Since /biz/ is a new board I wondered what everyone's leanings were /b/ is full of edgy greens /pol/ is full of edgy blues /biz/ is full of ????

File: 40 KB, 480x400, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 18:22:02 2014 No.167066 [DELETED]

Since /biz/ is a new board I wondered what everyone's leanings were

/b/ is full of edgy greens
/pol/ is full of edgy blues
/biz/ is full of ????

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 18:23:02 2014 No.167073 Edgy purples

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 18:24:32 2014 No.167075 File: 9 KB, 519x484, master race.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 18:29:32 2014 No.167103 >>167066 thanks for posting the link OP, you're good at this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 18:31:02 2014 No.167115 It put me in the red even though I'm not a commie

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 18:33:02 2014 No.167123 This political graph is bullshit and heavily biased towards the left. Sage for /pol/ shit.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 19:41:02 2014 No.167441

>green
the green part is a fallacy, it doesn't exist.
moving left by definition is not libertarian
you move left because you believe in economic control. When you are trying to restrict and control the economy you are restricting and controlling the lives of people that live in that economy.

hey maan legalize pot, dude, do what you want man
oh by the way, you make too much money so you can't have that second car you worked for. lemme just tax that away from you.

>>	Jew !!2BkNBO6h2AT Sun Mar 2 19:42:02 2014 No.167448 File: 3 KB, 480x400, albert.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 19:44:32 2014 No.167456

>>167441
You go left because you believe in sharing of wealth, property, and production. You go down because you believe in strong personal freedoms.

Full bottom left is anarcho-communism. Not an effective system outside of a small, committed community, but it still exists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 19:49:02 2014 No.167491 >>167066 Imma take this again, but I usually end up close to the center; green, red, or purple.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 19:53:02 2014 No.167516 File: 3 KB, 480x400, 3-2-2014.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>167491 As I expected.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 19:54:02 2014 No.167525 >>167456 >personal freedoms >sharing of wealth, property, and production a contradiction you are imposing on other people that they share their property with other even if they don't want to. That spits in the face of personal freedom.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 19:54:32 2014 No.167519 File: 52 KB, 361x361, 1388572913998.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >/pol/ is full of edgy blues It's overwhelmingly purple there.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 19:57:32 2014 No.167541

>>167525
Nope. Anarcho-communism would have everyone willingly sharing everything. They have the freedom not to participate but choose to do so.

I'm not saying it'd ever actually work, at least large-scale, but it is a thing that exists in theory and has a name.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 19:59:32 2014 No.167552 >>167519 where do the honest hard working black people go?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:00:32 2014 No.167561 >>167519 >freedom lovers >not at the very bottom

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:01:03 2014 No.167571 >>167552 I don't think you understand /pol/. >>167561 There comes a point beyond freedom. This is Odin's Paradise.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:02:02 2014 No.167577

>>167541
theories need to actually be based on something, not just people saying how they want it to be.
What about humanity indicates people would collectively share if they were not being told to by an authority?

I will save the trouble here because I have had many debates with people about that green square and it always comes down to them eventually conceding the same truth "people who don't share will have things taken from them"
so it always comes down to force being applied to control how people live their lives.

If I have pigs I am not going to give you something unless you give me a goat first, the only way you are getting my pig is to trade with me or take it by force.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:03:02 2014 No.167585 File: 3 KB, 480x400, Master-Race-Reporting-In.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Master race reporting in

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:03:32 2014 No.167581 File: 113 KB, 460x800, 1391564215321.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>167552 >>167561

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:06:02 2014 No.167605 >>167552 >where do the honest hard working black people go? right next to the unicorns and other mythical creatures

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:06:33 2014 No.167601
File: 22 KB, 488x482, ss 2014-03-03 at 01.04.08.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'd expect /biz/ to be a lot more to the economic right than I am, that's for sure.

I'm definitely liberal but I don't think this is truly representative of my economic beliefs.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:09:03 2014 No.167618
File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng.php.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>167519
hmm, turns out I'm one of the decadent socialists I've always hated

also, test can be found here:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I think its a bit problematic in that it doesnt distinguish between what a person might think is idealistically good vs practically workable

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:11:02 2014 No.167631

>>167618
its a fun test that shouldn't be taken anymore seriously than an online IQ test. They put hitler to the right. It shows a gradeschool understanding of fascism if you put it to the right.

the german socialist workers party was totally right wing guys!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:11:32 2014 No.167630 >>167618 The test is very biased to the green.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:12:32 2014 No.167634 File: 3 KB, 480x400, compas 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I am Patrick Bateman.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:14:02 2014 No.167656 File: 37 KB, 780x400, internationalchart.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>167631 heres their chart for modern leaders - Im in the same spot as Mandela :D

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:14:33 2014 No.167651 >>167634 Patrick Bateman would probably be far right and authoritarian

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:16:32 2014 No.167663 >>167656 you racist fuck

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:18:03 2014 No.167673 >>167656 Top lel. Its absurd how far they have everyone to the right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:20:02 2014 No.167680 >>167673 It's probably taking a universal centre from about 50 years ago because of all the outdated politicians. >Caring about Mandela after all his apartheid shite.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:21:02 2014 No.167683

>>167577
I'm not saying green is a viable or useful system, I'm saying it is a system. You said it wasn't. My point was that wealth redistribution and economic control, while generally going together in practice, are not technically the same thing, and it's theoretically possible to have one without the other.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:25:32 2014 No.167700 File: 20 KB, 687x550, politicaltest.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Guess I'm not too extremist

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:32:33 2014 No.167733 >>167683 but its not theoretically possible is what I am saying. You cant have a theory based on "people just will". If your economic system requires compliance of any kind it is a contradiction to a social system that doesn't

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:37:32 2014 No.167765 >>167733 I'm not really paying attention to what you're arguing but theories based on what people just do exist, they're just descriptive rather than explanatory.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:39:02 2014 No.167779 >>167552 jail

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:40:03 2014 No.167786 >>167733 To be honest I could very easily envisage an anarcho-communist settlement of 100 or so willing participants who all cooperate with each other and share all property. It'd just run into trouble if you tried to scale it up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:41:32 2014 No.167788 >>167552 oven

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 20:55:02 2014 No.167862

>not believing in an unfettered or minimally regulated free market occupied with worker cooperatives running under self management

>not being an egoist in the same vein as Max Stirner or Benjamin Tucker

>submitting your will to the arbitrary madness of the state, law, society, or culture

>not acting on your own terms in revolt of the worms who wish to subvert your being and steal your intellectual and material property

>being a sissy cuckold bitch obeying your masters

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 21:02:32 2014 No.167879 >>167862 >not starting your own business and becoming rich and free >not being a true individualist Commie faggot. Fuck your labour cartels and poverty.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 21:07:32 2014 No.167892

>>167879
>>167879

>commie

>market anarchism

As much fun as it'd be to be a private property fascist barking orders at my underlings, being free from economic risk if my empire were "too big to fail", and hiring politicians to be my sissy boy shills, a society of rational egoists would surely reject such institutions in favor of more decentralized economic decision making that better served their aggregate interests as workers and consumers.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Sun Mar 2 21:11:02 2014 No.167909

>>167892
You heard me commie.

>private property fascist
HAHAHA
This is gold.

Let me guess, you still believe in personal property/private property.

>decentralized
A dictatorship of trade unions and democracy is not decentralized at all.

>a true individualist would enslave himself to everyone around him
Lol you're this dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 21:24:02 2014 No.167956 File: 3 KB, 480x400, my political compass.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>167066 Decadent Socialist, fuck yeah.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 21:49:33 2014 No.168036

>>167909
>>167909
>>167909
8

The model of society is based on the assumption that everyone is behaving as a rational egoist - or a "knowing egoist". A lack of interpersonal submission would probably lead to a diffusion of decision making. People would reject (to the best of their ability) external interests which conflict with their own, impeding any individual interest from gaining the level of prominence found in a society with confused followers serving as useful idiots for their cunning masters. The end result of these rational conflicts I think would be some form of decentralized democratic decision making with certain rights preserved as rational agreements for the sake of utility. The democracy would be restricted to institutions in which workers actually have material risks involved and have an immediate association with. They wouldn't end up managing sectors which they have no business in and due to the decision making being tied with their own work, the positive rights treadmill caused by democratic governments would be avoided. They wouldn't steal the resources of others and possible mismanagement would only lead to their own unemployment.

