If you believe that genetics determine intelligence, you should be in favor of communism

If you believe that genetics determine intelligence, you should be in favor of communism.

Think about it. The state assigns everyone a position in society where they'll be happy and productive. People born with low IQ are assigned simple jobs like gardener and cashier, while high IQ individuals are assigned jobs like surgeon or physicist. It would also put an end to SJW concepts like affirmative action, since it would be a pure meritocracy.

And if the theory about blacks having low IQ is correct, you'll finally ensure that only white people can prosper in Western society. It sounds like Sup Forums's dream world, doesn't it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/gml0x5UVBl8
youtu.be/3z30937QZ5k
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Tl;dr

Fuck off

You sound like a low IQ individual. You'd probably be assigned janitor duty.

What incentive is there to be a surgeon if the janitor lives just as well as you do

People with low IQs will end up with low IQ jobs anyway. People choose jobs that are on the limits of their potential, and no further.

Take your failed totalitarian ideology and leave

I'm equally in favour of communism and fascism just so I get the chance to try and opportunistically hijack it to pave the way for Nietzscheanism.

"The state" is absolutely terrible at most things. "The state" as it is now, would be assigning minorities to everything despite them having low IQ on average (just because it's politically correct according to liberals).

Just no... I would vouch for a system like this if it allowed us to clean out our country of the non-whites. That's the deal I'd make if I had any say in it whatsoever.

>Think about it. The state assigns everyone a position in society where they'll be happy and productive. People born with low IQ are assigned simple jobs like gardener and cashier, while high IQ individuals are assigned jobs like surgeon or physicist. It would also put an end to SJW concepts like affirmative action, since it would be a pure meritocracy.

I actually support this, as well as having children be raised by the state, all equally

too bad the singularity will wipe out the need for any real shift in these poltical paradigms tho

"The state" is the reason why there's a US flag on the moon. "The state" is the reason why we're able to have this conversation right now. "The state" is the reason why there's a network of roads, railroads, ports and airports all over the planet that make global capitalism possible.

You know where the state doesn't build infrastructure, manipulate the economy and support a decent level of upward mobility? In the third world.

communism is retarded. in a capitalist society even low IQ people can succeed while in a communist system high IQ people work in a glass factory.

...

...

Communism is the best

>hey, if you have strong anti-communist ideas, and know reasons why communist would never work, it actually means you should be a communist
You're going to have to imply harder than that, Muhammad. Sage

No, American CITIZENS are why there's a flag on the moon, why infrastructure was built, etc. You realize that most of the workers that completed those projects were hired from private companies, right? Most of that work was contracted out to private corporations because they are typically more efficient than the government (in terms of quality & quantity).

I'd love to be completely taken care of by the state (seeing as how we're almost there technologically). The only thing is, I'd want our country to be rid of the "minorities" if I were to vote for a system like that.

If they were to do that, then I'd have no problem vouching for a system like that. What do you say? Are you with me?

Remember, UK had the best railways in the world before government did anything. Ports have been done plenty without the state. The first roads in America were private, not public.

And manipulating the economy is a disaster. Moon landing is your only argument, and it was probably an extremely expensive, inefficient waste of money.

>the third world xD
These countries are extremely corrupt, which makes business impossible

You do realize those private companies were paid for by the state who got that money from taxing citizens?

Citizens without the guiding hand of their leaders wouldn't have been able to accomplish this, let alone pay money towards going to the moon if they weren't literally forced at gunpoint.

>If they were to do that, then I'd have no problem vouching for a system like that. What do you say? Are you with me?
I think we might already be arguing from similar perspectives.
Personally we should get rid of all minorities anway, but in any case a Keynesian corporatist economy is objectively superior to every other method that's been tried in history. Better than planned economies, better than the free market, every country that tried it got guaranteed success 100% of the time.

>what is natural selection

Great Depression / Obongo Depression economics

Very sad

>meritocracy
>communism

take a hike commie, you're talking nonsense.

this is a great idea, 90% of Sup Forums could finally gain employment as gardeners and cashiers

We also had the only railways in the world before the government did anything.
>Ports have been done plenty without the state. The first roads in America were private, not public.
They were also very crude and without state support many communities would be totally isolated as it's simply not profitable to maintain roads and ports to them.

>And manipulating the economy is a disaster.
Is it? I think this guy would beg to disagree. Or Bismarck for that matter.

>These countries are extremely corrupt, which makes business impossible
>corruption
>Business is impossible
Literally what?

China and Russia are both corrupt as fuck yet have no problem attracting business. As a matter of fact if anything it helps.

