Why don't Anons unit themselves to break down billionairs

>>135997287
>not knowing Marx was pro free market due to it's acceleration in deteriorating the standard of the working class, opening them up to his radicalization.

>>135997287
Because it's stealing.

>>135997852
Is stealing stealers a crime ?

it also requires r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y, something commies know nothing about.

>>135998310
I am not a Commie. But the power we have makes me mad about injustices.

>>135997287

you take from the competent and give to the incompetent, thus you punish merit and reward mediocrity

>>135997287
yeah because then 3 million iPhones and BMWs will appear from thin air, because that's what the proletariat will want to do with this money.

>>135997287
It doesn't work. That's why.

>>135998584
and incentivize not working.

>>135998861
make that *3 billion

>>135997287
Because redistributing wealth doesn't work.
See-Venezuela

File: 1501755973059.jpg (55KB, 750x666px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 750x666px

Most people that support capitalism are jews.

>>135999016
See Somalia for capitalism/zion

>hey guys you now no longer need to work to survive, everyone gets free everything
>yay!
>the country collapses 2 days later
>b-but it wasn't real communism! i swear!
fucking gas yourself you literal cuckold
how can you honestly want to give away your money to those who can't be arsed to work for it and fucking despise you for not being a retard

File: 1498856897858.jpg (40KB, 638x330px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 638x330px

>>135997287
Going off the gold standard took all the wind out of Marx's sail. With fiat currency and a steady inflation rate there is no issue with capital being accumulated and horded.

The rich are incentivized to invest or else their wealth evaporates.

>>135999098
No. Commies are also to blame for that one. In fact, communism can be looked at for the many failings of post-independence Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Democratic_Republic

File: commie ecelebs.jpg (362KB, 1207x822px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1207x822px

>Commiecucks will defend this

>>135997287
>Why don't Anons unit themselves to break down billionairs and redistribute their money to poors ?

Because it's stealing and most poor people don't deserve the $.

>>135997287
fuck off, if I ever become a pirate, I'll steal from the state and give to the rich.

Poor people would just spend all the obamabux you gave them on lotto tickets and other dumb shit until they're poor again.

>>135997287
Near the end of his life this is exactly what Marx believed. Word for word. I mean only the "frer market" part.
His mistake was that he still believed that communism would be the natural successor.

File: defense spending vs niggers.png (1MB, 1355x723px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1355x723px

>Niggers need more welfar-

>>135997287
Because communists are as susceptible to corruption as everyone else and whatever dream world you think you're gonna get is a dream world that isn't fucking happening.

>>135997287
why redistribute to poor when I can redistribute to myself?

>>135999139
It also meant they spend the money less efficiently which means it makes everyone poorer.

Fuck off.

>>135997287
Because that's caused more human suffering and death for the poor than literally anything else that's been tried so far in human history you fucking commie

File: ConsiderTheFollowing.jpg (20KB, 296x241px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 296x241px

>>135997287
Venezeula

>>135999695
Nope. They spend it as efficiently as they can. They want to maximize their gains.

>>135999839
No, they can't spend it as efficiently as possible because the option of saving the money for later is much less viable

>>135999098
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI

>>135999098
Also, capitalism isn't necessarily anarchy.

>>135999448
>british invention
>russian
>russian
>russian
>german
>german
>israeli

The fat nigger is indeed a burger invention, it seems that's what you're trully good at.

>>135999823
And to a lesser extent
Dertoit, California, New York, Illinois

>>135997287

I'm all for breaking down ((((billionaires)))) and redistributing their wealth. But when you point out the fact that many billionaires are JEWS, watch as leftists suddenly love and defend the rich!

>look at who actually is or isn't a billionaire in the world
>majority of them are Jewish
>suddenly Communists aren't in favor of redistributing the wealth

>>136000142
Do they teach this is EU mind control schools?

