How do you respond to the argument that extracting surplus value is justified because a capitalist takes risk?

...

If it's market socialism, there would be.
If you're talking about the traditional idea of a planned economy, there's still risk: the risk that the plan produces a surplus or a shortage, rather than the optimum goods in the optimum amounts.
This is actually the same risk that exists in markets, too. The difference is that, in markets, society "tells" producers that: 1) there's unmet demand, by buying out the inventory, or 2) that the producer should be producing something else, by buying little to none of the inventory.
Marx talks about this early on in Capital, Volume I, about how a producer in a market economy can only know if his work was socially useful when it goes for sale.

What if they get no business and thus the workers don't "pay it back"?

...

Read
The one taking the risk in that case is whoever supplied the startup loan (assuming it hasn't been paid back yet).

The answer is basically this but longer, the market is currently oriented in such a way that bosses/capitalists, business owners etc take very little risk. Be it financial, socially, from litigation etc.

Corporate person-hood is an entity that exists to escape consequences done in the name of your profits. There are lesser forms of the same entity that basically grant the same protections to most "small business owners." Most initial investments come from business loans or inherited capital. The large debts from a failed bushiness can be mostly sidestepped through bankruptcy. That is assuming the rich will actually have to face the consequences of their actions more often than not they're rewarded for bad economic decisions and given a golden parachute the minute a whiff of scandal is detected.

A lot of business is done through government subsidies that are initiated by governments themselves. Example: The housing bubble was caused by George Bush who had people lobby him to pump money into making a ton of middle class houses most people couldn't afford. This then devalued everyone else's homes in a city because you now had large unused tracts of empty houses that attracted crime and effected the value of your own home out of the sheer availability of other homes on the market. George Bush sold this as "the Homeowner's" society it ended with Wall Street who had spent most of the money soaking up loans from the banks to build houses nobody wanted now destroying the houses instead of selling them at a lower price. They would also buy the now devalued loans/housing of other peoples houses in an area and boot them out for the slightest provocation. Leading to the roboform and balloon payment scandals. "Business" and "entrepreneurs" failed every step of the way in this crises but instead of being punished through some invisible hand of the market they were continuously rewarded for bad economic actions at the expense of the rest of society. You can and people have done basically the same layout/analysis for the financial crash of which i don't think there can be a better example of businesses escaping the consequences of their actions.

The entire idea of the TPP, was basically a blanket pass for even less social and ecological awareness on the part of large companies and financiers globally. Despite what they tell you they haven't given up this dream either.

The idea libertarians have that "capitalists must face the consequences socially if their work places are shit/they're bad bosses." Assumes that employees have enough options and resources on their side to matter or that they're important enough still for them shopping around for a job to matter. Prison labor, migrant workers and sweat shop labor undercuts that notion. A lack of options and basic worker protections does also.

This also wouldn't "naturally arise" it takes a large military and global government mailing system to ensure that sweatshop workers are available and that the subsidization through transport makes them a more viable option than domestic workers. That foreign companies don't nationalize or vie for protectionism. That our neighbor Mexico doesn't stop treating it's own farmers and factories workers like shit and demand the same dignity for Mexicans that American workers once had.

Inversely it takes a lot of risk to be an employee at the wrong job. Which is implied above but I thought I'd state explicitly. They can cut your pay, erase promised benefits, put lawsuits against the business on your shoulder, decrease the basic standard of living within the working environment and face very little consequences for any of this if at all. The economy is deigned for capitalists from the bottom up, that is why we call it capitalism.

"Justified" is a spook. Capitalism is a historically contingent mode of production that will cease to exist when it's outlived its usefulness.

I take it this is the root of the envisaged state monopoly on credit?

Do you have numbers on this?

The roots of the housing bubble go back to the '90s, when subprime loans really got started, especially under FNMA, thanks to relaxed home equity rules.
Basically, it had been customary for homebuyers to pay up at least 5%, and more often 10%, of the home's price upfront, and use a mortgage to finance the rest. In the '90s, that percentage was allowed to fall as low as 2%, and sometimes it was even 0%–completely financed through debt.
It was a fucking shitshow; I'm amazed the bubble lasted as long as it did.
Short version: Homes are not (and should not be) liquid assets, no matter how badly financial markets want them to be.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Pic related.