You better know that Keynesian economics were specifically designed to in reaction to the great depression and by the time the latest recession happened neoclassical shitters had already polluted economics.

tfw you have high IQ and want to work with "low IQ jobs".

It is also true that niggers generally have way lower IQ than rest of the western world.

>rural roads don't exist without the state
Literally what?

>they were crude
If they were, it's because that was efficient.
Why is it always best to take money from other uses to make roads look nicer?
Because you say so?

>thinks corruption is good for business
You have no idea what's going on.
If corruption was good for business Africa would be doing a lot better.
Business is terrible in these places because you have to bribe a thousand different people to open a bakery.
The businesses who succeed aren't the ones who have the best ideas and systems but the ones who are related to the rulers or who can bribe the best and donate to political parties.

Everyone leaves Russia and China as soon as possible because it is shit.

communism promotes cronism, cancer and being uselss
t.czy sie stoi czy sie lezy 3000 sie nalezy
i remember the bread lines you filthy faggot

Maybe that's why they had the first Depression lasting more than a decade, whereas previous recessions had usually cured themselves in less than a year.

>neoclassical shitters
What, did they limit the stimulus to only a trillion dollars and you wanted two trillion?

The (((State))) would never be that biased.

true douche baggery never worked never will

You idiots still raiding?

Why are mods deleting fire threads but letting this obvious raid thread stay?

>The state assigns everyone a position in society where they'll be happy and productive
Nice joke

>Literally what?
This isn't hard to believe.

Here in Ireland the country is full of railroads that simply rusted to shit once the British left and the Irish free state stopped supporting them.

>Why is it always best to take money from other uses to make roads look nicer?
Because it improves the lives of the people within that community and enhances their ability to contribute to the nationwide economy through easier trade.

>The businesses who succeed aren't the ones who have the best ideas and systems but the ones who are related to the rulers or who can bribe the best and donate to political parties.
Guess what? It's the exact same in Russia yet they still manage to cultivate a semi-respectable economy because the state at least does take an interest in the economy even if it's in the worst way possible.

>Everyone leaves Russia and China as soon as possible because it is shit.
Naturally. But the foreign investment keeps coming.

>Maybe that's why they had the first Depression lasting more than a decade
Or maybe it's because it was the most catastrophic economic collapse seen in recent history?
You also forget to mention that the countries that adopted Keynesian policies like the USA and Germany emerged from it as economic powerhouses despite being some of the worst hit.

>What, did they limit the stimulus to only a trillion dollars and you wanted two trillion?
More like they tried to fix it with austerity policies that simply do not work, as Keynes noticed after the great depression.

Kill yourself Sven.

Communism doesn't give enough incentives to improve technology. In ideal cases (0 abuse of power), it would only work if it was the only functional government in the world. If there were any competing capitalist governments, they would outcompete the communist government technologically.

True, I think you might be right; but I also think that we shouldn't change our current economy so drastically until our AI/Robotics development is up to par on terms of taking over responsibilities from humans.

I say this because we are about to reach a point that we've never reached in human history: Technological advancement = human equilibrium.

We are almost to that point. Once we reach that point, we'll be able to more adequately disseminate responsibilities, resources, production, etc.

Being able to take that leap will allow us to make unprecedented advancements for the overall well-being of our species.

On the flip-side, we'll also run into a plethora of other problems as well.

If the Irish railroads couldn't survive on their own they shouldn't have been built in the first place. It shows there is insufficient demand.

>making roads nicer is good
But it costs other people money.
You are subsidising people to live far away from everything. They should bear the cost of transportation themselves.

>USA and Germany emerged as economic powerhouses
Are you talking about after the Great War when they both cut taxes with spending and reduced regulations?
US, like I said, had high unemployment and a shit standard of living from the late twenties all the way through the war. Germany had a good GDP and low unemployment, but all they were doing was making guns and tanks. And their debt was enormous.

>they just didn't spend enough, muh austerity
Okay. What do you think of Estonia?

>communism.
kys

>It shows there is insufficient demand.
Clearly, but those communities would be better with easier travel.

>You are subsidising people to live far away from everything. They should bear the cost of transportation themselves.
That's bad for the economy. By the state alleviating people's spending on transport they have more to spend on other areas of the economy thus stimulating it. And in very working class communities, saving valuable funds to help better their conditions and become even more productive citizens.

> but all they were doing was making guns and tanks
Yeah, the Germans were but you can't deny it did a great job for the economy.
The Americans weren't though, with the New Deal they were investing in basically everything relevant to your average person at once and it worked wonders.

