In defense of Capitalism...

Throw me your arguments against capitalism. Keep it on topic as well.

It's called "capitalism" for a reason. Capital. Most of the consuming classes don't have any

Capitalism I aint smart as youall but heres how I see it. Put lip stick on a pig its still a pig!

Where's the classsic Frankenstein mob with the torches, pitchforks and rope when you need 'em anyway?!

>>82
I don't even know which side of the argument you're making fun of at this point.  Anyway.

The population of the United States is about 310,000,000.  20% of that population earns over $100k and there are about 2,886,200 resident millionaires and 5 listed billionaire residents.  (A long time ago I quoted statistics that about 90% of people who would be called "the rich" pay most of federal income tax revenue; though it's not important to my current argument, please keep it in mind.)  The combined US billionaires are worth about $171.2B and let's assume the millionaires are each worth $100m each - $288.62B - and those 20% I mentioned before have an individual worth of $125k each - $7,750B.  Together, $8209.82B.  Even if you divide that out for every citizen of the United states that's only one check worth $26500. $26500.  If you use the population distribution used by sociologist Leonard Beeghley and only distribute that amount to the 45% working class (as opposed to "middle class;" refer to his model) and 12% lower class that's a single redistribution of $46500.  The amount of money you'd get is a one-time working class annual paycheck's worth that you could burn through easily.

Additionally, those who have these incomes have a high chance of running, managing, owning, or otherwise making internal policies for a part of whole of one of the major businesses that operates in the United States (or worldwide).  For many, that business IS the reason they're wealthy and provides a renewable supply of products to other people.  Removing them from the equation will either accomplish nothing or disrupt these systems that ("common") people use.

Targeting the rich for virtue of them being "the rich" doesn't accomplish anything.  It'd be the perfect demonstration of a house divided not being able to stand.

>>84
Sorry, some poor math.
- US billionaires - 5 - $171.2B
- US millionaires - 2,886,000 - $2,886,200B (assumption: $100m net worth; also, many people in this group are retirees, sports, entertainment, politicians)
- US "the rich" (notwithstanding the above) - 20% @ $125k per - $7,750B

That would be a redistribution of a single $9.336 million check to every US citizen (or $16.380 million as per Beeghley's figures).  Admittedly, that is much better than my previous numbers and almost makes me say the tactic actually looks good now. BUT--and it's a big "but"--that leaves a lot of the complications that would ensue because of the change, including the aforementioned disruption to both private and public services, and that it would only work this way once.  There's also the problem of the inflation offset this kind of sudden redistribution of finances would cause (that would be a problem regardless of socialism or capitalism trends; it's a problem of "stuff" in general), possibly even rendering the single check pointless and, next year, making the whole of the nation poor when everything is adjusted to just that much more money and no one can afford it anymore.  [dry]Won't that be fun.[/dry]

Actually, if you were going to use a cockamammy scheme like this, you may as well use the money to pay our international and national debts off first.  We could pay them off thrice, at least.

>>84
>>85
nosense your numbers are lies richman little bitch you are!!

>>84
>>85
Ayn Rand’s bastard child

>>84
>>85

Trolled hard..you seriously fall for those comments?

Trolls are tsundere for free-market.

:)

>>64
>>67
You are going to lose this water argument: give up.
Seriously, you don't know that not that long ago, springs, creeks, and rivers had water we could actually drink? Guess who fucked that up? Water should be free. I don't want bottled water shit. If I'm going have tap water, I have no problem paying the laborers who make it happen. But I would rather do the labor myself: not an option.
>>67
No right to health? I'm not talking about healthcare... I'm talking about the right to live in an enviroment that isn't toxic. I strongly disagree with you. We all have that right, or we should.
>>84
>>85
Quick, confuse them all with numbers so they forget reality!

>>90
>Water should be free

And water is free, like I said, you can go bottle your own water from rivers or rain drops, you don't have to pay anyone a dime.

But if you want purified water from a water reservoir that's supplied through a series of tubes directly to your house, your tab water, then that's going to cost you.

Your old posts seem to suggest that tab water should be free. And I'm telling you why it isn't. If you agree with this then there is no argument.

As for pollution water or air, you tell me exactly how does the free-market cause those things huh? I already stated a few post back that it's a crime to pollute other people's property in a free-market.

As for the pollution happening NOW in certain places of the world, it's precisely caused by a LACK of property right. Since most governments are socialistic to various degrees, the rivers and air are public property that is owned by the government, not individuals, what this becomes is as long as someone has a strong enough special-interest influence in the government, they can lobby legislators to pass laws that allow them to shit in those rivers or airspace as they wish.

