Tfw Bernie sanders would have cured the disease

>tfw Bernie sanders would have cured the disease

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fCn8zs912OE
youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie
quora.com/How-is-wealth-not-a-zero-sum-game
youtube.com/watch?v=vj7XExwChwI
youtube.com/watch?v=ym5N4ltSlTk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>"bro i'm sick"
>"here, let me inject some highly lethal venom"
>"no man that'll kill me"
>"stop being a bigot and pay your fair share, it's only a little venom and you have plenty of non-infected areas left on your body anyway"

Poorfags are the disease. They shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity. They avoid financial responsibility like the plague. They know that if they fuck their lives up enough, we'll bail them out.

You always see them buying retarded shit they can't afford, and it's always the type of shit that depreciates instantly. They have no concept of saving or investing.

The graph is only proof. They should all be worked to death.

bernie is a traitorous kike. a career politican spouting empty socialist dreams that not only cannot work but won't. he's just pandering to useful idiots and really the bernie meme needs to die already.

I think you should go to your nearest walmart.Go to their men's restroom (assuming your gender). Look promptly at the Urinal. See that round mint floating there in what looks like residue piss? Go ahead and grab that and place it directly under your tongue. Its the latest progressive trend and everyone is doing it! The real high doesn't kick in until you go look in the mirror. Go ahead take a nice long look. After you have fulfilled your homosexual desires fucking bash your god damn head into the sink repeatedly until the mint under your tongue begins to taste like a black-cock foreskin.

aggreed. the weakness of low IQ individuals means they are always unable to create personal wealth because they are incapable to supress emotive forces and sacrifice for an abstract goal. the pond life choose to live in debt whether themselves of over mutliple generations of failure and deserve their misery.

What's the disease? There's nothing unfair about wealth inequality. The people who create the most value should get their fair share. Random nigger who didn't bother getting any life skills can work his min wage job til he dies for all I care

>(((DRAIN)))

>The people who create the most value

>Amber room with Saddam photoshoped in.
Are you even trying.

4 out of over 300 companies. Billionaire. Now President. Gee that's terrible.....

how?

Hi. I have been working for 8.50 an hour for 5 years. I have lived with my parents the whole time and only paid for gas to work and rent. I have less than 30k in my savings. In 5 years. Its not rocket science. We don't make enough.

You're whining about a situtation of your own creating blaming the world rather than being a balla. Have you even done anything in that time to increase your wealth? Seriously fuck you poorfag.

I have actually. I became a supervisor at the job I work at. I starting off making 7.25. I can't go to school because it cost too much money and because of my lack of money I do not have the proper tools to build credit and get decent loans for anything. I did average in school. I am white. I can't get scholarships or grants for anything. I wouldn't expect someone who sucks the socialist teets of the Queen to slightly understand the plight of the average american worker.

And all it takes is a little one million dollar loan from his father, followed by inheritance

Zipfyness has been around forever, and occurs in nature.

get used to it.

youtube.com/watch?v=fCn8zs912OE

Unfortunately most of Sup Forums falls into one of the following categories.

1. Gets most information from breitbart, fox and infowarz. (Can't make good decisions with bad information based on narratives rather than actual numbers, dates, facts. provable sciences).
2. Raised in a way where they're too ignorant to realise. Maybe they're a trustfund kid like pic related.
3. Too low IQ to realise.

Inform yourselves: youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

To be fair, getting shot in the face with a .45 is gonna get rid of that headache.

...

Wealth is created by labour, not the people profiting from it. Pick any of the Fortune 500 CEOs, and they own more personal wealth than the entire budget of some states - this is, in measureable fact, both unfair and unsustainable.

