I thought we needed a dedicated thread for how capitalism is awesome and how much socialism and communism suck.
Printable View
I thought we needed a dedicated thread for how capitalism is awesome and how much socialism and communism suck.
Fuck Bernie Sanders
Fucking cuck
Wanna hear a nifty argument for why government power should be increasingly limited?
Because most people generally trust the government and generally (often vehemently) distrust private interests. Point out that the government is a monopoly and most people hem and haw about why that's okay. But propose anything that gets people to think there is even the slightest bit of possibility of increasing the ability for private enterprise to monopolize and those same people lock and load.
Since we know that monopolies fuck people over, this tells us that if we want to be less fucked over, go with the one that people are looking for any and every reason to fight, since that behavior would significantly stem the negative impact of its existene. Of course, the only way this logic could yield a decrease in government power is if the logic is not relevant. So, it's like a paradox.
But for the thinker. For the person who finds that they tend to rationalize why government monopolies are a-okay while the mere whiff of a possibility of a private monopoly elicits distrust. For that person, this is worth considering.
D'Souza explains fascism's roots (Marxist roots). Give it a watch. It's very good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA
Something I've been trying to combat for a while is the notion that fascism is somehow different than communism. They're really just two sides of the same coin. The cool thing about this (for me) is that I triangulated upon this from my study of history personally and in textbooks. I didn't get it from anybody. Yet since then I have been seeing people much smarter than me and with more historical knowledge affirm that's how it is.
this thread will be alot more fun once Poop comes in here and tells us how bad corporations are.
MAGAQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
#draintheswamp
#lockherup
#deepstate
I've been watching videos of stupid Antifa fucks getting hit by cars on YouTube. It's the shit.
Without clicking I knew it was pragerU, the blog that thinks it's a universityQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also LOL Dinesh, the dude who thinks he's an authority on something
I recommend not failing before even attempting to challenge your prejudices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
:h:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
To think of the mean things I once said about you after a WW game.... I'm so glad I was so wrong. I mean, not glad that I said those ridiculous things, but glad about the wrongness of the things.
Take it to the cuck thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Wuf is legit. I once said otherwise. That quote of his just throws it in my face how wrong I was.
Real men aren't afraid to be honest about their mistakes, spoon.
***
Economic models excel on different scales.
Capitalism is the best on the largest scales, but socialism makes more sense for a household economy.
Socialism's great until you end up in a fucking gulag and find out all that free shit you were supposed to get doesn't exist anymore because people stopped giving a shit about making it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
They're not cookies, they'ye fucking Oreos.
Great demonstration of communism in action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Great demonstration of mental densityQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Is there something about this that you think characterizes something economists think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Guys in ties are exploitative greedy ass holesQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Thanks. I appreciate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Could you expound on the "socialism for households" thing? On the economics by scale thing, the breakdown in the field is micro and macro. Micro consists of the smallest economic thing you can think of, like how a person choosing Thing A over Thing B means that the opportunity cost of choosing Thing A is the value lost by not choosing Thing B. Micro goes all the way up to firms and markets for specific goods and services. By contrast, macro is the very large scale stuff and is typically very different than micro. It's so different that my favorite living macroeconomist claims that he doesn't even think macro should be taught at the undergraduate level. Anyways, macro is stuff like monetary policy and nationwide aggregate demand/supply, where the aggregate isn't just addition of all the demand/supply but something else. I'd say the difference between micro and macro are not too far off from the differences between the small and large extremes in physics, where they essentially appear to be governed by different rules (though that characterization might not be exactly correct, you can let me know).Quote:
Economic models excel on different scales.
Capitalism is the best on the largest scales, but socialism makes more sense for a household economy.
With this in mind, I think that economics is relevant for the household as well as the country. I suspect you're not saying it's not, and I am interested in what you mean by socialism for the household.
Ah yes I remember that in Labor Economics 321Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Keep in mind that economics is not an exact scienceQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Any economist you quote saying something, I can conjure one up of the same exact renown who says the exact opposite thing. I have linked to multiple articles explaining my stance on this in depth already, no need to do it again.
Now is there something about this that you think can, right now, explain how the poor are being held as scapegoats for a non-functioning economy? People are constantly angry at each other, yet I mostly see how poor people claim they "took our jerbs" "herpaderp" about mostly poorer people and also immigrants. Increase of xenophobia being the surefire byproduct. All the while, the wealthy keep getting wealtheir setting historical record after historical record. Or do you have a lady law approach to this occurence?
