How long can a company last for?

They literally only watch TV and mainstream media all the time, and only do what's "cool and hip" to do or whatever they're told to do by their media masters.

They're nothing more than cattle.

This was a joke made in the shitty nintendo thread, and wasn't funny then either. You probably aren't even the same user.

So they don't really like gaming.

Chad who buys the yearly CoD trash because MUH FRIENDS PLAY IT. IF MY FRIENDS EAT SHIT THEN SO WILL I. IF THEY JUMP OFF A BRIDGE THEN SO WILL I. DO I FIT IN YET? YAY GROUPTHINK!

Lisa who plays mobile garbage because she's bored.

Soccer mom who plays the Wii because "Wow this technology is impressive. Fun for the whole family! xD"

How do we get the message across to these brain-dead casuals that they are harming our hobby and that they should fuck off?

And how do they view people like us?, probably just as "creepy nerds". Someone post that screencap of cuckbook where a girl says she likes gaming (for attention) and a guy responds seriously asking what games she plays. Since she was never a gamer to begin with, she replies to the guy telling him to go away because she's scaring her.

Casuals are a bizzare fucking creature. They should go back to being jocks, sluts or whatever the fuck they did before discovering video games.

Never thought I'd say this, but I miss when video games were considered a childish thing that you should be embarassed of playing after the age of 18.

This stigma/taboo of an adult playing games made developers make quality games to niché audiences.

Now that gaming is "socially acceptable", the standards are lowered and AA studios are killed off by big publishers that shove cancerous diarrhea down the throats of millions of casuals who's first entrance to the internet was in 2008 using facebook/twitter/tumblr on their new iphones.

*he's scaring her

i respect a jock more than a casual because a jock has a fucking hobby he can put time and effort into and not just consume things passively and throw them away when done

They still are, just not every game.
And in that train of thought I think it's why finding appealing niche games has become challenging, because it's not that you can just open up a magazine or talk to someone else who plays video games or any other alternative, because those faucets are now filled to the brim with AAA marketing.
Pretty much all you can do is look around through the trash and hope to find what's good. But man, when you do, you're in for a treat.

not only do you type like a fag, but you're making a lot of broad sweeping generalizations that make you worse than the normalfags who simply buy things they like because they either don't know or don't care why the companies that make them are shitbags. who the fuck cares how chad spends his entertainment time; it keeps him happy and keeps him out of the games i like which keeps me happy too.

you need to stop saying "we" and "us", first of all, and second of all you need to stop attaching some huge incredible meaning to the shit you do and the shit they do. there will always be retards who like things you don't like, stop being a bitch

I respect your opinion.

FA (Financial Advisor) user here.

The problem is that in the West the investors actually don't know shit about video games or what gamer consumers like. The majority of these investors are baby boomers and up, with the major share holders usually being rich old men or hedge fund managers who are heavily or financially involved with other big blue chip companies (Johnson & Johnson, Mobil Exxon, ATT). These people run on the idea that a customer will buy the same product over and over because they use it in their daily life (See tissues or phones) So, why was it that after Modern Warfare Call of Duty became a yearly, soon to be bi-yearly, release? because these rich old men that hold all this stock in Activision and all these baby boomers that casually invest basically came to investor meetings and said "This made a lot of money, lets make more of this and make it a household item." In old man investor terms it means:. Lets just pump this shit out no matter how bad the quality is because in the consumer loves it, thus they will buy every iteration just like housewives buy boxes of tissues every month.

And, as anyone knows, once you start pumping shit out to fast the quality of the product goes down. In the development of a game, if you want to churn out shit real fast you need to also hire a lot of people, and since pretty much every company can't afford to hire 100 to 200 quality staff members you get these below average CalArts people who work for the studio for 2 to 4 years and then leave because they get a huge "I'm God's gift to game development" and try to open up an indie studio. Then, if they succeed a little the cycle will just eventually repeat itself.

This is where there is a difference in Japanese studios. They do in fact believe in the haste makes waste idea. So, that's why Japanese games come out at a slower pace and usually with a lot more attention to the development. The other difference though is Japanese companies don't have to rely on just their game development as they are all involved in other markets to help keep them propped up (Square Enix has book/manga/anime publishing; Koei Tecmo runs 1/3rd of Japans historical film and Drama industry, and Sega has the Yakuza propping them up I'm joking, they used too, but now it's mostly cartoons and merchandising. In the West game companies only have games. One wrong move and they're fucked so these people who don't really understand the business world are listening to business men who don't understand gamers.

Go to hell for not playing Duck Dynasty, nigger sinner.