I essentially see this society as a goal for humanity, maybe we'd even need some sort of vast human capital improvement or even enhance biological intelligence (to optimize rational decision making and allow individuals to better fend for themselves and avoid domination). We may be off colonizing the galaxy by the time my vision is achieved. At any rate, I don't see how a future society which has absolutely become an information economy with a negligible need for unskilled labor could possibly maintain our current economic organization. The tards would have to be either optimized or abandoned by society. Or live such agonizing existence of zero accomplishment and state/charity dependency (probably to the discontent of the productive). In that sense I see my "utopia" as inevitable.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 21:57:32 2014 No.168060 File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng.php.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>167073 You are most likely correct.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 22:10:32 2014 No.168100 File: 13 KB, 484x418, 1393816229279.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Damn... looks like I haven't been taking my red pill enough.

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Sun Mar 2 22:30:04 2014 No.168164 >>168036 Copypastaing a book you've never read doesn't count as an argument.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 2 22:37:02 2014 No.168185 >>167066 Depends on time of day. The edgy purples go to sleep around now, and then the center lefts come out. So a bit of green, a bit of red. /biz/ has a lot of people who read Economist and FT. They're somewhat leftist.

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Sun Mar 2 22:41:32 2014 No.168191 >>168185 The "greens" that come out around this time are yuropoors that have been brainwashed by socialism. Also they're mostly purples anyway, just slightly more greens than daytime. Greens don't really belong here anyway.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 22:45:32 2014 No.168201

>>168191
You act as if the moment someone is in a color's zone, they're the ultimate representation of that ideology. This is a sign to me that you're an extremist. Most of /biz/ is centrist, because unless you're the fucking Koch brothers, bullshit ideology doesn't pay. But yeah, when the Uropoors come on, the board does get a lot better. Better, y'know, like their countries are.

Socialist policy has proven itself in moderation, eat shit /pol/tard.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Sun Mar 2 22:49:03 2014 No.168217

>>168201
>evil Koch brothers want to stop the wars and end the nsa
Please go back to reddit and huffingglue post

When you yuropoors come on this board turns to pure shit and you know it.

>socialist policy has proven
Socialism has proven to be a complete disaster even in small quantities.
Eat shit and die.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 22:53:30 2014 No.168232

>>168217
>>evil Koch brothers want to stop the wars and end the nsa
>Please go back to reddit and huffingglue post
What the fuck are you going on about? I'm saying people on the level of the Kochs (IE nearly everyone who is mega rich) funnel large amounts of money into their agenda. And for the rich, there's an obvious self-interest bias in muh deregulation, etc. even though it always proves unsustainable and exploitative. So they'll promote an untenable ideology because for them, the few, it is tenable.

Meanwhile you'll gobble up their cum because you were young when they got to you, and you're too stupid to change your mind.

>Socialism has proven to be a complete disaster even in small quantities.
Guess that's why every 1st world country implements socialist policy.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Sun Mar 2 23:02:05 2014 No.168266

>>168232
>>168232
>I'm saying people on the level of the Kochs (IE nearly everyone who is mega rich) funnel large amounts of money into their agenda.
SO?
What if their agenda is good?

Also we are well aware that large corporations are able to lobby and control the government, that's why we don't want the state to exist in the first place.

>in muh deregulation, etc.
Oh so you mean taking away their power?

>even though it always proves unsustainable and exploitative.
A gigantic increase in living standards is unsustainable and exploitative? lel

>Meanwhile you'll gobble up their cum
Well seeing as you're the one printing trillions of dollars of our money and giving it to them, you're the one with their cock in your ass.

Eat shit and die you lefttarded fascist.

>Guess that's why every 1st world country implements socialist policy.
Every country in the world has some socialist policies of some sort.
The countries in the world that aren't complete shitholes are the ones with LESS socialist policies.

Why don't you move to Venezuela right now you brainwashed turd?

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 23:10:32 2014 No.168296

>>168266
>SO?
>What if their agenda is good?
This would stand on its own if my statement was on its own. I'm not against "agendas."

>Oh so you mean taking away their power?
Yes, this is how representation works. Otherwise it's just feudal. Prepare for mass revolt.

>A gigantic increase in living standards is unsustainable and exploitative? lel
Funny how that increase coincided with the emergence of socialist policy. The two go hand-in-hand. I'm absolutely in favor of capitalism and what it has done for much of the world. But it is chaos, and it will abuse its constituents without structure.

>Well seeing as you're the one printing trillions of dollars of our money and giving it to them, you're the one with their cock in your ass.
You'll have to justify this, it makes no sense.

>Every country in the world has some socialist policies of some sort.
>The countries in the world that aren't complete shitholes are the ones with LESS socialist policies.
Oh yeah, let's hear about the libertarian utopias.

>Why don't you move to Venezuela right now you brainwashed turd?
I'd rather move to somewhere in Northern Europe. But America is pretty favorable in spite of its flaws. Reminder that the Kochs have donated billions to the opposition in Venezuela, and both sides are just murderous gangsters.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Sun Mar 2 23:17:03 2014 No.168324

>>168296
>Yes, this is how representation works. Otherwise it's just feudal.
There's literally no evidence that the opposite of democracy is feudalism.

Democracy is authoritarianism by definition and simply turns into fascism.
Also regulations are where corporations get their power in the first place.

>Funny how that increase coincided with the emergence of socialist policy.
WHAT?
It didn't.
You have no evidence of this ever occurring?
The most socialist time in american history was during the new deal and it was fucking disaster.
Why are you such a brainwashed boot licker?

>But it is chaos, and it will abuse its constituents without structure.
You only say that because you've been force fed incorrect history and incorrect economics.

>You'll have to justify this, it makes no sense.
You people support the federal reserve. Nuff said.

>Oh yeah, let's hear about the libertarian utopias.
That's not what we are talking about. I just proved you wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom
The least socialist a country is, the better off it is.

>I'd rather move to somewhere in Northern Europe.
Why? You could have MORE socialism if you moved to Venezuela?
If you moved to northern europe you would have to deal with some of the freest markets in the world.

>Reminder that the Kochs have donated billions to the opposition in Venezuela,
GOOD, they're fucking HEROS.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 23:29:02 2014 No.168373

>>168324
>Democracy is authoritarianism by definition and simply turns into fascism.
There's always going to be authority. The most distributed authority is the most liable and potent. Democracy is essentially just a practical feedback system.

>Also regulations are where corporations get their power in the first place.
They get power by buying regulations, which should be regulated against. You think they wouldn't create their own regulations if they weren't stopped? See: trusts, wage suppression, etc.

>You have no evidence of this ever occurring?
>The most socialist time in american history was during the new deal and it was fucking disaster.
Look outside of America, libertarian sad man. Or actually, look at America now. Yes, Carter and Regan fucked up when trying to fix Roosevelt's short-term measures. But their fuckups didn't stop a particularly corrupt form of socialism from taking root.

>You only say that because you've been force fed incorrect history and incorrect economics.
This is a fantastic argument.

>You people support the federal reserve. Nuff said.
I uh, don't. But do you know what was in place before the fed? Directly state-issued money. The fed is corporatism & privatization, IE the thing you generally support. It's not held accountable and has ridiculous power as a result.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom
>The least socialist a country is, the better off it is.
Economic freedom isn't inverse to responsible socialist policy. Look, fucking Australia, Switzerland, and Canada are near the top. You're too fixated being against something.

>Why? You could have MORE socialism if you moved to Venezuela?
>If you moved to northern europe you would have to deal with some of the freest markets in the world.
But unlike your quest for the "MOST" capitalism, I'm not looking for the "MOST" socialism. I'm just in favor of good socialist policy, which exists in Urop.

1/2 Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Sun Mar 2 23:46:07 2014 No.168441

>>168373
>There's always going to be authority.
Not with that attitude.

>Democracy is essentially just a practical feedback system.
Yet it's complete garbage and has resulted in nothing but authoritarianism. You should be able to vote to use violence against other people.

>They get power by buying regulations, which should be regulated against.
If they weren't any regulations there would be nothing to buy.
>You think they wouldn't create their own regulations if they weren't stopped?
How? lol

>See: trusts, wage suppression, etc.
You honestly think we haven't written countless books debunking these things? You honestly think you're the first person to tell a libertarian about these things as if we have no idea these exist? lel

Trusts never happened in a free market, standard oil was never a monopoly and even they got regulated power from the government. The only monopolies that can exist get their power from the state.

>wage suppression
Firms cannot magically control wages, wages are a function of productivity. Wage rates are dictated by the labour market.

