Capitalism is survival of the con-artists

Capitalism is not survival of the fittest, it's the survival of those who can out-con others into giving them money. How else can you defend a system where the poorest people on average are farmers? Farmers who produce the one thing that everyone needs.

Other urls found in this thread:

zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-11/bis-chief-fears-systemic-threat-bitcoin-urges-pre-emptive-action-authorities
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf
sgtreport.com/articles/2018/2/17/the-worst-threat-we-face-is-right-here-at-home
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

bump comrade

war is not survival of the fittest, its the survival of those who can out-con others into bad battlefield decisions. how else can you defend a system where the least successful commanders on average are warrior-culture barbarians? warriors who have the most courage and fighting spirit.

We don't practice capitalism. We practice usury via compounding interest, regulated by a central bank, based on a debt-based/created currency. No country has ever practiced capitalism. There is no free market without government interference. As long as everyone falsely believes we practice capitalism, our system will remain broken and the American people will continue to pay interest to a private banking cartel to digitally create our own currency, like idiots. Don't worry, we are not the only idiots, any other country with a central bank under the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), also is falling for this massive wealth transfer scheme.

Remember, both the Fed and the IRS were created in 1913. This way, if they can't screw you with usury/debt, they will get you with taxes.

>it's the survival of those who can out-con others into giving them money.

Gibs me dat Komrade!

This thread again?

...

...

Still better than a system where wealth gets redistributed to irresponsible niggers who shit out 20 kids when they can barely feed 1 of them.

Now, feeding him would be a problem.
pic related: NEW CENTRAL BANK CHIEF

>THE HEAD OF THE CENTRAL BANK SNAKE, Bank for International Settlements’ Chief, Agustin Carstens said “...the meteoric rise of cryptocurrencies should not make us forget the important role central banks play as stewards of public trust..."
>"Private digital tokens masquerading as currencies must not subvert this trust.”
HAHAHAHAHA
zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-11/bis-chief-fears-systemic-threat-bitcoin-urges-pre-emptive-action-authorities
BIS Chief Fears "Systemic Threat" Of Bitcoin, Urges "Pre-emptive Action" From Authorities
PIC RELATED Augustin Carstens

>We don't practice capitalism. We practice usury via compounding interest, regulated by a central bank, based on a debt-based/created currency.
America does practice capitalism. The presence of a central bank does not mean the means of production is owned by the state, it's owned by individuals.
>No country has ever practiced capitalism.
Why do only trolls come to these threads? Everyone since the dawn of farming has practiced capitalism.

>Still better than a system where wealth gets redistributed to irresponsible niggers who shit out 20 kids when they can barely feed 1 of them.
True communism would require the niggers to work more.

>it's the survival of those who can out-con others into giving them money

So...survival of the fittest?

If we were practicing capitalism, all of the top member Fed Reserve banks would be about of business right now. And AIG. I'm no troll, YOU'RE the troll.

*out

Long live Sup Forums.

...

>If we were practicing capitalism, all of the top member Fed Reserve banks would be about of business right now.
Why?

>Red Pilla Thread Killa
I'm gone for 30 minutes and you declare victory? Pathetic.

>it's the survival of those who can out-con others into giving them money
>So...survival of the fittest?
In the artificially made environment where people don't have to search for food since farmers do it for them? Yes. Survival of the fittest with respect to nature? No.

...

ok i'm going to continue, last night i went to sleep
>if you get ride of prices, your soviet computer won't work because now not only it doesn't have trusty initial data, but it doesn't have any initial data
>That makes no sense. I'm sure you meant to say something with this, but it didn't make any sense.


you aren't getting the economic calculation problem right; it says that without prices generated from a competitive market, a central planner COULD NOT do economic calculation, therefore it couldn't be rational when taking decisions
now, if you get ride of prices entirely, your soviet super computer, not only doesn't have reliable data to function, but it doesn't have any initial data so it can't take any rational decision at all
>>super soviet computer doesn't know how or why allocate resources here or there
>>That's not true. For communism to work, all members of the economy have to communicate their preferences to the central planner. The planner then chooses the resources allocation in such a way that Pareto Optimality is achieved.

