Do billionaires deserve their money?

[Vassenor]

Developed countries just outsource poverty to the third world.

This false idea is probably one of the worst to seed its roots in academia in the 21st century.

So what is actually going on then?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Yeah so capitalism kicked in and shit suddenly got awesome.

lol

Because the alternative is not having it. I admire your greed it will serve you well as you navigate the capitalist system. Capitalism uses that greed as fuel. Continue lusting for more and more, seize upon any angle of unfair advantage. Exploit whenever you can and innovate wherever you must. That's the great thing about capitalism, if you want more if you don't just want to passively accept what your given then take more. Be worth more.

while you admire the fact that survival in a capitalist system is dependent on your greed and exploitation skills, I personally happen to think that that is screwed up.

today, most socialists are probably market socialists anyway.

[Des-Bal]

Socialism has never done anything but kill people.

Socialism lifted millions out of poverty in every country it's been implemented in. It's expanded access to healthcare, food, water, electricity, education, and all sorts of amenities to populations that had no access to them. It's turned backwater agrarian states into industrial giants. It's liberated women and minorities by combating patriarchal and xenophobic cultures. It took us to space for Christ's sake. It has literally founded countries, ended corrupt regimes, repelled invasions, and given people better lives than what they had before. In every country that Socialism has been implemented the lives and well-being of the average worker improved drastically over the pitiful conditions that feudalists/capitalists had them endure before.

To suggest Socialism has never done anything but kill people is so ludicrous as to be a complete rejection of reality itself. Please pick up a fucking history book my dude, holy shit.

Sure you can you just said you'd have to be in debt which while unpleasant is not mortal.

My man I should not have to go into debt for the rest of my life just to get a higher education. That is absolutely fucking bonkers. In a Socialist state I could access education free of charge; the way it should be.

Yeah so capitalism kicked in and shit suddenly got awesome.

Oh yeah, shit got awesome alright... for the West. Their victims? Not so much.

Houses don't grow on trees you have the option of being housed due to capitalism.

I could get better arguments from high schoolers ngl.

Houses don't grow on trees, which is why if there aren't enough houses you build more. Notably however we do not have a housing crisis in America. Quite the opposite; we have more houses than people. Our homeless population is destitute specifically because they cannot afford to buy any of these houses. Most Americans are forced to rent. In my case I need two paychecks just to rent a single-person condo.

Under Socialism so long as you work you will be housed; no need to buy or rent anything. Under Capitalism you can have a steady, well-paying job and still be homeless. San Francisco has one of the largest homeless populations in the nation and yet most of them have steady jobs while plenty of houses remain vacant and took expensive to afford. Good job, Capitalism. Very impressive.

We totally should the problem is Socialism is bullshit that doesn't work

It's interesting how so many people say "Socialism doesn't work" yet none of these same people seem to be able to explain how or why.

and if you want to threaten the fruits of all human progress

Capitalism is already doing that with irreversible total ecological devastation... but I noticed you've been ignoring this point rather consistently.

Probabilities? Yes I do. Exceptionally few people die yo malnutrition and exposure and it's because Capitalism is great.

No, it's because modern societies have managed to devise viable solutions to these problems thanks to advancements in technology.

Capitalism stifles this advancement, however. We will never have a cure for cancer because there is no profit in cures. Maybe if the medical industry wasn't run by people trying to make money we would have cured it already.

Yes and the alternative is not having it.

No it isn't. This is perhaps the apex of your delusional belief that a modern society somehow cannot exist without Capitalism. What possibly possesses you to believe this utter nonsense? Do you really think that if the workers seized the means of production tomorrow that every advancement made in the past 300 years would go out the window or something? Because if so that's pretty fucking sad.

I admire your greed

My brother in Christ... you really don't get it, do you?

I don't care about fucking money. I want to be able to have a decent fucking life. Something which Capitalism denies me. I want water that is safe to drink, I want electricity that doesn't cut off, I want walls that won't give me cancer, I want food that won't make me sick. I want the security of knowing that I have a roof over my head which will never be taken away, utilities to provide me with necessities I need to survive that won't be shut off. I want to be able to go to the doctor without being charged for a life-saving operation, I want to be able to get a higher education without having to pay out of pocket for my own materials, I want to be able to breath air that isn't choked by smog. I want to be able to live without having to fucking pay for life itself. I work for a living. That in and of itself is more than enough reason that I should be provided with everything I need to live a decent life, with the only expense I should have to pay being taxes.