>Yes, Carter and Regan fucked up when trying to fix Roosevelt's short-term measures.
What are you even talking about?

>I uh, don't.
Oh, so you support total free market banking?
Yeah didn't think so you fucking moron.

>Directly state-issued money.
Um? No? We had a system of relatively free banking, where you would deposit your gold and silver in banks and receive certificates which people traded.

>The fed is corporatism & privatization,
The fed is government monopolization you gigantic manipulative faggot. YOU people are the ones who overwhelmingly support this and go into full rage mode when we suggest abolishing the fed and central banking.

2/2 Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Sun Mar 2 23:47:07 2014 No.168445

>168373
>Economic freedom isn't inverse to responsible socialist policy.
The fucking definition of economic freedom is how free a market is in a country you gigantic moron. This is what this indexes are fucking measuring.

>Australia, Switzerland, and Canada are near the top.
I KNOW, they have lower corporate taxes than the united states, less regulation and a much freer market. Especially fucking switzerland, holy shit.
Lol you're not one of those brainwashed retards that thinks these countries are "socialist" because of their healthcare system are you?
The american government spends more per capita on healthcare than england for fuck sakes.

>I'm just in favor of good socialist policy, which exists in Urop.
Socialism is the VERY reason everything is fucking shit over there.
Why do you think central banking is an absolute failure? Why do you think massive government spending has been a disaster?

Just kill yourself.

Anonymous Sun Mar 2 23:58:09 2014 No.168484

>>168441
>>168445
This is basically where all discussions with libertarians end up. They live in some parallel world where monopolies don't crop up naturally, and are instead solely the result of government-- and also don't aim to form their own government.

Oh and wage suppression schemes have never been hatched by CEOs, because that's not in their interest or something. For a recent example, see the Steve Jobs cartel.

Then there's the gold fetishism, ignoring that the origin of gold as a currency was the same state-controlled affair as any other.

And the capslock and strawman. Somehow you can't wrap your head around my opposition to the fed, so you have to keep referring to "PEOPLE LIKE ME," instead of dealing with the argument at hand.

And you know why we spend so much more on health care? Because it's a field where innovation only exists in new ways of fleecing customers. Capitalism isn't tenable for healthcare. And it sounds like you are in support of social health care, which is one of the measures I'm arguing for.

Oh and the universe where the entire region of Urop is shit. That's a strange universe.

Look, I'm going to duck out at this point unless you start coughing up some links to back up your provocative claims. I'd at least like to see what kind of PR you're eating up that convinces you of this shit, so I can better recognize it and deal with it in the future. But otoh, you think the Kochs are heroes, so I doubt you'll be reasonable.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 00:14:05 2014 No.168533

>>168484
>They live in some parallel world where monopolies don't crop up naturally
Just because you were taught outright falsehoods in government schools doesn't mean you're right.
You're unable to refute me and therefore wrong.
There's no example of "monopolies" existing in free markets.
http://mises.org/daily/5274

>Oh and wage suppression schemes have never been hatched by CEOs
HOW?
You're actually saying one firm can magically control the entire labour market, or that workers couldn't simply go from job to job as productivity increases.
How the fuck do you think wages rose the past 200 years of american history?
inb4 unions or some bullshit
Wages were increasing long before unions got any real numbers or political power.

>For a recent example, see the Steve Jobs cartel.
Which is forced to operate in china to stay competitive, who's government forces companies to pay workers in artificially suppressed currency which basically amounts of pennies.
You're wrong again bud.

>ignoring that the origin of gold as a currency was the same state-controlled affair as any other.
Gold and silver were used as currency long before the first states even formed.

>Somehow you can't wrap your head around my opposition to the fed
You couldn't even respond to my points.
You don't oppose central banking, you're saying you're against a system of free market banking you unbelievably stupid person.

>Capitalism isn't tenable for healthcare.
Capitalism is what allowed for the cheapest healthcare in the world.
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html
Capitalism is where all the innovations in healthcare have mostly come from.

>But otoh, you think the Kochs are heroes
Koch brothers are far too left wing for me, but what they've done to help socialist shitholes like Venezuela is definitely heroic.

You don't even have an argument here. You're just repeating what we were arguing about before without adding anything new.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 00:24:03 2014 No.168570

>>168533
>Just because you were taught outright falsehoods in government schools
hahah dear god.
I wasn't taught anything in gubbamint schools. I follow economists and investors on twitter, and follow geopolitics.

>mises
well you're showing your stripes pretty quickly. but I'll be charitable, I'll read your shitty propaganda, and then get back to you on it.

>HOW?
>You're actually saying one firm can magically control the entire labour market, or that workers >couldn't simply go from job to job as productivity increases.
I gave an example and you didn't google it, you fucking aspie. Here's a hint: people with lots of money conspire to fuck over the workers. So again: Steve Jobs Wage Suppression Scheme. And I won't even force you to google it this time.
http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/
I'll give the free market credit where it's due: when new competitors (facebook, twitter) finally entered the ring, they weren't inducted into the wage suppression scheme. But they could just as easily have been part of it. That's why laws matter.

>Gold and silver were used as currency long before the first states even formed.
No, they were part of a basic barter system. They became currency when primitive states began standardizing them into coins-- and getting fantastically rich as a result.

>Capitalism is what allowed for the cheapest healthcare in the world.
>http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html
Again, I'll be charitable and read your link, which I've seen shitposted on here before. It remains that America's health care system has more competition and freedom than the social health care of other developed states, and as a result, is shitty and overpriced.

>Koch brothers are far too left wing for me, but what they've done to help socialist shitholes like Venezuela is definitely heroic.
Oh, interfering in domestic affairs is so heroic. Getting people killed, that's heroic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 00:34:03 2014 No.168599 File: 81 KB, 988x1072, Screenshot 2014-03-02 11.34.17.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>167519 Hard working aryan reporting.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 00:43:51 2014 No.168634

>>168570

This anon is right regarding the labour market. As easy as hiring people in debt too. Just ask yourself: why are many college students incited to get a student loan? It's simple: debt slavery. Debt is slavery anon. When you have financial problems, you are willing to do ANYTHING to make a living. Even putting up with shit pay or shit working conditions.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 00:52:52 2014 No.168660

>>168570
>I wasn't taught anything in gubbamint schools.
Top Lel.
Yes you were, "monopolies" and "labour exploitation" is exactly what they teach in government schools.
> I follow economists
Most likely keynesian idiots.

>I'll read your shitty propaganda, and then get back to you on it.
Lol okaay, you can look up all the facts about standard oil that are in that article, they're kind of common facts. Stay mad.

>I gave an example and you didn't google it,
One example is completely worthless when you look at the massive increase in wage rates in america over the past 200 years.

>Here's a hint: people with lots of money conspire to fuck over the workers.
HAHAHAHAHA
How in the FUCK can they magically control markets prices like that? Even if a few of them got together to "conspire" and keep down wages, workers will just go to other firms that pay higher, therefore putting the low wage firms out of business. This happened all the time in the 1800s. Even if for some magically reason, every single firm in existence did this, it would 1) destroy the economy and thus their businesses 2) the first company to raise wages would steal all of that labour and have enormous profits, taking the market share of the other firms.
You're so unbelievably retarded.

>Steve Jobs Wage Suppression Scheme
The same exact logic applies. There's countless other companies for these engineers to go to and this little scheme didn't last long.

>That's why laws matter.
But your fucking laws didn't do anything here, the fucking market did.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 00:53:51 2014 No.168664 If you're not in the purple zone you're either uneducated or stupid.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 00:53:51 2014 No.168666

>>168570
>No, they were part of a basic barter system.
No, they were literally currency.
http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

>They became currency when primitive states began standardizing them into coins--
Currency minting came before states.

> It remains that America's health care system has more competition and freedom
No actually that would be singapore and switzerland, both who have the lowest healthcare costs in the entire world.
You're simply wrong here.
Healthcare is the second most regulated market in america after banking.

>and as a result, is shitty and overpriced.
Shitty? Lol that's why all the rich people who want to get treated come here right

>Oh, interfering in domestic affairs is so heroic.
That's fucking right. You think freeing people from a psychopathic tyrannical government that is enslaving and shooting at them is a bad thing?

>Getting people killed
Getting murderous psychopaths/socialists killed. Yes, this is a good thing.

