Most btard's are is poor, ugly, and dominated by the rich and powerful; however...

Most btard's are is poor, ugly, and dominated by the rich and powerful; however, most btards claim that they are individualist without realizing that collectivism is exactly what they need to fight the status quo and tip the odds in their favor. Yall niggas need to wise up and realize that socialism and communism are best systems for your particular group.

Other urls found in this thread:

businessinsider.com/the-25-richest-self-made-billionaires-2015-6/#bill-gates-25
dictionary.com/browse/monopoly
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Oil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_exploration_and_production_companies
ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>are best systems for your particular group
Luckily it's not what's best for the overall whole. Just because I'm poor doesn't mean that everyone has to be.

Rich people worked hard to get there and all you want to do is take their wealth away from them.

Rich people get rich by exploiting those below them for cheap labor. Then they scoop off the profit for themselves.

>all rich people gained their wealth by swindling others

Larry page, zuckerburg and Gates just to name a few who didn't.
>businessinsider.com/the-25-richest-self-made-billionaires-2015-6/#bill-gates-25

Zuckerburg and Gates exploit the H1-B program to cheap workers from other countries instead of hiring Americans. I suppose some rich people were just in the right place at the right time and got lucky, but the majority of rich people in a capitalist society got rich by exploiting those below them.

>cheap workers from other countries
A company that starts in America when it gets too big unfortunately at a certain point has to outsource with the way the system is setup right now. Things like a 30% corporate tax rate hinders small businesses from getting up and advantages like corporate inversions coerce corporations to outsource just to cut costs to break even.
Many companies outsource only because Americas manufacturing capabilities are so limited that they just can't put out as much product as there is demand without paying employees more than it would cost to manufacture, distribute and package the product itself.
>exploiting those below them

Can you explain exactly what kind of "exploitation" you're talking about here?

Like you would see the opportunity to give jobs to a jobless country and say. "Nah. That's horse shit I'd rather pay a shit ton and increase the price of my product by hiring locally"

Everything you listed are loopholes that corporations use to avoid paying taxes. A 30% tax rate really is not that high when there are so many loopholes that the effective tax rate is 0%-5% for the rich and corporations. And capital gains tax rate is jokingly low. If companies are going to outsource or do a corporate inversion, then a tariff should be put on their goods. AS a result they will move jobs back to American to avoid the tariffs. If they try to just pass the tariff down to the consumer, then break up their monopoly and make compete so that the consumer gets the lowest price and the tariff is not passed onto them.These corporations need our massive consumer markets just as much as we need their jobs. If they want to try to fuck over the country and not play by our rules, then we should fuck them over right back.

Or, I could just do nothing.

More and better paying jobs with higher product prices, or low wages and less jobs but also lower product prices. Americans need to realize that they can only pick one.

If you enjoy being cucked by the rich and corporations, then sure, do nothing.

are there any communist countries right now that are succeeding?

No system works on its own, in its own vacuum OP. That's why both communism and capitalism fails. The best we have so far is a Social-Captial mix.

Communism is shit, it was the ramblings of a drunkard.

Capitalism has will continue to prove itself to be shit.

obviously if capitalism worked then people wouldnt complain and obviously if communism worked then people wouldnt complain.

You pick those policies so that some things are no longer an issue but some things are or you could pick another that with fix the problems from last polices but then fuck up what worked/cause more problems

You're one of those people who heard someone say something smart once then tried to say it again but fucked it all up inadvertently showing how little you know.

You can't even explain how the system is broken you just provide "solutions" without any knowledge of the problem.
>30% isn't that much
To small businesses it is. Many can't afford it and pay their employees minimum wage. This is one of the many reasons waitresses are paid a service wage in many institutions.
>tariffs on trades make businesses come back
Not true at all. It actually discourages a company to stay in its native country when they can't make a profit due to tariffs. Better to ease off the inane amount of taxes they need to pay and remove the charity deductions all together.
We haven't fostered a good market for small businesses to thrive as a result we have to tax the large corporations exorbitantly. The result of which causes many corporations to outsource to countries that make them pay less in taxes and legal fees.
>so that the consumer gets the lowest price
This only happens via a very nice balance of supply, demand, material cost and distribution cost. In the US distribution is one of the most costly parts of manufacturing any good as you have to go through other corporations giving them a cut to distribute it.
>Example: you make a soda company, you have to go through another to make the bottles, another to put the liquid in the bottles, another to load the product into trucks, another to drive the trucks, another to stock the product and another to advertise it.
All of these things add up and if one of these corporations in the distribution/manufacturing process falters then it's the consumer who feels it with a price increase. These events can be the fault of anything from corporate incompetence to natural disaster.

