Why shouldn't we nationalize and redistribute the country's

>>129411933
why do they deserve those assets?
can I immigrate there and get some too?

>>129412076
It's not about egalitarianism. It's fixing an unsustainable system. Marx was half right. Capitalism does sow the seeds of its own destruction. It does lead to terrible inequality and instability. But he was wrong about communism. Capitalism is a more efficient allocation system, and it incentivizes innovation and labor. But just like a linux box, it needs a reboot once in a while.

>won't the wealthy just move elsewhere, taking their wealth with them?
Most wealth is not something that you can just pick up and walk away with. Something like gold is only a small portion of total wealth. The most valuable stuff--real estate, intangibles, etc.--you can't.

>>129412336
I'm not a fond believer in the capitalistic structure (as it is) as I believe it leads to a corporatocracy; but, I think that if you ere going to implement the measures you are talking about the companies would go offshore and you'd be left with workers with very little asset wealth.
It could work if the whole world was under that system but even then why would the world work like that if some little country could be the haven for the companies?
That company could charge a lowered tax rate (as they do now) which attracts large companies to declare tax there - the country gets a lower amount than it would if the rate was higher but more companies and divisions of companies go there so all up they get more.
>sorry for going off topic
basic point: the companies would leave

>>129413374
I don't see that being a problem. The hard assets would remain. The human capital would remain. Intangibles like IP, etc. can be seized as well. Basically the only thing that can be taken is easily transportable hard assets.

It's important not to conflate currency flight with asset flight. The former is just numbers in a ledger, pieces of paper. The latter is what actually constitutes the economy, what actually produces goods and services.

>>129413662
But the capital can leave, hard assets aren't worth anything compared to that.

>>129414048
By capital are you referring to currency? As I've just explained, that doesn't matter.

I honestly don't see a problem with this. Tho I wouldn't grab all their assets, maybe just 80%.

OP needs to economic classes when he goes to college.

Beyond economic stupidity, the only reason you think your proposal "works" is because you wouldn't be harmed by it. God knows you wouldn't be advocating for it if you had anything close to 250k.

Beyond being economically retarded, perhaps you should consider the moral implications of taking other people's shit - and how such implications tend to affect the social culture or norms.

People incessantly bitch about capitalism while simultaneously reaping all of its rewards. Get a goddamn job and play the game.

>>129414128
Where did you get the figure in the OP from? doesn't that include currency?
Bricks and mortar aren't worth that much, especially if no one will finance the company (it'd be up to the asset recipients to finance it but they wouldn't have to).
Also, Joe Blow's fiscal ineptness, business decision making and expertise will probably destroy the company anyway.

>>129414554
Graduated with a 3.70+ GPA in economics :)

How about debating me on the economic merits. Not what you think about the ethics of it, which I believe are firmly on my side.

Educate yourself on how fucked we really are https://www.amazon.com/Rich-Super-Rich-Ferdinand-Lundberg/dp/B000W29TJ4

>>129414608
>Where did you get the figure in the OP from?
It's from the Fed as of 4Q16. Not sure if currency is in it or not. Honestly, doesn't matter. What matters is that all the elements of production--the stuff that makes the economy actually produce things--would still exist. And the capitalist system would remain (so no eating babies because of famine, e.g. in Ukraine).

>Also, Joe Blow's fiscal ineptness, business decision making and expertise will probably destroy the company anyway.
There's no reason that any of the existing management would even need to change.

>>129411933
why dont i kill you and take your money?
>theft is immoral

>>129411933
Your very first line is wrong. Communism didn't fail because nobody worked. Communism failed because a central planner cannot make up for the astronomical complexity of the market. The average person was barely able to sustain themselves, even with Soviet efforts to educate women and get them in the labor force. Birth rates were, at best, at replacement levels, to the point Stalin banned abortion. Which just led to women being single. By the 60s it's been estimated that abortion rates may have been higher than live births, because nobody could afford having a family.

You guys need to understand that you're playing a rigged game. 60 or fewer families exert de facto or near de facto control on all or most major corporations. They exert de facto or near de facto control on US and global policy. They can lobby for a rule change and make billions on it. They can donate a fucking city block in Manhattan and come out making billions on the appreciation in land value from all their surrounding holdings. We have no proper democracy. We have an oligarchy. The 0.001% is a fucking tumor.

>>129415181
I think it'd be easier (although still really hard) to alter the current system. Although it isn't perfect, it is imo, the best system that we as a species have come up with.

