>capitalism relies on le infinite growth>line must go up>high home prices are due to blackrock and speculators>muh price gouging>supply and demand is a made up fantasyalso different versions of basically>i have no idea what you said because im fucking retarded, so you're lyingpic related>society if most people weren't NPCs
>you lost tranny
All trannies in camps or urns by 2030.
>>536253320You're right. I lost. The stupid people have a huge numerical advantage, and that's something I understand and respect, never said otherwise.
>>536252960commies get pic related
>>536253320>>536253460wait i think i got your comment wrong kek apologies
>>536252960>>capitalism relies on le infinite growth>>line must go up>>high home prices are due to blackrock and speculators>>muh price gouging>>supply and demand is a made up fantasyall me
>>536253533well you're dumb, specially for the last one, because the last one is a specially direct form of "i cant comprehend this so its a lie" and its actually easy as fuck to understand
>>536252960>>capitalism relies on le infinite growthExplain to me why exactly you think this is stupid.
>>536252960>everyone lives in a box>drone mass suveillance>burning fossil fuels>sovless architecture>robots>niggers>mudslimes>sandniggersand much more, in our beautiful dystopia!
>>536252960Talking about Capitalist Economics in general terms is stupid. I'm not going to argue with you about why this candy bar company should compete with that candy bar company. I'm going to simply ask you to justify why Shlomo owns the oil in the ground.
>>536252960Stupid image. Melanin is a warning. Even the robot is white.
>>536253667Because capitalism does not rely on infinite growth, as in, no one who supports capitalism says that. I don't think anyone actually thinks "capitalism can work out, we just need infinite growth".Its just part of leftist lore. It's something they say we say, but libertarians never actually say that. And its because they have a distorted idea of what capitalism even is, I guess they think capitalism is the stock market and big corps, or something.Which makes me wonder if they would agree with us if they knew what we say.It's like when some conservatives who are low IQ say that leftists just want free money for not working, and that's what socialism is. Because of course I don't mind saying that there's low IQ people on our side too.
>>536252960Capitalism does require infinite growth though. How would the parasitic jews get free money if they can't inflate the money supply?
>>536253854i didnt even notice the skin colors .i profusely apologize, i didnt mean to post such retarded woke shit that suggests black people could build something like that.
>>536253871>libertarians never actually say thatWhat if I were to say that libertarians are mistaken or lying?If you had to convince someone that this is wrong, what would you say that didn't rely on what other people say?
>>536253878you can have capitalism without "jews getting free money", so, no it doesntin fact a central bank creating free money undermines capitalism>>536253808>I'm going to simply ask you to justify why Shlomo owns the oil in the ground.because an economy that is not centrally managed means everything is owned by someone and that person decides what is done with it. so if the economy is free market then oil would be owned by individual people.do you think it should be collectively owned? i would agree. it makes sense, except for one thing, can you know for a fact that society would have the same amount of oil found and the same extraction methods if that was the case? because it would be a totally different management model
>>536254069Because why would it need infinite growth? It just doesn't. That's like saying socialism relies on infinite growth of social services.I'm pretty sure if I said to a leftist, "your ideology is impossible, it relies on social services constantly and eternally growing, that's not sustainable", they'd say "no it doesn't, we never demanded that"
you need to untangle your ideological-priors. your post clearly has deep seethe about points not included, that are rote in your grievance.
>>536254218But people generally want their own wealth to grow, right? Most entrepreneurs don't start up a business with the expectation that it'll stagnate, or fail.What do you say to that?
>>536254116A cattle rancher with 10,000 acres cannot claim that the airspace above his land is restricted. Airspace is a public commons. Oil should be seen the same way. Instead of sending 300 billion to Israel, taxpayers could vote to build oil rigs.
