How rich is too rich? Like at a certain point you have more than

>>131752731
Doing favors for people never becomes greed.

>>131752731
Till i own a Disneyland theme park on every planet of our solar system.

>>131752731
>How rich is too rich

Ask Seth Rich.

>>131752731
When you have so much money in the bank that no matter how much you reasonably spend, the interest ensures that you stay rich forever.

>>131752731
Well it begins at exactly $122.000.000

21 BTC

>>131752731
Cтo тиcяч гpивeнь

THHHIIICCCCCC

Being rich is a different world. Getting rich isn't like winning the lottery and using $100 bills as rolling papers. If you get rich, your responsibilities increase 10 fold, as do your expenses most likely. Being poor is like playing poker with $1 small blind and $2 big blind. Being rich is like playing with $100-200 blinds.

File: atlas statue.jpg (188KB, 762x867px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 762x867px

>OP, circa 100 000 BC
>How rich is too rich? At a certain point you have more than enough tubers and raw squirrel to have a full stomach once a week, and make sure you manage to raise a family too. At what point does it just begin to be greed?
>OP, circa 1300
>How rich is too rich? At a certain point you have more than enough corn gruel to have two small bowls of it every day, and make sure most of your family and kids survive the plague too. At what point does it just begin to be greed?
>OP, circa 1900
>How rich is too rich? At a certain point you have more than enough to own a house with actual gas lighting, and support your family's domestic needs and education too. At what point does it just begin to be greed?

This is why I fucking hate communists. Greed is good, you fuckers. If we'd listened to your type, we'd still be niggers scavenging for scraps on the plains of Africa

>>131752731
>too rich
u wot m8

>>131752731
Supposedly some psychological study was done on this and most people feel no additional happiness or fulfillment beyond $100,000

>>131752731
>At what point does it just begin to be greed
Once you have the basic necessities, like food, clothing, and shelter then it becomes greed.

>>131755374
I like you

File: 1496270138338.jpg (25KB, 641x530px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 641x530px

>>131755496
>no additional happiness or fulfillment beyond $100,000

wat

>>131752731
Greed is just a way to casticise ppl that are working on their slef interest. There is no problem with that since we are all doing it.

But if you really want to know how much is too much, just think like this:

All the money anyone needs is the ammount enough to keep their life style of choise, plus what is needed for medical expenses in the future if there will be any, plus the money needed to keep the bill collectors away from your door.

ANything else is too much.

I think the key here is the life styke part. Are you a person that likes a simple, spartan life or you want a Pershing 150? Is all about what you want really.

File: 88a.png (9KB, 215x215px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 215x215px

>>131755374

>>131752731
Objectively 20 billion.
There is a difference between 10 million and 100 million. And 100 million and a billion, but what's the difference between 10 billion and 20 billion?
.BUT
A better way to look at is where did the money come from? Having 10 billion in stock because you created a succuessful retail company is much different than you have 20 billion in stock because you took pretend debt and raided a bunch of firms asset sheets. Also much different if it's because you gave millions in Campain funds and now you have special tax stautus

>>131752731
>How rich is too rich? Like at a certain point you have more than enough money to survive the rest of your life and your family too. At what point does it just begin to be greed?

Depends on what you do with your wealth.

Christianity teaches us that excess wealth should be given as charity to those less fortunate.

Is greed inherently bad? Is it immoral to be selfish?

File: 1410423426674.png (24KB, 125x123px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 125x123px

>>131755496
>beyond $100,000

per week
per month
per year

>>131755819
>Greed is just a way to casticise ppl that are working on their slef interest
Bullshit fund from rich ideologies trying to get the middle class and poor to fight. I have no problem with people getting rich, but there is a point past which when it's clear threat of future basic economic functioning, or a clear example of corporate tyranny/broken system.

>>131752731

>How rich is too rich?

there is no too rich of a person

Name another country in the world that doesn't run on greed. There's nothing wrong at all with wanting more money and success for yourself. The same leftie-commies that cry about capitalism and greed being the ultimate evil are the ones that bitch that college isn't free. Well that's pretty greedy isn't it? Wanting to keep that college money for yourself? Seems pretty greedy. Why even want to go to college, if not to be qualified for a higher paying job?

This is why communism is so monumentally retarded. It runs on the idea that "greed is an evil motivation for everyone but me"

>>131756401
Wtf is this corporate tyranny you speak of?

Do you realize that ppl that has like 20 billions, don't actually have that money right? That money is reinvested in other companies making them grow in return.

All the problem starts when the companies and the State has a incestuous relationship. Companies per se are not bad, nor is someone with a bazzilion dollars in stocks from other companies.

>>131752731
I don't know, I have nothing against people who earned their riches, nor against those who inherited. But nevertheless at some point you gotta admit it's not normal some people have billions and billions while other starve
I don'tsomething where the rich automatically have to help those in need, because there are also many people who deserved to be deep in shit. But there are many injustices who could be made right with a small fractions of those billions, helping those who deserve it and still leaving absurdly rich people very rich

>>131756049
>what's the difference between 10 billion and 20 billion

one fully armed aircraft carrier and two fully armed aircraft carriers.

i guess my expenses would be higher than the average bullionaire's.

File: Rich Poor Jews.png (543KB, 919x923px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 919x923px

>>131752731
When you're so rich you have to keep stealing. Pic related.

The trouble is the jewdiciary system makes OP's mentality impossible.

The great Henry Ford had more than enough money for himself and his family. So he decided to sell his cars cheaper and pay his workers more but the Jews who owned a 10% stake in his company took him to court and won.

If someone has invested in your company (virtually all companies bigger than small) you are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to make as much profit as you are able. That's why the world is going down the tube!

>>131752731
>How rich is too rich?

