Why is Ayy Que a "banned word" around here? It is quite literally the strongest...

Why is Ayy Que a "banned word" around here? It is quite literally the strongest, most credible discovery social sciences ever made. The fact that individual people have differing cognition also seems like one of the most obvious thing with the most explanatory power when it comes to any attempts to explain human interactions.

Attached: 99.jpg (930x700, 173.67K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Alien what?

lmao funny wordfilters
haha keyboard=leopard haha guise

Where did you come from?
Please go back

They mean autism level

AK? Like a Kalashnikov?

That image is triggering me tbh


It also seem a taboo subject around here to try to explain cases of wealth inequality with the use of I Q inequality and personal responsibility inequality.
Listen, I am not saying that exploitation absolutely never occurs in the capitalist mode of production. All I am saying is, in a society where you have an internet connection that allows you to learn ANY skill in this world, and also take loans, easy access to seed capital, allow you to play stock market, freedom of movement, ability to start whatever business you want, EASILY be self employed…. wealth differences between a smart and industrious individual who took shit ton of risk and a dumb guy who spent his time jumping from one out of the infinite safety nets to another, smoking weed he bought with welfare money all day, wealth differences are not only just, but also desirable.

Because it's besides the point in the relationship between class, even if it wasn't without its own recorded problems.

A person has a low Autism Level has a wage to wage job, what are you going to do, fucking let them starve so someone can be rich?

That isn't what we are about and it never will be about what we're about. It's bullshit and in the end works to destroy the working class and not. Take your intelligentsia bullshit somewhere else,

nobody fucking cares you're mensa fucking nerd

If you think wealth inequality today is just because of your own intelligence you're own intelligence is fucking archaic

What if I told you that you can budget all you want but unless your able to dramatically increase your income stream then your going to stay poor?

People enjoying what little money they have is actually a rational choice

It's funny because a study just got released saying that today getting rich is a matter of luck, rather than any "meritocracy" going on.

Smart people can stay poor and rich people can be retarded. In fact it's usually the case rich people are absolute fucking retards.

Don't believe me?

Here you go, straight from fucking MIT. We both know that your meritocratic talk is all that, bullshit and talk.


Actually scientifically speaking wealth and success has very little to do with Autism Level and this has been proven.



Wealth level has a causal effect on I Q you fuccboi. Intelligence is largely affected by environment, which is affected by poverty. The decades-long research on the crack baby phenomenon found that having been a crack baby had negligible effect on intelligence, success, and other metrics, but that wealth level was almost a wholly determining factor. Biology has a role but it gets completely overblown by the right, who have an interest in masking the social causes of the status quo.

Currently ever stockholder of Walmart and Amazon are rewarded immensely for not paying their workers enough to survive.
Should a person who works 40-50 hours a week be able to support a family of 2 or 3 or 4?
Currently these people are on food stamps. Can you name a single program that exists to give money to people that don't work? It literally doesn't exist in the United States.
Will you accept that Amazon and Walmart makes billions of dollars extra because they rely upon our society to not be so base as to let people WHO WORK starve?
Also I can assure you that you are not smart. Nobody who is smart believes any of the shit you are talking about, even the most ardent Capitalists thinks that is all shit.

There you have it, straight from MIT on March 1st, talent and intelligence does not correlate with money. Who would have fucking guessed

Attached: talent-v-luck-diagram.png (391x220, 107.83K)

No, I am saying that starting your own business and being self employed has never been easier in case you dont like working for a wage.

Hell, you can borrow money and just invest your whole life if you are that smart. You can become filthy rich by just analyzing markets, relocating seed capital from one successful business to another, and reaping % when it blooms, and dumping it to other less competent traders when it starts withering.

Are you implying that merit based success is impossible? Is that your implication? And is anecdote and opinion based ONE social 'science' (that can not even be reliable reproduced, hence its not even science in the scientific method sense) study supposed to convince me that merit doesnt exist???

Actually smart people are even better at believing stupid things because they use their brain to rationalize the stupidity. Believing stupid things in the first place is almost always a matter of material self-interest and/or emotional investment.


