You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
44

[–] Bainshie 2 points 44 points (+46|-2) ago 

Not really, it's one of those very easily debunked "feel good communist circle jerk" images:

http://i.imgur.com/L1axh.jpg

0
6

[–] joseremarque 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It's true that in a perfect free market all profits are attributable to the factors above and economic profits are zero. However in the real world, political power, rent seeking, and inheritance mean that those with wealth accumulate more of it simply by virtue of their position and not based on the economic value of their contribution. This isn't inherent to capitalism but rather varies based on the political organization of a given society.

0
4

[–] flyawayhigh 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

OMFG. Someone who knows what "free market" means. I can retire now.

0
1

[–] Dontcensormebro 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You actually couldn't be more incorrect.

  1. Nobody says that in free markets economic profits are zero. Of course the entrepreneur makes profits, if he didn't make substantial profits there would be no incentive to even start a business. The thing that many socialists forget is that businesses also take LOSSES. So, the idea that these greedy businessmen are exploiting there workers and making easy money while they sit on their ass is patently false. If they don't run their business well and provide people with goods they want to buy, they go out of business. See tower records, circuit city, blockbusters etc. So many of these corporations that people see as greedy and monopolistic don't last.

  2. Inheritance dynasties are EXTREMELY rare. The amount of fluidity between the poor, middle class, upper class and so called "1%ers" is very high. Alot of 1%ers don't even stay in the 1% for their whole life, let alone for generations. Over the last 50 years or so, the income gap has widened, this is true, but the mobility among income groups has stayed the same (quite high) and the standard of living as increased dramatically as well. So called "middle class" people, have a better quality of life than the 1%ers 50 years ago. This is the kind of stuff senile bernie sanders doesnt want to talk about. Socialists at times seem like they are merely jealous that people have more than them, and would rather people be miserable together than everyone better, but some better off than others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/04/making-it-to-the-1-and-staying-there/

  1. And it seems that you have some beef with crony capitalism, and I agree, I think that ideally our markets would be freer but if you look at history, crony capitalism has a far better record than crony socialism. See nazi germany, ussr, china (they are finally opening their markets to capitalism and what a surprise, the people are better off and their economy is booming) and most recently venezuela. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/11385294/Venezuelas-socialist-paradise-turns-into-a-nightmare-medical-shortages-claim-lives-as-oil-price-collapses.html

Crony capitalism gives you the telephone, the plane, the internet, the personal computer, gps, blue tooth, the mars rover etc. etc. etc.

Crony socliasm gives you food shortages, medication shortages, and people dying due to starvation. (see my link about venezuela.

So in summary, your statements and your marxist beliefs have been proven wrong by logic, statistics, and historical examples over and over and over that is why people that have actually studied economics and history are annoyed when people post these marxist propaganda cartoons. I think that due to the poor public education system people aren't getting good basic economic or historical teaching, so there is this new generation who is buying into the marxist ideology without looking at the facts and history. Do some reading please, and educate yourself so you don't get brainwashed by propaganda.

1
1

[–] Bainshie 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Nobody claims however that ALL PROFITS EVER MADE are attributable to these factors: But that enough are that it is one of the major factors:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2014/03/03/inside-the-2014-forbes-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures/

Roughly two-thirds of the billionaires built their own fortunes, 13% inherited them and 21% have been adding on to fortunes they received.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/25/luxury/family-wealth/

Nearly 60% of the time a family's money is exhausted by the children of the person who created the wealth, according to Roy Williams, president of wealth consultancy The Williams Group. In 90% of the cases it's gone by the time the grandchildren die.

Don't get me wrong, not everyone has an equal footing, some people have it easier, some people have it harder, and having money makes it easier to makemoney, however nobody is claiming every single rich person that existed earned it via hard work. However there seems to be a correlation between maintaining wealth, and earning it (Which is why a lot of people who win huge sums of money end up losing it all).

0
0

[–] binky 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Nevertheless capitalism* is the best system that's been widely tested and is known to work.

*I didn't say "unfettered capitalism"

0
0

[–] ratherplaychess 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

and this top comment is why I love voat. Stay based.