and again, you are getting the economic calculation problem wrong
it is not a matter of people's preferences, but about the initial data that your AI doesn't have because there is no competitive market nor prices
>inb4 LVT will determine prices
no, LVT is wrong from the very beginning it says labour is the only characteristic all things have in common, and therefore, it determines the value of everything, ignoring that this is not true at all (think about natural resources, like a goldmine that doesn't have any labour putted into it but it has value)
also

>pareto optimality
haha, no, there is no person on earth that doesn't want to improve his lifestyle, so you can't just achieve the pareto efficiency because that implies that all technological progress is bad because is upsetting some guy that is getting disadvantaged by technological progress

All of that prosperity pictured is at the cost of other nations and workers well being and livelihood. God did not put us on this earth to treat one another like this. Capitalism is the economy of Satan, a malevolent force out to manipulate and destroy.

>follows religion founded by some rich conartists
>a-actually hard working and successfull people are the conartists and reason why Im an unemployed virgin furfag no one wants to hire despite my liberal arts degree in esotheric dancing

Projecting of marxist retards reaching new levels.

Labour Theory of Value (LTV):

Non arguments:

>If I dig a hole in my backyard and then fill it in I used labor but made no value! Commies BTFO!

Marx clarified (unlike adam smith) that only socially necessary labor (labor used to produce a commodity with use value) creates value. This is also the case if you spend 1000 years making a bed.

>Nature can create value as well. If an apple falls from a tree then value is created without labor

Marx also noted nature could create value.

>if labor determines price why is coca cola cheaper than bottled water?

Labor doesn't determine price. It determines value (not exchange value or use value) and correlates with the equilibrium price. Supply and demand determine price.

Machines cannot create value. If I make a machine that makes diamonds out of thin air then the value of a diamond falls below that of bricks now that they can be aquired with no work what so ever. Price might not fall because you can still manipulate supply and demand but value certainly does.

Some definitions.

Use value = How useful an object is.
Exchange value = Market value of a commodity. Different from use value. You can sell a beanie baby for 200$ but it is almost completely useless.
Value = the amount of congealed labor withing a commodity.


Some evidence of the LTV
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

...

>ok i'm going to continue, last night i went to sleep
Sure.
>you aren't getting the economic calculation problem right; it says that without prices generated from a competitive market, a central planner COULD NOT do economic calculation, therefore it couldn't be rational when taking decisions
This is not true. Now I'm not sure where you picked this up - Sup Forums or in class, but I'll try to explain this properly.

The fundamental requirement to compute optimal allocation of resources is the preferences of all individuals in an economy. Prices are a superficial mechanism that indirectly signal peoples' prices to everyone.

So when you say that a central planner cannot determine optimal resource allocation without the prices generated by the competitive market, you're wrong because a competitive market does not create preference in people (sure, it can influence them), but the preferences of individuals are an inherent quality of the people.

A competitive market, via its price mechanism, at best can only reveal the true preferences of an individual - as compared to say a monopolistic market where the prices are fixed and thus you don't know the true preference of those individuals who don't buy the product.

Long story short, if individuals communicate their preferences to the central planner - which is a requirement in a communist economy - there's really no need for a price mechanism which serves no purpose other than to signal the preferences of individuals in an economy.

I'll read the rest of your post and reply to that in my next post.

>usefull marxist idiots
>reading books

*indirectly signal peoples' PREFERENCES to everyone.

>Farmers who produce the one thing that everyone needs.
Farmers produce air, water, heat, clothes & housing?

*Starves to death

Capitalists and reactionaries- you are on the path to hell. God will punish all of you. You live not for your fellow man but for yourself.

