At this point in history, capitalism is easily the most powerful and fair economic system in the history of the world. However, It does have it's drawbacks and they are quite obvious.
By 2030, the top 1 percent of Americans will earn 37 to 40 percent of the country's income, with the bottom 50 percent getting just 6 percent.
Sup Forums, how the fuck do we fix this - or is a bourgeois/proletariat conflict really inevitable?
Other urls found in this thread:
tomwoods.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>implying that's a downside
The problem is the fact that it promotes decadent culture and doesn't account for the jobs lost as machines replace humans. Literally nothing else.
Surprising since people are equal in every way.
The problem is...we used to have morals and ideals. So when somebody has a lot of money they would actually help their communities or keep it. These days when people have money, they spread evil. Like Soros. Bezos.
Capitalism promotes that kind of individualist culture. It was pretty obvious from the beginning.
Compared to what?
...
...
Easy to fix. Pic related.
government meddling fucked capitalism.
drug dealers experience real free market
>earn
Key word -- they earned it.
Oy vey my shekels
Inheriting sure is tough.
>how the fuck do we fix this
>is a bourgeois/proletariat conflict really inevitable?
It happened for 100yrs you Millennial faggot.
Now it's race war and no end to it. It's too late to go back and fix anything. Too many Muslims, Africans, Jews infiltrated the West and Russia.
China/India will watch and laugh as we burn the West down.
That's not capitalism it's crony capitalism learn the difference OP
D E B T
JUST
U
B
I
L
E
E
If you inherit something, then your father earned it, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Is that the same as you earning it?
Equal opportunity, which is not the same as equal people.
>By 2030, the top 50 percent of American Jews (equaling just 0.8% of the population) will earn 37 to 40 percent of the country's income
>the top 1 percent of Americans will earn 37 to 40 percent of the country's income, with the bottom 50 percent getting just 6 percent.
why is this a problem? do you hate people just because they're successful?
>By 2030, the top 1 percent of Americans will earn 37 to 40 percent of the country's income, with the bottom 50 percent getting just 6 percent.
>Anything based off piketty
user your opinion is immediately discarded because the man is a caught fraud.
tomwoods.com
>1% of the population is highly economically productive and compensated fairly for this
>this is a bad thing because poor people are jealous
Settle down there marx.
>Capitalism promotes that kind of individualist culture
Except it didn't.
What you're seeing today is the deep cancer that arises from government favoritism and cronyism placed upon the market.
The greatest philanthropist in all of history have been the great """""""Robber barons"""""""" of the 1800s and it was exactly the big capitalist that opposed such government cronyism that were the most generous.
>Inheriting sure is tough.
>all rich people without exception inherited their wealth and first-generation billionaires don't exist whatsoever
i hate this meme. Even if they did inherit it, what makes them more money? by spending money to create jobs and provide valuable goods and services to the people to enjoy. inheritencefags who do nothing with their money don't stay rich very long if they sit on their ass and continue to live a life of luxury
Is that what I said? Is that what I said at all? You can sit on your ass and expect to collect 10% or more per year if your accountant isn't a complete fuckwit by the way.
>What you're seeing today is the deep cancer that arises from government favoritism and cronyism placed upon the market
Something I should add was warned against and predicted accuratelyby many a free market capitalist supporter while the left have always ignorantlyblamed "capitalism"
>You can sit on your ass and expect to collect 10% or more per year if your accountant isn't a complete fuckwit by the way.
And what does that capital do to generate that return?
...
This is a problem because I don't think anyone wants to live in a feudalist society? Kings and peasants?
>if your accountant isn't a complete fuckwit by the way.
>if
so he still has to make a decision, and hope that his investments net positive. Investments, which by the way, go into businesses providing jobs, goods, and services to people that you and I enjoy
Research is still work, money isn't magic. If he makes too many consecutive poor decisions than he is still as liable as anybody to suffer consequences and face bankruptcy, foreclosure, and other penalties
the marxist system doesn't work but they are relatively right to be worried about growing inequality, if for no other reason than it inevitably spawns civil wars.
Either you've never heard of an index fund or you're playing dumb. If your argument is that all investments = "providing valuable goods and services" and "creating jobs" then you're not even here for a good faith discussion.
>feudalist society
Nothing wrong in that.
Democracy is a meme that gives merely an illusion of choice.
