Capitalism is one of the causes of the decline of the West. Pressuring women into the workforce and mass immigration suppress wages. So large companies push feminism and diversity. Moving factories over seas is cheaper than employing your own countrymen. So companies push for globalism. Excluding gays and trannies means losing potential customers. So companies push for LGBT. Nation, culture, and tradition stand in the way of money. So large companies will seek to destroy them.
Even if every Jew was ovened tomorrow, companies would still push cultural poison because they have a financial incentive to do so. Tariffs, subsidies, and tax benefits won't be enough to stop this. When the companies grow large enough they will buy political influence, and have any policies that stand in the way of their profits removed.
So how can we prevent large companies from selling out their nations, /mlpol/?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): FA168F4E85AC8699D18FF611F2558AD4-252735.png (246.8 KB, 480x480, 6ce84bddb1c223516babd37ba626b984916ce75246934473072cf7a4f071884f.png)
It just needs to be managed. The problems you mentioned don't necessarily arise from just allowing people freedom to make money, it's the result of some companies growing too large and putting their own profits above the interests of the nation as a whole. The role of government should be to enforce and defend the borders of the nation, and to regulate what comes into and goes out of the country, be it people, jobs, money, whatever. Outsourcing labor, importation of cheap products that undercuts the nation's industry, things like that should be stopped through tariffs and regulations, and companies that get too large should probably be broken up, but within the nations borders I think people should be basically free to do business as they please.
>>131431
>The problems you mentioned don't necessarily arise from just allowing people freedom to make money,
If you allow them to make enough money they will be able to use that money to buy influence and power. They will have a financial incentive to use that money for influence and power.
>The problems you mentioned don't necessarily arise from just allowing people freedom to make money,
If you allow them to make enough money they will be able to use that money to buy influence and power. They will have a financial incentive to use that money for influence and power.
>>131435
I'm honestly not sure, but distributism looks like a better alternative. People should be allowed to own their own property and start their own businesses, but we can't allow the means of production to be controlled by a small group of people. If many people control means of production then the citizens of the nation will have a greater influence on policy. Economic power = political power.
I'm honestly not sure, but distributism looks like a better alternative. People should be allowed to own their own property and start their own businesses, but we can't allow the means of production to be controlled by a small group of people. If many people control means of production then the citizens of the nation will have a greater influence on policy. Economic power = political power.
>>131437
>the means of production
And the "means of production" is what exactly? Resources, raw materials, factories? It's a Marxist term based on an outdated Industrial Revolution era model not really applicable to the modern world. The biggest, Jewiest corporations in the world right now that are probably doing the greatest amount of harm are news and media corporations and software giants, and they basically don't produce anything.
>the means of production
And the "means of production" is what exactly? Resources, raw materials, factories? It's a Marxist term based on an outdated Industrial Revolution era model not really applicable to the modern world. The biggest, Jewiest corporations in the world right now that are probably doing the greatest amount of harm are news and media corporations and software giants, and they basically don't produce anything.
>>131437
Distributism is silly once you realize that it was proposed in an era when there was enough land for every family to support itself, hence "two acres and a cow." There are too many people for everyone to become self-sufficient in this manner. After your "redistribution of wealth," which sounds awfully like a socialist revolution, what would you do to keep the more successful from accumulating property and production. You would have to have a stifling amount of economic control for this.
Also, specialization of labor is a good thing. How many part-time farmers could build a rocket engine? Every man has his own talents and by being able to pursue his talents to the fullest he improves himself and society in general.
>>131425
Social issues cannot be solved with economic measures. William Jennings Bryan was wrong. Large companies push for diversity only because there is societal pressure to do so; if they resist, such as Chick-Fil-A, they are called "backwards and homophobic." If you change societal perception to celebrate tradition and white nationalism companies will bend over backwards to reinforce our culture and advance the cause for Whites.
As for moving factories overseas, there are a variety of reasons for this. One is that America simply stifles economic development through heavy-handed regulation and the minimum wage. Low wages would not be an issue if the currency was not inflated by the government.
Keep in mind that some countries are better suited to produce certain goods. One of the reasons the South tried to break away was because its high-quality agricultural products could be traded for manufactured goods from Europe. We could probably never beat China in production of low-quality cheap products, but do we need to? China cannot best us when it comes to software programming, military hardware, high-quality goods, and aircraft. There's a lot America could produce that is left fallow because of restrictions, not in spite of them.
Finally, political influence is the problem, not money. When the government has the power to control others' lives then there are those who want hands on that power. If it isn't money it will be blackmail. Large government inevitably benefits large corporations because they are able to lobby for regulations that harm smaller competitors.
Distributism is silly once you realize that it was proposed in an era when there was enough land for every family to support itself, hence "two acres and a cow." There are too many people for everyone to become self-sufficient in this manner. After your "redistribution of wealth," which sounds awfully like a socialist revolution, what would you do to keep the more successful from accumulating property and production. You would have to have a stifling amount of economic control for this.
Also, specialization of labor is a good thing. How many part-time farmers could build a rocket engine? Every man has his own talents and by being able to pursue his talents to the fullest he improves himself and society in general.
>>131425
Social issues cannot be solved with economic measures. William Jennings Bryan was wrong. Large companies push for diversity only because there is societal pressure to do so; if they resist, such as Chick-Fil-A, they are called "backwards and homophobic." If you change societal perception to celebrate tradition and white nationalism companies will bend over backwards to reinforce our culture and advance the cause for Whites.
As for moving factories overseas, there are a variety of reasons for this. One is that America simply stifles economic development through heavy-handed regulation and the minimum wage. Low wages would not be an issue if the currency was not inflated by the government.
Keep in mind that some countries are better suited to produce certain goods. One of the reasons the South tried to break away was because its high-quality agricultural products could be traded for manufactured goods from Europe. We could probably never beat China in production of low-quality cheap products, but do we need to? China cannot best us when it comes to software programming, military hardware, high-quality goods, and aircraft. There's a lot America could produce that is left fallow because of restrictions, not in spite of them.
Finally, political influence is the problem, not money. When the government has the power to control others' lives then there are those who want hands on that power. If it isn't money it will be blackmail. Large government inevitably benefits large corporations because they are able to lobby for regulations that harm smaller competitors.
File (): 854B797D4745599BFC695E5CFE8C732F-33815.jpg (33.0 KB, 265x259, F714617E-D177-494B-852C-A98F325F51D6.jpeg)
>>131425
The truth is that it is a combination of Capitalism and Bolshevism, an unholy alliance similar to that seen in WW2, that is killing us.
On the one hand you have Capitalism, which as you rightly point out. Pushes for cheaper and cheaper labour, using women in the workplace and migrants to achieve this. As well as Globalism etc. All the reasons you point out why capitalism is terrible are true.
And on the other hand you have Bolshevism, through it's high tax rates which disproportionately effect the poor and middle class, because the rich don't pay taxes otherwise they'd leave. Not to mention part of the reason the rates are so high, is because money is created out of nothing and lent to the government at interest, which you pay for with your taxes. You may hear politicians talk about "balancing the budget", usually through austerity measures, well the truth is this is impossible without destroying the economy. This is because as I just established, debt = money. You pay back the debt, the whole economy collapses. So what happens is you end up trapped in a polarised system, whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because they're fronted with the bill and on top of that they suffer for it with unnecessary austerity. Which tends to lead towards class wars and Bolshevist revolutions, which is to some degree what we're experiencing in the UK with Corbyn.
>>131437
Redistribution of wealth however is not the answer, this has been tried time and time again, and lead to mass starvation and disaster. The correct answer is the rejection of both Capitalism, for the pursuit of unending riches i.e. Mammonism, and Bolshevism. Instead opting for a third position like Fascism or National Socialism, the latter not to be confused with Marxian Socialism. Removing Mammonism the toxic system by which, the (((Bankers))) siphon money from the populous through lending to the government at interest, is the solution. Pdf related will explain.
The truth is that it is a combination of Capitalism and Bolshevism, an unholy alliance similar to that seen in WW2, that is killing us.
On the one hand you have Capitalism, which as you rightly point out. Pushes for cheaper and cheaper labour, using women in the workplace and migrants to achieve this. As well as Globalism etc. All the reasons you point out why capitalism is terrible are true.
And on the other hand you have Bolshevism, through it's high tax rates which disproportionately effect the poor and middle class, because the rich don't pay taxes otherwise they'd leave. Not to mention part of the reason the rates are so high, is because money is created out of nothing and lent to the government at interest, which you pay for with your taxes. You may hear politicians talk about "balancing the budget", usually through austerity measures, well the truth is this is impossible without destroying the economy. This is because as I just established, debt = money. You pay back the debt, the whole economy collapses. So what happens is you end up trapped in a polarised system, whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because they're fronted with the bill and on top of that they suffer for it with unnecessary austerity. Which tends to lead towards class wars and Bolshevist revolutions, which is to some degree what we're experiencing in the UK with Corbyn.