>>129415553
K.

>>129415553
Relating to this - the CFR and the RIIA are interesting topics.

https://www.cfr.org/
https://www.chathamhouse.org/

It's not so much a conspiracy or anything essentially sinister, it's just business.

>>129411933
>Why shouldn't we nationalize and redistribute the country's assets
Because you don't deserve something someone else worked for you selfish little faggot.

>>129416180
>Because you don't deserve something someone else worked for you selfish little faggot.
Most dynastic wealth isn't earned or even worked for.

>>129416267
Most western nations do have inheritance and gift taxes, doesn't justify the amounts that they acquire but there are things in place for that.

>>129416267
>Most dynastic wealth isn't earned or even worked for.
Even IF that were true, it doesn't fucking matter. It's their money. If they want to give it to their families and friends that's their right.

You greedy faggots don't deserve their money just because you think they have too much of it or they aren't doing what you want with it.

>>129416160
The Anglo-American establishment is at the top of my "now reading" pile.
>>129416660
Nah. You guys have driven society to the breaking point. Have fun.

Dutch are gay

>>129416788
>Nah.
Not an argument.

>You guys
Who is "you guys"? You mean capitalists? Are you a socialist who thinks just because someone worked harder than you that means you're entitled to everything they've worked for?

>have driven society to the breaking point.
So obviously the solution is to steal everything from everyone else and give it all to you, huh?

>Have fun.
Yeah, because Communist societies are soooo much better off, right?

You must be posting from North Korea because it's sooooo superior, right?

>>129412336
>Linux box needs reboot
>not winderps
I've got an SA that just found a server with no downtime in the past 15 years that would like a word with you

Arguing from a moral standpoint to defend what is inherently an immoral system is pretty lolworthy.

File: 1497113009149.png (960KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 1366x768px

>>129412336
All the fault of socialists. A true free market has none of these issues. Do you even read Ayn Rand, faggot?

>>129417327

BUTS ITS NOT A TREAL FREE MATRKET!!!!!112?

>>129411933
You want to encourage capitalism by seizing the means and redistributing the wealth....that's fucking communism

>>129417520
I prefer thinking of it as a jubilee.

File: 1407130021987.jpg (5KB, 251x233px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 251x233px

>>129415181
>>How about debating me on the economic merits. Not what you think about the ethics of it, which I believe are firmly on my side.
How in the fuck are the ethics on your side, you are forcefully taking things from someone else. You sound like Jeffrey Dahmer, my argument has so much merit lets just ignore that we are eating people.

>>129416788
How I was saying before that companies would direct their assets and business operations offshore, an organisation like the CFR would be needed to manage and monitor global business and exchange, whether that was to promote or restrict movement. As it is now they are for global business ventures and promote the idea of foreign investments and multinational corporations and stockholders (stockholders are an issue that I don't know how to address, even if a co.is purely local - financial/workers/etc. it is fiscally in their best interest, once it's big enough to acquire external wealth through stock trade, which cant be limited to just national).
Anyway, like I was saying abut an org. managing international trade relations etc. That would be needed to restrict trade and sometimes I think that these organisations, due to their huge scope size potentially could be "the good guys" and we're too focussed on the details rather than the end goals to really appreciate or understand the enormousness of what's really going on.
what i'm basically saying is that it's easy to address these issues with blinders on and think that anyone who is at their level must be devious and exploitative for an "evil" end.

>>129417914
I say that democracy is a greater moral good than the private property of a fewer number of people who died in the Vietnam War. Further,
>stealing the US from Native Americans
>stealing the US from the British

>>129415363
Uh, yes, communism sucks, but you are wrong just about everything. Birth rates were very high until early sixties and never dropped as low as they did in the West. Everyone could afford to start a family and single women were exceptionally rare. The high amount of abortions results from the absence of other contraception methods.

>>129418024
Thanks for clarifying, makes sense.

File: pol898.jpg (153KB, 1151x523px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1151x523px

>>129418302
If you disregard the private property of a few, you disregard private property period.

Private property is what allows us to live a life that doesn't involve defending our homes from would-be attackers who are in the right to take anything from me I don't have nailed to the floor.

Furthermore, if democracy results in people having what they work for stolen from them, it definitely doesn't seem moral or good, so how it can be a "moral good" is beyond me at that point.