>>536254434Ok but people don't have to get what they want all the time, if the economy doesn't grow it doesnt grow, doesn't mean it will get worse either, it may be perfectly fine for it to not grow, or just keep up with population growth.Businesses could still appear and grow because industries constantly change, customers constantly change who they buy things from due to different reasons. For example if a business gets worse in terms of price or quality, that leaves room for a replacement to grow.>>536254442Yeah like I said, makes sense. I'm not necessarily against that. It would just be a socialist style economic model when it comes to oil.Like I said, can you tell for a fact that we would have the same amount of oil found and the same extraction methods, or better, if it worked like that? Because voting for decisions, or for the politician who will make them, is a completely different planning and management model than what we have now for oil production.
>>536252960Hey, GPT, do that image again but make the people in it even more diverse.
>>536254875Are you implying that the government would be far less motivated and/or capable of locating and extracting the oil than a private company? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.
>>536254938i found it on google, didnt notice its AI slop or the skin color, i profusely apologize, an AI slop image is not worthy of this highly intelligent discussion that we're having, but i barely looked at it ngl
>>536254999yes but not necessarily implying it, just asking what you think. just wanted you to think of that and say your thoughts, you dont have to agree with me.
>>536255059Well I'll be honest, I don't know the exact process private companies are currently using to locate or extract the oil. But if finding and extracting it was a task of, day, the US Military, I don't think it would do significantly worse than a private company.
>>536253504Kek u are so low iq
>>536254999>>536254999also, not necessarily less motivated. bureaucrats and government officials are sometimes very professional and truly do their best, but its a whole different management model so it may not be as good, or could be betterhowever, economic theory tells us private management is better due to the free market's price system and economic calculation. real life examples corroborate this. so that would be an argument in favor of capitalism.
>>536255195Neither do I, ngl, but we know what economic model they're using because it's the same as for everything else: Different competing organizations in a market in which the inefficient are consistently wed out by new competitors who do better.Sometimes there's not really any new competitors and it's just a big established company, eg Amazon. But this big company is there because it made it in the market competition process, so you already know they can do something right. And they'll also be replaced the moment an alternative is better (eg blockbusters).I think without this, it may not be as good. Or maybe it would, sometimes governments can run things very well, for example in Spain, the tax collecting agency is insanely efficient and advanced. Kek. But I am skeptical about socialist management, regardless of motivation, even if officials are truly doing their best, because its not the same as market competition.
>>536255232That's not what being low IQ is you fucking normie midwit. One slip due to writing a comment before thinking is not it.Low IQ people can't understand things that are explained to them many times, and can't seem to make logical associations between different informations they learn. If you're not frustrated by this then you're low IQ yourself.
>>536252960More like without the jews
>>536255271>>536255490Private oil made 856 billion in 2025. 367 billion went to the government in taxes. That is 4.89 trillion to private companies over the course of 10 years, with a little over half being pure exports. That kind of money is insane to be put in private hands. Even if the government was significantly less efficient at the job, we could solve virtually all domestic issues or tackle the debt.
>>536255836Ok but have you considered this:That money in private hands will be mostly invested in some business, probably for something they intend to successfully sell to people, meaning it has to be useful. Money in private hands also solves domestic issues and advances society. So considering this, it would definitely matter if the government is less efficient.
>>536256088But it's almost certainly in Shlomo's filthy hands, so none of those investments are constructive, but destructive.
>>536256132that's the thing, if its real capitalism then shlomo's investments would have to be productive or they would not make any money
>>536256167Are porn, casinos, alcohol distilleries, and payday lenders productive? Is Blackrock? I would describe these are parasitic and destructive
>>536256239muh ebil blackrock is a meme, and those other things, well, i dont like them, but they are according to people who use themthough i do think payday lenders prey on desperate people
>>536256330How is Blackrock constructive rather than destructive?
>>536256391well they're taking people's savings and giving the money to corporations that need money to expand or whatever. that is definitely constructive, isn't it?of course in other ways they're not, i guess you are talking about what they do with housing. hmmm why do you think that is?
