Capitalism vs Marxism

>>1031948

define "rich"

But in terms of pure power, capitalism has proved to be far better as it's just a more efficient system in terms of both giving people the ability to buy things, as well as giving the government the ability to buy better equipment.

As for your image, which is clearly bait, the EU may have a larger GDP than the US but it's also a "country" that won't be around in ten years due to conflicts of interest between France, Germany, and the PIGS.

>>1031948
no nigga lol

>>1031950
It's not bait at all Europe has almost double the population over America.

Just want to find out if the living standard and GDP would be a lot worse under a marxism society.

>>1031956
Lest we forget about how great Italy Spain Portugal Ireland and Greece are doing. Germany can only feed so many mouths. And England is getting the fuck out soon, say goodbye to those accounting and law services.

>thinking there would be money at all in marxism
production in marxism would just consider peoples basic needs, not profit, let alone the accumulation of a medium that is the abstract expression of violently enforced swapping capability, ie money

>>1031956
Nigga what? GDP means nothing in personal day-to-day life!
It's like having a car repair shop, and makeing a BIG fucking hole on the road just in front of your shop. It's uping your business and killing it for everyone else. Other example would be health care. The higher it is the GDP the unhealthier the peaople are.

Capitalism is the most efficient economic system. I advocate for entirely free markets on the basis of a kind of social Darwinism.

Essentially, the poor are just people that can't adapt to the modern economy. We should allow them to die out instead of exacerbating the problem with welfare. Don't feed the animals, in other words.

>>1031986
Kay, what about the planet?

>>1031997

What about it? It's a big rock. It's not going anywhere. Climate change, pollution, all that - those are human problems which therefore have market solutions. The Earth is going to be fine.

>>1031986
>2016
>still not understanding how economy works
you need poor people to generate the profit due to being paid a wage way lower than what is the value they produced and you need neets to stand in line to be exploited next. without them thered be no plebfights for jobs, thus higher wages and lower profit accordingly

>>1032000
Yeye, i get you are not interested anything outside your lifetime. I get it. But shit is hitting the fan right now man.

>>1032002

If a few of them starve to death and cause wages to go up, that's still an efficient outcome and it's no justification for welfare or charity because those would cause inefficiency in the form of weaker and lazier wagecucks surviving.

>>1032003

Not really. Please explain. Climate change? It's no big deal. Sea levels rise over several hundred years. Droughts and misery in no-name desert countries on the equator (because they have no forests to retain water, their own damn fault).

>>1032008
I believe that there are factors that affects all of us. Like UV radiation.
>Insert 10 year of UV radiaion change in USA

>>1032016

Tinted windows and sunscreen. Free market solutions right there.

Although I have doubts about that idea. That would only be a problem if the O-zone deteriorates more. Maybe it will, maybe not.

>>1032020
Yeah... well datolya taste shit imo. I don't want that as crop.

china is the second richest so yeah america could have been better

>>1031986
This would also solve the overcrowding in cities.

>>1032064
China has several times the US population and a culture based on producing over living.

>>1031986
what if the poor kill the rich?
does that adhere to your darwinist principles?

>>1031950

I bet you're german based on how you talked about the other countries. Always thinking you are superior to the other european countries.

Spain, Italy and Portugal are no threat to the EU anymore. Actually some of their economies are growing faster now than germany or france. This is not 2011, it's 2016. Greece on the otherside.... they're fucked

>>1031948
In the early 1930s, the exonomy of the US sucked. So did the economy of Germany, France and the UK. The Soviet Union was booming - American firms went there for work, western Europeans moved there for work. This lasted until a few years after Stalin died. A post-1917 leadership took over 40 years after 1917 and things stagnated.

With a hiccup or two, China's economy did well from 1949 until the 1970s. Policies changed in the 1970s, but economic growth remained robust to this present day.

File: aisaatana.jpg (5KB, 153x179px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 153x179px

>>1031948
After ww2 europe was completely destroyed and countries took the socialistic direction. At that point usa had the dollar and the reserves so the money flowed into the dollar from europe.

Gdp alone is very bad measure. It rises exponentially whenever you take more debt or hire more public sector workers. A better measure of wealth would be median net wealth per adult capita, in which usa does very poorly compared to european countries.

However, the socialism is now destroying europe and it is easy to say murrica will do much better coming years than europe and the wealth starts to transfer once again to the usa from eu.

>>1031978
are you retarded?

>>1033701
it's not really fair to judge capitalist economies on economic crisises like the Great Depression and gloss over China's economical development issues by calling it "a hiccup or two".