What the hell is duck dynasty anyways? I'm not american so I have 0 clue about any of the reality shows.

just some rednecks who hunt ducks and make duck-calls. some suit followed them with cameras and milked any drama they could out of it

real answer:

As long as kikes and satan can milk their shit, but when it's time to go, they need to offer up their souls

Wasn't there a duck dynasty game for 3Ds that's actually a legit good animal crossing clone?

this is a hard one holy shit I can't think of anything
maybe when the money stops flowing
no that's not it
hnnnnnrg
we definitely need to shitpost harder

Well, there are those who simple hear from a friend or an add that there'll be another CoD so he's going to buy it, cause, you know, he bought the previous one. Not an actual gamer, just a normalfag.

then there are the autistic kids and manchilds who are actually involved with the internet on a daily basis, who hype the shit of every game that appeals to them in the slightest way. those are the actual cancer of the gaming community. and they mostly have normal fags as friends -if they have friends. Everyone of them are probably hyping the new Cod atm, which we all know will be the same shit like the previous ones.

Businessmen are functionally retarded. The ones I deal with who have 8-peak McMansions can't perform linear arithmetic. I wonder who pays people who are so fucking stupid, so much money, to do whatever the fuck they do for a living. Probably some sort of (((social safety net))) keeping them all off the streets, and from starving because they cannot operate a manual can opener.

'A moot point' you fucking autist.

And vidya devs that have drank the kool-aid will never learn lessons. The only one that will pull the plug on the likes of nuBioware are their publishers.

At least my logical skills work with wordplay.

This, though most here should know this by now.

You need to leave

...

uh oh

holy shit

Moot not even an admin anymore. They have monetizing nip with jewish soul in there.

Never, we'll get old and die and all that will be left is millennials, with a tiny subset of them playing niche/retro games. We can expect some good games in future but gaming is never going back to what it was.

It's like the simpsons but funny and teach you valuable bible lessons.

There is a warioware styled one.

Dude.

Sounds about right. I imagine that once upon a time, games were made by people who love to play them and who wanted to make games that were a joy to play. Somewhere along the line, it went from people working on something that have a passion for, to people working on something to make the maximum profit possible disregarding the quality of the product made.

This has got me thinking… Call of Duty has been a meme for so long that I forgot the early CoD games were actually half decent.

That's exactly what it used to be. But, there are a number of factors that also contributed to this situation. One of the other major problems was that in the 90s you had a ton of Hollywood drop outs join the game industry who wanted to see their visions come to life. This started off as people who could not succeed in Hollywood (Like the guy who wrote and directed Heavy Rain) but also hated gamers entering the industry to accomplish their goals. These dropouts who are taught in film school that as long as you have good idea the multi-billion dollar film studio will just keep writing you checks to make your film bigger and better. Where as in the 90s game studios did not have that kind of money and nobody had the intelligence to develop their games in the way the Japanese did it. These Hollywood types wanted the highest of graphic quality available at all times during game play. So, you had studios like Electronic Arts, Activision, and Ubisoft basically restructure themselves so that they could sell stock and use the money to finance the Hollywood types. Now, I'm sure you all see where this leads; who comes to the rescue and buys up all these stock? A bunch of rich old businessmen who just want to keep getting richer. They buy it because they see, as most smart businessmen do, that there is a future for the Games industry to overtake the Film Industry. So now you have all these businessmen controlling these companies from behind the scenes and game developers trying to run the companies like they used. Well rich old men don't want people who lack business experience running a business so over time they push out pretty much all the original people from these companies and install businessmen (Example: Reggie Fils Aim and Robert Kotick).

Because gamers let failed Hollywood dropouts basically come in and bloat up development budgets for games these companies felt they were forced to allow investors to keep them sustained. Hollywood is another one of these major factors; but I can always save that for another time.

Also, if anyone wants to point their finger at one of the single causes of this it's going to be Final Fantasy VII. The pre-rendered cutscenes is what brought a lot of those Hollywood types to the game industry. And of course, none of these had any technical understanding of the development process. So, you would regularly see Hollywood types directing and writing these games and they would tell the developers they want to see those cutscene graphics throughout the whole and they still want to have a huge explorable world. This is the primary reason for the bloated budget and need for investors

I've seen enough these past few years to know the ideological infection goes all the way to the top. You'd sooner see a AAA company go bankrupt before they change.

COD games were being released annually before then. It's just that COD4 brought all the inflated marketing pushes that coincided with the industry taking the worst pages out of Hollywood's playbook.

I don't even game any more. I sold everything a few years ago. Recently I saw an add for a WW2 game, COD I think. I'm considering buying a console just for that.

It's fucking strange how COD appeals to me after it was one of the main reason I fucked gaming off.

I'm a neuroscientist and I don't even

Please oh please post the screencap of the user saying normalfags are IRL NPCs. Having been friends with archetypal normalfags, I can tell you that their life seems FAKE. Like, has GF, obsessed at first, they fight a bit, drama, make up, and repeat in a cycle til relCounter = 0 and it's just randomly time to break up. That's like 10 lines of code dictating the course of that basic fucking relationship. FAKE. Normalfags are cattle, there is little or sometimes nothing at all to differentiate them. My best guess is it's an IQ thing, below the proper threshold and you're doomed to ignorantly go through the basic bitch normalfag cycle, never reaching actual awareness of anything.