>>536256601Because theyres kike trying to destroy "Edom". Why would you even argue otherwise
>>536255490competition results in monopolies and duopoliesamazon has never turned a profit btw, yet their stock is high bc of cash flowsame as walshart, they choke out everyone else. once they are dominant, they jack their prices through the roofthey also rely on exploiting their workers and sellsthe warehouse pickers aren't allowed bathroom breaks, and have to piss in bottles. the warehouses are full of piss jugs like trailer park boys. this means they are also not washing their hands. so you have ballsweat and piss all over everything you buy from them.blockbuster wasn't outcompeted, new technology changed the playing field in the form of streaming. the amish still make great horse buggies, but they aren't used as much by the population at large because of new tech, not a better cheaper buggy from japan or something.the other problem with these big companies is that they own everything in their supply chain, and then jack up the prices on themselves to pass these costs on to the consumer.and every one of these companies engages in anticompetitive practices, like price fixing. only once the government stepped in did the major grocery chains stop gouging us on bread.https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/loblaw-bread-price-settlement-1.7274820this went on for 14 fucking years dude. and laws in the us and canada legally require a corporation to make the most profit possible, aka growth in value. our own laws demand line go up, this is a reality you can't escapehttps://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/the-infinite-economic-growth-myth/and if you look into it, the arch capitalist koch brothers, who pay for the cato institute, bought their oil tankers from yugoslavia, which was doing some amazing manufacturing at the time. they wanted an overbuilt tank, not some corner cutter capitalist floating coffin. all they want is less rules for them.
>>536252960I have better ones>That wasn't real capitalism that was corporationism!>Israel is our greatest ally!
>>536256819new technology is exactly how blockbuster was outcompeted. that is literally how it works and the reason we can now use netflix instead of physically renting the movies there, because the free market replacing inefficient methods with efficient onesas to worker abuse, i know, and that's awful, and part of why i am not a libertarian, just talking from common sense. i think even if you're not a libertarian, everyone should understand economic theory.as to owning everything then jacking up prices. i dont think walmart is jacking prices through the roof. its not here but i keep hearing that its cheap. probably because if they did, they would be outcompeted, and even if they made prices low again, they would've kickstarted a new competitor that wouldn't go away easily. they care about potential competitors too.also, you guys always mention how amazon makes prices low in order to destroy competitors. i wonder why blackrock doesnt have to do that with homes. where's blackrock's 10k$ homes that they sell in order to destroy their competitor landlords? hmmmm don't you wish housing was a free market and our biggest problem was them doing that?
>>536257012>That wasn't real capitalism that was corporationism!this is literally true, blackrock making money off home scarcity from zoning laws or pharma companies making money on patents is literally not real capitalism, and i can point at precisely how capitalism is being undermined there and the exact consequences
>>536252960Back to studying for your finals
>>536258272bobo
>>536252960If capitalism doesn't rely on infinite growth then why is every capitalist country on Earth importing infinite shit eating jeets?
Watching people still simp for capitalism in this day and age is hilarious.
>>536258859>That's not capitalism that's corporativism!There. Added another quote to OPs retarded low IQ list.
>>536258672La que te parió. Imberbe.
>>536252960>>536255545High IQ is guessing. IQ determines your tolerance for error - the higher your IQ, the higher errors you tolerate, the more excrutiating contradictions won't bother you. You are aonky supposed to have a high IQ as a toddler, then it's supposed to drop so that your thinking gets in line with reality. High IQ makes you think you are a genius, when you came up with a retarded idea. It makes you believe in leftist bullshit.