As for rights, you are still mistaken. No matter how kneejerking it is there is no such thing as a positive right. The right to live in an none toxic environment, assume a person's house suddenly becomes toxic because of a natural disaster, does that mean he has a right to make professionals to clean his house or others to pay the fee with or without their consent?

The only right a person have in regard to this is property right, that is if he own a property, then no one else has the right to pollute it.

Screw both capitalism and socialism. Feudalism is what works.

>>87
I've actually never read Ayn Rand but, as long as I keep getting told this, I may as well read one book for comparison.  Which do you recommend as most thorough?

>>88
My fetish is responding to trolls seriously with the intent/hope of sparking decent conversation.  I know where I am but that's no excuse to not try.

>>91
Hmmm, property...
Yeah, I guess my belief is that certain things are common property, such as water and air.
Therefore polluting any of it is a violation of those rights: of ALL of our rights, yours, mine and etc.
I wasn't intending that to mean tap water, I can see how that could be misunderstood.... No, I'm talking about the actual water that by birthright is all of ours who live here on this planet. Of course I would recompense someone who brings it to me in some way, that is only fair.
Your extreme example of forcing people to clean a house is just that: an extreme example. However, companies, and the people who run and work for them should be held accountable for fucking things up. And common property should be commonly cared for.

By the way, telling me I am mistaken is completely fallacious. I could tell you you are mistaken, and we could go round and round... the fact is we disagree.

>>93
clearly a gleen beek fad

>>95
I you hunt yuou sown ad silll you fagggggot

fuck the worls fucking trolls rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck you rich little bitches kiss my big white ass you dtupid fucking fairy ass sluts

>>94

The concept of public property is flawed at the root. Right is an absolute claim. If two or more people have an absolute claim to the same property, and their interest differ, then who is to say whose interest should prevail? You say a common property should be commonly cared for, but the fact is ethical or not person A has just as much right to shit on it as person B to plant flowers, all that's left is for them to duke it out.

Reason can't solve this, the only thing left is contest of might in the government. It becomes a situation where might makes right, whether that be by vote or money or even guns.

As for my example, extreme or not that is a valid example for a right to live in an none toxic environment. You might not meant it to be this way, but that's exactly what such a right would entail. A right is an absolute claim. If a person have an absolute claim to live in an none toxic environment, that means if his living space gets polluted for whatever reason, then SOMEONE gotta clean it for him.

Fact is, a lot of people today think legit political right is just any arbitrarily fashioned right with enough public support. That might makes a right. That anyone's idea of a right is valid as long as they can get enough vote behind it. That is wrong, a contradiction to reality.

A political right has to be foremost non-contradictory, can be applied to every single person in a society and without violating any other individual rights. Any positive right whether that be a right to medical care or a right to none-toxic environment is not a valid right, they are contradictory.

>>99
Everyone has the right to live how they see fit as long as they don't hurt anyone else. The minute they hurt someone else they violate their rights. Not that hard to figure out.
Your shit/flower commons is silly. Have you ever had a common space? These things do get worked out, with reason, over time. It is possible to build consensus, to have an outcome that everyone is satisfied with. If someone wants to be a power tripping asshole, the community (who have equal ownership rights) will censure that person as it isn't in the interest of all concerned. And before you go being sad for that individual, remember that he was the one that brought power into the equation in the first place. He can go do his own thing if he doesn't want to play fair.

aaaaaaawWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW FUCK I GOT DRUNK LAST NITE HOW ABOUT YOU
Me thinks i kill the one brain cell that was working

>>100

>Everyone has the right to live how they see fit as long as they don't hurt anyone else. The minute they hurt someone else they violate their rights.

I'll give a more suitable example. Person A and person B both have absolute claim a river. Person A wants to build a watermill over the river to work his grains. Person B on the other hand wants to river to stay virgin so he can admire its natural beauty. Now both have claim over the whole of the river due to public ownership, and there you have it. If person A build that watermill, he violates person B's right to the river. If person B succeeds in stopping A from building the mill, he violates A's right.

Common space (I assume you mean a common between roommates) belongs to the landlord. That landlord is the one who owns it and makes the rule on how it should be used by the tenants.

As for things working out over time, that's the wrong way to put it. It's possible for the dust to settle when the interest coincides or when the power struggle comes to a stalemate or when one side just stops caring, but the root of the problem is still there, that more than two individuals have an absolute claim to the same property and that only might can determine the victor if their interest differs.

Things are fundamentally the same even if the ownership is claimed by more than two people, and is the same if the outcome is decided by a vote. A vote in such a situation where everyone has the claim to the WHOLE property would mean the majority can vote away the right of a minority, a victory by might.

