If workers struggle for higher wages, this is >hailed as “social gains”...

I thought Ludwig was the Libertarian idol. I know Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, but whenever I would see people preaching libertarianism they always praised von Mises.

A successful businessman just sinks to a lower moral level than their competitors more efficiently.

Anything to make a buck. If you make money it justifies itself in their minds. There is no moral or societal end point to the depravity of worker exploitation.

Workers died for your right to jack off all day on weekends. Men died so you wouldn't go to debtor's prison if you miss a credit card bill payment. Workers died so you could sleep off pneumonia. Men died so you wouldn't have to compete with slaves and children for basic labor jobs. The rich do NOTHING moral without force. Nothing good has come of waiting for the wealthy to be charitable. The have nots must always force even the tiniest dignity from them.

Good post, this is very funny, i have not heard all of these before, please post again soon, can I borrow this text to share it I will credit you send me your email please u got snap?

>A successful businessman just sinks to a lower moral level than their competitors more efficiently.

Eh.
This may be the reality. But I think it has more to do with people just trying to be the best.

Nobody was calling Scipio Africanus a shitter for devastating Carthage. Fast forward a few hundred years, with no external enemy's guys who would be leading Rome to greatness turn on Rome and fight a fuckton of civil wars because what else are you going to do?

Economic growth is consumer spending and business investing.

The less works are paid the less they have to spend. The more companies care about profits and cash piles the less they are investing.

Wages are at an all time low per GDP and companies are holding more cash than ever before as well. They aren't investing and they aren't stimulating growth.

In a free market the economy is controlled by businesses. When they get greedy economy slows down. When they invest hire workers and pay good wages consumer spending rises as does the economy. Its ridiculous that apple alone has higher cash piles than the treasuries of some countries.

Wages are remuneration for labor. Profits are remuneration for ownership. While the owner might perform labor, the difference between his profit and the wages he could pay to another to do his job for him, is the proportion of income derived from ownership. It's very rare that there's a unique talent that could not be replaced by another laborer.

No one does anything moral without force, if there were no consequences to our actions we would all become monsters.

All morality and values stem from our interactions with the real world, something the good wholesome capitalist has to be in tune with just to compete let alone beat the market average. They cultivate übermensch virtues so they can make sound business decisions and live beneath their means to provide a surplus they can reinvest, they strive to obtain wealth even when they already have everything. This in turn influences how they spend the pocket money they allow themselves.

Contrast this with the average socialist politician who strives to place sentimentalism above realism every step of the way. Our heavily funded welfare system could end homelessness and child poverty overnight, but they aren't voters, so they are left out in the cold in favor of extra perks for lower-middle class voters who aren't in any real trouble. There is no dignity to take from these "have nots".

Both are ultimately about selfishness (except for workers who have families to support), but we tend to sympathize with workers more because their struggle is worse.

>tfw even strident capitalists still use Rawlsian frameworks for justifying their arguments.

>No one does anything moral without force, if there were no consequences to our actions we would all become monsters.
I don't think so. Humans are social creatures by their very nature. We've always lived in groups and we've always taken care of each other to some extent.

A natural morality based on compassion or empathy existed before written laws and law enforcement as it is ingrained into our biological sub-consciousness and part of what helped us keep our species alive throughout the aeons.

However, morality is no strong imperative. If the resources are scarce we look out for our closest relatives and friends first, if the resources are even scarcer we look out only for ourselves. Also, in order for this kind of natural morality - or empathy/compassion - to work, it needs certain biological triggers, e.g. visual suffering of people known to us. The structures of modern societies make such things mostly private though. Division of labour and the more complex societal structures we have today as well as the imperative of capitalism that forces businesses to produce ever cheaper further contribute to remove what's left of morality. That is why it is impossible to rely on the good-will of entrepreneurs - the worker needs to fight for his interests.

>private property is a right only if you're white

Fixed, and it rhymes too!

Have you heard of a little something called Henry Ford's $5 work day?

No one forced him to do that.

>except for workers who have families to support)
Yeah, it's not like businessmen don't have families to support either... dumb fuck

Brief exception. Not an argument.

>"Tribalism" is barbaric goy kinship and love for your race and family is stupid
>Is a lifelong supporter and defender of the jewish state of israel

What did (((she))) mean by this?

