Shit that classcucks say

""""Venezuela is a fine example of a communist society"""""

Rolled 4, 6 + 3 = 13 (2d6)

...

...

Everyone start posting Ben Mankiewitz

This triggers me the most tbh. The fact that poor people suck their exploiters cock so hard is a testament to effectiveness of porky propaganda. Or maybe boundless retardation of people.

I really never understood that one, even by capitalist logic.
Nowadays they say that if the minimum wage were to be raised, jobs would be replaced by robots.
But who is to say they wouldn't be replaced regardless? Even if a robot would only save you one cent, the job would be replaced.

...

...

No, you see the business owners want people to have jobs and want them to prosper, but only for exact amount minimum wage was set. It's lazy workers who think they should be paid more or some nonsense. Poor capitalist, you give a slave an inch and they take a mile.

...

they seem to assume that everyone will be headless chickens

we'd still have experts and professionals. just without unjust hierarchies

"But don't you want to be rich someday? raising taxes could be worse for you in the future"

actual thing I heard

well if the boss is kind, understand and treats them well it's understandable. some people like confomity

You just have class envy.

It's perfectly understandable opinion, but you should have the choice of participating in workplace democracy or not.

...

When people here "workplace democracy", the image that forms in their minds is some sort of kindergarten circlejerk of mandatory hourlong daily meetings where every tiny proposal has to be run by every employee for a voting motion.

This is extremely strange considering the fact that the omnipresent non-workplace democracies most people live in consists of a few representatives and perhaps a handful of referenda we vote on every few years.

durr

...

...

"Capitalism has always existed."

"Ancient Greece was capitalist."

"The Islamic Golden Age was one of the most capitalist times in human history and it gave us muh science and math."

"Hunter-gatherers were capitalist because capitalism is just trading apples for oranges."

"You can never really abolish capitalism."

friesian.com/greek.htm

Enjoy

yeah fair enough

this bothers me too

...

pure classcuck ideology right here:

boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/101232586

Poor Dutch user didn't know what he was in for

What??

Especially relevant now

What's wrong with income inequality, exactly?

thats me actually :^(

Daily reminder that the minimum wage reduces job growth (a 10% permanent increase in the real minimum wage reduces employment by about 0.7% after three years and reduces job growth by about 0.3% annually, according to estimates by economists Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West: nber.org/papers/w19262.pdf), imposes a real cost on society in terms of lost income and output (a $1 increase in the minimum wage, far from being almost costless, could conceivably impose income losses to American workers in the $12-15 billion range per year — an amount equal to the “income deficit” of millions of persons counted as poor by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, according to estimates by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-002-1016-4), increases probability of working without pay (i.e., an "internship" effect) and reduces experience accumulation (nber.org/papers/w20724.pdf)

...

...

My god that second pic.

Literally no one says this.

Literally racing to the bottom for General Porky. Sad.

I can lemming all by myself no thank you.

Also one of my favourites

This has actually been proven here:

...

They got a poverty wage service job instead of a manufacturing job that pays a wage they can live on

Unemployment is down slightly though, the system works

Can you prove it using empirical evidence? Most empirical studies suggest that export-related jobs created by freer trade pay more on average than the jobs that were lost because of it.

openly, no, but it's standard policy

...

...

/thread

...

Prove them wrong

they are neoliberal economists, they are wrong

Nice arguments you got there

they could try not being neoliberals and maybe they would be right

Doe anyone have that really cringy hippie article that literally said "capitalism won't judge my soul" or some shit.

WEW

more info

2008 financial crash.

...

...

but it literally was tho, just like the Great Depression of the 30s

The Great Depression was caused by deflationary monetary policy of the Fed and protectionist policy of the US government

lmao>>1109061

...

Also, daily reminder that financial deregulation is actually good for the economy.

While it is true that banking crises are more likely to occur in liberalized financial systems (fac.comtech.depaul.edu/topiela/content/798-103_Fin Lib and Fragility 1998.pdf) the direct positive effect of financial liberalization on growth by far outweighs the indirect effect via a higher propensity to crisis: nber.org/papers/w12806.pdf

It is also true that financial deregulation is followed by more pronounced boom-bust cycles in the short-run. However, financial deregulation leads to more stable markets in the long run: nber.org/papers/w9787.pdf

Liberalizing restrictions on international portfolio flows tends to enhance stock market liquidity. In turn, enhanced stock market liquidity accelerates economic growth primarily by boosting productivity growth. Second, allowing greater foreign bank presence tends to enhance the efficiency of the domestic banking system. In turn, better-developed banks spur economic growth primarily by accelerating productivity growth. Thus, international financial integration can promote economic development by encouraging improvements in the domestic financial system: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.200.5690&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Equity market liberalization, on average, leads to one percent increase in annual real economic growth: core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6864073.pdf?repositoryId=153

Seems like neoliberals have been proven right again :^)

Daily reminder that empirical studies have proven that there is a negative relationship between the progressivity of taxes and economic growth: oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=eco/wkp(2008)51

wew lag.

don't think so buddy

85% of ancient Athens' population were slaves.