Wrong, it's actually that you're mentally unhealthy and divorced from your biological urges, leading you to escape into fantasy rather than confront your painful social reality. You're a fat person looking down at people working out because they do it every day.

...

It sounds like someone hit a nerve.

Wait, how old do you think the people on this board are? I highly doubt most people here were born before the early 80s.

I would average that most people on this board are in their 20s being early to middle to late with a few past that.

How much money do you need to be an investor for a game company, be it western or japanese?

It is enouth with a big lottery win? or not even that can give you a path to heaven?

I agree, which means the user's comment about millennials was complete nonsense.
The "millennial" generation began with the people who would graduate high school in 2000; in other words, born ~1982 and later.

The first millennials are 35 now.

Well to invest you have two avenues

Usually you're just buying shares. See:
research.capitaloneinvesting.com/research/main/Stocks/Snapshot?symbol=ATVI

If you have an account you just buy how many shares you want with the value of the share being one share. With the above example you're essentially paying $60 a share so $600 will net you 10 shares. You'll of course have to pay the transaction costs which vary from institution. Now this is all self managed investor stuff. Capital One, Charles Schwabb, ETrade. That's all online self managed stuff. You can also have an FA (Financial Advisor) Like me who basically does all the stuff for you. You call and say "I want to buy Activision" and depending on your relationship with them they'll either just say "How many shares" or they'll advisor you on whether it's a smart or bad idea (It's a bad idea to ever buy Western game stock unless you're a start up investor).

The more profitable means of investing which will also net you some sort of control is start up investing. Basically, 5 guys want to start a game company and need funding, so you offer them say $100,000 for 20% control of the company. These are very risky and very hard to find because you need to be networked in this crowd to find them. (See: The start of Apple). This option follows with the motto High Risk, High Reward.

So, if you were my client I would be asking you what kind of investing are you looking for.

I guess I would be the hardest kind of client (or the best to scam if you are an asshole), because I don't even know what I'm looking for.

I would say "I want success and capital, and when I get enouth capital and get enouth shares in a game company… maybe give me enouth little control to maybe make a game with the crew?".

...

i keep forgetting to save it when it shows up, sorry buddy

Call a girl/woman on her bullshit via FB and very likely she'll block you like a petulant child rather than copping to being a liar or a shitty person or whatever. They're used to just barfing up anything to make themselves seem interesting or 'unique', having everyone nod along and undergo zero scrutiny of their claims (I know a girl who claims to know Korean, she actually just knows how to use Google Translate), they also rarely encounter anyone with a modicum of intelligence who actually gives a shit about a topic, when they do run into a genuine nerd they feel (rightly) inferior or that they're being talked down to when in reality they're just realising what contentless beings they are under all the fakery. They feel bad anout themselves so it *must* be your fault, the mental gymnastics are something to behold.

It's the academically dim girl who calls herself a 'such a nerd lolxd' because she plays a DS, likes Pokemon and dresses up like an idiot every other week so drooling social rejects can stare at her ass.

Moist of this progressive bullshit stays alive through money Laundering
FYI.

its also damn near impossible to call her out on her shit without looking like a complete sperg. being a "nerd" may be trendy but you can still be shunned for being a nerd.

You are thinking of Geeks, not nerds, and even then you're actually thinking of hipsters.

I wish I didn't understand shit half as much as you, I'd be a much happier person.

ow oof brain hurt

Both "nerd" and "geek" are virtually worthless labels absorbed by hipsterism.

Might as well poz my neghole and kill some Jews. Break the cycle.

"Nerd" is a label for someone who actually knows his shit. "Geek" is a label for someone who partakes in nerdy shit like comic books and vidya, but isn't necessarily a nerd.

I think you have those reversed.

Now you've got the right idea

Unfortunately that's happens very rarely. If a company is already publicly traded you will never be able to buy out enough shares to gain 51% control of a company just simply purchases bits of shares over time. If you intended to take that approach it would be recommended that you have 3 times what that company is valued. This is because a company that is already publicly with have certain people that are meant to retain that 51%. Be it one person or a group of allied people you would need to buy enough publicly available shares and buy out privately held shares that already belong to other people.

That's why I mentioned the start up investing. It would be very easy to obtain control of a small start up studio and nearly impossible to obtain control of a large company like say EA Games.

