Tfw you realise that capitalism is a zero sum game

>For rich to exist there must also be poor.

True. But that's a meaningless statement. The point is most people in the world are now middle class. Not poor.

Living conditions have improved for the working class in certain parts of the world, namely the West, but that is partially because the East Asians, Africans, and Indians now do the work and live in the conditions Europeans did in the 1800s, and partially because technological progress has made it easier and cheaper to give people nice shit, but technology hasn't progressed because of Capitalism, it progresses because there's plenty of autistics who like researching and building shit, and sometimes that shit can be profitable. But the economic and political conditions for the working class remain the same.

>it progresses because there's plenty of autistics who like researching and building shit, and sometimes that shit can be profitable.
capitalism is very specifically the reason it's profitable. And it's this profit that motivates said autists.
>But the economic and political conditions for the working class remain the same.
except for things like indentured servitude and dying at 35 of work-related illness. Or living in a hut with no running water, electricity, or indoor bathrooms. Or having clean water to drink and easy food to eat.

your point about exporting poverty is valid, but along with that poverty we export capitalism, and the expectation that it will lift people out of poverty.

so pretty much completely different.

Not a single truthful sentence in this post.

>technology hasn't progressed because of Capitalism but because of autists
what am i reading

he's half right.

technology progresses because of scientists, engineers, and inventors- that's a fact.

but those people prefer to do their work in capitalist countries when possible and that's also a fact.

but those people dont have to be autists, they dont even have to passionate for their jobs, they get money and do the work that fills someones need, is there even any way this could not lead to progress?

And not a single argument in this.
Scientists and engineers progress technology, not the economic system entirely focused on maximizing profits (and not even for the scientists or engineers)
>but those people prefer to do their work in capitalist countries when possible and that's also a fact.
The brain drain definitely exists and that's obviously because people like living in better environments if they can, but their decision to leave has nothing to specifically do with those countries being Capitalist.

>And it's this profit that motivates said autists.
The autists don't make the profit off all their inventions and discoveries, the labs that they work for do. They're paid decently, but if you're smart and dedicated, you could get a better job than a R&D worker; they do what they do because they love it (or because they're autistic), if anything Capitalism limits them because only the ones who could create something profitable (and profitable is not the same thing as useful) actually get the means to work on what they want. Imagine what Tesla could've done if he actually had the means to do all his shit and didn't have to constantly worry about wooing investors who only cared if what he made could make them money, and now imagine all the current and past Teslas in the same position.
>except for things like indentured servitude and dying at 35 of work-related illness. Or living in a hut with no running water, electricity, or indoor bathrooms. Or having clean water to drink and easy food to eat.
Yes I know, I said the material conditions have changed (the things you mentioned) but the economic and political conditions have remained the same. Those being proles are still proles who don't have any real power and are still exploited by the property-owning class.

im not arguing that we could have more progress with a different system, but its just wrong to say autists are the one factor that drives progress and capitalism has nothing to do with it. I would even say its impossible to not make progress under capitalism. This or course doesnt apply to everything that is done or produced but overall there is always progress in some fields.

>their decision to leave has nothing to specifically do with those countries being Capitalist
you don't see any causal link between capitalism and the improved standard of living?

what do you attribute it to then?

>They're paid decently, but if you're smart and dedicated, you could get a better job than a R&D worker
in the US our STEM people aspire to work for themselves, and they often become quite wealthy doing so.

this is where capitalism kicks ass- if you're good you can go out and do your own thing.

>overall there is always progress in some fields.
the difference is people volunteer to make this progress in capitalist markets and are forced to do it in other systems.

the difference between the carrot and the stick should be immediately clear, and it should be obvious which attracts more workhorses.

i dont see how that refudes the initial argument of who said that progress has nothing to do with capitalism and its all because of the autists.

if capitalism didn't exist then it wouldn't matter since autists would have no choice where to work and how to be paid for it.

in reality capitalism exists so those autists will choose it every time they can.

basically user's argument assumes a situation that doesn't exist.

>capitalism has nothing to do with it
Capitalism is very good at creating profit, so if a technology or anything else can be profitable, it'll be very good at developing it, but everything else has to depend on volunteers or millionaire eccentrics to go anywhere.
>you don't see any causal link between capitalism and the improved standard of living?
There's definitely a casual link, I'm saying that the immigrant's choice is based on them wanting to go to a Capitalist country, just a nice one.
Like any other hierarchical system, it has to convince the shat on people at the bottom that they can eventually rise up and doing the shitting themselves, but the facts of the matter is, unless you're born with money and connections, you're not going to rise far in Capitalism. It's possible for a person to become wealthy (even though it's still heavily dependent on the right factors outside of their control), but they'll never reach 1% levels, and until they do, they're still being exploited. But even if becoming wealthy is possible, it's very difficult, considering most new businesses fail (which are created by a more highly skilled and dedicated minority in the first place), and most people don't have the time, money, or intellect to become a doctor or high paid STEMfag.
The idea that Capitalism is voluntary is also another very effective trick. Ultimately, everyone is presented with the choice of "Work and make money for me or starve", if that was phrased just a little differently, often how it was in previous systems, people would take that as a threat, not an opportunity.

>the immigrant's choice is based on them wanting to go to a Capitalist country, just a nice one.

Perhaps, but as an autist and an innovator I suspect the niceness of the country has a lot to do with freedoms generally afforded in capitalist societies.

UAE is a very nice country but we don't see scientists flocking there simply because it lacks the freedoms and opportunities of a more capitalist environment.

