Capitalism hasn't failed. Debate me

You stupid moron. I perfectly understand supply and demand, that's the fucking reason capitalism will never solve any housing crises.

Attached: 345345.png (977x482, 417K)

Also, interesting that you put "equilibrium" in that meme considering capitalist economics has no answer to what happens when supply and demand are exactly balanced and that is what marx came up with the LTV to answer.

Attached: LTV.png (500x366, 60K)

if there is so much resistance within your society to even keep a few social programs running, good luck getting the same people who whine and cry every time a tax dollar is spent on the public to agree to essentially giving acres away from their own property.

Attached: 1547542994696.gif (390x260, 35K)

The whole problem with your thesis that assuming that some rich asshole owning everything is the problem. Did you know that in the 1960s california had somewhat normal housing prices compared to the rest of the country? It wasn't until they started implementing heavy zoning laws (laws regarding how buildings are regulations) that houses became expensive. Same with new york. Texas is a good example because they barley have any zoning laws and just so happen to have very cheap housing. So the cause of affordable housing is an issue caused by government regulation and can be solve by less regulation, which would be the capitalist approach.

are these people that are complaining about affordable housing pro-immigration? by chance?

do they have any idea how immigration effects housing/rent prices? objectively?

I don't think that anybody seriously things that capitalism has failed. But you are looking at a pretty small picture of society and international relations, when you talk about free markets. You might say that US may have failed in the task to protect against monopolies and big corporate collusion. Companies not paying taxes may also undermine the rule set in law, that ensures a common way of trading. You could argue that the US has an unfair advantage through the agreement of the petrodollar. You can argue that international markets are only as free as the USA allows it to be. Something that Iran may be feeling right now....

Growing populations and income do not have much of an effect on house prices unless you're not allowed to build anything.

It has failed. Jews abuse the mathematical realities of capitalism to help each other. They have taken something beautiful, corrupted it and weaponized it.

it can be solved by closing your borders and deporting people that don't belong. the entire reason housing prices skyrocket is increased competition for available properties. half of my apartment building is beaners, I wonder how much cheaper rent would be if there were no mexicans in the united states. I'm in a mostly white state too.

>LTV
I took a shit today. I put about 5 minutes worth of labour into it + materials that I ingested yesterday, but I won't charge you for them. I demand that you pay me $5 for it since my time is worth $60/hr.

Attached: 1320163112165.png (386x412, 191K)

ftp.iza.org/dp11497.pdf

you are objectively wrong

I wonder how much cheaper your rent would be if the construction crew could build a taller apartment complex (probably can't cuz regulations lul) and if there were more apartments available.

Zoning laws are pretty fucking aweful and they fuck up the lowest common denominator of people. It is literally a regulation against poorer people.

>Debate me.
pay me.

in the meantime I'm still competing with immigrants and their dozens of children for housing. shift the blame all you want, statistics don't lie. it's basic logic as well.

can't wait to see you swinging on a rope with all the shitskins, if you aren't one anyway.

Attached: 1549407574574.png (1048x628, 53K)

also
>if there were more apartments available.
.....trying to see those cogs turning in your brain here

what causes less apartments to be available?

........

immigrants?!

Well yeah but no-one would've wanted to live in california or new york in the 60's, what with all the projects. And yeah sure, continuing to build does temporarily lower house prices, but it eventually settles after they've all been sold and you can't keep expanding infinitely otherwise your going to have all sorts of problems such as mega-cities forming. The fact is that capital can't solve the problem forever. Britain has run into this problem, there isn't an answer in capitalism. Whereas if we confiscate all land form the landlords and just allocate housing based on use, there would be no problem.

>I took a shit today
Mudpie argument, isn't valid. Marx clearly said that for an object to have its value realized it needs to have social utility. Maybe its you who needs to read basic economics.

Capitalism does not allow people who have a hard-working ethic to own a home and car if they're starting from zero. Capitalism is inherently a philosophy of justifying the "capitalising" of other people's misfortunes. In other words, when people get to the top, they do everything in their power to stifle the progress of people economically below them. It is socially disastrous, and is why the West is sinking to oblivion.

>Except it won't because the problem isn't the *quantity* of homes, there's more homes than homeless people

Having 1 more vacant home than homeless people decreases the price less than having 1000 more vacant homes than homeless people.

Supply and demand, dumbass.

...

national Capitalism is the answer. the second you let companies start profiting off the rest of the world is when they no longer have to sell things that reflect American values. See Nike and CNN. If they are restricted to only the American market they have to sell things the nation wants in order to survive.

Also end all bailouts as well as foreign aid.