Abbasid Caliphate was not only a huge slave trading society but dealt with slave revolts all the time.

The Great Depressiom was global, you fucking retard.

Yeah no shit regressive economies grow faster but they all get locked up in the billionaires at the top.

recessions caused by financial crashes are usually much more severe than normal boom and bust cycles. graph related.

in the long run we'll all be dead. but regardless I wouldn't trust such analysis considering that financial deregulation was only really put into full swing in the late eighties and then 90's. the sample size is just too small to make long term judgments. Not to mention, in the period before the great depression, where there was also little regulation, there was much more economic instability until the new deal reforms. Second graph related.

enhanced stock market liquidity also leads to more volatility, which can also increase risk and decrease overall investment. regardless, the stock market itself is a massive waste of resources. we spend billions as a society on the hedge fund managers and ""experts"" for making money by pure chance, often under-performing compared to index funds. Finance needs to be socialized to be fully effective.
jacobinmag.com/2016/11/finance-banks-capitalism-markets-socialism-planning/
(as a caveat, I disagree with some of the details of analysis, but his conclusions are spot on)

gee I wonder who reaps the benefits of all that extra productivity in such a situation?

Dust Bowl due to poor erosion management was also a factor, but this shit about protectionism and deflation as a result of monetary policy is just phlogiston level bullshit.
I mean, seriously, they had the Gold Standard then and it didn't work, your shit is blown out. The government got the country out of the depression. Stop acting like Wall Street Gambling is sane or stable in any way. Get away from the race track, you junkie

"""no"""

Everyone does: nber.org/papers/w15433.pdf; documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/496121468149676299/pdf/WPS6568.pdf

Again, economic growth benefits everyone proportionately and never benefits only the rich, as the scientific studies above prove

No one implied that, learn to read

...

The annual salaries of soldiers on the field can't actually be that low, right? Who the hell risks their lives for 25K a year?

Apprentice mercs after their taxpayer-funded education:
redrat.net/BUSH_WAR/mercenaries/

Holy fuck one must be already suicidal to accept to be a soldier for that money.

Or poor.

The majority of America's armed forces come from the Midwest and other economically stagnant areas.

Even worse, if I recall correctly, US compensation for soldiers is beaten by every other 1st-world (Canada, Australia, Japan, Western Europe) military.

>This is my girlfriend/boyfriend.
>This is my wife/husband.
>This is my child.

Except it doesn't, see pic in:

True communism is perfect and has never been tried

Families are mutual creative undertakings on the genetic level, any social arrangement that doesn't reflect that will tend to output poor products.

...

well spooked, my property

Then whose is it? Or do you think babies and children should belong to nobody?

Nice commodification of human relations.

No, I don't believe people should own or be owned by other people.

This is becoming increasingly true in a post-industrial society, to be honest. We live in a time when "e-celeb" is an actual career path.

Wow it's fucking nothing.
The authors reach that conclusion by that old favorite tool of sophists: linear extrapolation. And that's assuming the original data isn't fudged to begin with.
Yeah porky will always try to increase the rate of exploitation, that's why it needs to have its skull cracked.

Also very important: in typical neoliberal fashion, it focuses only on economic numbers are ignores every other indicator, such as social ones.

ayy lmao

Sure they're yours, user. Sure.

Under capitalism not having enough work to go around is a bad thing. Automation is an existential crisis that'll take your livelihood away instead of liberation from daily drudgery.

rly makes u think

Pie in the sky leftists have been claiming automation will make labor force obsolete since the 60's when automation first became a thing.

It's never happened. But it'll SURELY be the death of capitalism this time, Comrades! Now is the time!

except that automation has killed many jobs in manufacturing hubs. they call it the rust belt for a reason. it's also quit likely that automation contributed to the general labor surplus that helped lead to a divergence of productivity and compensation beginning in the mid-70's.

Structural unemployment is much higher than it was in the 60s. This isn't happening as fast a some thought it would but it's still happening.

2/10

all were factors. we should dismiss none.

You realize there are factories entirely operated by drones and robots?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)

"The far right and the far left are just as bad" - your average libtard

pics related, it's neetsoc "ideology" versus communism.

...

It's what happens when you treat humans as numbers on a spreadsheet, and therefore anything that can't readily be calculated in material terms (i.e. the social costs of divorces, depression, substance abuse rates, loss of profits for other businesses in the town reliant on the factory etc caused by a town's major employer leaving) is essentially irrelevant

It reminds me of the corporate raiders in one of the Adam Curtis documentaries fellating themselves over "rationalising" industry and business simply because the companies they took over had a greater asset value when they sold them (ignoring how many collapsed afterwards)

Class is a spook

How is this not true? Some people are born autistic balding midgets with hand deformations and others are born 6ft tall handsome and strong. How can you deny this?