I don't want riches. I don't want "free stuff". I want the fucking dignity that a working class human being deserves. This is all possible through Socialism, because all that money being wasted by billionaires to buy another bugatti could instead be used to build a brand new hospital, to design new fuel-efficient energy production, to create a better world more livable than this one. As long as my needs are being met I don't care if 90% of my paycheck is going to government taxes. I want a decent fucking life and that isn't possible under Capitalism, not without being part of the oppressor class, and no matter what lies you tell yourself the "self-made man" is a myth. The "American Dream" is a myth. Even if I wanted to partake in your psychotic and callous system of thievery and exploitation where the most vicious bastard gets to the top by stepping on everyone else I'll never have the opportunity.

A better world is entirely possible and the only obstacle to it is Capitalism. Ergo, Capitalism must be destroyed.

It's so cool that socialism did all that stuff when

I mean there was never an attempt to implement it, so...

In a socialist state you'd never go to college because you would die on your knees and your body would be shoveled into a mass grave. Obviously neither of us can know for sure what would happen but if we look at the scoreboard smart money's on my pick.

I haven't ignored anything I said I will give a fuck about the inevitable doom when the inevitable doom actually happens and that's ignoring the fact the socialism that never existed but is also solely responsible for space travel and spread industrialization has no blame whatsoever in the state of the environment.

Actually yeah it's pretty awesome for them too. Even the shittiest parts of the world aren't doing all that bad when addressed at the proper scale. Your problem is you see somebody getting ahead and get upset without considering whether those left behind are actually worse off.

I don't need to bring my A-Game to refute socialism- I don't really need anything to refute socialism. Scoreboard. Capitalism won and yes that makes it better because being beaten makes you a loser.

Under socialism you will die on your knees and your body will be shoveled into a mass grave. Again- we're speculating but look at the scoreboard before you put money down.

Point to the single greatest socialist state around today. Go right ahead- whose the socialist superpower right now? When human life hangs in the balance trusting it to losers doesn't make sense.

That's stupid and not true- there's SOOOOO much money in cures. There's a disgusting amount of money in cures- lots of people get cancer and would pay any amount of money to cure it- cancer can recur or you can develop another type. If you can cure cancer you can print money. The power to make money off of treating disease has created an engine of progress unlike anything the world has ever seen- our capacity to identify treat and prevent disease has reached a point that is frankly hard to distinguish from magic.

You just described all the shit you want and feel entitled to and how you shouldn't have to pay to get it. That is what free stuff is. It's evident at every phase of your ideology that delusional fixation with looking at somebody else's plate. Head out to New Mexico and start a commune then build your perfect society that will out-compete- it should be shockingly easy because apparently manual labor is the only actual work- and distribute resources equally. Go build a fucking hospital yourself if it's so effortless. The resources you're saying are being mismanaged exist solely due to capitalism the technologies that make that hospital worth a fuck were forged by capitalism the techniques that make those doctors competent are the products of a capitalist system. That's really all there is to it you care about billionaires because it's not about dignity or worth it's about the fact that by sheer token of drawing breath you feel you deserve an equal share in anything anyone else has. You don't. The system isn't fair- the world's not fair how many life forms are born then immediately die? The system doesn't give everyone a fair shot, most people will not achieve the extent of their dreams, some people will fall into the cracks regardless of how hard they try. But it works, the wheel will turn, most will be okay and some will advance and through whatever combination of luck, cunning, and grit advance and their advancement often but not always benefits everyone else.

Go to New Mexico. Build a commune. Forsake our foul tasting capitalist water until you realize you are not in fact generating the value of a billionaire and stop trying to drag everyone down with you.

[Des-Bal]

lol



while you admire the fact that survival in a capitalist system is dependent on your greed and exploitation skills, I personally happen to think that that is screwed up.

today, most socialists are probably market socialists anyway.

They unveiled a machine that turned the worst most toxic garbage into clean free energy it would be pretty awesome. That's capitalism a dynamo strapped to the darkest parts of our hearts.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Socialist states in the 1900's ruled over the greatest and most rapid advances in standards of living we've ever seen. Even if the PRC is a totalitarian meme, it can't be denied that it has made almost unfathomable progress at lifting people up. When the Communist Party took over China large parts of the nation were still practically in feudal conditions and the vast majority of the population couldn't even read.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

lol



while you admire the fact that survival in a capitalist system is dependent on your greed and exploitation skills, I personally happen to think that that is screwed up.

today, most socialists are probably market socialists anyway.

They unveiled a machine that turned the worst most toxic garbage into clean free energy it would be pretty awesome. That's capitalism a dynamo strapped to the darkest parts of our hearts.

that’s a completely hypothetical thing that could also happen in a socialist system. market socialism is pretty much just capitalism where workers own the companies.

[Des-Bal]

that’s a completely hypothetical thing that could also happen in a socialist system. market socialism is pretty much just capitalism where workers own the companies.