Tell us more, living New York Times Opinion Column

I'm going to listen to MIT. This wasn't even social science, this was a statistical computer experiment.

They worked in a simulation, and it turns out, what everyone already knew is correct. It doesn't matter.

I'm not op, just pointing out a common misconception. People believe what is beneficial to them to believe. Do you think right wing think tanks are full of dumb people?


Differences in Autism Level do nothing to justify inequalities of income, status or power. Con men are probably smarter than their victims, but that doesn’t justify fraud.

To the extent that some people are poor because they’ve lost in the genetic lottery, their poverty is due to circumstances beyond their control. And equally, the success of the rich is also beyond their control. Luck egalitarianism then mandates that these inequalities be eliminated.

To luck egalitarians, the more true it is that inequalities are due to genetics rather than to people’s own efforts, the stronger is the case for redistribution. In this sense, a belief in the importance of genetics actually strengthens some leftists’ positions.

And why is every store clerk entitled to a yacht, when he is an unskilled, uneducated, irrelevant and easy to replace worker that probably has an art degree?

Man if you want to pay store clerks a yacht each, why dont you start a business that employs store clerks and pay them a yacht each?
Pro tip: u wont start a business that pays a yacht to the store clerk.

As a consumer, I dont care what store clerk feels entitled to when I shop there, I only care what my money can buy over there, if he wants to price me a chocolate bar 200$ because he has 10 kids at home, I'll just go to a store that sells the chocolate bar for 1$ instead lol.

Is the Pacific Ocean wet?

Attached: 3e0a753aa50a11bd83664a331e48ec48fb060da19eb0d17fbbbc665da5c31256.jpg (538x538, 43.37K)

Actually, let's stop talking about 20th century Ayn Rand talking points and stick with the MIT computer simulation published March the 1st

What makes a Yacht owner more intelligent or important, when he is an unskilled, uneducated, irrelevant and easy to replace worker that probably has an art degree in a better managed society?

Boomer wine mom mentality

Attached: DTnuqByUMAAFHBv.jpg (1199x1200, 128.76K)

Woah! You don't care? This must mean that all this economic activity doesn't take place and isn't subject to scientific analysis!

If you guys feel like you should pay a store clerk 200$ for a chocolate bar cos he has 20 kids at home, why shouldnt I just go to a store with a store clerk that didnt make 20 kids and is selling me a chocolate bar for 1$?

Why is your feeling that the poor should be richer more relevant to me than simple supply and demand? Why should I pay for a service I can pay the minimal amount, more than that minimal amount?

If you want more wealth, get a marketable skill that is in lower supply and higher demand. This is something you can do in western capitalist societies. Easily. Take a loan. Study hard. Become a doctor/engineer/pilot/I dont even know. Pay off debt. Profit hard. Snort coke and hookers every weekend.

are you 12 my dude?

Attached: 1279695545870.jpg (720x400, 57.29K)

Basic higschool tier math of supply and demand is all you need to know to analyse a wage your store clerk should have. Its a low effort, low skill, shitty deadend job that ANY retard can do.. there really is no reason to pay for his services what his feelings of his pay are, or ANY amount above the supply and demand.

You think it's dumb people doing Machiavellian ideologicalal manipulation. Think thanks aren't about generating bad ideas. They're about generating bad ideas that people will believe and arguments effective at spreading bad ideas. "My enemies are dumb" is liberal baggage you should rid yourselves of. Go read The Art of War.

The reason gold is more valuable than a common rock you can find on the street, is that gold is hard to just randomly find, meanwhile I can get you a piece of rock all day any day.

Same with a store clerk and brain surgeon. Its not like im permanently fucked for life if a store clerk refuses his services to me, I can instantly find a trillion more local stores that will service me at a lower price.
Meanwhile if there are 3 competent brain surgeons in this whole world for the procedure that I need, and 2 of them are too busy doing more lucrative procedures, I seriously can not refuse whatever price the surgeon asks for his service.

Not an argument, lol. Why should a store clerk, who cant feed his 20 kid family, be entitled to ANY of mine hard earned cash????? Makes no sense to me.

