How come it's fairer to pay CEOs, celebrities, and influencers hundreds of millions just for dressing nicely, looking pretty, and exploiting the working class, whereas nurses and teachers get underpaid for literally carrying the next generation? Are Americans really brainwashed into thinking any economic change to empower the working class with easier lives is "communism?"

TRVTH NVKE incomming:
Capitalism is better because it's a successful implementation of a Meritocracy. All the "Rick people who are nepobabies and don't deserve it" are actually a minority and aren't even that wealthy in the grand scheme of things. The wealthiest men on the planet (Musk, Bezos, Gates et al) are all self-made men.

>>17768998 (OP)
Socialism makes life worse for the working class. Welfare capitalism won bitch.

>>17769008
>The wealthiest men on the planet (Musk, Bezos, Gates et al) are all self-made men.
kek
putting that aside
>Capitalism is better because it's a successful implementation of a Meritocracy.
do you really want to live in meritocracy, anon? do you really have all the merit you think you have?
I like to live in a society where everyone gives as much as they can to the whole, and everyone who can't contribute much is still allowed to pursue a fulfilling existence in any way they can
I don't think that's particularly difficult to do. we have more than enough resources to go around

>>17768998 (OP)
kys
>>17769008
>Capitalism is a successful implementation of Meritocracy
kys

>>17768998 (OP)
I'd say what we are living under is closer to socialism than capitalism. Capitalism rewards for great ideas, commerce technology etc. Basically we are in a conglomerate and many people (the worst) are living with endless subsidies free housing, food, etc. In turn raising rent, home appraisals, accommodations etc where the working have to fend for themselves and it is not easy. Food and water is not going to get any cheaper also until they start feeding us with little sustainance in mind.

>>17769031
>do you really have all the merit you think you have?
No I don't and that's why I'm glad I'm not in a position of power

>>17769008
The two you just listed were well off and then literally rich. Like Musk's family was extremely wealthy.

>>17769326
I cant imagine having a worse take on how the world works. We live in a capitalist monopoly state. At no time in the countries history have companies had more power, and legal rights. Including you know the time period in this country before socialism even existed. Government aid does not equal socialism retard. And more of that aid goes to the rich and corporations than to the poor. So how the fuck is is socialism is Bezos gets more in aid than any poor person could dream of.

>>17768998 (OP)
Capitalism is victorious in the postmodern age because it doesn't require buying into a meta-historiographical ideological narrative unlike every other competing economic system. It's purely a system of transactional cybernetics whose feedback loop is strengthened by the best and worst of human nature.
Essentially, the market model of hierarchical firms owned by private owner-proprietors (or publically traded and managed by shareholders once it becomes large and valuable enough) is just the "meta" for how to generate the most amount of wealth, which further strengthens the feedback loop of further incentivizations as those with the wealth choose how it is spent and/or (re)invested.

>>17768998 (OP)
Because private capital leads to better management. It is not so much that private corporations are better administrators than government bureaucracy, more like they are under less restrictions, they have the means to implement a better system if they are able to compete and make money from it. So if they are able to do a better job than the government and people willingly pay for their products and services they will do so.

>>17769362
>The two you just listed were well off
Jeffs father was an alcoholic unicyclist and his adoptive father was a Cuban immigrant that worked for Exxon. Both his parents were working class. All of their fortune came purely from buying stakes in their sons business when it was cheap. Gates' father was an attourney who attended college under the G.I. Bill for his service in the war, so they weren't particularly wealthy until their children made them a fortune.

>>17769374
that picture is actually pretty good.
I think we have let corporations go too far(thanks reagan and Clinton) But socialism would be almost the only way to make things even worse. We need to get back to a slightly post new deal style system. Where corporations werent people and workers had real bargaining power with capitol.

>>17769378
Gates Mother was an executive at IBM bro, his family was very well off, and again musks was rich.

>>17768998 (OP)
forget about bringing socialism or whatever to america. John Steinbeck said it best that the entire country thinks they are a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire"
you should accelerate and give these folks the libertarian utopia they want
i voted for trump twice. i want to see Project 2025 put in place

>>17769383
>Gates Mother was an executive at IBM bro
No she wasn't. She was an executive member of United Way, a nonprofit organiation that happened to include IBM's CEO.

>>17769389
>>17769383
Also, she didn't even become a member of United Way until 1983 and at that point her son Bill was already amassing a small fortune

Who cares about "meritocracy?" Communist countries were the last ones to have populations that combined an average IQ above 100 and replacement level fertility. That's what matters

>>17769387
what do you actually want a libertarian? Because project 2025 does a lot to remove states rights? And basically nothing to give you more individual rights.

