Capitalism cures poverty

[Stizzel]

This is an excellent response by Dr. Yaron Brook to a bunch of eurocucks that thought "hurr hurr but dem sweatshops" was a gotcha criticism of capitalism.



You can stump the average socialist by pointing out that 1>0, which is essentially all he is saying here.

[pUniCepts]

Makes an argument against minimum wage as well.

[cashinout]

great vid

[thunderykoala]

Can or does? Competition and automation are wild cards.

[Stizzel]

Can or does? Competition and automation are wild cards.

Does

[IronRooster2]

So when corporations steal people's land and turn them into slaves, they're better off.

Interdasting theory opie.

Wage cucks gonna love a wage economy. And raising Mr.Burns's baby for him.

[Metz00]

So when corporations steal people's land and turn them into slaves, they're better off.

Interdasting theory opie.

Wage cucks gonna love a wage economy. And raising Mr.Burns's baby for him.

That's not a direct function of capitalism. It is however done for the sake of capitalism by certain individuals. Flaws in political institutions and weakness in social morality enable this sort of behavior.

[Stizzel]

So when corporations steal people's land and turn them into slaves, they're better off.

Interdasting theory opie.

Wage cucks gonna love a wage economy. And raising Mr.Burns's baby for him.

Yes china was much better off when it had no foreign businesses, no middle class, and people were eating their children to survive

[Metz00]

When happens when states accumulate enough wealth and knowledge to start producing their own goods and then seek to consume domestically instead of relying on imports? Granted that many countries can't produce everything but a lot can produce a wide variety of goods. As the US and Germany began to improve their industry in the 1900s, Britain's exports began to decline. Economy also affects geopolitics.

[Stizzel]

When happens when states accumulate enough wealth and knowledge to start producing their own goods and then seek to consume domestically instead of relying on imports? Granted that many countries can't produce everything but a lot can produce a wide variety of goods. As the US and Germany began to improve their industry in the 1900s, Britain's exports began to decline. Economy also affects geopolitics.

A good counter example would be gandhi's india. He was very keen on the marxist notion of profit being evil, and the result was india passing laws against trade.

India did not need to build up. The british left behind a complete and modern first world infrastructure. Everything they needed was right there. But they made capitalism illegal, and the result was extreme poverty.

[IronRooster2]

That's not a direct function of capitalism. It is however done for the sake of capitalism by certain individuals. Flaws in political institutions and weakness in social morality enable this sort of behavior.

Capitalism is a society run by and for the capitalists. A capitalist seeks to increase the amount of capital he owns, the ideal being ownership of everything.

Political institutions that protect against against monopolies of conglomerates, those policies are anti-capitalist in nature.

The libertarian ideal that every man is an island that 100% takes care of himself can only be true if every human is allocated farmland at birth. That's not possible, thus all the comprising.

It's also a little hypocritical to diss these countries for putting Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump equivalent in charge, who sells out their country for their own profit.

[SnowEh]

So when corporations steal people's land and turn them into slaves, they're better off.

Interdasting theory opie.

Wage cucks gonna love a wage economy. And raising Mr.Burns's baby for him.

Corporation's can't steal peoples land and turn them into slaves only government can

Capitalism is a society run by and for the capitalists. A capitalist seeks to increase the amount of capital he owns, the ideal being ownership of everything.

Political institutions that protect against against monopolies of conglomerates, those policies are anti-capitalist in nature.

The libertarian ideal that every man is an island that 100% takes care of himself can only be true if every human is allocated farmland at birth. That's not possible, thus all the comprising.

It's also a little hypocritical to diss these countries for putting Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump equivalent in charge, who sells out their country for their own profit.

Show us a monopoly that occured without government help.

[OPGenesis]

Capitalism is a society run by and for the capitalists. A capitalist seeks to increase the amount of capital he owns, the ideal being ownership of everything.

Political institutions that protect against against monopolies of conglomerates, those policies are anti-capitalist in nature.

The libertarian ideal that every man is an island that 100% takes care of himself can only be true if every human is allocated farmland at birth. That's not possible, thus all the comprising.

It's also a little hypocritical to diss these countries for putting Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump equivalent in charge, who sells out their country for their own profit.

Why do you always cry about capitalism? Why do you think it is more efficient for the state to oontrol labor?

[BrocepCurls]

Using nothing more than the logic from this great piece of satire:

-Some slaves were materially better off as slaves than they were as freemen
-1>0
-Slavery is therefore an ideal system, and it should remain unchanged as the dominant form of society forever

If you ever manage to put the lead paint down for a week straight, you'll look back on this OP and realise it's pretty retarded

[Metz00]

A good counter example would be gandhi's india. He was very keen on the marxist notion of profit being evil, and the result was india passing laws against trade.