>>131437
Redistribution of wealth however is not the answer, this has been tried time and time again, and lead to mass starvation and disaster. The correct answer is the rejection of both Capitalism, for the pursuit of unending riches i.e. Mammonism, and Bolshevism. Instead opting for a third position like Fascism or National Socialism, the latter not to be confused with Marxian Socialism. Removing Mammonism the toxic system by which, the (((Bankers))) siphon money from the populous through lending to the government at interest, is the solution. Pdf related will explain.
>>131447
Historically companies have been the most anti racist pro immigrant organizations in the world, even in extremely racist times. They always love cheap foreign labor and don’t care who they fuck over to get access to it. They need to be reigned in to serve the public good.
Historically companies have been the most anti racist pro immigrant organizations in the world, even in extremely racist times. They always love cheap foreign labor and don’t care who they fuck over to get access to it. They need to be reigned in to serve the public good.
>>131540
Maybe we could get companies to make their fabrics in nigger land.
I'm pretty sure general electrics owns a part of the republic of congo.
Then we only need to get as racist on the actual society so they are forced to hire locals.
Maybe we could get companies to make their fabrics in nigger land.
I'm pretty sure general electrics owns a part of the republic of congo.
Then we only need to get as racist on the actual society so they are forced to hire locals.
>open waste bin in kitchen
>no bin lining
But why?
>no bin lining
But why?
>>131627
It might be a little dirty, but the oven is very efficient it can burn 1 whole jew in a few hours.
It might be a little dirty, but the oven is very efficient it can burn 1 whole jew in a few hours.
File (): F45A5BA9A1476B687D1608BC7FB3F725-25282.jpg (24.7 KB, 468x400, knife-surrender-bin.jpg.cf.jpg)
File (): DB32EBA0258E61106CECD766BAED3039-50084.jpg (48.9 KB, 462x960, ancap-waifu-voluntaryist-anime-wcd4kd6.jpg)
>>131456
Lol or we can just become Anarcho-Capitalist and use cryptocurrency as our national currency
Lol or we can just become Anarcho-Capitalist and use cryptocurrency as our national currency
File (): F18068DC4D87750DBD76E2AD7535F9C0-1797218.gif (1.7 MB, 320x240, 1520991829615.gif)
Sigh, another one of these threads again? Pass
>>131447
>Distributism is silly once you realize that it was proposed in an era when there was enough land for every family to support itself, hence "two acres and a cow." There are too many people for everyone to become self-sufficient in this manner.
We now live in the era of 3d printers and computers. People don't need to be 100% self-sufficient, they just need to be self-sufficient enough to not have to rely on the state or the capitalist class. The more you rely on someone the power they have over you. If we had the bargaining power to tell our elites to get fucked then it would be harder for them to turn on us.
>After your "redistribution of wealth," which sounds awfully like a socialist revolution,
>socialism with private property
Wew
>what would you do to keep the more successful from accumulating property and production. You would have to have a stifling amount of economic control for this.
We could encourage the richest members of society to have more children. This would mean their wealth is split amongst more people when they die and it would likely have a eugenic effect. We could pass laws ensuring that x% of a large company must be owned by it's workers. We could implement a progressive tax. We could set wealth caps.
>Distributism is silly once you realize that it was proposed in an era when there was enough land for every family to support itself, hence "two acres and a cow." There are too many people for everyone to become self-sufficient in this manner.
We now live in the era of 3d printers and computers. People don't need to be 100% self-sufficient, they just need to be self-sufficient enough to not have to rely on the state or the capitalist class. The more you rely on someone the power they have over you. If we had the bargaining power to tell our elites to get fucked then it would be harder for them to turn on us.
>After your "redistribution of wealth," which sounds awfully like a socialist revolution,
>socialism with private property
Wew
>what would you do to keep the more successful from accumulating property and production. You would have to have a stifling amount of economic control for this.
We could encourage the richest members of society to have more children. This would mean their wealth is split amongst more people when they die and it would likely have a eugenic effect. We could pass laws ensuring that x% of a large company must be owned by it's workers. We could implement a progressive tax. We could set wealth caps.
capitalism is about choice, meritocracy, and fair competition, what we have in the west is nothing like that
File (): 2DA4ED4A16FDA64D492A55CACF71BD09-459578.png (448.8 KB, 1087x1536, 485557__safe_artist-colon-coltsteelstallion_silver spoon_glasses_solo.png)
Capitalism is not the cause of the decline of the West.
Everything OP described is Corporate Socialism, or corporatism.
A level of fucked uppery, as you have to understand the following point.
Capitalism is the law of offer and demand. There's only offer for things people don't want, or don't need. Corporations doesn't want demands anymore and makes the offer as something mandatory. (GMOs, services, banks, big data...)
Capitalism is the idea to push competitiveness and choice. There's no more competitiveness or choice in corporatism when the media or communication or food or insurances all belongs to a few corporations.
Capitalism is free trade, without influence of the government. Most governments and organizations like the WHO, the EU, the UN... favoritizes big corporations through a lot of laws.
Capitalism is a set of strict simple rules based on mathematics that helps people managing and putting values on the resources of the world. Corporatism's fuel are ponzi schemes, fiat currencies and speculation. Speculation on the disasters created by globalization and debt, requiring mass immigration.
Capitalism is the law of the stronger dominating. Corporatism doesn't want the stronger to dominate, the few corporations cheated by getting the help of government and trickery of the media, and the banks to get on the top. Corporate-socialism requires dumbing down to be efficient.
Capitalism requires laws and borders, but an international collaboration to ensure everyone gets the dosh. Corporate-socialism is a system that aims to override and escape the laws by lobbying, by all kind of illegal means to seize the power.
When a government pays a jobless person, that's socialism. When governments funds billions of public money large corporations that outsource their workforce without making any profit or anything productive for the society, that's also socialism.
When a giant media corporations pushes for censorship, cultural marxism, brings in social justice ideologies, trannies, sexualized children, it's clear that it's not capitalism.
When this huge corporation is influencing population, overriding your rights, your constitution, lying to you, acting like a form of government, edicting laws and rules that conflicts to your constitutional rights, makes you feel guilty, rewrites your history.
When conglomerates imports migrants to indeed, lower the wages, creating modern slavery, it's also a form of socialism.
When a bank, and corporations as stock holders hold your country by the debt, this is no longer capitalism, capitalism is no longer needed at this point, the only value generated is big data. everyone is working for you. All the rest is slavery. In Africa, south america, India, China.
This is corporate socialism. The definition of the NWO. If you think your money now means anything, keep in mind your currency isn't a value, your dollar or euro no longer belongs to a stock of gold in a bank, but to speculation over the trillions of debt. It's a negative value.
Capitalism is what we need. With capitalism, you can get jobs. With capitalism if you're good you get rewarded. With capitalism you create value. You can invest this value, you need technically to create jobs and raise a capital. You can be able to live off your own business if you're skilled.
With capitalism, common sense and being smart means something. With capitalism you negociate your pay, you get paid what you ask for and so does anyone can challenge you with a better offer. That's the rules that no longer exist today, as proven recently, when the main cable corporations of America kept screaming wolf when the Net Neutrality law been revoked.
Everything OP described is Corporate Socialism, or corporatism.
A level of fucked uppery, as you have to understand the following point.
Capitalism is the law of offer and demand. There's only offer for things people don't want, or don't need. Corporations doesn't want demands anymore and makes the offer as something mandatory. (GMOs, services, banks, big data...)
Capitalism is the idea to push competitiveness and choice. There's no more competitiveness or choice in corporatism when the media or communication or food or insurances all belongs to a few corporations.
Capitalism is free trade, without influence of the government. Most governments and organizations like the WHO, the EU, the UN... favoritizes big corporations through a lot of laws.
Capitalism is a set of strict simple rules based on mathematics that helps people managing and putting values on the resources of the world. Corporatism's fuel are ponzi schemes, fiat currencies and speculation. Speculation on the disasters created by globalization and debt, requiring mass immigration.
Capitalism is the law of the stronger dominating. Corporatism doesn't want the stronger to dominate, the few corporations cheated by getting the help of government and trickery of the media, and the banks to get on the top. Corporate-socialism requires dumbing down to be efficient.
Capitalism requires laws and borders, but an international collaboration to ensure everyone gets the dosh. Corporate-socialism is a system that aims to override and escape the laws by lobbying, by all kind of illegal means to seize the power.
When a government pays a jobless person, that's socialism. When governments funds billions of public money large corporations that outsource their workforce without making any profit or anything productive for the society, that's also socialism.
When a giant media corporations pushes for censorship, cultural marxism, brings in social justice ideologies, trannies, sexualized children, it's clear that it's not capitalism.
When this huge corporation is influencing population, overriding your rights, your constitution, lying to you, acting like a form of government, edicting laws and rules that conflicts to your constitutional rights, makes you feel guilty, rewrites your history.
When conglomerates imports migrants to indeed, lower the wages, creating modern slavery, it's also a form of socialism.