>according to socialist theory labour should be the only determining factor in a product's value

Attached: brainlet8.png (900x729, 129K)

exactly the last think a money making capitalist wants is a free market

Except no it doesn't because being a landlord only becomes profitable at a certain rent price.

I don't like shitskin either, but you're wrong if you think that a few shitskins causes the ludicrous house prices in California . Read pages 30-34 of pic related. Goes into more detail than I am willing to on a stupid internet argument

zoning laws which literally regulated the availability of apartments and adds various building restrictions that may also decrease the amount of apartments.

Attached: 416uHuMkxBL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 21K)

you should also read this ^

Attached: Capitalis_N_world_bestseller.jpg (231x346, 19K)

My shit has social utility. You can ingest it and it would provide you with some calories. You can even use it as a fertilizer.

>but it eventually settles after they've all been sold and you can't keep expanding infinitely

The entire planet would fit in Texas and have 100sqm for each person. Not counting vertical development.

We're far from "infinitely".

Profitability of being a landlord depends on the price of the land. If building land increases and profitability for construction decrease then land price decreases too.

Only landlords who would get the shaft would be the ones who bought before land expansion laws took place and speculated that the government wouldn't allow construction. Limiting construction is, de-facto, helping landlords make way more money than they deserve.

my book was also written by a smart negro

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
Yes.

>Here's an idea: why not abolish landlordship altogether and then everyone can have a house.
So you want a communist government to be your landlord?

Except it doesn't because no-one wants it. Unless you're some celebrity or something.

>The entire planet would fit in Texas and have 100sqm for each person
Yeah but people don't fucking want to live in 100sqm in texas. "Supply and demand", as they say.

>Profitability of being a landlord depends on the price of the land
Well yeah, that's why centralization of property into a few hands is good for capitalists, because it raises prices. And yeah you're right, the only solution for capitalism is to keep- building houses infinitely, but its also not a solution because every time they get built, in a free market some tycoon is just going to gobble them up. Capitalism doesn't have a true long term solution.

Yes. I mean in the USSR, people didn't pay rent for a start.

Why do commies also fail to mention that under communism land is distributed by the government? Most people in the Soviet Union had to live in empty boring shitholes and only the elite of the party were allowed in Moscow.

Today most of the complains about land prices is because of Vancouver, NY, LA...guess what, under Communism you would be assigned to live in an Ohio shithole or something like that.

>The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people.
again
>What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it ... is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself
FUCK
TARD

>land is distributed by the government
There is no government in communism. In socialism, yes. Nothing wrong with that.

>Most people in the Soviet Union had to live in empty boring shitholes
Well no they didn't. Yes there were cramped flats in moscow, but that's the same in any major city.

>only the elite of the party were allowed in Moscow.
Wrong and that would make no sense considering large cities are largely where "commie blocks" were centered (people say "commie blocks" but then completely ignore floor space is very expensive in any major city regardless of the country).

>Except it doesn't because no-one wants it.
how do you determine that no one wants it?

>Unless you're some celebrity or something.
I am, now give me my $5

Attached: 1538108204857.png (333x181, 48K)

the fucking article only says "immigrants may increase the price of houses" because of negative auttitudes towards immigrants I guess? Doesn't offer any concrete proof that could explain why a specific state has ludicrous house prices compared to the rest of the country.

Because leftists think they're going to be the higher class in Communist states.

A lot of the most vocal are the richest. Really? You're going to have some "Communist" stuck up, preppy rich bitch screaming about "The workers" in Berkley? Who has never lifted anything heavier than a pencil but has parents worth millions?

Limousine Communists always think they'll be telling their mob who to shoot.

America was an oligarchical system never capitalist

"social utility" is one of the most subjective terms terms ever pitched. postmodernists will defend narcotics has having a social utility.

To fail it must have had a goal before hand. Something it was trying to reach or achieve. What exactly is that?

>how do you determine that no one wants it?
Well put it this way: if you were an investor and someone walked up to you and said "hey, I've got a plan to cover the entirety of texas into homogeneous organized housing units of 100sqm of floor space and put all 7 billion people on earth into it", would you invest in that? And it doesn't matter anyway, the unequal distribution of capital and law of profit will centralize all that property into smaller hands anyway. All it takes is for someone to convince one of those 7 billion people to sell his home, then with the rent made from that to buy another home, and gradually it will all end up owned by a few people who can charge what they want.

No it isn't subjective. Everything has a value: its the time+resources that went into making it. But that value can't be realized unless the object can be sold on the market. Its funny you're saying *I'm* being subjective considering the entirely of capitalist economics relies on value being subjective.

