Create account

(& the capitalists’ wealth is earned). Much easier to bitch about it & demand money from others (oh my how selfless!)
replied · 171d
Capitalist wealth is not earned, it is literally extracted from work of others... which is definition of exploitation.
replied · 170d
Capitalist AND workers are profiting. Nobody steals from anyone but the wealth from both partys is increasing while they work together.

you are making the zero-sum game mistake!
replied · 170d
In the same way I cant declare my scarf worth $1M and force someone to pay that “full amount”, you cant declare your labor worth $1M/year and force someone to pay you.
replied · 170d
Workers trade their labor for money like everything is traded.
replied · 170d
I extract my own wealth out of my own labors while the government takes my wealth through theft.
replied · 170d
taxes you mean;)
replied · 170d
Taxation is a form of theft.
replied · 170d
That's right no or low taxes so you live in crime ridden Banana Republic like Honduras. Loonytarians don't get it, LOL
replied · 113d
Sure pay taxes to buy up armies that invade other countries that kill innocent children because you gave them money to buy bombs. Lets change our system to a voluntary based revenue
replied · 113d
Not every country is invading others.
replied · 113d
Switzerland is propably one the most civilized, safe and advanced countries in the world and their taxes are aming the lowest in the world. Go figure.
Switzerland is also the country which provides banking and money laundering services for the biggest criminals on Earth.

Perhaps there's a connection.
replied · 113d
Not really. Low taxes and banking "services" are not correlated. However, high innovation index (ideas => investment => succesful new company) is very much correlated with low taxes.
replied · 170d
replied · 170d
Did you know, in Switzerland we can vote if we want taxes. The people voted yes.
replied · 113d
51 decide the fate of the 100.
replied · 111d
It was along the lines of 75% to 25%. And yes, that's how a democracy works.
replied · 113d
Of those that voted. Who counted the votes?
replied · 112d
Thank you, generous tipper. Tippers are always lucky👍
replied · 168d
if we have a large enough group it is morally ok for the majority to threaten the minority?
replied · 169d
& the people who vote no to the taxes dont have their money taken away?
replied · 113d
I know. Switzerland is not volyntarist, but it is a small federal state with decentralized cantons and low taxes which is almost as awesome. CHs success is clear proof of that.
replied · 169d
In Oregon 1 person can decide to increase taxes for everyone if that one person was the only one that votes. Voting is oppression.
replied · 170d
Logical. All else aside, either taxes or printing money will pay for public goods
replied · 113d
There is no link to theft in that diagram. It links to force, but not to theft. The backwards link doesn't support the idea that taxes are theft.
replied · 113d
Not sure which backwards link you’re talking about. But force has 4 definitions in the image. As a noun it’s synonymous with threat as a verb it is doing something against
replied · 113d
another’s will. Stealing is taking (another person’s property) against their will (or without their permission). A specific case of the use of force.
Taking something with a threat of force is theft.
A 'mea culpa' is improperly using the word "theft"
when "robbery" or archaic "reavery" is more correct.
Taking by force or threat of violence.
"Theft" is agnostic to violence.
It doesn't really what we call it. I call it theft, you can call it reavery, extortion, robbery or whatever. The outcome is the same.
Exploitation would be involuntary exchange of labor for resources. Like labor camps in certain countries. I can spend my bits to answer u, but I don't have to - that's capitalism
replied · 170d
Explain this extraction. This will be the failing point of your argument. Explain how value is taken. Where that added value comes from. Who is involved in this value extraction.
replied · 170d
All of the costs are paid for by the product being sold, which pays for all the workers AND all the extra value from profit goes to Capitalist. That's how.
replied · 170d
So would you be fine of workers were not paid for their labour until after the product was sold? When is the price of that product established?
replied · 170d
Not the point, point is that rewards are not proportional to amount of work done. With new tech productivity went up, profits went up, but workers rewards did not go up proportionally.
replied · 170d
Technically the productivity cant go up proportionally since that increase in productivity requires greater investment in the equipment that increases productivity.
replied · 170d
Which means, Capitalist got all the extra rewards, which is exactly why the rich got richer, driving prices up, while workers rewards went in reverse direction in respect to inflation.
replied · 170d
You have a bit of a point in this though. Yes inequality had increased more. Much has changed though. Many jobs today didnt exist before, and many old jobs no longer do exist.