India did not need to build up. The british left behind a complete and modern first world infrastructure. Everything they needed was right there. But they made capitalism illegal, and the result was extreme poverty.

That was decades ago during the same time when China hadn't developed. India just like China have come a long way since then and with Modi in charge and it will boom even more now with the Make in India initiative.

[Metz00]

Capitalism is a society run by and for the capitalists. A capitalist seeks to increase the amount of capital he owns, the ideal being ownership of everything.

Political institutions that protect against against monopolies of conglomerates, those policies are anti-capitalist in nature.

The libertarian ideal that every man is an island that 100% takes care of himself can only be true if every human is allocated farmland at birth. That's not possible, thus all the comprising.

It's also a little hypocritical to diss these countries for putting Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump equivalent in charge, who sells out their country for their own profit.

Antitrust laws or anti monopoly laws help create a free market by holding back the complete domination of a sector by a corporation.

We are talking about the basic notions of capitalism not and going around the extremes since it is a different subject.

It's like if we had a thread talking about chocolate and someone posts that eating chocolate every day all the time will give you health problems.

[Metz00]

Using nothing more than the logic from this great piece of satire:

-Some slaves were materially better off as slaves than they were as freemen
-1>0
-Slavery is therefore an ideal system, and it should remain unchanged as the dominant form of society forever

If you ever manage to put the lead paint down for a week straight, you'll look back on this OP and realise it's pretty retarded

I think this argument could be translated into how before capitalism and modern economies appeared, people lived traditional agrarian lives that revolved around extended families. Money broke down familial relationships and relationships became material based. Some societies did not need $2 a day when they farmed, hunted, and fished their own food as well as made their own clothes and shelter. Governments began enclosing land and forcing people to pay rent which made people drop their old lives and adapt or suffer.

[Stizzel]

Using nothing more than the logic from this great piece of satire:

-Some slaves were materially better off as slaves than they were as freemen
-1>0
-Slavery is therefore an ideal system, and it should remain unchanged as the dominant form of society forever

If you ever manage to put the lead paint down for a week straight, you'll look back on this OP and realise it's pretty retarded

Slaves are not paid wages. You are not smart.

[Stizzel]

I think this argument could be translated into how before capitalism and modern economies appeared, people lived traditional agrarian lives that revolved around extended families. Money broke down familial relationships and relationships became material based. Some societies did not need $2 a day when they farmed, hunted, and fished their own food as well as made their own clothes and shelter. Governments began enclosing land and forcing people to pay rent which made people drop their old lives and adapt or suffer.

Pre industrial revolution (capitalism) society needed strong family ties because survival was difficult. Human populations before then were much smaller because these societies cannot produce the living standards necessary just to keep people alive.

[SicilianPower]

Capitalism has stolen 50 trillion from the middle class since 1980 from the middle class, gave it to multinational corporations and CEO vultures to outsource jobs and cut wages. Everything you fear under democratic socialism has already happened under "capitalists".

[dyee4613]

Capitalism has stolen 50 trillion from the middle class since 1980 from the middle class, gave it to multinational corporations and CEO vultures to outsource jobs and cut wages. Everything you fear under democratic socialism has already happened under "capitalists".

Those in the middle and bottom of the world income distribution have all got pay rises of around 40% between 1988-2008. Global inequality of life expectancy and height are narrowing too – showing better nutrition and better healthcare where it matters most. What we should care about is the welfare of the poor, not the wealth of the rich.

oic

[FunnyWeasel]

No it doesn't. For there to be extreme wealth in the world, there's supposed to be extreme poverty.

[BrocepCurls]

Slaves are not paid wages. You are not smart.

The only information/argument contained in the OP was: system X saw material improvements (1>0) relative to the previous system, therefore it must be an ideal system that should not be criticised and also should not ever be changed.

Material improvements happened under monarchies, under feudalism, and yes even under slave societies in some cases. Therefore, all of these systems must have been ideal and should not have been criticised or changed over history because 1>0.

Like I said, someone who regularly drinks lead paint might think that is a valid conclusion to make from the premises, hence this thread.

[BetaAsPhuck]

A few thoughts on the video...

1st point

*holding up an iphone* "I won't pay $600 for this, I'll pay $400", after talking about how demanding better wages for workers would harm them. Because it would raise the costs for consumers, and so people wouldn't buy the product.

He either ignores, or is ignorant of investigations into iphone margins.

So apple could pay the factory workers more, and simply reduce the margin.

"An iPhone 7 costs Apple £174 to make – £425 less than what most UK customers must pay for it, according to analysts."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7329016.html

Or some of the executives could take pay cuts, and the cuts could go towards factory workers. Which would mean that costs for consumers wouldn't go up. However Brook doesn't even entertaine that.


2nd point....

"The Chinese don't complain."