Point been, public ownership is flawed conceptually at the root. It's contradictory for a group of people to have the same absolute claim on the same property. Such a political policy is to openly invite inevitable conflict.

I think this is on topic and I would like hear your thoughts, as in the context of, if there is a problem with the rich taking to much from the poor. I am a little off with wording I figure you smart people here know what I mean.

“There’s class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class that’s making war and we’re winning”
- Warren Buffet

I have not heard him retract this or heard that it was taken out of context.

I have seen this around and dont know the souce on it but if any one out there know I would like to read, veiw, or listen to the oringanl source

N/b/4 learn to google

////b////

I a /b/ motherfucker!!!!!!!!!!

>>103

>if there is a problem with the rich taking to much from the poor

You are basically implying right off the bat that people can only get rich by making someone else poor. That economy is a closed zero sum system and wealth is just intrinsic in raw materials.

That's the biggest and the old misconception about wealth in the history of mankind.

The simplest example to illustrate this is a farmer growing wheat. After one year that farmer is $50,000 richer. That 50k is wealth he CREATED out of NOTHING (before physics freaks jump me, by nothing I mean no wheat). Nobody else is somehow 50k poorer now this farmer is 50k richer.

I posted before, the only way to get rich BY making someone else poor, is through theft/robbery/fraud..etc. (and that's prohibited) Anyone getting rich not though these acts meant they got rich the legit way, by creating wealth for themselves that hadn't been there.

As for Warren Buffet, what he probably meant is the power struggle in the current semi-socialistic government between interest groups vying for illegitimate right by might. Some of these groups are perceived to represent the rich, other the poor. The ones perceived to represent the rich are winning in his opinion.

Buffet is an investor, not a philosopher. He's a genius at capital allocation, but that doesn't automatically translate him into a genius political scientist. Just something to keep in mind.

>>103

As soon as you plant wheat, you've put more wheat into the economy. This causes the price of wheat to drop.

>>102
Okay, I guess you haven't experienced a co-op or collective.
No-one has "absolute claim" , that wouldn't make any sense. Ownership is held collectively.

So: watermill: A and B (and whoever else is in that community) discuss the idea. B presents hi points, A presents her points. At some point it is decided whether this mill would be beneficial to all.  Long discussions ensue. Eventually, some kind of agreement is reached. Perhaps the mill is placed around the bend from B's house. Perhaps the mill is made is such a way that B is pleased enough by the aesthetic to offset his feelings about the "virgin river"... Or perhaps B offers to do the extra work to grind the grain in a different way (windmill, perhaps?), in order to "save " the river. 
It is possible to reach decisions by consensus: in which no decision is made until everyone agrees on something. Compromises are reached, minds are changed... definitely not a quick process, but worthwhile. Surprisingly, it IS possible for everyone to be satisfied, maybe not thrilled, but content, with the outcome.
This is happening all the time, all around the world, and presents, in my mind, a much better alternative for public space.

>>106

You are looking at it wrong, it's not the value of wheat going down, it's the value of the currency going up.

By selling his wheat for 50k in currency, the farmer is changing his newly created wealth from the form of wheat to the form of currency. And, assume no new bills are printed (no inflation), the current amount of $ floating in the market increases in their purchasing power against wheat.

It's entirely possible that the other farmers could earn less quantity of $ now for the same amount of wheat what they would have earned in previous years. But that's not because their wheat lost in value, it's because the $ is more valuable now than the $ before.

>>103
Warren Buffet meant exactly what he said. Don't let anyone spin that to mean something else. Simple, direct, and to the point.

>>109

If Buffet actually meant exactly what you believe or want him to mean, that rich gets rich by making others poor, then that just means he doesn't what the hell he was talking about and he is wrong. But then again, you don't know that anymore than I do.

Like I said the guy is an investor, the same amount of authority he has over capital allocation doesn't translate into legit political knowledge.

>>110
You may be a really nice guy and a capitalist. Doesn't mean some capitalists aren't assholes who don't give a shit about anyone else.
Warren Buffet isn't an idiot. he knows what he said, and how it sounds, and he meant it.

>>107

No, what's happening around the world is that those with a strong special interest presence in the government gets what they want, those that doesn't gets nothing. And if any compromises were made, they are between politicians and lobbyists behind closed doors cutting deals among themselves.

The example I presented with river was just to illustrate that conflict of interest is inevitable with any property that is deemed to be owned by everyone at the same time. If you want to talk about how these conflicts will actually play out in the real world, that's a completely different story, and a grim one.

