420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich

penis pump

Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Distribution of Money by Hannah Blimmlemat - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:13:19 EST ID:EO3ttjr4 No.391090 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1492715599401.jpg -(34351B / 33.55KB, 540x876) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 34351
Is there a possible way for the wealthy to help us with the equal distribution of the wealth in the United States?
>>
Fuck Pockshit - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:16:50 EST ID:KBIDRcTn No.391091 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391090
Yes. Will they do it? No. Why not? Who the fuck knows, I'm not an avaricious psychopath.
>>
Priscilla Guffingbin - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:49:05 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.391097 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes. The ideal way would be some kind of economic trojan. Something that makes money for individuals or organizations on a massive scale the more they use it, but through that money making, generates an environment where wealth automatically and inexorably becomes more equally distributed, to the point of eventually even putting themselves out of business.

It would be a way to turn the short sighted, immediate gains based greed philosophy of capitalism to our advantage, which is I think the only possible solution. It has to be a kind of trap.

Think about AOL. It distributes the internet to a mass market for the first time, and makes a killing off of it (I'm obviously hugely simplifying the history of the early internet in the US here.) But the fact that *what* it is distributing is the internet, a medium which educates people and inherently interconnects them, especially in those halcyon early days, leads to people being more informed generally, and thus no longer in need of the simplifying bridge that AOL provided, eventually on such a massive scale that they went out of business (mostly.) Their business model was an economic progress trap, but the net product radiated an economic and social positive into the environment (contrasting with say gasoline engines, which are an economic progress trap, and radiate a net environmental negative.)

On the surface, something like a general 3D printer would almost seem to fit the bill of something that could provide this kind of disruption not to a specific industry, but to the global mode of production and economy generally. It makes a lot of money for the company that produces it, but the more available it becomes, the more trivial production itself becomes, to the point the 3D printer company, and any other production technology, is eventually unnecessary. In reality though, 3D printer technology is probably insufficient for this purpose, and it may have to be some other technological or ideological macguffin that any capitalist would find irresistible. Perhaps a cocktail of many different elements particularly packaged with the trojan concept in mind.
>>
Martha Dartshit - Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:48:12 EST ID:zRmVzsZv No.391127 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391090
The only alternative to neoliberalism and wealth segregation is socialism.
>>
Ian Crurringwire - Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:04:08 EST ID:NmweLP+h No.391128 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391090
Governments can start by closing tax loopholes. in the US, stuff like the capital gains tax rate, mortgage interest deductions, carried interest rates, etc. all help the rich get richer.

and that doesn't even get into corporate tax loopholes.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 03:09:32 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.391136 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492844972796.png -(192854B / 188.33KB, 438x520) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Why does wealth in the United States need to be equally distributed, and to whom will the wealth go to? Just the citizens, visiters as well, both invited and uninvited, and what about people who'll never set foot in the US? What about criminals, invalids and net drains on society?
>>
Hannah Hacklehall - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 03:29:37 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.391138 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391136
>What about criminals, invalids and net drains on society?
It's okay buddy we'll let you have some too don't worry.
>>
Emma Sobbleherk - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 06:49:56 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.391141 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391136
>Why does wealth in the United States need to be equally distributed

Because wealth inequality is directly tied to high rates of crime, violence and mental illness.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:49:06 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.391143 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391141

So throwing money at it solves the problem?

And are we talking about absolute equal distribution right? Like no matter how much effort or contributions you give to society, everyone gets literally the same amoun or are we discussing a universal basic income?

>>391138

Yeah let's just reward deletrious and dysgenic behavior because some rapist didn't have enough money to buy coca cola and mcdonalds through his life.
>>
Martin Pickham - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 10:14:20 EST ID:zRmVzsZv No.391145 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391136
>Why does wealth in the United States need to be equally distributed
To increase the average standard of living, reduce poverty and socioeconomic segregation, higher wages, etc.

>to whom will the wealth go to?
Who the fuck you think?

>what about people who'll never set foot in the US?
What?

>What about criminals, invalids and net drains on society?
>muh social darwinsim
Redistribution of wealth would reduce crime. Handicapped people who can't work are entitled to something they can survive on.

>>391143
>So throwing money at it solves the problem?
Money is the fucking problem in the first place for criminals, what the actual fuck?