That is quite true. I'd be wary of any position that emerges (subtly) from the fact that economics is not hard science means that one can essentially discard or adopt what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
You can? Please show me what you can on this. I really do want to see it.Quote:
Any economist you quote saying something, I can conjure one up of the same exact renown who says the exact opposite thing.
I would like you to explain in your own words.Quote:
I have linked to multiple articles explaining my stance on this in depth already, no need to do it again.
No need to, those articles explain it much nicer than I couldQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I have outsourced that explanation for you
I'm serious about wanting to see what you say you see some economists say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I'm seriously serious. I want to see everything you like that PhD economists have to say about economics.
He knows you're serious....but he's got nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Waaaahh...2% of the people have 90% of the money...waaaahhh. The rich get richer...waaaahhh.....
I work hard..but I don't have a ferrari....waaaahhh..
But people in denmark get free antibiotics...waaaahhh
And that's kinda where these types run out of arguments. From this point on it's just lame-ass anecdotes about executive pay, crooked fund managers, and predatory lenders.
At the end of the day they can never ever ever get around the reality that trickle-down economics works
Protip: there is no such thing as trickle-down economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If you would like to know what economists actually think on the most adjacent real concept to the mythical trickle-down, the dude abides.
meh, I think you know what I mean. We really don't have to get wordy for Jack's sake. Until he's literally the richest person on earth...he'll always be resentful and jealous of somebody.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The idea of taxing the shit out of the wealthy and giving it to the government is inferior to an approach that lowers taxes and encourages investment. Fin.
The cool thing is that there are a quite a few different reasons why that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm sure there are. But explaining this, in any level of detail, is really a moot exercise when it comes to people like Jack.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It doesn't matter how logically you present your case, if it ends up with some people having more money than others, they will play the "NOT FAIR" card and demand government intervention, usually in the form of redistribution.
There are also quite a few different reasons why we shouldn't run around eating shit. Doesn't keep the zombie left from claiming it's racist not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's neat how not once in any of my economics classes did we cover the idea that taking from some to give to others makes for a better economy. Because economists, when operating within their academics, do not believe it because it can't be backed up.
That's because economics is white-centric and inherently racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Resentful and jealous? Do you know what these things actually mean?
here we go.....out of economic arguments so no we're on to ad hominem bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
They can't help it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Correct me if I'm wrong. Is his quote of you an ad hominem that you made towards him?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Well, you claimed that I would "always be resentful and jealous of somebody". And now you claim *I* did "ad hominem bullshit".Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Here's your quote, if you forgotten what you claimed
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Irony is a thing
Only partially, since my comment was related to economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, I could have replaced the word Jack with "any libtard snowflake whining about income inequality without really understanding the reasons for it"
So it's a pretty lukewarm ad hominem.
The difference is I was making a point on topic....he was deflecting.
EDIT: Still waiting for Jack to contribute something economical. Tell us why socialism, redistribution, and heavy taxation of the top earners is SOOOOO much better??
Answer: gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. /threadQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'll actually give Jack some credit and say he wouldn't be so brazen. I suspect his arguments are more likely to be a list of stats illustrating cases of income inequality, followed by wild worst-case speculation about the reasons for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
And for the bazillionth time....Income inequality doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing. It's a side effect of Income mobility, which America has in spades.
Sure european countries have lots of free shit....low income inequality....but because of all that income mobility is extremely low. When that happens, motivation dies. Why work hard, why be industrious, why take risks if you're gonna end up in the same place as everyone else who is just going through the motions?
Say goodbye to GDP growth. Say goodbye to innovation. Say goodbye to any chance of your industries being able to compete globally. Say hello to a lifetime of dependence on capitalist countries for aid.
Stuff like socialized medicine is fucking GREAT if you break your arm. Walk in, get patched up, say thank you, walk out. But if you have a serious disease that requires any kind of complex care, or frequent treatment....you are fucked. You'll wait forever for an appointment and when you finally do get it.....you get barely adequate care.
Look up the top 50 hospitals in the world......do you think it's a coincidence that some 40+ of them are in the USA??
Nobody even has an explanation for what it means or what it entails. What causes income inequality, what does it cause? Nobody fucking knows. It's one of those things that appear meaningful on the surface but isn't beneath the surface.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Furthermore, data on income is deeply misleading. One example: capital gains "income" and labor income are VERY different (because present value), and should not be lumped together (though they are). Also a very large proportion of people far greater than 1% of people are "in the 1%". This is due to variation in life circumstances and such.