I would still like you to explain exactly how we're being exploited.

Lower the corporate tax rate as loopholes are closed. Very simple. That way small businesses pay less and corporations don't avoid as much. Pretty much everything else you are wrong about, so I am not going to address it Yes, we are being exploited.

>is wrong
Can you explain? That's not really an argument more of a cop out.
>Yes, we are being exploited.
How?

Like I said plenty of solutions without knowing the problem.

You have never heard the basic capitalism ethos "when businesses compete consumers win?" Major reason why monopolized corporations should be broken up.

What modern corporation has a monopoly on a singular product?
Name 3 and the product they have a monopoly on.

I clearly illustrated the problem an solutions. It is your own fault if you cannot see them.

...

Please explain how we are being exploited.
These mental gymnastics don't show how smart you are merely how ignorant.

If you knew what you were talking about you would be able to explain your point eloquently with conviction and passion in your words.

You speak like a man defeated who has accepted his fate or of an imbecile who thinks himself brilliant.

Microsoft, only 3-4 major oil companies that don't compete to keep the price high, only 3-4 major drug companies that do similarly, less than 10 major banks, 2 major internet companies, and all these corporations own massive media companies: Fox, NBC, CNN, etc. Monopolies everywhere.

*snore* You can do better than that m8.

Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden have gvmnt owned liquor stores w monopoly. They less they want us to drink, the higher the price.
Here's the shocker, the higher the price, the less overall consumption, but the higher rate of binge drinking.

Can anyone provide me any real-world examples of when communism didn't end in major disaster for its country and people? You can name plenty of failings of capitalism on the other hand, but also successes, when you compare it to the ultimate real-world results of the alternative, at least by what I can tell.

Admittedly I don't know a lot about geopolitics/economics/history. But enlighten me to any high points in communism's track record.

Look into OPEC, the diamond business and the same with glasses/sunglasses.

>3-4 oil companies not a monopoly
>3-4 major drug companies is not a monopoly
>10 major banks is not a monopoly
>There are thousands of ISP's all over the world and is still not a monopoly

>Monopoly: exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
>dictionary.com/browse/monopoly

Make sure you pay attention to the word EXCLUSIVE meaning they have to be THE ONLY ONE with that product.
>Microsoft
There are thousands of kernels, distros and operating systems that you can use. Microsoft Windows wasn't the first and won't be the last. In fact you use a Linux based operating system with a well known distro called Android.

That doesn't constitute a monopoly.
You are not doing well friend.

Yeah, maybe communism sucks, but what about socialism. Which is a capitalist/communism hybrid.

China is a communist country. And it is poised to take over the US as world superpower in short future.

Never.

anothernon here, is there a word that's not "monopoly" where too much is still controlled by too few?

I'm more interested in the quality of life for the people than the might of country itself. How does it compare to that of Americans or Europeans?

Lol you're so funny and so ridged in your beliefs that it is obvious you are trying to hard against me. Sure, 3-4 oil companies is not the exact definition of monopoly, but those companies work together to become just like a monopoly.

No. It's perfectly acceptable in capitalist states or corporatist states that the few will have more than the many. It's because they have used their skills to get ahead of the rest. These skills can be anything from sub atomic particle theory to business but the point in a capitalist state is to motivate your people to further their own skills to earn more.

Some people call it a "wage gap" but in all actuality someone who works at McDonalds shouldn't earn as much as a construction worker.

oligarchy.

look at greece

It's perfectly legal though and you're just bitching because they have a lot of money while you squander in poverty.

Be more ass blasted that they can play the rigged game while you lose every turn because you refuse to accept reality.
>so rigid in your belief
I accept facts you want to label something you don't like as evil because you don't understand it and don't agree with it.

Once again please explain exactly how we're being exploited.

Continued division among the classes can only result in war in the end. And that is not good for anyone.

Look at Detroit and Flint Michigan.

Some people are talented/skilled other aren't.

You want to make everyone the same? Make everyone earn the same?
Then there's no reason for anyone to advance themselves.

CAPITALIST: Excuse me, friend. Why does socialism and communism work?

SOCIALIST: Look at USSR you dumbfuck bourgeoisie. Look at their literacy rates! Look how far they came from where they started.

CAPITALIST: That's all very well, good sir, but what about the atrocities?

SOCIALIST: The only reason the USSR failed was because it was state-capitalism you stupid fuck. Stop blaming the failures of the USSR on socialism.

