The End Game

Though I do agree with your statement that governments around the world would love to embrace socialisim, which of course has failed many times in the past and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, another statement you made does not add up. If the private sector created more jobs than the free market needed, then that would drive wages UP, not down as you said.

This is basic supply and demand, if you have more jobs and less workers, then wages would have to increase to be competitive and attract the workers needed to the businesses hiring.

>>1644278
>Socialism
>economic growth
When there's no added benefit beyond working the bare minimum, you get the bare minimum. Imagine a shit office job minus the chance at a raise or promotion. Who the fuck would do that and avoid suicide?

>/pol/ doesn't understand
Most people in that cesspool treat socialism/marxism as a literally murderous ideaology, because it is. It always leads to massive murders because it strips success from the ambitious and leads to stagnation and starvation, which lead to riots and revolutions.

>Unless you own any physical capital/real estate and have connections to the government to prevent them confiscating your property
I'll agree here. There's no chance any of us can have such government contracts, but real assets like small businesses, real estate, or local company partnerships are the best defense against Funny Money™ policies being pushed by the 7th Floor Group and the 300 Committee behind the House of Windsor.

>>1644308
>This is basic supply and demand, if you have more jobs and less workers, then wages would have to increase to be competitive and attract the workers needed to the businesses hiring.

Yes, this is correct, but that is not I said in OP:

>Their "creating jobs for everyone" mantra generally is one step to socialism because such governments will force or consolidate the private sector to create more jobs than the free market needs, driving wages and productivity down, and this over supply of workers will rapidly increase food and rent inflation.

Considering that we already have 10 people applying for 1 job on average at present, if the government interferes with the private sector through regulation or outright nationalization, only then wages will go down.

>>1644311
As Einstein once said, insanity is doing something over and over again expecting different results.

why is this thread on this board

feels like you made it on /pol/, but they probably memed on you until you got butthurt and left the board, so now you post it on this slow board where your garbage wont get torn apart within minutes because barely anybody who browses here cares enough to do so..

>>1644278
>Socialism
>employment
????????????

The countries with the least government economic involvement always have the lowest unemployment. Here in Hong Kong, everyone has a job, because there are no "workers rights" or "welfare", you have to work to eat. Socialism, you can just wait until you feel like it.

>>1644278
Socialism is long debunked. It will not be relevant again until robotics and automation renders most employees obsolete. Then they will either write basic income checks for the profligate masses to prop up a fake economy or they'll just cull all the useless eaters and keep the robot factories churning out golf clubs and alpine skis and self driving limousines to themselves.

>>1645506
"Socialism is a very broad description covering many different economic philosophies; some good, some bad.

Exactly the same can be said of capitalism.

>>1644278
You misunderstand what the free market is. It's still the free market even if the government intervenes to create more jobs, or indeed to inhibit the creation of jobs (which is sometimes deemed desirable to control inflation).

The more people are in work, the higher the total production is, even if aggregate productivity is lower.

Having more people in work increases the total amount of income that people will have to invest. And if the price of food goes up, the farmers will be able to produce more food profitably (and they will spend and invest more money). But it's the population, not the number of jobs, which is the main factor in the price of food.

>>1645659
capitalism is only good though

>>1645659
Not when it means keeping capital scarce so that more of the benefits flow to the financeers and less to those who do the actual work.

(sorry, the above was meant to be directed to >>1645781 )

>>1644278
Sad truth op.

>>1645675
I've just noticed the silly mistake in my earlier post:
>The more people are in work, the higher the total production is, even if aggregate productivity is lower.
I meant to write:
The more people are in work, the higher the total production is, even if AVERAGE productivity is lower.

>>1647223
if 16 hours went by with nobody commenting on your mistake you can be fairly certain nobody is reading what you write anyways.

>>1647237
That's one possibility. Another is that they read it but didn't think it was worth commenting on.

File: 1408654495899.jpg (23KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 231x218px

automation is going to be the end of all of us

File: TraitsOfMoney.png (194KB, 660x393px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 660x393px

>buy bitcoin
>bypass government control
>live on the underground economy as a mogul that invested years before it happens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPPjZ7TbmgE