Fucking retard

File: you can't go back.png (1MB, 900x572px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x572px

>>135997287
The money should be redistributed to the State to provide for the common good. Fuck the poor. They breed too much, and have a tendency to rebel. High taxation, low individualized social spending. State wealth should go to massive, otherwise unprofitable, but nationally important, infrastructure and technology investments. In time, there won't be poor people because the genetically inferior will be breed out as incompetence is not subsidized, and we we edge ever closer and closer to post-scarcity economics. Also, cap reproduction at 2 children per parent, but allow wealthier families to pay fines for additional children--neutralizing the problem of urbanizaiton and IQ shredders, and low IQ breeding.

Basically, stop being a resentful Jew and instead be more like China striving for collective glory.

File: 1499488134632.jpg (53KB, 800x723px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x723px

>>135999963
A currency that acts as an investment vehicle is a useless currency. That's why buttcoins are useless.

>>135997287
>Why don't Anons unit themselves to break down billionairs and redistribute their money to poors ?
because fuck poor people

why don't we distribute money to the middle class instead

File: marx cannon.jpg (169KB, 975x499px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 975x499px

>>135997287

>>136000639
Saving money is a perfectly viable option, where would you even get the idea that it isn't?

>>136000372
prove me wrong then ffs
>yes we do have schools not inner-city zoos and debt factories in the burbs

File: 3828.jpg (25KB, 292x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 292x500px

>>135997287
Any force that caters to the underperforming while attacking the competent is directly counter-evolution. Therefore its only motive can be to weaken civilisation through suppression of ability and intellect.

>>135997927
>my employer steals my money
if you don't want to work for someone else then create your own business

Oh wait, you commies can't do that cause you are all dumb motherfuckers who never worked one honest day in their life

>>136000621
Yeah give the state all your money and power, this worked out well before didn't it.
At least everyone is equally poor then

>>135997287
Because poor people will always be poor. Its not an economic status its a mindset/lifestyle. Poor people get money and immediately spend it because theyve never had it. Middle class people spend a lot but save some because they are afraid to lose it. Rich people save because they make so much they cant spend it all.
If youre poor and work hard and remember being broke, thats how you make it in life.
Capitalism freesthat option up by giving you the opportunity to do what you want and make it how you want.
Communism forces you to make it and gives you little option on how to use it.
But just ask Russians and Chinese how communism is working for them cause their rulers all live in small houses beside them and theres no such thing as Russian or Chinese billionaires right?

>>136001023
Theft of surplus value of labour.

>>136000948
>Saving money is a perfectly viable option
saving for investments is good, saving for the saving itself is bad and highly undesirable for economy (resources arent being used to increase resource production)

File: 1499956708485.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>135997287
>trust the redistributers not to exploit the situation to establish themselves as the new exploiters

Naive appeasement.

>>135997287
Our market isn't free

It's free for the rich, who impose limits on the system that harm the poor. The health and safety brigade require business that can't even take cripples to install wheelchair access. Even jobs where you have to be crawling into small spaces and stand up like engineering

This crushes competition

File: capitalist-i-pay-you-as-much-as-l-can-afford-26534347.png (155KB, 500x733px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 500x733px

>>136001023

>>136001216
There is absolutely no point in stockpiling money for no reason whatsoever with no plans to spend it or invest it or anything etc.

At all. Nobody becomes a millionaire so they can live like a pauper for the sake of it.

File: 1500908510263.jpg (96KB, 924x1024px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 924x1024px

>>135997287

>>136001350
"Okay, you're fired for asking me with your union for 10 dollars more per hour than you're worth."

File: 174939.png (576KB, 673x764px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 673x764px

>>135997287

>>136001216
Not really true.

If you just remove units of money from demand (ie hide it under the bed) then you increase the amount of goods that others can demand with their money.

In a more realistic scenario people put money in a bank. In this situation it is then (mostly) lent out again.

File: subversion.jpg (10KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 225x225px

>>136001216
>not saving for the sake of saving
Spoken like a filthy jewish economist. Fuck the economy spend only what you need and hoard the rest what are they going to do kick and scream when you're not loaded with debt from buying overpriced shit?

>>136001521
: ) good one. Thanks.

>>136001535
*shots fired*
the free market has spoken.

