Why does everyone rip into capitalism when capitalism is lit

>>1539600
>Why does everyone rip into capitalism when capitalism is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions we have as well as the modern lifestyles we live?

Losers will always rip into existing paradigms as a way of rationalizing their own failures and unhappiness.

>>1539600
Capitalism Is highly unequal, to the point of creating a caste system.

>>1539624
You're right, we should make everyone equal by force.

>>1539624

"Equality" in the way you mean is neither possible nor desirable. Capitalism at least allows peaceful social mobility based on merit.

>>1539633
Capitalism fosters class warfare. Social mobility is dying in all capitalist societies.

People by and large do not understand economics. Then someone comes along to these people and says: "Capitalism favors those who have more than you, communism is about sharing everything equally so you get your fair share!". Then these people think "well I hate that others have more than me, and I want my 'fair' share!", and the get mad at capitalism.


tl;dr: people dont understand economics.

>>1539600
It's a system that produces winners and losers. The losers don't like it.

>>1539641

> Social mobility is dying in all capitalist societies.

SOURCE PLEASE

seriously, you just pulled this out of your ass. Also, this in no way proves a causation between capitalism and this supposed dying of social mobility.

>>1539653
Just one article. Have you been living under a rock? http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/

just type decline of social mobility into google

File: 4444.jpg (17KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 184x184px

>>1539646
>capitalism is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions we have as well as the modern lifestyles we live?

Not particularly...

Most technologies we have today such as the Internet/computing systems and aeronautics and appliances such as microwaving and flash-freezing were developed due to highly centralized planning from the military and governmental establishments from both the USSR and the US during their Cold War, each aiming to outdo the other.

Later on (at least in the U.S.), private industry latched on to these new inventions and - at most - modified them, but it did not invent them, and would never have invented them if left alone.

"Capitalism" or "Communism" had really nothing to do with it.

>>1539682

That article:
>One study indicates that in this one country within a specific 20 year time span, social mobility has declined

You:
>Social mobility is DYING in ALL capitalist societies


And you still haven't in any way indicated any causal relationship between capitalism and this decline in social mobility.

>>1539689
Social mobility is declining in all capitalist societies just type a country into google to get results. This covers oecd https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/49499779.pdf

don't even know how you can deny this.

>>1539709

Understanding – and Misunderstanding – Social Mobility in Britain: The Entry of the Economists, the Confusion of Politicians and the Limits of Educational Policy
JOHN H. GOLDTHORPE

>. This research indicates that the only recent change of note is that the rising rates of upward, absolute mobility of the middle decades of the last century have levelled out.


You actually got me to put effort into disproving your nonsense. Congratulations.

Still waiting for that causal relationship btw.

>>1539689
The ridiculous amount of abuse that the capitalist system is the problem. Capitalism and Communism come in cycles, there is no way to stop that.

It's natural with the system to have 93% of the wealth on the planet be held by small groups of people/familes while the working class fights over/about the other 7

I believe that the cycle will be having a transition in the next 20-40 years

>>1539624
>Capitalism Is highly unequal, to the point of creating a caste system.
Is it though? Under capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to get higher if they put the work in.

>>1539646
But ultimately the winners invent Cars and Computers and the losers get them..

>>1539687
That isn't true. Computers may have started for the military but what propelled their development was clearly business and competition, such as Microsoft.

>>1539737
my grandfather lived to be 73, he worked every day of his life, fought two wars, and came from a family that drafted some of the first communication lines in the Manhattan area. by the time he was on his death bed he had a small amount of property in his name, and kids that would go down the same path

>>1539739
There's no placating losers. They're always going to be losers.

Capitalism is the worst economic system on earth, except for all of the rest of them.

>in 50 years plebs will have private planes and robot slaves and complain that rich folks have space ships and clone version of themselves as slaves

File: top1-share-income.png (42KB, 747x619px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 747x619px

>>1539729
>. This research indicates that the only recent change of note is that the rising rates of upward, absolute mobility of the middle decades of the last century have levelled out.

>Literally says upward mobility has stopped
>Can't even read

One country doesn't matter what matters is this is a global trend. All nations are heading in the same direction just at different speeds.

>>1539753
>Rich People will have access to the rest of the universe
>and have easy control of the human creation process and population
NO PROBLEM

>>1539624
And what is wrong with that.

Equality of Outcome is the most retarded backwards idea I can think of. People should be given Equality of opportunity and then find their own niche, that is a fair system.

Being a lower class =/= being subjugated/opressed

>>1539747
And?

>>1539687
Capitalism fuels competition, innovation. Communism does not. If the iron curtain was still up they would probably have some shit operating system comparable to windows xp at most. Their microwaves would probably be the same models they were making in the 80s, so on and so forth. When a government runs the economy they have no reason to innovate for the consumer, because they're the only choice.

>>1539747
He did well then. But he could have done better.

Every westerner, in fact most people on earth now, get to go to school, for free. If you do extremely well at school, you get to go to college for free through a scholarship. All you have to do is work hard at school, which is well within most peoples abilities.

Think about this for a moment. 99% of wealthy people today are wealthy because they have good jobs, they set up a successful business, they put the work and effort in.

Go back 250 years. 99% of wealthy people are wealthy because they were born into wealthy noble families, which comes from hereditary land holdings which are literally just money farms.

The difference is obvious when you consider that.

But the fact alone that any person can start up a business, and have it be successful, is proof that capitalism works. Wage slaves are only wage slaves because they choose do their shitty low wage job all their life. And don't tell me not everyone can set up a business, banks give loans like candy.

TL;DR rich people are rich because they tried so hard and got so far and it mattered

>>1539600
> is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions


when will this meme die?

File: Communist innovation.jpg (12KB, 450x346px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 450x346px

>>1539777
Nice trips

>>1539786
mfw a communist country went into space first

>>1539780
>Every westerner, in fact most people on earth now, get to go to school, for free.

hello , from what alternate world you came from?

>>1539777
Capitalism is not particularly innovative, as once large conglomerates form, these entities will realize they have what is termed a "captive audience". Thus the impetus to innovate also ceases to be, since one is raking in a profit with what is current, and competition can easily be driven out.

>>1539790
They had competition pushing from outside.

>>1539790

yfw a capitalist country went to Mars first

RED ROCKS

>>1539800
>>1539802
but you said that only capitalism fuels competition
a communist country can't be fueled can it

>>1539802
Yeah but Americunts wouldn't have tried anything if the russians didn't go to space first

>>1539799
They create competing sub companies within themselves.

>>1539805
What part of 'from outside' don't you understand

>>1539777
>If the iron curtain was still up they would probably have some shit operating system comparable to windows xp at most.


Actually we have a shit operating system like windows and is a monopoly because of capitalism.