50 million, once you have more than that the praetorian guard takes an interest in you and your life ends

>>131755496
((psychological study ))
Nonsense. Besides super capital players are nessary for new industries to get started. But there are limits to sense.
what the studies actully show is after a certain point happiness still goes up, but at a much slower rate. Like you might see a huge jump from 50,000 to 100,000 but barely anything after that, but it still goes up. But happiness studies are uselesss because self reported happiness/fulfillment marks are not very accurate or plotable. And even if self reporting mental goals worked, there aren't reallly enough billionaires to get good data.

>>131756401
>If I, a middle class worker with 103 IQ, make $100k, it's mine by right
>If this guy, a genius with an IQ of 150, creates a revolutionary invention, builds a massive company and makes $1 billion, REEEEEEEEEEEEEE BROKEN SYSTEM COMRADE BERNIE PLS GIBSMEDAT SHEEEEEEEIT

Really makes you think. Remember, if the system is a free market, then every dollar the genius (or you) makes represents his actual production, as he must have been paid for that production to get that money. He hasn't stolen it from you or anyone else - he made it himself.

There is no such thing OP. You can only be viewed as too rich in the eyes of commie scum.

>>131752880
/dnc

>>131752731
>At what point
When people stop giving you money

>>131752731
>implying im not going to pass on my money to my white offspring
There's no such thing as too much money

>>131756894
>too rich

isn't this synonymous with crooked or corrupt these days though?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o46HH-TfNY

>>131752731
20-30 million is fine, once you have enough cash, you can just buy a normal house in an upper middle class area and live out your life there. Most millionaires do not live in fancy mansions OP. As long as you are frugal with your wealth, you can make it last.

There should be a limit per individual as well as per family. Anything over that limit goes to a charity of your choice. You can eliminate welfare by doing this.

If you ask how much is too rich, I can tell you're too dumb.

>>131752731
tfw you will never breed this woman

just kill me now

>>131757122
physically remove yourself, S O T O S P E A K
Why should you decide how much I can keep of what I earn?

>>131757122
Lots of people will work for money they can't keep. Your genius!

File: IMG_0232.jpg (37KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 384x384px

>>131752731

File: huey-long-9385584-1-402.jpg (116KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1200x1200px

>>131757122
This. We need a new Huey Lonh

>>131756618
>what is this corporate tyranny
Example would be when California started making 'readyreturn' system for tax filing. They just sent you a postcard and you signed it, or if you wanted filed the old way. The state already has all the data it needs for your taxes, employers have to report, investment brokers do too, health care, etc. a computer can figure it all out. There was a pilot program. Everyone loved it. But then tax filling companies paid millions in lobbying and campain funds and the program was dropped. Because they need a complex tax system to have a bussniss.
Another example is big timber lobbying for subsidies.
Another example is 80% of independent studies show bpd plastics are bad for you but 78% of Industry funded studies say they are safe, so they can lobby for no regulation and pretend there is conflicting data. There are 1000s of examples,

File: ayn rand mcnukes 01.png (422KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1280x720px

>>131757412
you posted a level 3 goldpill jew

Bask in the glory of my level 10 goldpill jew

>>131755374

Yeah, greed is great. It's why every civilization eventually collapses, too. When most people are poor in the United States, as the middle class continues to be gutted because of the policies of these greedy fucks, I'm sure you'll be singing the same tune.

>>131755374
This, greed/capitalism is fucking good and it works you retarded motherfuckers. I admit I'm greedy as fuck and I want to become rich
by creating my own companies/businesses and therefore creating more jobs and adding value to society. It's that fucking simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG8hAULqUOw

>>131757412
Don't cite fucking positivist-empirists. Read austrians for fuck sake.

>>131752731

There's nothing wrong with having a lot of cash as long as you spend it and spread it around; if it sits in a bank generating interest, it does nobody any good. But a lot of good can be done by a rich individual (see Bill Gates, the obvious example); even spending that money on self-interest can be generally beneficial - see Zucc providing internet to 3rd world regions. Yes, he profits and gets to run JewBook, but there is also ample evidence that the internet is good for the economy.

Short answer: not about how much, it's about what you do with it.

>>131752731
3000 euro per month. Any more than that and people are just gonna waste it on frivolous shit.

>>131752731
100 million to a billion. at some point you can start influencing government and this shouldn't be possible imo

>>131755998
Whats Jewish about it.

>>131755374
>Greed is good
Enjoy hell :)

>>131756715
Jews earn every stereotype they have. They are the most greedy, selfish people I have ever met.

>>131756469
I think something could be said for wanting more than enough though. At some point it's gotta be enough. If you caught Bill Gates demanding to get a discount on a pair of fucking pants or whatever you would probably shake your head.

I go to college to become an engineer, but I'm not fooling myself into thinknig that I'm doing it soley for the pay. I want to have a challenging and meaningful occupation one day, that's why. The money doesn't hurt, but it's not the main reason.

Like with everything else, there's a grey-zone here. In Sweden we'd say you should aim for a just a little bit more than a 'lagom' amount of money.

>>131757570
State greed.

>>131752731
Money is a tool that enables power. If you are an entrepreneurial individual who has dreams and aspirations to improve the world around you, having as much money as possible is absolutely vital. Otherwise, if you are a person who just carries on over the days like they all the same, acquiring wealth becomes nothing but a pointless exercise of greed.

>>131757751
Pretty much justifying jewish greed

>>131757638
>Bill Gates
>Good
He's saving africans and exploding their population to unsustainable levels this causes famine there and refugees here. It's a loss for all. Do you want sub 100IQ savages in your continent, no, they have their own for that.

>>131757792
This, one of the people I worked with said he saw a Turbo-Shekel Sniffer in a soup kitchen during the time he was dependent on those places. Her behavior was also atrocious according to that individual who had that run in with her. (Cut in line, etc)

>>131757570
No free market civilization has ever collapsed. Free market economies are stable, and even if inequality increases, it literally doesn't matter because:
a) In a free market, inequality is caused by differences in productive ability, not force, taxation, and slavery as in feudalism, tribalism or communism,
b) In a free market, nobody gets rich except by offering products or services which are in demand from others - the only way to gain wealth is actually to work for what others are willing to pay for. Thus, if I get rich, I've only done it by making every one of those I deal with richer too. Everyone gets richer.