>>136001350
Unions exist to serve the lefts purpose. Collective bargaining is the most communist thing you can do in a free market.
Unions served their purpose years ago but the government stepped in and regulated the workforce and gave workers their rights.
Unions only serve to steal from hard working people, pay union bosses, and donate to Democrats. Its all theft

>>136001382
>Nobody becomes a millionaire so they can live like a pauper for the sake of it.
where do they have those money? yes, exactly, in a bank - being invested

>>136001350
No libertarian will argue against unions as voluntary associations. There is a problem with unions being above the law when compared to other organisations and incorporations. But that's crony politics more than free market economics.
Unions are desirable in free market economics as they improve the negotiation position of the worker.

>>135997287
>its a marxist claims free markets are exploitive when the only examples of socialism and communism have ended in oppressive and authoritarian state capitalism
Wew absolute lad

File: VzLkTQr.png (195KB, 429x424px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 429x424px

>>135997287
Because I don't give a shit about poor people. Nine times out of ten they got themselves into that position, or they carry the genetics of people dumb enough to have children they can't afford in the first place. Way to go giving birth to someone in a life situation where you can't prove that being itself is good. No wonder poor people are resentful.

File: angry_merch.jpg (68KB, 600x737px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x737px

>>136001596

>>136001138
>all your money
I said high taxation, not outright confiscation, and sure as hell not equality. I also support low regulation. Economic freedom is the only freedom that matters. You don't need intellectual freedom or political freedom. You need the ability to build whatever business you want with minimal barriers (Singapore). The State need exercise monopolistic control of anything beyond the military, natural resources (including energy), and currency--it is impossible to exercise sovereignty without control of these things. The government can't control the economy, that's been proven. Planned economies lack a pricing mechanism, which causes inefficiencies to snowball until there is a collapse.

Build the economy and use the wealth to strengthen the population and the State. Multiply to infinity.

File: 1367682198390.jpg (8KB, 156x163px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 156x163px

>>136001954
oy vey

>>136001800
That's investment, and it gets them more money later.

File: 021.png (36KB, 330x220px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 330x220px

>>135997801
>yfw he was wrong about industrial capitalist countries being more likely to move to communism
>yfw when industrial capitalism has improved the living standard for the average person more than communism ever could

Capitalism won out and it is working beautifully for me.

>>136002109
Communism is fucking stupid it assumes technology and innovation will reach a certain point and just stop.

Which is absolute fucking bullshit pipe dreaming typical of a failed university grad.

Just unite the whole world into a single country, and make an AI run the whole place. There is literally nothing that could go wrong with this plan.

File: 1500315272560.jpg (57KB, 845x845px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 845x845px

>>136001994
>implying taxation isn't theft
>ishygddt

>>136002390
Except the AI will eventually eliminate all humanity.

>>136001596
Don't hoard money like a fucking retard though, it has a tendency to become worth less than the paper it's printed on. Invest in real estate/gold/cryptocurrency.

File: 1417026177171-1.png (477KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 768x768px

>>135997801
Marx was also pro-capitalist because he knew monetary incentive drives technological progress. Socialism and later communism are supposed to kick only after we've reached technological level on post-scarcity and near complete automatization.

Which isn't yet reasonable. Sooner than many would like to think but not yet.

>>136002443
>implying property is a right
MUH Christian metaphysics. Try arguing that property is a natural right without relying on the God Thesis. Human rights are as arbitrary as faggots saying gay marriage is a right, or liberals saying health care is a right. Besides, everything within a sovereign territory belongs to the sovereign, including the people, let along their possessions. Incidentally, even metaphysical Christians believe this, they simply believe that God is the sovereign of all territories. Well that's make believe hogwash. The State is sovereign. All things belong to the State. Don't agree? The State will exercise its sovereignty over your life, exercise monopolistic force and kill your stupid ass. Go start a business, be productive, make shit loads of money, buy a big house, and stop whining about rights. You want a guarantee that the State won't tyrannize you? There is no guarantee. There never was. It's all just window dressing to hide the underlying realities of power. Work hard and hope for the best--and incompetent State won't last long anyway.

"Right" in the liberal democratic sense is indistinguishable from "something I want to have".