Freedom and prosperity are the only moral goods. You are sacrificing the prosperity of some and the freedom of all to bring momentary, transient prosperity to the people who least deserve it.

Get your commie ass out of here.

>>129418826
How I got to stockholders being a big issue for me was the Rothschild meme (not really a meme but whatever). Their name isn't on anything anymore yet they are still a wealthy name, not proportionally as large as they were but still big. That's because they have stocks in lots of companies nowdays rather than their own businesses. - some of those businesses are conflicting too
They are not the only ones doing it though.
>example
>own stock in soft drink companies
>equal x amount in competing co.s (say 50%)
>coke is doing a promotion and are expected to increase market share
>take capital out of PepsiCo and put it into coke
>next year the opposite so take capital out of PepsiCo and invest it into coke
That happens in Australias travel co.s
Airlines stockholders have stock in Qantas, Jetstar, virgin, tiger etc and redistribute their capital dependant on market projections, which amplify those projections but from the outside/the layman's point of view those companies seem to be competing.
I have no idea how to address that issue.

>>129420065
also I should mention that when they don't take all their capital out of the "losing" company when they redistribute because they don't want that co to go under. I think that's because they know that markets will change and they could need to put the capital back later. but I really don't know, it's pretty complicated.

>>129420340
>that when they don't take all their capital
"don't" shouldn't be in there

>>129419430
>If you disregard the private property of a few, you disregard private property period.
The US is built upon the disregard of property rights.
>Private property is what allows us to live a life that doesn't involve defending our homes from would-be attackers who are in the right to take anything from me I don't have nailed to the floor.
No, private property is an idea. The threat of violence is what ultimately prevents people from stealing your stuff.
> if democracy results in people having what they work for stolen from them
As already mentioned, most of this wealth is unearned and not worked for (these are different things IMO).
> Freedom and prosperity are the only moral goods. You are sacrificing the prosperity of some and the freedom of all to bring momentary, transient prosperity to the people who least deserve it.
We are free to starve or to be wage slaves. That notion of freedom is a joke. What I propose would provide to what we might as well just call 100% of the people for sake of rounding more freedom than what they have currently.

>>129417327
is this satire?

>>129417520
no it's not but even if it was, so fucking what?

>Tyrone in the ghetto with his grandmother is entitled to 250k

Ok OP

>>129420695
>fucking yourself just to spite tyrone
good goy

>>129420788
You realise whites would have a significant advantage with all government restrictions like high tax/affirmative action lifted?

>>129411933
>Literally nothing is wrong with this.
except the part about you stealing people's property.

Also how would this solve wealth inequality? You do realize that is will only be a matter of time until the high IQ and politically connected regain the wealth right?

>>129421028
>It's only a matter of time until our teeth fall out, so why brush our teeth?

File: 1496635158101.png (81KB, 500x371px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x371px

>>129411933

>>129421110
>my grandma is 86 and has all her teeth

>>129411933
Honestly bait quality has taken a nosedive on /pol/. If you don't know all the clichés and lottery winners and basketball players who go broke you're a fool.

90% of those given 265,000 will be broke in less than two years tops. Meanwhile you just turned the US into another Venezuela.

>>129421834
We'd have capitalism so nothing like Venezuela at all.

>>129412336
People way smarter and more motivated than you tried to make that pipedream work in dozens of countries. Every single one failed.

File: 1482778536963.jpg (59KB, 768x960px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 768x960px

>>129411933
It's another episode of Bernie Gibsmedat twelve year old failure not grasping that wealthy people don't have gigantic treasury filled with gold like an Uncle Scrooge.

>>129421989
You mean the Jews and the Jubilees?

>>129421989
Not an argument. Also, point me to a single instance where they've tried to retain capitalism.
>>129421998
Way to not read anything I've written

Jews hoard wealth through nepotism and use it to subvert others so they can continue hoarding wealth. Oh, you want redistribute that wealth of the top 0.1 that doesn't even go to producing more wealth? Fucking commie, get a job loser

/pol/ logic

File: 1492287997353.png (65KB, 774x866px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 774x866px

>>129422189
>retain capitalism
>after you have demonstrated that you will confiscate everything you like

I am sure investors will be falling head over heels to invest in such a paradise.

>>129422505
Not an argument.

>>129422807
With a self sustaining economy you wouldn't need outside investment.

>>129422505
Why give all that wealth to the unwashed, troglodytic masses? You and I both know exactly what they spend their monthly welfare cheques on