Is capitalism really human nature?

Is capitalism really human nature?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=27Tf8RN3uiM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Capitalism yes.
Corporatism no.

There are different Capitalisms.
The Nordic model is capitalist, so is Bangladesh.

How is that corporatism?

>Everyone should have exactly the same amount of money everywhere in the world at all times.

You know nothing, Jon Stone.

A few bunch of rich people having shit load of money on a private bank accounts of stock option doesn't prevent poor people to have food.
Taking their money to buy food and houses for poor will also not make everything better! It will just rise up the price of food and housing on the market.

I just wanted to say that.

But yeha, I agree, we should find a way to have better equality. I am a bit afraid by rich who can manipulate media and opinion with their money (soros)

62 people god damn.

everyones so quick to just give their money to these kikes.

Not one person has ever been able to give me a reason why one person being more rich than another person is bad

Money is power, it's that simple. If 62 people have more money than the rest combined, they also have more power than the rest combined.

This is a bait thread but I'll bite.
It's not capitalism that makes and keeps these people insanely rich but rather government interference in the market, laws and regulations which are all controlled by the richest for it to stay that way. Also first and foremost a lot of luck.

youtube.com/watch?v=27Tf8RN3uiM

"Corporatism" is literally "capitalism when it starts doing things I don't like"

unchecked capitalism is not.

I would say a capitalistic system run by oligarchs where they socialistically take care of the poor is basic human nature.

Even in tribes where they live in grass huts the business is controlled by elders, trade is conducted, and the sick and old are taken care of in a collective-ish manner.

The concept of private property seems to be innate in humans. Even nomadic Plains Indians had a sense of private personal property (my bow, my teepee, my wife) even though they did not believe in private real property (the land)

You're assuming that "unchecked capitalism" doesn't allow for charity. How can you prove that a rich person in an unregulated economy doesn't donate some of their money to charitable organizations, or to use your analogy, to the village elders?

>poor
>base my identity of things I own I.E. apple fan boy
>rich people have more money
>my identity is inferior to the identity of rich people
>I feel sad
>instead of making more money I will complain of Sup Forums

Ugh..
There's so much wrong with this entire thread.

First of all, let me be honest. I'm not a capitalist. I hate capitalism. I'm a feudalist; I believe in loyalty over law, trust over trade, etc.

If you want better food, better drinks, better music, better movies, more choices in what kind of toilet paper you can buy, and if you want to go to mars and colonize new planets, capitalism is THE BEST at offering those things. There's no other economic system tailored to such progress.

But alas, I'm not a progressive person, because people are happy without progress. If a person with nothing can be happier than a person with everything, then progress is the biggest lie in the history of human kind.

Capitalism, on the contrary, sponsors the idea of progressivism because it's an idea meant to "benefit society"; in a sense, it tricks the naturally altruistic human being into becoming a self-serving greedy asshole because he thinks it benefits everyone else; thus, we have liberals today who have body positive movements which spite society and social order and serves a selfish goal but tricks people into thinking that it's "social"; the capitalists on the other hand, dream of a bigger and better world, and such thinking leads to war as it always has been, in the case of nations infringing on the lives and societies of indigenous populations around the world.

Now, the picture you posted OP, is correct, but is deceiving, because the fact that some rich guy has more money than you means absolutely NOTHING. As per your own demand, and his own demand, you're only going to buy 1 loaf of bread, and he is only going to buy 1 loaf as well. Redistributing money to the poor people doesn't let them afford bread any easier; the bread, because of the demand, will just raise its price. United states, compared to Denmark, is doing extremely well for a country where 1 barrel of oil is distributed (on average) to 23 people, as opposed to 1 barrel going to 3 Danish people.

Because you only get this rich if you have the government to back you.
These 62 jews are owners of really big corporations that receive a LOT of money from the government.
They are above the law and they have way more rights than a normal person have.

This is not capitalism. This is corporatism.
In a true capitalist country the government would not give a fuck to Jewkenberg or Soros.
If they are in a bad situation then they must find a solution themselves.

No, but greed is. You can blame the enlightenment for corrupting our ideas about property and equality.

If everything was equally divided we would all live in a shithole. Its in human nature to want more than others.

Then I will. The reason is because today, the deck is so stacked, that you do not become rich in our time the same way it was done honestly 50, 100, even thousands of years ago. Today is a different day entirely. The rules are different, and made by the rich. You become rich today by cheating and stealing from the livelihood of a lot of people who worked to make your rich through slavery, coercion, your employees health, law, lies, lobbying to change laws that hinder you, government sponsored monopoly through lobbying, bribery, tax evasion, corporate inversion, wage stagnation, union busting, fucking over your customers... the list goes on.