>my retarded infantil "theory" wasnt BTFO because I subjectively decide what truely has how much value in the name of everyone else
>being this retarded

sorry about the spacing
i want to add that not only not all things have labour putted into them, but that LVT is wrong because marx ignore that Time could be something that determines value too
>>economic calculation problem under socialism isn't even near to be solver (Because it can't)
>>Who told you it can't? General equlibrium models were developed for this purpose.
you can't use walrasian equilibrium because THERE IS NOT ANY INITIAL DATA GIVEN to your auctioneer/central planner


>Minimizing externalities is in the collective interest of society.
>how do you know it? that's the problem here, you don't
>See above on individuals communicating their preferences to the central planning committee.
what if they don't want it? that's what i'm saying, right now no one can know it for sure


>Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, so feudalism where there were landlords is indeed capitalism.
ok, this is plain wrong

>all land is king's property
>you can't do ANYTHING about it but be forced to served him or starve
>capitalism

>subjectively

read my post again

>infantile theory

You're posting under a flag that destroyed Europe, and has it's roots in hatred and death. Your leader killed himself and is in hell.

and heat

captialists BTFO

>it is not a matter of people's preferences
It is very much a matter of people's preferences. That is the fundamental unbreakable idea in economics - individual preferences.

>inb4 LVT will determine prices
Once again, why do communists on Sup Forums push this? LVT is an outdated theory and in fact, it's an incorrect theory.

>no, LVT is wrong from the very beginning
Yes. I agree with you.

>it says labour is the only characteristic all things have in common, and therefore, it determines the value of everything, ignoring that this is not true at all
The reason why I and many other economists disagree with LVT is because it leads to an inefficient planning system. If you're going to price everything based on the average labor used to produce it, then Elon Musk's rocket is far more valuable to an economy than a farmer's wheat - which is just not true. We need wheat to live and Musk can go to hell.

In fact, capitalism has gone to shit because of a faithful implementation of LVT. People with high degrees, like me, get paid a lot more than farmers even though what we give to society is not even remotely as important as farming.

>haha, no, there is no person on earth that doesn't want to improve his lifestyle, so you can't just achieve the pareto efficiency because that implies that all technological progress is bad because is upsetting some guy that is getting disadvantaged by technological progress
Once again, I don't know where you picked this up from, but I'll try to clarify. Pareto optimality means a solution where if you want more profit for one individual, then you have to hurt someone else.

IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HURT INDIVIDUALS TO GET TO THE PARETO OPTIMAL SOLUTION - and that's where your analogy is incorrect.

With all due respect, no one would declare victory here. It is only the blind leading the blind.
You do realize that the federal reserve is just a group of private banks printing our currency, right?

>infantile "theory"
ftfy

no we both know you are dumb as shit

>>Farmers who produce the one thing that everyone needs.
>Farmers produce air, water, heat, clothes & housing?
Trolling has its limits. I mean really? Air, water?
Heat, clothes and housing I understand and you can extrapolate what I said to utility workers who're not the highest paid individuals in an economy. But it's farmers first and then everyone else. However, it's the opposite in the modern world.

If capitalism indeed rewarded individuals who produced items of most value, then farmers would be the richest, followed by utility and construction workers. But it isn't. The richest people are often the ones who broker deals - who are good at using information asymmetry to profit - conning people for personal gain.

>you can't use walrasian equilibrium because THERE IS NOT ANY INITIAL DATA GIVEN to your auctioneer/central planner
Walrasian eq model requires information on the initial resources available in an economy and the production capacities of firms and individuals. Are you saying this data won't be available without a competitive market? Why? The central planner can start with an initial point and then iteratively improve on the initial conditions. So yes, there might be a transient period where the central planner is making inefficient decisions since it's calibrating it's model, but that's true for any economic system and that's why Eq models are called Eq models for a reason - the equations apply after the system has reached Eq.

>Minimizing externalities is in the collective interest of society.
>how do you know it? that's the problem here, you don't
>what if they don't want it? that's what i'm saying, right now no one can know it for sure
Externalities are created when one individual faithfully follows his/her preferences and takes actions which are in direct contradiction to the preferences of other individuals.

As a coal company, I want people to burn as much coal as possible - my preference - since that will maximize my profits. However, for my coal workers and others in the world, this is hell - externality.