And we this isn't even accounting for the fact that more important measures of what could be called "value expectations holdings" or the like tell a much different story. For example, elderly people are wealthier than young people according to monetary and asset holdings, but you'd be out your damn mind if you thought the elderly are have better overall economic positions than the young.
Hit me with that Price's Law.
There's no point talking to them Jack. They're not interested in having an open discussion (well at least the two T.I.'s aren't), they just want to turn every thread into a right-wing circle jerk where anyone who doesn't share their views gets heaped with scorn until they decide life's too short. At that point they feel good because it makes them think they've somehow 'won' the argument.
See, the problem isn't only that they think they invariably know what's right and you don't. Everyone is guilty of that to some extent. The problem is they lack any willingness to appreciate the shades of grey in any complicated topic (again just speaking about the 2/3 T.I. population here). It's just so much easier to view the world in black/white, right/wrong terms. Because when they do that they can immediately dismiss any alternative views as [insert derogatory words here], and take out their inner frustrations at being part of a marginalised minority of reactionary thinkers on people who have too much dignity to stoop to their level of toxic discourse.
You can have a solid point or a solid argument, it doesn't matter. They're not here to listen and discuss things in an open manner that shows any respect for anyone else's viewpoint, they're here to do just the opposite - not listen, not discuss things openly, and not respect people.
As an example, in the nordic countries where education is free, there quite effectively is nothing resembling a class system. Literally everyone with the mental and physical capacity is able to become e.g. a surgeon if they so choose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US that's not really the case. You basically need either wealthy parents, a scholarship, or have to take massive risks by ending up with massive debt before you graduate, which means that if you don't immediately get a suitable job you're screwed. Also it's been said here that being born to a minority family in a poor neighborhood in effect blocks you from ever having a proper career.
I would think the former demonstrates income mobility better than the latter.
Bill, I don't think you know what income mobility is. But even if we assume you're understanding of the concept....how do you explain this contradiction...
If there are no classes, discernible by income, then how is it possible to move from one class to another?????????Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Fuck man don't you sleep? It's still am here in UK ffs.
False. You just don't realize it because you don't have any solid points or arguments. At least not in the last week or so. All you've been spouting is partisan, tinfoil induced drivel about an enormously credentialed doctor being a liar based on absolutely no evidence other than the fact that he didn't shit all over your most hated politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Surely you can't expect to be respected for so staunchly advocating such a position. And if you truly feel that you've made valid points, cogent arguments, and provided compelling data as to why the doctor shouldn't be trusted.....then not only are you a partisan whine-bag, but you're also hopelessly delusional.
I really don't know what's happened to me over the last six months or so. It's like my 'old man' clock kicked in when I turned 37. Now I'm in bed before 10 and up at 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I like being up at 5am if it's light, which is like for one month of the year.
You are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Two thirds of the people born into the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile. Income Mobility!!
11 percent of them rise all the way to the top quintile. Income Mobility!!
8 percent of the folks born into the top quintile fall all the way to the bottom, and even more fall to the quintiles in between. Income mobility!!
Also...this "rich get richer" argument ignores the fact that the rich aren't the same people from one generation to another. That's because of income mobility. Oprah couldn't go from being on welfare, to being who she is today, if she lived in Norway her whole life.
Are you suggesting that you don't get on Norwegian tv by sucking dick?Quote:
Oprah couldn't go from being on welfare, to being who she is today, if she lived in Norway her whole life.
What capitalism really needs right now is HIGH ENERGY memes to really bump it up a notch.
You're not wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Oh I totally am.
Merit in education was always strong in America. Growing up, I always remembered that people who showed aptitude and work ethic earned quite a lot of stuff, from closer relationships with faculty to scholarships. There's a great deal of love and pride for things like providing scholarships to students who demonstrate that they will likely use them productively. The system I just described still remains but it is undergoing change, probably due to government grants and loans effecting reduced merit in order to succeed in the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The US university system grew to be what it is because of how well it organized people according to merit, aptitude, and ethic. That doesn't mean a system like what Finland uses can't also function on merit. It probably does. Though there are likely costs associated with inefficiencies and distorted incentives that manifest elsewhere.
j
I think capitalism is a close parallel to the parasitic nature of the embryo in utero; driving relentlessly toward blood and nutrients through the uterine wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What works, works.