If socialists would know economy, then they would not be socialists...

>>1539799
That may be true, for several markets. But under communism that is the case for EVERY market. Pretty big difference.

And honestly, how many huge conglomerates are there with no competitors? I would say very few.

>>1539819
If it was a monopoly it probably would have bought the mac OS and linux by now.

>>1539818
So capitalism is the source of communism's technological success yet it brought forth such success long before that systems popularity

>>1539837
>buy linux

what?

>>1539600
people push back against established norms.

> Capitalism is literally the reason we have all the technology and inventions we have
Surely, wheel and many other major inventions were invented before it was a thing and there is some technology that was created by commies.

>>1539813
Sub-companies to handle logistics, others to create advertisements, others to sell products in other areas - in the end, little to no actual technological innovation, either.

Had it not been for very centralized government-directed and -funded research programs during the Cold War, most modern technology would not exist, and the private industry would never have even created them, since no 'need' existed.

This paradigm of "technological innovation is only achievable under capitalism" is blatantly false. There are a number of technological "firsts" achieved under the Communist-led USSR - not particularly because of the merits of Communism per se, but largely due to central government encouragement and direction for these projects.

For one, you have the first artificial satellites, which is a pretty big first... There are other innovations that the West uses and adapted for itself, such as the Autojector and the Ilizarov Apparatus

>>1539841
Buy the rights to the operating system so they can't sell it and be in direct competition with them. That's what monopolies do.

>>1539859
you can't buy gnu-linux rights.

>>1539600
>Why does everyone rip into capitalism...

Because they're ignorant, jealous, children that buy into the "gibme dats" concept pushed by the commies.

>>1539839
?

>>1539865
Then buy the company. Ergo, the rights are yours to not sell the product so it won't be in competition with windows.

>>1539853
Under the current system you can create a new competitor and innovation whenever you want. Under communism you can not, because the means of production are not allowed to be claimed by an individual.

>>1539795
Earth? Almost all kids go to school now

>>1539851
And how long did that take, compared to the flurry of endless inventions in the 19th and 20th centuries in capitalist economy driven countries?

>>1539876
look, if it were a company behind gnu-linux microsoft would've bought it long ago, like Skype, hotmail, or Nokia. But GNU is something beautiful that is over the capitalism logic.

>>1539853
No sub companies that do the same thing and compete with eachother. An obvious example would be Pixar and Disney animation.

>>1539600
Right, I wonder how the Soviets got to space first.

>>1539853
>Had it not been for very centralized government-directed and -funded research programs during the Cold War, most modern technology would not exist, and the private industry would never have even created them, since no 'need' existed.
Nigga, what?? I think the word you're looking for is "demand" and hell yes there would be a demand for the internet, computers, microwaves, etc. Dude do you no how many new forms of technology has been made this year alone? Do you know how many innovations were made in EVERY FACET OF LIFE that nobody thought they "needed"? Fucking christ dude, what you said there is just retarded.

>>1539904
So, Microsoft isn't a monopoly then.

>>1539777
>Capitalism fuels competition, innovation
Capitalism favors efficiency & profit. Not necessarily innovation. If I can sell a cheaper version of your high end, overengineered, shit, I will win.

t. Henry Ford.

File: olygopol.jpg (795KB, 2400x1507px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 2400x1507px

>>1539929
MS faced lots of antitrust charges.

capitalism as we know it favours monopolies and oligopolies.

>>1539600
Every honest socialist accepts that capitalism is very good at innovation and technology. Its not the part people object to.

>>1539928
People were like Kleenex to the Soviets.

File: 1447649756252-3.jpg (54KB, 720x764px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 720x764px

>>1539614
>>1539646
t. works for a wage and thinks himself part of the winners

>>1539953
None of these are monopolies. Are they oligopolies though? Yeah definitely.

>>1539993
kek I've seen wage cucks that think they are part of the "bourgeoise"

>>1539996
is there anyother big player aginst kelloggs?

>>1540015
General Mills is literally right next to it.

>>1539777

What is one qualitative innovation produced under Capitalism?

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzz

Fair and equal competition may spur innovation, but in a lot of US industries, it isn't there.

Right now there are businesses that, rather than compete with other businesses, lobby the American government to make competition impossible.

>>1539758

Poorly worded, but it says the rising rates have leveled out, meaning there's still a positive trend but it's linear and not geometric.

>>1539799

This is why we see new models of phones every year, right?

>>1540201
The "positive trend" means inequality is increasing, and the image I provided clearly shows the increasing inequality in the UK.

File: archduke sponge.jpg (84KB, 680x583px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 680x583px

OP here I'm actually surprised most people agree with me. All i ever see around here is communists and others bashing capitalism.

>>1539799
>Capitalism is not particularly innovative
It is though, market dominance results in stagnation, sure, but it never lasts. Apple had the Iphone and other smart phones, and dominated, but now they have major competition, so they are forced to actually improve it.

The only capitalist venture which never changes is fucking Nintendo.

>>1540229

A 'positive trend in social mobility' does not mean 'rising inequality'. How do you figure? The two can coincide, but one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.
And the global trend has been a leveling of middle incomes--meaning a growing middle class in the developing world and a stagnating middle class in the developed one; that's the 'leveling of the rates' you see--with a greater and growing portion of income still going to the top earners.

File: bgf.gif (3MB, 550x309px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 550x309px

>>1539600
>not Italy with all its renaissance, because it didn't have a liberal government that encouraged competitive business
reinassance was a cultural movement that ended around 1600
Italy wasn't even a country until 1861

>>1540233
people need to understand that economics isn't about ideology
current capitalism has problems and they may be fixed, the alternative isn't only socialism

>>1540254
>a growing middle class in the developing world and a stagnating middle class in the developed one
The reason for the growing middle class in the developing world is due to their rapidly developing economies, yet at the same time inequality rises. China and India both have a larger middle class than a few decades ago but they also have much more inequality as their economies begin to develop.
The middle class in the developed world is stagnating because all of the economic growth is going into the top 1% or at most the top few.

>A 'positive trend in social mobility' does not mean 'rising inequality'
What 'positive trend in social mobility' social mobility and inequality are up in the uk. Just look at the image I provided.
>Since the 1970s the labour market has increasingly polarised - with a growing number of low-waged jobs and top-end professional roles but falling middle-level positions. Oxford University and London School of Economics found that the number of professional roles is declining resulting in more people experiencing downward mobility. This means that even those that were born in the middle are increasingly unlikely to better the situation of their parents’.
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/inequality-in-the-uk-whatever-happened-to-social-mobility
also
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11627719/Social-mobility-has-come-to-a-halt.html

File: china_inequality-gini-rural-urban.jpg (24KB, 325x259px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 325x259px

>>1540254
forgot pic for china developing economy

>>1540284
>>1540322

Growing inequality at the poles is consistent with social mobility. Your original classroom was that social mobility has FALLEN globally, which is false. The fact of growing inequality doesn't disprove this.