When a bank, and corporations as stock holders hold your country by the debt, this is no longer capitalism, capitalism is no longer needed at this point, the only value generated is big data. everyone is working for you. All the rest is slavery. In Africa, south america, India, China.
This is corporate socialism. The definition of the NWO. If you think your money now means anything, keep in mind your currency isn't a value, your dollar or euro no longer belongs to a stock of gold in a bank, but to speculation over the trillions of debt. It's a negative value.
Capitalism is what we need. With capitalism, you can get jobs. With capitalism if you're good you get rewarded. With capitalism you create value. You can invest this value, you need technically to create jobs and raise a capital. You can be able to live off your own business if you're skilled.
With capitalism, common sense and being smart means something. With capitalism you negociate your pay, you get paid what you ask for and so does anyone can challenge you with a better offer. That's the rules that no longer exist today, as proven recently, when the main cable corporations of America kept screaming wolf when the Net Neutrality law been revoked.
File (): 3C3B1C0012C4A591ACEAF2AA94155619-251986.png (246.1 KB, 500x623, socialism-is-when-the-government-does-stuff-and-e-more-23314716.png)
>>137017
>Everything OP described is Corporate Socialism, or corporatism.
No this corruption is built into the DNA of capitalism.
>Capitalism is free trade, without influence of the government. Most governments and organizations like the WHO, the EU, the UN… favoritizes big corporations through a lot of laws.
And why do you think that is? If businesses are allowed to grow large enough to buy political influence then they are going to do it. It is not realistic to expect politicians to not take bribes.
>When a government pays a jobless person, that's socialism. When governments funds billions of public money large corporations that outsource their workforce without making any profit or anything productive for the society, that's also socialism.
No socialism is where all property and the means of production are owned by the state.
>Everything OP described is Corporate Socialism, or corporatism.
No this corruption is built into the DNA of capitalism.
>Capitalism is free trade, without influence of the government. Most governments and organizations like the WHO, the EU, the UN… favoritizes big corporations through a lot of laws.
And why do you think that is? If businesses are allowed to grow large enough to buy political influence then they are going to do it. It is not realistic to expect politicians to not take bribes.
>When a government pays a jobless person, that's socialism. When governments funds billions of public money large corporations that outsource their workforce without making any profit or anything productive for the society, that's also socialism.
No socialism is where all property and the means of production are owned by the state.
>>132111
Cryptocurrencies have no value. It's a ponzi scheme, which values only exists because of the speculation.
By investing in crypto, even if it remains like this, you're only making crypto-miners rich, only making things worse and the banks holding your debts are even more powerful.
The only thing that increases in this story is your power bill, and the speculated value of your GPU... That's all. This whole ponzi scheme will crumble one day, and since it keeps inflating to the even more absurd levels, nothing will change.
You know that the first bitcoins were firstly used to buy CP and weapons and other shit like weed, coke, and other illegal shit on the darknet. Now you realize how rich the people who hold these are now they're selling these BTC the high price?
Again, BTC isn't true capitalism. Speculating on BTC is like speculating on a blank canvas, this isn't a value, it's bloody wind. It's vacuum and ancaps who claims this is the solution have just no intelligence to question wether it makes sense or not.
You gotta think, Anon.
Cryptocurrencies have no value. It's a ponzi scheme, which values only exists because of the speculation.
By investing in crypto, even if it remains like this, you're only making crypto-miners rich, only making things worse and the banks holding your debts are even more powerful.
The only thing that increases in this story is your power bill, and the speculated value of your GPU... That's all. This whole ponzi scheme will crumble one day, and since it keeps inflating to the even more absurd levels, nothing will change.
You know that the first bitcoins were firstly used to buy CP and weapons and other shit like weed, coke, and other illegal shit on the darknet. Now you realize how rich the people who hold these are now they're selling these BTC the high price?
Again, BTC isn't true capitalism. Speculating on BTC is like speculating on a blank canvas, this isn't a value, it's bloody wind. It's vacuum and ancaps who claims this is the solution have just no intelligence to question wether it makes sense or not.
You gotta think, Anon.
>>137017
>Capitalism is what we need. With capitalism, you can get jobs. With capitalism if you're good you get rewarded. With capitalism you create value. You can invest this value, you need technically to create jobs and raise a capital. You can be able to live off your own business if you're skilled.
What we need is to take away the power from our traitorous elites.
>Capitalism is what we need. With capitalism, you can get jobs. With capitalism if you're good you get rewarded. With capitalism you create value. You can invest this value, you need technically to create jobs and raise a capital. You can be able to live off your own business if you're skilled.
What we need is to take away the power from our traitorous elites.
File (): C859C6A883D854C6FE552BF4C243B664-175539.png (171.4 KB, 828x965, Silver_Spoon_2.png)
>>137020
Nice bait Karl!
>No this corruption is built into the DNA of capitalism.
Capitalism can't work with corruption. This is why we should have or had governments and laws punishing corruption. Every left wing governments have been corrupted, thanks to the debt, the bankers and the globalists, essentially, jews.
Mind you Hitler also had ties with jewish bankers, nazis actually escorted the Rothschilds family out of Germany, and many others.
>And why do you think that is? If businesses are allowed to grow large enough to buy political influence then they are going to do it. It is not realistic to expect politicians to not take bribes.
Again, you confirm my point that this isn't capitalism, which requires laws to be applied. If you steal something from a company, it's not capitalism, it's corruption or theft. If you don't pay people who work for you, it's theft. it's illegal.
If you tax people to help a corporation build a government project, this is also theft.
When the laws start pushing or favoriting corporation's exactions, especially when it comes to energy billing, water distribution, health with vaccines, or the media, paying your TV loicense bloke!
this is no longer capitalism. This is the hardest form of socialism.
>No socialism is where all property and the means of production are owned by the state.
What constitutes a state at this point? The means of productions, the properties, everything belongs to the banks and the corporations attached to them. That's the thing. That's the reality of the world we live in today and it's a catastrophic situation.
>>137022
Do you know which traitrous elites you need to eliminate? I hope you mean George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Larry Summers, Larry DeRothschild, Henri DeCastries or David Rockefeller, without forgetting all the remainings of the filth ready to make this monster respawn, Ellen Degeneres, Bill Gates, Hilary Clinton and all the Tier2 filth to be sure, it would be a huge work, but I like your optimism, Anon!
Nice bait Karl!
>No this corruption is built into the DNA of capitalism.
Capitalism can't work with corruption. This is why we should have or had governments and laws punishing corruption. Every left wing governments have been corrupted, thanks to the debt, the bankers and the globalists, essentially, jews.
Mind you Hitler also had ties with jewish bankers, nazis actually escorted the Rothschilds family out of Germany, and many others.
>And why do you think that is? If businesses are allowed to grow large enough to buy political influence then they are going to do it. It is not realistic to expect politicians to not take bribes.
Again, you confirm my point that this isn't capitalism, which requires laws to be applied. If you steal something from a company, it's not capitalism, it's corruption or theft. If you don't pay people who work for you, it's theft. it's illegal.
If you tax people to help a corporation build a government project, this is also theft.
When the laws start pushing or favoriting corporation's exactions, especially when it comes to energy billing, water distribution, health with vaccines, or the media, paying your TV loicense bloke!
this is no longer capitalism. This is the hardest form of socialism.
>No socialism is where all property and the means of production are owned by the state.
What constitutes a state at this point? The means of productions, the properties, everything belongs to the banks and the corporations attached to them. That's the thing. That's the reality of the world we live in today and it's a catastrophic situation.
>>137022
Do you know which traitrous elites you need to eliminate? I hope you mean George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Larry Summers, Larry DeRothschild, Henri DeCastries or David Rockefeller, without forgetting all the remainings of the filth ready to make this monster respawn, Ellen Degeneres, Bill Gates, Hilary Clinton and all the Tier2 filth to be sure, it would be a huge work, but I like your optimism, Anon!
>>137024
>Capitalism can't work with corruption. This is why we should have or had governments and laws punishing corruption. Every left wing governments have been corrupted, thanks to the debt, the bankers and the globalists, essentially, jews.
Corruption is inevitable with capitalism. Laws aren't going to stop politicians from accepting bribes. China has the death penalty for corruption. It's not working for them.
>Capitalism can't work with corruption.
Then capitalism is doomed to fail. Corruption will always exist.
>The means of productions, the properties, everything belongs to the banks and the corporations attached to them.
You are proving my point here. These people were allowed to get too powerful, and now they own everything.
>Do you know which traitrous elites you need to eliminate? I hope you mean George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Larry Summers, Larry DeRothschild, Henri DeCastries or David Rockefeller, without forgetting all the remainings of the filth ready to make this monster respawn, Ellen Degeneres, Bill Gates, Hilary Clinton and all the Tier2 filth to be sure, it would be a huge work, but I like your optimism, Anon!
We are going to need a big oven yes.
>Capitalism can't work with corruption. This is why we should have or had governments and laws punishing corruption. Every left wing governments have been corrupted, thanks to the debt, the bankers and the globalists, essentially, jews.