>And are we talking about absolute equal distribution right? Like no matter how much effort or contributions you give to society, everyone gets literally the same amoun
Redistribution of wealth means cutting off trickle-down economics and the 1%. It doesn't entail fucking red scare propaganda you learned in the 5th grade.
>>
John Bredgewill - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 10:39:19 EST ID:jZaiCIh4 No.391146 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492871959843.jpg -(11733B / 11.46KB, 200x193) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391090

a 100% federal income tax.
>>
Samuel Mosslefid - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:57:56 EST ID:8Jh2i/ky No.391150 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391097
I agree with your idea wholeheartedly and I do think that innovation in technology can be used to make the capital obsolete.
Although it will not happen on it's own because products of technological innovation can be designed in such a way that it continues or at least preserves the dependency of the people on the owner class.
For example DRM , those coffee capsules, printer ink, any other consumable and spare part, etc...

What prevents it is designing the implantation of a technology in a way it is inherently accessible. This then not only leads to a adoption speed that catches TPTB off guard but also resists any efforts to pervert the technology for the purpose of greed.
>>
Ernest Brookforth - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 13:36:10 EST ID:Nla6yjir No.391153 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391150
>because products of technological innovation can be designed in such a way that it continues or at least preserves the dependency of the people on the owner class.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Products can sometimes be designed for convenience, at a price. This isn't the work of the Devil, it's just another consumer choice. If you don't want to pay 5 bucks for a single serving packet of instant coffee, then buy the bulk stuff that contains 20 servings for 10 dollars. I don't understand what the problem is here... you don't like spending an extra 3 minutes preparing coffee, but at the same time you don't want to pay more for the convenience of single serving machines? Gee, what an outrage. Like oh my God, these first world living conditions are getting to be sooo horrible for the average person.
>>
Samuel Mosslefid - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:12:45 EST ID:8Jh2i/ky No.391155 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391153
>Products can sometimes be designed for convenience, at a price.
That said super automatic espresso machines provide the same level of convenience as the capsule machines (even more if you consider you can brew multiple servings which each refill of the bean container)


But this wasn't my point. Perhaps coffee capsules aren't the best example, right. I was thinking about leaving this part out of my post but I wasn't willing to elaborate as much.

To get my point across lets see to get to a more appropriate example.

Consider Arduino development boards. Until they came along it was very hard for a electronics hobbyist to get into micro-controllers. The reason was that while single piece programmable boards did exist (like in the 90s and early 00s) they were seriously expensive and only sold to companies that get into a contract with the manufacturer.
What Arduino changed was not only the price and accessibility of the product but since they also made the design itself accessible there was a vitreous cycle of innovation. The result is a whole different market now where even the manufacturers themselves who used to restrict the access to the technology now provide products that are meant to imitate the original Arduino.


I don't know if you have read any novels that contain any scenario in which progress in technological production methods play a major role. Take Neil Stephenson's "The Diamond Age" for instance where universal molecular 3d printers are a common household appliance. In the story access to the printers themselves was commonplace but the raw material was controlled by a few syndicates. Not to give any spoilers but the story can be used as baseline for a debate on this topic.
>>
Emma Sobbleherk - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:42:02 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.391156 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391143
>So throwing money at it solves the problem?

Are you asking if solving wealth inequality involves money?
>>
Angus Diddlewed - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:58:50 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.391157 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391150
I agree (following your second post) that it will probably require molecular Drexlerian nanotechnology level of tech for this kind of disruption to wealth distribution to become a technical, rather than political, problem.

However, I think you're missing the point of my post slightly. Yes, often times technological innovation is used to increase the power of the owner class. In fact, that's almost always the way it goes, it surely is no coincidence that we are at the highest level of tech in history and also the highest level of wealth inequality (even though our 'poverty' is much wealthier than the poverties of the past.)

What I'm suggesting is that there is some possible product or service that would utilize that greed factor in our favor. Something that positively reinforces the greed of the distributor of it, but slowly, perhaps well after the fact, generates an environment that puts ownership out of business in general. I mentioned 3D printers in my first post, but I think robots are a better example.

Imagine a company that makes the first general purpose human replacement robot. It would make a tremendous amount of money, because literally almost every business that has employees could do better if they were able to replace those employees with robots. So it factors into the greed of the producers and of their business clients, even as it screws common people out of jobs. But after enough time has passed, robots making robots becomes so trivially cheap, because the cost of labor and value of money becomes totally disconnected from human cost (which it is nominally related to presently) and eventually you neither need the business that made the robots, nor the businesses that used the robots, because anyone can utilize the robots for any purpose. It seems (and for a while, does) make money for the people involved, but beyond their individual greedy actions it generates a situation that makes money irrelevant.