Minimizing externality requires a central planner to know the preferences of all individuals in order to determine a Pareto Optimal solution - minimization of externalities.

>Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, so feudalism where there were landlords is indeed capitalism.
>ok, this is plain wrong
Instead of explaining, I'll just ask why you think it's wrong. I'm just using the definition of capitalism and nothing more.

>all land is king's property
Ownership of all land by a private entity - capitalism. Monarchies are capitalistic markets. I know. What's your point?

>You do realize that the federal reserve is just a group of private banks printing our currency, right?
Yes. But this is not an explanation for
>If we were practicing capitalism, all of the top member Fed Reserve banks would be about of business right now.

In fact, your assertion that the federal reserve is a private entity means that the means of producing currency is privately owned for profit - capitalism.

Here's my question.

I like Marxist economics but can't stand kikes or niggers or faggots. Why should I vote communist?

What is Communism?

Stateless, Classless, Cashless society.

All struggle is class struggle.

>But it's farmers first and then everyone else.
The communist way.. 'I want hierarchy but I want to be at the top myself.'

>I like Marxist economics but can't stand kikes or niggers or faggots. Why should I vote communist?
Look, I'm not going to support Marxism, because I think people have different interpretations for it, and what Marxism is for me is not the same for you.

That is why I argue only on the most fundamental economic and political interpretations of communism - means of production owned by the collective rather than individuals and a classless society.

>but can't stand kikes or niggers or faggots.
Ok. I never said you should tolerate them. That's your choice.

>Why should I vote communist?
It's not that simple. I don't think communism as a political ideology will ever work. It has to be a commitment by an entire nation. So communists coming to power is never a good thing - it's just a bunch of fake communists who just want power. So I would never suggest you vote for a communist. When a nation is ready for communism, there won't be a need to vote for communists - there will only be a need to vote for capable central planners.

sounds fucking awful

False, niggers and non whites ruin everything.

>>But it's farmers first and then everyone else.
>The communist way.. 'I want hierarchy but I want to be at the top myself.'
Absolutely horrible strawman. I say if capitalism was true then farmers would be the richest, and you equate this to communists want an unequal society.

Horrible, even from a dutchman. Your game is weak today.

>Capitalism is a failed system
>Therefore, I will adopt another failed system which hasn't worked in the 200 years since it's creation

This is why no one takes Nazbol gang seriously.

Which part of it exactly?

And Lenin is the greatest of them all

My game is weak? You just said feudalism was a form of capitalism xD
People with IQ's under 20 shouldn't be allowed to breed.

No. I am stating that a private group of banks are fleecing the United States for the last ~100 years.
This is well known to anyone paying attention. The US needs to back the dollar by a commodity, end the Federal Reserve, and begin a National Bank for mortgages, car loans and student loans. It isn't rocket science, it's common sense.

>My game is weak? You just said feudalism was a form of capitalism xD
Prove to me that it isn't.
>People with IQ's under 20 shouldn't be allowed to breed.
I'm sure with your IQ you'll probably end up cumming in your wife's ass than in her pussy, and never see any problem with none of your children looking like you.

>survival of those who can out-con others into giving them money
Which are the fittest.

>No. I am stating that a private group of banks are fleecing the United States for the last ~100 years.
Welcome to capitalism - where those who own the means of production exploit others for private profit.
>The US needs to back the dollar by a commodity
It's backed by oil. Where have you been for the last 50 years?
>It isn't rocket science
And yet you're having such a hard time understanding basic ideas on the petrodollar and capitalism.

>How else can you defend a system where the poorest people on average are farmers?

Almost anyone can be a farmer, but almost no one can be a skilled engineer, a CEO or a programmer.

It's called supply and demand. Farmers don't get paid a lot because their job could be done by anyone.

You are a worthless person so you want communism so you can take the money of those who are more skilled and more intelligent than you.

>Capitalism is not survival of the fittest, it's the survival of those who can out-con others into giving them money.

kek, so in other words survival of the fittest you stupid commie piece of lazy shit

>Capitalism is survival of the con-artists
>implying communism isnt

workers are just stupid and keep falling for easy cons
that's why you are inferior

Feudalism has no private property, retard. Property is owned by the nobility and the commonfolk have no rights.
FFS get an education.