Socialism has never been tried, unironically. Socialism as a concept economically is not definable, it's mostly utopian in that in a post monarchy socialists think somehow intelligent scientists will run the government. There's no explanation on how the government should be run or how honorable intelligent people magically take over the government. Like marxism/communism it's a completely untested hypothesis based on incorrect assumptions largely based on liberalism. The problem with that is that liberalism is based on the concept that british citizens have rights that aren't validated by the government through things like common law which is from pre-christian europe. The problem with socialism is that it doesn't have any roots, I think the only comparable political belief system to liberalism in europe that was actually backed up by historical research was german Volkism

>>17769409
>does a lot to remove states rights?
NTA but does it? I thought the point was to downsize the Federal Government and have states pick up the slack

>>17769414
It and trump want to remove a lot of states rights to self regulate. Basically no you cant regulate you water supply because that would hurt my lithium battery buddy, and your water touches other states so bam interstate commerce. And because things basically have to be done to all 50 states with small exceptions that means something done to stop california setting its own rules will stop missouri from doing the same or opposite. As the law will remove the power from the state to regulate, and it cant just remove regulate down.
The point is to downsize the federal government and to remove the ability of the fed to regulate. And thus they also need to pass laws to stop the states from regulating too. The goal is to assist big business in deregulation.

>>17769414
O and I forgot to close and investigations into chinese companies and the like. They have already shutdown all the biden era cyber security investigations, and groups fighting china.

>>17769414
Half the states get money from the federal government, how can a state that needs california for pay for its Fema bill take over for Fema? Also how can 1 state replicate the country wide talent and experience pool that fema has access too.

>>17769433
This much was pretty obvious as soon as Trump unbanned TikTok. His followers really are fucking stupid

>>17769438
States with massive economies and populations like California/New York/Texas can and already do provide a lot of their own disaster relief themselves, it's just flyover states that rely on handouts (aka Trumps main demographic) that are getting fucked over

>>17769429
Well californians are basically pleading with the rest of the country to stop their state from destroying the country with illegal immigration and corruptive communist backroom policies

>>17769447
Anon, most illegal immigrants are coming in through states like Arizona and Texas with massive insecure borders

>>17769447
I what way? Becuse the people who live their fucking hate trump. Also the country would collapse without illegal immigrants food prices woukd spike massively, as farmers, and restaurants run into massive labor issues, hotels, would be next and the lsot goes on and on. We can't maintain our quality of life without an underclass.

>>17769455
California is still ~50% white and over half those people are conservatives. They basically want us to nuke them

>>17769465
Californian here
Our conservatives are completely toothless and do nothing but seethe 24/7 about Gavin Newsm

>>17769367
the more government the more socialismer it is duh
1 trillion dollars disappearing into the pockets of defense contractors via the pentagon's black hole is how carl marx described communism

>>17769409
i would love it if my state could resist going down that path, but supremacy clause gives federal government a backdoor to ruin so many things.
the voter doesn't understand what the vision of the right is. they have images in their head that it's all a fair shake.
nothing will change until more of these people go homeless and get desperate. look at how the "anti trump" parties sabotaged Bernie kek. i stopped believing in what they had to say the moment they used a loud babooness to ruin his credibility
>>17769447
you arent from there retard
the suburbanites in Clovis with their $200k shitshacks pretending to be middle class can say a lot of stuff to fit in with you losers, but it's not indicative of what anyone wants
techies love the welfare programs offered and they're the most important people here

>>17769374
>better system if they are able to compete and make money from it.
*a better system to make more money
and what if the best system to make money makes 99.9% of all people miserable, is that truly the ideal world?

>>17769471
Exactly. Gavin can blow 100 billion on infrastructure that never gets finished and illegal alien healthcare and the average troglodyte marauder running down the street is wearing his merch. California is run by socialist European immigrants with 85 IQ. They're basically New York in the 70's

>>17768998 (OP)
>How come it's fairer to pay CEOs, celebrities, and influencers hundreds of millions just for dressing nicely, looking pretty, and exploiting the working clas

If paying wagies more improved their performance, they would pay wagies more.

>whereas nurses
you're fucking high pinko boi. nurses make absurd amounts of money these days.

>>17768998 (OP)
>whereas nurses and teachers get underpaid

The median _starting wage_ for teachers in the US is something like $63,000.