If you want you're money to work for you and not have to worry about anything I recommend avoiding the video game market entirely and focusing in investing in blue chip companies that are likely to be around tomorrow and that payout dividends. Talk to a local FA at your local bank. You will want to invest in companies like Johnson & Johnson, AT&T, Apple, McDonalds, Starbucks, and Monsanto, these companies are so heavily ingrained into our society that you can't not buy their products. Stocks in these companies won't guarantee success but they will pretty much guarantee growth with your money and provide you with a high level of comfortable living as you grow old.

EA isn't going anywhere. What they may do is stop making console games aside from sports, Battlefield, and Star Wars. EA has done a great job compared to other big publishers of spreading their business onto PC and mobile with success. The Sims still does big numbers and EA makes a ridiculous amount of cash off of F2P mobile games. They are big and diversified enough by now that they can completely ignore enthusiast gamers, who they were primarily making games for 15 years ago.

The rest of the big Western publishers are in much weaker positions because they haven't had success in mobile gaming. As someone else said, Japanese publishers do business in other areas, which helps them stay afloat but also makes it easier for them to close down doing games entirely (Konami) or closing foreign divisions for their own mistakes (SquareEnix).

2K is pretty safe because GTA, Red Dead, and NBA all do massive numbers, and they don't do a whole lot aside from that. Mafia 3 bombed but they could easily absorb that.

Activision is heavily reliant on Destiny, CoD, and Blizzard. All of them have the potential to be shaky over the next couple of years.

Bethesda hasn't had a huge amount of success outside of Elder Scrolls and Fallout, and the other studios may get cut.

Ubisoft is probably the most likely to fail or get seriously restructured. They have way too many employees for their output, much of which is too similar to other Ubi titles. Also, it is likely that they will get taken on eur by Vivendi, which will throw them into chaos and screw with a company that doesn't really have the room to screw around after many of their recent games in the last year underperformed.

You my friend are right on the money.

But it doesn't change that in terms of personal investing there is absolutely no intelligent reason for anyone to be investing their hard earned money in these companies

reminder ubisoft is blatantly anti-white

Millennials are people who grew up after 2000 (or for a even stricter definition, were born after it). Going all the way the fuck back to 1982 is practically going into Gen-X territory, and completely ignores the existence of Gen-Y. A "generation" is something around 20 years, not goddamn 40 years. You can't POSSIBLY expect to lump together 35-year-olds with kids that are under 18 as if they are anything alike.

Blatantly false.
Generation Y is the Millennials.

Millennials are anyone born between 1984 to 2004. That's a 20 year range, most commonly referred to as a generational range. After starting in 2005 we have Gen Z or sometimes known as the the Red Gen (Due to them being overwhelmingly politically, economically, and socially to the left)

Holy shit that is the most pathetic pic I've ever seen. I can just imagine the fat neetsoc who wrote that in his impotent rage. Is this why Holla Forums says cuck so much? Because they perpetually feel they've been cucked by the world?

Sorry I meant right, not left. Gen Z is overwhelmingly conservative and it is expected they will heavily pad red voting districts in the US and weaken blue voting districts.

What a stupid dividing line. The only generational partitions that have mattered for the last two decades are people who had their formulative years before/after the internet became widespread and before/after smartphones became mandatory.

>>>Holla Forums

Come on man, even some who visits Holla Forums daily should be able to taste the fucking projection whoever made that is dishing out. "Oh woe is me, I'm a sad little cuck, I get triggered by .jpgs of children in videogames and constantly feel my manhood under attack"

u mad white boi? :'^)

That doesn't work because literally everyone refers to millennials as being the kids of today.

checked

We are nearing the end of the Millennials as the last of them will be entering adulthood in 2022, so in a sense they are still the kids of today. The bottom end of them are now in high school

Millennial has become the younger buzzword opposite of boomer, people just throw it around without a lot of consideration at the accuracy of who it is referring to.

I seriously believe half of the pictures like that were made as psyops.

Which brings me back to my original point: people in their 30s and people now in high school have NOTHING in common. Hell, people now in high school and people in their late 20's have virtually nothing in common.

I'd believe it. They feel intentionally cringy.

You're right. But, that would require our great elite ivory tower educational masters to re-evaluate what has been the long standing traditional generation range. And I'm sure you know how fond college researcher elites of that. These are sociologists, anthropologists, psychologist and other super important social science people after all.

It is true? It's the first time that I see someone referring to Gen Z as the "Red Gen"

The biggest obstacle to change is the normalfag market that will buy a game off marketing hype alone. They consist of the younger demographic and the normalfags who still by into sequels in hype. The folks whole preorder Battlefront 2 despite how weak the last game was. The kind of people who get excited for every new Far Cry and Assassins creed.

No matter how shit these games are, the large AAA publishers can produce a certain margin of sales with enough marketing. Things won't improve until the normalfag and casual market dries up.

It's completely bullshit. It's Holla Forums leaking out thinking that Trump is ushering in a Golden Age for the GOP instead of dragging them through the mud and guaranteeing a Democratic takeover in 2018.