File: 1501483047241.jpg (72KB, 553x746px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 553x746px

>>136001994
>Economic freedom is the only freedom that matters. You don't need intellectual freedom or political freedom.
And what kind of faggot are you to tell people what they do or don't need? This is why people can't stand you idiot commie kids. You're the poorest, least-contributing pieces of shit in society and try to pretend like you're in any position to tell other people how to live their lives.

>>135997287
Yes goyim, give all your hard-earned fruits of labor to the crack-addicted nigger down the street! But seriously, back to /leftypol/, (((Bolshevik)))

>>136002868
>automation will eliminate scarcity
No people dont understand innovation and technology create scarcity.Technology and innovation just doesn't stop happening.

If we're talking about post scarcity we've achieved that long ago. Mud huts and designated pooing streets for everyone.

>>136002733
Yeh but I can never see myself spending all that money desu.

>>136002941
This is why you deserve helicopter rides, you don't believe in life, period.

>>135997287

robbing a limited cohorte off of limited savings is a realky viable, sustainable strategy and a sustainable foundation for a future ....

Not.

>>136001800
Not that they live like paupers, but my in-laws have a wood trading business and are millionaires now. They live a modest middle class existence. One 10 day vacation a year, one modest car, a modest house (admittedly nicely decorated). The only luxury good my father in law ever bought was his expensive mountain bike.

>>136002941
Spoken like an idiot.

Rights are things other will recognise it is a duty imposed upon others that recognises your entitlements.

>>136003070
I don't anticipate the ability to tell anyone what to do. I don't believe in democracy, so I certainly don't believe low status majorities get to exercise authority other high status majorities. "Need" is qualified as any MATERIAL desire that one could possibly have. You do not need political power or intellectual freedom to achieve any and ever possible material desire you may have. You need economic freedom to create value. The immaterial is subjective, ethereal, and functionally non-existent. The only thing that exists is the material. It's the only thing you "need" in a literal sense. Everything else is an abstraction.

>>136001994
>I said high taxation, not outright confiscation,

He “said theft, not theft, stupid goyims“

Hear hear, the commiscum speaks ...

>>136003411
And this is why they are rich. I have savings for any misfortune I may have, or any sudden investment I need to make. It sits there until I use it. A debt is a waste of money

I left money 'sitting there' as that retarded anon above said and found I had so much extra I could easily invest and still have plenty for emergencies. I am vastly better off than my peers

>>136002941
>You want a guarantee that the State won't tyrannize you? There is no guarantee.

You're right, but that is exactly why libertarians are fighting to spread the ideology. In the same way Marxist are fighting over ideological hegemony.

>>136003488
>the material is all you need
Then socialism is garbage for that. Capitalism is geared explicitly for the satisfaction of the supply and demand of material needs and more. It can even be used as a model to explain emotional supply and demand.

Communism? The mindless belief that it can impose from top down a collective distribution that can satisfy everyone without any incentives to contain the excess of humanity and address scarcity.

>>136003260
On the contrary. This IS life. State sovereignty is the ultimate hierarchical reality. It is the nexus in which humanity advances itself. It is the ultimate instantiation of civilization. Civilization and the State are the same thing. To reject the State is the reject civilization and embrace primitive barbarism.

>>136003661
Which is proof that libertarians are simply afraid of the potential of reality. They're the true life-deniers, >>136003260 .

>>136003770
Socialism has been postponed indefinitely. All that's left is the State and the Market (State Capitalism, "Socialism with X Characteristic", whatever you want to call it). The State directs the fruits of the market for one purpose and one purpose only: the advancement of the State, and the multiplication of capital infinitely approaching the asymptote of post-scarcity. Only then will there be Communism--at the unreachable asymptote (or so it seems).

*This is essentially the modern economic-political philosophy of China, and in my opinion it's a much more honest and intelligent address of the Problem of Modernity than the cognitive dissonance the west is dealing with.

Even the 'poor' in America live like kings compared to communist serfs.

Please don't fall for their bullshit. They use false reality to brainwash you and steal your future.

>>136000142
>>british invention
Are you mistaking the internet for the World Wide Web? Anyhow, it's hard to pinpoint an exact country that "invented" the internet, though alot of things like packet switching and TCP/IP were done in ARPA/DARPA, along with RFCs.