>>1539993
NEETs are the worst

>>1540376
>Growing inequality at the poles is consistent with social mobility.
Social mobility is DECLINING globally, especially in the developed world.

How is growing inequality consistent with social mobility??? the Super rich in Brazil were the moderately rich a few decades ago. It's the same people or their children. There is no social mobility. Did you even read the post or links http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11627719/Social-mobility-has-come-to-a-halt.html

>>1539600

>pic related

the only problem I see in that structure is all the fatties not contributing anything.

>>1540442

>How is growing inequality consistent with social mobility???

Take 100 people. 75 of those people are their incomes increase over a 20 year period, 20 see no increase and 5 see a slight decrease. There you have not only social mobility for those lucky 75, but rising inequality between those 75 and the other 25.

Fucking TA DA

>>1540442
>>1540505

You are making a classroom about GLOBAL social mobility that is only true for the UK and some other developed countries, using data ON THE UK to prove your GLOBAL claim. This is a firm of the composition fallacy--what is true for a part of the whole is not necessarily true for the whole.

I used to be an edgy anti-capitalist lefty but then I realized that a) the government isn't any more capable of creating opportunity for people than the market is and b) the anti-gov't left who fantasize about "The Revolution" are small minded children. We already had the revolution 250 years ago and it worked out pretty well comparatively

File: 1360356291368.jpg (345KB, 1060x1034px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1060x1034px

>>1539777

>innovation

Sure.

>>1539737
>Under capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to get higher if they put the work in.

That's not because of capitalism but other regulatory measures by governing bodies.

Why are people so disillusioned by the American dream? That 1% make it and tell the rest to work harder when chance and luck play just as much a part.

>>1540505
I don't think you understand what social mobility is. Brazil is a rapidly developing economy but people don't change in their economic status relative to others. Social stratification remains strong. If you were poor and working on a farm in a rapidly developing country but then as farming become less profitable you switch to a sweatshop as the economy becomes better your social class in the society is no better. The country has just changed.

>>1540515
It's true for developing countries as well like chile, turkey, argentina etc

>>1539780
>99% of wealthy people today are wealthy because they have good jobs, they set up a successful business, they put the work and effort in.

Define wealthy.

We have a greater middle class yes but for the upper classes and such inheritance and the old-boys club plays a massive part in where they get.

>>1540442
>>1540515
here's a definition

>Social mobility is the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society. It is a change in social status relative to others' social location within a given society.

> It is a change in social status relative to others'

>>1540625

How do you measure that? By rising incomes.

>>1539799
But despite their market power, these firms always face potential competition unless there are barriers to entry in the market. Because of that, they might not innovate at the same rate as they once did but they definitely have an incentive to avoid complacency because otherwise the firm will fail to compete.

Look at Facebook. It really has no real competition at the moment but the lingering threat of Google Plus and other sites ensures that Facebook has to constantly improve and it also prevents them from exploiting their market power by charging customers or something of the sort.

>>1539777
Almost true.

Likely we would see the USSR countries that are closer to west, pirate their software and sell the pirated copies on the black market for dosh.

If you didn't know, USSR was pretty capitalistic when it came to trading stuff that was not produced by the USSR.

>>1540646
>>1540625

*relative to other incomes.

Which--whoa, no way, look what's happening here-------->>>1540505

>>1540646
What economic class you fall into for example 'Upper class' and how different this was to your former class or your parents.

>>1539799
If you don't innovate people eventually ceasue buying your products.

See: Gaming rigs

>>1540690

i.e. a rise in your income relative to others in your 'class', above, and below.

File: incomeinequality.gif (2MB, 400x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x281px

>>1540685
What happens Is classes remain stagnant meaning the ones who had wealth retain and grow on it. Since the top few gain so much wealth the lower and middle classes are hollowed out and put into poverty. Top 10 Percent increases their status relative to others the rest fall. gonna repost it so you read
>Brazil super wealthy were the previous moderately wealthy.
>If you were poor and working on a farm in a rapidly developing country but then as farming become less profitable you switch to a sweatshop as the economy becomes better your social class in the society is no better. The country has just changed.


pic related

File: top hayek.png (320KB, 933x703px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 933x703px

>>1539624

>equality
>desirable

File: eric-hoffer1.jpg (30KB, 382x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 382x600px

>The explosive component in the contemporary scene is not the clamor of the masses but the self-righteous claims of a multitude of graduates from schools and universities. This army of scribes is clamoring for a society in which planning, regulation, and supervision are paramount and the prerogative of the educated. They hanker for the scribe's golden age, for a return to something like the scribe-dominated societies of ancient Egypt, China, and Europe of the Middle Ages. There is little doubt that the present trend in the new and renovated countries toward social regimentation stems partly from the need to create adequate employment for a large number of scribes. And since the tempo of the production of the literate is continually increasing, the prospect is of ever-swelling bureaucracies.

>>1540725

We're talking GLOBAL TRENDS, i.e. INTERNATIONAL comparisons. You are stuck in the same composition fallacy, unable to see the changes in the global ecosystem for the local consistencies.

The GLOBAL middle class has exploded over the past 30 years, even if, when you look at CERTAIN, INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES you see relative immobility.

>>1540743
>>1540737

>Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority.

>They who clamor loudest for freedom are often the ones least likely to be happy in a free society. The frustrated, oppressed by their shortcomings, blame their failure on existing restraints. Actually, their innermost desire is for an end to the "free for all." They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society.

>>1540749
Social mobility has to do with your wealth relative to others in your own society. The "middle class" in Brazil are the same poverty stricken people. THEIR SOCIAL CLASS HAS DECLINED their is a hollowing out of the middle class across all societies as the wealth is in the hands of a few. See in the pic how all the wealth is in the top 20% there is no middle class anymore there is just the rich and the poor most of society has declined in status relative to others. The bottom 60% of people are non existent on the chart and have experience a steep decline in social mobility as they are trapped in their social class.

read the definition again
>>Social mobility is the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society. It is a change in social status relative to others' social location within a given society.

The "global middle class" which you talk about has nothing to do with this conversation. It's just another way of saying countries are developing not that there is any social mobility within their societies because there isn't

File: inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png (7KB, 630x263px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 630x263px

>>1540790

>>1540790

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

When you are looking at global trends you can't simply cut back down to a subset, draw conclusions from that subset, then reapply them at the global level you FUCKING IDIOT.

