Communism memes aside...

Communism memes aside, do you personally believe that it is just that when some people starve and can't even afford housing that some people own yachts, 1,000+ square meter properties, and even entire stadiums?

Other urls found in this thread:

wkyt.com/content/news/Laurel-Co-children-found-in-home-with-deplorable-living-conditions-418034673.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Just? That depends on your "solution" to this "problem". How will you feed the hungry and house the homeless? If it's by forcibly taking money from someone else, you can fuck right off, lazy commie filth.

Nope.

Castro owned a fuckhuge yacht...
Now what?

>just
It's impossible. If there is a country with people who are starving, you'll not find any billionaires that made there money in that country.

Yes.

It's tragic that communism has made so many countries so poor. Not just at all.

Castro died worth nearly $1b and Chavez's daughter is worth $4b last I checked. People in both countries routinely go without food.

On the other hand, no one in the US starves.

So yeah, I'd say Communism is extremely unjust, those "leaders" stealing the wealth of the productive and forcing the masses who could otherwise work for the inventive and creative to starve.

Maybe they should get a job

This is false. Chavez made his money in Venezuela and Castro made his money in Cuba.

no matter what economic system you have there will always be rich and poor people

that's just human nature

Well that would be gov't property, state assets.

>no one in the US starves
Well that's a blatant fucking lie

Excluding anorexics and other mentally ill people who voluntarily starve themselves, obviously.

Well this is blatant fucking ignorance, then. Fuckin stuff yourself, you're outright wrong on both accounts.

Yes but taking all the money from the Rich guy and giving it to all the Poor guys won't help.

Millions of people have been and continue to be taken out of poverty through free trade and innovation. This has not occurred through a mass redistribution of wealth by governments. It is working!

>1.9$/day
wow, those Indians earning 2$/day sure are wealthy

These people paradoxically claim the successes of third world shitherders while telling you to ignore the people at home who go days without eating. Globalism has a net gain, but everyone you've ever met, EVER are the ones who chip in to pay for it. This is your "privilege"

So rather than trying to survive off the land in unimaginable poverty a business pays them a small amount for their labour enabling them to buy food and medicine so they don't die. It's shit but it's better than the alternative.

The concept of justice is a societal construct, and doesn't exist in the natural world.

Is there justice for the hare, against the hawk?

Is there justice for the zebra, against the lion?

Is there justice for the sea lion, against the shark?

No.

Justice is a lie created to keep the peasants from inciting revolution.

Every regime and ideology in the world claims to be an ally of justice, yet in every society, injustice remains.

The truth is, life is a zero-sum game. If you want something, then either directly, or indirectly, it must be taken from someone else. This has always been, and it always will be.

This is the natural way of the world.

>do you personally believe that it is just that when some people starve and can't even afford housing

Literally no one starves in the west. Housing prices are a whole other thing.

Everyone saying no will change their minds when/if they become rich.

Well if I produce something and you pay me for it we both win. If you go around trying to take everything off people you will just incite violence which is bad for everyone

$2/day is a huge improvement over sub-$1/day living. The bottom quintile of the world population still lives on less than $1. Doubling their personal income in a free market greatly boosts the entire economy since they are still a massive consumer bloc.

Fuck poor people, they're just parasites.

>keynesian economics faggot here
nice try schlomo. you can create your own wealth.

>The concept of justice is a societal construct, and doesn't exist in the natural world.

Beauty is a societal construct and doesn't exist in the natural world. I'd still argue that we're better off for seeking it.

>Literally no one starves in the west
4000 dead in the US every year isn't "no one"

Dhirubai Ambani's Antilia is a 31 storey building right next to slum

>So rather than trying to survive off the land in unimaginable poverty
They'd be better off growing their own food, they're fucking slaves so you can pay $5 less for an iPad. Those people own nothing. Globalism is only bad when companies start saving pennies with immigrants in your own countries.

carlos slim

Equality is a meme.

It's not about muh money. It's muh disparity in opportunity. Great wealth is justified and also actually quite stimulating AS LONG as you also have robust overall social mobility. You want rags-to-riches to be a thing for hardworking people. You also want faggots that do stupid shit to take serious hits no matter how thick their money armor is.
Needless to say, on both accounts, shit's on a downward trend basically everywhere.

I used to think it was bad. But better for there to be opportunities to advance than everyone living equally shitty lives

Yes. They own all that stuff because they are the best at maintaining it.
Which normie is capable of maintaining a stadium, or a castle?
There is nothing wrong with allowing people to build wealth as also the surroundings of them are going to profit. (how poor is the poorest Westerner these days compared to an African?)
Of course there will be exceptional people, who are exceptionally good at building wealth.
Whoever is in favour of getting rid off or otherwise inhibiting their most exceptional people is going to ruin civilisation since it is only a very slim minority that actually pushes civilisation forward.
That is btw not only true for economics, but also for arts.
For example Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Tchaikovsky and Chopin produced more than 50% of all great works of classical music.
If you inhibit exceptional people you impoverish your nation.

That should not be used to excuse the gang raping and backdoor dealing strategies of the jews.

hey commie retard if they starve it's their own fault, there is so much money poured into public food assistance as well as a ubiquity of charity groups

>Beauty is a societal construct
Wrong beauty is mostly objective and rooted in biology

Human competence, when tied with financial success, is an exponential matter. Price's law, my friend.

almost on course to catch up to your $10/day!

What is far more important than just inequality is if the methods used to obtain wealth are just. If you exploit others to obtain it such as with barely legal behaviour than it is much worse than if you obtained all your wealth by providing value to others.

Yes. I aim to be one of them.
Go ahead and sacrifice yourself to the greater good. I'll be in the back sipping champagne, enjoying the fruits of your sacrifice.

nigger, poverty is on a downward trend

>said the neet

Well why are they starving? Are they too disabled to work? They get a check for that. Cant provide for their children? Thats a choice. Addiction? Thats a choice. So yeah, its just.

With that line you would've qualified for GULAG concentration camp :-(
Actually the Soviets really targeted beautiful people on only that basis, as they thought that beautiful people automatically hold views against Socialism.

Yo still see to this day the voluntary segregation of beautiful (according to classic beauty standards) vs non-beautiful (or at least people fighting beauty in some way) people in politics.

No, I bdlieve it is nature. Some people cannot save money to afford those yachts, just like some people can never be happy no matter how much they are entertained.

The solution is not to force everyone to be as poor as the poorest person, or as miserable as the most miserable person. Especially when the leaders exempt themselves from these requirements that they try to force everyone else to follow.

It's btw also a reason why jews push degenerate art and the Nazis pushed strongly against it with classical beauty standards. (think: greek statues of gods and athletes)

"Just" is a fucking meme. It's meaningless.Ask a proper question next time.

Also, rich people tend to employ hundreds/thousands of workers

India. The poverty is crippling

No, he isn't. It's a statistically insignificant number. About 4000 each year. By contrast, 5600 die from ALS, a disease which is considered incredibly rare. Also the only people who starve in the US are people who are off the grid, which often means illegal aliens.

there is free fucking food in every city in america. the only people that refuse to eat at homeless shelters are mentally ill. who the hell here is starving that doesnt bring it upon themselves through drug addiction and refusing treatment for mental illness?

>Fuckin stuff yourself
He can
Because he lives in America
Where no one starves unless they're retarded

IDK maybe (((THEY))) should be blamed for all this shit

YUou think they give a fuck? when theres a welfare system *central bank in, they arent doing real jobs and dont give a fuck and dont care wont do nothing ever losers except talk shjit like hey what u guys think about poor people and stuff being hungry

I mean, whois worse than them right? the starving

And the job where I earn my money, in order to pay that product, is a job that someone else doesn't have. It's an opportunity that has been taken away from someone else.

The resources you used to produce are finite. Even if there is no immediate danger of depleting those resources, your creation of demand contributes to rising prices, which pushes poorer individuals to a position where they can't obtain those resources.

Between you and I, these effects are negligible. scale these effects up relative to the size of the global population (7-8b people), and the effects are no longer negligible.

Wealth can be created, that's true.

But something can't be created from nothing, and everything in the world is finite. As people create their own wealth, the means to create wealth become scarce. Wealth creation is only valid on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Beauty is not a societal construct. Biology dictates that we find signs of fertility, youth, and health beautiful in woman, and signs of strength, intelligence, and health beautiful in men.

The pursuit of societal structures which fail to function in the natural world will only fall into dysfunction, because unnatural things are inherently unsustainable.

you think the billionaires in Dubai made their fortune in Dharavi?

Slumdog millionaire is a testament to what determination and hard work can do, not the status quo.

>is it just that some people are smarter than others?

Yes, the movie actually showed how his brother went on the wrong path to acquire wealth through criminal means and voluntarily paid the price for it at the end.

Life isn't fair
Never been fair
Never will be fair under any system

I remind myself that we're biologically designed to sit in mud huts around the Black Sea and eat charred meat, and that everything we've done since is just an experiment in grain selection.

I don't see how one person starving is related to another person owning a yacht.

As far as my people go, they should have the chance to live a proper life. If they're going to waste that chance or the situation they're in is entirely their own fault they can get fucked.
Most homelessness is caused by mental illness anyway, those people need to be cared for.

>being less prosperous than a neet

They are poor because they do not produce wealth. Taking wealth from others and giving it to them still doesn't produce wealth. Best option would be educating them and having them work, but chances are most of them were incapable of being productive in the first place.