>>136004130
>Which is proof that libertarians are simply afraid of the potential of reality. They're the true life-deniers

Kind of like Marxist: Perceive injustice, formulate philosophy, work to implement fix to injustice.

Claiming an ideology or policy is not compatible with the current reality is absurd even though it always comes up in political discussions.

Unlike Marxists, the libertarian solution is actually ethical and more feasible.

>>135997287
>redistribute their money to poors
How about we put it to good use instead to improve our now liberated society?

File: 1501591225977.jpg (84KB, 693x422px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 693x422px

>>136003488
Not only is communism/socialism a shit system for accumulating material needs, which seems to be the only thing that matters to you, but according to your very own definition of the word "need" you don't actually NEED economic freedom. There are people, most people, living in massive amounts of debt today that still survive just fine. In short, you're a dumbass trying to change the definitions of words to suit your own agenda and still fuck up even that simple task. commies are fucking useless

>>136005142
The Marxist solution is what you're seeing in China, and it's quite feasible, and already appear to have a longer shelf-life than the current stage of western liberal democracy. I actually don't go so far as to claim that liberal democracy is a failed system simply because it is on track to collapse under its own contradiction--mostly because of its tendency of universalism, and the unsustainable demographics that it's creating. It's comforting to think that all of the failures of liberal democracy are due to 20th century Marxist subversion, but I don't think that explains everything. I won't even say liberal democracy is a failed system after the west collapses under it. There's always a chance that it can reformulate its arguments, shed its elements that have been proven false, and move on. That's exactly what Marxism has done in the East. Facism and Marxism where ALWAYS more honest and thoughtful attempts to reconcile society with modernity. Liberals are still denying that there's even a problem. It's only the Far Right in the west that even admits something has to change. What I'm trying to explain is that Marxists had similar realizations in the late 20th century. Some, in the west, decided to double down, and work towards a second revolution with a broader coalition beyond simple economic classes. This is the kind of Marxism you get in the west among Jewish intellectuals, and the academic establishment. Other Marxists decided to be the empiricists they always *claimed* to be, and fundamentally rework their theory in light of the 20th century successes of capitalism. Such Marxists are derided as revisionist traitors by many western intellectuals, who are stuff stuck on tearing down everything instead of building.

>>136005474
It's already been proven that the lack of economic freedom literally kills the population through starvation. I'm not a nihilist so you're not going to bait me into some weird argument about avoiding death being arbitrary.

>>136006202
China is Marxist only in name. They hang on to the ideology culturally but economically they are mostly into free markets. This is all done to keep the Party oligarchs in power. If authoritarian China is your great example of a post-maxist state, I sure want nothing to do with you.

File: 89094.jpg (18KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x480px

>>136006202
>It's already been proven that the lack of economic freedom literally kills the population through starvation.
Like the 50 million+ people starved to death under communism? Right.
>I'm not a nihilist so you're not going to bait me
I didn't say shit about nihilism and it's sad you have to try and derail the topic at hand when faced with the hard facts that communism has never and will never work. Like I said, economic freedom isn't a necessity for happiness or survival. For every angsty nu-commie faggot like you that exists I can show you 100,000 people with happy lives who maintain a standard of living 1000x better than communist Russia ever was and still have debt. Economic freedom is not a "need", "necessity", or "right" you little tranny faggot, plain and simple.

>>135997927
you seriously think rich people "steal" all of their money from the poor?
you dont think that making an investment is a better way to get rich?

>>136006796
>China is Marxist only in name.
Western Marxists would agree with you. It's an evolution of the Marxist political continuum. Personally, I wish there had been a surviving Fascist lineage somewhere to have similar theoretical evolutions. It would have been an interesting experiment. Right now the Chinese experiment is going well, and the western liberal experiment is showing cracks. Time will yield more data, but I think the Chinese are far more ideologically flexible now than the typical westerner.

>Economic freedom is not a "need", "necessity", or "right" you little tranny faggot, plain and simple.
Somehow I got the American to hate economic freedom. Interesting. You can choose to dismiss them because of their Marxist lineage, but I think that's simple-minded. Would you dismiss liberalism simply because it's part of a Christian theoretical lineage? The only difference is that the eastern Marxists hasn't changed their name to disguise their pedigree.