Corruption is inevitable with capitalism. Laws aren't going to stop politicians from accepting bribes. China has the death penalty for corruption. It's not working for them.
>Capitalism can't work with corruption.
Then capitalism is doomed to fail. Corruption will always exist.
>The means of productions, the properties, everything belongs to the banks and the corporations attached to them.
You are proving my point here. These people were allowed to get too powerful, and now they own everything.
>Do you know which traitrous elites you need to eliminate? I hope you mean George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Larry Summers, Larry DeRothschild, Henri DeCastries or David Rockefeller, without forgetting all the remainings of the filth ready to make this monster respawn, Ellen Degeneres, Bill Gates, Hilary Clinton and all the Tier2 filth to be sure, it would be a huge work, but I like your optimism, Anon!
We are going to need a big oven yes.
>>131447
>not enough land
What bullshit. There's plenty of land for every white in the USA. The real issue is that there's so many pieces of worthless shit crowding into the cities and expecting free money every month, rather than asking for "two acres and a cow". I'd be fucking happy to have a plot with water and a cow.
>not enough land
What bullshit. There's plenty of land for every white in the USA. The real issue is that there's so many pieces of worthless shit crowding into the cities and expecting free money every month, rather than asking for "two acres and a cow". I'd be fucking happy to have a plot with water and a cow.
>>137021
>crypto has no value!
Are you retarded? You do realize that every single dollar bill is nothing but a serial NUMBER printed on a piece of paper, right? The only differences between btc and fiat, is that btc isn't controlled by a central authority, and everyone involved knows the game.
>crypto has no value!
Are you retarded? You do realize that every single dollar bill is nothing but a serial NUMBER printed on a piece of paper, right? The only differences between btc and fiat, is that btc isn't controlled by a central authority, and everyone involved knows the game.
>>137026
this is why we have laws, morals, and education. this is the base of civilization.
we need to stop being kind and start enforcing the law.
China is truly a cesspool of corruption and inhumanity.
>>137036
there's enough land on earth, with capitalism , normally no land would be wasted, with less taxations anyone who work should be able to access private property and have their own home. Also the world is very, very.... very very large. don't go imagine there's no room left. it's just about being smart.
>>137037
If you took the time to read my previous post you would had understood that I menton that, or did I omit this?
That now with the banks the set of currencies are no longer indexed on a standard value ( element Au, an index that should have, in capitalist economy, been a standard, a reference to all currencies, along with other "precious" metals.)
Without this point of reference the laws of mathematics can no longer apply and you have to assume this is no longer fair.
Central authority or not, crunching numbers on a computer system is nothing than burning watts of power for nothing, and spending cash on a GPU or other ASICs to "mine" coins.
Yes this is secure, but again, the watts you have spent mining these... might at least help you warm your room in winter, that's all it was worth for. I also hope you enjoy playing videogames or rendering 3D clop on Arnold.
in fact if you put this compute power to some distributed service, instead of mining coin, it could be some kind of service and data could have a value. I'm with a shitty laptop and need to break a WPA key? Let's send a few packets to my software and let the compute cloud crunch that, it costs me something, but in a few seconds, loads orf teraflop/s helped my Thinkpad X60 break into the security of something. that's the idea. put the compute power to use will give it a value, mining coins have no value, no much more than the euro or dollar and anything the Rothschilds touches.
As for the solutions to get out of this system, the only conclusion I had is a world war.
this is why we have laws, morals, and education. this is the base of civilization.
we need to stop being kind and start enforcing the law.
China is truly a cesspool of corruption and inhumanity.
>>137036
there's enough land on earth, with capitalism , normally no land would be wasted, with less taxations anyone who work should be able to access private property and have their own home. Also the world is very, very.... very very large. don't go imagine there's no room left. it's just about being smart.
>>137037
If you took the time to read my previous post you would had understood that I menton that, or did I omit this?
That now with the banks the set of currencies are no longer indexed on a standard value ( element Au, an index that should have, in capitalist economy, been a standard, a reference to all currencies, along with other "precious" metals.)
Without this point of reference the laws of mathematics can no longer apply and you have to assume this is no longer fair.
Central authority or not, crunching numbers on a computer system is nothing than burning watts of power for nothing, and spending cash on a GPU or other ASICs to "mine" coins.
Yes this is secure, but again, the watts you have spent mining these... might at least help you warm your room in winter, that's all it was worth for. I also hope you enjoy playing videogames or rendering 3D clop on Arnold.
in fact if you put this compute power to some distributed service, instead of mining coin, it could be some kind of service and data could have a value. I'm with a shitty laptop and need to break a WPA key? Let's send a few packets to my software and let the compute cloud crunch that, it costs me something, but in a few seconds, loads orf teraflop/s helped my Thinkpad X60 break into the security of something. that's the idea. put the compute power to use will give it a value, mining coins have no value, no much more than the euro or dollar and anything the Rothschilds touches.
As for the solutions to get out of this system, the only conclusion I had is a world war.
>>137342
How do you intend on enforcing the law when the people who enforce the law are bought and paid for? Laws, morals, and education won't be enough to stop psychopaths. If you believe they will be then you are delusional.
How do you intend on enforcing the law when the people who enforce the law are bought and paid for? Laws, morals, and education won't be enough to stop psychopaths. If you believe they will be then you are delusional.
Even the nazis were fine with controlled capitalism, just enough toake sure we dont get the mega corporations/rampant corporatism (like how theres 6 parent companies for 80% of all media or something). I remember there being a quote, where the commies called nazi economics "the purest form of capitalism". And didn't hitler say "if we nationalize the people we wouldn't need to nationalize businesses"? Its about the mentality of the people in power thats the issue. Have good people in charge and then they wouldn't want to outsource their jobs. Have a society that isnt mindless consumerist cattle and then maybe companies wouldnt just make trashy products and sell em at insane markups. But then again, how did society become this way? Maybe it was big businesses ensuring they have a constant flow of cash (take the printer industry for example. Printers are designed to last for a couple of years, as well as printer ink being really cheap to produce, in the cents range, but sold at 50+bucks a pop), so it wouldn't hurt to have a little contol.
Im not smart but maybe the economy just needs " parental controls ", so to say
Im not smart but maybe the economy just needs " parental controls ", so to say
>>137361
http://www.nfrw.org/women-suffrage
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230801318_3
http://www.ibtauris.com/Books/Society--social-sciences/Politics--government/Political-parties/Conservative-Suffragists-The-Womens-Vote-and-the-Tory-Party
http://www.ibtauris.com/Books/Society--social-sciences/Politics--government/Political-parties/Conservative-Suffragists-The-Womens-Vote-and-the-Tory-Party
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/conservatives-gave-women-the-vote-but-you-wont-be-reminded-of-this/
Historically, the more "pro-capitalist" parties have been undoubtedly supportive of the many suffrage movements throughout history. In the legislation I've seen, it was more often than not that conservative parties had less opposition to suffrage bills within their own party than those on the left. Even the leftist publications have admitted to this. Economically, it would be no use to prevent women from working as they could be paid for less and provided a larger labor force. And so, many businesses supported women's liberation. Ever notice how feminists always have focused mostly on such things pay wage and employment? It's because material conditions created feminism just as generally the progress of capitalism always evolves/erodes tradition. Generally, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution brought women into working, thus it brought women to feminism.
>>137399
This too.
http://www.nfrw.org/women-suffrage
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230801318_3
http://www.ibtauris.com/Books/Society--social-sciences/Politics--government/Political-parties/Conservative-Suffragists-The-Womens-Vote-and-the-Tory-Party
http://www.ibtauris.com/Books/Society--social-sciences/Politics--government/Political-parties/Conservative-Suffragists-The-Womens-Vote-and-the-Tory-Party
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/conservatives-gave-women-the-vote-but-you-wont-be-reminded-of-this/
Historically, the more "pro-capitalist" parties have been undoubtedly supportive of the many suffrage movements throughout history. In the legislation I've seen, it was more often than not that conservative parties had less opposition to suffrage bills within their own party than those on the left. Even the leftist publications have admitted to this. Economically, it would be no use to prevent women from working as they could be paid for less and provided a larger labor force. And so, many businesses supported women's liberation. Ever notice how feminists always have focused mostly on such things pay wage and employment? It's because material conditions created feminism just as generally the progress of capitalism always evolves/erodes tradition. Generally, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution brought women into working, thus it brought women to feminism.
>>137399
This too.
File (): 4EB98C6752C380C969FAC7A8EA5F0B1F-195216.png (190.6 KB, 495x557, usury.png)
File (): 85FD93E17CE8F149724724E5C74544CA-33405.jpg (32.6 KB, 420x447, jewish pickpocket kike swindling tricks.jpg)
Reminder:
Usury (aka Capitalism) was invented by jews as a method of usurping and dominating nations.
>Usurp
>Usury
Do you think this language is coincidental?