No they commit suicide, and literally work themselves to death, when they don't complain. People who are desperate tend not to complain, even if their working conditions induce mental illness or death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...1-12-hour.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ily-claim.html

Anyone in a 1st world country who has 'bitten their tongue' when their boss, coworkers or customers have treated them like chit, because they needed the job to pay bills, will know what I'm talking about. Walking out, or standing up to your boss, might jeopardise your job. (In the UK we have things like 0 hour contracts, which means, if you piss off your boss, they can cut your hours to 0 legally.")

Yaron portrays sweatshops workers as not complaining because they like the hours and conditions. When I think it's more probable that the ones who don't complain, are simply phuckin desperate.

Also protests in China happen, but are suppressed by news.

The children in this video are complaining about working conditions, and they live in 'real poverty' (note: they are working in a real free market - unregulated - a libertarian's dream)...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcJ8me22NVs

Yaron seems to be trying to hold up 'not complaining' as evidence of contentment. Which is poor reasoning.

3rd point...

Yaron talks about China.

"A billion people have come out of poverty."

Yaron is trying to argue the merits of a free market (for those who don't know, he is an Ayn Rand follower, so is a stauch libertarian politically). China, has never been an economically libertarian country. China's wealth has been created through mixed economy, the economy of China is managed, and directed by the government - that is widely known by anyone who researches into China.

Using China as a positive example of capitalism will only work on people who known absolutely zero about China's economy. China's economy has been well managed, knowing when and where to allocate permissions, subsidies, and resources (currency manipulation, etc).

Yaron Brook is either being dishonest, or is completely unaware of Chinese economics.

[BetaAsPhuck]

The only information/argument contained in the OP was: system X saw material improvements (1>0) relative to the previous system, therefore it must be an ideal system that should not be criticised and also should not ever be changed.

Material improvements happened under monarchies, under feudalism, and yes even under slave societies in some cases. Therefore, all of these systems must have been ideal and should not have been criticised or changed over history because 1>0.

I think you've nailed a fundamental flaw with the argument.

Repped.

China is far from a 'free market' economically nor libertarian in civil laws, and has been an economic miracle since the late 70s, surpassing the US in terms of growth.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imhUmLtlZpw

So based on that premise, the US should adopt Chinese governance.

[Stizzel]

I think you've nailed a fundamental flaw with the argument.

Repped.

China is far from a 'free market' economically nor libertarian in civil laws, and has been an economic miracle since the late 70s, surpassing the US in terms of growth.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imhUmLtlZpw

So based on that premise, the US should adopt Chinese governance.

No one claimed china is a free market. He pointed out that china went from full socialism to allowing for some capitalism.

Now the chinese no longer have to eat their children, and socialists of the world could not be more outraged.

[chaunce54]

A few thoughts on the video...

1st point

*holding up an iphone* "I won't pay $600 for this, I'll pay $400", after talking about how demanding better wages for workers would harm them. Because it would raise the costs for consumers, and so people wouldn't buy the product.

He either ignores, or is ignorant of investigations into iphone margins.

So apple could pay the factory workers more, and simply reduce the margin.

"An iPhone 7 costs Apple £174 to make – £425 less than what most UK customers must pay for it, according to analysts."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7329016.html

Or some of the executives could take pay cuts, and the cuts could go towards factory workers. Which would mean that costs for consumers wouldn't go up. However Brook doesn't even entertaine that.

Tim Cooke, the CEO of Apple, could give up his entire salary (just under $9 million) and if it was evenly distributed to all of Apple's employee's (116,000), it would come out to a $77 PER YEAR raise or 3 cents an hour based on a 40 hour work week.

I'm sure that would go a long way...

[BrocepCurls]

I think you've nailed a fundamental flaw with the argument.

Repped.

China is far from a 'free market' economically nor libertarian in civil laws, and has been an economic miracle since the late 70s, surpassing the US in terms of growth.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imhUmLtlZpw

So based on that premise, the US should adopt Chinese governance.

That implies there is anything resembling an argument contained in 'material conditions got better, therefore this system must necessarily be ideal and immutable'. There of course isn't, hence why Stizzel didn't respond like he typically fails to when he gets bodied on here.

[BrocepCurls]

No one claimed china is a free market. He pointed out that china went from full socialism to allowing for some capitalism.

Now the chinese no longer have to eat their children, and socialists of the world could not be more outraged.

The largest and fastest improvement in life expectancy in China's history (and possibly in all of recorded history) happened during Mao's rule which you class as 'full socialism'

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212/

Stizzel vs facts season 10, episode 6

[BrocepCurls]

Tim Cooke, the CEO of Apple, could give up his entire salary (just under $9 million) and if it was evenly distributed to all of Apple's employee's (116,000), it would come out to a $77 PER YEAR raise or 3 cents an hour based on a 40 hour work week.

I'm sure that would go a long way...

Sorry pal

http://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronk...at-least-403k/