Not a hypothetical it's a metaphor. You say it's bad capitalism is fueled by greed and exploitation I say it's good those things are being put to work.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Socialist states in the 1900's ruled over the greatest and most rapid advances in standards of living we've ever seen. Even if the PRC is a totalitarian meme, it can't be denied that it has made almost unfathomable progress at lifting people up. When the Communist Party took over China large parts of the nation were still practically in feudal conditions and the vast majority of the population couldn't even read.

Before 1970, the year that the Chinese Communist Party had already taken over China, 88% of the Chinese population lived in poverty. Is this progress?

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

In addition, most developed nations today have great economic freedom.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Socialist states in the 1900's ruled over the greatest and most rapid advances in standards of living we've ever seen. Even if the PRC is a totalitarian meme, it can't be denied that it has made almost unfathomable progress at lifting people up. When the Communist Party took over China large parts of the nation were still practically in feudal conditions and the vast majority of the population couldn't even read.

Before 1970, the year that the Chinese Communist Party had already taken over China, 88% of the Chinese population lived in poverty. Is this progress?

Compared to feudal warlordism with almost complete poverty? Yeah, massively, especially considering it's dropped massively since then.

Also, uh, you might want to go take another look at your history book because the PRC wasn't founded in 1970 lol.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Before 1970, the year that the Chinese Communist Party had already taken over China, 88% of the Chinese population lived in poverty. Is this progress?

Compared to feudal warlordism with almost complete poverty? Yeah, massively, especially considering it's dropped massively since then.

Also, uh, you might want to go take another look at your history book because the PRC wasn't founded in 1970 lol.

Starting in 1978, China began to prosper because of the free market.
And free market for you is Socialism?

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Before 1970, the year that the Chinese Communist Party had already taken over China, 88% of the Chinese population lived in poverty. Is this progress?

Compared to feudal warlordism with almost complete poverty? Yeah, massively, especially considering it's dropped massively since then.

Also, uh, you might want to go take another look at your history book because the PRC wasn't founded in 1970 lol.

In addition, many countries are poor or whose population is constantly oppressed by the government. Most are socialists.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Compared to feudal warlordism with almost complete poverty? Yeah, massively, especially considering it's dropped massively since then.

Also, uh, you might want to go take another look at your history book because the PRC wasn't founded in 1970 lol.

Starting in 1978, China began to prosper because of the free market.
And free market for you is Socialism?

China is quite decidedly not a free market, the majority of the Chinese is either owned by the state or collectively owned and even among the private sector the Party still dominates.

I don't totally agree with their view on it but the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist viewpoint is that the PRC's current actions are in keeping with Marxist stages of development. Since China never had a capitalist phase (going directly from the still mostly feudal Republic to being ruled by the Communist Party) their view is that the country must go through a capitalist phase before it can continue onwards to implementing socialism or communism.

Compared to feudal warlordism with almost complete poverty? Yeah, massively, especially considering it's dropped massively since then.

Also, uh, you might want to go take another look at your history book because the PRC wasn't founded in 1970 lol.

In addition, many countries are poor or whose population is constantly oppressed by the government. Most are socialists.

There's only 4 socialist states in the world right now.

[Umeria]

That's stupid and not true- there's SOOOOO much money in cures. There's a disgusting amount of money in cures- lots of people get cancer and would pay any amount of money to cure it- cancer can recur or you can develop another type. If you can cure cancer you can print money. The power to make money off of treating disease has created an engine of progress unlike anything the world has ever seen- our capacity to identify treat and prevent disease has reached a point that is frankly hard to distinguish from magic.

Sadly tens of thousands of people die every year from preventable illnesses in America because they can't afford said magic. I'm not opposed to people making money from providing healthcare, but I am opposed to people needing to spend money before they can receive healthcare. Believe it or not those two positions aren't incompatible. It's called single payer healthcare, it provides the incentives for developing and practicing medicine and also fairly distributes the costs for doing so.

Is the American system better than living under Pol Pot or whatever? Sure, but that doesn't mean that there aren't obvious and verifiable ways to improve upon it.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Starting in 1978, China began to prosper because of the free market.
And free market for you is Socialism?

China is quite decidedly not a free market, the majority of the Chinese is either owned by the state or collectively owned and even among the private sector the Party still dominates.

I don't totally agree with their view on it but the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist viewpoint is that the PRC's current actions are in keeping with Marxist stages of development. Since China never had a capitalist phase (going directly from the still mostly feudal Republic to being ruled by the Communist Party) their view is that the country must go through a capitalist phase before it can continue onwards to implementing socialism or communism.

In addition, many countries are poor or whose population is constantly oppressed by the government. Most are socialists.

There's only 4 socialist states in the world right now.

The "great leap forward" was a total failure.
And his goal was precisely to make China a developed and truly socialist country.

[Washington Resistance Army]

China is quite decidedly not a free market, the majority of the Chinese is either owned by the state or collectively owned and even among the private sector the Party still dominates.