File: tread2.jpg (12KB, 480x288px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x288px

>>136002109
>Before capitalism will go to hell, it will for the foreseeable future hang in limbo, dead or about to die from an overdose of itself but still very much around, as nobody will have the power to move its decaying body out of the way.

File: MARXdrillin.jpg (36KB, 418x330px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 418x330px

Marx was basically just a cult leader.

>>136006202
>>136007693
>The Marxist solution is what you're seeing in China, and it's quite feasible, and already appear to have a longer shelf-life than the current stage of western liberal democracy.
>China's experiment is going well
You're an idiot. The only reason China has any economic standing is because they are willing to do two things. First, treat workers like slaves making pocket change living in horrid quarters, providing little to no "economic freedom" as you are probably thinking of. Second, they artificially manipulate their currency to keep it competitive on the global market by devaluing it, making it a more attractive place for foreigners to do buisness because of the exchange rate. It creates a bubble that will pop and fuck over the rest of the planet worse than the 2008 subprime mortgage debacle.

That is all done by the party to keep their hold on power because the population was getting ready to lob some heads off due to Mao's disastrous economic and agricultural policies. It is not a sustainable long term solution. China floats on a fraction of the population feeding the majority of consumers that live on the coastline backed by a currency that is in a bubble. Do you see the problems with this and the future issues it will cause?

>>136007707
>Poverty, War, hatred, conflict, all solvable if you just listen to what about a dozen cocksuckers in academia tell you.

People actually eat this shit up, it's amazing. It should be obvious that a great deal of our prosperity is owed to economic orders and spontaneous orders that are simply beyond the capacity of the human mind to tinker with much less control. Our mind has limitations and we cannot aggregate enough information to make sense of some of our larger more complex systems, like economic systems.

The semantics game isn't capitalism vs Marxism. The real question is limited government vs dirigisme? What should be the prime mover, Government? Or should it be limited and should something else be the major "mover"?

>>135997287
Because OP is a failed highschool student
>unit

>>135997287
Remember to sage and report marxists.

>>136008111
So now you're arguing that economic growth is unfairly predicated on poor working conditions? Who's the Marxist now?

Everything you've said about their economy is straight out of your ass. I suggest you research the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Belt and Road initiative. Also, Chinese economic growth has been due to both low and high skilled manufacturing, as well as a growing service and financial sector. They're growing because their population is working its ass off as every socio-economic level. You sound like the Marxist, wanted a quick fix that avoids any suffering. The Chinese are making VOLUNTARY sacrifices, taking what jobs they can find, and making what money they can. No one forces anyone to work in a factory--that doesn't mean those people who have no other options are happen about their situation, hence suicides, and nets and whatnot, They're not slaves. The west loves to point fingers at worker conditions, and ignore that the exact same thing as a toll of early economic growth in the west. Chinese put up with it because of high social mobility and the future potential for their children--something westerners don't give a shit about anymore.

>>135997287
Because that meme sucks

>>135997287
Because poor people don't know how to spend money.

>>136009041
>not treating people like shit and having a critical viewpoint on a government manipulating it's currency makes me a marxist
Ok pal. What fantasy land do you live in?

>everything you've said about their economy is straight out of your ass
Nope.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/19/what-chinas-currency-devaluation-means-for-the-worlds-trade-deals/
Why do you think it is an attractive area for large corporations to invest in? It costs less to set up, produce, and export compared to other countries. Are you really naive enough to believe outside investment encouraged the party to dictate a lower currency value to attract buisness to boost their manufacturing?

>hence suicides, and nets and whatnot, they're not slaves.
Yea, they sound really happy to make "voluntary sacrifices" for their supposed "economic freedom." You may want to read into the conditions of the average Chinese worker before you claim it is an evolution of Marxism.

>The Chinese are making VOLUNTARY sacrifices,
Is it really voluntary when it is a command economy dictated by the party with an artificially devalued currency?