Let him perish from the elements and exposure for all I care, eventually there wont be any such people around anymore, this 'problem' will fix itself without bothering me who had to suffer learning a high demand, low supply skill for such a long time..

How much of it did you earn from your own labor and not off the backs of others, famalam?

Econ 101 models of supply and demand don’t take into account information assymetries, incomplete markets, cognitive biases and other such factors. You are also ignoring the fact that markets do not exist in a vacuum and that they are shaped by institutional arrangements which often benefit the rich at the expense of the poor due to the fact that the former is more capable of influencing government policies through lobbying and donations to politicians than the latter.

careful not to fall for this one

Attached: blog-pic-58[1].jpg (500x333, 24.38K)

You tell me, I am self employed and I employ no one else but myself. I'd say I earned all of my wealth trough my own labor. Generally, I find working with other people very worrying unless I know these people extremely well and can rely on them.
I also had to work construction, save it all up, not once go to a nightclub or a bar in my whole life, worked hard labor 10 hours a day for 2 years, then signed into university and graduate debt free with high enough grades to do what I do now.

Most people would be a liability to work with in my business. Now I am much more interested in getting rid of working with as many people as possible, and rely on my own personal skills, property and machines for the goods and services I consume.

You seem to lack enough empathy for this to be the case.
But it's all fucking irrelevant because your conception of socialism isn't correct.

Attached: powerlevel10.jpg (1920x1080, 260.81K)

Nothing better to do on St Paddy's day? Personally I had a great family dinner and now I'm getting into some evening shit posting. How was your day OP?

Is this board being astroturfed? Its been indistinguishable from Holla Forums lately.
Where the fuck is all this reactionary garbage coming from?

You were maybe not here, but threads on that matter were once frequent, inexhaustibly and fruitlessly created, garnering hundreds of replies each.

Never heard of this st paddy thing, guess it not a holiday over here.

I have empathy for 1 woman and 1 dog, for what purpose should I have empathy for anyone else?

Your board's own name is reactionary garbage, besides arent we all interested in the truth in the first place? Is 2 and 2 not 4 if the guy saying it isnt your favorite guy that says things?

All I'm saying, this whole 'woe is me, merit is impossible, nothing is ever my fault and I wanna reap before I sow' attitude this board seems to be less rewarding than participating in market capitalism with a supply and demand in mind.
I mean its ultimately your nerd lives, I am sure reading your marxism theory is gonna net you a 6 digits starting any day now.

To be properly human?
Lol. Fucking typical.

What do you define socialism and communism to be, lad?

Your's' ownst intelligwhomst, surely.

Low effort and skill required is something even more true of the "job" of a landlord, now think for a minute what income a landlord deserves by that metric and what he actually gets.

So what you say that it takes more labor-time to find gold, and moreover, it isn't the individual labor-time that counts, as identical quantities of gold will go for the same price at the same time, but price works through a social averaging process.
But that's a completely different argument, demand-driven instead of production-cost driven. It also happens to be a rubbish argument. Even though I would fucking die without water, I can get it very cheap. Production-side determination is what dominates in price formation.

If that wasn't clear enough, what I meant here is identical quantities of the same items being sold at the same time getting sold at the same price, irrespective of the different amounts of actual work entering their individual production.

I think socialism is when the worker and the owner are the same person, and I think that communism is when you dont even need any money to do things anymore because productive forces eclipsed consumption by a lot.

But what I am trying to point out is, no one here seems to be registering a corporation or a business, where every worker holds stock, and no one but the worker is allowed to hold stock, and the whole board of directors is also just the workers working there.
This is what you people should do in my opinion. And then, you will see that not all humans are equal, and that some of you have better ideas or are more efficient than some others. And then you will see why everyone having an equal say in things makes you less competitive. And then you will see you can not compete with hierarchical businesses that delegate resources and responsibilities hierarchically.

Attached: 1372735416745.jpg (802x694, 117.68K)



Yeah, because working for porky has ever made anyone rich.
The big obvious problem with capitalism is if you don't have capital, you're fucked. Neoliberals live their perseverance porn though, so tell me about how (poor/young/minority person) did (thing here (without mentioning their small loan of 1,000,000 dollars) and beat all the odds.


