"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"

The rich get richer and the poor also get richer but not as much

Its certainly happens sometimes, but overall standards of living are rising and have risen around the world.

While some would say that is solely the result of technology they fail to factor in how much things like technical innovation and consumer electronics are driven by the capitalists system.

The industrial revolution took place because monarchs destroyed local guilds and protections on regional markets

When the poor fight back its violence becuase
At base level everything knows how to be violent
The rich are rich becuase they are smart and they have ideas
A poor person can be rich if he smart has "good" ideas or are lucky.
Today the rich allow the poor to become rich
If they agree with their ideas
Or are smart as them.

Its no longer a case of birthright or "divine blessing" .

Those that use violence use their rage becuase they arent smart enough to play the rich persons game.
Go ahead and ask any of your friends about stocks and shit.

The rich get richer, and the poor also get richer. The rich get richer at a much higher rate than the poor get richer, but there you have it.

You're not seriously giving Communists credit for bringing people out of poverty are you?

You know we're all kinda poor, right? 1% control 50% of the wealth. Even if youre upper-middle class, youre still a peon. The rich just let you larp as one of them so they have manpower to keep the other peons down.

That's wishful thinking. The rich hate competition. You have a good idea, youre more likely to get sued through some legal loophole than bring it to market.

Universal healthcare, free post secondary education for everyone, baseline housing always available at a decent price so people don't go homeless and permanent access to food staples.

If you have this people would generally be much happier and you allow everyone in society a baseline to be the best that they can be and reach their potential.

nothing you do can change that. What your saying is just envy towards peoples.

I'm not a tankie or defending north Korea but gdp is actually a pretty shitty metric to measure how well people in a country are doing.

Rich people will never be nieve
Becuase a fool and his money are soon parted.

You need ideas and be smart.

The rich love competition.
The rich love opportunity.

Making those things rights is impossible. Even in countries where that is the law, calamities befall them. Like Europe thats getting invaded at all sides and spends their time arguing over funding. While their people die in the streets.

>nothing you do can change that
sure you can. Wealth inequality has fluctuated throughout history. I consider envy a virtue anyway, so thanks.

>The rich love competition.
pfffffffffft
You are naive as fuck. Every one of them wants to secure dominant market positions. That means destroying competition by any means necessary so they can get a larger market share. The only time a businessperson wants competition is when theyre just starting out so they can climb to the top of the pile.

>Wealth inequality has fluctuated throughout history
it only gets worse as more wars and violence happen
>a virtue
faggot logic

>it only gets worse as more wars and violence happen
citation needed.
>not a virtue
So not wanting people's shit is one of your virtues? Sounds pretty cucked.

Poor people don't have as much ease of access to those things that you think they have

the poor starve to death. those with strength become tyrants
>cuck
a stunning rebuttal. And stealing is like eating other's people shit straight from their assholes. It's used.

Theres always markets to dominate though

Why is that?

>The rich love competition.
AHAHAHAHAHA
Go find out Summer of Love and realize why you only have one or two internet service provider in USA

>The rich love opportunity.
Planned Obsolesce

...

Some broad strokes right there, corrections can certainly be done in order to have a better GINI

>where do you think the western society will be in two or three decades at this rate?
There will be no western society by then.

>faggot logic
Could say the same about your rebuttal.
I'm guessing you are fiscally conservative. I find it odd how your types think only the rich reserve the right to be selfish. Envy is just a vehicle for my selfishness.
Sometimes there's growth, sometimes there isn't. Even then there's never enough to go around. No growth means you have to take from others.

The cure would be worse than the disease

even if a river of blood gets made to satisfy it?

Planned obsolescence
Is an opportunity to clear the field for new technologies.

And "planned obsolescence" has more to do with getting by on cheap materials to sell a product that will make money.

The rich love competition becuase they are vain and want to dominate and every competition is a chabce for more donination more pride and more riches.

The rich rely on the stock market which has a very competitive model that belies it.

>Sometimes there's growth, sometimes there isn't. Even then there's never enough to go around. No growth means you have to take from others.