Crapitalism is cancer. Free market capitalism results in an identical global political situation to fully realized communism:
A tiny selection of elites dominating global economic markets and enslaving the planets via corrupt political institutions.
Friendly reminder that Wall Street and the City of London were the biggest backers of communism, and today, huge capitalist corporations, such as Google, are among the chief proponents of communist ideology.
Usury (aka Capitalism) was invented by jews as a method of usurping and dominating nations.
>Usurp
>Usury
Do you think this language is coincidental?
Crapitalism is cancer. Free market capitalism results in an identical global political situation to fully realized communism:
A tiny selection of elites dominating global economic markets and enslaving the planets via corrupt political institutions.
Friendly reminder that Wall Street and the City of London were the biggest backers of communism, and today, huge capitalist corporations, such as Google, are among the chief proponents of communist ideology.
File (): 9509426FF5DADEF1C7770075EA1F9EEB-814616.png (795.5 KB, 1514x683, d50d8f118582a84d1a3d1c3b078a1b33e31026defe4249fc44fc6f4197b27e99.png)
File (): 2537DF38CA4DFC38BABE8114BA71B1C6-123044.jpg (120.2 KB, 510x1158, PicsArt_09-18-07.26.01.jpg)
>>136993
The Russians have a good system whereby the middle and upper classes own countryside houses called "dachas" to which they retreat in the summer and grow vegetables.
Arguably, permanent residence in the countryside may be growing more viable thanks to the development of information technology and decentralized distribution networks. Most jobs no longer require masses of people on a factory floor or in an office tower but can be worked at from home or a local workshop. Already we are seeing the beginnings of a "two-tier" economy with mass-produced goods handled by automation and artisanal goods by small teams.
However, enforcing this by law is inadvisable. Some people plainly cannot garden or can better spend their talents elsewhere. It would be harmful for society at large if a doctor or scientist were to take hours each day to tend vegetables. Ideally, his wife and servants would handle this but that takes a specific social mindset, an area in which government should not meddle.
>socialism with private property
If your property does not truly belong to you and can be taken away for "having too much," then it is a socialistic interpretation of private property.
>encourage the rich to have more children
That's a social attitude, though. How would the government encourage that?
>split among more people
Inheritance doesn't always work like that. Some do favor a gavelkind type of inheritance while others favor primogeniture. Either has its benefits but keep in mind that the children have different talents and attitudes regarding money. Historically, large wealthy families would usually have one son go into the priesthood.
>corporate worker ownership
Some companies do that voluntarily to reward high-value workers. Enforcing this, however, would result in 1) wages being adjusted lower to compensate or 2) fewer workers being hired due to labor expenses.
>progressive tax
No.
>Wealth caps
Thereby capping how successful a person could be and discouraging him from pursuing new enterprises and innovations that make capitalism great.
>>137000
Unused land and housing is already inherently unprofitable.
>>137036
The two major owners of land in the USA are the Federal Government (in the form of federal parks, etc., which are unconstitutional and against the spirit of capitalism) and white people. I am in favor of abolishing public land and auctioning it off, but you want to also confiscate the land held by rural whites. Besides the blatant infringement of property, this is inadvisable for pragmatic reasons as well. By confiscating land from families who have worked the soil for generations (not counting large corporations here) and handing it over to people who've never grown a thing in their life, you are destroying the economic base of the United States. There is another country that tried that, and its name starts with "Z" and ends with "e."
Anyway, economies of scale makes a huge difference. With mechanized agriculture, rather than taking 60% of the population to feed the country we need only 2%. By reversing this, you are introducing a tremendous inefficiency; specialization of labor is what allows us the standards of living we enjoy today.
Also, the United States is less densely populated than most other Western countries. Are you sure Germany and Switzerland can support a distributist land arrangement?
>>137026
Why does corruption exist? When government has the power to intervene in an economy to favor certain producers or consumers over others, these groups are incentivized to engage in practices that will unfairly put them ahead. Thus corruption ensues as government, never a truly impartial referee, will favor whichever special interest group has the most successful marketing.
You admit laws will not stop bribery. Hence it is futile to try to use laws to end the freedom of capitalism in a roundabout way of stopping corruption. Rather than special interest groups bribing politicians for market barriers, it will be special interest groups bribing politicians for power over a significantly poorer populace.
The Russians have a good system whereby the middle and upper classes own countryside houses called "dachas" to which they retreat in the summer and grow vegetables.
Arguably, permanent residence in the countryside may be growing more viable thanks to the development of information technology and decentralized distribution networks. Most jobs no longer require masses of people on a factory floor or in an office tower but can be worked at from home or a local workshop. Already we are seeing the beginnings of a "two-tier" economy with mass-produced goods handled by automation and artisanal goods by small teams.
However, enforcing this by law is inadvisable. Some people plainly cannot garden or can better spend their talents elsewhere. It would be harmful for society at large if a doctor or scientist were to take hours each day to tend vegetables. Ideally, his wife and servants would handle this but that takes a specific social mindset, an area in which government should not meddle.
>socialism with private property
If your property does not truly belong to you and can be taken away for "having too much," then it is a socialistic interpretation of private property.
>encourage the rich to have more children
That's a social attitude, though. How would the government encourage that?
>split among more people
Inheritance doesn't always work like that. Some do favor a gavelkind type of inheritance while others favor primogeniture. Either has its benefits but keep in mind that the children have different talents and attitudes regarding money. Historically, large wealthy families would usually have one son go into the priesthood.
>corporate worker ownership
Some companies do that voluntarily to reward high-value workers. Enforcing this, however, would result in 1) wages being adjusted lower to compensate or 2) fewer workers being hired due to labor expenses.
>progressive tax
No.
>Wealth caps
Thereby capping how successful a person could be and discouraging him from pursuing new enterprises and innovations that make capitalism great.
>>137000
Unused land and housing is already inherently unprofitable.
>>137036
The two major owners of land in the USA are the Federal Government (in the form of federal parks, etc., which are unconstitutional and against the spirit of capitalism) and white people. I am in favor of abolishing public land and auctioning it off, but you want to also confiscate the land held by rural whites. Besides the blatant infringement of property, this is inadvisable for pragmatic reasons as well. By confiscating land from families who have worked the soil for generations (not counting large corporations here) and handing it over to people who've never grown a thing in their life, you are destroying the economic base of the United States. There is another country that tried that, and its name starts with "Z" and ends with "e."
Anyway, economies of scale makes a huge difference. With mechanized agriculture, rather than taking 60% of the population to feed the country we need only 2%. By reversing this, you are introducing a tremendous inefficiency; specialization of labor is what allows us the standards of living we enjoy today.
Also, the United States is less densely populated than most other Western countries. Are you sure Germany and Switzerland can support a distributist land arrangement?
>>137026
Why does corruption exist? When government has the power to intervene in an economy to favor certain producers or consumers over others, these groups are incentivized to engage in practices that will unfairly put them ahead. Thus corruption ensues as government, never a truly impartial referee, will favor whichever special interest group has the most successful marketing.
You admit laws will not stop bribery. Hence it is futile to try to use laws to end the freedom of capitalism in a roundabout way of stopping corruption. Rather than special interest groups bribing politicians for market barriers, it will be special interest groups bribing politicians for power over a significantly poorer populace.
>>137569
>socialistic interpretation of private property.
Wew lad
>That's a social attitude, though. How would the government encourage that?
Tax cuts or increasing their wealth cap for each child in their will
>Inheritance doesn't always work like that. Some do favor a gavelkind type of inheritance while others favor primogeniture. Either has its benefits but keep in mind that the children have different talents and attitudes regarding money. Historically, large wealthy families would usually have one son go into the priesthood.
Terms and conditions will apply.
>Thereby capping how successful a person could be and discouraging him from pursuing new enterprises and innovations that make capitalism great.
Or preventing men like Zuckerberg or Bezos from buying out their competition. How do you not see how dangerous these people Are?
>Unused land and housing is already inherently unprofitable
Bullshit. Chinks use unused land and housing to launder money all the time. See Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and San Francisco.
>socialistic interpretation of private property.
Wew lad
>That's a social attitude, though. How would the government encourage that?
Tax cuts or increasing their wealth cap for each child in their will
>Inheritance doesn't always work like that. Some do favor a gavelkind type of inheritance while others favor primogeniture. Either has its benefits but keep in mind that the children have different talents and attitudes regarding money. Historically, large wealthy families would usually have one son go into the priesthood.
Terms and conditions will apply.
>Thereby capping how successful a person could be and discouraging him from pursuing new enterprises and innovations that make capitalism great.
Or preventing men like Zuckerberg or Bezos from buying out their competition. How do you not see how dangerous these people Are?
>Unused land and housing is already inherently unprofitable
Bullshit. Chinks use unused land and housing to launder money all the time. See Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and San Francisco.
>>137590
>literal social engineering
Funny how you think this will fix social problems when every instance of it either made things worse or was subverted to do the opposite of the intent
>dangerous capitalists
Competitors do exist (Minds for example), and Facebook and Amazon are both suffering from their social crusades. Soon they'll be bywords, Facebook especially.