>>1539737
>>1539780
>muh American dream

File: image.jpg (36KB, 640x656px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x656px

>>1539737
>Under capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to get higher if they put the work in.

>>1539777
>Capitalism fuels competition, innovation.

Funny enough it's been shown that this is not true at this level of technology.

>>1540829
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
My first post >>1539641
>Social mobility is dying in all capitalist societies.
>in all capitalist societies
>in
Learn to read and understand what we are discussing and what I was mainly arguing

There is no global "middle class" What has happened is the economies of India, China and pakistan have become better so the rupee goes further.
More importantly this has nothing to do with what I was even talking about, are you high? All you are saying is India is a bit richer. Are you this brain dead. One economy growing faster than another isn't "social mobility" that literally has nothing to even do with this conversation at all. Read the wiki.

>>1540829
> It is a change in social status relative to others' social location within a given society.
> within a given society.

Is it beginning to compute, are the gears turning?

>>1539641
Social mobility is the greatest in capitalist countries.

>>1540876

Your definition of society is otiose and inadequate to the topic, which is one of GLOBAL TRENDS. You still don't seem to understand the fallacy you've been committing. The economies of China, India, and others have improved RELATIVE TO OTHER COUNTRIES, and when you look at the GLOBAL BREAKDOWN OF INCOMES, you see the size of the middle and upper classes GROWING, which means GLOBAL SOCIAL MOBILITY is positive.

FUCK.

>>1540898

GLOBALIZATION=GLOBAL SOCIETY YOU TENDENTIOUS FUCK

>>1539893
Is this relevant to OP's claim?

>>1539887
>Under communism you can no
[citation needed]

>>1539890
For free?

>>1540864
how?

>>1540505
t. Retard

>>1540524
>We already had the revolution 250 years ago
Which one?

>>1540903
HOLY FUCK i CAN'T EVEN
Just admit you lost and can't accept reality.
What I'm talking about is GLOBAL TRENDS. This is happening world wide there is declining social mobility in capitalistic countries GLOBALLY.

You don't even know how to read. What social mobility means is your changing econmic position relative to others in society. You don't even know what my original post meant. All you are telling me is can't read or understand anything I'm telling you. My first post said how social mobility is dying IN all capitalist societies which is true.

There is no GLOBAL MIDDLE CLASS. The middle class in countries like china and India would be classed in extreme poverty in developed countries like the USA. Please get this through your head, social mobility is talking about changes within your own society. Read the first line of the wiki please!

>>1540939

t. innumerate cunt

>>1540749
>The GLOBAL middle class has exploded over the past 30 years

Okay? In no way does this prove or disprove that social mobility is rising or falling.

You are a retard who thinks absolute increases in wealth per person = change in social class.

>>1540902
[citation needed]

Define "Capitalist Countries"

>>1540903
You're talking about something entirely different than what I was originally claiming.

>>1540958
>There is no GLOBAL MIDDLE CLASS.

>http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/09/how-americans-compare-with-the-global-middle-class/
>http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

??????????????????LOL

Just about you don't understand differences in mereological levels and how they interrelate you dumb fuck.

>>1540961
Your example is mathematically irrelevant to "social mobility". In no way does it even deal with the words "social mobility".

You are mixing up absolute levels of wealth and inequality with RELATIVE levels of wealth and inequality among families in the world over generations.

File: Treaty_of_Paris_by_Benjamin_West_1783.jpg (156KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 500x375px

>>1540949
>The British delegation refused to pose, and the painting was never completed.
butthurt anglo's eternally btfo

>>1540931
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569381-idea-innovation-and-new-technology-have-stopped-driving-growth-getting-increasing

>>1540983
1766 had a revolution?

>>1540976
>Autism, I take everything literally.jpg

What I mean by there is no global middle class is this has nothing to do with the conversation. There is something the media want's to call 'a global middle class' but the middle class in china and india is far poorer than in the USA retard. All you are saying is the Indian economy is growing faster than the american, this wasn't even my argument.
What I said
>Social mobility is declining in all capitalist societies
> declining in all capitalist societies
>IN
>GET IT?

Either way this has nothing to do with social mobility and my original point. Can you read at all or are you in full denial?

>>1539600
That's not how Capitalism works you green haired college Marxist.

>>1541020
pedantic britcucks ever get laid?

>>1539943
and how does one become efficient?

neccessity is the mother of invention

>>1539600

To be fair, much of the space program was created by state capitalism (Nazi Germany) and Communism (USSR)

>>1540982

>100 start with the same income
>75 increase their income
>20 stagnate
>5 decrease
>75 are relatively better off both compared to the other 25 abs to theirselves at an earlier time point
>LOL that's not social mobility u dummy hahaha

Idiot.

>>1541021

If the global middle class is growing, there has to be some growth within individual countries. Otherwise where are these people coming from? Where is the money coming from? You are just cherry- picking examples to support your argument, but global trends give the lie to your specious claims.

The biggest contributer to the size of the global middle class had been China, which has--SURPRISE--seen the largest increase to its own middle class than any other country. These people are relatively poor compared to, say, their American counterparts, but they are catching up VERY RAPIDLY.

The easiest way to avoid looking like a fool in situations like this is to avoid universal claims. You could have said 'social mobility is declining in MANY capitalist COUNTRIES' and been correct. But you got greedy.

>>1539600
memetics

>>1540284
>economics isn't about ideology
Mein Gott, how long have you been eating from the trash can?

>>1540284
>people need to understand economics isn't about ideology
Mein Gott, how long have you been eating from the trash can?

File: 0lBXFeW.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>>1541204
>>1541205

>>1539600
>We fool you
>religion
Educational system, especially universities are a way bigger part of capitalism, than religion ever was. I'm not sure how religion is even relevant at all.

>>1541206
dumb frogposter

>>1541212
The original poster is like from the nineteenth century and from europe.

@OP As I've gotten older, I've felt that while capitalism grants opportunity for all, with exceeding rewards for those who work hard, I sometimes feel as though capitalism struggles to be as effective in the information era (please don't interpret this as though I'm some "hand out junkie"). If you had to critique capitalism, what would you say?

>>1541112
My original post
> Social mobility is dying in all capitalist societies.
> in all capitalist societies.
>IN
I'm talking about social mobility within capitalist societies which is declining. This is the meaning of the word along with my clear use of the word IN. You are saying India is growing and joining some vague global middle class which includes shitholes like Brazil, china, India in a group together with the USA. Social Mobility means within society infact I made that very clear in my opening post but you don't get it. Social mobility is declining in all societies. That's a fact

>there has to be some growth within individual countries.
All the growth is going to the top 1% the normal people receive almost nothing and they don't change their social class, hence no social mobility get it? In order for their to be social mobility they have to change their class. If they decline in class which they are they're downwardly socially mobile. If all the wealth is going to the top and their wages are low relative to others they are not socially mobile.