>it has to convince the shat on people
>The idea that Capitalism is voluntary is also another very effective trick
the question isn't whether or not capitalism offers great opportunity to dumb people, it's whether or not it pays smart people.

and the answer is yes, smart people prefer capitalism. If we wiped it out right now it would be reinvented in minutes because those that profit by it prefer it. And that's all that matters for it to excel.

>UAE is a very nice country but we don't see scientists flocking there simply because it lacks the freedoms and opportunities of a more capitalist environment.
Personal freedom is an important aspect of standard of living. Obviously people don't just care about nice apartments and pretty cars.
>smart people prefer capitalism
They prefer whatever is the best option available to them. But the thing is, they're not choosing between Capitalism and not Capitalism, they're choosing between rich and poor, both results from Capitalism.
>If we wiped it out right now it would be reinvented in minutes because those that profit by it prefer it
Except the ones who truly profit from it aren't the ones actually doing the work. STEMfags are just another worker, one that's paid much more than most, but like all others workers they are still paid less than what they actually produce.

tfw you realize OP has no grasp of economics

>but like all others workers they are still paid less than what they actually produce
this is the crux of the problem.

unlike other workers they understand this and work to alleviate the iniquity. Often to great success.

and that's where capitalism succeeds. The people that drive innovation understand that they're oppressing others, but helping them as well. We all want an excuse to be wealthier than the next guy. Capitalism offers that.

>unlike other workers they understand this and work to alleviate the iniquity. Often to great success.
Unless they become a Gates or a Rothschild, they'll never actually stop being exploited.
> The people that drive innovation understand that they're oppressing others
The innovation drivers aren't actually the ones who profit off the innovation or do the oppression, that'd be the shareholders, investors, property owners, etc.
>We all want an excuse to be wealthier than the next guy. Capitalism offers that.
Capitalism offers the belief of that, but in reality, it just offers the choice to work to make someone else rich from your labor.

>Unless they become a Gates or a Rothschild, they'll never actually stop being exploited
there's a lot of middle ground between trailer trash and bill gates. Most people aim for that middle ground and hit it with varying success.
>it just offers the choice to work to make someone else rich from your labor
again-
false dichotomy.
rich and poor aren't binary, they're a spectrum.

intelligent people understand this innately. I'd be disappointed to find you aren't one of them.

I'm not talking about different levels of wealth, I'm talking about an individual's position in the economic hierarchy, which often correlates with wealth but not necessarily. If you don't own property, that means you must sell your labor to someone who does in order to live. For that person to want to hire you, they need to be able to take a portion of the value you create for themselves. You're exploited because you don't actually receive all that you produce. Unless you become like a Gates or a Rothschild, not necessarily their level of wealth but their position as property owners, you'll always be exploited.

>If you don't own property, that means you must sell your labor to someone who does in order to live.
only if we count employing others as owning property.

in reality we generally do, but not in the sense of owning real estate. Employing others PRODUCES property. Not land, but money.

By property I specifically mean the means of production, those being natural resources, factories, R&D labs, and so on. People who own these things hire people to work on these things. There's additionally people who don't own private property but plenty of capital so they give out loans and make investments, but since the interest comes from the value the workers produce, they're very similar to the other group that actually owns the private property the workers labor on.

>By property I specifically mean the means of production, those being natural resources, factories, R&D labs, and so on.
I think most wealth is actually made by selling the capacity of the group.

it's naïve to think solely of the means of production when the laborers themselves are both the means and delivery. Most people aren't seeking rents on property, they're getting paid to organize labor. Ownership is no longer a requirement, the ability to unite workers pays better.

>Most people aren't seeking rents on property
That's exactly what shareholders do.
>the ability to unite workers pays better.
That's the job of managers, not necessarily owners, though they do sometimes coincide. All that's ultimately needed for someone to receive profits is it simply own the property being labored on. Obviously they need to make sure their business stays profitable, but they don't actually need to put in any work to receive profits.

>All that's ultimately needed for someone to receive profits is it simply own the property being labored on
a technicality since most people own only by virtue of having the labor.

I'm thinking of your average house builder. They don't own the house, they own the ability to bring labor to bear. Most businesses don't own anything except a labor pool, and even that is up to the laborers.

anyways I'm off to bed.

I agree rent-seeking is a problem in capitalism.

but the vast majority of businesses in the US at least are self-employed people selling their own labor. A slightly smaller fraction sells the labors of others.

rent-seeking is actually the tiny minority, though it accounts for most of the profits. Which brings us back to that false dichotomy- we can't denigrate the virtues of the majority for the sins of the tiny minority.

>I'm thinking of your average house builder. They don't own the house, they own the ability to bring labor to bear.
Along with the tools to build the house and the capital to buy the materials.
>Most businesses don't own anything except a labor pool
Labor can't be owned, it can only be rented.
>but the vast majority of businesses in the US at least are self-employed people selling their own labor.
The majority of individual businesses, but not the majority of the economy as a whole.
>we can't denigrate the virtues of the majority for the sins of the tiny minority.
It's not about virtues and sins, it's about the results of this economic system, how it allows a parasite class siphon value from actual producers and how it's only goal is the accumulation of more and more Capital and growth for the sake of growth.

The 1% changes all the time, when you get there the chance that you'll lose it and be replaced by someone else is huge.
Is there any other system that allows for more economic mobility than Capitalism?
If not, don't shit on something that is the best economic system we've developed ever, unless you think of something better of course.

>still trusting pseudoscience