Sir James Dyson, on the other hand, has used his massive wealth for good.
>money laundering
Money laundering is typically done to evade taxes and regulations. It's more of a problem of too much government than not enough.
>literal social engineering
Funny how you think this will fix social problems when every instance of it either made things worse or was subverted to do the opposite of the intent
>dangerous capitalists
Competitors do exist (Minds for example), and Facebook and Amazon are both suffering from their social crusades. Soon they'll be bywords, Facebook especially.
Sir James Dyson, on the other hand, has used his massive wealth for good.
>money laundering
Money laundering is typically done to evade taxes and regulations. It's more of a problem of too much government than not enough.
>>137599
>Funny how you think this will fix social problems when every instance of it either made things worse or was subverted to do the opposite of the intent
This isn't social engineer; it's soft eugenics and eugenics has actually had positive outcomes for the nations that have practiced it.
>Competitors do exist (Minds for example), and Facebook and Amazon are both suffering from their social crusades. Soon they'll be bywords, Facebook especially.
These companies are doing all they can to suppress competition such as keeping them off of the Google/Apple store or manipulating the information their users receive about competitors.
>Money laundering is typically done to evade taxes and regulations. It's more of a problem of too much government than not enough.
Taxes and regulations are always going to exist. The least we can do is force the chinks to use something other than property or land for money laundering.
>Funny how you think this will fix social problems when every instance of it either made things worse or was subverted to do the opposite of the intent
This isn't social engineer; it's soft eugenics and eugenics has actually had positive outcomes for the nations that have practiced it.
>Competitors do exist (Minds for example), and Facebook and Amazon are both suffering from their social crusades. Soon they'll be bywords, Facebook especially.
These companies are doing all they can to suppress competition such as keeping them off of the Google/Apple store or manipulating the information their users receive about competitors.
>Money laundering is typically done to evade taxes and regulations. It's more of a problem of too much government than not enough.
Taxes and regulations are always going to exist. The least we can do is force the chinks to use something other than property or land for money laundering.
>>137610
>soft eugenics
You mean like free-market capitalism? Natural selection ensures the best rise to the top.
>Google and Apple
And they're losing, slowly and steadily. As much as I hate them one should consider any government power as capable of being used against us. We were really lucky that Trump won but even now the Deep State is still entrenched.
>Chinks should use something else
Perhaps.
>soft eugenics
You mean like free-market capitalism? Natural selection ensures the best rise to the top.
>Google and Apple
And they're losing, slowly and steadily. As much as I hate them one should consider any government power as capable of being used against us. We were really lucky that Trump won but even now the Deep State is still entrenched.
>Chinks should use something else
Perhaps.
>You mean like free-market capitalism? Natural selection ensures the best rise to the top.
1. The people with the highest IQs have the lowest birth rates right now.
2. Free market capitalism will inevitably lead to what others in this thread have referred to as "corporate socialism" as people accumulate more wealth and power. How do you plan to prevent this?
>And they're losing, slowly and steadily. As much as I hate them one should consider any government power as capable of being used against us.
It would be better for all of us if companies like google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, ect didn't exist in the first place. I See no problem with the government preventing these kinds of corporations from existing.
>We were really lucky that Trump won but even now the Deep State is still entrenched.
We shouldn't be relying on luck.
1. The people with the highest IQs have the lowest birth rates right now.
2. Free market capitalism will inevitably lead to what others in this thread have referred to as "corporate socialism" as people accumulate more wealth and power. How do you plan to prevent this?
>And they're losing, slowly and steadily. As much as I hate them one should consider any government power as capable of being used against us.
It would be better for all of us if companies like google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, ect didn't exist in the first place. I See no problem with the government preventing these kinds of corporations from existing.
>We were really lucky that Trump won but even now the Deep State is still entrenched.
We shouldn't be relying on luck.
>>137631
>low birth rates
Encouraged, of course, by government and "watermelon" socialists
>corporate socialism
Firstly, corporate socialism requires a government.
Secondly, people naturally rise and fall. In a free market it is rare for a family to hold onto significant wealth and influence for more than two or three generations. The majority of the rich, including the super-rich, did not inherit their wealth. https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/03/there-are-more-self-made-billionaires-in-the-forbes-400-than-ever-before/#6d20232a3369
>tech giants shouldn't exist
I disagree; they provide services and products and should exist. What's wrong is how they're used to further the program of surveillance and censorship.
>shouldn't be relying on luck
Which is why we can't just assume the "right guy" will lead the country and that his successors cannot be tainted. If capitalism attracts the greedy then government attracts the power-hungry. A capitalist at least has to provide goods or services toward others to get his money; a government official can bribe, cajole, and trick his way to the top and stay there.
>low birth rates
Encouraged, of course, by government and "watermelon" socialists
>corporate socialism
Firstly, corporate socialism requires a government.
Secondly, people naturally rise and fall. In a free market it is rare for a family to hold onto significant wealth and influence for more than two or three generations. The majority of the rich, including the super-rich, did not inherit their wealth. https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/03/there-are-more-self-made-billionaires-in-the-forbes-400-than-ever-before/#6d20232a3369
>tech giants shouldn't exist
I disagree; they provide services and products and should exist. What's wrong is how they're used to further the program of surveillance and censorship.
>shouldn't be relying on luck
Which is why we can't just assume the "right guy" will lead the country and that his successors cannot be tainted. If capitalism attracts the greedy then government attracts the power-hungry. A capitalist at least has to provide goods or services toward others to get his money; a government official can bribe, cajole, and trick his way to the top and stay there.
>>137637
>Encouraged, of course, by government and "watermelon" socialists
It's encouraged by getting women into the workforce.
>Firstly, corporate socialism requires a government.
Are you suggesting we get rid of the government?
>Secondly, people naturally rise and fall. In a free market it is rare for a family to hold onto significant wealth and influence for more than two or three generations. The majority of the rich, including the super-rich, did not inherit their wealth.
But the families where it does last several generations are very dangerous. See the Rockefellers, Bushes, Rothschilds, etc.
>I disagree; they provide services and products and should exist. What's wrong is how they're used to further the program of surveillance and censorship.
Even if they didn't have the government encouraging them to censor and monitor the populace they would still have a financial incentive to do so. The better you know your users the more effective your targeted ads will be. If you remove offensive content from your platform more advertisers will be willing to place ads on your site.
>Which is why we can't just assume the "right guy" will lead the country and that his successors cannot be tainted. If capitalism attracts the greedy then government attracts the power-hungry. A capitalist at least has to provide goods or services toward others to get his money; a government official can bribe, cajole, and trick his way to the top and stay there.
They both attract the power hungry and greedy. Also the government would have a difficult time oppressing a population that did not depend on them.
>Encouraged, of course, by government and "watermelon" socialists
It's encouraged by getting women into the workforce.
>Firstly, corporate socialism requires a government.
Are you suggesting we get rid of the government?
>Secondly, people naturally rise and fall. In a free market it is rare for a family to hold onto significant wealth and influence for more than two or three generations. The majority of the rich, including the super-rich, did not inherit their wealth.
But the families where it does last several generations are very dangerous. See the Rockefellers, Bushes, Rothschilds, etc.
>I disagree; they provide services and products and should exist. What's wrong is how they're used to further the program of surveillance and censorship.
Even if they didn't have the government encouraging them to censor and monitor the populace they would still have a financial incentive to do so. The better you know your users the more effective your targeted ads will be. If you remove offensive content from your platform more advertisers will be willing to place ads on your site.
>Which is why we can't just assume the "right guy" will lead the country and that his successors cannot be tainted. If capitalism attracts the greedy then government attracts the power-hungry. A capitalist at least has to provide goods or services toward others to get his money; a government official can bribe, cajole, and trick his way to the top and stay there.
They both attract the power hungry and greedy. Also the government would have a difficult time oppressing a population that did not depend on them.
>>137789
>women in the workforce
Corporations do not "get" women into the workforce, women choose to join it. There may be different motivations for them to do so, but arguably the three most important are: 1) They do not receive enough money for support and need more for finances; 2) They literally have nothing better to do; or 3) They just want more money
#1 can't be helped, and indeed in any age when the father or husband could not support her it was common to find the woman working, usually in a secretarial role. You might be asking, "but anon, why wouldn't the firm pay people so little that women have to work anyway?" It's the law of supply and demand. This may indeed happen where the low-skill labor market is flooded (a modern issue comes to mind), but if a worker makes himself valuable to a company it will pay him extra in order to keep him from moving to a competitor. Thus there is a natural incentive to productivity.
This was the case in the 1950's when the much-realized "American Dream" was to earn enough to support a wife and family with a decent house. The betrayal of the American people with inflation, economic interventionism, and other policies ended this and are summed up in "What has Government Done With Our Money."