Like pretty much every country, America is becoming more liberal over time, not less.

I don't think it's official but Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were promoting a bunch of different research papers from different university and a few different articles from the New York times that were using the research papers as a warning to society that "our young are becoming conservative again." In every instance the referred to them as the Red Gen because of the positive impact they will have on the electoral college in the US

You gotta read certain books to understand business acumen.

It's never been about being technically proficient at anything other than selling the concept of trust in yourself and your companies product. The rest is just getting other people to pay for it.

You say that sounds stupid, but I bet no one likes you because you are a crabby asshole like most people.

Putting that big fake smile even when everything is falling apart in your hands on takes effort and years of hard work. That is what a business man does.

Most of the companies are taken over by those people so the answer to your question is "As long as they feel like it and the company inevitably caves in on itself"

you're completely ignoring the fact that enough people disliked the liberal shift to elect the god-emperor, though

Wasn't even a simple majority.

In fairness, that's because Obama went on camera and directly said illegals should go vote and that they wouldn't be deported for doing so. Out of actual Americans it was probably an actual majority.

Trump has already revealed himself as a kike puppet who only has greater israel's interests in mind. Fuck off back to reddit

America vote based on a majority because the majority of people live in 3 major counties in America. We live in a constitutional representative republic that votes on counties, hence why the research claimed that Gen Z will have an effect on voting counties not voting totals.

your Holla Forums is showing, go be a leet anarcho-genderfluid snowflake somewhere else

Considering how much suspicious shit (i.e. election fraud) happened in 2016, the real numbers were probably a majority for Trump. Don't forget the hundreds of thousands of dead people who voted for Clinton, or how the states without strict voter ID laws had bizarrely huge turnouts for Clinton.

While Trump was clearly the more qualified of the two candidates, he recently went to Israel and prayed at a historical site. If anybody else did this, you'd call them a race traitor, but Trump gets a free pass. Do you seriously think it's all part of his 1488-dimensional chess game?

Your conservatards have legit Stockholm Syndrome over this guy.

I also love how you guys always think that, if there was any election fraud, it was definitely only helping the other side. Meanwhile everyone who has ever been close to Trump is spilling the beans over him trying to hush up and cover up all the investigations of his ties to Russia.

...

Way to spill your spaghetti retard.

i actually don't hate the kikes, but even if i did who cares? the POTUS has to at least pay lip service to the juden. every president since ww2 has at least pretended to give a shit, it's basically expected of them

are you even trying?

It's a bit more likely than a bunch of dead people voting for Clinton, and is basically writing-on-the-wall at this point.

There have been nationwide investigations of voter fraud before, under the same old goddamn umbrella of "dead people voting for Clintons", and they turned up less than twenty cases of legit voter fraud nationwide in a country of 180 million registered voters.

Gen Z being right-wing is a false positive. They're sick of the SocJus bullshit that they've been force-fed since birth, so they're publicly opposing it, but they still have the same short-sighted self-entitled attitudes that the previous generations have - maybe even more so. They're only rallying around right-wing politics because the left is fucking them over; if they were part of the group that gets "free" money and special privileges, instead of being part of the group that foots the bill and gets treated like dirt, they'd be all for it.

The thing that's causing every developed nation to become more liberal is democracy. The people in charge will never think further ahead than the next election, and their time in office is nothing more than a race to funnel as much of the nation's wealth into their pockets as they can before they get replaced, so as long as they can get the voting public to like them right now, the future doesn't matter. Running a country was once the slow, careful process of building prosperity for tomorrow, but it's been transformed into a god-damned supermarket sweep.

The politicians may only plan as far as the next election, but the voters don't even think as far ahead as that. They just go for whoever virtue-signals the hardest and promises to shield them from their own fucking idiocy. The only major exceptions to this are when a voter has personally experienced significant negative consequences as a result of these short-sighted policies (e.g. Gen Z). Generally, the average voter is content to ignore the cost of this bullshit, because they like to imagine themselves benefiting and not paying, either as the leader, or at least as part of the leader's favoured group.

Democracy is the cancer that is killing civilisation. You can go for some hereditary dictator or autocrat, or you can go for some flavour of anarchy; either's fine. Democracy needs to go, though, or things will only continue to get worse.

Some further reading, if anyone's interested: ( riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf ). It's an interesting read, no matter what your political leanings are.

And why is that? Jews and Judaism are not a part of American history or culture; they didn't help build it and they haven't helped defend it. America owes nothing to Israel, and receives nothing from Israel, but somehow the US is expected to send billions of dollars in aid, and go to war with all of Israel's neighbours? Anti-Semitism aside, there's literally no way to describe that relationship except as parasitic.

Opinion disregarded

1. The U.S. is not a democracy, nor is just about any nation on earth. They are republics.
2. See pic related, but replace capitalism with republicanism/democracy.

didn't capitalism kill like 100 more gorillians than communism?