>>536257172>as to owning everything then jacking up prices. i dont think walmart is jacking prices through the roof. its not here but i keep hearing that its cheap. probably because if they did, they would be outcompeted, and even if they made prices low again, they would've kickstarted a new competitor that wouldn't go away easily. they care about potential competitors too.first of all, almost every company in the world does this, it's basic management strategy. and yes, they are jacking up prices, i fucking live here holy shit. in many places there is nothing else, just as they intended. and no competitor magically sprang into existence. capitalist theory always relies on these "inevitable" outcomes that never seem to materialize in the real world.loot at big tech. in the 90s there were zillions of companies, now there are only a handful, and they do the worst shit imaginable. they also conspired to not hire each others workers, which is illegal. so competition ends up with a monopoly or duopoly, as we have now in many areas. their mission is to get the product priced just above cost, and keep their margins razor thin. this necessitates massive staff layoffs, drops in quality or quantity of product relative to price, and offshoring workers. this is a cancer that eats away at an economy, not a boon. >>also, you guys always mention how amazon makes prices low in order to destroy competitors. i wonder why blackrock doesnt have to do that with homes. where's blackrock's 10k$ homes that they sell in order to destroy their competitor landlords? hmmmm don't you wish housing was a free market and our biggest problem was them doing that?because they have completely different business models? blackrock owns homes as INVESTMENTS, and they want their investment's value to rise. and blackrock has holdings in most major property managemant companies. i don't know why you argue from ignorance like this.
>>536252960Capitalism requires the abolition of borders that restrict the free movement of labor and capital. If you believe businesses should be restricted by the state in any capacity in their hiring practices you are anti-capitalist.>>536257172You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how entities like Walmart and *Blackstone* actually function. Walmart can't be out competed by mom and pop because their market doesn't cater to niche products. Their prices are just cheap enough that they can edge out their competition by a few cents here and there, but they never actually lower prices to the extent that everyone else is scrambling to keep up. They might charge $7.43 for a pound of beef while their competitor charges $7.49, but their prices will generally reflect prevailing market rates. With Walmart their toughest competition comes not from cheaper retailers, but from those providing a better customer experience. In the Midwest we have Meijer, that has marginally higher prices, but has stricter hiring and uniform standards, cleaner stores, better customer service, etc. As far as Blackstone, they're not in the home selling business, they're in the rental business. They buy up single family homes, often those that are foreclosed, and convert them into rental units for a perpetual income stream rather than a one time sale. This contributes to the scarcity issue which actually increases prices. Not only that, these rentals are often catered to unsavory demographics (niggers and spics) and are typically poorly managed and have high tenant turnover. The fact that they're NOT buying foreclosed homes at a discount and selling them cheap to force their competitors' hands debunks your entire argument about competition. They're not even competing to provide quality rentals, just slop because their portfolio is so massive.
>>536257229yes it is real capitalism, which is inherently corruptsocialism is not about muh free money strawman, this is just gaslighting to keep the cashnado set scared. the whole theory says that the workers actually produce that which makes profit, so they should have a greater share of the profits. it's the capitalists that want free money
>>536259540it's double retarded because corporatism has nothing to do with corporations like ibm and monsanto. it's an old term. the romans had a system like this, and a very similar system was advocated for by pope leo xiii, among others, called christian corporatism. this idea was to treat the entire society as a body, after a quote from paul in the nt. this means the ruler is the head, the police are the fingers (fingermen in v for vendetta are based on this), etc. it makes no sense for competition between your left and right hands, say. so everyone was organized into unions, as in every carpenter was now in the same union, and they would no longer compete for jobs. this was intended to reduce or eliminate class conflicts, a major concern of fascists. this was about cooperation between the classes, not class warfare, for which the marxists advocated.the fascist movement was extremely socialist, and also backed largely by the catholic church, who were sjws before it was cool.
capitalism was so unsavoury that it required the state to even birth it into existencehttps://files.libcom.org/files/2022-05/The%20Invention%20of%20Capitalism.pdfthis is a really well done book on the economic history of capitalism, and how it came about. very eye opening. just like state schooling, which was brought in by the oligarchs to dumb people down enough for wage labour, it had to be forced on people at gunpoint. but now, we accept is as normal and necessary. here is an excerpt, page 1 of 3
>>536260840
>>536260874
>>536252960>AI slopopinion discarded and didn't even bother reading, kys OP