>>168634
Government student loans are what cause tuition prices to skyrocket.
Tuition was cheap as fuck in the 50s and 60s(before this) and what was taught actually related to the economy, not muh wymyns studies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 00:59:51 2014 No.168683 File: 130 KB, 1134x1357, 1384123861914.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:01:51 2014 No.168690

>>168660
>HAHAHAHAHA
>How in the FUCK can they magically control markets prices like that? Even if a few of them got together to "conspire" and keep down wages, workers will just go to other firms that pay higher, therefore putting the low wage firms out of business. This happened all the time in the 1800s. Even if for some magically reason, every single firm in existence did this, it would 1) destroy the economy and thus their businesses 2) the first company to raise wages would steal all of that labour and have enormous profits, taking the market share of the other firms.
>You're so unbelievably retarded.
Right, because destroying the economy is so favorable in comparison to some regulation.
Nah, there's nothing fucking "magical" about it, it's basic logic. If the hugest employers all collude to suppress wages, it'll suppress wages. Period. If they have free reign to do that, they will, and workers will lose their MUH FREEDOMS to be able to get hired at competing firms.

>http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm
Another likely garbage link I'll read through.

>That's fucking right. You think freeing people from a psychopathic tyrannical government that is enslaving and shooting at them is a bad thing?
By doing the exact same thing, yeah. They should let it fucking burn out, Africa has shown this time and time again. Interference only prolongs it.

>Getting murderous psychopaths/socialists killed. Yes, this is a good thing.
Nah, getting commoners killed. Get #REKT.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:03:51 2014 No.168695 Can someone explain all the hues of this graph and what they mean? Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:07:21 2014 No.168704 If you're not on the line between blue and purple you shouldn't even be here. God forbid we ever get a red

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:09:21 2014 No.168710 >>168704 >no leftism allowed!!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:09:51 2014 No.168713 >>168710 >No mentally handicapped allowed

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:12:21 2014 No.168718 File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng.php.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] central master race reporting in I take this once a year and I keep rotating around the center. Sometimes I'm in the green, sometimes purp, sometimes blue, sometimes red.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:12:51 2014 No.168716 >>168713 jesus dickfuck, the arrogance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:16:21 2014 No.168726 File: 6 KB, 508x431, muh grid.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>168704 reporting

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 01:19:38 2014 No.168736

>>168690
>Right, because destroying the economy
Destroying the economy?
That was the very extreme example which I already proved wasn't even possible and isn't in the interests of the capitalists at all.

What in the world would regulation even DO to "fix" the labour market?
You won't even reply to my fucking points. YOU'RE WRONG. Just deal with it already.
Companies cannot magically force down wages without getting totally fucked and destroying their business by doing so.

>If the hugest employers all collude to suppress wages
This has never happened in american history and is impossible. I already explained why, there are countless firms out there, when idiotic firms actually tried to form cartels, the firm or firms that broke the cartel took the market share of the other firms. Companies quickly learned the trying to "cartelize" is an extremely bad idea.

>If they have free reign to do that, they will,
But we already tried this for decades in the 1800s and it resulted in the greatest increase in wages in american fucking history.
You're so unbelievably wrong here it's incredible.
You don't even know what the labour market is. It's like you're saying a company can charge 100$ for an apple and everyone would be forced to buy it.

>to be able to get hired at competing firms.
How? lol
What's stopping them from doing this?

>Another likely garbage link I'll read through.
Why do you asspainly call things garbage that completely prove you wrong?

>Nah, getting commoners killed
nah, lol

>>168710
This is the fucking business and finance board, of course no leftism is allowed. Get the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:25:38 2014 No.168753 File: 21 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng.php.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Legend.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:27:38 2014 No.168756 >>168736 tbh anyone that's not central or purp here is out of place.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:34:08 2014 No.168780
File: 3 KB, 480x400, lolitics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>168736
>>168713
>>168704
oh btw, pic related be me apparently. more libertarian, slightly leftist.

>>168736
>You won't even reply to my fucking points. YOU'RE WRONG. Just deal with it already.
This isn't a productive method of argument, especially when I've been providing plenty of counters and refutations. I'm not trolling or ignoring what you're saying, so this is really on you.

>Companies cannot magically force down wages without getting totally fucked and destroying their business by doing so.
You're in a fantasy world, and
>It's like you're saying a company can charge 100$ for an apple and everyone would be forced to buy it.
is a good example. No, a single company can't charge 100& for an apple and force everyone to buy it. But a cartel could absolutely charge, say, 200%-400% on apples and nobody would be able to stop them for a significant period of time. Flat-out denying the facts doesn't get you anywhere, and this is why I
>asspainly call things garbage that completely prove [me] wrong
, because you're saying such insane shit that I can already tell your scant links are at the root of it. That's why I'm interested in seeing them, since I want to know exactly what kind of shit you're regurgitating, and in my free time compile some refutations.

>This is the fucking business and finance board, of course no leftism is allowed. Get the fuck out.
You can't stop me or the rest of the educated folks on here. Leftists are perfectly capable of conducting business while being opposed to your asshattery. Suck a dick.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:35:08 2014 No.168782 >>168753 nice legend. savd.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:36:09 2014 No.168785 >>168782 Danke

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:37:38 2014 No.168787 File: 75 KB, 500x375, 1386455682584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Last time I took this I was right in the middle of the chart. Independent masterrace

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:44:10 2014 No.168800
File: 44 KB, 480x400, realcompass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I used to have an article on David Friedman, the Anarcho-Capitalist, and the conversations he had with his father, the famous Milton Friedman, but I can't find it now. Milton was very much in-tune with his son's thinking, and had no fundamental disagreements with his framework, but only dissented because his theories were not practical. David wrote that Milton was only concerned with making Government less harmful in realistic, tangible ways. Milton did not agree with the existence of an institution like the Federal Reserve, but permitting its existence with the unlikelihood of its abolition, such an institution should have x, y, and z policies, and that was the public advocacy of Milton Friedman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:47:40 2014 No.168811 r8

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:48:40 2014 No.168813 File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng.php.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Any South Australians here? who are you guys voting for in a week?

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 01:51:40 2014 No.168818

>>168780
>especially when I've been providing plenty of counters and refutations
No you have not. You've just been saying NO U, while I provide actual historical evidence, you just provided one cherry picked example which I had already debunk and you continuously refuse to acknowledge.

>You're in a fantasy world,
The ENTIRE economy in the 1800s completely disagrees with you.
The fact you have economy data for an entire CENTURY disagreeing with you and you refuse to acknowledge it is pretty sad.

>But a cartel could absolutely charge, say, 200%-400% on apples and nobody would be able to stop them for a significant period of time.
Lel, except you know, the market. I already explained like 5 fucking times already why this cannot happen.
I'll explain again since you're clearly too dumb to read:
1) It's impossible for every single company in an industry to agree to a cartel, even if they got tens of thousands of companies to agree, and the cartel magically didn't break apart, this would only create a financial incentive to create a business that would sell these products at a much lower price, thus destroying the cartel.
2) There is a massive financial incentive to break the cartel because the first company to lower his prices would destroy the other companies, take their marketshare and make a unimaginable amounts of profit.
3) No evidence of cartels actually existing in the entire 1800s, and entire century of "OMG EVIL FREE MARKET NO REGULATION" and nothing you say will happen, happened.
4) Regulations are historically what create cartels in the first place, the same regulations people like you support

#REKT

> But a cartel could absolutely charge, say, 200%-400% on apples and nobody would be able to stop them for a significant period of time.
Lol yet this doesn't happen anywhere in the world.

>, because you're saying such insane shit that I can already tell your scant links are at the root of it.
No, the books I've read and my own thought processes are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:52:10 2014 No.168823 File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng[1].php.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] oy vey here we go again!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:52:40 2014 No.168820 >>168753 >>168800 Legend proven right. You need to work a year as a cashier at walmart. Then we can speak.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 01:54:40 2014 No.168828

>>168780
>and in my free time compile some refutations.
Why don't you actually read these articles and question your own opinions like any sane rational person would do?

You may learn something.
I used to be left wing because I learned economics and history.

>or the rest of the educated folks on here

>leftists
>educated
lel

>Leftists are perfectly capable of conducting business
Leftists wants to DESTROY business. Get the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:54:40 2014 No.168829 >>168823 weed smoker detected

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:55:10 2014 No.168836 >>168829 Never smoked marijauna in my life. Nice try m80

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:55:10 2014 No.168837

>>168820
>My misfortunes in life justify my right to aggress against other people and their property by stealing what I want from them

Hilariously enough, in history all attempts by people to create institutions of aggression against the powerful or the wealthy have always come to be occupied by the power and the wealthy and used against the common man. See: Government.