>Trump gets a million dollar loan
>Becomes one of the most wealth men in the world

>Lottery winner/Sports Star/Musician
>Earns millions of dollars then goes broke

Really makes the old noggin tick. It's almost like people who are poor just don't know how to manage money and no matter how much cash you give them they'll waste it all on frivolous shit while it eventually ends up in the hands of people who actually produce things of value

Go ahead and keep up that victim complex and thinking you're just down with all the fucking morons because of bad luck though. It's much more comforting than realizing that you're just not that important and your value to society isn't that much

>Wealth is created by labour, not the people profiting from it
Objectively wrong. Wealth is created from people creating things of value to other people. If I start a hotel the shitkickers I employ to clean the rooms are not responsible for creating the profit, I am, as the owner and the person who created the business in the first place.

Sorry commie, your entire ideology was built on lies. You're just a worker drone, easily replaced. Laborers don't deserve shit, the people who invest the time and effort to create businesses to provide and goods and services deserve the rewards, not the unimaginative and lzy fucks who simply want another person to employ them for their labor.

You can most certainly get certifications or an associate's at your community college and double your pay. You might not like hard work, but the harder you work, the less hard your kids will have to. Repeat the process and your great-grandchildren can be very educated and wealthy people who will have even more to leave to their own children.

If all else fails, join the military. Get them to help with a bachelor's and enter as an officer. It's not easy work, but it's honest, and pays well after about 5 years of service, and keeps going higher as you go up in rank and service time.

There are many opportunities for even the poorest of people in this country, my friend, you need only apply yourself.

A fucking cancer would cure the disease, sure.

>Wealth is created by labour
Wrong.
Wealth is created by production of value. You can dig ditches for 10,000 hours, and I can sit in a backhoe and dig the same ditch in a lot less time, and with a lot less effort. We created the same value, and would get paid the same by whoever wanted the ditch dug. But I would get the money in a week, and am off to dig more ditches, while you take eight months. Why should whoever paid for the ditch pay you way more, just because you took longer and worked harder?

He's a communist. He doesn't think. He just sees people earning more than him and froths at the mouth like a nigger wanting gibmedats

>DUDE MOVE JOBS OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND MORE IMMIGRANTS IN LMAO
>WE NEED COMMUNISM NOW LOL TRUST ME GUYS

>Objectively wrong. Wealth is created from people creating things of value to other people.
Which always involves labour of some type - it is, by definition, impossible to create anything without labour.

>Wealth is created by production of value.
See above. As for your ditch example, it doesn't begin to take into account the labour needed to a) make a backhoe and b) acquire enough capital to purchase one.

Not an argument.

>DUDE MOVE JOBS OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND MORE IMMIGRANTS IN LMAO
So, what capitalism does?

Buy Bitcoin

is free trade inextricably linked?

>They know that if they fuck their lives up enough, we'll bail them out.

No that's the banks. Oven yourself kike.

>You might not like hard work, but the harder you work, the less hard your kids will have to.
That's the formula for an entitled millennial who wants communism, you realize that right?

>See above. As for your ditch example, it doesn't begin to take into account the labour needed to a) make a backhoe and b) acquire enough capital to purchase one.
But it does. I have to invest in the backhoe, which means paying for it (probably through a loan), its maintenance, and its fuel. But, because I invested in it (and the training to use it properly - not bust a bunch of pipes, etc), I generate a lot more wealth, both for myself (getting paid for digging them ditches) and for whoever is paying me to dig ditches (they have a reason for it, which will make them more money than not having the ditch dug). You invested in a shovel, and not much else, and thus don't create the value I do.
Again, why would you get paid more for producing less, just because you used more labor to do it?
The CEO getting loadsadosh is the same thing. He creates value to the company through his smart policies and whatever, which is theoretically worth more than what they're actually compensating him with. If it's not, they fire him and get a new CEO. And then the CEO invests his income in other things, to create more wealth for himself. You don't get to be a billionaire by making $50m/yr as a CEO salary.

Skeptical.

...

It's called one generation does manual labor, the next does less strenuous work, the next does office work, and the next does high-level educated work. Millenials do not stem from having nice things, they come from shitty parents. My father was a grocery clerk. His father was an insurance salesman. His father was a farmer, and so was his grandfather. I'm currently in college looking to become an officer in the Army, and my brother is an engineer at a private defense company making lots of money. My nephew can go even further than my brother because there are more doors already open for him that weren't open for my brother and even fewer for my father.