>Chinese put up with it because of high social mobility and the future potential for their children
Which is why anyone with a good bit of money is buying property outside of China, which also causes a bubble. In particular Canada is seeing the effects of Chinese property investment. Housing in Vancouver is at an all time, caused by a massive ammount of money that is pumped in from offshore investments. Which causes the population to be fucked over in the long run.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crea-home-prices-foreign-buyer-economy-1.3580780
http://www.grantspub.com/files/presentations/Cohodes%203%20-%20Canadian%20Housing%20-%20MC.pdf

Oh, and what China produces is absolute garbage for the most part. Enjoy this article.
http://archive.is/Zm1qm

File: fuckin a.jpg (45KB, 300x278px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 300x278px

>>136011968
This.

Give every human on earth an equal share of global wealth tomorrow and within 6 months the status-quo will have returned.

>>136012093
*naive enough not to believe

>>135997287
>redistribute their money to poors
Because I'd rather keep the money for myself like literally everyone does on that situation. I least I'm honest about it.

Where do rich people get their money from? Other people giving it to them, usually in exchange for something. The modern world has accelerated this process, to the point when one person can have a billion people give them a dollar almost overnight.

You can't spend money in a supermarket and then complain you are now poor while the owner is richer than you. You gave them that money in exchange for your groceries.

There are certain pseudo-commodities that fuck this, renting and usury being the big two anomalies. But in general, you're poor because you spent money, and that guy over there is richer because you gave him money.

>>136012093
>You may want to read into the conditions of the average Chinese worker before you claim it is an evolution of Marxism
You may want to read about the conditions of the average work in the US during the second industrial revolution. They were voluntary workers too.

>Which is why anyone with a good bit of money is buying property outside of China
If you knew anything about Chinese real estate law, you would know that real property strictly speaking doesn't exist in China. You essentially buy land-use rights, even for things like apartment buildings, and these use rights have a 70 year time limit. No one in China really knows what will happen at the end of those 70 years. Not even the government has decided. The main purpose, I think, was to give the government an emergency mechanism during the huge land and property transfers during the last few decades. No one knew exactly how the country would develop, since they went to a market model, but they want to avoid real property centralizations that could threaten State sovereignty, and the availability of affordable living space.

Chinese buy property oversees to diversify, and because it's the only access to real property that they have. It's other country dumb fault for allowing potentially 1.3 billion people to acquire real estate in their country. Real estate is a special class of assets, and Chinese would be buying it up whether they though PRC was going to collapse or not.

As for their currency. They're going to make the Yuan the new reserve currency, right after they have everything set up for the Eurasian trade zone. At that point, unskill manufacturing will go to the Stans, while China retains skilled manufacturing, and expands its service and financial sectors. But go on underestimating them if you want. Assume they're dumb yellow monkeys who have no idea what they're doing.

The simple truth is it doesn't matter what they do to you. They're commies, and you hate them.

>>136013008
>the US during the second industrial revolution.
Is that the current case now, and was the US a command economy during the second industrial revolution? Because if it isn't that is entirely irrelevant.

>If you knew anything about Chinese real estate law, you would know that real property strictly speaking doesn't exist in China.
Great retort for a point about Chinese investment in foreign property and it's downfalls, dipshit. But since you brought it up, let's dissect it.

>You essentially buy land-use rights, even for things like apartment buildings, and these use rights have a 70 year time limit.
Which is probably a motivating factor for wealthy Chinese businessmen to invest in property in Vancouver because they don't worry about losing money on their investment after those 70 years are up. Which in turn artificially raises the prices of whatever real estate isn't brought up by them, causing a bubble that makes it difficult for the people that actually live there to afford to buy property. Thanks PRC for not allowing property ownership.

>Not even the government has decided.
Perfect, real good work on the economic planning committee's part.

>As for their currency. They're going to make the Yuan the new reserve currency, right after they have everything set up for the Eurasian trade zone. At that point, unskill manufacturing will go to the Stans, while China retains skilled manufacturing, and expands its service and financial sectors.
Sauce? Or are you just going to continue to pull shit out of your ass and hope it sticks to the wall? If that does happen then you are looking at a significant portion of the Chinese population will become unemployed and crisis will emerge from it. Thanks economic planning committee.