Anarcho-Syndicalists, the most respectable of all Leftists, in their fierce anti-Statism understand this principle, and yet sadly you do not.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:56:40 2014 No.168838

>>168818
>The ENTIRE economy in the 1800s completely disagrees with you.
>The fact you have economy data for an entire CENTURY disagreeing with you and you refuse to acknowledge it is pretty sad.
Quite a broad statement. I guess your links speak on this topic?

>No you have not. You've just been saying NO U, while I provide actual historical evidence, you just provided one cherry picked example which I had already debunk and you continuously refuse to acknowledge.
keep shitflinging, /pol/.

>Muh market
>Muh invisible hand
we've been over this.

>No, the books I've read and my own thought processes are.
Hey, I've read Atlas Shrugged too!

>Leftists wants to DESTROY business. Get the fuck out.
~insane~

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 01:57:10 2014 No.168845 >>168837 Rofl, you keep proving my legend right this way. Please, do go on.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:00:10 2014 No.168857
File: 171 KB, 520x400, poop.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Don't have mine saved, but I end up in circle usually.
>pro regulations
>pro wealth redistribution(rich profit from our system, rich pay back into it)
>pro civil rights
>anti-drug war
>anti military(and I'm a veteran)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:02:10 2014 No.168866 >>168845 >I can't actually make a case for why someone is wrong If you can't defend it, you're probably wrong. Go away.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:03:10 2014 No.168873 >>168857 Kanker Alert! Kanker Alert! Kanker Alert!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:04:10 2014 No.168878 >>168857 Do you care to explain your positions to us? Please? All the current leftist participants are boring.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:04:10 2014 No.168879 >>168866 gotta love the /pol/tards who think every flat statement they make requires some nebulous, god-tier refutation. You're on 4chan bud, we're free to refute you in our spare time, and call you a faggot otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:05:40 2014 No.168881 >>167075 this is about where I fell last time I took the test. The test itself is kinda wack though.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 02:06:11 2014 No.168886

>>168837
>in their fierce anti-Statism understand this principle,
Lol no they don't. They're just statists like the rest of them
Mutualists are the only leftists who are actual anarchists.
They're the least faggy form of leftism, but leftism itself is pretty faggy.

>>168838
>I guess your links speak on this topic?
No but this does.
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10b.asp

>keep shitflinging, /pol/.
Are you really this mad you're wrong and unable to refute anything I said? lol

>we've been over this.
Over what? Over the fact you can't respond to any of my posts? lol

>Hey, I've read Atlas Shrugged too!
Ayn Rand was a cunt.
I read actual economic history, you watch msnbc and believe whatever they tell you.

Your entire post didn't address anything I said and was simply ad hominems. Your asspain is showing.

I accept your defeat.

>>168857
>>pro regulations
Corporations benefit from regulations.

>>pro wealth redistribution(rich profit from our system, rich pay back into it)
The rich profit from benefiting society. You want to take away their wealth which they are supposed to use to reinvest back into the economy, not for the government to waste it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:06:11 2014 No.168887 File: 19 KB, 251x251, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>168726

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 02:09:40 2014 No.168895 >>168879 >have your arguments absolutely demolished >"/POL/ IT'S /POL/ THAT IS THE PROBLEM, BAN THEM SO THEY DON'T MAKE ME BUTTHURT ANYMORE WITH THEIR FACTS AND ARGUMENTS" Lol this is hilarious.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:11:10 2014 No.168902

>>168886
I'm just not gonna try to keep arguing when you keep lapsing into shit tier troll ad-homs like these:
>Are you really this mad you're wrong
>the fact you can't respond to any of my posts? lol
>you watch msnbc and believe whatever they tell you

Thanks for the links, I'll crush you in the next thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:12:11 2014 No.168907 For anyone interested, this is the best piece I've read on Free Banking in a long time, covering the unintentional era of Free Banking in Sweden from 1830 to 1903. https://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae10_2_3.pdf Cozy read.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 02:15:10 2014 No.168914

>>168902
>shit tier troll ad-homs like these:
What the fuck do you think you're doing?

I made a super long detailed post explaining all the reasons why you are wrong.
and you just went "UR RONG XD"

Are you a child?
Does the existence of the rapid increase in wages and living standards during the entire 1800s upset you?

>>the fact you can't respond to any of my posts? lol
Because you literally can't lol

>I'll crush you in the next thread.
Pretty sure that's never going to happen. Libertarians always win arguments. Reality is on our side.

>>168907
Will read. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:15:10 2014 No.168916 >>168914 >Libertarians always win arguments. Reality is on our side. boy, ain't that the truth.

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 02:19:40 2014 No.168922 >>168916 It is. And this thread is a perfect example of that. :^)

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:22:10 2014 No.168930

>>168878
Sure.

>anti drug war
The drug war is a scourge on human life both here, and in shithole countries like Mexico. 50,000 deaths and counting due to the Cartels massive power. You're to tell me that the social cost of people killing themselves with heroin(to say nothing of the fact that marijuana being illegal is FUCKING STUPID) is worse then the social cost of cartels existing, death squads and black markets? Every cent spent on enforcement should be spent on treatment/outreach/fucking clean needles.

Also, I highly recommend everyone watch the documentary "The House I live in". Want to know why niggers exist? Incarcerate all their fathers, stamp them as felons, subject them to increased searches and incarceration rates, and strong laws such as crack vs. cocaine minimum sentencing laws.
http://www.csdp.org/edcs/image16.gif

>Anti military
We spend too much, we waste too much, corporate welfare, world police, etc.

>Pro regulations
I support libertarian social and civil stances(see drugs), and hate police state/NSA. However, I think that OSHA, EPA, FDA are very, very fucking important to our society. LIbertarian economic policies just... my mind freezes up. There's a reason IMO that fucktards love libertarian economics. It makes sense to the stupid. Gold standard: Oh, I can understand that! Jerb creators! etc.

>The rich profit from benefiting society. You want to take away their wealth which they are supposed to use to reinvest back into the economy, not for the government to waste it.
Sure they do. I'm just waiting for the Koch brothers and the Waltons to *will* a couple million more jobs into existence(because that's what Jerb Creators do right? They just imagine jobs existing?) oh, and don't forget those sweet sweet anti-poor policies like food stamps and minimum wage laws. I mean, those are really really hurting the poor. Maybe if we didn't have to pay workers, we could have more of them, right chief?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:24:10 2014 No.168935 >>168930 >my mind freezes up. be careful what you say, they'll try to use that to prove you're a brainwashed statist

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:29:43 2014 No.168951

>>168930
>>The rich profit from benefiting society. You want to take away their wealth which they are supposed to use to reinvest back into the economy, not for the government to waste it.

Let me get back to this... I realize I mostly straw-manned this one.

My point is this: Over the long run, yes, the rich benefit from, say, a strong healthy, happy fucking middle class.

Now ask yourself this, do you think the rich right now, the super wealthy, the tea-party, the GOP...

Do you think they are supporting policies that will expand and help the middle and lower class?

That's my point. For the last several decades that's my point. They're killing the golden goose.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:34:13 2014 No.168967

I've heard about a thousand different opinions on what defines the economic left/right. According to the chart's website it'd be slated towards more economic freedoms that draw on similarities to classic liberalism. However I've read elsewhere (such as wikipedia) that effectively states the opposite. Is what's said on wikipedia the unique American view?

According to my understanding of French politics where the left/right distinction came from, it supports to the stance of PoliticalCompass (left is economic freedom while the right is more regulatory, but this would mean Obama is more economically open than Romney. Surely that can't be true?).

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 02:34:43 2014 No.168965

>>168930
>FDA
The FDA has murdered probably a million people.
The FDA is the violent arm of the pharmaceutical industry, it's a cartel.
The FDA violently prevents people from trying new experimental drugs that could save them, even if they're going to die anyway.
The FDA allows dangerous drugs on the market and bans life saving drugs.
The FDA is corporate fascism
The FDA absolutely DESTROYS medical innovation, sometimes life saving drugs and devices take 10+ years to be approved.
The FDA is currently banning 23andme genetic testing, they are anti-scientific and genetic progress

www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/abolishing-the-fda#axzz2uslxU0XR
http://thetimetimes.com/2012/05/20/fda-admits-to-killing-100000-people-a-year-why-are-we-okay-with-this/

A system of competing free market regulatory agencies that act as an inbetween between doctors, pharmacists and stores etc would be far superior to the sadistic, stagnant system we have today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvxT7fryE3Q

> It makes sense to the stupid
Libertarianism makes absolutely no sense to the stupid lol. Are you insane? Why do you think the common idiot thinks the government will give them everything?