>to your specious claims.
DO YOU EVEN KNOW MY CLAIMS.

>The easiest way to avoid looking like a fool in situations like this is to learn how to read
FTFY

About your "100 people start out bullshit"
That's not how it works and this only proves my point yo have no basic understanding of what Social mobility is. Social mobility is your class. All the wealth earned goes to the top 1% so people actually decline in social mobility since they become part of a lower economic class as all the wealth is funneled into the top 1 percent. Your social standing declines as you are now part of a weaker economic class. Social mobility is not about wage increase it's about your economic class relative to your past and your parents. If you increase in economic standing from where you come from you are upwardly socially mobile. Most people are downwardly socially mobile or stagnant.

>>1541112
social mobility definition
>Social mobility is defined as the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between layers or tiers in an open system of social stratification. Open stratification systems are those in which at least some value is given to achieved status characteristics in a society.
Compare this to my opening post
>>>1539641
Social mobility is dying in all capitalist societies.
The definition refers to within societies and I made this clear with my post. Globally some countries are moving up but this literally has nothing at all to do with what I said.

>>1539687
What is the point of government produced internet if there are no websites to use?

I didn't know that the government invented Google, YouTube, 4chan, wikipedia, Amazon and Pornhub.

It's still capitalism if the government spends some money on research within an otherwise capitalist system. It's fundamentally both the state and private industry that produce new technologies and they complement each other too.

The state is good at inventing ( look at USSR and rockets ) but not that good at innovating ( producing/adapting new good to fulfill consumer demand )

>>1539887
unless half of the population has no capital to innovate and remains eternally poor....

>>1539799
Jesus

Large conglomerates are forced to innovate due to the threat of competition. They even have the resources to pump serious money into R&D and still turn a nice profit. If they don't they will get "blown down" by a perennial gale of creative destruction due to entrepreneurs smashing the value of their oligopoly.

Read Schumpeter.

Also empirical evidence disproves your claim.

>>1541414
>Be poorfag
>Work for employer
>Save money
>Use it to pay for night school
>Become more productive due to education ( or just signaling without a productivity increase
>Pay rises as I'm more productive ( and due to signalling and competition between employers drives up my wage to the marginal productivity of my labour
>Save more by investing in an index fund

Or

>Be poorfag
>Work for employer
>Innovate
>Employer: gee poorfag you are pretty good at innovating, have a raise
>No longer poorfag

Admittedly these don't happen all of the time but they do more often than not. You can even skip the first one if you do well at school when young and go to uni for all of those signalling rents. Capitalism isn't perfect but that's why we have a social safety net, to aid the escape from poverty traps.

>>1541461
they're not supposed to happen all the time and to everyone. In the system most of us are meant to be workers and thats how its supposed to be. I don't think the next Einstein or elon musk are out there right now fucking wage slaving lifting cardboard boxes.

>>1541475
Corporatism still has heavy capitalistic influence, dweeb.

>>1541466
Not all innovations are huge.
The little things add up.
I think that over people's lifetimes a larger-than-one-would-think percentage of people see a wage increase both one or both of these concepts. Not everyone though and that's why the government should provide people with a minimum standard of living.

>>1541461
you make a good point, but in a lot of places outside of europe, (mainly U.S.), those safety nets are lacking, people who do go to college will have debt for the rest of their lives, going to uni doesnt automatically mean a well-paying job in the future, im not arguing for communism, but a more socialized capitalism

File: 1459544609276.jpg (43KB, 582x741px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 582x741px

>>1541486
>the government should provide people with a minimum standard of living.

You lost me there, Jimbo.

>>1541496
>social security
>unemployment benefits
>minimum wage
>nationalized health services

>>1539600
Literally what good comes from owning literally everything.

If you own the means of all production like people think, for example, the Rothschilds own your money is worthless, you have everything. You beat capitalism.


IF they have so much power, why the fuck do they operate from the shadows? If I were illumindoole, or had all the power, I would not be hiding. My will would be clear. What do they gain from hiding in the shadows and 'making more money when they own literally all the money, what's the point?

It's a romantic idea that there are these men in the shadows controlling our every whim, but really, think about it. I honestly WISH there was a controlling force.

But there isn't. The world is filled with maybe 200-300 extremely powerful men all acting independently of each other trying to make as much money as possible, again, INDEPENDENT OF ONE ANOTHER. Which is a worst case scenario, imo.

>>1541496
It doesn't have to be much

>INB4 MUH NATURAL RIGHTS AND NAP

>>1541501
>>social security
>>unemployment benefits
>>minimum wage
>>nationalized health services
Fuck all of these.

>>1541558
Why do you insist on clogging up the thread?
Don't you have Mises to read or a picture of Ayn Rand to masturbate to?
You Ancaps are just as bad as socialists. At least Noam Chomsky has actually contributed to some academic field then talked bullshit about politics and economics.

File: 1458958239783.png (698KB, 608x715px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 608x715px

>>1541585
I'm sorry.

Also I'm not an ancap I wouldn't abolish the government.

>>1541592
Good. I was a bit harsh.
Let me try to explain why those sorts of things aren't as bad things.

>Social security and unemployment benefits.
Capitalist economies have a "natural rate of unemployment" ( in the us it's about 5-6% ), you can't really go below this level without stoking inflation. These people need some form of sustinance and charity doesn't do enough sadly. Also in the case of a negative aggregate demand shock, unemployment benefits act as an automatic stabiliser helping to lessen the damage, requiring the government to do less discretionary fiscal stimulus.

>Minimum wage
Sure minimum wages will have some unemployment effect ( raising the natural rate of unemployment) but they can lead to higher wages AND higher employment in cases of monopsony I believe. That said it's probably better to have a low MW.

>Nationalised health service
Private healthcare systems don't lead to the best outcomes due to information asymmetries and adverse selection among price healthcare insurance. Nationalisation bypasses these problems. It's not perfect and I would prefer a Singaporean style system, look it up.

Of course I'm essentially a utilitarian so if you are a natural rights sort guy these won't go kindly as most require (redistributive) taxation.

File: 1457051237940.jpg (25KB, 640x324px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x324px

>>1539600

>>1541663

Arthur Chu may be a mangina, a faggot, a micro-dicked azn pissbabby, a hermaphrodite, a cretin and an asslicker, but he's not wrong.

File: 1453340826516.jpg (71KB, 450x618px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 450x618px

>>1541676

>>1541676
He is wrong though. Capitalism cultivated the labor of the mind that brought us the Iphone. The laborers on their own would have never created it alone.