Attached: pol bait.png (625x613, 46.82K)

Skimming through the article it only looks marginally more complex than the stat mech assignments I got as an undergrad. Anyone with access to a sufficiently powerful computer could replicate their results. Unsurprising since statistical mechanics are Marxist-Leninist.

Your definitions are actually surprisingly close.
The first one being a rewording of the definition. The second one being part of the broader definition of a stateless, moneyless, classless society, which will naturally arise out of the first society once the means of production held in common develop sufficiently.
That you're at least so close to being correct makes me wonder what the fuck is up with your examples?

As for your actual point, cooperatives are more efficient than cappy business models. How fucking ever, the bourgeois system is stacked against them by refusing to give them loans and the like as easily.
Disregarding that, Mr Entrepreneur, if you're so smart and great, surely you could get your ideas put forward and heard in a collective, no?

They ran the same simulation 80n times and came up with the same conclusion those same 80 times. I'd say 80 trial runs is reliable and reproducible actually.

Do you think a joint paper from MIT and Cornell would be full of holes

are you some kind of retard

Ayy Que

Hey, at least I stated my understanding of socialism and communism in better than 'its when govt does thing', at least give me that credit, and I also realize that modern day leftists/liberals have absolutely nothing to do with what you people are talking about here.

All I am saying is, humans are not equal. That is my main point. Solar radiation damages dna, causing random mutations. Geography. Nutrition. Upbringing. Society. Climate. Culture. Trillion other factors, reversible and nonreversible. Too much shit going on for anyone to understand fully.

But basically all I am saying is, there is a general 'proper' way of doing things, a basic superior and inferior way of going trough life, and since there's so much sooooo so much things backing capitalism out there, current status quo crew, such as Pentagon for example, it just might be more rewarding to analyze the market capitalism with a basic supply/demand analysis, get yourself a trade/skill with a high supply/demand index, and just live life. Beats waiting for automation communism any day now, and suffering till it gets here.

Everybody knows this.
Nobody does this.

Empirical evidence suggests otherwise, there are plenty of studies which show that worker cooperatives are more productive than hierarchical capitalist firms. See: nber.org/chapters/c8085.pdf?new_; esop.com/pdf/esopHistoryAndResearch/researchEvidence.pdf and community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/article-logue-yates.pdf

But if worker cooperatives are so efficient, why are they not very common? I think it is mostly due to path dependency, insufficient competitive pressure, managerialist culture, adaptive preferences and status quo bias.

So basically you're just here to blither a mix of vapid puffery at us while acting high and mighty? Fuck off, pseud.

Not him, but are you retarded with that argument? These schools are notorious for their dishonesty and shilling various points of view, usually on behalf of monied interests. I don't the study in question, but you made a bad argument in support of it.

I am saying that the supreme soviet barely took over tsarist russia after it was devastated by napoleon and germans and that basically the army just let them because they were sick and tired of fighting and just didnt feel like doing anything anymore.

You will absolutely never have communist material conditions in the west. Hell, you dont even have industrial workers anymore in the west. I also unironically believe that the CIA could basically wipe out half of general population if they notice the faintest stink of revolution.
When everything is taken into account, for a western man, your best bet is to just keep your head down, become a doctor/engineer, and enjoy 6 digits starting. There is literally nothing else that can be done.
Yall gonna end up suicided or dead from natural causes in case any of you make any legitimate progress, and as the saying go, if you cant beat them, join them.

It really isnt all that bad, you just need to make it up to a doctor/engineer. Communism is one of those things you need spaceships for.

Shilling the idea that the rich are rich mostly due to luck on behalf of the rich?

I have such a high Autism Level, I am very smart, I am much cleverer than you.

*sits in a room with other wankers in an intellectual masturbation marathon held by the society for very smart people rather than solving any remotely practical problem*

i could explain why you're wrong with an actual economic approach, but i'd have more fun trying to get it through my dog's skull than yours.

Attached: inheritance.png (630x838 148.46 KB, 620.54K)

Your wife and her lover?