Whenever I meet someone who is considered 'rich', I am never surprised when I learn that they are some sick twisted lying sociopathic-manipulator. Those types of people gravitate towards wealth because they are willing to lie cheat and steal, say anything and fuck over anyone to get there. They have no morals and are bound by nothing.

(((62 people)))

Further, their children will also have this power. Complete fucking retards could wield power by birthright alone. It's basically evolving into dynasty shit.

because capitalism depends upon personal greed, you have to want it more than the next guy, and do nothing that helps give him an inch in the direction of what you're both competing for

It's called good genetics. The majority (80%) of millionaires are first generation wealthy. They made their own wealth.

My great grandmother started a flower shop when she was younger, had 4 by the time she died and was a multi millionaire. My wife's family is also wealthy because her mother bought a beach front property in Cali before the home market expanded and now she is worth 2.5 million.

It isn't always greedy Jews that live by birthright alone in some kind of serf based system. You can make your own wealth.

This is exactly it. People will disagree, but the cause is corporations themselves which enrich people beyond what would be possible in a free market. Corporations are a creature of the state, they allow people to cover liability through a magic shield. If I own a car and lend it to you and you go and run over 30 people with it, I am liable. it's called vicarious liability. But if I own a company and am an active shareholder, if that company makes chili dog out of African children, I'm not liable.

This basically incentives companies to act unethically for their shareholders. Shareholders want returns NO MATTER WHAT. So that means that owners have to do whatever possible to get those returns. Shareholders don;t care if it's illegal, they're not liable. In the end it's a slap in the hand for the company, who's already made like a bandit.

We need to change how corporations work to force them to be ethical. If you're company does some fucked up shit, you are personally liable. This stops people from treating the stock market like a casino and incentivizes long term thinking in companies. It allows humans to run companies once again.

>corporations do all kinds of shady shit with the assistance of the state
>if we remove the state and slightly change how corporations are structured they will play nice for some reason
why do people believe this?

> Is capitalism really human nature?

That's not capitalism, that's crony-capitalism.

>why do people believe this?

Because without the help of the state all these 62 kikes would be on jail right now.
Or do you believe that they rose to power through legal ways?

>corporations form 'ethics commitees' and make ALL company decisions based on what is morally and ethically right and good for society
>they would never do anything solely in the name of profit with total disregard for anyone or anything else
>and certainly wouldn't avoid responsibility as a result of the consequences their actions, no matter how inconsequential or disastrous

What fucking planet do you live on?

"Crony capitalism" classically defined as "capitalism when it starts to make me feel uncomfortable"

The problem with capitalism is it does not work when Jews are involved

Just like how the US "melting pot" failed because of niggers and muslims

Just think. Who are the (((62 people)))?

>It's basically evolving into dynasty shit.
the world was always like that

your rhetoric is historically referenced as "rebranding"

Look at how genetics work and how some genes can be turned off or on

Also being born into a position of power usually makes a poor leader. The best leaders are the ones who worked themselves up, who know how the world works

The reason the world is going to shit is because people who have never worked a day in their lives who are completely clueless to how the world works (education =/= actually knowing this) are in charge of anything

>working up through hard times makes strong leaders
Strong leaders make good times
>being born with everything in good times makes weak and ignorant leaders
Weak and ignorant leaders make bad times

No, it "literally" is not.

Sometimes I feel like the physical design and intelligence level of the average human being is alarmingly utilitarian and that we might be a designed slave animal for some sort of secret elite group. I've always felt like this world we live in is fake as fuck.

>same way it was done honestly 50, 100, even thousands of years ago.
Jesus Christ you retarded burger, open a history book

Did you even read what I wrote? It's not about removing the state, its about removing the corporate veil of liability. Shareholders are not liable for what their companies due, even though every pleb in this country is liable under vicarious liability. Don;t you think that presents a moral hazard that places pressure on corporate managers to do illegal stuff to meet shareholder profit demands?

In the current system, yes but if Tradition was upheld as sacred and certain knowledge was passed down from birth, leaders were raised from birth for one purpose then we would enter a new golden age.

The only reason leaders who have had a chaotic life are preferable nowadays is because we live in chaotic times, if we want to progress morally and spiritually as a species we need natural hierarchy and authority.

just because you have some chump change (>2.5 million >wealthy) in your family doesn't mean shit about your genetics

I'm sure many people with below average IQs and carrying genetics diseases have bought land that ended up worth a lot and ran a successful flower shop or similar business