So could it be feasable that the rich like to play games they can win.
And if theres no games to be had
They will start a game with the poor
One they know they can win

This is why hubris is always the sin that kills the king or the master in stories.

As long as it isn't mine, I don't care. The world is already like this. Outside of our little western play-pen, we intervene and create chaos so we can control foreign markets, so don't think you can take some moral high-ground. I just act on a personal level how the government acts on an international level.

Sometimes i almost come close to buying 4chinz bullshit about poverty declining, but then i remember America's 20 richest billionaires own more money than half of the world's population then i go full proud commie again.

I'm not even a tankie but I know that the Soviet Union and many of its satellites experienced very rapid development.

>The rich love competition.
>The rich love opportunity.
Ahhahahahaha

>Like Europe thats getting invaded at all sides and spends their time arguing over funding. While their people die in the streets.
Did you find this on Breitbart?

>Is an opportunity to clear the field for new technologies.
>And "planned obsolescence" has more to do with getting by on cheap materials
Wow, you are either a genuinely naive or willfully ignorant because planned obsolescence doesn't even attempt to accomplish either or those things. The technology is already to make things that don't break down, it is just isn't used for muh profit. Nor is incremental updates like iPhones is because of 'getting by on cheap materials '

>The rich love competition
They do not, they will monopolize or form cartel if they can get away with it. See Summer of Love

>(((you)))

I live in the third poorest county in Texas and grew up in a shack, I'm pretty sure I'm not in an ivory tower when it comes to this.

I would argue Europe does have those things, but there are still complaints of wealth inequality even so. It's because wealth is simply a relative thing, having enough money to live comfortably isn't good enough for a lot of people when they're living next to a neighbor living in a mansion on a hundred acres of property.

Europe also parasites off the US medical system, sending difficult cases overseas because their own medical system is too underfunded to develop the same quality of treatment for more uncommon diseases such as cancer (Roughly 70% of patients at MD Anderson in Houston are from foreign countries, for example, many sent by their government because the same level of care does not exist in their country). In that regard, Europe and other taxpayer supported medical systems are flawed in that they can only cheaply handle basic healthcare for the masses and advanced treatments are much more rare or too expensive to be covered in country.

>into the trash it goes. merchanttileism, guilds and protectionism is were it’s at.
why?

KEK

He's a reincarnated Enrico Dandolo.

The rich love competition except when it's poor countries trying to uplift themselves

they dont love it period. when you 1-up your competitors, it's essentially a reverse price-war. it's bad game theory.

Can i get source for the image please kind sir user??

Very few people want complete inequality. Most people accept that some level of inequality is okay. What causes revolts is when the rich entrench themselves at the top of the system and use their money and power to ensure their own continued survival at the expense of everyone else.

Inequality is rising and since the 1980s, it's not just case of the West exploiting the South, They continue to do that, but at the same time exploit their own people through austerity measures, so the wealth is concentrated in the super rich who don't give a fuck about the people in their own country and especially not those in africa,

Honestly, I think life would be pretty boring and stagnant without some inequality, but when you have one guy who can buy a mansion 50 times over and another who lives in a shack, it's just ridiculous.

The thing is, it's not even about survival anymore for the super rich, if you have a billion dollars, you're well past anything that you "need".

What's sad is that cucks actually go into bootlicker mode for these people, claiming that Jeff Bezos "works so hard". I mean he may work hard, but there's no way he works x10000 more than his employees who are micromanaged insanely and treated like dirt.

Do you think people in north korea live better than in south korea?

>sure you can
You can become rich and distribute your wealth.

It's because they can self-insert as rich white guy and pretend they can be like him or he's their guy.

Just imagine if all the rich people were Jews.

>That means destroying competition by any means necessary so they can get a larger market share
That's competition

>many of its satellites experienced very rapid development
I live in Poland and I can confidently say that Communism and the Soviet Union has set us back some 30 years behind Western European countries. I suspect Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians and people from other Central European countries share the same sentiment.