>>17769478
that project is taking a long time because the central valleys faux middle class of disgruntled latinx for trump do everything they can to prevent the track from going through their neighborhoods

>>17769474
>nothing will change until more of these people go homeless and get desperate
Keep waiting then because only about 0.17% of the population is actually homeless in the US, which does raise some questions as to whether or not homlessness really is the result of living in a soulless bureaucracy or if it's just their own fault. I know that sounds heatless but there is a lot of programs out there for lower income and homeless people to get them shelter and job opportunities.

>>17769485
>I can't build my xi bridge because all the Mexicans are in the way
Huh maybe shouldn't have blanket legalized them

>>17769488
>>17769485
Please, NIMBYs come in all races, at this point rich real estate companies ran by Asians also have a stake in this. The only time in history projects like this went smoothly is through eminent domain but that historically only targeted land with lower value (aka land that happened to have a lot of minorities) so now it carries racial connotation and nobody wants to reopen that Pandora's Box

>>17769487
few states offer extensive shelters and opportunities that give them a good shot at reintegrating. the one you're posting from doesn't and that's the place where the homeless issue is most visible
every bum i've come across on this side of the country is from some flyover dump. you people are irresponsible as hell
>>17769488
and what's your excuse when it's assbackwards white farmers and billionaires that hamper it? on the plus side, the track will be easier to build since they got their own workers deported (kek) and their crops arent gonna be profitable to sell anymore

>>17769501
I think infrastructure projects are a tool by the unions to drag ass on which are in the pocket of the local Democrat political boss. "Muh road work is taking to long" is your local unions and politicians scamming you out of tax revenue

I love in the middle of nowhere in flyoverville and my road gets plowed and salted in the winter. My 90 year old grandmother who lived in a field now has a whole city that enveloped her and she's 15 minutes from downtown. Her fucking roads don't get plowed. Cities are pathetic

>>17769510
People vote for these projects because there is a real demand for them. The MetroLink train that connects LA/OC to the Inland Empire has a daily ridership of about 20,000 people.

>>17769539
>Metrolink is not typically generating a net profit. It relies heavily on public funding to cover its operating costs and capital expenditures.

>>17769582
You can make the same argument about freeways not making any profits and being funded by gasoline taxes. Voters demand these services and they don't care if their tax dollars are funding them because that's literally what tax dollars should be going towards.

>>17769585
Did you know that before in the US there was just compulsory service to the local roads every year?

>>17768998 (OP)
Except the “boss” would be the parent, who owns the house, and the bathroom.
And he doesn’t do “fuck all”. Who bought the house? Who pays for any maintenance? Who paid for the furniture? Who pays taxes for it?

The kid/worker is the replaceable factor. If they don’t want to clean the bathroom, somebody else will. And who says the next person won’t be fine with it, just because they (the communist child) isn’t? So they want to tear down a whole system that is agreed upon by two other people, because they themselves are selfish enough to not like it? It is immoral.

What’s stopping this communist child from going ahead and getting his own house and his own bathroom, that he can clean himself? If everything other than the task of cleaning is “doing fuck all”, then it should be easy, right?

>>17769587
Okay? Someone was still paying taxes to fund the Army Corp of Engineers or whever to service the roads, unless you mean it was compulsory for volunteers, but volunteers don't have access to the heavy equipment needed to maintain roads in the current year so SOMEONE still has to pay for it and I don't think anyone is willing to volunteer to do this for free anyways

>>17769008
Capitalism hates meat and loves efficiency and will eventually destroy humanity because the corporations are the evil rogue AI and have been the whole time. The creation of an actual genocidal AI system is the logical conclusion of capitalism.

>>17769600
If you didn't go and do road work, the roads were fucked

>>17769622
then after that, everything was a toll road!

>>17769622
Building and maintaining railroads was never compulsory, rail workers were always contracted by either the railroads themselves or tax funded state prisons providing chain gangs to do it. Roads were only designed to handle horse and buggy traffic when they were still compulsory, modern road standards are completely different from those days and requires heavy equipment to build and maintain

>>17769633
Railroads used to be private and profitable though. Funnily enough the reason california isn't some public transportation utopia is because they conspired to bankrupt the owners of the city transit system and never got it back

>>17769582
>if something does not generate profit it should not exist
sounds good, lets burn down the libraries and museums and replace them with mcburgershack

>>17769779
Profitability dictates how much the public actually needs something. Supply and demand. It's an open secret that the only thing trains do is lock people into an endless cycle of dependency on the train to the profit of the businesses near the exits. City planners shill so hard for public transportation because it prevents them from leaving the city and spending taxable income that they wish to embezzle elsewhere

>>17769793
wow, you can head back to /pol/ please.