>Okay. What do you think of Estonia?
I imagine you're trying to bait me into something but truthfully I don't know enough about Estonia's economy to really make a statement about what I think of it.

You're an imbecile. The basic presumption of communism is the inherent equality of all human beings.

>If you believe that genetics determine intelligence, you should be in favor of [ideology which steals from and murders the most successful members of society while attempting to claim that they only have more because they stole from less successful members, rather than because they could offer superior goods and services that people were willing to trade for]

No.

>they would be better off with easier travel
Yes, and someone else is worse off because they're paying for it

>they will have more money to spend on other things
And someone else has less to spend on other things..

>New Deal worked wonders
It vastly increased the debt without affecting unemployment.
They should have left the debt alone, let asset prices fall, and then the bad investments would have sorted themselves out from the capital structure. It's the only way

Estonia are supposed to be the poster child of austerity. Everyone else in Europe got into lots of debt, but Estonia raised taxes and cut spending. They didn't do too badly

>Yes, and someone else is worse off because they're paying for it
Yeah. But some people need state support more than others.

>And someone else has less to spend on other things..
Yeah, but thanks to tax brackets statistically speaking they have no shortage of money anyway.

>It vastly increased the debt without affecting unemployment.
u wot

>They didn't do too badly
The thing is the PIIGS are doing pretty awful and are the countries that got hit by the recession the worst.

So unemployment rate was above 15% for about a decade? That's even worse than I thought.

>some people need support
And the best way to help them is by building roads and railways that don't justify themselves with demand?

>no shortage of money
They do have limited money, and when you steal their money they have less money to spend on goods and services they want or to invest.
At the very least this discredits your idea that you 'stimulate the economy' by building roads no one uses

Spain and Portugal both did huge amounts of deficit spending I thought, despite already being heavily indebted.
Funny that they're doing so bad

To fulfill your life's purpose? To put your god given talent to work? I don't understand your question fully. Are you saying that you think people only become surgeons for money?

>So unemployment rate was above 15% for about a decade? That's even worse than I thought.
Yeah, and it was going down thanks to the new deal.

>And the best way to help them is by building roads and railways that don't justify themselves with demand?
Yes among other things.

>They do have limited money, and when you steal their money they have less money to spend on goods and services they want or to invest.
Yes, and this is a good thing. By letting a small portion of the population control the entirety of the significant spending they're going to wind up investing it into a lot of the same things. Whereas if the government intervenes to distribute the wealth this allows a greater amount of people to spend as they see fit allowing for a more diverse economy compared to one where investment is dictated by the rich.

>Spain and Portugal both did huge amounts of deficit spending I thought, despite already being heavily indebted.
Since the recession Spain has been spending significantly less.

Yes. My aunts are doctors and they did it purely for the money.

Communism can't inherently work. Efficiency is comparative who differences change and raise confidence to the spectator (as in, you always got to try to show your citizens you're providing the best given the circumstances, no matter if their lives are basic and adequate enough). You can give them enough food and basic stable shelter but that doesn't mean shit if someone in another land doing the same job as them is getting paid more. That shit is just basic instinct. In order to make sure your State maintains being the best and to make sure your Government is ahead in planning ahead over competitor states and economies, you're going to have to get the best leaders and rulers to run it. To get the best leaders and rulers, you must get most educated and well-rounded people who are the most knowledgeable in most areas and have the best judgement to run the State. To have the best judgement and to have the best education, one has to disdain the plebs and most of the populace, to be motivated to best all of them and maintain intellectual superiority. By doing so, those people (besides ones once in a blue moon) often become disconnected to the people and unpopular among them, and can rarely rise to power or are even interested in doing so. So your stock of leaders are almost always AT-LEAST second-rate. The result is the heavily-centralized planned State is bound to slip or lag behind due to the nature of most political leaders being second-rate in potential.

The best State is a Utilitarian-Authoritarian one.

Capitalism has pretty poor incentives to improve technology. Under pure capitalism the only things worth investing in are the things that produce the largest, most guaranteed, quickest return on investment. You end up with 98% of engineers finding the only jobs available to them are developing the next ipad clone.

...

Nope communism destroys life. It's destined to be eliminated.

I bet the leftypol loving janitorial staff will leave this up.

You must be a refugee cause no swede would be this dumb

>it was going down thanks to the New Deal
Because unemployment never goes down on its own?

>building infrastructure that can't justify itself is good
It is provably inefficient. You would be better off just giving people money- or even better, reducing taxes so these people can get jobs.

>this is a good thing
My point is you were wrong to say there is stimulus.
Maybe you can think of some lousy point about how rich people somehow can't diversify their stock or something, but there is no stimulus.

I see the Spain graph as being a growing deficit since 2009, with a decrease starting shortly before the financial crisis.

We shot useful idiots like you.

That example is too simplified
The market is more complex, if in a given day 98% of all engineers choose to make the same thing then their reward will be very diminished because of too much workforce avaibility, and with lesser reward most of them will choose a more profitable thing to do.
In general there is a great incentive of innovation in technology under capitalism, you can get rich by simply inventing something usefull.

and you would be assigned dick sucking duty, sven

>Because unemployment never goes down on its own?
Yeah it's just pure coincidence that it was rising right up until the new deal was implemented then it promptly started to drop.

>You would be better off just giving people money
Actually I suggest doing that very thing as well in concert with infrastructure spending.

>My point is you were wrong to say there is stimulus.
There is stimulus though, your point didn't actually undermine this at all.

And of course rich people could diversify their stock, but the thing is they have no incentive to. Their current investments are already doing a fine job of making profits and it would probably be more efficient from their perspective to continue investing in that given it has provable returns. Empowering more people however to invest in their own pursuits will inevitably lead to a diverse economy which is something that's critically important to maintaining a first world economy.

>I see the Spain graph as being a growing deficit since 2009,
Precisely, lowering spending has done absolutely dick to help with the debt.

Farewell dear friends. God bless you all.

youtu.be/gml0x5UVBl8

You idiots are trying to argue against them. They're not listening. They don't care about your counterpoints. These virgins are just here raiding thinking they're "doing" something. Remember who you're dealing with here.

Communism will win. They know it, we know it, it's just a matter of time now.

pay debnts

The EU bailed put an entire country, proof that communism is winning

>Communism
> happy and productive
HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU BE THIS RETARDED HOLY SHIT!
REEEEEEEEEEE

>the state

You must understand who these modern commies are.

They are literally losers. They're social outcasts who lack any vision or talent, or for that matter any drive to create, invent, or better themselves.

Their social inadequacies coupled with their inability to create or think fosters a strong sense of entitlement.

Now you add this sense of entitlement to an inability to take care of themselves and you're left with a group of people who want desperately to take from everyone else.

We make fun of the SJW here but at least they are doing something, even if completely misguided.

These commies? They're literally worthless on all levels.

The problem is we don't have a regulated enough system to place people 100% correctly knowing they will fully love their jobs and expand their area of work. That is why a free capitalist society works so well. You have an idea that sells and you're a millionaire. I am for light eugenics insuring people aren't niggers but how does a communist society encourage creativity better then capitalism? To put things bluntly.

...

>20 trillion in debnts
kys

...

>was rising before
The guy before was also a commie and made everyone pay the same wage rates, despite deflation

>promptly started to drop
Which is what you would expect given that he was borrowing money to hire people-- but broadly speaking the economy was nowhere near recovered until much later. Most of it wasn't because of the deficit spending probably. But maybe since he was stealing capital from out of the public sector

>we need shitty roads as well as welfare gibs
I don't see why you need to do both, unless you deny that giving people money is just better.

>one person spending money instead of another person is stimulus
Why does this point need debunking?
Total spending is not increased you dummy.

>rich people can diversify their portfolios but they can't create a diverse economy
I don't see what you're getting at.
People already want to invest in a diverse range of businesses. That's what diversification is.

>lowering spending hasn't helped with debt
They probably raised taxes, I couldn't find a spending reduction.
The debt would be higher without an adjustment, even if it hasn't lowered itself in real terms

Do fascists even have an army?

NUCLEAR COMMUNIST PEACE COMMISSARS

China is hardly communist any more.

But America is picking up.

Socialism comes to societies that earn it. As long as the west is a cocksucking wealth worshipping society, we will have an economy worthy of such a people.

>Muh free market
>workers party
No.

>The state assigns everyone
what's the freedom in that?

>freedom

Who is going to decide who will do what? The pinnacles of human incompetency, corruption and laziness - the communists.

It takes time to transform people. First they have to crash & burn and comrade Trump knows that.

A step forward would be Bernie. Acceleration (destroying capitalism and then therefore bring about communism ) would be trump.

>Ksčm

Even our commies understand now that without free market you are fucked and are actually constantly bashing the retards from colleges who think communism works.

commieswede is the new obamaleaf

You know, Trump can only happen once. If he fucks up, there won't be another one for decades to come.

youtu.be/3z30937QZ5k

Bernie should step forward towards the hole so that when shot in the head the death squads won't have to drag his body to throw him in.
Sanders is a shining example of a commie - doing sweet fuck all for first half of his life and then becoming a card carrying member of a party in the second half, so that he can do sweet fuck all in the second half of his useless life.