Daily reminder that labor unions actually hurt workers. They cause slower job growth during an economic recovery (csun.edu/~vcecn007/publications/Unions_and_Employment_Growth.pdf) and lower rates of employment (csun.edu/~vcecn007/publications/Unions_and_Employment_Growth.pdf).

Economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway have come to the following conclusions:

1) The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion.
2) Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
3) A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
4) For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.
deltafa.org/pdf_library/do unions help the economy.pdf

Wait, I thought that most people on this board are materialists

You know what else hurts workers?

Capitalism

mind = blown

It is just intellectually dishonest argument since it purposefully turns subjective equality to numeral equality

It is technically true, but it is falsely asserted to be evidence that hierarchy is natural and necessary.

I'm not sure if you're mocking it or not, but anyway, I agree with it. Alienation is absolutely rampant accross the world, and it's only getting worse. Existential crisis as a healthcare crisis.

One possible cause, perhaps the cause, of this is the loss of social, "tribal" roles. Automation replaces people's labor, that much is true by definition. But under capitalism, it alsos robs people of these roles, thus making not only their labor redundant, but his entire self.

It doesn't help that capitalism also has the tendency to destroy institutions.

But unionization also lowers incomes for workers

that can be attributed to the fact that modern unions are a fucking joke and have basically become middlemen for the same system they used to oppose

You could say that started when the US outlawed union leadership from being socialists or communists

You know it's not the same thing, user. Recognizing that the material has primacy over the immaterial doesn't stop you from recognizing that these material conditions can cause non-material problems.

Oops, meant to say "public health" instead of "healthcare".

Also like a dumbass, I forgot to mention John Calhoun's infamous mice experiment. The tl;dr is that overpopulation caused, seemingly via too many individuals having no social role to fit into, a utopia to turn into Lord of the Flies on steroids.

Neet here, not a burger either.

I hear my parents complaining all the time that the unions representing them are in league with the employers, in this case the state.

In my parents view, unions serve as controlled opposition with a veil of democracy to legitimize rubber-stamping in detriment of the workers while, at the same time, distributing favors internally , such as reduced or outright exempt work schedules.

The unions seem to have congealed into bigger and bigger entities and law, they say, makes it so the bigger the union the more relevant they are.This situation seems to have "redirected" the power of the unions from organized workers with the ability to coordinate to hurt their employer into a bureaucratic opaque process between union leaders and their cohorts.

Seems pretty similar to what sorry excuse passes for democracy.

Well when Union leadership and bureaucracy have more members than any one workplace they claim to represent that tends to happen, they become a "shepherd" herding along their group of animals for their own benefit

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh

...

...

...

...

Really, what is the explanation for the profound sexual dysfunction of the Japanese to the point that demographers are predicting their extinction?

Extrapolating the behavioral sink to humans is flawed because it doesn't take into account that primates have coping behaviors to deal with the stresses of higher density populations.

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/069f/e6a101a63b3836f990ea954c4775501d232a.pdf

Educate yourself.

It's not that much of a deal. If you take out the immigrants and their birth rates from Germany, ethnic Germans have a lower birth rate than the Japanese.

The examples cited only modeled overcrowding by introducing primates from otherwise-spacious enclosures into a single area for temporary periods of time. It's hardly comparable to generations of mice being born and raised in progressively overcrowded conditions.

All that indicates is that primates who weren't born and raised with overcrowding can adjust reasonably well when introduced to overcrowded conditions. I guess the equivalent for humanity would be immigrant birth-rates, which over a few generations tend to fall towards the baseline native rate

Not exactly disproving my point.

It's a self-correcting system. Barring interference from capitalist scum and their PC-blinded SJW lackeys, it will reach a sustainable and healthy equilibrium if we let it.

And the discussion kinda ended there, didn't want to get into an argument with him, especially since i only had superficial knowledge of the USSR. And this is why implementing socialism/communism will be hard, because people are too invested in this system, and worked hard for their house/car/job/status and have the "fuck you i got mine" mentality

...

Anyone? It's really ideological.

Thats cause its being run in true libertarian fashion as a company that requires constant expansion and growth.

The bottom line is the key and not the individuals participating in it.

This is why our VA system is fucked since it basically is the liabilities department of a corporation

Yeah, fair point. I did some more reading on it and apparently Calhoun wasn't entirely pessimistic about the future of humanity and overcrowding - viewing it more as a cautionary tale than "humanity will go extinct if we exceed X humans per Y mile"

It's already happening, even in the heart of the 3rd world. If the UN's modeling of current trends is accurate, world population should peak at 9-12 billion sometime between 2050-2100.

That's also the time when shit will really start heating up. literally.

Not really. Global warming will suck, kill millions, and cost trillions of dollars, but (barring plausible though rather unlikely catastrophic runaway scenarios) it probably won't be disastrous.

Oh, and yes Mr. Pirate, they do take glacial methane thaw into account.
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/134.htm

...

What about muh doomsday clock?

Whatever tickles your pickle. Those runaway scenarios are still entirely plausible, and any one of them is enough to send me into a cold sweat.

...

Fingers crossed I guess.