However, there are countless examples, from ancient Rome to modern post-colonial Africa, of societies that collapsed when they abandoned free market principles. So you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>131756855
Oh come off it. 8'm fine with someone making 10 billion. But stop pretending one mid level person is worth 100000000000x times what another person is worth. There is some point where there is something wrong if some people at a company are making not 10x not 50x but 999999999x what someone else at the same company is making.
Friendly reminder that without checks on capitalism you'd all be augmented slaves working 22 hour days in a neofeudal system.
I love when I say, hey maybe there is some limit, you retards have to go, " nah aaa, why should 150iq worker not get more than lazy 90iq worker you stupid commiusmit ".
Well yeah, he should get more. Stop strawmannirg

>>131756216
Nope, it is natural to be selfish, but there is a point of when you have to stop for long term reasons.

Be selfish, but only within reason. Do not uproot the entire system to fuel that greed.

>>131755374
altough i find anarcho-memeism tedious, you are right, good sir.

>>131752731
There is no cutoff point. It is all relative. Rich to some nigger tribe member in Africa has a different ceiling to somebody living in a castle.

>>131752731
I'm not too fond when people and corporations become so rich they can challenge the authority of powerful countries.

But besides that I don't see a big deal with people becoming hyper rich, so long as they are effectively investing their capital in the free markets, making everyone in society better off as a result.

Spending billions and billions on vanity projects is kinda wasteful though I think.

File: temporarysetback.jpg (548KB, 3456x1944px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 3456x1944px

non of your business nigga

>>131752731
As soon as you have something you can share and You don't..you feed Mammon

>>131752731
>How thicc is too thicc?

>>131752731
There is a point were having toomuch money mesaans you have a responsibility to use it to better your community (investing or wat not) otherwise you are actively hurting the economy.

>>131752731
They have done studies here that show if you make more than 90k USD, you are less happy than if you just made 90k.

That is probably because over-worked doctors/surgeons/finance people etc. fall into that category though.

"Just greed" is when you sacrifice happiness for money.

File: IMG_0235.jpg (83KB, 600x598px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x598px

>>131758047
I love you retards.
Protip: there has never been a true free market industrial society because every one needed government support to get started at a large enough scale to make big enough industy to be effeienct enough to compete.
Your dream world has never exsisted and will never exsist. Every country that industrialized needed government money to get started, the smart ones just let than go independent after they were established

>>131758810
Yes, it's called corporate welfare.

>>131755374
>>greed is good
If it causes no suffering you moron, everything in moderation.

You are probably the type who would cry about abortion while simultaneously saying the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare. Fuck off 13 y.o edgelord

File: lel.jpg (4KB, 243x207px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 243x207px

>>131758047
>Lolbertarians actually exist

>>131758173
"Are they really worth 100 of us?" editorialists ask. Depends on what you mean by worth. If you mean worth in the sense of what people will pay for their skills, the answer is yes, apparently. A few CEOs' incomes reflect some kind of wrongdoing. But are there not others whose incomes really do reflect the wealth they generate? Steve Jobs saved a company that was in a terminal decline. And not merely in the way a turnaround specialist does, by cutting costs; he had to decide what Apple's next products should be. Few others could have done it. And regardless of the case with CEOs, it's hard to see how anyone could argue that the salaries of professional basketball players don't reflect supply and demand. It may seem unlikely in principle that one individual could really generate so much more wealth than another. The key to this mystery is to revisit that question, are they really worth 100 of us? Would a basketball team trade one of their players for 100 random people? What would Apple's next product look like if you replaced Steve Jobs with a committee of 100 random people? [6] These things don't scale linearly. Perhaps the CEO or the professional athlete has only ten times (whatever that means) the skill and determination of an ordinary person. But it makes all the difference that it's concentrated in one individual.

>>131759048
When we say that one kind of work is overpaid and another underpaid, what are we really saying? In a free market, prices are determined by what buyers want. People like baseball more than poetry, so baseball players make more than poets. To say that a certain kind of work is underpaid is thus identical with saying that people want the wrong things. Well, of course people want the wrong things. It seems odd to be surprised by that. And it seems even odder to say that it's unjust that certain kinds of work are underpaid. [7] Then you're saying that it's unjust that people want the wrong things. It's lamentable that people prefer reality TV and corndogs to Shakespeare and steamed vegetables, but unjust? That seems like saying that blue is heavy, or that up is circular. The appearance of the word "unjust" here is the unmistakable spectral signature of the Daddy Model. Why else would this idea occur in this odd context? Whereas if the speaker were still operating on the Daddy Model, and saw wealth as something that flowed from a common source and had to be shared out, rather than something generated by doing what other people wanted, this is exactly what you'd get on noticing that some people made much more than others. When we talk about "unequal distribution of income," we should also ask, where does that income come from? [8] Who made the wealth it represents? Because to the extent that income varies simply according to how much wealth people create, the distribution may be unequal, but it's hardly unjust.

File: kill me.jpg (85KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1000x1000px

>>131758047
>ancient Rome
>societies that collapsed when they abandoned free market principles
WE WUZ

>>131758173
>But stop pretending one mid level person is worth 100000000000x times what another person is worth
Think of it this way. If you were to remove the top 1% most intelligent people from society, where do you think we'd be?
No Aristotle, no Newton, no Beethoven, no Edison, no Henry Ford... Do you honestly think we'd be anywhere near the level of advancement we're at now if it weren't for those at the very top of the human pyramid?
Intelligence doesn't scale linearly. When it comes to ideas, a single independent high intelligence is worth more than a million average men. All progress comes ultimately from that minute proportion of top brains which create and discover the new in the realm of ideas; ideas which than then be copied and adapted by lesser minds. The lesser mind is dependent on the genius, not the other way around.