So I see exactly what you're saying; yes, that's the way it usually goes, tech makes the owners richer, and society gets the trickle down much later. What I'm saying is we can hack it specifically into being a mouse-trap for capitalists if we put the right cheese in.
>>
Ernest Brookforth - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:36:01 EST ID:Nla6yjir No.391159 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391155
>Consider Arduino development boards. Until they came along it was very hard for a electronics hobbyist to get into micro-controllers.

I appreciate you trying to elaborate more, but this isn't the best example either. There were dozens of microcontroller kits available before Arduino, such as the BASIC Stamp, or the PIC (which started shipping in the 1970's). They weren't expensive at all, and all you had to do was walk into a radio shack or, worst case, mail a check and have it shipped from a catalog. And because you were a nerdy hobbyist back then, you already had textbooks and knowledge of programming. Any hobbyist worth his salt could do this.

Still, the reason we see so many more kits today is because they've become even cheaper to manufacture, and widescale internet access instantly provided all the resources a person would need to get started and has enabled a rich community of users to popularize these things. Plus they're a hundred times as useful, since they pack a lot more technology into them now that either didn't exist before or was too expensive (ethernet/wifi/bluetooth/HDMI connectivity, thousands of USB peripherals, TFT touchscreens, DSP chips, etc). So naturally the market has exploded since the pre-arduino days. It's not like these companies were purposefully trying to restrict access to technology, it just wasn't in their interest to pull resources from their core business to serve what was essentially a niche market at the time.
>>
Ernest Brookforth - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:06:57 EST ID:Nla6yjir No.391162 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391157
I'm not trying to get all dystopian nightmare on your dreams of technological communist utopia, but ownership society is here to stay forever. This is how technology has worked since man took his first technological step forward millions of years ago, when he began to turn the objects around him into weapons.

Take heed. If you represent any threat against the owners of technology then you'd better have a stronger grip on the technology than they do, otherwise you will be dealt with one way or another. The technology (clubs/axes/swords/arrows/guns/jets/robots) will fight the wars, and the corporations that have mastered the technology will win. For this is how it must be, lest we doom our species to eternal stagnation!
>>
Charles Cocklefuck - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:51:39 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.391173 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391162
>>how technology has worked since man took his first technological step forward millions of years ago
Lol humans have not even existed for millions of years. We've barely existed a quarter of a million if you're being generous.

And no, the concept of property rights and the violent enforcement of wealth inequality is not as old as technology itself. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the economic mode of production of hunter-gatherer societies? They are in no way capitalistic, they are communalistic or 'primitive communism' in dialectical discourse. Property and 'ownership society' are relatively modern developments.

Lastly, that something has always been a certain way is hardly a good argument that it will always be that way. 'Humans can only light their homes with fires, it has been that way since humanity first invented fire tens of thousands of years ago' sounds like a pretty reasonable statement huh?
>>
Charlotte Murdman - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:24:32 EST ID:6T2FD4LE No.391174 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>way for the wealthy to help
March into a wood chipper.
>>
Hedda Diffingsure - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:30:10 EST ID:Nla6yjir No.391175 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391173
>humans have not even existed for millions of years.

Maybe not humans, per se, but our hominid ancestors first began using tools at least 2 or 3 million years ago. They weaponized the objects around them and used that technology to defeat any threat that crossed them, be it man or beast. When that caveman picked up a piece of wood and, with a spark of intellect, decided to wield it against another for the very first time, the rules of life changed forever. Ever since then, mankind and technology have evolved in a symbiotic manner, together, with war acting as the great objective arbiter. Throughout those millions of years of evolution, those who weren't able to master the technology were inevitably driven out of the gene pool.

>Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the economic mode of production of hunter-gatherer societies? They are in no way capitalistic, they are communalistic or 'primitive communism' in dialectical discourse.

Oh sure, let's go back to living in primitive mud huts and fighting off tigers every night with sticks. Things were so great back then.
>>
Frederick Clirringhood - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:01:35 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.391176 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391143
>So throwing money at it solves the problem?
Yes, SP, the answer to a lack of money usually involves money.