If private property policies were established in the river example, there would be no conflict to start with. Everyone who lives beside the river owns the strip of the river beside their house. Whatever others do with their strip is their business, as long as it doesn't affect your strip (upstream polluting down stream..etc.). Person B wouldn't have any claim over what person A does with his strip to begin with, there would be no ground for conflict.

>>111

And he's wrong.

>>112
Ah, but then B gets screwed, see, because he loses his pristine river. The private ownership of small plots is not satisfactory to everyone, not by a long shot.

Playing out in the real world, as I showed, is not always grim, not at all. There are other possibilities out there besides absolute capitalism and tyrannical communism/socialism. Collective anarchy, for example, and there are many others. Privatizing land isn't optimal for a lot of us. Many people do like it... but what about those of us who don't?

It would be so cool if could solve the worlds problems here on 4chan FTW CHANNER-4-LIFE!!!

>>114

B can always talk to A and work out a compensation plan for B's wish to work out, just like all the possibilities you posted. But B can't stop A by force to not build a watermill on his own property, A still has the final say.

Point is, the goal of a successful system is to deliver non-contradictory justice, not to make everyone happy (making a system for that would be going for Utopia). There's always people that want something they have no valid claim at, (wealth they did not earn...etc.) A successful system is one that can objectivly determine how validity is to be established. The point is not to try pacify people with both valid and invalid claims.

The reason why right to property exist and extends from right to life is because human begins live by working/thinking. In order to live in a society, people need both the right to own tools and the right to own the fruit of their labour. If someone settles by the river, it's just that a reasonable area around his house which he uses be recognized as his private property. He has valid claim to it because it's a wild area before he came and he build improvements that he uses to sustain his life on it (house, yard..etc.).

That's how property right is fundamentally justified. If someone is not happy under a system that is objectively just, then that's his problem, not the system's.

>> 116
right to property; sure, if you make it yourself i.e. the house that you build, or the sweater that you knit... but, at the risk of sounding overly sentimental (although, why not?) how can someone "own" a piece of Earth? or river? or mountain? or wild trees? (note: wild)
Really? just because it's wild, it's first come first serve? What about the folks who were here first? Don't they, then, really "own" the land? (although they don't see it that way...)
Why is the goal non-contradictory justice? Why not everyone being content? It's easy enough to call: "Utopia" when it's the other guy's opinion, but what about your own? Aren't you a bit utopic in your idealism of capitalism?

The price mechanism is almost mathematically perfect at serving the needs of those with spending power, any flaws are either flaws that are present in every system or negligible in importance like the inability to have currency smaller than a cent.

Autonomy is not the best method of organization in every system, however it is the best in most situations, we are limited in intelligence, which means it is impossible for one person to plan everything, we are also immoral which means centralizing power into a few individuals or for an elected super-intelligent official to communicate with millions of voters.

Then there's individual freedom, we are individuals not collectives as the socialists would have us believe, we can cooperate for mutual gain and try systems of representation but ultimately the most direct system of representation is the individual making a decision themselves, voting with their wallet for instance.

All of these factors make capitalism the perfect economic system.

>>117

>how can someone "own" a piece of Earth? or river? or mountain? or wild trees?

You are thinking of some intrinsic ownage. The right of property applies only within a society among your peers. If you own a piece of land, what it means is that you have a political sanction to use it however you like and other people within the same society can't tell you what to do on it. The right is political. If a person is all alone, rights wouldn't apply.


>Really? just because it's wild, it's first come first serve?

Yeah, really, first come first serve. The cost of exploration plus the effort it takes to get there and build an improvement earns you the right to that property among your peers.


>What about the folks who were here first? Don't they, then, really "own" the land?

What folks? The natives? Assume you are talking about the natives, they don't recognize property right in their pre-colonial collectivist societies. It was all right by might.


>Why is the goal non-contradictory justice? Why not everyone being content?

Because human begins have free will. Some people will choose unreasonable goals and won't be content unless they have their way. An Utopia is a society where everyone is happy regardless of their choices in life and related consequences. That is a physical impossibility for humans.

When people come together to form a society, their goal is to better their own lives by trading with each other in all manners. The political rules of a society for humans should be made for this goal, to designate objective rights to it's members and draw just lines on economic claims. A good political system is one that delivers objective justice which allows people to run their own lives smoothly, no more, no less.


>Aren't you a bit utopic in your idealism of capitalism?

If you mean unrealistic, no. Capitalism won't somehow magically make people happy, anyone truly defending free-market should know this. What capitalism does is deliver stern justice. You earn what you sow.

I bet republitard is samefagging