>I'm just waiting for the Koch brothers and the Waltons to *will* a couple million more jobs into existence
They have already created hundreds of thousands of jobs? lol

>because that's what Jerb Creators do right?
Where the fuck do you think jobs come from in the fucking first place? Capital investment.
Are you children really this dumb?

>minimum wage laws
The minimum wage is absolutely horrible for the poor, it puts them out of work. It should be abolished.

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 02:35:13 2014 No.168970 >>168935 Lol wait. Aren't you the faggo who just got absolutely destroyed in a debate and couldn't respond. Yeah thought so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:47:13 2014 No.169003 >>168967 err, I'd like to point out that I'm referring to the left being more focused on economic freedom, in tradition of the Third Estate.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:55:43 2014 No.169027

>>168965
Your second link is absolute garbage, providing nothing. It's as useful as a roll of toilet paper, or all of Infowars.
Your first link has very cherry picked information. Though I am reading through it.

As for the youtube video, I think you'd be interested in this:
http://www.patientnetwork.fda.gov/learn-how-drugs-devices-get-approved/drug-development-process/step-4-fda-review/speeding-drug

>Capital investment.
No. Capital investment creates the infrastructure to support jobs(say, a factory), but it is demand that supports the jobs.

>The minimum wage is absolutely horrible for the poor, it puts them out of work. It should be abolished.
And what of supporting themselves? Let's say i can pay workers 1$/day to work in my factory. That's all well and good in China or India, but in the US? It's not even going to pay for their food. There is a minimum level of dignity we have in America, and a minimum level of cost of living. How are you going to, without welfare or a strong minimum wage, support that? How are you going to fight collusion between the major minimum wage employers aren't keeping the poor's options limited?

Fuck, even Apple colluded to keep upper middle class wages down, and you think the poor are going to experience better treatment?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/technology/engineers-allege-hiring-collusion-in-silicon-valley.html?_r=0

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 02:57:13 2014 No.169031 File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] judge me

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:00:13 2014 No.169036 File: 6 KB, 225x225, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>168726 You are in the commie zone in a board that loves money... Unless your Jewish this is not good

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 03:11:43 2014 No.169071

>>169027
>Your second link is absolute garbage, providing nothing
Uh it's filled with statistics and data about the psychopathic FDA.

Here's some more though.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0214/opinions-steve-forbes-fact-comment-fda-may-kill-millions.html
www.undergroundhealth.com/fda-approved-prescription-drugs-kill-hundreds-of-thousands-of-people-annually/
http://www.nationofchange.org/medical-authority-s-system-kills-fda-approved-drugs-kill-over-100000-people-annually-1375713154

>http://www.patientnetwork.fda.gov/learn-how-drugs-devices-get-approved/drug-development-process/step-4-fda-review/speeding-drug
OH WOW, YOU MEAN OUR WISE OVERLORDS MAY SPEED UP THE DRUG APPROVAL BY 2 YEARS?
HOW WONDERFUL OF THEM

Every single fucking thing I said about the FDA in my original post still stands you idiot.
Enjoy being a science hating, corporate fascist, murder supporting piece of shit.

>No. Capital investment creates the infrastructure to support jobs(say, a factory), but it is
Without the infrastructure to support jobs and a good business plan there would be no jobs.
>demand that supports the jobs.
Demand is just one fucking aspect of job creation. Supply is also an essential ingredient.
Get that keynesian bullshit out of here.

>Let's say i can pay workers 1$/day to work in my factory.
With the level of economic production in america today, that would be absolutely impossible. Something like 96% of jobs in america pay far above the minimum wage.

>There is a minimum level of dignity we have in America, and a minimum level of cost of living.
So we should make these people have zero jobs instead of a job that pays little?

>Fuck, even Apple colluded to keep upper middle class wages down
This apple thing was already thoroughly debunked earlier in this thread, I'm not going over it again.

Wage rates are a result of the labour market, businesses have no real control over them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:17:43 2014 No.169100 http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:21:13 2014 No.169112 >>169100 >libertarianism.org nice source m8

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:21:43 2014 No.169115

>>169027
demand is unlimted starbeing

Try consuming something you haven't produced yet

Entrepreneurs have to anticipate demand, so demands don't create anything

So the producers have to produce everything, the demanders just consume everything

The only thing that would give a demand meaning is if the demander stopped demanding for a second, and produced something for himself.

This was how the first job was created.

Now you have something to trade and your demand is meaningful. Etherbroker@gmail

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:22:13 2014 No.169116 >>169112 Nice bias there. >If I don't read it it'll just go away and I'll be safe and secure in my bubble

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 03:22:43 2014 No.169119 >>169112 Not him but there are plenty of academic sources at the bottom of the article. U mad?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:22:43 2014 No.169120 File: 259 KB, 1306x1176, 1383665135228.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Anything that isn't purple is retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:23:43 2014 No.169126 >>168970 I've been in this whole thread and haven't seen anyone by that description.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:24:13 2014 No.169134

>>169027
>? Let's say i can pay workers 1$/day to work in my factory. That's all well and good in China or India, but in the US? It's not even going to pay for their food. There is a minimum level of dignity we have in America, and a minimum level of cost of living. How are you going to, without welfare or a strong minimum wage,

No one's going to take a $1/hour job. Why the hell do you retards think that, say, were child labor laws or minimum wage abolished, factory child labor at 50 cents per hour would suddenly pop up? As if it's only da gubmint that's keeping these gilded age robber barons at bay, and not the accumulation of capital that makes it unnecessary to put children to work or take jobs at $1 per hour?

The answer: leftists don't know anything about economics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:24:43 2014 No.169131 >>169116 >>169119 I'm not the guy you were arguing with, just noticed the irony of your chosen source and wanted to point it out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:25:13 2014 No.169138 >>169027 >Fuck, even Apple colluded to keep upper middle class wages down, and you think the poor are going to experience better treatment? shh, he already "refuted" that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:25:43 2014 No.169141 >>169115 This is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard anywhere ever. I'm impressed

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:26:43 2014 No.169144

>>169131
>just noticed the irony of your chosen source
Huh?

The absurdity you perceive is no different than if you perceived it to be absurd that an economist was producing an essay on economics.

There's something wrong with a website devoted to functional economics peddling... functional economics?

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 03:29:13 2014 No.169155

>>169138
>shh, he already "refuted" that.
Lol wait.

Aren't you the faggot who just got absolutely destroyed in a debate and couldn't respond.
Yeah thought so.

>>169141
Can't refute it can't you?

>>169134
Post here more often libertybro.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:30:13 2014 No.169157

>>169134
Some people would work for those wages because earning some wage is better than earning 0 wages.

Even the deity of liberal economics, Paul Krugman, praises cheap labor, and his points are spot on.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html

When the U.S. banned imports from Bangladeshi factories in the textiles industry (1993) where children were employed, all of the children, now not earning anything, either starved to death or went to work as prostitutes. Fun.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:31:13 2014 No.169158 >>169141 Typing on phone but the idea holds

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:31:43 2014 No.169159
File: 3 KB, 480x400, compass.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>169120
I'm on the fence between green and purple, how do I move into the purple?

I just can't stop being ruthlessly practical, if I need to get shit done all abstract philosophy goes out the window, I ground everything in reality and this is where I end up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:31:43 2014 No.169163 >>169157 >Some people would work for those wages Yes. But not in America.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:33:13 2014 No.169167 >>169159 You need more complete information. Immerse yourself in some Murray Rothbard and see where that takes you.

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 03:35:13 2014 No.169180 >>169159 Learn real American history. Look up Thomas dilorenzo on youtube. The only way to increase our living standards, raise wages and shorten the work week is economic production. We need a free market to do this.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:35:13 2014 No.169181
File: 3 KB, 480x400, that was me i guess.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>mfw
I expected to be really authoritan actually but the leftism was a known quantity. I'm Germany and I feel much more like a radical Social Democrat, but I'm also extremely patriotic (not nazi, that's being patriotic for the third reich, I'm patriotic for the Grudgesetz and the BRD).

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:37:43 2014 No.169187

>>169163
I think this is mainly a sign that >>169157 slipped up by excluding globalism. The fact of the matter is that Americans are only now in the position to reject the $1 job because they've enslaved billions of people on the other side of the earth. That means the critique of class exploitation absolutely still stands.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:39:14 2014 No.169192 >>169187 Oh stop it and actually READ Krugman's article.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:39:43 2014 No.169193 >>169159 >green and purple thanx doc >>169155 >Lol wait. >Aren't you the faggot who just got absolutely destroyed in a debate and couldn't respond. >Yeah thought so. you're a broken record.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 03:41:13 2014 No.169200

>>169187
>The fact of the matter is that Americans are only now in the position to reject the $1 job because they've enslaved billions of people on the other side of the earth.
No you unbelievably stupid retard.
Americans can reject $1 an hour because they have the most productive economy in the entire world.
Wage rates are a function of productivity, and america is one of the most productive nations on earth.
Do you even question the fact that 96% of businesses pay far far above the minimum wage, with no unions or laws required to do this?
Do you even question why this exists?

>class exploitation
Lol oh wait you're serious.
What "classes", are you a marxist or something?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:44:13 2014 No.169212 File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng.php.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Guess I'm a Jew

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 03:44:43 2014 No.169209 >>169193 >you're a broken record. Sure, I will repeat myself when someone can't admit that they were dead wrong. How told does one have to get?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:49:13 2014 No.169229 File: 17 KB, 498x495, 1393836586498.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:49:43 2014 No.169226 I generally hover around -1,-1 so I think I'm pretty close to an exact moderate. Suits me, I consider myself centrist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:49:43 2014 No.169228 File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ....I'm actually more right-leaning

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:50:43 2014 No.169230 >>169228 >>169229 Why.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:57:43 2014 No.169251

>>169209
>How told does one have to get?
y'know typically, it's an outside party that determines who got TOLD. But you're an autist, so you wouldn't understand that.

>>169200
>Americans can reject $1 an hour because they have the most productive economy in the entire world.
Yes, America jumped on the forefront of the industrial wave. So they got to export their industrial slavery ASAP to become productive.

>Do you even question the fact that 96% of businesses pay far far above the minimum wage
If by "far, far above," you mean "above," then that's a true statement. But yes, I'm well aware that the minimum wage law Obama is trying to pass effects a single digit percentage of our workforce. That's why I find it so funny that you're so adamantly against it: it's obviously just a bid for approval ratings.

>Wage rates are a function of productivity, and america is one of the most productive nations on earth.
Wages aren't a function of productivity, they're a function of scarcity and demand: how scarce are your skills? Who wants them?

For the record, fag: I'm not adamant about the min. wage. I think it's an ok institution, but generally speaking, yes, it interferes in a way that drives down employment. No, it doesn't cause inflation, look it up.

I'm in favor of Mincome. Free money, yes. We're rich enough to afford it, and it'll only become more relevant as automation progresses.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 03:58:43 2014 No.169257 >>169230 >>169229 >>169228 Kiss and make up you three

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 04:12:47 2014 No.169304

>>169251
>y'know typically, it's an outside party that determines who got TOLD
Not really, especially when one get's so incredibly fucking TOLD to the point where he's unable to respond.

>Yes, America jumped on the forefront of the industrial wave. So they got to export their industrial slavery ASAP to become productive.
What are you fucking talking about? Speak english.

>If by "far, far above," you mean "above," then that's a true statement.
Intel engineers for example make far above the minimum wage.
Why can't intel just pay them minimum wage?

You seriously don't even question these facts.
You're a basically a creationist that thinks all those crazy biologists(economists) are doing the work of the devil.

>That's why I find it so funny that you're so adamantly against it: it's obviously just a bid for approval ratings.
Yeah, THAT'S the reason I'm against the minimum wage. lol

>Wages aren't a function of productivity
YES, motherfucker they are.

>they're a function of scarcity and demand
All which are changed by the amount of economic production in an economy.

You have NO explanation for the facts wages constantly rose during the 1800s while there was no labour laws. None at all, it must boggle your fucking mind.

>No, it doesn't cause inflation
Where the fuck did I say that?

>I'm in favor of Mincome
Lol, that's worse than minimum wage.

>and it'll only become more relevant as automation progresses.
As automation progresses working hours will decrease and people will be able to retire at younger and younger ages.

If you simply give people money it's going to create poverty and destroy wealth/economic production.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 04:29:44 2014 No.169343

>>169304
I've started going through your links, faggot, and my fears have been confirmed. You're an absolute Alex Jones-level psycho. You'll eat any garbage if it tells you you're "smarter" than everyone else, and that everyone else is "sheeple" who should "wake up." Your links on the FDA were fucking laughable shit. Of course, there's more for me to read, but really you're clearly a lost cause. EVERYONE BUT YOU QUESTIONS NOTHING, EVERYONE BUT YOU HAS BEEN INDOCRTINATED AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ETC.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 04:42:14 2014 No.169371

>>169343
>You're an absolute Alex Jones-level psycho.
What in the shit are you even talking about?

>EVERYONE BUT YOU QUESTIONS NOTHING, EVERYONE BUT YOU HAS BEEN INDOCRTINATED AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ETC.
Lol, but these things are facts, you're actually one of those people that gets his opinions from public schools.
You're simply repeating what you were force fed there.
Now you're just projecting.

>Your links on the FDA were fucking laughable shit.
HAHAHAHA
Because you couldn't fucking refute them. lol

You have NO arguments against the absolutely psychopathy and social destruction the FDA has brought upon humanity. NONE
You support forcing people to DIE instead of allowing them to try an experimental treatment.
You support total corporte fascism in medicine.

You have NO arguments against wage rates dramatically increasing during the 1800s.
You have NOTHING, you braindead shit eater.

How the fuck are you still posting? Lol
You can't refute any of my arguments and every single one of your posts are meaningless butthurt insults.

Are you seriously THIS mad that you got proven wrong?

Get help.

I'm going to sleep now,
Let's watch you post more angry replies with no actual response to any of the point I said or my arguments lol

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 04:48:43 2014 No.169381

>>169371
>you're actually one of those people that gets his opinions from public schools
You can keep spouting this line, it means nothing. Everything I've learned about economics, I've learned about on my own. This is your fucking problem, the moment someone deviates from your strawman, you revert to further generalization. Suck a fucking dick.

>HAHAHAHA
>Because you couldn't fucking refute them. lol
Nah, because they're a fucking psychotic mess. I'll deal with sane people. I'll refute them. I'm not going to bother reading sloppy, raving lunacy.

If there's a sane person to make your point for you, find them. You should have the self-respect to not try convincing people of things with crazy fucking shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 04:48:43 2014 No.169382 >>169251 You, I like you.

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 04:55:13 2014 No.169400

>>169381
>it means nothing.
It means everything

>Everything I've learned about economics, I've learned about on my own
Yet everything you've learned about american economic history you've learned from public schools because you're simply repeating status quo arguments.

You will never question your beliefs for even one moment. You're a fundamentalist true believer.

>Nah, because they're a fucking psychotic mess.
HAHAHAHAHAH

DUDE, the arguments and data is RIGHT FUCKING THERE. I laid everything out point by fucking point countless times and you simply ignored it and instead spewed a bunch of reddit tier insults.

ahahaha holy fuck I have never seen this much leftist damage control in my entire life

>I'll refute them.
No you won't, you never will. If you could they would already be refuted.

dat cognitive dissonance
oh god lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 04:56:44 2014 No.169404 So what I'm getting from this conversation is that libertarians are the most rabid ideology defense force on 4chan.