replied · 170d
Value comes from the product being sold, which is produced/assembled/transported/sold by all the workers, not by the Capitalist, then the profit is taken/extracted by Capitalist.
replied · 170d
When is the value of the product being sold agreed upon?
replied · 170d
User gives value to the product same as with bitcoins however propaganda through advertising (actually brainwashing) has effect on that also, making people pay for shit they don't need
replied · 170d
The workers sell their time/labour to the employer. They agree to that value. The employer then sells the product to customers, and they agree on a value.
replied · 169d
If worker is paid the same for same hourly wage & produces more, then either product should be MUCH CHEAPER as it costs way less to make it, or worker should get profits also, but no..
replied · 169d
Yes, the product is cheaper, which allows for the company to make money. This means the company can invest in expanding that company. It is never just piled up for the owner.
replied · 168d
They "can" and "could" but they don't always do that. This is a fact. You & others always assume capitalist will reinvest this capital to make bigger and better things, well they don't
replied · 168d
They always do invest the money. If they dont invest what they have then they lose money to inflation. It may not be invested in the company, but could be in general stocks.
replied · 168d
How exactly do you think some people get to have billions in their short lifespan? Work on their own and earning it from their own work? Come one mate, this is children's fairy tale.
replied · 168d
They earn it. Being worth billions doesnt mean having it in the bank account. That is the value of heir assets and investments. This is why their value can swing so wildly.
replied · 168d
They don't earn it, to earn something means you have to have done all the work yourself, if you've done 1/2 of the work & someone else other 1/2, other person should earn from it also.
replied · 168d
Work is only one issue. What about the initial investment? You dont think the owner should be compensated for what they did? Then no companies will come, and no one will have work.
replied · 168d
Capitalism doesn't work this way at all. It is one sided, it is centralised decision making and have extremely unfair rewards distribution (and few other negative things).
replied · 168d
The reward distribution fairness is not that some. The owner deserves more. Equal distribution is a bad idea. It goes against nature.
replied · 169d
The Capitalist gets more profits even though the amount of work he did is less, not more. You are completely ignorant, you know that, right?
replied · 169d
Many capitalists work harder than you realise. It doesnt have to be physical labour to be work.
replied · 169d
You have this strange idea that the amount of work done is all that matters. You also have this strange idea that people running companies ies dont work. You are disconnected.
replied · 170d
Value depends on each part of this. Worker, employer, customer. The customer values the product. The owner values the money more than the product. The worker values time.
replied · 169d
Yes, but point is the part that capitalist does is tiny to part that workers do. It is completely out of whack as to who does the work and HOW MUCH of it, vs who profits from it.
replied · 169d
So you assume. In some cases it is pare, in some cases it is small. When first starting the capitalist works hardest. After reaching success they work less, as they deserve.
replied · 168d
read what you wrote... "at the beginning" is the key point. It means they should get rewarded for that work (indeed) but not afterwards.
replied · 168d
In Capitalism capitalist continually keeps getting rewards which is no longer for work he's done before, its just because he owns the business. He does less work but get rewards anyway
replied · 168d
The capitalist deserves to work less after all the effort and investment out in to start the company. They worked harder than an employer is allowed to demand of their employees.
replied · 168d
Why should they keep getting rewards when they no longer do any work or do very little of it compared to amount of work done by others? That is not PoW system then, is it?
replied · 168d
Organising the company, being responsible for it all. Having been the initial investor. That is more important than being a worker.
replied · 168d
They own the company. They put in the initial work that got everything going. They hired the workers, and delegated the work. Producing the product is only one type of work.
replied · 168d
If they are successful enough to allow the owner to pay others to have work delegated to them, that is a good thing. Often the capitalist is able to move onto bigger matters to expand.
replied · 168d
Capitalist could get some rewards even if they do no work because they "run the business" but this should be limited in amount & capitalist should not be taking all of the profits.
replied · 168d
The capitalists that "do no work" are mostly a myth, or the owners of old established companies, and the owner themself is old, or one who has inherited the company.
replied · 168d
When the owner doesnt work, the company often fails, or is sold. The profit is a tiny portion quite often. If the owner make 500 times more than you, but employs 50000 people...
replied · 168d
As I said, you and many others are completely ignorant to these facts.
