World GNI per capita is decreasing

We are not, the wars fought to this day are testament to this.
At most, we are still pretending we aren't, and if that's the case, we need to overcome this in another way than 20th-century style LARPing (i.e. muh reenacting of 1917, 101 hundreds years later)

The people have nothing to pay though, even with credit, and Porky is borrowing to invest in growing profits that don't exist. There's nothing to suck.

We're post-scarcity for some things but not others. Some things are scarce only artificially, like food and shelter. The idea of Post-Scarcity (i.e. nothing is scarce) is silly because new technology will always get invented, and it takes time to get production up to scale.

Newsflash: capitalism is about maximizing returns to capital and not increasing wages, capitalism can grow perfectly fine while the conditions of the masses stagnate or even decline in economic terms.

This isn't the Industrial Revolution anymore, this isn't the 19th century. The world can not afford it to happen, this is a recipe for a crash.

There are people still with non-zero amounts of dollars in their accounts and not eyeballs deep in debt. Keep sucking.

To whomst does porky sell the products though? In order to profit they need surplus from the wage system, so they have to sell the products to someone. Is the world economy going to turn into an ouroboros of businesses making products to sell to other businesses that increase efficiency at making products to sell to other businesses that increase efficency at making products to sell to other businesses that increase efficiency…?

Where does the capital come from without consumption? He's making bets on the stock market about growing consumption, that people can't afford since their incomes are decreasing from year to year.
Does porky pay himself?

What happens comrade when he runs out of places to suck?

We enter an actual, genuine, system destroying moment of crisis. Not a pussy one like The Great Depression.

youtube.com/watch?v=H79Wf6Gqd2U

Will it be fun?

...

So this is it, we're finally about to hit the big one. What should Holla Forums anons do?

IRL activism?
It would be hijacked by liberals anyways.

Unless you go Bolshevik and just fucking kill them.

Total global debt is at 217 trillion, global GNI is at 76.776 trillion.

Capitalism lives and breathes through crises this is perhaps the one true spot-on thing Trotsky said and also while Western people are used to centuries of gradual and even rapid improvement in their welfare it is also the case that the poorest segments of the world has seen no and even declining economic fortunes. Only part of the Third World has experienced truly substantially improved conditions and even then only recently.

This essentially already what happens, Kliman makes a pretty persuasive argument that capitalists sell to other capitalists mainly. In any case, the theoretical basis for such a scenario is sound. It doesn't matter much if surplus is allocated to allowing workers to buy the new iPhone X or towards investments in new office buildings, business always goes where the money is.

Rising standards of living are only an incidental feature of capitalism and even then the working classes have to fight for it. The general wage-level hasn't risen in decades in the US but capital has rewarded segments of the labor force that went and invested in highly-sought after skills. Scholars of inequality call this "skills premium" and it was a major force in the highly unequal world of 19th century capitalism, the porters and other unskilled nobodies in Victorian Britain starved, while skilled workers ate meat three times a day. In this sense, it is not impossible for capital to create better standards of living for the top 50% while letting the bottom 50% stagnate or decline absolutely. Only recently has a "tight"-labor market and new state/city minimum wage laws allowed the wages of the unskilled/uneducated part of the population to rise at all in the US.

I stand by my point though, whether we have the type of economy you described doubled with a plutonomy of wealthy consumers driving the consumption side of the economy by spending money on gold-leaf pizza, personal servants, luxury cars, and hookers versus one focused on "middle class" consumers does not matter. Most consumption in the US is already done by the wealthy already but people have this idea inherited from Keynesianism that the economy needs workers constantly getting raises to go out and buy fidget spinners to function.

Btw if the deflation was allowed to happen although the economic chaos might be rough in the short-term you could see rising standards of living without across the board wage-increases. Make sure to thank your local soc dem for looking after the interests of retailers and consumer goods producers for that!

before or after the revolution?

before, during and after

So, porky borrows money from the government, buys a business, pays for advertising about how well its doing, porky number 2 buys it for a higher price, and essentially the cycle goes on forever, while the world stagnates?

So essentially the financial market managed to abstract itself from the real economy? Was Deus Ex our designated future?

This timeline is getting fucking weird.

Even the Berkeley cosplayers know what’s up

Next step is serfdom. Feudalism here we come.

This has been true for some time and has been one of the arguments I use when debating people. How did you not notice this before?

What specific aspects of finance make it detached from reality?

Actually forgot one component: porky borrows money forever thus devaluing currency until it becomes impossible to live for the average prole.

I mean that does happen but what I'm describing is more like capitalist #A subcontracts capitalist #B to build a new skyscraper and capitalist #B buys bulldozers and tools from capitalist #C who produces construction equipment who is in-turn serviced by capitalist #D who make the tools to make such equipment and so on.

It's true that variable capital can never hit 0 and have capitalism function–so in that sense the individual consumer is necessary but mostly because workers are also consumers and without workers capital doesn't get valorized.

Consumer goods consumption can be increased via debt as some have pointed, or through deflation, or by increasing the number of consumers and hours worker rather than wage-hours or through plutonomy. But consumption is only really valuable to the extent that it serves capital, if allowing more workers the ability to afford new iPhones or more luxury homes/cars implies the rise of wages to 25 an hour and that in turn causes profits to decline elsewhere in the economy then the choice is frequently made to do without such consumption.

Also, much of the money that porky borrows from the government is provided by other porky's that had money beforehand lending it to the government through bonds.

In this example, capitalist A is financing the building somehow (probably borrowed) and must make a return on the skyscraper. Most likely through selling or renting the building to proles and/or to other capitalists. The final cost is paid b proles buying property in the building or proles buying commodities from the capitalists inside the building.

I see how the chain can be extended though, but I'm not convinced this shit can go on forever.

all millitant groups such as Antifa, and Redneck revolt have been flooded by liberals who think Trump is Hitler 2.0, what do we do about this?

Fuck off grandpa.

How will all of the porkies investing in Bitcoin have an effect on this?

In the amazing land of the leaf, the bourgeois are buying houses for their market value but not even renting them out now so they don't have to pay utilities or maintenance costs.

Watch them scatter in horror the second a drop of blood gets spilled. Liberals have no insurrectionist potential. Well, half of them. The other half will become counter-revolutionaries.

Well, now you have at least a partially complete picture of why capitalism cannot go on forever.

This board is cucked hard by middle-brow Keynesians. What's the difference between cutting wages 3% and keeping wages the same while pursuing a policy of 3% annual inflation. It doesn't take a genius to see that in just ten years that wages will be reduced by 30%.

If a reactionary government or business did the former then social dems and their yellow union backers would find that an ample occasion to raise hell in the streets. But if a "progressive" government did the former then that's quite all-right, we have to improve our trade balance anyway :^)

Capitalists used to provoke angry street battles by cutting wages and now all a "progressive" capitalist has to do is sit back and wait and the same effect will be achieved for them by the state.

The Keynesians used to peddle the myth that inflation was a path to economic growth and full-employment but now they don't even dare to repeat that shame-faced lie after the 70s proved them completely wrong. Sad!

*did the latter

So make a new group?

the really scary shit is that NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THIS
you know how they do fucking newsflashes if GDP growth was 0.1% above/below expectations this quarter or how they will publish at length about the "productivity crisis" or whatever other metric
and yet here is this historical event (never before has global GNI fallen this sharply, two years in a row) and I haven't heard any econ pundit talking about its significance (or lack of significance, they feel the need to do that all the time too.)
Why?

Because economists are propagandists.