>>17769798
Go read why city planners advocate for traffic jams and trains. It keeps people from leaving. I've taken it from the horse's mouth. They hate cars only because it takes away tax revenue

>>17769793
correct. since libraries generate 0 profit, they should all be destroyed and replaced by shitty fast food chains that generate profit.
clearly what we need more of is fast food chains and we need less of those paper word things

>>17769414
here, anon (and anyone else, Dem, Repub, or other)
the full 920 page document
you can read it yourself and figure out whether it's what you think
https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

>>17769008
Elon Musk is a retard though. He is evidence against your point, not for it.

>>17769031
>do you really want to live in meritocracy, anon? do you really have all the merit you think you have?
It's not about you dummy.
It's about world where people who know how to do and organize job, who do and organize this job and do it effeciently. And that prosperity trickles down on everyone.

On the other side eyou have people who good in political slogans and intrigues but have no idea what are they doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
And their failures drag down industries and everyone.

>>17769477
Capitalist system is symmetrical. You can be an ass to other people to persue your own good, and who can care about yourself than you yourself?

On the other hand you have socialist system, where best way for bureaucracy grifters for achieve their goals is to make your life miserable, only you have no tools to defend yourself from these grifters, you would be send to Gulag if you try.

>>17768998 (OP)
Socialism is the implementation of Envy and envy is a sin for a reason. It's bad for the society.
Gommies cannot stand even other WORKERS earning more than them kek.

in my experience its the socialist that desires to sit on his ass doing shit all
Look at unionism
>work an 8 hr day but the unionist wants to work only 4 of those 8 hrs
>wants to get paid as much as a high paid doctor for doing nothing but sitting

>>17769399
>Who cares about "meritocracy?" Communist countries were the last ones to have populations that combined an average IQ above 100 and replacement level fertility. That's what matters
North Korea still exists, and Kim Jong Un will create breeding camps if North Korean fertility levels drops significantly below replacement

>>17770252
>if North Korean fertility levels drops significantly below replacement
Even the North Koreans are having birth rate problems at the moment, that's surreal.

Man's mind is his primary tool of survival in a world in which animals outclass us at every other level (power/speed/flight etc.). To deny a man his mind and consent by initiating force on him is evil. This brings us to capitalism as a logical result as the market must be free and property rights must be inalienable in order to justify man's freedom. After all, what is the point in bettering your own/your family's life if someone else can just take the results for themselves?
Communism is the forceful extraction of resources from one group to give to another under the guise of "social welfare".

>>17770248
there were many commies who despised unions, anon
mostly because they saw them as daring to negotiate with the evil capitalists
basically they saw early unions wanting better working conditions as caving
everyone should suffer until they want to revolt, no mitigation allowed
12h workdays down to 8h? don't talk to them to get that, just kill them all, duh

>>17770296
Unionists are communists. they are a 5th column for international communism.
Why do you think leftists support unionism so much?

>>17770301
proper hardcore leftists dislike unions for not doing "muh class struggle"
"leftists" (average Democrat voters) are braindead sheep by comparison

>>17769008
>Meritocracy
Only in that it rewards Profit seeking sociopathic behaviour.
Being a trustfund nepo baby, lived my life around rich people and it's genuinely horrifying how fucking psychotic, petty and retarded most of our "family friends" and business people I meet are. I know people (some of whom are "family friends") who are some of the biggest business owners around here who can barely read, but will scheme to stab a baby in the back to steal it's candy.

>>17770248
Socialism is dead. These people just want to mooch off the state treasury and flaunt their ill gotten gains to their friends.
There's a reason that youth did not want to vote for Kamala. Democrats need to get over it, and illegals need to go.

>>17770260
truke

>>17770323
>imblying socialist bureaucracy is anything better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
>In the spring of 1937, shortly after Stalin's report at the March plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On the shortcomings of party work and measures to eliminate Trotskyists and other double-dealers," Lysenko and his supporters, including Isaak Prezent and Alexander Kohl, began their campaign against geneticists,[22] accusing them of colluding with the anti-Stalinist opposition and reactionary sabotage.[23]
But in capitalism at least there is devide bettwen firms and they need prove trueness of their path in the market.
In socialsim everything is done via schemes to stab a baby in the back to steal it's candy and "debates" aka autistically screeching and calling your opponents Trotskyists and fascists.

>>17768998 (OP)
I hate the fundamentally internationalist nature of socialism which is why I can never be a true socialist even if I support some parts of it. I also don't support shilling for every "oppressed" group of people in the world.

>>17768998 (OP)
>Picrel
The worker CHOOSES to work for the boss