So your whole fucking deal is that there is somehow not enough land in the united states and that eventually it will all be owned by a few people and price gouge? Only happens when government says you can't have more land. Compare texas to california. Both huge states with huge cities, but one has a lightly regulated housing market and the other has a tightly regulated one. Guess which has cheap houses.

>But that value can't be realized unless the object can be sold on the market

You can't know that beforehand.

Why would i? i'm don't have any real education yet i make about 2400 euros a month with 32 hours work a week. I live a comfy life, can go on vacations etc. Its pretty comfy

No. My point is that capitalism, because of the law of profit and its tendency to centralize capital inevitably means that there's always going to be someone richer who can buy all the property up, as tends to happen with speculation during housing bubbles. Also, we've only been considering this in a vacuum, in reality, you can't just plonk houses down anywhere, there's environmental factors to consider, there's the fact you have to supply those houses with water, heating and electricity, there's the availability of jobs in the area (if there's no jobs no-one is going to want to live there, hence ghost towns) and perhaps the most important factor, agriculture. Much of the land in any area is going to required for farming.

You're also not considering that the government isn't just some independant entity, its a function of class. The government is *ran* by capitalists, so saying "oh the government shouldn't do this and it shouldn't do that" is irrelevant, because their funding and support comes from capitalists. Capitalists WANT zoning laws, so unless you're going to kill all of them, you're not going to get rid of them in the first place.

>You can't know that beforehand.
No you can't, and that's where risk comes from.

>You can't know that beforehand.
No you can't, and that's where risk comes from.
Meant for

>No. My point is that capitalism, because of the law of profit and its tendency to centralize capital inevitably means that there's always going to be someone richer who can buy all the property up
I don't see very many hording all the property. Even then if it becomes a big enough problem, the government could use anti trust laws to break up the property monopoly because at that point they have to be doing it as a business.

>in reality, you can't just plonk houses down anywhere
You'd be surprised.

>availability of jobs in the area
When cars became popular, it allowed people to move farther away from work. I know some people who would d rive an upwards of an hour to work and back.

>Much of the land in any area is going to required for farming.
You're over estimating how much land is required for farming. Ever driven down the highway? Lots of wooded areas for new towns and cities and for farmland. And hell we practically have whole states dedicated for farming so the others don't have to farm as much.

>You're also not considering that the government isn't just some independant entity, its a function of class. The government is *ran* by capitalists, so saying "oh the government shouldn't do this and it shouldn't do that" is irrelevant, because their funding and support comes from capitalists. Capitalists WANT zoning laws, so unless you're going to kill all of them, you're not going to get rid of them in the first place
Yeah fuck the government

>the government could use anti trust laws to break up the property monopoly because at that point they have to be doing it as a business.
Well, no.... it depends on who's more powerful in the capitalist class. In Britain, landlords are a substantial part of the conservative voter ship and their funding, so of course they're not going to go against them. And yeah, they are hording property.

>You'd be surprised.
Well not really.

>When cars became popular, it allowed people to move farther away from work
Sure, but people don't want to commute for more than an hour. Hence ghost towns, like I said. Your fundemental problem is that you assume the capitalist class and the government are stupid. They're not, there's a reason they don't just build houses anywhere and everywhere.

>Lots of wooded areas for new towns and cities and for farmland
Well yeah but a lot of that woodland is being used or owned by someone.

>that's the fucking reason capitalism will never solve any housing crises.
but opening the borders to endless immigration will?

Hey, its "supply and demand" my capitalist friend. NATO go to a country, fund terrorists and then invade and destroy on the pretense of terrorists being there, and the people there naturally want to escape the hell NATO caused. Its just the free market my dude.

anti trust laws in the united states have broken up major corporations with enough public outcry. I'm sure if something as basic as owning a house was being stopped by one jackass hording all the land, the government would be forced to do something.

And yes, you would be surprised by where people can build their house. If you're not rural you can live pretty comfortably with a really big house pretty cheaply. Only downside is that you're in the middle of nowhere and have to drive 20 minutes to work or to get food. As long as you don't literally live off grid, it's pretty easy.

The woodland by the highway is not being used and is either owned by the government or by some rich guy with ties to the government. Also pretty hard to horde all that land if you can't at least make enough on the land to break even with the property taxes, and since you're not using the land for anything other than a hunting area maybe then you're not making much money.

>I'm sure if something as basic as owning a house was being stopped by one jackass hording all the land, the government would be forced to do something.
Well yeah because people would violently revolt. Which is where any law favoring the working class comes from. Capitalists will push as far as they can go in exploiting the working class; the law of profit tells them to. They *have* to. Its only the working class violently enforcing their rights and revolting that makes them think twice. This is the fundamental contradiction in capitalism and why its unsolvable.