replied · 168d
And why should the owner get rewards which is actually way more than 500x then workers when all of thecpro ffits is created by the wotkers and not the owmer? Thats called EXPLOITATION
replied · 168d
It isn't all created by the workers alone. The owner may not often be in the factory making the product, they are contributing to the profit. You dont know their role so you dismiss it
replied · 168d
Not true at all, thos os what CEOs, directors, managers do, capitalist of big businesses dont do jack shit, they only demand more profitability.
replied · 168d
Not all companies even have that type of setup. Not all companies are on WallStreet. So are you speaking of small to mid level companies differently than multinationals?
replied · 167d
I am talking about SYSTEM that allows all this. Some capitalists are shit some not so shit, some are even good people but system itself doesn't care what capitalist person is like.
replied · 167d
Ah, you almost got back to reality. Some people are good, and some bad. The capitalist system helps make sure the bad ones still contribute to society.
replied · 167d
No you moron, Capitalist system rewards the most those who are the worst people in society! You are such an idiot.
replied · 167d
Who are you to judge who is deserving? The system of capitalism helps the whole of society to improve though. That is an undeniable fact with the support of all the evidence.
replied · 167d
This is why you dont know how to figure out what capitalist system actually is and why its shit system.
replied · 168d
Define who you are talking about when you use the word capitalist. Are you only speaking of investors? Majority share holders? The board? Middle management? This is far to vague.
replied · 168d
Workers who are picking up all of work once business is already established (& capitalist already got his RoE and covered all his costs) should be profiting from their own work also.
replied · 168d
The capitalist is often still working. You dont seem to understand that producing the product only matters if the owners have someone wanting to buy that product.
replied · 168d
Workers should also be included in all decision making so that capitalist can't just move the business to China etc, leaving lives of the workers in shatters & without income any more.
replied · 168d
That is a horrible way to see it all. First most workers fear making decisions. They want a central figurehead to turn to, and to place blame on. One decision maker works best.
replied · 170d
The employees can negotiate wage to some degree, but this depends on how replaceable the worker is. A job anyone can do has less value then a job few can do.
replied · 170d
Point being is, workers do all the work, while the capitalists reap all the exceeds rewards which is exactly why wealth inequality went worse & worse, & this is simply not sustainable.
replied · 170d
The employer competes both in acquiring better worker talent, and at efficiency of product creation. This often comes in wage competition. This is largest where ability is rare.
replied · 170d
To say the capitalist does not work is very ignorant. The employer invests in what makes the workers more productive. This is to compete with the productivity of other employers.
replied · 170d
Capitalism and greed by the capitalist is literally undermining the whole society, such system inherently attracts psychopaths and created sociopaths.
replied · 170d
That greed is natural, and has always been part of humanity. It is a completely separate issue from capitalism. Capitalism helps direct it in a positive way though.
replied · 169d
nature doesn't have materialistic thinking, or money or states, or consumerism, all of which are creations of humans, all of which are part of the brainwashing of the people & society
replied · 169d
Animals fight war for territory. Sometimes raid another's territory to steal from them. Rape, murder, war, theft, lies, all seen in the animal kingdom.
replied · 169d
Actually, depending on the species, you see basic versions of those things in nature. That said, being creations of humans doesnt make them bad things.
replied · 169d
Not at all, greed is not natural at all, nature is BALANCED, you don't see anywhere in nature some animal using others to get more food or something for itself.
replied · 169d
Yes you do see that in nature, because nature is not balanced the way you think it is. Nature is a harsh and brutal competition. Smarter animals use other animals.
replied · 168d
Actually you're wrong. Animals attack other animals, eat them etc, only when they need to eat, they don't kill for fun, they don't consume more than they need.
replied · 169d
When animals hunt together, guess what they do? THEY SHARE THAT FOOD, you don't get some animals hunt while others sit and get the food from them when its caught.
replied · 169d
It is very often not evenly distributed, and that is specific to pack like creatures. You have to consider animals in relation to other species to make a valid point. Not family packs.
replied · 169d
You are so full of shit, its real hard to read your stupid comments, and try to reply to them, as no matter how you're wrong and I prove you wrong, you STILL talk same crap.
replied · 169d
So maybe if you pay more attention, and think things through, you will see your obvious mistakes.