>>131758785
Read the thread first. No one cares about someone making 100,000 vs someone making 350,000. We are talking about the hyper rich here. Wen someone who only employs 200 people is worth 40 billion because of wallstreet connections, we are asking if that makes sense. And would it really be so bad if they were worth 20 billion instead.

>>131759162
“Every man is free to rise as far as he’s able or willing, but it’s only the degree to which he thinks that determines the degree to which he’ll rise. Physical labor as such can extend no further than the range of the moment. The man who does no more than physical labor, consumes the material value-equivalent of his own contribution to the process of production, and leaves no further value, neither for himself nor others. But the man who produces an idea in any field of rational endeavor—the man who discovers new knowledge—is the permanent benefactor of humanity. Material products can’t be shared, they belong to some ultimate consumer; it is only the value of an idea that can be shared with unlimited numbers of men, making all sharers richer at no one’s sacrifice or loss, raising the productive capacity of whatever labor they perform. It is the value of his own time that the strong of the intellect transfers to the weak, letting them work on the jobs he discovered, while devoting his time to further discoveries. This is mutual trade to mutual advantage; the interests of the mind are one, no matter what the degree of intelligence, among men who desire to work and don’t seek or expect the unearned.

>>131759193
“In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the ‘competition’ between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of ’.exploitation’ for which you have damned the strong."
(Atlas Shrugged)

>>131755374
Brilliantly put.

Capital accumulation is a prerequisite for civilization and scientific advancement.

Anyone that calls someone greedy is displaying the fact that they are an envious, hateful POS that resents the ability of someone else to out-earn them. And don't think this hatred is reserved for multi-millionaires: I work in a factory and make a decent bit of money after 30 years of labor and study. I have been subjected to some snide remarks about being "rich" from people who won't get up before noon or keep a job for more than two weeks.

>>131752731
Personally I think anything over 10-20 mil is excessively wealthy.

>>131752731
over 80k usd per annum

>>131759164
I was answering the question OP asked; "How rich is too rich" and "when is it just greed".

How fair it is, is another question.

>>131752731
At that point that would be several milions, and so, with 5-6 mils in the bank and another 1mil coming clean every year, you are secure for sure.

But as anti communist myself, I imagine having this moneys and doing research on scientific stuff, hiring engineers and other ppl that don't work for free and have spend their 1/2 life dedicating in this specific science area. That being said, I most probably will make a business that will keep the cash flow around so I dont bankrupt in 5 years.
After that I will help the humanity (since all the research and new tech will be open source) to advance better and easier into the future.

But, if you are fucking commie, you will give all your money to the poor. Or if you are brain manlet you will have bling and expensive shit etc.

The point is, if you are pleb, even rich, you stay pleb, and if you are commie pleb that redistribute the wealth you are only breeding plebs times <your capital>

>>131759005
If 'greed' is taken in this context to mean greed for the earned, rather than the unearned (which would necessitate exploitation), and if greed is the desire for values, then how could greed ever lead to suffering? If greed is the desire for values, material or spiritual, then according to what standard are we to judge what constitutes a breach of moderation?

>>131752731
Money is power.

You can never have too much capacity to protect yourself and influence your surroundings, from a purely self interested perspective.
If your morality/ethics align ideally with my own, then you cannot possess too much much power.
If they do not, I wish for you to have none.

File: IMG_0085.jpg (117KB, 611x900px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 611x900px

>>131759048
Strawmanning again.
I clearly said in the post you linked someone making 100x someone else is fine, I'm asking at what limit is here, I'm asking about the people worth 999999999x someone else in the same country working at the same company.
And before you say it, yes of course referencing African bushmans net worth is pointless, that's why I said same country and same company.
And just to make it crystal clear, once again, not talking about someone making 100x but someone making 9999999x someone else in same company . It some point there is a clear breakdown of the system

>>131752895
You realize that most banks have an interest cap to prevent that from happening, you'd have to deposit at like 100 banks at the same time to be able to live a rich life from interest.

>>131752731
Every single billionaire is a crime against humanity.
Unlike commie OP I want people to be millionaires because millionaires are useful to society whilst billionaires destroy society for their own greed.
Each billionaires money could create up to thousands of nice useful millionaires.

>>131755819
Gee Brazil, I wonder why every religion on earth warns about greed. Your country is a prime example of greed gone wrong, or did you think hordes of kids sleeping in the street was normal?

>>131759676
Exactly

>>131759120
>t. brainlet
Admittedly, the turn towards economic statism was not the only factor behind the fall of Rome. But it was a major factor. At the height of the Roman Empire, you had to work only 3 days out of the year to pay your taxes, and relatively free trade flourished throughout the empire. When it was collapsing, the 'bread and circuses' welfare state was destroying its wealth. Economic freedom has been a characteristic of long-lived and successful empires, such as the British Empire as well. Listen to molymeme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U

>>131756855
Typical middleclass lack of connection with reality

Your hypotetical high iq genious producing a revolutionary invention benefiting all society is in all cases in fact a scheming kike earning those billions.

Highly qualified workforce is the number one excuse to lower taxes on loaded kikes.

Get your romantic facts straight.

>>131759718
There is no "Hordes of kids".

The few kids that are indeed out in the streets are there because of broken families. Also, most of them are addicted to drugs. Nothing to do wtith money desu.

File: thomas-sowell-on-greed.jpg (43KB, 474x455px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 474x455px

>>131752731
Relevant.

how thicc is too thicc?

>>131759259
Based productivebro, Ayn Rand was right and always shall be.

>>131759162
>Aristotle, no Newton, no Beethoven, no Edison, no Henry Ford.
Strawmanning. Henry ford is a far cry from a. Hedge fund manager and he was very rich, again, I'm fine with super rich if they aren't improvising thier employees

>>131752731
Why is it acceptable for fat cunts to become models these day?