File: 1457038605320.jpg (74KB, 600x555px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x555px

>>1541690
>implying science is not what makes innovation

>>1541701
You have your scientific principles but someone has to come up with the idea to harness them (and different arrangements of matter )to fulfill people's wants.

>>1541772
why does capitalism need to be present for people to create those ideas
there are plenty of cases in history where private ownership of the means of production was not required to invent certain technologies we rely on today
how do you explain those away

>>1539600

Capitalism as we know it will fail in the next 25 years.

Eventually there will be too much driving forces on automation and massive unemployment will happen and deflationary cycle will occur ad naseum.

That said, I doubt the unemployed will over throw those in power as they will have robots to keep the unemployed in line.

>>1541772
Easy boy, you are almost defining capitalism as slavery.

>>1540569
Having enough income to pay for luxuries like a big tv and new phone, new car etc.

Which covers the majority of westerners, which just shows how good life actually is for us.

You know the only reason we have mad feminists and liberals making problems out of nothing is because there are no problems, but humans always seek to improve the world, so they have to make problems up. It's a symptom of good life.

>>1540836
>>1540856
I'm not even American, I'm a British guy who set up a business and is doing fairly well. I dropped out of college. We have so much freedom that whether you succeed or fail is down to you alone. If you aren't well off, you only have yourself to blame. Unless you live in a heavily socialist or communist country.

>>1540924
Yea. Name a country where basic child education costs the parents...

>>1541831
And this is why we know right wingers live in a bubble.

>>1541486
>that's why the government should provide people with a minimum standard of living.

Kill yourself.

You're obviously a loser, as is anyone that believes the "gubmint" should be your provider.

>>1541877
This isn't /pol/ you pleb. Either use real arguments or BTFO.

File: 1467467700174.jpg (126KB, 1488x833px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1488x833px

Because its the categorical imperative/rational self interest of fugging losers to become gommies :))) that want le egualite xddddddd :)))))

>>1541701
Capitalism created the incentive for rich people to invest into scientific research that allows innovation to occur

>>1541917
Capitalism created the ground for big entities to buy scientist's work, not for creating it. An counterexample of your view is NASA and other space agencies, which create innovation.

Yes, today is not common to make research exclusively by public entities, but that is because of politics.

>>1541935
NASA is funded by the government stealing money from wealthy capitalists

>>1541935
also NASA is shit tier, super inefficient and has a long history of avoidable fuck ups

>>1541950
Wealthy capitalists are funded by stealing money from consumers.

>>1539993
>that quote
god forbid you actually have to get up and work instead of being a lazy unproductive NEET all day. Don't like being a wagecuck? Open up a business, then you can work on your terms.

>>1541956
>lefties actually believe this

L O L

>>1541970
>/pol/ can write

L O L

>>1541977
goo goo ga ga gommunist baby mad he cant seize the means of production??? :((((((( goo goo ga ga

>>1541964
You are implying everyone starts with the same amount of capital early on life and can build a business even in recession.

File: 1457041261152.jpg (46KB, 480x310px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x310px

>>1541986

>>1541990
>everyone starts with the same amount of capital early on life

It's so ironic that how lefties always claim how collectivist they are, when it comes to inheritance they always seems to get booty-blasted. No we're not going to fucking handicap the economy by making sure that every single fucking individual starts at 0 to give everyone a "fair shot". In capitalism, no individual has any "unfair" force holding them back from succeeding. You get free education, anti-discrimination laws, etc etc but that doesn't mean that just because some other guy is rich you get to punish him and pull him down to your level just for the sake of "come on dude i want to be richer than u pls give me half ur munniez xdd". The fact of the matter is that Bill Gates was always going to be Bill Gates whether or not he started with 0 dollars or a million dollars and Tyrone Gibsmedat was always going to be Tyrone Gibsmedat regardless of his economic situation. The only difference is now it takes an extra 10-20 years for Bill Gates to get where he's at b/c you negatively hurt his economic standing for being rich to give it to Tyrone who now will take an extra 10 years to lose/spend all that money that will go right back into Bill Gates pocket because Bill created a fucking product that Tyrone buys.

>>1542017
You are implying communism, as in everyone starts at 0, is the only alternative to capitalism.

Your original argument to leave wageslavery is still flawed. Not everyone has the same starting conditions or development conditions to consider they can achieve the same level of wealth given the time and the effort.

Even with time and effort you can't be sure, because time and effort are applied to current jobs and subsistence rather than improvement and social mobility.

>>1542017
Also, taking away inheritance isn't going to handicap the economy.

The hoarding of capital is what hampers growth and the economy would do well without this.

>>1542044
Look, inequality is a very real concept that exists and its a very important thing to exist. People aren't born with the same IQ's. People aren't born with the same physicalities. We're inherently unequal. If a 21 year old who inherits 1 million dollars invests that 1 million in the economy, the economy benefits and now someone else has a chance to grab that 1 million.. If he spends the 1 million dollars, the economy benefits and now someone else has a chance to grab that 1 million. If he sits on it in a safe, it depreciates in value and eventually one of his inheritors will read an economics test book and realize he needs to invest that money. No matter what the money is getting back into the economy. Now YOU have a chance to grab that money for yourself by filling demand either with your time/effort as a worker or with a product as an entrepreneur. There is literally nothing stopping you from doing this. You're given free K-12 education and subsidized University. You have the ability to take out loans to start a business. All your doing by taking wealthy people's money is slowing the economy. You're reducing incentive to earn and invest. That wealthy guy is going to get his money back eventually. You just slowed him down.

>>1542074
Capital is never "hoarded". That's a leftist myth. Someone who was economically educated enough to acquire that wealth is going to not allow it to depreciate it by keeping it out of circulation and he will educated his children to make sure they also don't allow their wealth to depreciate.

>>1542092
You are implying the million dollars is going to end in the hands of some john doe and not a financial institution...

Anyway, as you like to put those big numbers you have no salvation. Accessibility to those amounts by john doe are nearly impossible unless some random event like winning the lottery are given.

But again, you are implying debt comes like there is no need to repay it and that market forces can't be chaotic as to loose money.

Also, trusting in the good will of compulsive hoarders is not a rational answer, nor a valid one. There is no warrant at investment once capital is hoarded, and even the small amounts saved in banks can be compared with small countries.

File: 1a7d7251d43a796c133a81ca554babef.jpg (58KB, 500x557px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x557px

>>1539624
The people who work hard and pursue avenues that pay off in the end are the ones who get to be the upper class.

Sure there are Millionaire babies who get lots of money from their families, but at the end of the day someone in their family did something to accumulate that wealth.

Why should those who refuse to work hard or do things which allow them to accumulate more wealth be made the equals of those who do?

>>1542118
Also people who scam can get enough to get to the upper class.