>The US dollar is backed by oil
>The US economy is based on oil
Wow commies really are fucking stupid

>Almost anyone can be a farmer,
Can you?
>but almost no one can be a skilled engineer
Everyone can be a good engineer if they apply themselves.
>a CEO or a programmer.
All professions require practice. Innate talent takes you to some distance, but most of it is hard work and learning from one's mistakes.

A lot of people don't go for PhDs. I have a PhD, and I know everyone can do it if they worked at it.

>It's called supply and demand.
It's called information asymmetry.

> Farmers don't get paid a lot because their job could be done by anyone.
>Farmers don't get paid a lot because middlemen and the government control prices of food items.

FTFY.

>You are a worthless person so you want communism so you can take the money of those who are more skilled and more intelligent than you.
Communism will require everyone to work for each other - resulting in higher individual rewards than in capitalism where everyone works for themselves.

Communism is not for everyone. It requires strong willed people to implement. Capitalism is for the weak because it allows people to succumb to their evolutionary impulses.

We don't practice the petrodollar, taht's why the market fundamentals have been so off in the stock market. I don't have a hard time understanding anything. I know it is all a joke and am just waiting for it to fail so we can create a new way. Which will happen.

>>Capitalism is survival of the con-artists
>>implying communism isnt
Capitalism requires you to con others into making profit. Communism requires you to work for others instead of conning them.

Historically, it is true that communists have been con - artists. But that's not because communism is flawed, but only con-artists co-opted communism for their personal gains.

>Feudalism has no private property, retard.
>Property is owned by the nobility
Do you even read what you type?

>FFS get an education.
Learn to read what you type before you tell others to educate themselves.

humans are selfish and will always work towards their own goals rather than for collectivist abstract concepts

Learn the definition of private property, moron
>Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.
Again: Get a fucking education.

>>The US dollar is backed by oil
>>The US economy is based on oil
>Wow commies really are fucking stupid
The U.S runs trade deficits in practically every sector of the economy except food and petroleum. That is, in almost every sector it has to import goods and services to meet the demand. This would not be possible if the U.S. didn't control the oil trade - oil is sold in dollars - which requires everyone to sell stuff to the U.S. to get the dollars necessary to buy oil from Saudi Arabia and OPEC.

do you even know what property is?

>We don't practice the petrodollar,
Why do only trolls come to these threads? The U.S. doesn't "PRACTICE" petrodollar. It owns the oil trade - people have to buy oil from Saudi Arabia and OPEC by giving them dollars - which in turn implies that they have to sell stuff to the U.S. to get those dollars.

>I don't have a hard time understanding anything.
If you say so.

Exactly. There is a competition to create the best good/service. This leads to overall better goods and services. Why the fuck would anyone want to be a doctor in a communist country if they will get paid the same and live in the same squalor conditions as someone who works in a grain mill? They wouldn't unless they are forced to which will not result in better medical care. It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. Sure there will be winners and losers, but most of the losers are satisfied with their life and would have never aspired to be greater.

>humans are selfish and will always work towards their own goals rather than for collectivist abstract concepts
True, and perhaps you're right. Humans may never evolve to implement communism.

>>Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.
And?

Communism works incredibly well in small settlements. Think 100 or less residents and when there isn't a currency involved. Everyone is expected to do their share to help the group as a whole because if they don't people will start to die - they do this on their own free will. Communism does not work on large scales because then the government is forcing people to do things against their on free will.

>Non-governmental
Nobility is not non-governmental, retard. FFS you know NOTHING about systems of power & economics, do you?

You can talk all the shit you want to. Intelligent Americans know the FED is robbing them blind.

MSM credibility decimated.
Hollywood's full frontal degeneracy exposed and shamed.
The judicial branch found to be a bought and paid for joke.
The next to go, the Federal Reserve.

...

Communism is the survival of none

>Communism works incredibly well in small settlements.
True, because humans don't have the computational capacity of a supercomputer to love resource allocation problems for large economies. But now we have those abilities.