I've an immunity to HIGH ENERGY memes, though.
I don't like being led by the feelings.
Could it be that that describes humans well and that capitalism functions as a way to protect from this base human nature?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Well, I've got a lot more examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think Capitalism is humanising the nature of competitive life.
More than life is competitive naturally?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
You better stop with all of this logic and shit before someone comes along and calls you a Russian shill.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Same as.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Communism sucks unless you want to end up in a labor camp or a fucking ditch after you starved to death.
I don't get why you keep throwing around these inane comments, if you're trolling just pls gtfo.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
They're not moving from one socioeconomic class to another, they're moving from an economic level to another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curveQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Edit: Just to be sure you understand the significance and purpose of the link. What you posted is like really cool and impressive. The numbers you quoted just happen to be worse than in many other countries, such as the nordic countries which I used as an example.
Damn. Socialist (i mean communist) Canada has waay more social mobility than the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Seems cloudy. It definitely doesn't show anything that compares to the numbers I posted in a way that would allow you to say that X country is Better/worse than the USA. Two totally different analyses.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The first murky thing I see, is that the Y axis shows "the likelihood that you inherit your parent's relative position of income level"
It doesn't show "the likelihood that you exceed your parent's relative position of income level", or "the likelihood that you achieve less than your parent's relative position of income level".
Second, the part about "rungs being farther apart" is HUGE. If everyone's relative income is clustered at a certain level, then it really doesn't take much to move up many percentiles. In other words, this chart could be telling me [hypothetical numbers] that 90% of Danish kids will achieve a relative income level that is 10 percentile higher than their parents, and that 65% of US kids will achieve a relative income level that is 30 percentile higher than their parents. Can you really tell me which is better?
It would be interesting if the they showed how large the increase/decrease is likely to be by country. 80% chance of a 20% increase, or a 60% chance of of a 50% increase. Which would you rather have poker players??
So I'm not convinced that this chart shows "superior" income mobility in Nordic countries. It just shows that it's more likely to occur. But we don't know by how much, or in which direction the mobility will take place. I kinda think that's important.
In the end though, the income-inequality drumbeat fails because you simply can't get around this fact...
In a healthy economy, investments grow faster than wages....so the rich will ALWAYS get richer.
Add to that the fact that most income inequality stats are bullshit to begin with because, as wuf pointed out, they tend to lump capital gains income along with labor income, and that really fucks things up. I'm pretty sure the Dow is crushing whatever Scandanavian exchanges exist out there. So I wonder what happens to the Gatsby Curve if we strip that part out of it??? Seems unfair to penalize the USA just because our companies are more innovative, efficient and profitable.
It absolutely does. There is a very strong correlation between income disparity and income mobility shown by how the data tend to cluster around a diagonal line going up and to the right.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
For one person to go up a step, another person has to come down. So how many go up and how many go down will be roughly equal. I say 'roughly' because if one person goes up three steps, this can be offset by three people each going down one step. But the overall net change will be the same. The measure is of income variability as a function of income inequality.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The first thing you say about the rungs being further apart would be a reasonable argument if you didn't have countries like Brazil and Chile near the top of the line with the USA. It's difficult to argue you have further to go in those relatively poor countries than you do in Denmark or Sweden. Moreover, in most countries upward mobility comes through access to education and other opportunities. Where there's more of that, there's more income mobility; where's there's less, there's less.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
As the rest of the above is based on your initial misinterpretation of what income mobility means, it's similarly wrong to what you said earlier.
Also based on a misinterpretation of the graph and therefore also irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I don't see the question of HOW the rich maintain their position being relevant. Nor does having a strong or weak overall economy or stock market change the relationship (or Brazil would not be close to the US). Nor does it change the overall conclusion about the clear relationship between income mobility and income disparity.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, it shows income disparity and the likelihood of a change in relative income. that's it. The information that I provided demonstrates the likelihood of a change in relative income AND how much, AND in which direction. So comparing my numbers, to this chart, and then saying X country is "better" than USA is a leap not supported by the data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Garbage. Where did you get this "zero sum game" theory??? It's absolutly a myth that the rich get rich at the expense of the poor. It's a popular liberal myth, but it's not true.Quote:
For one person to go up a step, another person has to come down
What???? No! That's EXACTLY what the chart says. Brazil and Chile have the biggest gaps of income inequality....their rungs are the furthest apart. It's not 'difficult to argue' that you are further to go in those countries at all. That's exactly what the analysis is telling you.Quote:
The first thing you say about the rungs being further apart would be a reasonable argument if you didn't have countries like Brazil and Chile near the top of the line with the USA. It's difficult to argue you have further to go in those relatively poor countries than you do in Denmark or Sweden.
