree with you that we should strive towards its reduction but i have different means to do it.

Market socialism reduces it, but it cant stop the progressive character of inequality. Not only that, but you create assymetry of power in order to reduce assymetry of power. The government accumulates power and its officials become a privileged class

>I also have graphs/studies about negative consequences of pseudo-socalist measures such as welfare, high taxes and shit like that but people like you usually just dismiss that info as forged
Let's see them. I'm always interested in learning.

>Market socialism is actually something I am very interested in but never got to read.
Unfortunately it's a pretty dead area of political science, which is sad for me because I'm a market socialist most days (and a market communist when I feel like being an extremist).

Basically the idea is to operate a free market where firms are allowed to interact competitively, but regulate the structure of firms themselves to prevent worker exploitation. Things like fixing a wage ratio (e.g. the boss may not be paid more than 5 times as much as his workers) or making co-op structure mandatory so that workers own some of the firm. The kinds of policies you can enact are limited only by your imagination, but the point of them is to make sure businesses are structured so that the benefits of market success flow to the workers (usually by making the workers also be the owners).

I think that market socialism is the strongest answer that the left has to neoliberalism, now that neoliberalism is starting to fall over, but the left is too busy talking about faggots and pronouns to come up with actual economic reform.

you have to go back

>americans will unironically defend a system whereby the average american is in mounds of college debt, car debt, and is FORCED practically at gunpoint to toil 6 days a week and do exactly as their slavemaster says lest they be fired and lose Goldberg & Co health coverage, and also a system where LITERALLY money = success, the offspring of the rich go to the best schools, get the best jobs, the best everything regardless of their levels of ability, and where a place where earning less than $117,000/year puts you under the state poverty line and there's such a huge population of homeless and poverty-stricken the government literally can't cope with it while tech executives take home fat 7 figure paychecks for invading the privacy of humanity and have the president applaud them for it

There's something about the american psyche, they can be poor their entire lives, but they someday truly believe they'll "make it", despite the system being completely and utterly rigged against them and designed to keep them down, guess that's what 50+ years of hardcore anti-socialist, pro-capitalist cold war propaganda does to a country

Before you call me anything I'm not advocating socialism or defending communism, I just don't see how you can be such a staunch defender of capitalism while living in the US

All the money given to Israel since 1980 by the US (which only exists just so they would give Sinai back to Egypt by the way) total to date would be enough to give every American family over $100k

Now if you give the American people the option of having $100k and killing every single jew on this planet or give that money to the jews and let them live, I am six million percent sure that they would choose to kill all of the jews. Indeed, let’s make it happen folks. Merry Christmas

>Inequality is not inherently unjust.
It has to be, or otherwise you greenlight inevitable exploitation of the inferior people.

If you allow inequality then inevitably the superior people come to dominate more and more of the world. You can't just set the world at someone else's feet and not get trampled underneath. Inequality is inherently unjust because it produces unjust outcomes.

>We are unequal and nothing will change that.
Unequal in capabilities, yes, but we are all of equal moral value. We all have certain inalienable rights. I think that these rights are fairly limited, compared to "you have a right to your pronouns" people who bitch about anything, but nevertheless I think that we do have certain fundamental rights.

The inevitable consequence of inequality is that these rights get trampled. Money is power, after all.

I guess my disagreement with you is here:
>Greater inequality of wealth does not equal theft or injustice
I'd say that it always leads to injustice.

if the assets of the jews were divided equally amongst christian americans there would be 300,000 per household