Holla Forums BTFO!

They are generous gods.

...

yeah ol jeff bezos just gets some of that money
all those box kickers dying of heatstroke in his non climate controlled warehouses are just faking it to get time off
they're self-entitled radical leftist soycial justice cucks and not also working hard enough

don8 to me patreon for more epic striver poor rationalizations God bless

this board is so slow now

I took the risk to kidnap and enslave you, therefore i rightfully own you cause risk = always right.

Becauuuuuse nobody can do literally everything

retard

If risk doesn't matter then start up your own company and put all your life savings into it, faggot. See how much you appreciate risk after you go bankrupt and get kicked out of your house.

i thought you people hated "entitlements"

...

...

...

Maybe youre thinking of North Korea or something, but I'm pretty sure no employer in the west had the right to force you to work for them.

brainlet

Selfishness and the promise to get rich is the motivation for making teacups in the first place. Honestly if society is going to do everything that society can just make the bloody teacups on its own and not involve me at all. The only dishonest part in this is the “vision” of teacups in every home… because it is a vision of money in my every pocket that motivates me. If society wants to rule everything then i will just be a pirate thank you.

Nobody is entitled… the business owner retains his position through use of force or the withholding of resources. That is theough use of his power. I am fully against the government helping him to retain this power… as i am fully against the government helping the worked to take it away. Let the strongest win.

so you're against the state and its rule of law protecting his property, but you also want the state and its rule of law to keep his property from being taken away

do you see the problem here?

people don't start businesses with their life savings you fucking idiot, they get a loan from the bank. the money was never theirs to begin with

This and even if it that were the case, I wouldn't exactly argue that organizing economic activity like a glorified lottery is a good idea.

...

Jesus did nothing wrong, the merchants in the temple deserved it.

Blame the idiots that got butthurt and split the board

b-b-b-b-but I don't like how things are now, that means bo ruined the board and it's ruined forever!

...

But they consented! They don't need to work if they don't want to.

They were banned.

A good chunk of the username of "that other board" straight up isn't allowed to post here.

Not an argument.

They should get a VPN or phonepost not that I really care for the /leftpol/ userbase I just miss the faster pace of the board

"market needs" arent relevant to production and distribution of teacups without profit motives

Other labourers built that teacup machine

retard alert

or you can stop being a little bitch and switch

unless of course you only post here because you too are a brainlet who only survives here due to board owners need for tanks, regardless of how retarded each individual tank is

Read better next time… i want the state to do nothing… if he cannot defend himself against the hordes thats his problem.. if the hordes need to break themselves in his factory for bread thats their problem. Neither one is my problem

if the state does nothing then the owners currency is valueless and his life is fucking forfeit, dipshit

Are u fucking serious? U have obviously never started a business. 99 percent of people who start business in poor countries do it with their own savings. Just because its next to impossible to start businesses in the west due to government protecting the large companies and socialists requiring millions in permits and regulations …doesn't mean that millions of poor people worldwide are not small business owners. In China it take less than 10 usd to get a business license. In Malaysia it is about 200 for locals. Who is the bourgeois fuck who has never been out in the world ? obviously…is you

[citation needed]

You realize this isn't in any way a significant portion of the cost of starting and running a business right?

Tough shit.

I don't remember Adam ever having a job.

Is it any wonder that leftypol has no idea how loans work?

You know you have to pay it all back, right?

Working to eat is the natural state of man. And until we have the magic food machine that they have in Star Trek, that will always be the case.

...

...

>denoted in USD instead of some form of PPP measure.
AH YES

excuse me but you seem to have left the shareholder out of this image.
half of the food hunted must be given to the shareholder because a few months ago a different shareholder bought the share from another shareholder who bought it from another shareholder, and that shareholder provided the currency to buy the spear, so actually this is completely fair and a reasonable return on investment (which the present shareholder didn't make, having contributed nothing to the enterprise, but whatever.)

the shareholder does not work to eat, he eats from the work of others.

brainlet

stop embarrassing yourself classcuck. you're not smart enough to post here

What sort of batshit comparison are you making here?

And you evidently don't know what a shareholder is or does.

Ok then

...

Where is the risk involved in sitting on your ass collecting dividends from a stock portfolio that never doesn't go up in value in because every year the companies you own majority shareholdings in are cutting payroll to the point the workers are starving to death?

Go ahead and tell me what a shareholder contributes. Let's go through this step by step.

...

Gives the company money in exchange for a fraction of ownership.

This isn't hard.

And then he sells the share to a prolific masturbator on the internet. What has that fellow contributed that entitles him to dividends from the company?

why would anyone bother investing their time and money to come up with an idea for a great invention, fund and organize a factory with equipment to produce it, interview and employ laborers to work the machines….to then be given a one time payment and told to fuck off.

the result of what you're saying is the decline of industry and the stifling of creativity and inspiration

So the entire socialist argument falls apart of the employer does in fact handle the design and organization of the company?

….he bought that portion of the company. Same as the first guy.

Why is "risk" valued anyway? What makes the "risk" of starting your item business greater than the "risk" of just taking all your money and blowing it on the slots?

Outside of specific situations the "risky" option is usually the one to be avoided. Would people really want their doctors to try the risky treatment when more reliable options are available?