Ok, so there's this....Quote:
Moreover, in most countries upward mobility comes through access to education and other opportunities. Where there's more of that, there's more income mobility; where's there's less, there's less
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/27/...ed-country-is/
And this
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ries/15460733/
and this..
http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/54
What in the world has led you to believe that the USA doesn't rank extremely high in access to education??
Uhhh, no it isn't. And it's pretty dubious for you to come in here and talk about the definition of "income mobility" since neither you, nor anyone in this thread had even used the term until I did. Until this....it was just "waaah inequality". Finally, if you're arguments are just gonna be data-less, fact-less, information-less moans of "you don't know what X means", you should rightly go fuck yourself.Quote:
As the rest of the above is based on your initial misinterpretation of what income mobility means, it's similarly wrong to what you said earlier.
If you're going to make this claim....and not be a total vacuous douche bag....then explain yourself. Where on Gatsby chart does it show you the $ amount, and direction of the income mobility?Quote:
Also based on a misinterpretation of the graph and therefore also irrelevant.
Cause it torpedo's your argument. Again, it's very sad that you're an educator.Quote:
I don't see the question of HOW the rich maintain their position being relevant
Of course it changes the relationship!! If you're measuring income inequality in a way that INCLUDES investment income....then you're fucking things up royally! The fact that Brazil is close to the US proves that the chart is fucked.Quote:
Nor does having a strong or weak overall economy or stock market change the relationship (or Brazil would not be close to the US).
Ok, but the overall conclusion is incredibly vague. Again....for the zillionth time....the chart only shows that income mobility is more likely to occur in countries with higher rates of income inequality. That's it. The size and direction of the change are massively relevant, yet wholly ignored by this analysis. You seem to believe they are irrelevant because of your hopeless delusion that economics is a zero-sum game and that the rich only get rich at the expense of the poor. And that is a retarded liberal myth that you need to let go of if you want to continue this conversation.Quote:
Nor does it change the overall conclusion about the clear relationship between income mobility and income disparity.
Otherwise, just accept that fact that America fucking rules, and scandanavia sucks herpes-ridden rhinoceros dick.
It's hard to evaluate the figures you provided without a source. Do you have one?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's a non-intuitive way of thinking about things, so I'll try to be patient. You have a society where different people earn different amounts. If you divide that society up into quintiles, the top 20% make the most, the next 20% the second most, and so on, until you get to the bottom quintile which is the 20% who make the least. Each quintile has an equal number of people in it.
The next generation, there are still five quintiles, each with an equal number of people in it. The graph shows the likelihood that a person who's parent(s) are in any given quintile will end up in that same quintile. It has nothing to do with how much the average earning in that quintile is (presumably it's gone up in 25 years). If your parents are in quintile 3 you can either go up or down, or stay in quintile 3. But, since the same number of people occupy each quintile (20%), if you change quintiles up, someone else has to change quintiles down.
Here's an example
Q1: 10 people
Q2: 10 people
Q3: 10 people
Q4: 10 people
Q5: 10 people
Now, someone in Q3 has a baby who grows up to be a bigly success and gets into Q1. That's income mobility. But now there is an extra person in Q1 that wasn't there before, and that has to be balanced with someone moving down. You can't have 11 people in Q1 and 9 in Q3. That's not how quintiles work.
Their rungs are relatively further apart, not absolutely. Let's say the median income in Q1 for Brazil is $50k a year, whereas for Q5 it's $5k a year. meanwhile for Denmark the Q1 and Q5 median incomes are $100k an $20k a year, respectively. The person making 20k a year in Denmark has further to go (80k) than the person in Brazil (45k) to get from Q5 to Q1.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It generally does, as do all Western countries. The issue is not HOW much education there is, but WHO has access to that education. Moreover, it's only one of a broader category of things that you can call 'opportunity'. If Joe Blow lives on a dirt farm and his Q5 parents can't afford to send him to college, it doesn't help him that most of the people in Q1-Q4 can send their kid to college. OTOH, if college were subsidized such that his parents could afford to send him, he would have a better chance of experiencing income mobility.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ok, bye.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand