Message from @Komrade Kam
Discord ID: 572850799357460490
^^This touches more on social consequences
@Techpriest that’s a solid point. If everyone can afford a house and a car then I think the anger being the income gap and wealth inequality would die down. It would from me at least lmfao. I don’t expect a drastic change like the rich into the middle class. But I think if we could bring the lower and lower middle class up, by any means necessary it could happen.
Which is why it wouldnt be important
If the richest man can buy space ships
If the poorest man can buy a house and car and live in it his entire life
Thats the dream
Wealth inequality isnt inherently bad
Its what the rich people do with their wealth
Government simply do not know how to manage money
They ask for 2 billion for a high-speed train in 2012
And now they want 10 billion for a train that is smaller now
And there are literally asshole billionaires who dont actually help people
Bill Gates for example has been a deterrent to the economy of Africa for years
How can Africa ever hope to stabilize when there are free stuff that keep pouring in for no reason
Did India ever get asshole billionaire ruining their country after their independence?
Ofc not
Without asshole 1%ers India was able to be self sufficient
And now emerging economic superpower
And most of that is bullshit
The only reason India is currently an economic powerhouse is because they’re selling their workers to China and getting major investment from China therefore invalidating your point of investment halting sufficiency @Techpriest
And what you’re saying is wealth inequality is fine if you eliminate the symptoms of it. I could say the same thing about cancer. Cancer isn’t that bad if you didn’t get weakened and die by it.
@Deleted User yes
That’s also how regular taxation works
taxation more like theft
😎
Yea
State sanctioned theft
Too bad we need taxes
No we don’t
@Komrade Kam that also needs sourcing
@Deleted User dad
?
Source for China investing in India
In response to @Komrade Kam in <#513098515736690701>
As for socialism / marxism, the biggest issue in general that I have is the surplus labor value. The general idea of the surplus labor value theory is that profit, aka excess labor, exceeds the cost of the worker's labor and is stolen by the greedy capitalist. However, this fails to take into account the mobility of the worker, wherein if a worker feels their labor is not being valued correctly then they have the possibility of simply switching jobs. However, if you are a business owner, you don't have the luxury of simply deciding to have a new business one day, especially if your assets are invested into this business
Furthermore, a worker does not invest assets into a business (generally speaking.) The person providing the menial labor does not have the same risk the person running a business has, and since the person running the business owns these means of productions thus allowing the worker to receive compensation without any risk to themselves, then they are entitled to the profits made. If a worker feels like they deserve the profit that comes with controlling the means of production then, in a free market such as the one we have today, they are able to open their own business. That's the glory of a somewhat regulated free market, a good balance of consumer protection, worker protection, and profit.
Not to mention, the class theory presented is lacking. In the 19th century, sure, most people who owned the means of production were rich and post menial workers were poor, however, nowadays these classes simply have no meaning. A person with a hot dog cart is going to have much less money than a professional footballer player, however according to the outdated marxist class system it should be the opposite way around. Even at the time that the USSR implemented socialism this was true, with many rich peasants aka "Kossaks" being killed. Mind you, being rich simply meant owning a few acres of land more than anybody else.