How do you figure that?

The "SJW" thing is just a red herring invented by the rich conservatives. The fact of the matter is, if you weren't born into wealth, you're NEVER going to be part of that "privileged" group.

...

I fail to see how any of those are directly caused by capitalism or could be easily solved by any other economic system.

Nigger are you subzero serious?

...

You have no idea how businesses work, user. You know nothing about businessmen either. All you are is a neckbeard in his basement justifying his playing of japanese games made for children.

The reason COD pumps shit out every year is not because they think people consume it as a daily thing, it's pumped out because people buy it. They could use it every day, but that's not why they buy it. And these businessmen keep doing the same thing because it works. It sells. This is how business works. Video games are meant to sell and this is the exact same in japan. Yes, user. Japan is exactly the same. They have massive amounts of shovelware. They have shit games. Their games are made to sell, and they don't put any extra effort into theirs games. This may come as shocking news to you because you've had your head so far up your ass for years, but it's the truth. All companies are the same because that is how business works and it's how the world works. Stop being blinded by your biases.

If you're ever going to think about making this argument, I want you to read over it and then read over my post. Think real hard about it.

I don't think niggers dying from their own poor planning counts as a failure. I'm not responsible for them.

This is bullshit, but the bit where it says:

"These people die not because we lack the ability to solve these problems, but because it is not profitable to do so."

is objectively completely true. Forget other countries; there are thousands in the USA every day who are homeless and hungry and die of preventable diseases, too. But now the GOP invokes the EVIL COMMUNIST BOOGEYMAN and everyone thinks it's okay to just do away with all social programs. If their parents can't get a better-than-minimum-wage job, the kids can just starve to death. It's FINE, really!

You literally just said the same thing I said, but in mad

It's literally natural selection at work. Only the kids with the potential to strengthen their race and nation deserve to live. Poor people are poor because they're retarded or lazy and only the jew has use for retarded and lazy people. Better they die off than be used to subvert the entire nation

...

Sick strawman. Did your liberal arts professor teach you that?

m8

Your thread has been derailed, move to another

How the fuck does capitalism has to do with the existence of malaria?

A "red herring" of what then?

Of the fact that they can keep their boots firmly on our heads so long as they create infighting among the poor and disenfranchised. They want all of us calling for the heads of some dumb Muslims minding their own business on the corner, instead of they who hand weapons to ISIS in to line their own bankbooks.

Then go for a monarchy, or something like that. The point of my post was that democracy makes people short-sighted and greedy. When people get the vote, most of them will just vote to give themselves more of other people's money. Even ignoring the question of whether that's right or wrong, getting rewarded for doing nothing but getting punished for doing something is not the way to increase happiness and prosperity. Eventually, everyone will take the hint, and when everyone's on NEETbux, there'll be no more bux to give. Society wastes away because nobody thinks further ahead than what to have for dinner tonight.

It's pretty plain from the context of my post that I'm using "democracy" in the well-accepted broader sense of "people directing the government via elections and voting" (which includes republics, as they are a representative democracy), not in the very specific sense of a direct democracy.
Not an argument. :^) Communism and socialism are pretty accurately depicted there, but that's simply because they double down on every single thing that democracies do. Whatever form of governance they have, it's considered to be owned by the public. Since the government has power over every citizen, and is guided by every citizen, it degenerates into some stagnant mess where everybody tries to get a free ride through life at their neighbour's expense. Feudalism doesn't belong in that cage, though; it's pretty much harmless. Honestly, it should be the one on the left saying "I'm relatively tame".

Last I checked, it wasn't millionaires that collect unemployment benefits, and CEOs are nowhere near the top of the progressive stack. Sure, the rich and powerful will manipulate the system to get kickbacks, bailouts, and special favours, but even though they're benefiting the most, they're absolutely the minority. The only reason they can get away with that shit is because the democratic state has the power to give them these handouts in the first place. The only reason it has that power is because the people being exploited by these "rich conservatives" want the government to use that power to benefit them as well. "Free college" for minorities and bailouts for big banks are paid for with the same money.

If it was a true democracy the problems you talked about would cease. If we did not elect officials but instead just voted on every issue, there would be no one funneling money into their own pocketbooks and there would be no problem with people only caring about re election.

Your excuse doesn't account for conservatives like Ben Carson or Liberals like Jesse Jackson.

And why do liberals all act like that capitalism preaches that everyone will be a part of the "privileged" class. Capitalism just states that if you work hard, have common sense, and do what's right you will be able to support yourself and your family. No one is guaranteed to be a millionaire but the way liberals tell every bright eyed young child "If you get a college degree you'll a rich success." They don't stress what kind of college degree nor do they point out that even college doesn't guarantee wealth. Wealth comes from unique ingenuity. Security and self support, which is what capitalism is, comes from hard work and common sense.

