Capitalists literally don't know how markets work

They're making the whole world a hellish mess basically because the rich are retarded assholes and for no other good reason.

rawstory.com/2017/08/a-scientist-just-destroyed-the-conservative-myth-that-inequality-is-necessary-for-economic-motivation/

Other urls found in this thread:

unvis.it/rawstory.com/2017/08/a-scientist-just-destroyed-the-conservative-myth-that-inequality-is-necessary-for-economic-motivation
urban.org/research/publication/economic-mobility-united-states).
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Please archive
unvis.it/rawstory.com/2017/08/a-scientist-just-destroyed-the-conservative-myth-that-inequality-is-necessary-for-economic-motivation

Wow, decided to cover your flag, fag?

Ah, yes. The rich are bad because the rich are bad. It's not like they get rich by making products and offering services that benefit people's lives. Or pay their employees thus allowing them to feed and shelter themselves and their families and participate in the same system that created the wealth the rich now hold. Nope, the rich are just bad even against all logic and principle of self-interest. And any economist that says otherwise just doesn't understand economics. Sage.

>this isnt how economics work

economics is a social construct, its not like the

They get rich from sociopathy, luck and inherited wealth. The fabled meritocracy of capitalism is and always was a myth.

>capitalism doesn't wor-

>luck
so play the lottery then you fuggni fagt

You think communism could do any better?

>inequality actually prevents people from earning more
>as evidenced by this study where "inequality" is most significant in nations where people earn more on average
lol

Like most systems. It works till it doesn't.

(((capitalists)))
you must be newsage

>Humans aren't canc-

You can't force, you fucking idiot.

>B-but muh false dichotomy!
Okay, brainlet.

This all seems incredibly reasonable.

One rich individual will always have lower demand than several moderately well-off people.

Mr Rich is less likely to be interested in factory produced goods reducing the demand on domestic labor and spending more overseas

Low-to-middle class are strong drivers of efficiency in design and cost-cutting

A country prospers when more people demand similar things, simple.

>economies do better with easier access to capital
Ofc this is true, it's the main argument for less financial regulation

>more inequality causes less access to capital
...wut?

Should force boomers to retire at 50/55 so kids can get jobs instead of constantly increasing it.

Not true capitalism, this is talking about private communism.

We built massive structures in the sky, we colonized the planet and made our own concrete jungles. We went to space, put a man on the moon, explored the depths of the ocean and the corners of the earth, we used nature to make food and medicine and wiped out entire diseases. If you still think humans are "cancer" then fuck off.

>concrete jungles
They're not jungles. They're deserts. All you've done is erase life and replace it with poison and ruin.

I think everyone is starting to see this now, even the fags who were all for it. Fuck the rich. I know how Sup Forums always claims the left or liberals hate white people, but it is the rich who hate white people the most. Think about it. White people have standards in life, they want a good paying job, they want good food, healthy food which is always more expensive and harder to obtain, they want a big house, big yard, the whole 9 yards. Rich people do not want that, they don't need more people wishing to better themselves, they want themselves and the extreme poor.

Things will get better when everyone is on the same page, in the mean time we can just point our fingers at each other. Retards man.

>Sociopathy
No. Sociopaths are highly unsuccessful because they can't hide their tendencies from employers or employees. Everyone hates sociopaths and so nobody hires them, this causes them to draw away from society and attack it through violence. This is objectively false.

>luck
Only lottery winners win through luck. Climbing the corporate ladder to the status as CEO takes hard work, patience, communication skills, socializing skills, among other things. And it takes time, you only see 20-something CEOs when they start their own companies, which in itself is even harder than climbing a corporate ladder.

>Inherited wealth
Yes, but noveau riche kids don't share the same kind of diligence that their fathers do when they build that wealth. They usually end up spending it all on petty junk and ending up in poverty after their parents cut them off or pass away. Those that don't spend it all and actually learn to use it intelligently build new ventures with that capital and earn new wealth, restarting the gamble again for the next generation. Additionally, with an established family name and so much wealth that they don't need, smart noveau riche kids tend to give more to philanthropy.This is why old money families garner so much praise, because they invest smartly and use their excess wealth to help the poor. Earned wealth always tends to go to those who earn it.

Socialism is a scam... but I'm starting to think that ending the scam may actually require eating the rich who benefit so much from the scam today.

Sociopaths are king of first impressions and efficiency. So long as you can make the company profit align with their profit they will be a boon. Their inherent selfishness and uncaring methods make them ideal for positions of high competition.

People who gain large sums of wealth quickly got lucky. They happened to have that one bright idea which became popular. Of course they also must put in plenty of dedication for the idea to be worth that much but there are many who put in equal effort with smaller results. People who build wealth over time are all the things you described.

Having money automatically makes it exponentially easier to make more money. Investing smart is not much of a praise in the same way that finishing university isn't. At that level of play it's the basic requirement.

Capitalism doesn't exist. It's all a mask for different levels of theft and how much you can get away with from stealing from each other.