#2 is largely a personal issue. If someone has no kids, no friends, and no meaningful activities to the point that one wants to work just as an alternative to boredom, there is something seriously wrong. Nowadays this is increasing because of social problems which have broken down relationships. Often these have roots in government, such as Social Security destroying solidarity and alienating elders from their children who should be supporting them.
Women, in their time not spent raising children, should take up a meaningful hobby.
#3 is a social issue. Money has come to be a marker of social success and so families that earn more totally tend to be higher on the social ladder. One may be inclined to blame this on capitalism but that is merely an easy scapegoat. The real issue is a decline in spirituality; a home is no longer considered more than a place of residence. There are different causes for this but a major one is public schooling.
>getting rid of the government
Yes. Even a "night-watchman" state will, by having special rights and privileges over others, eventually accrue additional powers and be pressured by different groups to act in their interest. Without a government there is no monopoly of force to bribe; individuals and organizations must compete with superior ideas and products.
>dangerous families
These families have stayed where they are principally due to being well-connected in government. They are able to pressure lawmakers to enact policies they see fit and they receive insider information that gives a leg up.
>social media
Are you saying we should ban social media? It merely exists because there is demand for it. I agree that their practices, while lucrative, are alarming. However, the reason why people do not shun it for more private platforms at least is due to a cultural attitude of complacency. Modern individuals simply do not care that their information is being stolen and sold, or at least they do not know of it. What outcry is there against street cameras? If we want to make a positive change we must change the social consciousness to prize privacy and independence, similar to the American attitude of yore.
>government
In business even the power-hungry and greedy have to serve society in some way to get to where they are. They have to give up time, talent, security, etc. and provide a product or service that the public wants.
Government is just take, take, take. You do not need to be productive to get where you are, only well-connected. Also, government is naturally inclined to enact social programs for this reason and the public often bites it up. In a democracy the trend is always more social programs, more spending, more taxes, and more dependence. Eventually you just arrive at the same problem.
>women in the workforce
Corporations do not "get" women into the workforce, women choose to join it. There may be different motivations for them to do so, but arguably the three most important are: 1) They do not receive enough money for support and need more for finances; 2) They literally have nothing better to do; or 3) They just want more money
#1 can't be helped, and indeed in any age when the father or husband could not support her it was common to find the woman working, usually in a secretarial role. You might be asking, "but anon, why wouldn't the firm pay people so little that women have to work anyway?" It's the law of supply and demand. This may indeed happen where the low-skill labor market is flooded (a modern issue comes to mind), but if a worker makes himself valuable to a company it will pay him extra in order to keep him from moving to a competitor. Thus there is a natural incentive to productivity.
This was the case in the 1950's when the much-realized "American Dream" was to earn enough to support a wife and family with a decent house. The betrayal of the American people with inflation, economic interventionism, and other policies ended this and are summed up in "What has Government Done With Our Money."
#2 is largely a personal issue. If someone has no kids, no friends, and no meaningful activities to the point that one wants to work just as an alternative to boredom, there is something seriously wrong. Nowadays this is increasing because of social problems which have broken down relationships. Often these have roots in government, such as Social Security destroying solidarity and alienating elders from their children who should be supporting them.
Women, in their time not spent raising children, should take up a meaningful hobby.
#3 is a social issue. Money has come to be a marker of social success and so families that earn more totally tend to be higher on the social ladder. One may be inclined to blame this on capitalism but that is merely an easy scapegoat. The real issue is a decline in spirituality; a home is no longer considered more than a place of residence. There are different causes for this but a major one is public schooling.
>getting rid of the government
Yes. Even a "night-watchman" state will, by having special rights and privileges over others, eventually accrue additional powers and be pressured by different groups to act in their interest. Without a government there is no monopoly of force to bribe; individuals and organizations must compete with superior ideas and products.
>dangerous families
These families have stayed where they are principally due to being well-connected in government. They are able to pressure lawmakers to enact policies they see fit and they receive insider information that gives a leg up.
>social media
Are you saying we should ban social media? It merely exists because there is demand for it. I agree that their practices, while lucrative, are alarming. However, the reason why people do not shun it for more private platforms at least is due to a cultural attitude of complacency. Modern individuals simply do not care that their information is being stolen and sold, or at least they do not know of it. What outcry is there against street cameras? If we want to make a positive change we must change the social consciousness to prize privacy and independence, similar to the American attitude of yore.
>government
In business even the power-hungry and greedy have to serve society in some way to get to where they are. They have to give up time, talent, security, etc. and provide a product or service that the public wants.
Government is just take, take, take. You do not need to be productive to get where you are, only well-connected. Also, government is naturally inclined to enact social programs for this reason and the public often bites it up. In a democracy the trend is always more social programs, more spending, more taxes, and more dependence. Eventually you just arrive at the same problem.
Planned obsolescence is one of my largest gripes with capitalism. How would an ancap society prevent this?
>>142620
Everything about our modern culture is about disposability, not just in products. Children, marriage, art, history…these are all things that many people want to get rid of and forget. It is impossible for a purely economic system to change this except for natural selection. Either you change the culture from within or the people espousing disposable lifestyles die off/have fewer descendants. People buy into planned obsolescence because they assume that fate. Offer them an alternative and convince them it's better and planned obsolescence is a thing of the past.
Everything about our modern culture is about disposability, not just in products. Children, marriage, art, history…these are all things that many people want to get rid of and forget. It is impossible for a purely economic system to change this except for natural selection. Either you change the culture from within or the people espousing disposable lifestyles die off/have fewer descendants. People buy into planned obsolescence because they assume that fate. Offer them an alternative and convince them it's better and planned obsolescence is a thing of the past.
>>142623
>It is impossible for a purely economic system to change this except for natural selection.
Well yes, but that kind of behavior could be discouraged by a government. Say with fines or taxes.
>People buy into planned obsolescence because they assume that fate.
People buy what is cheap. People will pay $45 dollars for something that will break in a year because the next best thing costs $50. It is difficult to compete with cheap garbage.
>It is impossible for a purely economic system to change this except for natural selection.
Well yes, but that kind of behavior could be discouraged by a government. Say with fines or taxes.
>People buy into planned obsolescence because they assume that fate.
People buy what is cheap. People will pay $45 dollars for something that will break in a year because the next best thing costs $50. It is difficult to compete with cheap garbage.
>>142634
>using government for social engineering through fines and taxes
That doesn't make the problem go away, though. People are not going to become wiser and thriftier, they will simply have to deal with more expensive products and higher costs of living. This is the sort of legislation that makes the rounds in California and London.
>Difficult to compete with cheap garbage
Ask James Dyson about that one. It's true that there are some slovenly segments of society that will always adhere to the "buy cheap and throw away" line of thinking no matter what. What's important is that such mentality doesn't grip hold of society. Durability and reusability for years is a major selling point and we simply need society to practice thrift and care just as it used to be passed down through generations. There is nothing government can really do about that other than crash the economy so that people must scrimp and save to survive.
>using government for social engineering through fines and taxes
That doesn't make the problem go away, though. People are not going to become wiser and thriftier, they will simply have to deal with more expensive products and higher costs of living. This is the sort of legislation that makes the rounds in California and London.
>Difficult to compete with cheap garbage
Ask James Dyson about that one. It's true that there are some slovenly segments of society that will always adhere to the "buy cheap and throw away" line of thinking no matter what. What's important is that such mentality doesn't grip hold of society. Durability and reusability for years is a major selling point and we simply need society to practice thrift and care just as it used to be passed down through generations. There is nothing government can really do about that other than crash the economy so that people must scrimp and save to survive.
>>142635
>This is the sort of legislation that makes the rounds in California and London.
Where is there legislation against planned obsolescence? Look there are a limited amount of resources on this planet and manufacturing these things isn't cheap. If companies can be forced not to make shitty products then we should force them.
>It's true that there are some slovenly segments of society that will always adhere to the "buy cheap and throw away" line of thinking no matter what.
You don't see how this is a major flaw? These people will incentivize companies to waste resources.
>This is the sort of legislation that makes the rounds in California and London.
Where is there legislation against planned obsolescence? Look there are a limited amount of resources on this planet and manufacturing these things isn't cheap. If companies can be forced not to make shitty products then we should force them.
>It's true that there are some slovenly segments of society that will always adhere to the "buy cheap and throw away" line of thinking no matter what.
You don't see how this is a major flaw? These people will incentivize companies to waste resources.
>>142636
>legislation
Liberal states often attempt social engineering through taxes and fines, such as limiting soft drink sizes to try to get people slimmer or heavily taxing/restricting cigarettes to discourage smoking. It's heavy-handed and authoritarian.
>Waste of resources
According to you. Why should you make moral decisions for the rest of society? Even if it was a "waste of resources," many of these items can be recycled and will return to the earth eventually.
>Can be forced=should be forced
This is where you cross the line. Again, who made you moral arbiter of society? If people choose to purchase a good, even if it is a suboptimal decision for them, who are you to tell them "no"? This is no different from the sort of "moral legislation" that forces companies to have diversity quotas and the like. It is pointless, harmful, and will only come back to bite you one day.