>The rich do NOTHING moral without force
>I produce an example where they do
>muh outlier
Your initial statement was incorrect.

>not an argument
you have to go back

>le jew brackets hehehe it's part of my super sikrit club! r u redpilled lyk me??

Ford did that to retain skilled workers. The labour turnover rate back then was huge. Can manufacturing was also a seasonal business.

Mods do your fucking "job". This autistic neckbeard is in every thread sperging out and derailing

>/pol/ doesn't like being called out on their retardation
>cries for mods

fuck off back to /pol/

Henry Ford had a private army of strike breakers. He was living the ancap dream.

kys, businessmen can support 5 families if they wanted to

Nobody cares except you. Pathetic autistic tard get a life you cringy whiny butthurt betamale loser

Line manufacturing wasn't exactly a skilled job, Ford said he could take any man off the street and turn him into a good worker in a matter of a week or two. The job was horrendously mind numbing and labour intensive though so it did have a large turnover rate. Who says you can't be moral and business savy though. No other car company came even close to a $5 per day rate, which is why they were inundated with applications.

>you're a stinky poopoo head

Quality.

>Henry Ford had a private army of strike breakers. He was living the ancap dream.
He was being a bit cheeky

how can you steal someone land, if he doesnt own it? in other words why don´t the indians declared it their property? because they dont know what property is and therefore they cant whine about the loss of it,

>kys, businessmen can support 5 families if they wanted to
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that all businessmen are rich. We're not talking about millionaires, but men who work hard to build their business, hire employees and try to provide a good life for their families.

Businessmen take a far higher risk than employees. At the end of the day, employees know they'll be paid come next month. Businessmen live on the edge, their business could crumble at any time, and they live with constant anxiety. Employees can just fuck off to another job at any time.

How can anyone end up like you? A fat sperg who spends 10 hours every day whining about le /pol/ boogeyman on Veeky Forums. You really need to reconsider your life choices. Nobody cares about your autism and cringy personal crusade stop derailing threads.

...

god you are so stupid, in my very limited world view, every businessmen is super rich and evil, whilest all worker are angels who are oppressed by the businessmen
kys!

Alright, I have to admit, you made a good point. I'm specifically talking about rich businessmen with a stable income.

I guess you could make the argument there that so long as the system prevents monopolies (and the businessman started from nothing), there's little reason why a worker should call a millionaire businessman selfish since he could achieve the same status if he worked just as hard and was lucky.

yeah, my main issue with liberalism/capitalism is how it's not actually meritocratic as people pretend it is

if it were more meritocratic I'd definitely pick it over socialism all day every day

oh, and post more mercy gifs pls

>it's not actually meritocratic as people pretend it is

That doesn't even make any sense. Entrepreneurs who fail to make accurate predictions lose capital and eventually exit the market.

Also there is nothing inherently morally wrong with people having control over their property and passing it to their progeny. What's next? It's "unfair" if a parent gives shelter and food to his child?

It's bad for society. Wealth concentration is only good up to a certain level. And society is still necessary for a man to function.
Of course your Jewish idol didn't really give a fuck about society, and she just went into another extreme because she was personally harmed by extreme collectivists.

>put in enough labor a week to produce the equivalent of 10 cars
>have to work six months to be able afford one car

what did capitalism mean by this?

>workers can produce products without management, investment, or other secondary services

laughingeconomists.jpg

The most secondary services like advertising and such aren't really here to produce *more* cars.

>produce a shitload of cars
>nobody buys them
>what was the point of this

I bet you think that when peacocks evolve huge displays of feathers, that's a waste too.

A free market is profoundly parsimonious.

>Also there is nothing inherently morally wrong with people having control over their property and passing it to their progeny. What's next? It's "unfair" if a parent gives shelter and food to his child?

Inequality is kind of in the definition of unfairness. Shelter and food given to one kid is unfair to another kid who isn't given them. All that differs when we stop talking about "shelter and food" and start talking "no need to lift a finger in your entire life" is the degree of unfairness.

And no, passing things on to one's progeny is the complete opposite of meritocracy.