Doubly disregarded

This is just bullshit propaganda that's right alongside "everyone who ends up poor or homeless deserved it".

Ah yes, because wealth is never just handed down from father to son over hundreds of successive generations, or anything like that.

Historically monarchies have been the most advanced, prosperous, and all around successful nations

The UK is a monarchy in name only, user.

Many of the richest people in america made their fortunes themselves idiot. Bill gates, Steve jobs, John Rockefeller, etc. Also what would you suggest? You deprive someone of their hard earned cash and disallow them from using it to guarantee their children a better life? I smell a commie

Now you're using the argument you just disparaged as liberal nonsense. Good job!

Social programs are exactly like any other tax. Your taxes fund fire departments that put out fires on other people's houses, that build schools that educate other people's children, that fix roads that other people drive on. Why is shit like food stamps or healthcare insurance any different? If you fall and break your neck and can't afford to pay the ambulance bill, should they just leave you there to die?

No one ever said that, but if you're always making bad decisions, like say having unprotected sex at age 15 when you know you might get pregnant and can't afford to raise that child and, instead of giving both you and that child a chance at a good future by putting that child up for adoption to a good family that can't have children you start demanding that everyone else pay for you to live your life doesn't exactly help your situation. Capitalism requires a modicum of common sense

That too exists. But you discount every hard working person who made a success without it being passed down by old money. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford are big name examples, but there are tons of examples of little guys who aren't all over television but have worked just as hard to be able to provide a stable and easier future for their family. Take your local pizza restaurant that everyone goes to and has been around for 30 some years. Those pass from family to family too. Would you deprive those families of their hard earned money to support the irresponsible?

This is a blatant strawman. Not everyone on welfare got knocked up as a teenager and just refuses to work a McJob because of pride, or whatever nonsense. Just because some people abuse the system doesn't mean you should throw out the system. Almost all of middle-class America is living paycheck-to-paycheck. God forbid you get in a car accident or gay laid off from your job and suddenly find yourself in need of food stamps to put food on the table for a few months.

The fuck are you talking about? And there are more, I was just naming the richest ones, and the ones who made their fortunes through their own ingenuity. And healthcare and foodstamps are very different. You cannot prevent injury, it is more or less random, but if you do not have enough cash to buy food, you are fucking up major, food is the cheapest it's ever been.

The difference is that the social programs encourage irresponsibility by guaranteeing people can make irresponsible decisions because they know the tax payers will pay for their mistakes, not them. The majority of welfare recipients fall under this category. Fire fighters and police save lives and protect communities, roads make sure people can get to work. Welfare allows children to never have to grow up. That doesn't mean everyone on welfare doesn't actually need it; the problem is the people that are responsible that use it will get off of it within 3 months. That majority of recipients have been on it for 2 years or more. There needs to be limits.

And again, your millionaire analogy needs to stop because not everyone is going to be a millionaire, capitalism will give you the freedom to make decisions that you feel will benefit your life. If you can make a living out it then great, but that doesn't mean you'll be rich, it means you'll be earning a living. Any leftist system will never guarantee that. Say communism the only people that get rich are the government workers. Everyone else must work in what the government feels will benefit the government or society.

A true democracy would be even worse than a representative democracy. Sure, without elected officials we would be able to skip the whole bullshit of elections. I'd be glad to be rid of them, since it's just a popularity contest where everyone makes promises but no-one delivers, but having everyone vote on every issue raises an even bigger issue: it would be election time all the time. There'd be no people making the promises, but it'd play out the same way, with everyone voting to get more for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Representatives have to at least pretend to care about all of the voters, or else they won't win the election. Direct democracy doesn't even have that, so rural areas will have to say goodbye to their roads and hospitals, and pay more tax, while the most population-dense areas will vote as a bloc, to allow the 50.01% to enjoy their consistently-funded public services, working infrastructure, and generous welfare payments.

Why would a monarch be short-sighted and greedy? There's no hurry. They're there for life, and they want something to pass on to their kids, too. If they plunder their country today, there'll be nothing left for them tomorrow (except maybe an angry mob storming the palace). If they act with the slightest bit of restraint, there'll be more tomorrow than there was today. Not only does the monarch benefit, but so does their heir, and the citizenry as well. Short-sighted monarchs go bankrupt, and either double down on their stupidity and get killed by pissed off serfs, merchants, and nobles, or they get invaded because they can't afford to defend the nation. A privately-owned nation is an investment like any other; it's in your self-interest to make it grow, because both you and it will still be there tomorrow. A publicly-owned nation (democracies, and the various flavours of commie) is a pizza at a house party; grab a slice or two quick, or it'll all be gone.