Sure, you get families who claim to have earned that money, but monarchy supposedly died centuries ago.

Why those who work hard for a chance to get wealth be made equal to those who scam and claim to inherit wealth?

File: middle_parts_nyfw_14.jpg (56KB, 648x432px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 648x432px

>>1542123
Assuming by work hard you mean work hard in the working class, and the reason why they don't get the big bucks is because work is not proportional to worth.

Sure working hard in a factory for 40 years is admirable, but at the end of the day, it isn't worth what a Doctor does, because any Schlub can work in a factory.

As for the the crimes of which you speak, would you honestly call for the destruction of the chance for everyone to spite a few?

What is the goal of the University Communist; how does he see himself after the revolution, in what circumstance does he find himself?

>>1542134
Most millennial western Communists probably see themselves working a cushy government job for the party after the revolution. They're too limp-wristed and weak to work the fields and factories.

>>1542116
>You are implying the million dollars is going to end in the hands of some john doe and not a financial institution.
Financial institutions invest. They don't even keep a significant portion of their assets in fiat.

> Accessibility to those amounts by john doe are nearly impossible unless some random event like winning the lottery are given.
You literally just have to create demand for yourself. Make a company worth investing in. Learn a skill that creates demand for yourself as a worker. Earn cash then invest what you have left over.

>But again, you are implying debt comes like there is no need to repay it and that market forces can't be chaotic as to loose money.
Then you should've made your company profitable before it was time to pay back. When market forces are chaotic, someone is making a whole lot of money. Make sure its you.

>Also, trusting in the good will of compulsive hoarders is not a rational answer, nor a valid one.
You misrepresent the minds of business men with this typical lefty illusory fantasy. By referring to these people as "compulsive hoarders" I'm going to assume you mean they are addicted to money/wealth? Someone who has been driven to acquire vast wealth is going to often continue to try to acquire vast wealth and they do that by investing. George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet are all still investing and they are the top 1% of the top 1%. Someone who "compulsively hoards" will not remain wealthy for long/many generations. If someone had a problem with "compulsive hoarding" they wouldn't get rich because they would be too scared to let go of their assets and re-invest.

>There is no warrant at investment once capital is hoarded
If you don't invest your wealth depreciates. Rich people want to stay rich and they want their kids and grandchildren to be rich so they re-invest. They have humanitarian/charity causes they invest in. They have interests/hobbies they invest in (Scientific research).

Capitalism is literally amazing

>>1542134
You immediately assume a lower class man worths less than a upper class, impressive.

Equally admirable is that fallacy of implying everyone has the chances of having a diploma, or that hard work and crude conditions are not worth a good life.

As for the crimes you don't deny, you imply the end of capitalism is the end of everyone.

What is the goal of University Capitalist; how does accusing everyone of communist defending themselves of a revolution, and in what circumstances do I have to do with it?

>>1542123
Look, here's the bottom line of REALITY which you communists can't seem to get through your head.

If you're spending money on products: cars, phones, clothes etc -> then you're getting poorer

If you're investing money in profitable ventures -> then you're getting wealthier

It's literally that simple. Don't have money to invest? Get a job. Make some money. Stop spending money on stupid shit. Save up money. Then invest it.

Stop crying about how evil capitalism is for giving you the opportunity to become rich.

>>1542144
And you say that because of deduction. No surprise, coming from someone accusing of communist to any with dissenting views.

>>1542148
>a lower class man worths less than a upper class

By definition, a lower class man has created less value for himself or his product in the free market than an upper class man. It's not an assumption. It's a fact.

> everyone has the chances of having a diploma
You have FREE K-12 education, in many states free 2 year CC and subsidized 4 year public university with EXTREME access to public federal student loans

What more of a fucking shot do you want?

>that hard work and crude conditions are not worth a good life.
Blue collar jobs are (on average) inherently worth less than white collar jobs in the free market (which is also their OBJECTIVELY TRUE value)

>>1542145
>Financial institutions invest.
Financial institutions create money of thin air and get legitimate money from savings of real workers.

>You literally just have to create demand for yourself. Make a company worth investing in. Learn a skill that creates demand for yourself as a worker. Earn cash then invest what you have left over.
Implying everyone has the same starting capital.

>Then you should've made your company profitable before it was time to pay back.
Implying every business cross the same development conditions.

>By referring to these people as "compulsive hoarders" I'm going to assume you mean they are addicted to money/wealth?
You are implying working hard is the same as hoarding wealth.

>If you don't invest your wealth depreciates
Telling of which, many make bad decisions
Upper class do keep savings in banks, and investments are made as to inflate assets, not producing them.

Capitalism is literally cancer.

File: 1467808238458.png (107KB, 400x770px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 400x770px

>>1542148
>You immediately assume a lower class man worths less than a upper class, impressive

A lower class man in this day and age is literally and necessarily worth less than an upper class one, because in the US the classes are determined by earning.

This isn't the middle ages when you could have the impoverished aristocracy and the rich mercantile class.

The Doctor son of an immigrant is every bit as Upper Middle Class as the Doctor son of a Lawyer, with the exception of some Old/New Money snobbery which affects no one on an economic level.

Marx's ideas aren't just archaic, they're completely inapplicable to the US System, or in the world governed by the laws of physics in general.

>>1542150
The bottom line is you keep accusing other people of communists and you should really check your head.

Spending in food and basic sustenance is only logical.

Implying everyone has capital to spare is illogical.

Is literally that simple. You don't get money to go to college? Get a lower class job, get called stupid to spend money on food and not dying.

Stop crying because you are left without excuses to defend capitalism.

>>1542183
If you literally know nothing about economics/finance then why even bother posting? Why not just go back to /leftypol/ and circlejerk about >m-muh workers' revolution

Stay poor kid

>>1542156
By capitalism a man now worths less than another, even if the lower class man works harder.

Implying people don't chose to work instead of going to college, or school.

What more a fucking excuse do you have?

Also stop mentioning free market, capitalism isn't true market. Capitalism puts barriers to free circulation of wealth and puts a man less value than it has.

>>1542202
If you think all poor people are min/maxing their finances perfectly and are only spending their money on necessities and not wasting money you're fucking delusional.

>>1542217
Capitalism literally be definition is the free market. What barrier does capitalism put up to circulation?

Man doesn't have inherent value. Man only has the value he creates for himself in the free market.

>>1542193
Classes are determined by wealth, what a novelty.

All what you said proves nothing on Marx's ideas.

>>1542210
Why don't you go to /pol/ is you keep implying things?

>>1542220
If you are implying the lower class can spend more than necessities you made sense you're fucking delusional.

>>1542226
Stop lying, capitalism isn't free market. Monopoly is a thing, and capitalism is more like neo-feudalism thanks to wageslavery, giving a price to human lives on money, and promoting scams like in 2008 instead of social mobility.