Shitty children come from shitty parents, and nothing else.

The problem is you can't see beyond your own nose. You don't understand how business works and think just because a person works they're entitled to the full value of whatever they create. This is wrong and I'll explain why.

Imagine yourself as a person who wants to create a business. You decide to start a cafe, you buy/rent some property, do it up, buy all the necessary equipment such as coffee machines, chairs, tables, a cash register, etc. You've taken out a substantial loan to fund all this. Finally you hire a barista to serve the customers. After the first day you make a tidy profit. Now the barista tells you it's unfair that you keep the majority of the profit, after all she was the one physically making the coffees and doing all the labour, therefore she deserves the lions share of the profit, correct?

That's you, that's your argument. See? It doesn't work. The person who invests the capital into the creation of the business CREATED the job for the person doing the labour in the first place.They made a contract, the business owner says, hey do this work for me and I will pay you an agreed upon sum that will be an expense of my business venture.

If the employee demands an equal share of the profits that employee is nothing but an entitled leech. Because the employee did not pay for the coffee they serve, they did not pay for the cost of the premises, or the coffee machine or any other expenses. In short they want the benefits of ownership without investing anything or taking any risk.

That is not how business works. The owner gets the profit because they take the risk, they make it happen and a byproduct is they create a job for someone else, while providing a service valued by the community. Win win! You need to grow out of your communist mentality. Communism was the greatest evil ever unleashed upon man, it drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

>I have to invest in the backhoe, which means paying for it (probably through a loan), its maintenance, and its fuel.
And how do you acquire the means to make an investment? By some form of labour. So it is fair that you're paid for however many ditches you can dig with a backhoe, above and beyond the amount of someone working by hand (since you can perform more work using it as a tool), but only because the backhoe itself is the product of labour you'd done previously.

>He creates value to the company through his smart policies and whatever
More than the sum total of all the value created by his thousands of employees (possibly millions for companies like Wal-Mart)? Unlikely.

> If it's not, they fire him and get a new CEO
Often the CEO also owns the company, in which case there's no one to fire him (apart from shareholders, who most companies keep numerous enough that it's hard to reach a consensus).

>And then the CEO invests his income in other things, to create more wealth for himself
And by doing so decreases the amount of wealth available for literally everyone else - since there is, after all, a finite amount of money in the world he can't become superrich without making someone else poor.

>maintaining the problem exactly as it is counts as a "solution"
Redpanels gets more retarded by the month

The point is that there isn't a problem in the first place.

A handful of people being superrich while many others are so poor they can't afford basic living expenses is an obvious problem. It's just that certain classes of people have a vested interest in claiming it's not.

The only way I'd modify this is to allow the employees to participate in profit sharing. Once the business owner has covered all his expenses and made himself a profit that meets a certain threshold, he would then offer a percentage of the profits he makes above that as an incentive for his employees to do the absolute best job they can to ensure that the company is profitable.

Perhaps it is, but is communism really the solution?

>capital to start a business just happens
Who's pouring the concrete to build the cafe? Who's making all the furniture? Who's growing and picking the coffee beans? You've created a business, true, but only by bringing together a lot of products of other people's labour. The "entitiled leech" in this scenario is the capitalist for paying those people the bare minimum while pocketing huge profits himself (do you have any idea how many billions Starbucks raked in this year, and how little of that made its way back to the actual coffee plantations?)

>The owner gets the profit because they take the risk
This is one of the worst arguments in favour of capitalism - the "risk" to the employer is that of having a bad investment and losing some amount of profit before returning to a reasonably comfortable lifestyle (unless he's a complete idiot with zero savings), while the risk to your basic labourer if the business goes under is unemployment at best, homelessness and starvation at worst. See: Detroit 2008 - CEOs come out of it perfectly fine, labourers lose everything.

>And by doing so decreases the amount of wealth available for literally everyone else
Bzzt wrong. There is not a finite amount of wealth and just because someone has more does not necessarily mean somebody else must have less. This just tells me you don't understand economics. Do some reading and understand that just because Bill Gates has 70 Billion doesn't mean you must have less, there is an infinite amount of wealth, but you need to create it. It's not a zero sum game, governments can print as much money as they want. What is finite are the THINGS you can buy with money.

Probably not. FDR-style democratic socialism has a good track record though.

>actual distribution of wealth in the US

Hmmmmmm. Really made me think until I realized there's no source.

>See: Detroit 2008 - CEOs come out of it perfectly fine, labourers lose everything.
CEOs are employees, not owners and again you're giving off huge tells you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

The owner of the business bears the burden of losing their investment if the business goes under. The employee loses their job sure, but the owner loses their source of income AND loses all the capital they invested.

Being an owner is a much harder job than an employee.

I don't think any amount of socialism will solve the problem. I think that if income inequality really is an issue that must be solved, we must look elsewhere for a solution.

You know just declaring that something's wrong doesn't actually make it wrong, unless you can cite some objective evidence, right? There is a finite amount of valuable goods and services in existance, so if the government "just prints more money" its value becomes diluted because it suddenly represents less ACTUAL wealth - this is what happened in places like Zimbabwe that ended up needing a fifty-trillion-dollar note to pay for a single bag of rice. And since Bill Gates owns a huge amount of tangible wealth (both in cash and physical holdings like land, factories, etc) it does in fact lessen the probability that I or anyone else will do the same (since there are 7 billion other people who'd probably like to). You can use all the weasel words you like to justify extreme wealth existing alongside extreme poverty, but in the end it simply isn't a good state of affairs, and will ultimately cause problems either through economic collapse or social upheaval.

>and again you're giving off huge tells you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.
And again you're simply declaring me to be wrong as if that means anything. Above, in the bit you conveniently didn't quote, I emphasized that CEOs and owners are often one and the same - the "family business" and all that - and even if they aren't the fact remains that no one involved at the highest levels of the 2008 financial crash ended up impoverished, while numerous workers did. Your argumentation is sloppy.

>each generation does a little better than the last
>my great grandparents were farmers, my grandfather was white collar, my father was blue collar, and I aspire to be on welfare

I always wondered why veterans have such a hard time adjusting to life after returning from duty.

Does anyone have an answer?

>And how do you acquire the means to make an investment? By some form of labour. So it is fair that you're paid for however many ditches you can dig with a backhoe, above and beyond the amount of someone working by hand (since you can perform more work using it as a tool), but only because the backhoe itself is the product of labour you'd done previously.
An investment generally made on the promise of future wealth. The bank gives me a loan because they can get interest from it. I buy the backhoe because I figure I can get more from it than it would cost me. The guy that made the backhoe made it because he figured he'd get more selling it than it would cost (in parts, labor, time, etc.). Notice that that is all in the future tense. Heck, you working with your shovel is something you do with promise of future payment for your time and efforts. If you'll notice all that, you will see the idea is in the promise of MORE than you paid out, including in your labor.
>More than the sum total of all the value created by his thousands of employees (possibly millions for companies like Wal-Mart)? Unlikely.
True. But the CEO isn't making more than the sum total of all the employees, most likely. The CEO is making the big bucks because his leadership and guidance, however it happens, is making the various costs (including labor) yield that much more than they would without the CEO. If the CEO is contracted for $50M/yr, and the company makes $51M/yr more than before they hired him, then he is worth his pay. If the company was making $200B, and now it's making $200.051B, then he's worth it. That might have been done by increasing each worker's efficiency somehow by just a bit, or by cutting the cost of each worker by just a tad. It doesn't matter - the CEO made the difference, so he gets the money.

>cure the illness
>die 2 weeks later from something else because socialism is AIDS

>tfw Bernie would let that guy with the huge stacks on the right fuck his wife
FTFY

>Congress laughes and says 'No'

Ok, here's some reading for you then.

forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie

quora.com/How-is-wealth-not-a-zero-sum-game

Bernie Sanders wouldn't have fixed income inequality, corporatism, or money in politics.