>>131752731
Thanks for the eye treat <3

>>131752880
HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH

>>131760425
she is beautiful, women need a little bit of fat, skinny women are gay

>>131759844
In the current system, it is indeed possible for a scheming kike to earn money without producing its equivalent in value. But he can do this only by force and fraud, by using a government club to steal what he wants and by violating contracts. If I were a sneaky kike who wanted to get rich without producing in a free market society, what could I do? The government couldn't help me - all it could do is protect such property as I managed to acquire legitimately, but it would also protect the property of others from my predations. If I violated contract, I would be forced to pay reparations by a fair system of law. There is literally no way I could get honest producers to hand over their goods, services or money to me without offering something of greater value in return, if they were free to own their own property and act as they pleased with it.
I'm not defending the current system. I'm defending a free market system.

>>131760661
>>using government club to steal

Are you saying we can't use the government to stop him?

Do you think someone who evades EPA legislation and lets their workers die from mercury poisoning (Koch brothers) will stop when there is no government? Are you really this retarded?

What will keep a company from cooking their books and stealing an investors money if not for government oversight (when it actually exists)? This is the Nigeria investor problem and why no one will invest in African stocks you dipshit. The government, when it functions properly, which doesn't always happen because people can be corrupted, can create an environment that protects an investor and thereby allows capital liquidity to occur.

File: kek!!.jpg (192KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1200x630px

>>131759797
>t. lolbert
I stopped watching Molymeme after I saw his video on Scandinavia, where he showed how far he got his head up his ass. Waste of time. That's my argument for not watching his video.

>At the height of the Roman Empire, you had to work only 3 days out of the year to pay your taxes
If you were a - Roman Citizen - and when 40%+ of the population were slaves? Source

>When it was collapsing, the 'bread and circuses' welfare state was destroying its wealth
Ridicilous simplification of history. The Roman Empire was in no way a "Welfare" state, not even close.

>British Empire
Economic freedom is not the same as Libertarianism/An-Cap. You could argue that the British Empire did so great because they had full control over their economy - decrease or increase "freedom" when the Empire saw fit.

What do the Roman Empire, British Empire and the American Empire all have in common? Imperialism. All these empires were or are fully dependent on Imperialism.

>>131759069
In a free market.. but you and I know that nothing's is free ... and the "federal" reserve fiat petro dollars is based on (((their))) feel of the moment

>>131752731
Never, so long as it's legitimately earned

>>131752731
If a guy wants to keep amassing weakth through legitimate means, it's immotal to stop him. It infringed on his civil liberties.

There's also another issue. Who defines what "too rich" means?

>>131761298
Ok Mammon you wasting you precious time here you have shekels to acquire now now..

>>131761505
What are legitimate means?

>>131759797
Rome was never free market. Even in the early days they put price controls on grain and other stuff when it got really expensive. Long before Rome collapsed.

>>131761115
What gets me the most about lolberts is how ignorant they are of how financial markets work. They literally think that *if only everyone acted like me the world would be perfect, also fuck government because it's my way or the highway.* They are so completely socially unaware of how irresponsible they behave, act and sound it's ridiculous.

>>131761807
Private enterprise.

I'm not a lolbetarian though, I believe business should be taxed to a certain degree.

File: 1495043142965.png (115KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 785x757px

>the commies ITT

When did /pol/ become flooded with some many gibsmedat apologists? It wasn't like this in 2012.

>>131761115
>Ridicilous simplification of history. The Roman Empire was in no way a "Welfare" state, not even close.
>what was the grain dole
>What were Trajan's reforms
Yes, the welfare state in Rome never reached the massive proportions of modern Western states. I doubt the Roman economy could even have supported welfare on such a scale. But you can't deny it was a major factor.
>Economic freedom is not the same as Libertarianism/An-Cap. You could argue that the British Empire did so great because they had full control over their economy - decrease or increase "freedom" when the Empire saw fit.
I don't know what you're aiming at here. Yes, the British empire was by no means libertarian, but they undeniably spread economic freedom and encouraged worldwide free trade. This was why it was so prosperous and stable.
>All these empires were or are fully dependent on Imperialism.
Tautology. Obviously any empire is an 'imperial' undertaking. The question is, what makes a good, prosperous, stable, developing empire, and what makes a shitty one that falls apart in one or two generations? The answer is primarily economic freedom.

>>131757024
But OP defined too rich as enough you and your family to survive. How much of your family and what does OP mean by survive? What kind of lifestyle? One outfit per person, one family vehicle, and a rice and beans diet? And even if we're talking about billionaires like the Gates' should they just stop running their business? Should they put every penny earned back into the business and taxes? Did Bill Gates not earn his wealth? Is it greedy for him and his family to benefit from his hard work and innovation? Tax loopholes and the IRS need to be reformed, absolutely, but how is it anyone's business how the Gate's spend what they earned? On top of that they've pledged to give up 95% or some such of their wealth when they pass. I do think there's a whole lot of bullshit behind that since charities are so abused and corrupted. But assuming it's not a bunch of bullshit, shouldn't they continue to amass as much wealth as possible so they give away a larger amount of money?

>>131761866
It's, funny enough, the same idealistic trap commies fall into, everyone will be a self interested good faith actor with no subversion or curruption, choice will magically stop abuse nevermind startig y our own factory is impossible.

>>131757783
hell isn't real

>>131753981
>this
If you told me I would be making the money I do now but still worrying about money when I was in high school I would be shocked.
But their is a diminishing return on money to happiness but it is higher that 150k. At some point the stuff you can buy does not get much better the more you pay. You may be trying to compete with other rich assholes and that is why you keep trying to gain more.
Gaining more money by investing and expanding is good rich.
Gaining money by cutting people is bad rich (even if it is needed at times).

>>131761866
First they treat the economy as something spiritual, and the "freer the market the better" is their God.