>They're commies, and you hate them.
You're goddamn right I do. Communism has failed time and time again, yet the answer is "wasn't real communism" and "it'll work this time, we swear." To you, the Chinese can do no wrong.

File: Landian.gif (125KB, 420x464px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 420x464px

>>136014924
Communism was tried, but we've never had communism. We've had socialism, the primary stage of communism, and it failed. China noted the ideological failure of bypassing capitalism, and forcing a socialist revolution. China's policy is that capitalism must actually exhaust its creative (and destructive) capacity before communism can ever be realized. Capitalism, through accelerated technological development, basically has to turn us into a post-scarcity economy. All attempts at a communist system prior to that are premature and will fail. Right wing and left wing accelerationists are on almost the same page about this they simple disagree about the end state.

>Is that the current case now, and was the US a command economy during the second industrial revolution? Because if it isn't that is entirely irrelevant.
The point that you were too dense to notice was that China is currently at a comparable point it its economic development as the us was during the 2nd industrial revolution. They're simply making more rapid progress.

>Great retort
I think it's as easy to make a positive case for the geopolitical consequences of a large Chinese diaspora buying foreign land, as it is to make a negative one.

File: mao hates birds.png (138KB, 901x461px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 901x461px

>>136016094
I've read the Manifesto and Das Kapital. Thanks for the micro lesson on your shitty ideology, it is a utopian farse.

>Communism was tried, but we've never had communism. We've had socialism, the primary stage of communism, and it failed.
Then at what point do you look back and say, "maybe we were wrong about history being deterministic by nature."

>China is currently at a comparable point it its economic development
You are comparing a free market economy to a command one. One that let the market forces act naturally while the other dictates the value of currency. It is a tenuous comparison to make at best. Mao's time in power was a significant setback to that development, which was already at the same stage pre revolution. Pic related.

>I think it's as easy to make a positive case for the geopolitical consequences of a large Chinese diaspora buying foreign land, as it is to make a negative one.
Nice meaningless word soup. Is that supposed to be your argument? The point that I was trying to make was in regards to the "economic mobility" of China. Since you described the property laws in China think about this. You're a wealthy businessman trying to provide opportunity to your children. One of the most sound longterm investments you can make is property. Sadly your government says any investment you make will be null in 70 years. The government doesn't even have an exit plan after those 70 years are up either. You can buy domestic, take the hit, and enjoy a great ammount of uncertainty in the market. Or, you can buy in a country that allows you to keep that property and sell it as you please. Some of those countries grant you practical citizenship if you invest enough so you can escape the command economy you are restrained too. Tell me, which option makes the most sense to you.

Nice source by the way on the info you threw out hoping it would stick.

>>136017626
China is not a command economy in the sense that you're trying to paint it as.

>"maybe we were wrong about history being deterministic by nature."
Maybe I shouldn't use big words like "asymptote". The implicit admission of Chinese revised Marxist theory is that they admit not knowing how/if/when material conditions will change, if ever. They can theorize the consequences of particular martial changes. That's hardly a dogmatic adherence to dialectical materialism as original construed, and it's certainly not presuming anything. It's deterministic, but does not claim to know the nature of the determination.

>Nice source by the way on the info you threw out hoping it would stick.
My source is that I live in China, and I talk to people every day.

Billionaires are cunts but
>trusting poor people with money

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 7.28.59 PM.png (373KB, 2554x1240px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 2554x1240px

>>135997287
>"the freer the market, the freer the people"
Literally true. Here is a pic of nations by economic freedom.

File: capita.png (230KB, 1200x551px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1200x551px

>>136019153
Here is a pic of nations by GDP per capita

File: 3rd world.png (47KB, 450x195px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 450x195px

>>136019153
Here is a pic of nations by the Human Development Index

File: arms.jpg (127KB, 730x482px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 730x482px

>>136019153
>>136019186
>>136019220
As you can see, the more economic freedom a nation has, the more economic prosperity it has.

File: 1500384233814.jpg (24KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 625x626px

>>135997287
Because many of us aren't retarded commies? Property rights, ever heard of that ?

>>135997287
>redistribute
It's not their money.

>>135997287
>Maury (((Povich))) shoop
>cut and paste Karl (((Marx))) instead
y tho