If one person is rich, it means that another person is poor

>if one person is rich, it means that another person is poor
>capitalism is a zero sum game

>yet, a moderately poor man today has wealth that a king from a thousand years ago would be envious of; consistent food supply and clean water, medical services that actually work, central heat and air, and every resource that one could possibly need a mere train ride away
>in other words, there's a shitload of wealth that didn't even exist a thousand years ago, meaning that wealth doesn't come from some magical vault of gold that never has more than 500 bars, and that when someone gains a bar, that means that someone else loses a bar
>you have to look in socialist shitholes that take the zero sum game approach to economics in order to find anything that resembles a poor person from a thousand years ago, and even they have a few services that people of the past would be envious of

The Marxist narrative about capitalism falls apart immediately if you think about it for even a few minutes. The purpose of a business is to BRING SOMETHING INTO EXISTENCE THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE THE BUSINESS PROVIDED IT. In other words, it creates wealth. You start with 500 bars in the vault and end with 1000.

>Then why aren't the bars distributed evenly to everybody who works on the project?

One, reinvestment. The profits don't go straight to the wallets of the owners. Businesses that don't expand (jobs! price drops!), put something into R&D (price drops! cool new features!), and market (how will you know it exists if you're never told?) will be out-competed by companies who do.

cont

Two, ability to ensure that it continues being a positive sum game. If a truck loader produces $20/hr worth the wealth but gets paid seven figures every year, that's a massive net loss for the company, and the company will die, thereby endings its services to the public and its status as an employer. Meanwhile, if the marketing genius who gets paid $10,000,000 annually and brings $50,000,000 into the company every year with his market intuition leaves for another company because you decide to pay him as much as the truck loader in order to be "fair", and you get outmaneuvered by the competition, resulting in the truck loader losing his job, who the fuck wins, apart from the competitor? And as for this genius, what incentive would he have to climb the ranks, accept his new 80 hour weeks, and bring his productive forces to the top if he were just going to be met with a slight increase in wage and a "don't get a big head, you're just another worker"? You're doing the little guy a favor by not short changing the big guy.

Three, personal investments of the capitalist, such as risk and opportunity costs in setting up the business. If a company goes under in a free market, the debts belong to the owner. How much would somebody have to pay you in order to enter a situation where if you fail (and there's a good chance that you will), nothing short of complete financial ruin awaits you? The capitalist's employees can just walk away. The capitalist cannot. The workers and the consumers receive nothing but benefits in the form of new products and jobs, and the capitalist bares all of the risk for the creation of this new wealth.

By the way, this necessity of keeping things a positive sum game, competition, and providing incentive is a basic economic reality, regardless of your economic laws. Communists deny these at their own peril, and peril is indeed what they always receive for their troubles.

good refutation of this false truism

have a mig

>if one person is rich, it means that another person is poor

demonstrably false

That's the leftist narrative that OP is disproving.
Read the whole post before replying, and lurk more.

Yes, that's the point of this thread.

read the rest of it, reddit

Equal opportunity vs. equal outcome

neck yourself

Have a you.

lots of businesses are wealth extraction scams enabled by easy access to capital instead of productive enterprises. how do you justify the fire sector of the economy and it's disproportionate negative effect on the economy?

This is a good thread

Unequally wealthy vs. starving to the death in the fields equally. Wealth inequality is the wrong question.


How do you get your productive enterprise started? How do you get out of the hole when things aren't going so hot? How do you get investors?

Actually, capitalism isn’t a zero sum game. Big myth.

No, one rich man equals one poor man is not accurate. A society where most people are doing well is gonna produce a society with a greater percentage of wealthy individuals. There is not a finite or fixed amount of wealth. If you put down the bong and got a job, you'd know that.

Do any of you nogs read the fucking op or do you just take a shit onto the key board?

>Women get vote in west
>women become half the electorate
>women vote for welfare state
>welfare sate is bigger government
>bigger government requires more taxes
>welfare state incentives single mothers
>government becomes surrogate fathers
>single mothers raise niggers
>niggers cause more crimes
>niggers create more single mothers
>bigger government creates mandatory gibs spending
>women will never vote away welfare state
>every solution to problems caused by welfare state = more welfare state
>families destroyed and birth rates plummet
>immigration to replace births
>men loose incentive to support system
>social collapse

>capitalism is a zero sum game
>Hi im faggnon, I don't understand basic consumer theory.

Way to read past the second line retard.

But look at what happened in the rust belt. Tons of working class people became too wealthy and the companies moved everything to the third world so they can have a new poor underclass. Now detroit looks like a third world country. If the third world gets built up so they can demand something more than slave labor it will just loop back around again. Capitalism requires a constant number of poor and a handfull of hyperwealthy.

Thus the case for facism is made.

Capitalism is best as a closed loop cycle. Letting the third world compete on the level of a first world nation just introduces an outside wrench into the gears and rapes everything.

>if one person is rich, it means that another person is poor
How much of a retard are you?

Married women vote right wing, as do people who have healthy relationships with their fathers in general. We just need to break this censorship of the knowledge that feminism's path for women = mental diseases in the 40s, the effects of daycare on children, and frame their hostility towards children as being exactly what it is: hostility towards children. Nobody wants to be thought of as a child hater.


Companies move overseas to get away from hyper-regulation and ridiculous taxes in the US.

Think about it for a minute, user. Would you want to move your company over seas, given the choice?

>low IQ workforce who's less productive than a western worker (and thus, wastes money)
>have to create completely new infrastructure
>cultural barriers
>have to deal with the legal issues of being an international company

One of Donald Trump's biggest platforms is striking down regulations and getting companies to come back. He's already seen a few successes.

It has absolutely nothing to do with regulation it has everything to do with wages. The companies started moving as soon as regan's free trade shit took effect. Until then workers were well paid and taken care of but when the opportunity to move came about they kept bidding down the unions to take less and less benefits to keep their jobs. Of cours ultimately anyone in the US wont just fice in to slave labor like a 3rd worlder will and they eventually moved.

>Married women vote right wing

because the welfare state taxes take money from their husbands and therefore from them.

with a husband you don't need daddy government.

even still women cost the state money