>>131761084
>What will keep a company from cooking their books and stealing an investors money if not for government oversight (when it actually exists)?
Violate the NAP, get McNuked. Or watch as nobody worth a dime wants to deal with you because you're known as a thieving scumbag. Contract, mothafucka.
>Do you think someone who evades EPA legislation and lets their workers die from mercury poisoning (Koch brothers) will stop when there is no government?
Were safe working conditions part of the contract of employment? If so, the employer has violated the contract and will be sued for a gorillion dollars in a free market system. Employment conditions improved rapidly in the 19th century with or without government intervention

>>131752731
What does it matter how much money you have?
It doesnt belong to anyone but yourself.

>>131755496
It is actually your income vs everyone else that really matters. Most people still judge themselves by their position in the group and income is an indicator of importance.

>>131752731
Amassing that much wealth is he, and it is wrong. It still doesn't justify stealing it, which is also wrong. Try wrongs doesn't make a right. Godless communists.

>>131761849
True, but they were a hell of a lot more free market than any of the barbarian shitholes surrounding them. A little economic freedom goes a long way.

>>131753696
you kidding?
I have 100 btc and I'm not even close to feeling rich

>>131762541
Who would oversee the lawsuit? Who would enforce it? Employee conditions improved because of massive strikes that forced the government's hand. And even then, on more occassion companies sicked private enforcers on strikers. This is basic history.

>>131755499
Agreed comrade you will be allowed one room one bed with necessary personal provisions everything else you own will be shared.

>>131755374
Good post but you should also add one

OP, circa 2300
>How rich is too rich. At a certain point you and your entire families uploaded consciousnesses would have enough colony ships and AI servants to colonize half the milky way galaxy at what point does it just begin to be greed?

>>131752731
>too rich

>>131759162
The genius also depends on the man with an average mind. Where would Newton have been without food, clothes, pen and paper,a mail service with which to correspond with his peers on the continent, people to bind and print books, etc...

Ultimately, we need bread more than we need Newtonian physics.

>>131762687
I wouldn't call any society with slavery that relies on state enforcement economically free in any way.

File: IMG_0280.jpg (491KB, 1280x1393px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1280x1393px

>>131762277
Remember bill gates inherited 300million dollars, which means he was able to fail as long as it took to be successful.
His grandfather was a centeral bank president and his other grand father was a bloody Maxwell. his actual name is William Henry Gates THE THIRD.
I'm not saying he didn't earn his billions to some extent, but don't pretend joesmoe off the street has the same connections and wealth cushion bill did, and bill was /just/ a hard smart worker.

>>131752731
ask Commies
they stole shit they didn't even know what it was for

>>131752731
Any income more than 100x the national median income is too much.

Shut the fuck up, you marxist fuck

>>131761866
>if only everyone acted like me the world would be perfect, also fuck government because it's my way or the highway
You literally have no idea what libertarianism is about, you fucking brainlet. The whole point is that it DOESN'T require everyone to believe the same thing to work together within the division of labor towards common prosperity. I think AnCap could work in theory, but I'm not autistically against a government if the only thing it does is protect property and administer justice.

>>131759671

>poorfags in charge of banking knowledge

top kek

>>131762990
Look at all the football players that make insane millions and go bankrupt. Don't pretend that just anyone can build an empire. He could have lived quite comfortably off that inheritance, but that leads us back to this >>131755374. Should people who get comfy inheritances just piss away the money by never working again and supporting a family of NEETs? My answer to OP there is no such thing as too rich, and everyone is greedy to an extent.

File: (((porn industry))).png (147KB, 1304x856px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1304x856px

>>131762990
>some weird perverted freak actually saved this, let alone made it in the first place
Absolutely disgusting.

(((They))) really are trying to sexualize everything.

>>131762955
>Where would Newton have been without food, clothes, pen and paper,a mail service with which to correspond with his peers on the continent, people to bind and print books, etc...
Who, do you think, invented agriculture (to grow the food), writing (pen, paper and mail), books (Gutenberg), the philosophical principles needed to discover or invent all these things? A man who possesses only an average intelligence, can only apply the ideas created by the genius. The genius is the primary source of man's survival.
A society of Newtons would have all of those things, and much more. A society without Newtons would be Africa.
>Ultimately, we need bread more than we need Newtonian physics.
10 000 years earlier, you could have said
>Ultimately, we need flint arrowheads more than we need irrigation ditch-digging knowhow
All human survival above the brute animal level requires intellectual innovation. And it is a very few of us who are capable of genuine intellectual innovation.

>>131762541
>Or watch as nobody worth a dime wants to deal with you because you're known as a thieving scumba
This relies on a robust completive market in every single field to allow you to say fuck off, I'm working with someone else for this good or service. But without government market intervention every market WILL become a monopoly or if your lucky a duopoly over time, and your system kills it's own safeguards. Which is why it is as idealisticly naive as commuisism

File: cultural marxist spotted.gif (499KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 400x400px

>>131752731
fuck off

>>131752731
>At what point does freedom become too free?

>>131763709
>without government market intervention every market WILL become a monopoly
Why?
Both economic theory and historical evidence point to free markets destroying, rather than creating, monopolies. Why would a free market create monopolies? Arguments pls.

Its around 100k yearly, if u make lets say 5% returns then 2m would suffice. Theres no point in making more money

>>131759671
Which is why a normal healthy individual just invests into a business with a guaranteed dividend payout like 7% div/yield that the royal dutch shell has promised for over 100 years now.

>>131752731
>How rich is too rich?
Infinity dollars plus one seems a little excessive.

>>131764059
communist scum

>>131762187
>Grain dole
You mean when the Roman Economy became so imperialistic that they didn't produce enough food in Italy, so they imported and sold at very low prices? This isn't "welfare state", but imperialism.

>Trajan
Died 117 AD. The Roman Empire did relatively well at that time. You would have to elaborate here.

>but they undeniably spread economic freedom and encouraged worldwide free trade.
No they didn't, they encouraged trade that benefited England and the Empire. The Commerce were heavily controlled for it's time. The free trade you are thinking of, is the European expansion into new markets where opportunists (not negative in this context) had "unlimited" room for expansion and growth, where the British Empire (and the other Empires) were more than happy with them being de-jure under British control, as they would bring back cheap goods to British markets with various degrees of taxes.