I support regulations that are purely in support of the workers as long as that don't unreasonably effect business. But the problem with regulations is that they often cause things to be in favor of corporations or not in favor of anything and fuck everything up just for political support. Zoning laws for example in only fuck up things for the workers by making houses more expensive. If you want details read the pages of the book I posted.

>Everything has a value
So the shlazzafunk comic and the "I took a shit" argument both stand.

Any regulation that supports workers "unreasonably" effects business. The proletariat (wage workers) and capitalists (private property owners) are fundamentally in contradiction, which means they're mutually exclusive. And yeah regulation often does favor corporations because they're the capitalists that have enough wealth to influence government.

>But that value can't be realized unless the object can be sold on the market.

based; it's not a bug, it's a feature. For muh chozenonez

Attached: 1562536290480.jpg (853x875, 158K)

It's not true that any regulation that supports workers unreasonably effects business. Basic safety codes are good and reasonable. However you can also make the saftey codes so severe that you can only pass them by bribing the safety inspector, which would eliminate competition.

And pure capitalism would not even have regulations. Pure capitalialism would be anarchy, no government. So every time you complain about capitalist making rules, you're not criticizing capitalism, you're criticizing the government for having too much power over the market. Obviously there is a line between too much and too little regulation that needs to be met.

Bill's a decent digital artist. He does commissions for fetish art. Bill's makes $200 for every detailed color image of some furry's avatar swallowing his boyfirend's avatar whole. Bill pays the bills doing this and makes enough for beach-side vacations despite being a millennial.
Either Bill's circumventing that "social utility" thing, or "labor theory of value" is just a poncy rewording of the furry liking Bill's prices.

>build house on bumfuck nowhere
>have to commute for 4 hours both ways daily
Yeah no, the issue is centralising economy.

Based.
>Oh you automated your own job? Best find a new one, we'll enjoy the profits user

Attached: 1562460441620.jpg (480x480, 44K)

You can centralize the economy without neutering house development with heavy building regulations along with heavy land restriction. And centralization is less of a need now with the internet and advanced transportation technologies such as the automobile.

It is true though. I mean think if you owned a business: if you had absolutely no responsibility to your workers and could pay them the least amount possible, you'd make the most profit. So naturally capitalists are going to push for that to get an edge on their competitors. This is how the law of profit *itself* just naturally increases pressure on capitalists to erode workers rights.

>pure capitalism would not even have regulations
Yeah and it wouldn't work. It just could not work, private property requires the government to enforce it. Within a week workers would be in open war with the capitalists. Workers and capitalists simply cannot exist in the world together, they naturally fight. The government exists to stop that fighting and act as a mediator and enforcer.

How does any of that contradict the LTV?

Fetish pornography has social utility to you? Because if it does, why doesn't taking a shit?

Capitalism like every other economic system will always fail.
It's called entropy, and that's just a fact of life.
When it fails the government steps in and saves it, FDR style, or Obama/Bush style.
That's probably it's saving grace, when socialism fails it takes the government down with it. There's no one left to save anything.
In its current state capitalism is failing a lot of people, you can make all the excuses for that that you want, it doesn't really matter. When it hits the tipping point, no amount of propaganda or indoctrination can save it.

Taking a shit can have a social utility (demand) if its the shit of a celebrity or something.

Behold: the communist who accidentally defended Belle Delphine's "GamerGirl Bath Water".
I gave you an opportunity to declare the shit is a precursor to fertilizer, or back out, but you commodify celebrity worship.

What the fuck do you think unreasonable means? What's unreasonable is literally working your workings 24/7 until they die. What's reasonable is not allowing business to do that. And what's unreasonable to a business is being shut down for arbitrary shit like for missing one line on a label even though it barley means anything and it may or may not support the workers. There is a lot of middle ground you can work with here.

And no shit that true capitalism wouldn't work, but it doesn't mean you can't push towards the idea of government not having anything to do with the market in the hopes of the government having less influence over the market.

I'm not "defending" it. Its just a law of the market in capitalism.

>to declare the shit is a precursor to fertilizer
Yeah is anyone buying human shit en masse to use as fertilizer? No? Exactly.

North korea actually.

Yet every day there's new proof of its failure
How blind can one get.

Get shitting then.

why doesnt someone ask that democrat how he made all that money

Pay the man from Romania his $5 for his labor.

Actually it did. In the 80s right after communism failed capitalism failed.