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 04:58:43 2014 No.169411 >>169404 Le ebic posts like these won't change the fact that you people are wrong.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 04:59:13 2014 No.169416

>>169400
>[Toggle reply]
>Bring back the gilded age, seriously. (ID: uALVdu2k) 03/03/14(Mon)04:55 UTC-5 No.169400
>!
> >>169381 (You)
> >it means nothing.
> It means everything
> >Everything I've learned about economics, I've learned about on my own
> Yet everything you've learned about american economic history you've learned from public schools because you're simply repeating status quo arguments.
> You will never question your beliefs for even one moment. You're a fundamentalist true believer.
> >Nah, because they're a fucking psychotic mess.
> HAHAHAHAHAH
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 05:00:13 2014 No.169420 >>169404 Yep. And they'll literally accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being sheeple.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 05:00:43 2014 No.169419 >>169400 >You're a fundamentalist true believer. You forgot to add statist fascist bro.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 05:01:13 2014 No.169425 >>169411 >[Toggle reply] >Bring back the gilded age, seriously. (ID: uALVdu2k) 03/03/14(Mon)04:58 UTC-5 No.169411 >! > >>169404 > Le ebic posts like these won't change the fact that you people are wrong. >>>/pol/ >>>/pol/ >>>/pol/ >>>/pol/ >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 05:10:43 2014 No.169456 >>169411 >you people See, that's exactly it. You guys versus everyone else, huh? Not sure why I expected anything different when I opened a thread like this one. Well, keep on fighting the good fight man.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 07:48:33 2014 No.169800

>>169404
'Tis always the fact of the matter that you can't trust people with ideologies with politics, they cannot make fair and (at least try to make) objective dealings. Secularization was invented precisely because of that. At first it was a foolproof system but then humanity did it's thing and invented a better fool to beat the system: the political ideologist, who wears the face of economics but is actually just as rabidly fanatic as any ALLAHU AKBHER suicide bomber.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 17:42:25 2014 No.172420

>>169800
>'Tis
*tips fedora*
but otherwise good post.

Well if >>169411 aka (ID: uALVdu2k) is still around, I've looked at more of your links. One of the Mises essays cites a "Civil War Enthusiast" and another devotes its first paragraph to smearing a fantastic muckraker journalist.

So again, your sources are shit. You're a raving lunatic bred by toxic propaganda. Fuck off of /biz/, for fuck's sake.
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 18:28:56 2014 No.172650 >>167516 >>167519 emotioneless/moral-lacking money-jugglers

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 18:30:56 2014 No.172663

Does this manchild know we have IDs now?

Does he actually believe he can samefag himself out of an argument?

He's doing nothing but dodging points, lying, pretending calling his opponents "crazy" counts as an argument.

Leftists are actually this brain damaged and retarded.

Why do we allow them oxygen?

>b-buh I looked at your links and I'm going to nitpick this tiny bit of it that has nothing at all to do with what were talking about

LOL

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 18:36:26 2014 No.172693

>>172663
>[Toggle reply]
>Bring back the gilded age, seriously. (ID: fz6U/k3m) 03/03/14(Mon)18:30 UTC-5 No.172663
>!
> Does this manchild know we have IDs now?
> Does he actually believe he can samefag himself out of an argument?
> He's doing nothing but dodging points, lying, pretending calling his opponents "crazy" counts as an argument.
> Leftists are actually this brain damaged and retarded.
> Why do we allow them oxygen?
> >b-buh I looked at your links and I'm going to nitpick this tiny bit of it that has nothing at all to do with what were talking about
> LOL

>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 18:49:57 2014 No.172770 File: 3 KB, 480x400, etcetcetc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This thread has turned into shitposting. Stop arguing over the internet, you're not accomplishing anything.

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 20:04:06 2014 No.173246 >>172693 Stop fucking shitposting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 20:08:33 2014 No.173265 >>173246 >[Toggle reply] >Bring back the gilded age, seriously. (ID: fz6U/k3m) 03/03/14(Mon)20:04 UTC-5 No.173246 >! > >>172693 (You) > Stop fucking shitposting. >>>/pol/ >>>/pol/ >>>/pol/

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Mon Mar 3 20:30:34 2014 No.173365 >>173265 >actually created a bot that shitposts constantly Holy fuck why hasn't this faggot been banned.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 20:34:04 2014 No.173388 >>167733 what makes it theoretically impossible? You are saying that given any community of people, none of them could possibly survive that way.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 21:47:37 2014 No.173717

>>173365
>[Toggle reply]
>Bring back the gilded age, seriously. (ID: fz6U/k3m) 03/03/14(Mon)20:30 UTC-5 No.173365
>!
> >>173265 (You)
> >actually created a bot that shitposts constantly
> Holy fuck why hasn't this faggot been banned.

>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 23:38:55 2014 No.174199 File: 3 KB, 480x400, political graph.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>167066 >>167519 Hard working aryan, and just barely above freedom loving.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 12:07:23 2014 No.176192
File: 6 KB, 200x237, Max_stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>167577
>I will save the trouble here because I have had many debates with people about that green square and it always comes down to them eventually conceding the same truth "people who don't share will have things taken from them"
Or perhaps sharing leads to greater cooperation in events which need more than one person to be successful and a fail-safe mechanism if you fuck up.

If we had a small band of about 10 people and 1 elephant for example. 1 person taking on a elephant will probably die. However, if you have 10 people working together to kill it, the chances of an individual surviving will go up.

No one is coercing anyone. They work together because doing so will give them a better chance overall of survival.

Sharing helps to reinforce bonds between them. If no one shared the utility gained through the death of the elephant (meat, ivory, etc) and it became a free-for-all 1) it would lead to friction and antagonisms in the band and 2) you'd lower the chances of someone elses survival, and hence your own.

Think of it as a union of egoists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 12:09:23 2014 No.176200 File: 13 KB, 480x400, 1323217166458.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Purple maser race of course.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 12:14:53 2014 No.176219 File: 123 KB, 546x590, 1375836821216.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>176200

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 12:21:53 2014 No.176245 File: 781 KB, 1000x1000, kyouko too cute.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>176192 So it's like Tsundere Economics? >i-it's not l-like I want to sh-share with you anon, I-I'm just doing this for my o-own benefit, nobody elses!

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 12:52:23 2014 No.176382

>>168914
Dude I am reading both of you guys post. That other person is responding. They are reading your articles. You are responding with biased personal feelings yourself. You ~feel~ certain political leanings ~destroy~ business. IT depends on what you define as "destroying".

I do believe that regulation done extremely can prevent creative interventions, but the same time I worked enough shit jobs where I know that there needs to be worker protections. I had the opportunity to quit and look for work when this happens, but I realize that isn't something everyone has. I could sacrifice a half month's wages looking for another job because I wasn't saddled by monetary responsibilities. This isn't because of my own magical ability to prevent inescapable circumstances but really luck.

I need laws to protect me from business stealing overtime wages, stealing wages, overtaxing my pay to cover their expenses, forcing me to work in unsafe work environments despite not providing the safety equipment to do just that. I have so many stories it's bonkers.

Stop just assuming that people who want these protections simply want to be coddled and given magical money checks for non-existent work. If everyone had a sense of ethics we wouldn't have to regulate, but unfortunately we do and we shouldn't have to punish those who simply lack options to seek viable employment elsewhere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 13:21:31 2014 No.176508 File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >i'm between ghandi , dali llama and nelson mandella >I have killed several people.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 13:45:01 2014 No.176656
File: 6 KB, 480x400, muhcompass.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm less for personal freedoms than I was a few years ago. The problem with these 'compasses' is that they don't allow nationalism to show.

I'm a stark raving liberal...for those of the the national group, but end up in some weird middle ground as I have to pick illiberal choices to protect the national culture.

Likewise, I'm all for the free market, but at the end of the day it should serve the will of the nation (not the state).

Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Tue Mar 4 14:13:36 2014 No.176805

>>176382
>That other person is responding
No he's not you incredibly stupid samefag.

He's(you) are skipping over everything I said that proves you wrong.

You even had the balls to make a bot that shitposts against every post I make.

Why am I even explaining this shit to you, anyone can look at the thread and see for themselves.

>I need laws to protect me from business stealing overtime wages, stealing wages, overtaxing my pay to cover their expenses, forcing me to work in unsafe work environments despite not providing the safety equipment to do just that. I have so many stories it's bonkers.

Working conditions were improving dramatically long before the first labour laws were put into place.

Companies cannot "steal" wages you fucking retard.

Wages are dictated by the labour market you economic illiterate.

>>	Bring back the gilded age, ser(...) Tue Mar 4 14:17:36 2014 No.176830 >>173717 >he doesnt agree with me >he's debunking my beliefs >go back to /pol/ What you are doing is technically a bannable offense. Inb4 another automated reply.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 14:21:31 2014 No.176842 >>176656 There is a 3 dimensional version of this with globalism-nationalism on it.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 14:27:02 2014 No.176871

>>176656

I have the exact same opinion. If I lived in a homogenous society I would be fairly liberal in that I would want a good social safety net and equal opportunities for everyone. But in modern america such measures benefit other races at the expense of my family and my race.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 14:30:01 2014 No.176886 Very slight red. i think my massive fedora tipping pulls it back to the middle.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 14:36:17 2014 No.176921 >>176842 Link?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/biz/ - Business & Finance