What is wrong with your brain?
>>
James Wettingham - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 04:13:20 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.391177 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391175
>We should respect property rights, they go back millions of years!
>What do you mean prehistoric humans were communists? Well then fuck history!

Furthermore, there's a new scientific consensus forming that switching from hunting & gathering to agriculture actually caused a massive drop in life standards.
>>
Fuck Clamblewit - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 08:18:11 EST ID:V72b4f8a No.391178 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391145
>Why does wealth in the United States need to be equally distributed

>To increase the average standard of living, reduce poverty and socioeconomic segregation, higher wages, etc.


dude do you even know how to calculate an average?

>>391136
Love the fact that the second you ask for thought on the concept of "equal wealth" all they can do is insult you. You didn't even reject the OP or insult him.



>>391156
>Are you asking if solving wealth inequality involves money?
Are you implying it doesn't?

>>391177
>scientific consensus
post your fucking sources then. Agriculture allowed societies to develop a food surplus, the basic and first step in allowing time to develop the arts and sciences.


This board is full of idealistic and ignorant faggots.
inb4 no u fagget
>>
James Wettingham - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:58:55 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.391182 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391178
http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race
>>
Simon Biblingpid - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:52:32 EST ID:zRmVzsZv No.391187 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391178
>>dude do you even know how to calculate an average?
>He thinks wealth redistribution just involves giving the public 5 dollars each from the rich mans pocket
Redistribution of wealth involves changing the source of the wealth and the reciever of the wealth, not just the static capital already amassed.
>>
Charles Cocklefuck - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:18:18 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.391188 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391178
>>Agriculture allowed societies to develop a food surplus, the basic and first step in allowing time to develop the arts and sciences.
Of course, you couldn't have had all the further developments of civilization without agriculture. But just because you need a development to have some other development doesn't mean that development is bad for your health. Most of the health problems modern people have come from their absurd diets and life-styles. Diets became absurd because the fact that cereal grains were the easiest way to feed a population en masse with agriculture, but they're just sugar, and thus as wealth inequality grew health inequality grew. There were no obese hunter-gatherers.
And as industrialization came around, we needed to do even further things that were bad for our health to keep progress going. We had to cloister in disease infested cities, working deadly machines while inhaling noxious fumes. We couldn't have progressed without it, but it was still damaging to our long term health (of course, with out it you couldn't have had medical advances, which then began to outweigh the negative effects.)

All this just to say that agriculture, while necessary, did result in a lot of negative consequences, that we are only now able to fully account for. In the same way you could make the argument (indeed, it's intrinsic to the idea of the historical dialectic) that going through a phase of property ownership as the way to control the means of production is also necessary, but that it has hugely negative consequences that we can only fully account for and correct in hindsight. Defending the way we used to do things and saying we should always do things that way does not follow from merely saying at one point we had no choice but to do it that way.
>>
Simon Biblingpid - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:28:02 EST ID:zRmVzsZv No.391189 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391188
Save your breath, this is /pol. Nobody wants to be corrected. That dude doesn't have a clue about historical materialism.
>>
Edward Weshson - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:48:10 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.391192 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391188
Ya know, besides average ages getting higher and higher, we were clearly way more healthy when living in caves and shitting where we drank.
>>
Edward Summlefoot - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 22:15:03 EST ID:IaepfqX2 No.391193 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391192

Yeah, but how good was overall health in the medieval ages, following 11000 years of 'progress' since the agricultural revolution? How good was overall health during the industrial revolution? I mean, I'm not some luddite or anything, but the article >>391182 posted was pretty enlightening.

We've made society a lot more complex and powerful, but how well does that translate into quality of life or overall happiness for the human species? Even our own survival as a species has become endangered by technological "progress". It seems dumb to me to just take for granted that technological progress is an inherently good thing by itself.

Technological progress is pretty damn cool though, so there's that I guess.
>>
Eugene Dacklewell - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:56:48 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.391213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Is it possible for the wealthy to help us equally distribute wealth in the USA?
Yeah, it's possible, but it's not going to happen.
Wealth is earned in the USA. You have a great idea, you put it into action, you get rich. You upkeep this great idea, keep your businesses moving forward, and you find yourself in a position similar to lordship, and the world is your oyster.