The basic dialectic of capitalist and proletariat should be easy to accept as true even for the most indoctrinated libertarian: the capitalist is dialectically codependent on the proletariat and vice versa, making the capitalist's unbridled exploitation illogical for the proletariat, as he has the possibility to stop his work.

Marxist dialectics are dumb, because they ignore the fact that the workers control the primary factor of production, labor, and they ignore the basic fact that opening factories and investing money is a form of productive labor.

>baww that guy is taller than me!
>it's only fair if you cut his feet off!

>being opposed to child prostitutes living in favelas means you want to cut tall people down to size
kys

>comparing redistribution of wealth with height
kys

>/pol/fag calling for mods
That is rich

>t. i havent read marx
Marx specifically goes into how industry is becoming more and more automated and less reliant on labor and more reliant on capital. Making investing choices is productive management labor. Profiting from ownership of investments is not. You could be hired as a market analyst for a salary, but it's your boss that reaps the profits.

>trying to create some equality for a true meritocracy is undermining the talented

>Libertarian using shitty analogy
Wew no surprise here

The strawman never stood a chance

btw, kys

>there is nothing inherently morally wrong with people having control over their property and passing it to their progeny
Do you also accept that there is nothing morally wrong with massive estate taxes, and/or massive wealth redistribution while living?

What's wrong with outsourcing? After all, people in the third world need money more than people in the first world.

>Businessmen struggling for higher profits generally come at the cost of the worker

That's retarded

she wasnt wrong about anything really, she just dropped really hard to swallow black pills that even the edgiest of edge lords cant swallow.

But by holding more cash rich people make the interest rates become lower, which in turns leades to more consumption since poor people now can borrow money more easily

>It's bad for society. Wealth concentration is only good up to a certain level.

Why?

...

So rape is okay if the people have no concept of it?

>literally Ayn Rand and Max Stirner threads
This board is useless.

No, no, no, outsourcing is good because it causes goods and services to be cheaper in the United States or whatever your home country is. No one cares about Raj or K'laka Tulu in some third world country.

On the other hand, outsourcing is bad because dumb people in Bumfuck, Nowhere don't have jobs and become a drain on the economy.

The issue is how much outsourcing we should have to be beneficial to the country.

>Indians didn't own property but they could use it
>White people come and take property
>Now Indians cannot use it
That was the problem

>whenever I would see people preaching libertarianism they always praised von Mises.
most libertarians, let alone people, don't know who von Mises is

>tfw I'm in a family business

Workers have it easy desu, the long term economic consequences of choices I make now are fucking ridiculous

>Entrepreneurs who fail to make accurate predictions lose capital and eventually exit the market.
No, the problem now is businessmen who crash the economy make money off of that and entrepreneurs who couldn't survive a terrible recession that the government and all their cronies said wasn't going to happen lose their business.
No one hates the small business owner, it's the big financial industry that is literally the root of all evil.

>communism is a jewish invention
>libertarianism is a jewish invention

This is so pants on head retarded. People who own business are MORE employable than people who have been forever wage cucks. If someone's employee can easily fuck off to another job, obviously the guy who told that last guy what to do can do at least that job. This should be obvious.

We're talking about OWNERSHIP OF CAPITAL. If you've got the capital to pay a bunch of people for labor, then you aren't about to starve on the street. In fact, when your business tanks you can even fire everyone and liquidate some of that capital most of the time.

im still waiting for automisation to make outsourcing unprofitable

how long will it take

yeah, they'd pretty much consent

>outsourcing is good because it causes goods and services to be cheaper in the United States or whatever your home country is
so why the FUCK do they mark up the price 20x when it was made for next to nothing???

???

Business will automate whatever they can't outsource. And then keep outsourcing whatever they can.

The problem is you wait around for your labor market to improve when you should be training/retooling for the best paying labor market within your reach.

if this is supposed to make me not like jews they're doing a bad job

Paul Tudor Jones 10/10

He didn't achieve his success that way.

T. Known Boss

nobody ever complained about profit margins.

It's just that some people question why the hunt for them has to be followed by a 250:1 rate of CEO:Worker wage

fuck the 3rd world

I don't think Steve Jobs lies awake anymore.