>i am saying the rich person does less than hte poor person
was inb4

We have experimentally proven that not allowing anyone to own a yacht does not stop people for starving.

>that when some people starve
nobody is starving though

>Beauty is a societal construct
Nope. It's a byproduct of evolutionary drives to seek out healthy mates. Symmetry and proportion are outwards identifiers for good genetics and healthy development that will lead to successful offspring.

>moved the goal posts
Who said "take" nigger?

sure, when you get welfare from mommy and mommy's husband

Please show me accounts of Americans starving because of lack of food commie

Yes, it's not like Steve Jobs became a billionaire by going to Africa and stealing stuff from local peasants.
He did some shady stuff to his partners (and they did the same to him), but in the end he became rich because he produced products that millions wanted to buy voluntarily.
And not only with Apple, he had multiple successful companies.
If he wasn't around the only thing that would change is that we'd have have worse smartphones and probably at a later time.

Meh, jealousy is a shit argument.

The best argument against (modern) capitalism is the existence of planned obsolescence. The fact that it's an economically bad decision to make a long-lasting high-quality product, since the demand will dwindle as the interested consumers will buy your product. Thus, it's more viable to create shitty products that are marketed well, which in the end becomes a drain on the de-facto resources of the planet. The capitalist economy relies on kikery to make it spin, and thus kikery is a natural result of capitalism.

Marxism in all its forms is worse though, since it doesn't work at all. We need new solutions.

whites shouldnt starve in their countries
rest of the world is not my business

the guy who owns that yacht has probably fed more families than any SJW

Read
wkyt.com/content/news/Laurel-Co-children-found-in-home-with-deplorable-living-conditions-418034673.html
>this

Justice need not factor into it. A utilitarian argument is sufficient to justify economic freedom. Piic related.

>count of possession of drug paraphernalia.

Just? idk. The huge disparity in wealth (having nothing vs millionaires in same country) is pretty tragic IMO, but there isn't much that can be done. Capitalism is still the best answer.

it's okay because Castro was not a true scotsman

i saw this yacht in st Barts over new years, it was beautiful and must be worth hundreds of billions of rubles

Strawman. You are conflating the deathstar of slums to being equal to a country in order to rebuke me. I was referring to country which you used in your previous comment. India is a massive country that is rich in resources, manpower and with thriving tech, film and tourism industries. There are a lot of millionaires and billionaires there who made their wealth in that country through its industry's next to crippling poverty where people wake up and go to sleep starving.

Planned obsolescence can only exist because the majority voluntarily accepts it.
The majority doesn't use a smartphone for 10 years, they'll buy a new one every 2 years.
So it doesn't matter that much to them. There's only a tiny majority for whom this really has an effect. And they are free to buy a product somewhere else, but it'll probably cost more.

DRUG PAREPHANELIA
/= FELONY

CHARGED WITH WANTON ENDAGERMENT

close as you will ever get

Finite resources is a problem and can lead to monopolies, however I think generally competition and new ideas can overcome these obstacles. Basically I don't know that there is a better way of doing things even if it feels unfair at a certain point in time

Have you been to Africa?

The unemployment rate is 50-90% in every country and there are billionaire and millionaires everywhere.

ANYBODY in your country can afford food. The people in that story simply failed as parents because they're meth heads.

>Dude we're the same as animals not capable of complex thought
I hate people like you

>The fact that it's an economically bad decision to make a long-lasting high-quality product, since the demand will dwindle as the interested consumers will buy your product.
But its not if you currently have 0% marketshare

>do you personally believe that it is just
Is it just that 9 millions children die every year before they reach the age of 5? Reality is unjust. And the only justice in this world is the one that we make ourselves.

It's not unjust. It has nothing to do with justice. Git gud or die poor.

yo9u didnt answer my q3uestion then did YOU MOTHER FUCKER

It's in corporative interests to brainwash a population into accepting planned obsolescence, through advertising and political lobbying. Thus, the acceptance of planned obsolescence is also a natural consequence of the capitalist system we have.

>The fact that it's an economically bad decision to make a long-lasting high-quality product, since the demand will dwindle as the interested consumers will buy your product.
>he thinks stuff isn't built to fail

>"MUH WEALTH INEQUALITY"
>jew comes along posing as "socialist"
>"yes goy we can help change our government to get rid of the evil bourgeois"
>bloody revolution ensues
>jew assumes leadership in an oligarchy with other kikes
>oligarchs become incredibly wealthy while the proletariat is more desperate than they were without communism

poor deluded commies

>is it just
Nope
>should it be
Also nope.

Because they have very few intelligent persons.
The majority doesn't even have a concept of "future"

FUCK YOU PUSSY

OK and?
The reason the kids were malnourished was not because of poverty

Africa is most likely the purest form of capitalism you will see on this planet.

They were not starving because they were too poor to afford food