CAPITALIST: But wait...you said USSR was state-capitalist. How can you take credit for it and say it proves socialism or communism but deny it when presented with the failures.

SOCIALIST: Read more Marx.

Socialism is a shitty idea

Yes, I agree with you on those points. But on a larger scale, could there be something wrong with 3 or 4 companies having all the oil and drugs? If it was something like the companies that produce mousetraps, I wouldn't care. Oil and drugs kind of scares me, the fact that the media is controlled by fewer and fewer companies over the years does as well.

I don't know whether or not there's really any base for my fear, but it certainly seems problematic, unless you are highly trusting of corporate executives.

>that they can play the rigged game
Look you stated yourself. The game is rigged in their favor. Which means we are the ones being exploited.

How about make things more equal than they are no, but not make everyone the same?

Why are you MISrepresenting the word monopoly?

Why are you being so ridged to the term monopoly instead of being flexible?

There would be something wrong IF this was true but it's not.
There's literally hundreds of oil companies around the world.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Oil
The chart near the bottom shows only the top earning petroleum corporations.
This list is the pharmaceutical companies.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies

There's thousands. user is just talking out his ass. We have everything under control by making sure anyone can pretty much make anything they want. It's all about whether it succeeds or fails.
How are we being exploited exactly?
I know the game is rigged by being complicated and requiring large amounts of capital to get started in the private sector. As for the common man it's not really that bad. It seems a lot worse than it is because unfortunately idiots can complain about things they don't understand.
Can't be done. In order to make things "equal" one group needs to be given special privileges. That's not equality. Even giving the poor special privileges isn't equal and just rigs things against the rich.

Pick your poison of who you want to piss off or let everyone trade how they please with limited regulation only pertaining to health and public safety.
>IE: no putting obvious poison to be traded to humans on the market for human consumption

There's no such thing as equal because you have to tilt the scales another way and there's no way to avoid over tipping it.

Because monopoly is a legal term not a special feel good term like "gender queer" or "african-american".

You telling us to "be more flexible dude like expand your mind" is idiotic.
Don't use words you don't know the meaning to just to fit your argument.

>Microsoft
"Senator, Monopoly is a GAME. I'm trying to take over the fucking world."
~Bill Gates (as quoted by Robin Williams)

It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn't know. We thought it was good. No, that's not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.
What's whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it's all one pot, you can't let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it's not right for me to own a car until I've worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth—why can't he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed?
It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn't belong to him, it belonged to 'the family', and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his 'need'—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife's head colds, hoping that 'the family' would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it's miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother's. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there's always ways to get the rotten ones. You don't break into grocery stores after dark and you don't pick your fellow's pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it's to get stinking drunk and forget—you do.
Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel's worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn't marry, he wouldn't help his folks back home, he wouldn't put an extra burden on 'the family.' Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn't marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra 'disability allowance,' they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, 'the family' was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in 'need' than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.
God help us, ma'am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we'd been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it—for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got.

Nice try

The guff gave us a chance to pass off as virtue something that we'd be ashamed to admit otherwise. There wasn't a man voting for it who didn't think that under a setup of this kind he'd muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn't a man rich and smart enough but that he didn't think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better's wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he'd get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who'd get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who'd rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss's, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted—that was the truth of it—but we didn't like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.

3-4 major oil and drug companies in the use that agree to not compete with each other so that they can control prices. Sounds exactly like what a monopoly does.

What good would our need do to a power plant when its generators stopped because of our defective engines? What good would it do to a man caught on an operating table when the electric light went out? What good would it do to the passengers of a plane when its motor failed in mid-air? And if they bought our product, not because of its merit, but because of our need, would that be the good, the right, the moral thing to do for the owner of that power plant, the surgeon in that hospital, the maker of that plane? Yet this was the moral law that the professors and leaders and thinkers had wanted to establish all over the earth. If this is what it did in a single small town where we all knew one another, do you care to think what it would do on a world scale?

Wow look at this long list of only 3-4 companies.
GEE WOW I'M SO DUMB!
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_exploration_and_production_companies

Come on now user you can't really believe this?

Protips:

Wealth is created. It is not a finite thing that is being hoarded by the rich.

If a rich person this year earns 50% of what they did last year, the other 50% isn't going to anyone else... it just doesn't exist.

There is no single pie, and there are no slices to hoard or share. Just infinite pies.

Stop whining, and stop making excuses, and go make some fucking pies for yourselves, peasants.