>This was why it was so prosperous and stable.
It was so prosperious and stable because of British exceptionalism and Imperialism. It's false to say that they practiced "free trade" when they literally went to war and used force to control the economy. Widespread use of taxation/tariffs/regulation/monopolies etc. were also used. What made the British exceptional is this control over Commerce, not how free it was.

>Tautology. Obviously any empire is an 'imperial' undertaking.
But how dependent the economy is on imperialism, is something completely else. If I steal the food, money and equipment of my neighbor he get's poor and I get richer. Did the world turn out better from it? There is a great difference between what is good for you/some people, and what is good and successful as a whole.

>The answer is primarily economic freedom.
Which you base on nothing but religious feelings.

>>131763391
Why are you comparing footballl players to 300million? There are a few that make 100 million+, but none of those go broke, the ones that grow broke are the 300,000 to 1 million crowd that had a career of 4 years pro and spent like a person with a prement job, anyways I clearly said I think bill gates earned his billions and that not everyone could do what he did.

>>131752731
There can never be too much. That money can go down your family line. Who's to say one of them in the future won't do something stupid and go in debt? With normal amounts he may not be able to pay it off, but with crazy amounts of money down the family line he can get out of that quick and back to what matters.

Alternatively, when you're earning big time bucks you can donate a lot of shit and help people. I already have it planned out a bit for donating if I earn a lot of money down the line.

>>131762788
>Who would oversee the lawsuit? Who would enforce it?
In a minarchist system, the government. In an AnCap system, the contract would have included a reference to a third party to arbitrate any disagreements.
>This is basic history.
(((history)))

File: IMG_0203.jpg (150KB, 1100x701px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1100x701px

>>131764002
There is no historical evidence because no free market has exsisted, but the evidence that is there shows trusts forming, people cornering the market that were only stopped by extraordinary measures.
But game theory also shows a trend towards oligarchy, because someone will eventually make a mistake and the other players will captiolize on it, till at some point you only have 3 players in a market left. Game theory shows this can stabilize because if one party gets to po strong the other two will gang up on them. Not that 3 super players counts a a free market. Two players in a market is pretty unstable because as soon as one makes a mistake the other can captialise on it.

>>131764903
Stop posting pornography, mindgeek... >>131763622

>>131764903
Source plz

>>131764330
>(((history)))
It's not in doubt, you can go pull out the newspapers from the record rooms to see the photos of the gunmen yourself if you want.
>>131764002
>Both economic theory and historical evidence
More like
((Economic theory)) which has been shown to be wrong by hisortial economic theory study 3 times over, read a critical book outside your fandom sometime

>>131765322
Pornography is a mind virus.

Get rid of it or have a sex-obsessed brain that's incapable of thinking logically.

>>131752731
If you're ok with not having a mansion with a heated gravel driveway and would prefer to live out your life in an upper middle class home, about $17-20 million would do it if you continually invested a capped pot of $2-3 million of it every year

Having a cap is an interesting concept. The part that confuses me is when someone says the rest should be given to charity. To me it seems more productive to put that cash towards projects that let people work to enrich and better themselves rather than handouts "because we're nice like that". Things like road projects and construction work would be a great start.

On a semi unrelated note:
It would be neat to see the rich taxed further with less loopholes, and government agencies ran like a responsibly run nonprofit business that keeps it's contractors their sub-contractors and the in house talent in check and liable for their own actions.

>>131764903
i need source, pls

Until I own every person in this world, you can just whine there, you filthy communist

>>131752731
>How rich is too rich?
When you have so much money that you cannot find capital investment for your money.

Greed is not the want for wealth, but the want to gain wealth by using immoral methods, such as theft or usury.

>>131764903
>because someone will eventually make a mistake and the other players will captiolize on it,
>Two players in a market is pretty unstable because as soon as one makes a mistake the other can captialise on it.
And in the context of a free market, what does it mean to capitalize on the mistake of one's competitor?
A free market is a competition for profit - which means a competition for cheap and efficient production. If my competitor makes a mistake (i.e. he makes a decision that leads to reduced/less efficient production), then naturally I will outcompete him by virtue of being relatively better at production. But, THIS IS A GOOD THING. The better producer has won out over the worse one. The consumer benefits.
I should have clarified my argument: Free markets never create DESTRUCTIVE monopolies, only constructive, beneficial ones - and then, only occasionally. If I can produce in a given field better than any of my competitors, and thus become a de facto monopoly, this is not a problem. It is not possible, however, for me to produce less efficiently than my competitors and force customers to buy from me anyway (this would be a destructive monopoly).
Your error is treating competing businesses as if they are out to destroy each other. They cannot destroy each other, they can only outcompete each other in the function WE WANT them to be carrying out, the function of production.

>>131765353
>((Economic theory)) which has been shown to be wrong by hisortial economic theory study 3 times over
Arguments pls, (((argument from authority))) is the ultimate shitty meme

File: IMG_0158.jpg (191KB, 1107x798px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1107x798px

>>131766054
>When you have so much money that you cannot find capital investment for your money.
Wallstreet passed that a long time ago then. They just invent things to swap around money and bid each other up these days, even with interest rates at near negative levels they aren't investing in new jobs anymore (for the most part).
Fun side fact, did you know 0.000028% of the population funds 98%+ of political campaigns and politcal marketing? That's one thing they are using thier captial to invest in, access to government. Which they do just for the power sometimes, but sometimes it's also perfectly rational, if you make 300 million off a prescription laws that favor your product for no good reason (real example) you should spend up to 299.99 million in politics to keep it.
>>131765172
Why? Is your ancap flag against mindgeeks freemarket power? Isn't that ideologically inconsistent? They are offering a product and a service

>>131755374
>Greed is good
wrong
Striving for a perfect Christian society is the only way forward.

>>131766895
>Isn't that ideologically inconsistent?
Utter, irredeemable brainlet detected
It would be ideologically inconsistent to demand the use of force to destroy the porn company
Taking a moral stand is not just permitted, but an essential part of any kind of libertarianism.