The US is an expanding empire it wouldn't matter if it were capitalist or communist. We are an expanding empire because we held out a few years longer than the USSR, so we have global hegemony

No.

ur a pretty shit commie, m8

Price's Law is a wonderful reason why capitalism should be fully unleashed.

We are all living off the fruits of the labor of the most talented among us and they only reason they has reached the heights of their own potential (which we benefit from) is because we have incentivized them to be successful VIA freer markets and the aquesition of wealth.

Take away that incentive through socializing their wealth and they will simply not exercise their talents. Once they stop, their contribution to the system will dry up and the rest of us will all starve.

This is what literally happens whenever communism or socialism is tried.

true

Capitalism hasn’t failed, it’s humans innate greed, unrestrained, given a voice in political affairs, for bureaucrats to give unrealistic promises to in a popularity contest called democracy, which turns the manner with which the people relate themselves to the state into serfdom, which doesn’t have to involve an oval class. If people were allowed to possess property without a tithe Imposed yearly on it, if people stopped envying what the wealthy have, and just looked to them for guidance in achieving independence, if people didn’t half to earn money to afford a tithe on property and everything built upon it, based on and affected by what people are willing to pay for the property, homeless wouldn’t exist, but instead you have a man and his family in a cabin 60 miles away from work and grocery store, having to put up $3000 in property tax on 6 acres, because some dips in the city don’t know how to spend money. Over half the federal budget currently goes to social security, and health and human services, but instead of even using the funding for those services and rectifying them, not holding their government accountable and nor do they know much about their own government and nor can they communicate with their government, and now their going to get free stuff from the government?

Noble class

Capitalism can break itself if unrestrained, but that’s not the case. The housing crisis was caused by the banks investing heavily in property, after being inadvertently incentivized to do so by Congress via a piece of legislation passed under Bill Clinton designed to try to get banks to help people buy homes in hopes to make home ownership rise and thus more people would be purchasing items for their houses among others creating an economic benefit as well as promoting welfare for American citizens.

The problem was not only could American citizens not afford the houses and banks were incentivized to do so, The banks became heavily invested in developing property AND using property en mass as equity and thus taking an interest in speculation of housing prices, which itself is an estimation of how much they believe someone would be willing to pay for it, perhaps playing a role in increasing home values, and other people that can afford houses decided to invest themselves in the action. But when people weren’t actually buying items and couldn’t afford to pay back the loans, The entire banking system collapsed. Millions of people lost their homes, some rightfully and some wrongfully, as the banks tried to speed up the loan payments of even people that had contracts that stated that they would pay loans over a specified period, in a desperate attempt to become physically solvent.

All because some politicians decided to play economists when they were never businessmen.

>capitalism hasn't failed because the people who don't succeed under capitalism just use their resources wrong
>this demands self-reliance
absolutely boomer. people depend on large companies to survive cause they own all the shit. people are totally dependent on a small class of people in power and people who those in power (jews) don't like will just let them suffer. this is such a goddamned narrow shitty argument. i can't believe you actually wrote this and thought it was remotely unique, this is such a tired, specious, retard, nigger argument. what you made isn't even remotely special, innovative or purposeful. fuck you, you stupid retard atleast use a chart next time rather than spouting out your retard boomer arguments. GOD YOU ARE SUCH A STUPID FUCKING NIGGER DUDE.

Attached: when you talk about demographics 2.png (1278x690, 1.67M)

No you're shit. Let's say you're a capitalist and there's some reason new hipster craze hitting the streets. You're always looking to expand, and the retail sector is begging for human shit., People can't get enough of it. So you decide to go into the human shit business and start selling to these retailers. What's the first thing you need to know before you hire anyone? Well obviously how much shit the average human produces in one day, after all, these retailers need a constant supply. So you google it: apparently the average human produces 400 grams of shit a day, which essentially means 17 grams of shit / hour, rounded up. Now, lets say you pay your worker who is producing the shit £5 an hour. Are you going to sell that shit to the retailer for less than £5 an hour for 17 grams of shit? No, because obviously then you'd be making a loss. The minimum you'd consider is £5.01, because at least then you'd be making a profit, but even then its not enough to make 1p an hour. This is where the LTV comes from. Cost of resources (in this case we assumed the worker was feeding himself) + the labour time.

you wrote all this because you got your dumb theory BTFO by a few guys joking about taking shits.

Attached: 1542337454460.gif (600x600, 1.61M)

>We are all living off the fruits of the labor of the most talented among us
Yes we are, and workers are the most talented.

>is because we have incentivized them to be successful VIA freer markets
The majority of capitalists contribute nothing to the productive process. They aren't talented in anyway, they just have the most amount of money.

>This is what literally happens whenever communism or socialism is tried.
No it isn't.