I vote for Hillary because she is a lesser evil

i drink bleach cause its lesser poison

...

That doesn't even make sense.

Man Zeta Gundam was shit.

People say the same thing about Trump.
Shitty thread tbh.

Oh fuggg…

lol

Unappreciated post.

At least Hillary won't invade countries and start wars over tweets that make her fragile ego utterly butthurt.

...

The less you tax a business the more income they keep to expand. Businesses want to get bigger and wealthier, they need to expand to do that, they need to hire more people to expand.

Pretty reasonable tbh fam

Except the trend of the last 40 years for businesses in the West and particularly in the US is to use tax cuts to pay out larger dividends and invest in junk bonds rather than equipment, employees and R&D.

that money invested in junk bonds doesnt evaporate or go towards gold plating toilets or something, it does stay in the economy. The idea that a corporation would throw 100% of its profits away on junk bonds doesnt make any sense. I dont understand your beef here dude.

...

Yes, you can turn that into an absurd sentence if you are allowed to remove words from it. Good boy.

Hardly like he removed any important words, unless you genuinely think the fucking insane qualifier "over tweets that cause butthurt" is worthy of this fine establishment.

You do realize that the meaning of the sentence changes a lot if you remove that? You do understand English at least a little, right?

You're right, Shillary won't invade countries because she's butthurt over mean tweets, she'll invade then for shits and giggles, because that's so much better.

Thats the whole point of Trump's campaign. By running he gets people to vote for Zionist agent Hillary as the "lesser evil." He is likely controlled opposition. There are clearly some powerful forces at work that really want Hillary elected. This election has already been decided.

hur no me no spek ingly so gud

It's a fucking retarded comment to start with in the first place. All he's done is take away your autism from the equation.

But it is better. Obviously it isn't good, but at least there will be some kind of calculation made beforehand.

k

...

The beef is that you're retarded.

The entire point of any sort of capitalist business venture is profit. There are a number of mechanisms to do this but ultimately the result is the same: capital drains away from the general economy and is concentrated in the hands of the owners of the means of production.

Profits continually concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands which takes capital out of the economy. It's irrefutable. Whatever wages or other expenses are paid out from the capital generated by production, they must necessarily be less than the capital flowing upward in the form of profit or else the enterprise closes or collapses or otherwise fails.

As this capital leaves the hands of the consumer class their diminished ability to consume stalls the economy as less production is needed to fill the falling demand. Eventually you have economic collapse as all the wealth is concentrated in the upper strata whose relatively tiny population cannot sustain the consumer economy which created it. No new expansion or entrepreneurial generation is possible because there remains too little capital to capture; e.g. it doesn't matter what you make or how cheaply you make it if the people have no money with which to buy it. This is what we saw during the Great Depression in the early 20th century and what necessitated the Keynesian economics which ameliorated (but did not solve) the problem.

So the point of a tax is to forestall this inevitability by capturing a portion of this profit for redistribution into the consumer population enabling them to consume. However, this is a failing measure as well since the rate of tax is less than the rate of profit, all it does is slow the rate of capital accumulation but does not stop it.

So to say that taxing a company less directly enables it to expand is ridiculous for a number of reasons, particularly being that whatever monies they use to expand wouldn't come from their profits, which are themselves the surplus derived from income minus expenses (including tax) which are then distributed to the owners of the company via whatever mechanisms they use, but at least because it ignores entirely that businesses don't use their own money for that sort of thing anyway, instead getting the capital from investment banks which tend to get that money from you and me anyway.

yes

no

money isnt taken away from the economy unless money is used to fill a swimming pool or hoarded in a big vault in the form of paper bills or something. A vast majority of the money that the upper crust has is deposited in banks, which is used to loan out to people like you and I, or it is invested in the stock market or other businesses. Just because a few people control where the money goes doesnt mean we are necessarily poorer.

Except they store their money offshore to dodge taxes and often life straight off of company expenses in their daily lives just because they can.