I don't totally agree with their view on it but the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist viewpoint is that the PRC's current actions are in keeping with Marxist stages of development. Since China never had a capitalist phase (going directly from the still mostly feudal Republic to being ruled by the Communist Party) their view is that the country must go through a capitalist phase before it can continue onwards to implementing socialism or communism.



There's only 4 socialist states in the world right now.

The "great leap forward" was a total failure.
And his goal was precisely to make China a developed and truly socialist country.

Yes, nobody denies this. That's precisely why it was ended and the methods revised.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

That's stupid and not true- there's SOOOOO much money in cures. There's a disgusting amount of money in cures- lots of people get cancer and would pay any amount of money to cure it- cancer can recur or you can develop another type. If you can cure cancer you can print money. The power to make money off of treating disease has created an engine of progress unlike anything the world has ever seen- our capacity to identify treat and prevent disease has reached a point that is frankly hard to distinguish from magic.

Sadly tens of thousands of people die every year from preventable illnesses in America because they can't afford said magic. I'm not opposed to people making money from providing healthcare, but I am opposed to people needing to spend money before they can receive healthcare. Believe it or not those two positions aren't incompatible. It's called single payer healthcare, it provides the incentives for developing and practicing medicine and also fairly distributes the costs for doing so.

Is the American system better than living under Pol Pot or whatever? Sure, but that doesn't mean that there aren't obvious and verifiable ways to improve upon it.

Really. But it's like this: Each country has its successes and mistakes, nothing and no one can be perfect.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

The "great leap forward" was a total failure.
And his goal was precisely to make China a developed and truly socialist country.

Yes, nobody denies this. That's precisely why it was ended and the methods revised.

It is. But I sincerely have my reasons to believe that neither Socialism nor Communism are beneficial, and of course you also have your reasons to support whatever you want.

[Umeria]

Sadly tens of thousands of people die every year from preventable illnesses in America because they can't afford said magic. I'm not opposed to people making money from providing healthcare, but I am opposed to people needing to spend money before they can receive healthcare. Believe it or not those two positions aren't incompatible. It's called single payer healthcare, it provides the incentives for developing and practicing medicine and also fairly distributes the costs for doing so.

Is the American system better than living under Pol Pot or whatever? Sure, but that doesn't mean that there aren't obvious and verifiable ways to improve upon it.

Really. But it's like this: Each country has its successes and mistakes, nothing and no one can be perfect.

Well I think there's room for improvement

[The Zexen Confederacy]

Whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant; they have it and that's all that really matters. The world isn't always fair or equal, and people don't always get what they deserve. Should we just strip all the billionaires of their billions?

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Really. But it's like this: Each country has its successes and mistakes, nothing and no one can be perfect.

Well I think there's room for improvement

Yup. Everyone has a chance to improve. But of course, nothing in the world is perfect.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant; they have it and that's all that really matters. The world isn't always fair or equal, and people don't always get what they deserve. Should we just strip all the billionaires of their billions?

You told the real and true truth.

[Betoni]

It's all fun to wave flags, sing songs, and list all the accomplishments of our own respective sides. Sure the other side has had some success too, but that's mostly been down to luck and them pilfering our best resources or the refs bottling it. I mean I can still remember that chance Antti Chydenius's beautiful pass gave to Gustav III back in the day. And we still like to remind our rivals of Rosa Luxemburg's miss on the open net. But ultimately when it comes down to it, wouldn't we all like to have cheaper tickets and cheaper beer at the games and just once ourselves to experience that feeling of playing the game and scoring that winner goal on the big stage. I'm sure there is at least the one thing we can all agree on, nobody cares about Man City and PSG right? Oh, wait what were we talking about again?

[The Land of the Ephyral]

In answer to the actual question anyway, I don't really care. What people deserve is inevitably going to be subjective and even if you find people who agree that they have "too much", you're not going to agree on "by how much?". What people deserve, in your view, has virtually nothing to do with what they're in a position to obtain, honestly or dishonestly, via merits they have or merits of other people that they are able to market. I don't know what solution any of you would propose that wouldn't create a legal precedent that could be co-opted by another group of people in a direction you don't like or that couldn't be abused by the people who put it in place to target the next group of people they feel "don't deserve" what they have.

If billionaires don't deserve their money because of X, then any number of people might be judged to "not deserve" their money, no matter how small, because of Y, because you're trying to connect what you own to morality.

Mostly for reasons like this that I don't care much about economics or furthering an economic ideology. I don't like capitalism but I also don't like the alternatives, especially the ones that basically just pretend they can make a better world whilst openly admitting that they need the bad one to consent to do it, because apparently those ideas don't work if the system it is superior to tries to stop it. It's a contradiction in terms that belies contradiction in thought and it's not a sell for me.

[Bear Stearns]

most don't but a couple do i suppose