Also see
I know the exact talking point you're trying to parrot with this line and frankly it is a disproven thesis a thesis who's basis is entirely around on the deliberate fraud at worst or utter failure in research (evidence points to the former) by it's creator.
Punctuate your sentences and summarize the points provided in that link in your own words and I'll consider responding with a counterargument.
I don't know why you all get butt blasted about Marx, the man didn't even invent socialism or communism, he just pointed out flaws in capitalism, he actually had no idea what a post-capitalist world would look like.
but there are no kings? are you forced to till the fields, or can you choose your profession and work your way up?
You can be the king of your life if you think of something brilliant and market it accordingly, to live a life of luxury beyond the imagination of any king of old. This isn't feudalism, it's freedom. The problem is when government injects itself and reinforces REAL feudalism when you're forced to pay them your tithe, I mean taxes, else face violence by their knights, I mean policemen
>hurr index funds are magic
no nigger, index funds are still composed of businesses, which by definition provide jobs, goods, and services. The bad businesses in an index funds are pruned out, which is why it works. Businesses are incentivized to perform and that means providing to the needs of the people to give them money. No one is forced to give businesses money, unless that money comes from the gov
Yes, index funds are stable and people make money from them. Is that money wasted? No, it helps our economy
Doesn't capitalism already allow for other systems to arise within it? By all means, if you can organize your group in a better way, then do it. Why must everyone else be forced to organize in the same way?
I don't think capitalism is awful, but I don't think it's perfect. Honest question: do you believe that a business (or an individual) being successful means that what they do is good for you and me?
Lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink.
We both know you're only saying this because you know I'm directly calling out exactly where you're spewing this crap from.
And frankly no I'm not refuting the same tired shit present a new argument to the table or leave. Or act like a flat earther at an astrophysics summit idc.
Successful capitalists are peasants who are wealthy in spite of Kings. Kings are wealthy because they steal from peasants.
Is the point "massive wealth disparity actually isn't bad because this Austrian economist says so and lol communism"? That's what I have to assume it is. Give me a three or four bullet point synopsis that solves the major crises of capitalism, user, you can do it.
Today, what's the difference?
>Is the point "massive wealth disparity actually isn't bad because this Austrian economist says so and lol communism
No and the fact that you made such an intellectually childish and smarmy remark is exactly why I'm not spelling it out for you.
> Give me a three or four bullet point synopsis that solves the major crises of capitalism, user, you can do it.
No.
Actually do some reading or even listen to a short podcast that will be more informative than the hour you'll shitpost in this thread on some actual positions of actual free market capitalist supporters instead of this cartoonish bullshit. Some things cannot be summed up in short talking points and actually require some reading which is probably exactly why you made this thread
> Is the point "massive wealth disparity actually isn't bad
Also as one simple fact that shines a small light on the fraud that is piketty and the shit you're parroting from him in this thread.
If you look at every nation on Earth it is precisely where the economies are the most controlled is where the greatest wealth disparities exist and where economic liberty is most protected is where wealth disparity is thr lowest.
There also the 80-20 rule which goes far beyond just people similar to the golden ratio
the only thing wrong about capitalism is its sadistic cousin, crony capitalism (i.e capitalism with gov intervention). By itself, capitalism is a sound and effective means of VOLUNTARY exchange of privately-owned resources and production
contrary to popular belief, yes, a businesses (or an individual) being successful does mean that what they do is good for you and me. how do I know this? businessman X is selling (NOT FORCING ME) something I previously didn't have or know about, and it's my choice whether or not to buy it. If what he sells is good, I buy it, if it's shit, I tell him to fuck off
this means that in order for the business to make money, he MUST make something that appeals to people who have money -- the common man -- or he just gets told to fuck off. Smartphones, computers, cars, you think they made these things to please people? If they wanted to make people happy, they'd make em free, but then they can't expand and build upon their product to serve more people in the future if they did that. They need money, and they need capitalism in action
Capitalism is what gets us all the good shit we enjoy, and this scaremongering bogeymen of "ebil corporations" is complete commie nonsense when at the heart of these corporations aren't corrupted businesses, but central government agents who want votes via promising """free""" shit
The difference today is that the King's of old wish they had the power of the gargantuan governments we have today and the bureaucracy Police and militaries to carry out their looting and protection/exertion of their rule
Why do you assume I never have? I've even actually read Hoppe before for the memes, but I'm familiar with Hayek and von Mises too. There's a reason the Austrian school is dead, and it's because modern economists look at actual data use reasonably conceived metrics instead of pseudologic and anecdotes.
>only thing wrong about capitalism is its sadistic cousin, crony capitalism
In what conceivable world could the one not lead directly to the other? Power entrenches itself by all means possible, if I control most of a market, I'll do my damnedest to change the laws to make sure I can control even more of it. Capitalism sells the things that people who can afford to consume them enjoy, with no regard for sustainability or for the massive numbers of people who can't afford them.
its fixed cream rises to the top buddy.
>If they wanted to make people happy, they'd make em free,
Not even necessarily that. If they made them "free" no one would have them at all because there wouldn't ever be the capital accumulation from the profit incentive to develop and produce these goods.
I think that Rockefeller made something like 14¢ a barrel on oil at the height of his company's size but because of the massive reduction in the cost of oil thanks to him everyone that bought a barrel of oil was saving something like $2 compared to what they were paying before of the innovations Rockefeller brought to market.
Hell Vanderbilt on several of his railroads completely stopped charging people to travel and instead made up that loss on food sales and other means of revenue and Vanderbilt was competing against and btfoing companies receiving huge subsidization from.the government. With the Vanderbilt example the difference today is that the subsidized companies still exist in large scale aspect of our economy but unlike in Vanderbilts time today it is essentially illegal for men like him to even get into the market
>In what conceivable world could the one not lead directly to the other?
one where people aren't stupid enough to keep voting for government that makes government intervention happen in the first place. You can choose to believe the people will always be too stupid and it's hopeless, or you can choose to believe that maybe, just maybe, if enough people know the truth and all of this bullshit they'll goddamn do something about it
>if I control most of a market, I'll do my damnedest to change the laws to make sure I can control even more of it.
yes, I know lobbying exists. The problem is when the government allows it, and the people allow it, when they're not forced to by any means
>with no regard for sustainability or for the massive numbers of people who can't afford them.
why should they give a shit about the people who can't afford? Am I entitled to a yacht? to a mansion? this victim and entitlement mentality is the cancer that plagues society
logistically speaking, it's just not feasible to give free shit to everyone because everyone would have nothing in the process. This is why communism doesn't work, and why Marx was a degenerate NEET who routinely banged his maid and whose mother wished he spent as much time making capital instead of writing about it
paredo distribution my friend. It's only natural.
>it's because modern economists look at actual data use reasonably conceived metrics instead of pseudologic and anecdotes.
And yet their "pseudologic" is exactly why they've been significantly more accurate than modern economist using supposed scientific methods precisely because the field of economics isn't one of concrete science it has much much more to do with understanding as Mises called it "Human action".
But Austrian school economics has nothing to do with what is pointed out against the lies told by Piketty which your entire thread is based on
Are you entitled to safe drinking water or clean air? I just don't see capitalism and crony capitalism as being even close to inseparable, the state would have to be more powerful than money, which isn't the case in a capitalist system. We won't change each other's mind on that one, not in this thread, so we can stop arguing that point. Do you and I and everyone else deserve to breathe clean air and have uncontaminated drinking water?
Also you're shitty strawmen and lines that read like they're taken off a private FB group for young college liberals of what "capitalist" believe is why I said what I did and you claiming to read those authors while still repeating such empty strawmen only makes it worse for yourself
>Are you entitled to safe drinking water or clean air?
IDK I've never had dirty water from any private company that sells their own water.
Can't say the same about people living in Flint Michigan or many other places in the US receiving water from government utilities
Except it's way waaaay waaaaay worse than 80:20. Look for yourself.
This isn't my thread. Why do zero modern economists identify as either an-caps or communists? Is it maybe because they're both very flawed systems given today's markets and today's technology?
Hey, at least I can into grammar.
What if something nasty leached it's way into your well? How about poor air quality? Is that the fault of excessive government interference too?
>bottom 50 percent getting just 6 percent
As long as they aren't starving the only reason they think that's a problem is their envy.
They should convert to Christianity, stop sinning and work on becoming virtuous people.
Every benefit associated with capitalism is rooted in competition. But capitalism, like government, will always gravitate towards monopolies and absolutism without checks and balances. The "free market" crowd fails to appreciate the positive role that government can (and often does) play in helping to ensure an even playing field.
>Why do zero modern economists identify as either an-caps or communists?
That's an appeal to authority user and I'd really like you'd to define "modern economist".
> Is it maybe because they're both very flawed systems given today's markets and today's technology?
Or because what is being espoused by "modern economist" is the exact kind of systems that allow the government to institute the systems to loot us and give the money to whomever they want?
How'd all those modern economist you're talking about and seemingly praising help with that housing bubble and crash(which was used to justify government action that further consolidated banking firms and other companies both in private hands and even government hands) which the Austrian business cycle theory accurately predicts?
Retards in here all seem to be missing a key point of Hayek's work...
How do you possibly create an economic model which appropriately takes account of all conceivable variables?
Oh wait... you don't and can't because you don't even know what all the variable are.
Retards, socialism does not work, get it though your thick fucking skulls. Government intervention and redistribution brings about so many unsolvable logical issues that you could write several thousand volumes summarizing that alone.
>Are you entitled to safe drinking water or clean air?
nobody is entitled to anything. There is a natural demand for drinking water, and a natural demand for clean air, obviously. Water comes in a water bottle, and air conditioning and filtering is a massive industry.
no free rides, friendo
>I just don't see capitalism and crony capitalism as being even close to inseparable
nice opinion
>the state would have to be more powerful than money, which isn't the case in a capitalist system.
all it needs is for the state to be present, and that's exactly what's happening right now with idiots voting for more free shit
>Do you and I and everyone else deserve to breathe clean air and have uncontaminated drinking water?
nobody "deserves" anything, stop thinking with your emotions and start thinking with your head. The only thing anyone "deserves" is non-aggression, because unwarranted aggression only warrants further aggression
>What if something nasty leached it's way into your well?
then pay to have it cleaned off, or sue the business causing it
>How about poor air quality?
pollution by definition is wasteful, meaning businesses have an incentive to minimize it else be sued if smog and acid rain interferes with other people's private property
>Is that the fault of excessive government interference too?
overregulation, rules, and other nonsense that tells businesses how to run themselves prohibits businesses from acting on fixing these things so yes, it kinda is
Capitalism doesn't exist as a legitimate concept. Communism lied.
Wowe what a hard problem to solve. Even Hayek doesn't argue for government to be absent. Solution? Competition law with harsh sanctions.
One of the few things government ought to do, is to create a robust (but basic) legal system (competition law being an integral part of that), which must ensure that government officials act in a manner akin to fiduciaries.
Controlling and managing wealth has limits. There is only so much time and capacity to manage people that one can achieve even when one employs others to do this for them. Natural splits in controlling wealth also allow the spread of wealth. For example I can only maintain so much before the people who work under me start to end up competing against me.
Buying govt officials and having them make laws in ones favor to consolidate power and access are the tools people use to build empires.
End that practice and you have a chance at turning these numbers around.
Govt is the problem... again.
>I'd really like you'd to define "modern economist".
Anybody teaching, studying, writing, or effecting policy today.
>Or because what is being espoused by "modern economist" is the exact kind of systems blah blah
No. You can't accuse me of setting up strawmen then do exactly the same. The system of looting through the law has been around pretty much as long as the law has been around, it's about balance, but you're an extremist.
>nobody is entitled to anything
Ohhh Christ, this argument. You better pay me for that air you're breathing, my great grandfather laid claim to it and beat the piss out of yours when he pushed back so now it's mine and now you owe me.
>then pay to have it cleaned off, or sue the business causing it
That costs a lot of money, and we know who wins in courts.
Pollution isn't wasteful from the point of view of those doing it, it's efficient. They wouldn't pollute if it wasn't easier. You really are a thoroughly indoctrinated ideologue, aren't you?
>Hey, at least I can into grammar
If you know anything about written proper grammar is exactly how you don't write. You write how you want your writing to be read.
> What if something nasty leached it's way into your well?
Gee it's my well I'd have to fix it wouldn't I that's the whole point of it being mine right? Me taking responsibility to maintain it because it's mine? Nah that's too simple
> How about poor air quality
How's that working in China senpai?
Should I add that pollution in this nation started it's sharp downward drop years and years before the federal government even got involved?
> Is that the fault of excessive government interference too?