>The guy before was also a commie and made everyone pay the same wage rates, despite deflation
Hoover was not a communist. He was a retard that is for certain, however.

>but broadly speaking the economy was nowhere near recovered until much later.
Naturally. Fixing an economy after a disaster on that scale takes time, and by directly investing in getting people into work, getting businesses going and keeping money flowing through the economy goes a long way into healing this.

>I don't see why you need to do both, unless you deny that giving people money is just better.
I don't. I'm making the case that's important both that people have money to trade with and the proper infrastructure to make trade as easy and welcoming as possible.

>Total spending is not increased you dummy.
Total spending maybe not.

In GDP terms it would have on the count that more spending from more individuals into more facets of the economy would cause an increase of transactions happening regularly as this money would change hands much more frequently as opposed to it being invested in single large instalments.

>People already want to invest in a diverse range of businesses. That's what diversification is.
No, smart people want to invest in a diverse range of businesses. But unfortunately the vast majority of people including the rich are idiots that can't manage their money properly. Hence why we have states with extremely people but manage to be entirely dependent on one resource.

Enter the government to sort this.

>They probably raised taxes,
Actually in recent years Spain has been lowering taxes on basically everything. None the less the debt rises.

>The state assigns everyone a position in society where they'll be happy and productive.
This is where you're wrong, the state isn't able to provide happiness because it is highly dependent on individual freedom and the ability to look for or create your own position in society. Nice try, commie faggot.

I can sense this gentleman is in need of revolutionary tanks

Daily reminder that if you defend any kind of centralized planning you're retarded and need to learn economics

Daily reminder if you're an Austrian schooler you should learn economics from something besides memes.

wtf I love communism now

>believing in trickle-down economics

Assuming you aren't a troll (which you are)

Let's do a quick mental exercise. The state is run by politicians, people that spend their entire life in politics. They know jack shit about anything, including management. Do you really think they can assign people to their proper job?

Meanwhile in the free market:
>You fuck up
>You have to go somewhere else
>You do a great job
>You get promoted or can start your own business and make more money

>this thread still up
Leftycuck janny letting it slide I see. You are pretty quick with other threads you cheeto fingered fat fuck.

...

>need infrastructure so people spend money
What? The total money they have isn't increased; they will just spend money further away, or in more instalments. That also breaks up the road you just spent everyone's money on. And muh climate change

Deficit spending doesn't heal recessions and never has. It props up malinvestment that ought to fail, and eventually does.
Countries that engage in less deficit spending recover from recessions faster.

>total spending is not increased
>in GDP terms it would have, because more spending...
What?
More instalments makes no difference either. The instalments will be smaller too.

I think people / banks are smart enough to diversify without government desu

Here's how the free market actually works:

>You fuck up
>You're thrown out and don't get the chance to try a "higher" position you may be better suited for
>You do a great job
>You get promoted until you hit a level where you're incompetent and can't rise any further

In a capitalist structure, everyone is incompetent. In a communist society, the government can use modern technology and genetics to find people's true calling, without the need for any suffering or poverty.

Shame it doesn't turn out like that in reality

Also
>capitalist firms don't have any solution to the problem of 'promotion to incompetence'

They have a direct incentive to solve these things. Central planners are a joke.

>they will just spend money further away,
In case you don't know in order to properly heal the economy the hope is to foster nationwide trade rather than just in insular communities.

>Deficit spending doesn't heal recessions and never has.
It healed the great depression just fine.

>What?
GDP is essentially a measure of the total sum of transactions in a country. Even if the same dollar is spent twice it's still calculated into the GDP.

>More instalments makes no difference either. The instalments will be smaller too.
That's the whole point.

Smaller, frequent spending is better for the economy rather than large sporadic spending. Not just for normal people on the count that they have more money to spend, but also for businesses and potential business owners on the count that what common people are spending their money on basically tells them what's the most lucrative and necessary to invest in. Knowing that large businesses continue to invest in what they've always invested in is not valuable information, knowing what the majority of the population are interested in buying is absolutely crucial in that these signals are what tells suppliers where the demand is.

>I think people / banks are smart enough to diversify without government desu
If they were there wouldn't be states entirely dependent on one resource.

>the government can use modern technology and genetics to find people's true calling, without the need for any suffering or poverty.

The government cant even take care of simple tasks without mass corruption, inefficiency, delays and loses.
Kys