> businessmen
> overman virtues
holy shit lol

>living the ancap dream

Henry Ford was a fascist, and an anti-semite, there is no way he was living the ancap dream. Despite this, he did care about his workers and that this may fall in line with his political beliefs.

It's aimed at anti-semites. Most of the time when you see propaganda labeling Jews it is to put the Jews in a bad light, but this piece of propaganda is aimed at opposing libertarianism, and anti-semites will instead see it as a bad thing due to it's association with Jews.

It's all about the target audience, it would be much more effective if it was posted on /pol/.

>Also, in order for this kind of natural morality - or empathy/compassion - to work, it needs certain biological triggers, e.g. visual suffering of people known to us.
The free market uses these triggers all the time, the media loves to report on poverty and problems all over the world and charities learn to tug on people's heart strings.

>Division of labour and the more complex societal structures we have today as well as the imperative of capitalism that forces businesses to produce ever cheaper further contribute to remove what's left of morality.
Modern society looks more like a maelstrom to me. Some people end up isolated, though this is due to other reasons. Most normies are "oversocial" if anything.

That is what Ayn Rand came across when she arrived at New York in the midst of the roaring 20s. People from all over the world and from the countryside had been sucked into this bustling city, the composer of Rhapsody in Blue at about the same time described it as a "vast melting pot, of our unduplicated national pep, of our metropolitan madness".

youtube.com/watch?v=cH2PH0auTUU

You can imagine the impression it had on Ayn Rand coming straight from Stalinist Russia, she must have quickly come to the conclusion that freedom made all this possible. Freedom alone can't alleviate poverty, if someone doesn't like their job it will cost them to quit and find another, but freedom eliminates any additional expenses, the boss can't stop them from leaving, the state can't restrict their movements or order him to work somewhere, they can become self-employed without any repressive regulations or taxes. With workers milling around free to do whatever they want it also puts an upwards pressure on wages.

Capitalism is not the cause of these problems, all it does is remove barriers to entry. The rest is your job.

How did he? I think you need an ego, just the kind of ego you don't need to constantly try and protect.

Surely embracing the real world is a step closer to overman virtues. The goal of obtaining capital presents a constant challenge and constant feedback from reality about whether you are doing it right.

>outsourcing jobs
So you are saying wealthy workers in the developed world deserve high paid jobs more than workers in the undeveloped world and your fellow citizens need to be forced to employ you instead.

Since intelligence is a highly heritable trait kids born to high IQ parents should be exposed to lead poisoning to keep society "fair"

>Human intelligence is highly heritable.
nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

According to studies tall people have a higher income controlling for all other variables. So yeah having tall genes is "unfair" using your weird creepy insane egalitarian "logic".

>When the majority of society struggles for higher wages at the expense of an individual, this is considered a gain for society
>When an individual seeks gains for himself at the expense of society, this is considered selfish
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

>Paying more than the competition draws better talent and creates happier committed workers, directly to the benefit of the employer.
This is only necessary if:
A) You're hiring skilled workers instead of unskilled idiots who need 15 minutes training
B) There is a labour shortage.

B) Is remarkably rare and A) is relatively rare. The mass of people are unskilled workers.

Supply and demand keeps wages low. If you won't work for $1/hour, some other fuck facing starvation will.

>The free market uses these triggers all the time, the media loves to report on poverty and problems all over the world and charities learn to tug on people's heart strings.
Of course, but I would argue that it's not as strong as seeing your immediate neighbours suffer. It's enough to make people donate what would otherwise fall off the table for the dogs to eat but nothing to make people buckle up and take some serious action.

>Modern society looks more like a maelstrom to me. Some people end up isolated, though this is due to other reasons. Most normies are "oversocial" if anything.
They socialise but they're not part of a group comparable to a primordial tribe or clan. Kinship like this mostly exists among family these days, and the traditional family has been eroded more and more - also thanks to Capitalism. This is not just a downside, after all the family was also an instrument of oppression, but it also offered stability and safety - quite akin to how the state is perceived by many. In the end, not all benefit equally from freedom since they may lack capital or profitable skills. These people might prefer stability and safety over freedom.

>Capitalism is not the cause of these problems, all it does is remove barriers to entry.
Capitalism works as a catalyst the more unfettered it is. It results in an optimisation, and this optimisation comes at the expense of some.