>legislation
Liberal states often attempt social engineering through taxes and fines, such as limiting soft drink sizes to try to get people slimmer or heavily taxing/restricting cigarettes to discourage smoking. It's heavy-handed and authoritarian.
>Waste of resources
According to you. Why should you make moral decisions for the rest of society? Even if it was a "waste of resources," many of these items can be recycled and will return to the earth eventually.
>Can be forced=should be forced
This is where you cross the line. Again, who made you moral arbiter of society? If people choose to purchase a good, even if it is a suboptimal decision for them, who are you to tell them "no"? This is no different from the sort of "moral legislation" that forces companies to have diversity quotas and the like. It is pointless, harmful, and will only come back to bite you one day.
File (): 4D37ECF3062F8B0DEFE5948C430DA413-67543.jpg (66.0 KB, 464x640, image.jpeg)
>>142639
>Planned obsolescence = more consumer choice
Companies like Apple are forcing consumers to buy new phones by ruining the phones they already have through iOS slow downs. It's like a racket, I sell you a window and I break it at the end of every and sell you another one. What if you had the freedom to not be coerced (Muh NAP) into buying a new window.
You seem to like economic freedom but planned obsolescence is a impediment to true economic freedom, and a discrete violation of the NAP.
>Planned obsolescence = more consumer choice
Companies like Apple are forcing consumers to buy new phones by ruining the phones they already have through iOS slow downs. It's like a racket, I sell you a window and I break it at the end of every and sell you another one. What if you had the freedom to not be coerced (Muh NAP) into buying a new window.
You seem to like economic freedom but planned obsolescence is a impediment to true economic freedom, and a discrete violation of the NAP.
>>142639
>Liberal states often attempt social engineering through taxes and fines, such as limiting soft drink sizes to try to get people slimmer or heavily taxing/restricting cigarettes to discourage smoking. It's heavy-handed and authoritarian.
Punishing companies that design products to break is hardly the same thing. Someone needs to prevent these people from fucking the little guy.
>According to you.
No according to math. Creating more shitty products will consume more resources.
>Even if it was a "waste of resources," many of these items can be recycled and will return to the earth eventually.
Recycling these things also takes resources.
>This is where you cross the line. Again, who made you moral arbiter of society? If people choose to purchase a good, even if it is a suboptimal decision for them, who are you to tell them "no"? This is no different from the sort of "moral legislation" that forces companies to have diversity quotas and the like. It is pointless, harmful, and will only come back to bite you one day.
So what we just let people flood the markets with shitty, cheap, and wasteful goods. You don't think that will come back to bite you?
>Liberal states often attempt social engineering through taxes and fines, such as limiting soft drink sizes to try to get people slimmer or heavily taxing/restricting cigarettes to discourage smoking. It's heavy-handed and authoritarian.
Punishing companies that design products to break is hardly the same thing. Someone needs to prevent these people from fucking the little guy.
>According to you.
No according to math. Creating more shitty products will consume more resources.
>Even if it was a "waste of resources," many of these items can be recycled and will return to the earth eventually.
Recycling these things also takes resources.
>This is where you cross the line. Again, who made you moral arbiter of society? If people choose to purchase a good, even if it is a suboptimal decision for them, who are you to tell them "no"? This is no different from the sort of "moral legislation" that forces companies to have diversity quotas and the like. It is pointless, harmful, and will only come back to bite you one day.
So what we just let people flood the markets with shitty, cheap, and wasteful goods. You don't think that will come back to bite you?
>>142644
Which is why (among other reasons) I don't use Apple phones. If Apple was the only producer of phones it would be a problem, but other cheaper alternatives exist, especially brands from China. Apple is getting desperate to stay relevant but it's only shooting itself in the foot. And if you intentionally break a product someone buys that is a violation of the NAP and must be prosecuted. If you mislead a purchaser into buying a product that is advertised as having longer life than it does, that is fraud and can also be prosecuted.
>>142647
When a product breaks one of three things happen. If a warranty is valid on the product (which is essentially a guarantee on its lifetime), then it is repaired or replaced at the producer's expense. If a contractual guarantee exists that the product will survive a certain amount of time, the producer can be taken to court for not fulfilling the contract. If neither of these exists, the customer takes the risk on himself when he buys the product that is of lower price but of questionable quality. "Buyer beware" is a principle that has existed for the entirety of the history of commerce.
Again, you seem to think that heavy-handed regulations would solve a cultural problem of consumer complacency. In reality, they would just drive up the cost of goods (politicians know jack about manufacturing and such regulations always add costs they don't intend, just ask Eric Peters) and make consumers more complacent since they expect the government to have solved their problems for them. If you actually want to change anything, spread information telling people what to look for and how they can lengthen the life of their items.
Governmental intervention is always a slippery slope that will eventually be used against your side when the cultural winds shift. Once that happens you have only yourself to blame.
Which is why (among other reasons) I don't use Apple phones. If Apple was the only producer of phones it would be a problem, but other cheaper alternatives exist, especially brands from China. Apple is getting desperate to stay relevant but it's only shooting itself in the foot. And if you intentionally break a product someone buys that is a violation of the NAP and must be prosecuted. If you mislead a purchaser into buying a product that is advertised as having longer life than it does, that is fraud and can also be prosecuted.
>>142647
When a product breaks one of three things happen. If a warranty is valid on the product (which is essentially a guarantee on its lifetime), then it is repaired or replaced at the producer's expense. If a contractual guarantee exists that the product will survive a certain amount of time, the producer can be taken to court for not fulfilling the contract. If neither of these exists, the customer takes the risk on himself when he buys the product that is of lower price but of questionable quality. "Buyer beware" is a principle that has existed for the entirety of the history of commerce.
Again, you seem to think that heavy-handed regulations would solve a cultural problem of consumer complacency. In reality, they would just drive up the cost of goods (politicians know jack about manufacturing and such regulations always add costs they don't intend, just ask Eric Peters) and make consumers more complacent since they expect the government to have solved their problems for them. If you actually want to change anything, spread information telling people what to look for and how they can lengthen the life of their items.
Governmental intervention is always a slippery slope that will eventually be used against your side when the cultural winds shift. Once that happens you have only yourself to blame.
>>142650
>In reality, they would just drive up the cost of goods (politicians know jack about manufacturing and such regulations always add costs they don't intend, just ask Eric Peters) and make consumers more complacent since they expect the government to have solved their problems for them.
We should replace the politicians with engineers.
>In reality, they would just drive up the cost of goods (politicians know jack about manufacturing and such regulations always add costs they don't intend, just ask Eric Peters) and make consumers more complacent since they expect the government to have solved their problems for them.
We should replace the politicians with engineers.
>>137456
You fucking moron that's a quote from Gregor Strasser, not Hitler. This isn't in Mein Kampf. I doubt it's in the hack of a historian's "biography" of A.H either. The fact that you didn't even go through the effort of searching the quite you ascribe to Hitler suggest YOU should go read Mein Kampf, and then go on to realize that THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY SAID THE QUOTE WAS PURGED BY THE ACTUAL NAZIS. There's a reason why he was killed during the Night of the Long knives. His younger brother, Otto Strasser (yes, from Strasserism) was labeled as a communist and an enemy to the German people, and they would've killed him too had he not escaped. Strasserism is just a step down from NazBol. Kill yourself anon, or at least please bother source check and to learn about what you're actually talking about, because you've just helped spread bullshit.
Christ, this is even on jewpedia. It would've taken two seconds to confirm your source.
>In late April 1930, Hitler publicly and firmly announced his opposition to Gregor Strasser and appointed Goebbels as Reich leader of NSDAP propaganda. When Hitler visited Goebbels' on 2 May 1930, Goebbels banned the evening edition of the Nationaler Sozialist. (Strasserist newspaper)
You fucking moron that's a quote from Gregor Strasser, not Hitler. This isn't in Mein Kampf. I doubt it's in the hack of a historian's "biography" of A.H either. The fact that you didn't even go through the effort of searching the quite you ascribe to Hitler suggest YOU should go read Mein Kampf, and then go on to realize that THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY SAID THE QUOTE WAS PURGED BY THE ACTUAL NAZIS. There's a reason why he was killed during the Night of the Long knives. His younger brother, Otto Strasser (yes, from Strasserism) was labeled as a communist and an enemy to the German people, and they would've killed him too had he not escaped. Strasserism is just a step down from NazBol. Kill yourself anon, or at least please bother source check and to learn about what you're actually talking about, because you've just helped spread bullshit.
Christ, this is even on jewpedia. It would've taken two seconds to confirm your source.
>In late April 1930, Hitler publicly and firmly announced his opposition to Gregor Strasser and appointed Goebbels as Reich leader of NSDAP propaganda. When Hitler visited Goebbels' on 2 May 1930, Goebbels banned the evening edition of the Nationaler Sozialist. (Strasserist newspaper)
64 replies | 18 files | 30 UUIDs | Archived