Don't have to be communist to realize that the current system sucks.

Do have to be an idiot to believe that what we have right now is capitalism and not just state sponsored monopolies in every productive industry.

No reason to be so tinfoil about it

The monopolies form and perpetuate well enough on their own. Why shouldn't they?

If people purchase the goods that are either cheapest or most well known they will inevitably create monopolies to those that benefit from economies-of-scale and specialisation.

Capitalism is merely the natural battle of survival on a business scale. In nature those that win the race thrive and everyone else dies.
There is never enough room for everyone, nor even for two. Eventually there can only be the best in each sector.

Oy-vey! Stealing is hard work if you plan on not getting caught.

You ever been to New York? Tokyo? London? Los Angeles? Bustling streets full of life.

>The monopolies form and perpetuate well enough on their own. Why shouldn't they?

It's not just "well enough", it is way beyond that now. It is about making money out of thin air. The days of running and owning a business that rakes in decent income are starting to fuck off at alarming rates. Even now, owning a business that pays the bills and stays afloat are not enough.

I can't think of anyone who says "inequality is necessary" only that it is a fact of life and that raging against it is to dismiss whatever faculties you do possess for envy of things you'll never actually work to attain

AKA Capitalism (as we know it) is slowly dying.

Jungles feature diversity of life

you're describing monotony of existence (regardless of the origin of the people, who are all still close enough to qualify as one unit)

Well no shit. There are moments when opportunities are available. Then those avenues close because they're occupied by those that won. It's time to adapt by finding new routes.
You can't start a business and pay bills if you keep starting said business the same way it was done in the days of your uni professor. Those days are over, the new must rise for progress to continue.

Everything dies as you know it. It's called evolution.

>There are moments when opportunities are available. Then those avenues close because they're occupied by those that won. It's time to adapt by finding new routes.
>You can't start a business and pay bills if you keep starting said business the same way it was done in the days of your uni professor

So it is our fault for not keeping up with the latest flavor of the month kikery tricks that is going on? So what do people do? I know, jack shit because there is nothing to be done about it. If Capitalism is not going to die, it will be even more rigged than it is now until it finally buckles completely. Automation is going to see to that. Capitalism cannot be maintained in a world where there is no demand for labor, and you'll have automation in every damn sector pretty soon, a race to the bottom.

You just make it seem like it was our fault all along for not being a jew, not to mention you live in Switzerland, no offense, but you are really detached on what the world is going through my friend.

I have now left this thread. Bye.

>Having money automatically makes it exponentially easier to make more money. Investing smart is not much of a praise in the same way that finishing university isn't
True, but struggle during childhood and adolescence makes for strong adults. Rich kids face no real economic hardship while growing up and have a harder time finding real friends. This is what Christians mean when they say that the poor man is richer than the wealthy man. In time, the better character and virtue of the poor man will overcome that of the rich man who squandered his childhood with worthless enjoyment instead of making something of themselves. The poor man has an established network of contacts which he can call upon for job opportunities while the rich man must contest with himself if the friends he has like him for his character or his wealth. Poor character leads to poor choices, and there are vastly more poor characters in a given population group. Since there are more poor than rich, it makes sense that there would be more successful second generation poor people than successful second generation rich people, ironically.

The statistics bear this out. "They also find that individuals in the highest quintile are significantly less likely to move into a different quintile than individuals in any of the other four quintiles"
(urban.org/research/publication/economic-mobility-united-states). Which I feel would be a good place to admit that I might've overstated the degree to which poor character rich kids lose their wealth, while they don't generate new wealth, they don't lose their inherited wealth all at once. Rather than going out like a supernova, they go out like a red giant. The study shows that children born in households in the lower percentiles are more likely to climb their way up to higher percentiles. This seems to remain true up the ladder, even to the top rung where the amount of people going into the top 10% is equal to the amount dropping out of it.

This is simple psychology. Humans are at their best when given no choice because conscious desires are limiting.

It is easy to work hard when the alternative is active discomfort.
Self-motivation is a skill best practices but it is one inherent.

Rich kids don't lose money because they're taught the mechanisms by which said money was maintained long before they are given the opportunity to spend it all.

Other kids rise because as an average parents will push their children to be greater. Either through punishment or incentive the emotional drive is enough.

People who claim the rich can never trust their friends forget that rich people socialise with each other. Nobody cares that you're rich when everyone around you is the same. Anyone who tries selling the lie that rich people are unhappy is simple rationalising.

That's a good point. Poor and middle class parents have a higher goal to push their children towards, whereas rich parents have already made it and have no goal to direct their children. It seems simple, but I haven't thought about it in terms of goal orientation before. Thanks for that.

Who knew I'd find something that interesting in a thread about how "capitalism is dumb and evil!!1!"

Always a pleasure to inspire new thoughts.

Ideas which hold truth of humanity are always simple as they must be consistent within the minds of humans for that is where they come from.

There's some gold to be found amongst the mud, if you;re willing to get your hands dirty.