I'm going to take your shitty misdirection as a concession that you can't think of any large scale examples of a private company selling such shitty quality water to a large amount of people that can even compare to what government is allowed to continue to get away with as we speak.
Seriously shove your double standard up your ass if any private company selling water did what is happening in Flint alone you know what would happen?
They'd go out of business and never recover after having to give a hefty payout to anyone they harmed or their families.
Tell me about that level of resolution seen by the families devasted by the polluted water sold to them by the government of Flint?
The Nashua River, not far from where I grew up, used to run different colors on different days of the week because nobody had made a law saying it was illegal to dump your waste products in waterways. Surely this was the fault of socialism and big government.
>But capitalism, like government, will always gravitate towards monopolies and absolutism without checks and balances.
But that is historicallyunfounded user.
Even the supposed worst case examples of Rockefellers standard oil never maintained the market control massive corporations under government protectionism hold today.
Even by time anti trust suits we're taken againststandard oil Rockefeller lost a huge portion of the market share once other competition caught up to his innovation.
The market and everyone in it is that check and balance user.
>Rockefeller
>US$392 billion (in 2016 dollars; inflation-adjusted) in 1913,[a] according to Forbes[1][2]
(1.5% to 2% of the United States economy; or approximately 1/65th to 1/50th of its GDP)
What corporate entity has that kind of wealth/value today?
>You better pay me for that air you're breathing, my great grandfather laid claim to it and beat the piss out of yours when he pushed back so now it's mine and now you owe me.
present to me your claim papers and its legitimacy, and see if you can reinforce your property
pro-tip: you can't
I'll continue consuming the air because they're way for you to reasonably enforce your claim, fuckface
>That costs a lot of money, and we know who wins in courts.
nice bogeyman, and further proof that government is corrupt if it can be easily bought out
>Pollution isn't wasteful from the point of view of those doing it, it's efficient
no, waste is waste, pollution is by definition wasteful. Being wasteful is not efficient, in the same way that not flushing your toilet is wasteful because you're not disposing waste in a clean and orderly fashion and must put up with your smelly bullshit
>They wouldn't pollute if it wasn't easier
which is why they minimize it, and continue research to expel waste in the safest and cleanest manner without interfering with other people's private property else be faced with consequences
government can't magically make all pollution disappear either, buddy
>You really are a thoroughly indoctrinated ideologue, aren't you?
nice ad-hom. Not an argument.
Communism is inevitable, OP
>I'll continue consuming the air because they're way for you to reasonably enforce your claim, fuckface
"Muh land"
>it's not socialism, it's democratic socialism
>Capitalism has drawbacks
>but I'm not going to define any actual drawbacks
>I'm just going to throw out a statistic about the distribution of wealth and not explain further.
Yeah - no OP. How do we fix what again?
wow, what a clear non-argument
who says I'm going to live in your shitty fucking commieland, I've got my own
Don't legitimize their sociopathic game. Morality ends where the guns of government begin.
You're trying to negotiate with a robber that wants to destroy you. There's nothing to negotiate.
>many unsolvable logical issues that you could write several thousand volumes summarizing that alone.
user several thousand volumes have been written doing just that.
There's hundreds of books just going over how government is fucking medical care just in America.
> How do you possibly create an economic model which appropriately takes account of all conceivable variables?
>Oh wait... you don't and can't because you don't even know what all the variable are.
I just wanted to add that throughout all human cultures throughout time the most evil figures in them have always been the arrogant (sometimes tragic) figures that believe they know what's best and should rule because of it.
Not only do socialist and central planners throw away this wisdom of thousands of years of human experience but hold it as almost the utmost virtue.
>1. monarchy, 2. kingship, 3. tyranny, 4. aristocracy, 5. oligarchy, 6. democracy, and 7. ochlocracy.
We are on number 5
Oh yeah they sure were great, letting their workers toil in horrid conditions and literally just murdering anyone who proposed a strike or some sort of bargain...
I hate all these stupid fucking "THE 1% HAS 99% AND 99% HAS ONLY ONEEEE" stats.
It's called exponential growth. "Hmm, duhh, I wonder what group's gonna grow faster, the really small group or the really big group?"
Nobody is taking anyone's money. If your parents are poor, you're gonna be poor.
are jews the true masterrace or are they just perfectly fited parasite?
sometimes even I wonder
>By 2030, the top 1 percent of Americans will earn 37 to 40 percent of the country's income, with the bottom 50 percent getting just 6 percent.