>Often the CEO also owns the company, in which case there's no one to fire him (apart from shareholders, who most companies keep numerous enough that it's hard to reach a consensus).
This is actually pretty rare. Even if it is the case, it doesn't matter, because, if the company is losing money, then eventually either people will sell the stock to someone who will be able to get control of the situation and fire the CEO, or the company will just go out of business, and then the CEO isn't making any money anyways. Often, if the CEO is the owner, they are earning far more wealth via business valuation than they are from their salary - or, if the company is losing money, they are losing far more money from devaluation of their property than they are drawing in actual income from their salary (if they are drawing a salary at all). When the company dies, they are often in debt up to their eyeballs, the opposite of wealth.
>And by doing so decreases the amount of wealth available for literally everyone else - since there is, after all, a finite amount of money in the world he can't become superrich without making someone else poor.
First of all, this is crap. There isn't a finite amount of wealth in the world, it's constantly being created. Second, wealth /= income, and wealth /= money. The wealth of someone like Buffet or Trump isn't cash in vaults, but in stocks, properties, real estate, and the like. This is why the top X wealthiest people changes all the time - the value of all those things changes all the time.

No. Fuck off and start you're own business.

ITT Bad economics and political economy

>being a balla

ignore this guy everyone, he's another one of this country's poor pathetic wannabe niggers who thinks he's slick because he's got a job as an M&S sales rep, a swatch and uses monkey talk

Here is an easy digestible video about how it actually works:

youtube.com/watch?v=vj7XExwChwI

your* lol just woke up sorry

>mental issues
>physical issues (getting a limb blown off, loss of hearing, etc)
>culture shock
>lack of acceptance
>getting cucked (family situation turned all around)
>lack of marketable skills (shooting people on occasion, or fixing a specific type of jet or ship, isn't necessarily the thing an employer is looking for right off the bat)
>lack of life skills (military took care of everything for you, now you're on your own)
There are a lot of different things that all add up. But that infographic is misleading: some of it mostly deals with people just getting out of the service (the parts about housing and job assistance), while others mostly deal with old vets (the homeless thing).

>poor people are bums
>despite being the lifeline of the economy
>unemployed people are lazy
>despite capitalist systems creating unemployment and maintaining them
>the free market works and will fix it
>the free market has never worked throughout history

Capitalists are just as bad as commies

Are you implying that 0% of the population are lazy? Because yes, a certain amount of people will be unemployed in capitalism, but it will be different people at different times. A person might be unemployed for 6 months then find a job, someone else will lose theirs and begin looking, etc. People who are long term unemployed (Over 1 year) are absolutely lazy. Guess what, not everyone are high achievers, some are just lazy useless shitheads, and generally those people will sink to the bottom.

It's nothing to concern yourself over. Lazy shitheads exist everywhere, it's a good thing they get stuck at the bottom rung.

t. retard

Keep singing that until our country goes under cunt, then you'll be begging huang woo wingping for a dollar while you suck his hairy cock (free market values).

Wait what? Do you actually think that there aren't a significant amount of people who are lazy shitheads? That is unbelievably naive. You honestly think that every unemployed person is actually trying their best to get a job and keep it?

You realize that at least 50% of this country are fucking morons, let alone the bottom 5% who are the chronically unemployed and literally fit the criteria to be called retarded, right?

youtube.com/watch?v=ym5N4ltSlTk

First off, those stats will be misleading if it's by household. Won't tell you a more honest story. And no one actually stays in these brackets. They move up and down, usually up. Also, it doesn't account for the welfare benefits to I'd consider towards their wealth. Income vs wealth would be another to be interested in.

People with an agenda like to pull this stuff. Not lie to you but mislead you with numbers. Feminists definitely do this with the wage gape. Obama doing it now with unemployment rate.

britbong, did you miss that he's from america?