Yes

That depends entirely what state you're in. If you live in Mississippi, welfare can pay for a house and food and a heroin habit; in California it won't even make rent, so you'd have to have a part-time job on top of it, anyway. But oh no, it's all the liberal's fault!

If said CEO's and sharefolders are Jewish, then never. They control the banks, they control currency. They can literally print money at will. It's all about subversive propaganda to maintain their power.

lmfao, kill yourself

We have the technology.
This is what states, counties, and cities are for. They separate the vote. You could distribute the tax money on a per person basis and let them vote with it accordingly. Problem solved.

The completely ignore that fact that welfare shouldn't be used for any of that. It's a short term life line that you use to get back on your feet. Not live off of. No matter your excuse you have no right to have the tax payers pay for your life.

Besides, if you cared so much for those in need you would advocate against taxes for welfare and instead support charity. With charity 96% of every dollar gets to the intended recipient where as with welfare only 34% of every dollar gets to those in need. How is that fair when the government gets most of the money that is meant to help those in need

I'd like to see where that number comes from, considering how many major charities have overheads of 70% or higher.

charity.lovetoknow.com/What_Percentage_of_Donations_Go_to_Charity

This is just a little
And where did you get that 70% figure. Charities operate 80% on volunteer work and support. Finally, you are once again only focusing on Major, Big name, and other large scale bullshit. The majority of American charities are community driven and run that operate within a 15 square mile radius.

I meant in the sense that election time is absolutely intolerable, since everyone suddenly becomes a political expert, and ends up barely capable of talking about anything else. Everybody gets whipped up into a frenzy, and normal life gets put on the backburner while people imagine all the ways that they could spend their neighbour's money.
And in a direct democracy, the voters are the ones who get to decide how these boundaries are drawn. The greedier areas will band together to redefine these electoral areas, allowing them to absorb anything (and anyone) nearby that produces anything value and keep it trapped as a perpetual minority inside their own voting area. Rinse and repeat as many times as necessary. Anyone who contributes gets pounced on and bled dry, while anyone who wants to join the parasitic hordes will have no shortage of allies willing to vote with them. Scumbags who promise you the moon dominate electoral politics, since they're not handicapped by trivial things like "fairness", or "long-term sustainability", and reasonable people are. Direct democracy will just speed up the process of turning every voter into one of these scumbags.
What stops people from keeping the tax money for themselves, but using public services anyway?

I don't know about that site's numbers.

redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m16540911_FY12_ARC_990_Filed_with_IRS.pdf

$3.5 billion taken in revenue, $1.7 billion paid in salaries and benefits. That's a lot more than 9% overhead.

If it becomes the normal status I think that it would calm down. Making people need to be hyper political in only a few months could be what causes such vitriol.
I'd like to know how many people live in rural areas to cities, because while cities are denser, there is far more rural area. So this problem could potentially sort itself out. Also I did not literally mean distribute the money to individuals, but give each county funding based on population, which would then be used based on the voting results.

Unfortunately you are right about the Red Cross. It technically shouldn't be considered a charity because it receives a 45% tax credit every year which puts them over the federal limit from being a nonprofit charity to a federal subsidiary.

On the whole the numbers are a lot better than I was expecting, though. I think I got the 80% number from UNICEF back in like the 70s and it just got stuck in my head. It's kind of nice to be wrong.

Definitely. If more people knew this information then it would be possible to advocate for the government to leave the social welfare business and allow charities to do what they were intended for

I'd certainly hope so, but I'm not so sure. If anything can be voted on at any time, then people will always need to be hyper political. If the public eye of sauron happens to gaze upon something that you need, or care about, then you'd better be ready to quit your job and start campaigning and rallying voters to save it, or else it'll be stripped of funding to prop up your county's local NEET enclave for another couple of months. Everyone will always need to have an eye on the political radar, and society getting split along ideological lines will just be the norm, instead of a special election time treat.
Practically every developed country has cities dense enough to completely dominate politics on every level. Only 46.143% of the world's population live in rural areas, and even that number includes undeveloped shitholes where everyone's a subsistence farmer. I'll give a few developed examples: Australia has an 11% rural population, Canada has 18%, Germany has 25%, New Zealand has 14%, Russia has 26%, the UK has 17% and the US has 18%. Belgium has ONLY 2% living in rural areas! The only way rural voters won't be exploited in a direct democracy is if the voting areas are permanently fixed, but then they won't adapt to changing population trends, and may be hideously inappropriate in only a decade or two.
Rural areas get fucked again, then. Take a look at this map. Most areas are under 20 people per square kilometre, but the big cities are in the high thousands (or even tens of thousands, in the inner city areas). Even if every rural county across the US pooled their funding together, they still wouldn't be able to afford even a single hospital. Hell, they probably wouldn't even manage to cobble a school together.

Is this the r/socialism containment thread?

Can I be your neighbor? I really would like to live a kike-free life seeing as you have never dealt with one.