>Communism does not work on large scales because then the government is forcing people to do things against their on free will.
I don't disagree with you here. Like I said before, communism has to be willingly implemented by the people - it can't be done by a political party or a government. So you can't have a majority implementing communism - you need the totality to implement communism. And you're right, perhaps humans may never evolve to implement communism.

Communism leads to mass death and suffering.

Capitalism leads to the increased quality of life and no one starves exept those who are unwilling to work.

Hmm which one to choose...?

February 17, 2018
The Worst Threat We Face Is Right Here At Home
sgtreport.com/articles/2018/2/17/the-worst-threat-we-face-is-right-here-at-home

>Communism is the survival of none
Communism is the survival and property if everyone. It's never been implemented properly, and those who did wanted power than the actual benefit of society.

Don't farmers destroy surplus crops to keep their prices stable?

"The catastrophic losses that will result from these massive pension shortfalls is nothing less than an act of domestic terrorism by the Federal Reserve. They will haunt the US for generations."
Screencap this page.

>Nobility is not non-governmental, retard
Nobility did not pass policy if that's what you're getting at. If they ran for election, sure, they could. But in general, there were people who did this in a monarchy.

Sure, as you back in history, nobility were also people who passed policy, but this doesn't change the fact that the means of production were given to the nobility for private production and profit.

>FFS you know NOTHING about systems of power & economics, do you?
No need to project so much.

>Don't farmers destroy surplus crops to keep their prices stable?
>Don't governments force farmers to destroy surplus crops to control prices?
FTFY.

Honestly I think that the only way communism can succeed in the near future will be through space colonies. If in the next 50 years plus we have asteroid mining or a base on Mars communism will work well there. If those settlements eventually grow over generations to become massive cities all while maintaining communism then great because quality of life will be wonderful whether you are a farmer/miner, cook, or president/leader. The problem with our history of communism is that it has been forced upon the populace that was used to a certain way of life. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book Gulag Archipelago is a pretty eye opening read as to the atrocities committed under communism. Time will tell.

Feudalism is a form of aristocracy.
Aristocracy is a form of government in which power is held by the nobility
Holy shit are you retarded. I'm out.

>Honestly I think that the only way communism can succeed in the near future will be through space colonies.
Never know, maybe you're right.

>The problem with our history of communism is that it has been forced upon the populace that was used to a certain way of life.
This is absolutely true.

I'll restate my point in that communism has been properly implemented. Plains Indians in America lived under communal societies, but they were small settlements. It will take some new community to start small and grow into communism.

I'm sure communism would work if everyone was Jesus.

>Aristocracy is a form of government in which power is held by the nobility
And does this imply that the property is not owned by private entities and is instead used by the state for the benefit of one and all?

I'll make this simple for you so that you can stop sperging out. Did the nobility use the property granted to them by the king/queen for personal gain, or for the gain of the public? If it was for the gain of the public, then you're correct, monarchies were not capitalistic.

However, if the nobility were granted land for personal gain, then they were indeed capitalistic.

>Plains Indians in America lived under communal societies, but they were small settlements. It will take some new community to start small and grow into communism.
True, and perhaps like your space colony idea, they'll need some machine like a computer to do solve the complex resource allocation problem for them.

>I'm sure communism would work if everyone was Jesus.
Probably would. Jesus was a good commie - wanted people to work and not be leeches and be kind to each other - excellent combo.

>Survival of those out can con people into giving them money
Dat buyer's remorse

A con artist has to at least pretend to provide something of value.

>How else can you defend a system where the poorest people on average are farmers?
things that clearly aren't true for 1,000, alex.

and even if it was, it is defensible as follows: food isn't all that hard to make. Plant some seeds, put some water on em, and wait. Just about anyone can do it, it doesn't take special education or expensive tools (unless we're talking industrial farms but they're rich). Meaning the supply of labor vastly exceeds demand.

It's the same reason McDonald's workers don't get paid shit. Push comes to shove, someone else will do it.