Literally this shithole is a goldmine for colonialism, especially in spice trade.

myspicer.com/history-of-nutmeg/

>Free enterprise
>Corparte command economies are over 1 3rd of the world's largest economies
>Only exist with legal protection from the state.
Do go ahead and tell me what the functional difference is between say Chevron and the USSR? they are both bureacratic command economies. The differences are only superficial.
The golden goose is the workers and this is true no matter what economic system. That golden goose is locked in a cage bearing the placard of "private property" in your so called "free enterprise capitalism" which is an oxymoron.
How can you call an economic system where all the production is controlled by an elilte class? It doesn't make a difference wether it is the state or shareholders that dominate the economy, the function is the same.
Capitalism is as toxic to free enterprise as the red bourgeois.

It's anti-competition competition, not the kind that will deliver a better product/service at a lower price.

google it fag

These two are not mutually exclusive. Wealth can get created by everyone, but only a state can distribute. If it gets done equally is up to the ruling party, but guess what? it was never done right.

It’s a sensationalist statement regarding a truth status quo conservatives often fail to appreciate about the economy: that conditions approximating a “free market” is in actuality describing a fleeting transitional period between an emerging market and a conspiratorial oligarchy, and that absent government regulation there’s nothing stopping the people at the top from leveraging their market share to bully competitors out of the market. It’s as simple as taking out a loan and driving down prices below profitability so that the little guy, who doesn’t have as much capital to leverage, simply can’t compete. When the competition folds, the big guy simply raises his prices and pays back his creditors.

All throughout history, conspiratorial oligarchies are a repeating pattern, eventually causing their society to overcentralize, become schlerotic, and eventually become so brittle and inflexible that they can no longer prevent the barbarian hordes from sweeping in, and the process starts all over again with a new dynasty after the old one causes so much economic decline that the economy decentralized out of sheer necessity, but because it is not a controlled descent but rather a sloppy, desperate one, income inequality and political enfranchisement become even worse, and people have to fight all over again to acquire them.

During the Roman Republic, the average Roman was a small time farmer who supplied their own equipment for war and got paid in booty. During the Empire the average Roman was a wagecuck languishing meaninglessly while outsourcing all the fighting (and all real work) out to disenfranchised minorities who were all reproducing much faster than he was.

>Wealth can get created by everyone, but only a state can distribute.
WTF are you talking about?
Have you ever lived in a close not community, when you lived with your parents was it the state the redistributed there wealth to you?
People are very good at distributing wealth mutually.
The problem comes from the convention of private property that allows someone to dominate wealth they did not produce. It doesn't matter if it is the state or the individual that controls that property, the moment that property comes into existence through some arbitrary convention wealth is stolen from all who are deprived.

>capitalism is toxic to the free enterprise
kek

That's only like that when there is a state to enforce the monopolistic ways of certain enterprises. It's exactly what happened when Uber went to south america and the owners of Taxis used their lobby to make Uber illegal. This literally cannot happen if the state doesn't get in the way.

Medical? They absolutely suck off of our military budget. The nice things they have, they have because they don't have fucking militaries to protect them.

You're moving the goal posts
This is measuring the amount people are making in real dollars. The OP was talking about poor getting poorer

I don't need to be in the top 1% to realize the bottom 1% are literal retards and criminals. My hats off to the 1% for getting there and staying there.

>WTF are you talking about?
I was talking about a country as a whole. There's solidarity within like-minded people, but that is not enough to guarantee an equally-rich society. You'll always end with extreme wealth differences between different communities, as they do not have access to the same resources/strategicposition/work ethic.

Yeah, too bad youre too busy sucking their dicks to get there yourself.

You don't get it. The answer is "as opposed to what". It's like having a car that goes 5 miles an hour, and another that goes 100 miles an hour. Sure they're both going forward but at what rate?

I don't need more than one car and a place to live. One side of my family fucked itself because two of the women up in the line decided they didn't need no man and wanted to fuck around and smoke weed instead of building legacies. It's not 1% or anyone elses fault they did that, and just because other people have great lives doesn't mean I have a bad life by default. Why are you so envious?

USSR stole all the east German factories as war reparations, but the US pumped money into rebuilding west Germany. It's a matter of foreign investment. The west got a ton. The east initially got another treaty of Versailles placed on them.