Sounds equal enough for me. Besides, the wealth trickles down immensely, whether you want to believe it or not. Thanks to the USA, and all it's richness, people across the world now have the equivalent of old super-computers in their pockets. You don't get that without capitalism. You don't get that with 'ideologically equal' wealth distribution.
>>
Barnaby Honkinsod - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:34:18 EST ID:FqtcG9EC No.391231 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391213
>Sounds equal enough for me.
That's why capitalism experiences such a large amount of socioeconomic segregation? A major contradiction of capitalism is exactly this: it's supposed to give people equal opportunities but it ends up with 1% getting most of the wealth while most of the world starves and struggles to survives. Does this sound like equality to you?

>Besides, the wealth trickles down immensely, whether you want to believe it or not
Fucking source? Last time I checked there was barely a middle class in America. Trickle down economics is a fucking ponzi scheme.

>You don't get that without capitalism. You don't get that with 'ideologically equal' wealth distribution.
Are you seriously implying that technological progress is dependent of capitalism? Holy shit. We've only had modern capitalism for some hundred years, even then you can still note that the USSR were the first one in space. How do you expect to explain all the technological advancement that happened rest of human history?
Besides, redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with technological advancement. If anything it's increase the advancement of technology due to more people being able to recieve a higher education
>>
Eugene Dacklewell - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:09:56 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.391232 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391231
>That's why capitalism experiences such a large amount of socioeconomic segregation? A major contradiction of capitalism is exactly this: it's supposed to give people equal opportunities but it ends up with 1% getting most of the wealth while most of the world starves and struggles to survives. Does this sound like equality to you?
Capitalism faces less socioeconomic segregation than pretty much any other system of economics I can think of. Yeah, the top 1% do control quite a lot, yet it seems like nobody has a problem competing with them aside from the instances of blatant corruption, yet luckily those get ironed out all the time. Does this sound like equality? Yes, it does. Equality does not mean equal payouts, it just means a level playing field. That being said, I'm sure some corruption still exists, but if you're not even in the top 1%, which the vast majority of business owners aren't, then I can safely say it's not an issue.

>Fucking source? Last time I checked there was barely a middle class in America. Trickle down economics is a fucking ponzi scheme.
Lol I've got a source for you. Look at the computer you're using. Look at your smart phone. Look at the USA's literacy and starvation rate. Not to mention, almost every single US citizen is a global 1%'er. If you earn 32K USD, you're in the top 1% of the world. Do you know how many Americans earn 32K annually? This country is fucking RICH. Filthy rich. So rich that we don't need socialism/communism to take care of our poor and our elderly and our sick. God knows we could put a little more money into that instead of the military, though.
This, in my opinion, is irrefutable proof that Trickle Down Economics exists in the USA. I know it's hip and cool to say trickle down economics isn't real, yet I've never seen anyone with a business degree like myself claim that trickle down economics isn't real, and I value their/our opinions on economics more than the layman since they/we are actually educated on this subject.

>Are you seriously implying that technological progress is dependent of capitalism? Holy shit.
Technological progress comes from wealth. And getting access to new technology that used to be top-of-the-line 5 years ago but is cheap now is trickle down economics.
>The USSR beat us into space.
Big whoop. Take a look at Russia today vs the USA today, let me know which one is doing better lol. Let me know which one has more poor people and which one has more rich people, and how the wealth disparity is looking.

Good talk.
>>
Barnaby Honkinsod - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:35:20 EST ID:FqtcG9EC No.391234 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391232
>Capitalism faces less socioeconomic segregation than pretty much any other system of economics I can think of.
Do you live under a rock or in a bubble? This isn't just a national occurence, it's global.

>yet it seems like nobody has a problem competing with them aside
Businesses are constantly going under due to monolithic companies and their available monopolies.

>yet luckily those get ironed out all the time
No. The wealthy keep their wealth, sometimes a recession might fuck them up but other than that they maintain.

>it just means a level playing field.
It's not a level playing field when the children of the wealthy has the upperhand in every possible way. You think a minimun wage family can put their kids through college? You're buying too much into "a small loan of a million dollars" meme

>I'm sure some corruption still exists, but if you're not even in the top 1%, which the vast majority of business owners aren't, then I can safely say it's not an issue
You can't really compare petite-bourgeoisie with actual bourgeoisie, either way the amount of neoliberal influence is still immense in the global arena.