Capitalists use tokens from their warrior/ruling caste buddies as collateral on hedges they make with other merchants/capitalists on slave driving operations/scams on the local slave populations to extract extra resources compared to traditional exchange two slaves/goyim/chattel would have with each other.

Their risk isn't a risk as they are protected by the state from actual competition and people demanding the correct prices for their products (which would mean no profits, meaning no products from porky. meaning slaves would go back to barter/communal ownership to spread resources which would require seizing land and resources from porky and the state, which they are always trying to do but forgetting to do because of porky and the state keeping them busy all day)

Well technically you can go back to the Savings & Loan Crisis and basic Reaganomics doctrine to see the real roots, The Clinton years made things undoubtedly far worse but the idea of building worthless houses as a government promise and a lobbyist dream was accelerated past the breaking point by W. Bush. He directly put in an initiative that gave banks a free money pass on building houses and a five-hundred dollar loan to home owners to make it seem like they were getting something initially. Through balloon payments they ended up paying way more than that five-hundred dollars. He even continued to do this after the Bubble had long passed and Banks & Financiers were already considering burning the houses to "retain their value."

Marxism is a scientific theory. It may be "justified" for the sun to burn forever but it will die nevertheless.

I'll write it out because the text at the bottom is even more blurry than I thought:

wut

ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT!!!!!!

5th plank of the Communist Manifesto. I'm financially illiterate, but state monopoly of credit always seemed to me like an absurdly powerful tool in shaping the economy, both because it "socializes losses" and because it allows the state to nip at the root any businesses it doesn't like.

wut

Oh. Well, I'm a market socialist, not a communist per se. In my view, if you're going to give the state such broad economic functions that it's got a monopoly on credit, you might as well go one step further and just have a centrally planned economy, without the need for money (and thus credit).
Having a sole source of credit just introduces a colossal single point of failure. Credit mostly works (most of the time) because it's provided by multiple sources, none of whom can ideally exert undue influence.
So yeah, in my opinion, either have a market economy of worker cooperatives, or have central planning. Don't strive for anything "in between," because it will be worse than either.
I feel kind of bad now, because I've actually read The Communist Manifesto and own a copy of it, but I must have forgotten about that part.

No one asked him to do so, he did it as a service

Same with loans, Proudhon utterly destroyed this argument when arguing with Bastiat

That's an interesting proposition. Is it a "gut feeling" or do you have literature to recommend?

Well, as undemocratic as it was, the Soviet model was, in my view, an example of this kind of "in-between" model: you had planning, yet you also had prices and wage labor. Unfortunately, I don't have anything specifically on why a hybrid model under socialism would be shit, but I have some PDFs on markets and planning, in a socialist context. Enjoy.

And a couple more.

I'm the one who gets laid off when the company i work for hasn't been making anything for two and a half months because the dipshit owner listened to the dipshit manager when he said that we'd have the upgrades done in like three weeks and we didn't even have all the parts we needed by then

you're not forced to remember everything famrade. this isn't a class and we're not having a test.

then why do i keep dreaming about browsing leftypol naked?

All replies are bretty gud but if you want something about risk:
in the end the proles are taking the bigger risk. try being unemployed above 35 yo in europe. Capitalists risk is smalltime.

Some say dreams are basically recaps of your day.

Well, surplus value isn't a morality thing. Capitalists can work hard, they can even innovate.
We are against the system, and if a person is a good organizer and leader in Capitalism, they can be an organizer and leader in Socialism.
Most high power business types are fucking miserable anyway

Pretty cool, thanks.

No problem, comr8.

The corporate welfare system socializes risks (bailouts, bankruptcy, corporate veil, subsidies) and privatizes gains. Without some of those safety nets, civilization would implode, but why don't people get them too?