If the lives of the bottom 50 percent are still better then than they are now, which trends say they will be, does it matter? Increasing income inequality isn't happening with a static money pool, the amount of money to go around increases in tandem, meaning that while yes, the rich are getting richer, income inequality percentages only show that RELATIVE to the rich, the poor are getting poorer. If, relative to the poor of the past, the poor of the present have gotten richer, then as a capitalist society we have progressed, and that is the real trend. It's plain as day when you look at modern inventions like TVs, computers, and mobile phones. First they get introduced only within the price range of the 1%, then the price range broadens to the top 20% as the item gets cheaper, then the top 50%, and so on until it's accessible to more than 95% of the population.
Other than personal jealousy, I'm failing to see how 1% of the people having (((whatever))) pct of the wealth is an actual problem. What are the problems the bottom 1% have - those you should solve and it probably has nothing to do with whether 1% of the ppl have most of the wealth or not.
so the government is the problem? Maybe a more controlled and libertarian government, which respected individual rights, would do better.
...
The premise of the statement is that the distribution of capital is itself a problem. It's not.
1 percenters have a good chunk of the available wealth - this is true. But people complaining about that - the so-called "99%" lead pretty fucking good lives. They have food, they can choose to be healthy, they endlessly consume unnecessary resources to buy consumer electronics, build houses way bigger than they need, etc.
There is a smaller subset of the global population that lacks enough wealth to fund even basic survival. It's their problems all these SJWs should be thinking about solving and it has little to do with the 1%.
Thank you, but I doubt these socialist retards will understand. Morons don't understand that the lives of poor shits now are probably nearly as good or better off than the Rockefellers of their day.
Excellent quote.
>Anybody teaching, studying, writing, or effecting policy today
Alright and what are those voices espousing?
>No. You can't accuse me of setting up strawmen then do exactly the same
How can I if you won't even define "modern economist"
> Anybody teaching, studying, writing, or effecting policy today
Isn't an answer because that literally applies to everyone.
Unless you're referring to people in places like the federal reserve and the federal government who have real actual power to implement policy.
In which case no what I said isn'ta strawman because policies which further government power and wealth consolidation (and those of the people they choose to give it to) is universallythe voice coming from these "modern economist"
> it's about balance, but you're an extremist.
Now you're flinging insults user no that isn't what "the law" is about.
The law exist for one reason and one reason only in a free society and that is for the government to have a system for people living in a society to resolve disputes including criminal disputes. I the law has a place in making the violation of someone's life liberty or property illegal but has no place in saying what people voluntarily associating can do or what individuals can do with their property up to and including their own bodies. You know the system that the very foundation of this nation was built upon.
So yes in today's world of tyranny and despicable legal corruption I'm a proud "extremist"
Ofc, SJW's can't even do maths.
Let's take USD $4 trillion, and divide it between the world's 6bn people. Whoopty doo, everyone gets ~$666, hardly a life changing sum.
We don't need to fix it. The bottom 50% will still be richer than a king in 1850. The poor are getting richer too, just not at the same rate as the rich. Everyone is rich as fuck.
thanks for clearing that up, chum
Git guud and quit whining you poor fuck. Once you get in the 1% you wouldn't bitch and moan about how you need to give all your money away to the 99%
>Pollution isn't wasteful from the point of view of those doing it, it's efficient.
Standard oil created something like 30+ products off things that were viewed as waste and previously dumped.
You're probably very familiar with one it's called Vaseline.
And as for that assertion look at pollution levels throughout the last 120 years.
Protip they started dropping massively before government got involved in the form of bureaucratic regulations and after these bureaucracies we're implemented pollution didn't even change the course it was previously on for years.
From what I have seen there is a fine line between capitalism and being an asshole pseudojew. I dont think that capitalism means exploit the weak and fuck them over at every turn. Greed corrupts capitalism , since greed can't be destroyed , the free market should be less free to prevent greed from taking over capitalism. But how¿
>The Nashua River, not far from where I grew up, used to run different colors on different days of the week because nobody had made a law saying it was illegal to dump your waste products in waterways
How is government not acting as the arbitrator of violation of property(the entire reason government exist in a free society) a success of government?
>create a ponzi scheme that disproportionally impacts the poor
>fucking rich are causing wealth inequality