>Lol I've got a source for you. Look at the computer you're using. Look at your smart phone
Oh, wow. You sure showed me. How about an actual academic source?

>almost every single US citizen is a global 1%'er. If you earn 32K USD, you're in the top 1% of the world.
You're literally just arguing for gobal wealth inequality rn.

>So rich that we don't need socialism/communism to take care of our poor and our elderly and our sick.
Yet there's more empty houses than homeless people. People still lack healthcare if they don't have insurance. Is this "taking care"?

>I know it's hip and cool to say trickle down economics isn't real, yet I've never seen anyone with a business degree like myself claim that trickle down economics isn't real, and I value their/our opinions on economics more than the layman since they/we are actually educated on this subject.
Instead of anecdotal bullshit throw some real sources at me.

>And getting access to new technology that used to be top-of-the-line 5 years ago but is cheap now is trickle down economics.
No, what? It's because there's constantly new shit being invented and old shit being replaces. This is central tenant of capitalism, to exploit and broaden the current markets and find new ones with the aim of concentrating capital in the hands of the industrial owners.

This isn't as dope as it sounds because "Modern bourgeois society, with its
relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity – the epidemic of overproduction. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented."

>Big whoop. Take a look at Russia today vs the USA today, let me know which one is doing better lol.
>I can't into global politics and material circumstances.
>>
Nell Bullerwater - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:04:29 EST ID:cqtGtTEX No.391236 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Having the economy controlled by the workers would solve the problem.
>>
Edward Summlefoot - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:03:30 EST ID:IaepfqX2 No.391252 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391232

>Does this sound like equality? Yes, it does. Equality does not mean equal payouts, it just means a level playing field.

Yet the playing field isn't equal. If your neighbour can afford to go to the best private school and you can't, then you don't have equal opportunities:

  1. His education will be better than yours.
  2. He will have access to a much more elite network than you.
  3. He'll have access to more opportunities in career, business and politics than you.
  4. Assuming he doesn't fuck it all up, point 1-3 will apply to his kids as well, who will have more opportunities than your kids. The same applies to his grandchildren, etc.

If this process repeats itself for a generation or two, then you're basically moving into some kind of de-facto aristocracy, where your success in life will depend a lot on the wealth of the family you were born into, and not on your skill.

The only way to ensure that a capitalist society remains truly meritocratic is to have a 100% tax on inheritance and ban for-profit private education.
>>
Oliver Borrylock - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:17:36 EST ID:V72b4f8a No.391257 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391252
>Yet the playing field isn't equal. If your neighbour can afford to go to the best private school and you can't, then you don't have equal opportunities:

Typical. Blame others for your own shortcomings. What about working hard to ensure a future for your children?
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:49:44 EST ID:DiXMKba0 No.391259 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391232
>Take a look at Russia today vs the USA today, let me know which one is doing better lol.
Are you retarded? Oh wait, no, you're just X8. The current state of Russia is literally the aftermath of rapacious privatization, under US puppet Yeltsin's shock therapy and voluminous lending from the IMF, virtually free of oversight. Now Russia belongs to the oligarchs and the distinctions between the white, grey and black markets for goods, services, and labor alike are so blurry as to be irrelevant in most circumstances—you pay your rubles and you hope Boss Ivan doesn't get raided this week. Illicit cash outflows are second only to China by total volume. This is what America would look like if the free-market fundamentalists had their way. Opinion polls consistently show that Russians want the old system back, and Putin stays popular in part by appealing to Soviet nostalgia constantly.
>>
Albert Himmerdane - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:10:33 EST ID:zm6+bc30 No.391260 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493086233461.gif -(1974265B / 1.88MB, 288x288) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391097

woah dude. the entire premise of your post is something i've never considered. but on the surface it sounds very logical to me. do you have any articles discussing this sort of topic?
>>
Nell Pittcocke - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 23:22:42 EST ID:rSCOCuPW No.391275 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391257
>What about working hard to ensure a future for your children?
In what bizarro USA do you live in that "working hard" ensures a future for your children on par with with what the already rich can provide? the "american dream" is a nice fairy tale to believe in, but it's nothing more than a pipe dream. Americans are surprisingly immobile, socioeconomically: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-social-mobility-parents-income/399311/

>Blame others for your own shortcomings.
I guess you consider born into a non-wealthy family a "shortcoming". yup, it's all about the lottery at birth...
>>
Phoebe Hullerkick - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 23:35:56 EST ID:MV830xYN No.391279 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493091356606.jpg -(181587B / 177.33KB, 1256x628) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391252
By your logic, someone who cant afford a nice car does not have the same opportunitiez as someone who can. You are correct that the playing field is not entirely equal bit at the same time thise that have the means have every right to have those means and ends such as the money to go to a good university and get a good degree.