File: 1470899612143.png (260KB, 640x924px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 640x924px

>>1542235
>>1542230
stay mad gommies: :))))))))))))))))))))

File: 516OLcYXENL._SX333_BO1,204,203,200.jpg (35KB, 335x499px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 335x499px

>>1542248

>>1542245
>promoting scams like in 2008 instead of social mobility.

That was literally the fault of the government interfering the free market. In the free market, those sub-prime loans would never have been given out but Obongo mandated that its totally waycisss xddd to not give niggers with no credit loans so they were forced to give dindus their gibsmedats and it fugged the entire economy up

thanks for arguing in favor of the free market :)))))))

>>1542260
There is little sense on what you wrote. Therefore I'm just going to say "Enron".

Thanks for confusing people on what is free market.

Shitpost now /pol/tard, I'm tired and have to go reading.

Bye.

>>1540562
>That's not because of capitalism but other regulatory measures by governing

Are you joking? Do think these massive corporations could exist without government support? All the government does is give a little more money to appease you in poverty.

File: 1-cfT7eV8pRlGHLpzU0Uas8Q.png (95KB, 600x420px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x420px

>>1542245
>It's a capitalism is neofeudalism post
>Wage slavery

You people are completely deluded.

>>1542217
What value has a man? Men have value on an Individual basis.
Men aren't equal and aren't of equal value.
Even then you must be pretty retarded to think that just because someone is worth less money wise that means they are worth less "value-wise" to everyone under a capitalist system.

>>1542123
>Scam
Scamming is illegal, or did you not know that capitalism requires the enforcement of contracts?

>>1541956
>Consumers don't willingly choose to spend their money

>>1541776
>What is the profit motive

It doesn't matter that some innovations have been made under different systems as Capitalism is the system best geared for providing incentives to innovate.

>>1541815
How so?
All I said was that entrepreneurs create new products using scientific principles to fulfill people's wants.

>>1541877
I don't think it should be my provider but merely for the unlucky poor.

>>1542980
>paying for housing, sustenance and enough stimulus to not go insane from boredom and working for 1%ers to finance said things is totally optional guys

>>1542980
>believes in free will
>what is marketing

>>1543005
>They saw a picture of it before they went and bought it
>They didn't voluntary buy it

>>1542990
>One has to buy stimulus

What are friends?

Also prices of entertainment have dropped loads over the past decade. Look at the price of a phone, a laptop or even Netflix ( compared to TV ). Guess what, it's thanks to capitalism.

>MUH 1%

>>1543018
>What are friends?
People you usually end up spending money with, unless you're really into collecting pinecones.
>it's thanks to private ownership of means of production and accumulation of capital
Doesn't follow, could you flesh this out?
>MUH NO ARGUMENT

>>1543011
Not that same guy, but come, you can't be that obtuse. Marketing is specifically made to manipulate you psychologically. Not necessarily saying that's a bad thing (although it kind of is), marketing is a necessary ill, but that's quite plainly what it is. Convincing you need to buy something.

>>1543018
The cheap(er) price of electronics is due to industrial-scale outsourcing (of labour), which is not really capitalism but the related principle of globalization.

>>1542959

Absolute poverty in 1820 and absolute poverty now are two completely different things.

>>1543026
>>1543034

>What are the incentives inherent to capitalism that lead to things like research, driving down prices, outsourcing labour ( at once providing opportunities for the poor in those countries and lower prices for folks at home )?

>>1543039
Did you even read the stuff at the top?

>>1543048
>inherent
False assumptions, next.

>>1543034
Globalisation occurred thanks to capitalism

>>1543051
>What is the profit motive?

There, I said it.

>>1543062
Something that is in direct contradiction with an "inherent incentive" to drive prices down.

>>1543066
>>1543066
>Bring down prices
>People buy more of your stuff
>Outcompete competitors
>No need for ???
>Profit ( until everyone else does the same and profit is driven towards zero which is why you must keep innovating to stay profitable)

It works for lowering prices just as much as rasing prices ( if demand increases of supply decreases )

>>1539643
Yup. I've scrolled through a third of this thread now and want top pull my eyes out. Lots of fanboys putting their carts before their horses and arguing that the think they like is inscrutable because they like it. It goes both ways though.

I think the problem in a thread like this is clearly that the majority (assuming a mostly American/Western audience) of us have grown up in a thoroughly industrial-capitalist ('neoliberal') society, which is aggressive to other socio-economic systems (as all tend to be, of course). By reading this thread, one can clearly see that people brought up in such a system have difficulty criticising it or acknowledging its faults (hurr, its still the best we have against Bogeyman X, and MUH BOOTSTRAPS!)

Also, what you sketched out is not what communism is (about being equal). It's hilarious that for being such a foil, so many people simply do not objectively understand what communism is, or what socialism is (they are not the same). Communism sucks, that's for sure, but its not about making people equal. It's about shepherding workers and proles to some mythical worker's paradise by a strong centralized dictatorship (you hope benign, but human nature tells us otherwise) and associated bureaucratic class (The Party) 'that knows best'.

>>1543048
Sorry m8, but you are a fool if you really think it's that simple.

Globalization isn't all bad, really. But America and much of the West are clearly transitioned to a post-industrial economy. I think we'll soon see though that a nation of baristas, database drones, Walmart clerks and Pokemon Go players isn't a very robust one...

If you've ever worked in a factory (summer job 2006, hello), you would realize it kinda sucks after a while. So on one hand, Americans are largely spared the tedium of industrial labour. You might argue that as a pro. On the other hand, the profit margins recouped from outsourcing labour are almost exclusively for corporate owners (sometimes shareholders to a limited extent). Studies show that that it does not 'trickle down'.

>>1543052
>Globalisation occurred thanks to capitalism
No it didn't, its roots were taking hold well before capitalism was a widespread thing. It is better to argue that capitalism occurred thanks to globalization, though I'm not going to argue it myself. But certainly globalization found a comfy home in capitalism.

>>1539646
the economy isn't zero sum

there are no losers

>>1539799
Once you stagnate some small nimble navigator will come and eat your feet then leave you for dead.

Microsoft used to apply a very dominant policy and in the end they never managed to get it right.

>>1540442
>Brazilian
Ah had to be, you poor fucking self victimising fuck.
You have no idea how our country really is and I bet you vote for fucking PT because it's trendy and cool, and every kid at USP must do it!
Kill yourself.

>>1540567
>He continues these memes
I bet you're a white middle class federal university student that never held a job and has no idea how the real world works.

>>1541964
No, it's just that wages are disproportionately small compared to the amount of money that that wageslave earns for the company