There comes a threshold where it is no longer necessary for them to contribute back to society to get more wealth. It becomes far quicker and easier to fuck us instead. It might not be more profitable, but they are also usually old and impatient.

Companies that could have actual impact never use tax cuts to contribute back to the economy. They could hire more people if they wanted. They don't.

This is the retarded "glorious job creators" mentality indoctrinated into us during the Reagan era. Worshiping rich people will not make them merciful.

yeah, thats a yuge problem. No argument from me. Hang em.

I dont think they (or I) have any obligation to contribute back to society. Sorry my dude ;^)

I know. That is why we are socialists and communists. Class struggle is not a conflict or morals but of interests between the vast majority and the minuscule minority.

We don't want some collectivist utopia, we want what most other people want, a chance to make something of ourselves. Capitalism simply does not do this anymore.

cant wait to be put up against the wall with a gun to the back of my my head because im part of a minuscule minority. Cool system of governance, homie.

Are you a business owner?

Not yet

We covered this. It's because you're retarded.

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to it as well.

If you aren't exploiting surplus labor from others, you have nothing to fear.

Nod an agrument :^)

What if I want my surplus labor exploited? What's wrong with a voluntary exchange?

Hello Holla Forums.

...

...

😂👌

Most societies operate under a religious set of ethics that prevents murder and theft. Even if you're not religious, you can follow secular ethics such as the non aggression principle. You don't need the state to solve all your problems my dude

why has the middle class been shrinking despite the fact that we've been giving our merciful job-creating overlords the tax cuts they so desperately need? could it be that wealth concentrates instead of trickling down??????

>>>/reddit/

What, is God going to conjure a magic barrier for that guy I was about to stab? False morality only serves to ease the process of oppression for those willing to take what they want.

morals have no basis if you're not religious my duder
but regardless, following the NAP would necessitate a stateless and property-less society, aka communism

I have a feeling that those graphs might be running fast and loose with definitions, especially the definition of middle class or "middle income." Also, I wonder if those figures are before or after tax, I'm guessing after tax if they're starting "net worth." There is no doubt that very rich people are getting richer but I don't think those graphs reflect a lowering of wealth for the middle class.

No, you're right. Just from my experience, as an atheist, it seems to me that religious people (Christians) are able to self regulate a lot better than atheists. They have a framework in place that deters crime pretty well, first at following the ten commandments, then guilt or fear of hell, then shunning from the Christian community that you belong to. Idk, that's just how I see it.

How do you enforce a propertyless society? I'd everyone just going to get along and spontaneously decide to follow your abstract utopia? If I decide to buy and sell my private property in the black market will I be punished? By who?

USA is fucked.

Trump's main policies are regressive, he's going to cut taxes by raising tariffs.

He's going to create jobs by increasing fraking and coal mining.

Nothing he promises is at all sustainable beyond one wall that will take years to build.

His protectionist policies won't help the economy, and it's been shown that no president has ever made a real dent in welfare, with Reagan's modest dent being entirely reversed by the end of the Bush administration- and with welfare offices being very much racially prejudiced, it will likely be the "white" people that get hit hardest.

Underrated

Daily reminder that you cannot call yourself political incorrect if you vote Hillary.

this is why "booms" and "busts" happen periodically. Explained by Marx and, if you want an easier explanation, Richard Wolff in his most recent global capitalism update

I disagree .

This concept makes no sense, by that logic if someone is polling higher than the other major candidate, then you are wasting your vote by voting for the less popular candidate.

Oh boy I sure can't wait to be a wage slave and pull myself up by my bootstraps making $2.50 an hour mining coal and dying of black lung which I can't afford to get treatment for because affordable healthcare is for faggots.

pleb

You could argue poor people are disproportionately people of color, women, and trans people.

you do know she butcher'd libiya,

and recognized the 2009 honduran coup.

because it help yankee buisness interests
she sucks

i.sli.mg/QzL2NR.jpg

...