The main peoblem is lack of public education past the 12th grade. There should be tax payer funded public universities that allow even the poorest of the poor to go to college - all the way through masters and phds. If you graduated from 12th grade, you can go to these public universities. This would also force private "community" and "state" unis to lower their tuition and focus more on having good profs and curriculum to attract those who can afford it.

With a system like tgat in place no one would be able to complain about inequality in our education system.
>>
Hamilton Greenshit - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:14:44 EST ID:nxPoknwT No.391282 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391193
>how good was overall health in the medieval ages, following 11000 years of 'progress' since the agricultural revolution?
significantly better than it was before.

inb4
>you can't prove that
yeah, kinda ironic, huh.
>>
Martin Senderchit - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:16:01 EST ID:DtS18BPG No.391285 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493097361114.jpg -(244499B / 238.77KB, 900x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391279
>The main peoblem is lack of public education past the 12th grade
>peoblem
lol.
But seriously, this. Education is key and sparks further desire for more knowledge. The USA (and perhaps A LOT of the world) needs to revitalize their education system. One big thing I have learned is that even the traditional classroom structure should be challenged. Guided outside classes or student-oriented subject decisions could create a more dynamic learning experience.
>>
Matilda Pavinghudge - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 03:55:07 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.391295 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391260
Thanks. Unfortunately I can't link any articles because as far as I know it's an original idea. It's applying some concepts from game theory though, namely that rational actors trying to maximize their 'score' in any 'game' (in the case of capitalism, money) will always make certain decisions under specific circumstances, even if the net outcome changes the game to the point where they can no longer play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
>>
Charlotte Hegglehood - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:16:35 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.391305 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391285
The more you learn about how learning actually works, the more you realise that traditional schooling is kind of an abomination. The same line of thinking applies even more so to prisons, and to some degree to a lot of things we take for agranted about how we live.
>>
Charlotte Hegglehood - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:24:26 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.391306 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391282
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

You could, you know, look at facts.
>>
Martin Higgleway - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:59:45 EST ID:hPuECcD3 No.391310 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391306
yeah but facts are for liberal faggots.
>>
Albert Himmerdane - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:13:29 EST ID:zm6+bc30 No.391320 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391305

what would you suggest as an alternative to the abomination of modern school systems?
>>
Edwin Bromblewutch - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:17:18 EST ID:IaepfqX2 No.391336 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391320

Not that guy, but I'd like it if the education system allowed for more practical application of the skills you're supposed to learn. In craft schools, you have apprenticeships and try-out periods (no idea if this is the correct English term) where you get to visit a machine shop or whatever and work there for a week or so, testing your skills and seeing for yourself the concrete value of what you're being taught in the classroom. This increases both motivation and understanding of the craft you're studying.

So why not expand upon that model, apply it more thoroughly, and to more educations? If it could motivate the kids then It's worth a shot at least, IMO.
>>
Charlotte Hegglehood - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:04:15 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.391339 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391336
That's a good start, but my focus would be on how children are educated. Everything we know today about learning flies in the face of a lot of traditional school structure; exams, homework, uniforms, classroom behaviour; none of these things are actually good for helping children gain knowledge. Schools need to stop being institutions that seek to cram information into children, and need to be repositories and transimitters of knowledge that are open to the natural desire of children to learn new things.

Teaching skills that are actually valuable is vital, but even more vital is making education not just accessible, but engaging and interesting of itself.

Finland is a good place to look for an example of a good school system.
>>
Hannah Lightfoot - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:59:30 EST ID:e7sd8OST No.391349 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391320 Rethinking Schools has some interesting ideas about new teaching styles.
>>
Doris Muzzlehall - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:15:32 EST ID:Nxm4qWHO No.391363 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391336
That model makes people good at doing what we know. We'll get no innovation out of that. You shouldn't teach what to do, but how to think. Your actually describing the current education situation pretty well.

Applied skills is part of that, but should not be the focus.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.