>>131767181
>He still worships the jew on a stick

>What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

>Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

>They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.

>No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body."

>>131766700
Okay, shitty economic theory says any government spending crowds out private investment, and is basically theft, and thus austarsy measures will lead to growth.
It's one of those things that sounds right, but takes a long argument with data to show why it's wrong and every time it was done in history it didn't work. I can't display all the data here, read a book, I suggest "austerity" by mark biyth. This is what I mean by reading books outside of your fandom because he uses studies you will never hear about in a anti government polnomic book, like a freedman fan

File: IMG_0277.jpg (78KB, 640x726px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x726px

>>131767251
Then I will continue to post porn, but feel free to complain about it till you are blue in the face, everyone wants porn, it's a drug, and you don't have the power to not want it.

>>131767580
>every time it was done in history it didn't work
Okay, that's how I know this is kike bullshit
When was the greatest economic growth in history? In 19th century America and the UK, with private banking, low taxes and few regulations.
I would almost never trust so-called (((evidence-based))) conclusions on economics, except on the very largest historical scales. The reason is that any economy is so complex with so many interrelating factors and evolving metrics that one can """""prove"""""" virtually anything by selectively presenting data. I'm going to need a logical argument from first principles as to why a free market would create destructive monopolies, or why government spending is better than private investment.

>>131756235

Per second

At WhatsApp point will understand that, this is the wrong aproach?

>>131768314
Read the book and get back to me, your theory is based on bad knowledge of the time

>>131759797
>When you watch an opposition's counter video to Molymeme for shits and giggles, only to realise Molymeme's bullshit
Please don't for his nonsense. Never have I ever seen a bigger BTFO vid than this response to his "fall of Rome" video. (by some anti-anti SJW youtuber) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHW3Y_p2llo

When you have a spare 55 mins tonight, check it out

>>131768314
It's your theory that is kike bullshit mate. You've been tricked by people like the koch brothers funding thier own interests through third parties and you don't even realise it,

>>131768742
Ok, I know molymeme is a meme, but I thought he was basically accurate
I'll check it out

File: not an argument.jpg (17KB, 720x533px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 720x533px

>>131768901
>>131768732

>Still not an argument

>>131767845
>pear of anguish
huh.
you learn something new every day

>>131755496

I think people often misinterpret this as "making more money doesn't make you happier," which is obviously incorrect. Making more money does make you happier, but it's actually the *increase* that's making you happier, not the level of income itself.

Psychologically we're wired to like gains of any kind, and feel sad about losses. This means that you could be making a million dollars per year, but if you make that consistently for a long time, you become accustomed to it and don't find it satisfying any more.

>>131752731
No such thing as too rich, but there is such a thing as too much envy. Greed is good...

The point where you are taking trips every six months. The point where you are buying multiple houses.

>>131756049
> took pretend debt and raided a bunch of firms asset sheets

if those firms have a bunch of assets that are being poorly used (which they clearly are if they're trading at a low enough discount for you to be able to buy them and make a profit on it), then it's actually quite beneficial for society as a whole for them to be transferred to their most efficient use

why would it be virtuous to waste society's resources?

>>131752798
And what favors does Soros, for example, do?

>>131752731
When you start earning above national average, and start evading taxes (simultaneously), then that's when you know you're too rich.

>>131752731
Providing goods and services to people who want them is objectively good. "Greed" as you describe it is the single most benevolent emotion on the planet.

File: nice.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>131769046

>>131752731
kill yourself commie

>>131752731
It becomes greed when you're willing to violate the rights of others to get wealth, regardless of whether you're broke as fuck or a plutocrat.

For example, running around screaming that you want to seize the means of production is a form of greed.

>>131755374

>If we'd listened to your type, we'd still be niggers scavenging for scraps on the plains of Africa

You are not a nigger slaving your ass for "da jahbgiver" only because there were commies who sperged out and started killing greedy faggots.

For one Ford, you have thousand fucking dimwits with money.

File: i drink vespene gas in liquid form - delicious.png (51KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 300x300px

>>131752731
If your Vespene Gas production reaches levels beyond 300/minute you are too rich.

>>131768314
>In 19th century America and the UK, with private banking, low taxes and few regulations.

say your daily thank-you to John Maynard Keynes

>>131769779
oh yeah that too

>>131752731
Have you ever had lots of money in your life, faggot? Well of course you haven't. Once you get a lot of money you set a deadline to how much you can't spend on it, how much you keep aside for emergencies or pleasure. and the more money you get the more you put aside and the more that deadline grows. What a poor stupid fucking faggot are you?

>>131771104
>gypsie pretending to know what it's like having lots of money
kek

File: 1497971265458.jpg (4KB, 250x180px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 250x180px

What's interesting here is that OP just inadvertently showed yet again the perpetual Marxist question for ordinary fence-sitters who can be enticed by gibs. "Look at all this suffering, look at all the shit those guys have." Fuck off commie

>>131752731
$500k/year is plenty. After that you should donate everything to charity. Good charities, not scam charities.

File: 1488901463703.jpg (167KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 720x960px

>>131771420
I'm employed by Vodafone which pays me 2100€ as Manager, which means 25200€ yearly. I pay roughly 150€ per month for rent, water, electricity and internet which leaves me 23400€ total yearly. Fuel for my car as well as food go at maximum 250€, which leaves me 20400€ total yearly.

Brag as much as you want about how you supposedly make a lot more, i don't really gibe a shit.

File: 1496628295148.jpg (52KB, 388x388px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 388x388px

>>131773512
keep up the good fight for you and your family anon, just make sure not to tell other people what to do with their money

>>131767429
>autistic bagels always trying to subvert white Christian Civilization
Leave

>>131752880
oh mama mia the spicy meatballs!

>>131773512
>>131775345
This cannot be said enough times. I find it's best also to present myself as if my income is very average. People get very weird about money.