And why does this veneration of risk only apply to entrepreneurs? You can't throw a stone without hitting some faggot disparaging someone for getting the "wrong" degree. Don't these brave souls deserve respect for risking their future for a piece of paper to make them more attractive to the fucking job market?

bankrupt in 6 months

We do. Almost nobody needs to work in agriculture, the collective hours we have to put into making food is miniscule.

I dunno user, why did the likes of Louis Pasteur and Thomas Salk invent two of the most life saving inventions in human history and then just give it away?

he contributed nothing to the company whatsoever. now he is receiving dividends from it and may well find himself entitled to vote on company affairs. it isn't an extreme assumption to assume that his interest may be in demanding a more short-termist strategy from the company over one that promotes her long term wellbeing, because within a few weeks he's going to sell his share to a sex pest in the city of london, who will in turn flip it to a dog-botherer in tokyo, to a penguin in new zealand, to a bent Tory MP, to me, to you (a furry). None of us having any interest in the underlying firm. Our only concern is making it appealing to a bigger idiot who'll come along and take the share off our hands at an inflated price, either for granny to sit on dividends or to throw it back on the merry-go-round of sexual criminals and coke addicts. If you think that's the best way to run an enterprise even under capitalism then you're off your fucking rocker.

...

He did by proxy of paying the person who initially bought the share from the company. Trading an investment for a one-time payout isn't that crazy of a concept.

How is that any different than a customer buying a company's product

It's a laughable concept the moment you add multiple degrees to it.
In the first degree, I invest because I expect the business will deliver a return to me.
In the second degree, I invest because I expect to sell the share to someone who will expect me to demonstrate it will yield a return. So far, so good.
In the third degree, things leave the rails as now I don't need to care about the underlying business at all - so long as I believe that someone else will believe they can convince someone else to take the share. From there the Keynesian beauty contest becomes a grand old farce. There is no reason to presuppose that capital is being allocated efficiently the moment you go down that route.

There is then a secondary question of leveraging capital to avoid work. Even in the first instance, with the "good" shareholder who makes an investment in a real business, assuming he holds his share in the long term he could quite well extract more value from dividends than his initial investment was worth, even factoring in time-preference. The reward he extracts is disproportionate to his input, in short he lives on past glories. He who does not work does not eat, unless he is a shareholder…

Sorry, but why does the motivation of the shareholder matter? The company sold a portion of their ownership, and that share will be worth either more or less depending on how well the company does. Why does the integrity of that share change just because the share gets bought by someone else?

The original comic depicts a petty bourgeoisie fantasy. In reality, most employers don't handle design or organization, just as they don't handle manufacturing or cleaning or customer service. They have people for that. Only the petty bourgeoisie are forced to work alongside their employees, but any successful firm will eventually see ALL of the work delegated to others. That's what makes them bourgeoisie. None of the work, all of the profits.

Yeah ok kid. Shouldn't you be in school right now?

You know you've lost when your only recourse is to completely mischaracterize your opponents statement.

stop taking such dated bait

Because it's generally not a good idea to hook your productive economy to a brothelic casino..
and those shareholders will often have voting rights, or the ability to alter the composition of the company board.
now tell me, if your intention is to sell the share to a bigger idiot do you vote for the person who will boost long term productivity with little change in the present share price, or the one who will yield a short term hop in the share price before letting the company fall behind her competitors?
Because the key question is whether the person is invested in the company, or the share.

In the ultimate example, consider asset stripping. Companies outright liquidated, or otherwise having their position significantly worsened to maximise the return to the shareholder without giving a damn for the employees, the product or service the company provides, or the long term implications of shanking a given industry.

There has of course been no response to the ability of shareholders to eat without working by infinitely discounting labour into the future, but whatever.

...

Investing isn't gambling since outcomes aren't based on luck.

Yeah and strangely publicly-traded companies are still overall really successful despite your unfounded supposition that psychos own theirs shares.

::facepalm:: a share *is* an investment in a company.

cringe
the fact i posses an investment in a company does not, on the whole, mean I am invested in that company. I may not give a damn for the company, I may even indeed be a complete psycho trying to fuck the company up for fun. My investment in such circumstances would be in the pleasure of destroying something, and not in the company itself.

but hey enjoy living in LME hell instead of CME paradise, loser.

only in the same way that a square is a rhombus. go to bed, kid.
also

By your own logic, you lost since you mischaracterized my argument :)

Please tell me you arent this stupid

...

Yes you actually are, to the degree of what you bought that share for. Doesn't matter how much emotional investment you have in it.

ah yes, you're going to tell me what i'm invested in, very good.

Can we make a concise rebuttal to the commonly-posted porky memes like this comic, redpanels and "le no food under communism xD" already? Would be pretty useful in despooking people.

Why doesn't Eve shave her legs? Disgusting postmodernist feminazi.

...

No. When you loan out money, you take the risk that the investment fails and your money goes bye-bye. That's capitalism.

Hey, are you the rich failson of a farmer who said that the poor deserve to starve and then ran away when I pointed out that farmers receive billions in welfare?

here he is:

[echoing from he distance] b r a i n l e t
nature was not made in the image of human compassion and labor is not a virtue

...

Nature has been the enemy of man since there was man, you fucking dipshit.