Veeky Forums never ceases to amaze with its blind love of the soviets.

>Why are you so envious?
Because I want a great life and I don't really care by what means I get it. Words like fault, deserve, ought mean nothing to me. Telling me not to be envious it like telling me not to be hungry, not to be ambitious or not to have a libido. That shit is in our genes. The morals of the middle class and the content arent ground in reality.

I think there is something there.
Its those that are tasked with the security of resources that we have to worry the most about.
The bankers
The pharaohs
The treasure ships

But its a nessicary protection becuase of human nature to take what they want.
Almost paradoxical

>That shit is in our genes
Speak for yourself. Having a great life doesn't mean dragging others down. That might be in your genes but it's not in mine. That's the whole point:stay in your lane.
>I don't really care by what means I get it. Words like fault, deserve, ought mean nothing to me
I don't feel like you're human. You're basically an animal at this point.

Humans are animals. The religion, ideology and morality are pure escapism.

>morality are pure escapism.
Neck yourself degenerate. You deserve nothing.

>lalalalalalalalala i cant hear you!! morals are real! My life has purpose!!1

Actions have moral consequences. Morals define the values of actions. Everyone assigns values to actions. Everyone has some semblance of morals by their own nature. It's hardwired in, even if differing.

You dont think morality religion and ideology are ment to tame the human beast?

The only reason why we have rich people living beyond 40 is becuase we all have a part to play and we have to play by the rules if we want a better future. Otherwise the only thing we'd have resembling a city would be a fortress and prison. And we wouldnt have gone beyond nomadic hunter gatherers.

That's just semantics regarding the meaning of morality. You treat goodness as synonymous with value.
Tame it to what end? It's not progressing anywhere morally speaking. I like living long and I like technology, sure, but those are just values as much as any other. Society comes together and overthrows the last rulers whenever the values of the majority change, but that's not to say the values of the last rulers were somehow wrong. None of these ideologies are progress, it's just one mob overthrowing the last one to put a society in place that caters to their values - which they misconstrue as goodness because it gives them psychological comfort and conveys legitimacy.

>You treat goodness as synonymous with value.
That's the definition of value. To hold something valuable. It has to be good in some form in order to be passively applied.
>That's just semantics
Yes genius. We are in fact talking about semantics.You brought that up yourself when you tried to define morality has escapism in favor of arguing against humans being transcendent.

Oh nonononononono

>That's the definition of value.
You make it sound like your dictionary of choice is the word of God.
I don't recognize subjective values as moral goods. When I refer to morality, I mean absolutism and, to a lesser extent, universalism.

Yes, because the ruling class dictates our moral teaching. If you actually think about it, maintaining the status quo requires violence, if not there will be no need for military, police and so on.

>You make it sound like your dictionary of choice is the word of God.
I gave you the most secularized answer anyone could possibly give, and used the root meaning of the word to justify it's use in defining it.
>I don't recognize subjective values as moral goods. When I refer to morality, I mean absolutism and, to a lesser extent, universalism.
Word soup. Care to talk about the application of any of that? Why or why not-

Never mind, fuck it. I just realized you're wasting my time.

Robots and AI are going to be the new slavery, and unskilled, uneducated, or generally unsuitable humans will be set aside and left to die out or rise up in insurrection. The 1% is the future of humanity imo.

>Kek
Do you even into WOW?
What is with you teenagers and this innane word? This isn't good enough to be a shitpost. Post something with discernable meaning or gtfo cancer.

>people who aren't rich defend system that keeps the 1% well off

Human progress isnt a line
It isnt even a function
When plotted on a graph
We plod ahead with the wrong idea
Figure out what is wrong
Back track
Make another choice
Then fight the nostalgia

We learn more from outr mistakes than we do our successes.
Yet what you measure us on successes and failures when our learning is what matters.
But humans forget
And like to control history
But these "natural laws" come back out eventually.

>There are no incentives whatsoever for me to defend the 1% .like securing the trust rapport and security of my family

Then you're an idiot for thinking the system where you're living in, is a good one.