FIAT currency in a nutshell.
Good job user I'd give your summary of your term paper an A.

The more currency that is "created", the less value it has. In essence, wealth is finite. And I come down on the side of capitalism over all else.

Most of those are tiny. The major hitters are Chevron, Exxon-Mobile, ConocoPhillips, and BP. That is pretty much all eh choices you have for oil. The other companies you listed are way to small to account for anything even if you combined them all.

It doesn't matter. The fact that there are this many obviously shows there is no price fixing monopoly.
What you're describing is cartel level price fixing which the FTC heavily regulates.
>ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing

I've obviously shown you that there is no "monopoly" on oil or pharmaceuticals because there's too many companies for any one entity to hold a monopoly on any one product/service.

Now once again please explain how we're being exploited.

We need communism to get freedom. We need communist for grow up individual and together as a society.
PCCh

...

...

...

Wealth is not currency, my friend. Currency is the method of transferring wealth.

Wealth has nothing to do with inflation. Currency does.

...

>Wealth is created. It is not a finite thing that is being hoarded by the rich.

wealth is created but can be hoarded. if a company earns 50% of what it did last year does everyone get payed the same anyway?

But he's right, you know. While I'm okay with a capitalist system, two or three companies can indeed create a monopoly by creating consortiums and agreeing on prices (secretely or not). This is what happened with the lightbulb trade 50 years ago. This is also what is currently happening to the US ISPs, who tend to have minimal overlao in order to raise the prices as much as possible.

While the predominancy of Microsoft is not a thing anymore thanks to the democratization of Unix-based kernels, that wasn't always the case, because concurrent OS were too technical and thus inaccessible for the average Joe.

And that's why we are being exploited. In order to ensure a true and well balanced market, direct intervention of the state (by use of law, e.g antitrust)is sometimes necessary to keep the prices decent. And while I agree that taxes are not the way to go for many small companies, let's not forget that healthcare and other basic but expensive necessities are not a given in many countries, it should totay be. Nobody should be in debt because his daughter had a fucking cancer. But for that to happen, cash must flow to that healthcare organization. And the more people in it, the less expensive it becomes.

Very good quality, they even have safety nets to catch people so they wouldn't kill themselves at work by jumping out of the window.

...

>if a company earns 50% of what it did last year
That usually means they're being outdone by their competition. Which means that when one company is downsizing, another is expanding.

>direct intervention of the state (by use of law, e.g antitrust)is sometimes necessary to keep the prices decent
many states actually do the opposite with taxes on imported stuff.

You are my hero(s)
You explain yourself politely and completely while others use insults or single sentence statements that don't explain anything.

>one company is downsizing, another is expanding.
entire economies can be stagnating without anyone "expanding"

You're right I'd be worried too if there were ONLY 3-4 companies distributing, manufacturing and drilling oil. Fortunately it's not true. I've sourced easily that there are hundreds and contrary to what user says they aren't all in one giant cabal for the sake of price fixing. We have institutions of government dedicated to making sure this kind of thing doesn't happen.

OP can only name American distributors of oil which isn't the world and isn't a monopoly. user merely wants to push the idea of the big oil boogeyman and perpetuate the idea of price fixing conspiracies to push his agenda of communism while at the same time denying evidence.

I agree that direct intervention by the government in the private sector is necessary but as for the rest it's off topic. We're not talking about the flaws we have in some countries around the world we're talking about direct exploitation and monopolies.

Fortunately in most modern economic models monopolies are frowned against as they don't redistribute the wealth and can cause necessary industries to raise/lower their prices just to try to compete with the monopoly. None of it is good business for the people or the market. It's also not very good for the upper 1% because it means they lose out on more money to competition.

I'm one person and thank you I'm a Sup Forums crossboarder so this is day one stuff for me.
Nothing will be learned if you don't explain yourself clearly and calmly though.

As a National Socialist university professor teaching political science 101-111 I have to hold my ground against opposing views all the time. I honestly get a little enjoyment out of informing the uniformed in a calm and polite way.

>Americans or Europeans
European (France for all I know) actually have a better quality of life than americans. Cheaper phone and ISP, universal healthcare, good quality goods and food. No trolling here, i lived in both coasts for 2 years each and I can assure you it's something else. You get less money though on average, but that's because of France's high tax policies.


And even then, Chinese people are just like most third world countries, without the many brothers and sisters that can lend you money in case you go poor, because of the unique infant policy. And like every third world country, if you are rich, you live like a fucking god amongst men, but when you are not, well, you're screwed.

Actually they have a middle class, but its marginal really.