Capitalism

(((free trade)))

goyim we are only looking out for you! if we tax imports it will only cost YOU more

Increase in the size of the workforce via population increase, immigration and women entering the workforce.

However now the Jews know how desperate people will be to keep their job, they'll just fuck them anyway because people are too scared to quit.

There are so many connections you can make other than the gold standard though

Women entering the work force and the opening of the Southern border via the Immigration Act of 1965.

this

also checked

Jews took control from WASPs

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act happened.

>pol supports planned economy

tip top kek, just look at the fucking USSR or do a research on nazi germany

>inb4 ">Cred Forums is one person"
fuck off.

I saw some an cap video that this chart is a manipulation. anyone got it? at the time they sounded really smart about it but im not a burger so I havent payed attention.

>We need immigrants and outsourcing to do jobs locals don't want
>Increased automation will reduce the need for laborious jobs
REEEEEEEEEEE why is 50000 people fighting for this unpaid intern entry level job
REEEEEEEEEEE i cannot negotiate anything because there are 49999 replacements

Yes but this is the biggest one where we can infer a causal relationship. People are being paid "more" as in more dollars but the dollars are worth less because (((they))) can print money like crazy now since nothing is linked to a precious metal. So real wages are stagnant

Disconnecting dollar from gold?
Equality? = double the consumers / double the competition of available jobs.
No fault divorce? = women started destroying small/medium/family businesses in divorce court.

jews.
globalisation.
nafta.
jews.

Neoliberalism - thatcher and reagan.

What on earth are you smoking Andrei?

This. Also the increase in corporatism.

Oh NEETdom is finally explained. This chart proves it's all a waste of fucking time.

this is the only answer.

People worked harder back then compared to this current lazy stuck up generation. Boomers took more property control and fucked up the housing market.

Excess government influence and regulation, and no gold standard

Computers and straight up racketeering. Do any of you guys work or have worked in an office or in IT? Ever notice how the only people who get to work from home are the owners/ceo/presidents/etc? Back in the 90's it was promised that everyone could and would eventually. In reality this just gave boss's a 'new' way to micro manage everything using computers. Now everything is nano-managed and the boss doesn't have to worry because he can get realtime data about his industry and his competitors and he need less people in the loop.

We're fucked, plain and simple. Especially sense this a pay to play system to involves money and insurance just to get up in the morning.

Fuck it

Kikes

>if we tax imports it will only cost YOU more
But that's actually what tariffs do. If you need to protect domestic industry X from foreign industry Y because Y is more efficient, you'd be losing more money by supporting X which is protected from foreign competition than if you just spent on Y. If you want to talk about how a free market might promote degeneracy destroy cultural identity go ahead, but most arguments against the efficiency of a free market in providing abundant resources are absolutely wrong.

productivity is more capital dependent than it was 50 years ago. why should wages rise proportionally if the work is mostly done by computers and other machines?

I've worked at multiple F500 companies and many corporate workers use flex-time and work-from-home arrangements. If anything it is the directors and middle-management who are not allowed to work from home.

>productivity is more capital dependent
So basically classical Marxism, with labour vs capital, is the best explanation?

The change in output is = change in capital, labor, technology, resources, etc.

Big changes in tech cause output per worker to increase, and output hasn't changed fast enough to soak up growth in the population of potential workers. Especially when u consider that globalism has caused the supply of labor to increase exponentially.

Short version: There are more people who can work than are needed.

> If you need to protect domestic industry X from foreign industry Y because Y is more efficient
>because Y is more efficient
Nope, 'fraid not. The difference in cost has to do with higher standards in country X, not a lack of efficiency.

> free market
Free market=/=Free trade. These are different ideas.

Japs didnt follow the rules and made thier vehicles too reliable.

Capitalism has become unbound, making it clear how different people are when it comes to ambition and diligence. If before globalism the average American was sheltered from competition, now their true value (that is, much less than expected) becomes clear and their wealth diminishes accordingly

Feminism also plays a role. Anything that causes population of workers to outpace
Growth.

>60s-70s is when some the worst economic policies and policies that would negatively effect the economy happen like; immigration reforms, removing the gold standard, women's sexual liberation, other forms cultural Marxism and other forms of Marxism takes it's full stranglehold as well
>capatilism

Good management started to correlate more with productivity gain than the baseline work?

break-neck capitalists benefit from all of those things. Why wouldn't they push for them?

Them damn commies in the DNC

One more attempt for clarity:

The per capita income for labor can't increase if labors share of income grows slower than the population of labor.

The numerator isn't increasing as fast as the denominator.

Jews probably, not sure why but it's usually them
(am I doing it right guys?)

ackshually it's because shipping started to become a lot more cheaper and efficient

businesses realized they could pay third worlders for pennies, so they did

there's not really any jewish globalism conspiracy or anything, it's literally because container ships got drastically bigger and better in the 70's

so now we, with a minimum wage, have to compete against people that will work for food scraps

Well... zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-20/divergence-root-most-american-economic-problems

Globalism means that the supply of labour is now 3 billion rather than 300 million aka a 10x increase in labour supply. However, the amount of capital is still relatively small because most of the labour force is poor (India, China, etc). This means that capital is more scarce than labour, and so wages have been driven down. This trend will persist until the 3rd world builds up their capital base and restores the balance. The good news is that it is a great time to invest in a developing country.

Globalism is generally a net economic gain, but the gains have been concentrated in the capital owners and workers in 3rd world countries. The losers have been workers in first world countries.

Extreme population growth rates in the entire world after the 1950s. Ironically, as the population rises and ressources become more scarce per capita, classical capitalism will become the only viable system as welfare states crumble under the weight of their constituents.

>The difference in cost has to do with higher standards in country X, not a lack of efficiency.
It doesn't matter. You'd still be paying more than otherwise in the absence of free trade.

>Free market=/=Free trade. These are different ideas.
A free market by definition has no domestic limitations on free trade. You can not have tariffs and a free market, they're effectively subsidies.

Minimising expenses is an inherent part of capitalism, it's not like this surprises anyone.

Capitalism already collapsed once back in 1929. It's had micro collapsed about every 8 years since.

Now it's having trouble maintaining infinite growth growing at roughly 1 - 2% a year currently.

>a great time to invest in a developing country.
As long as you don't pick a country in the eurasian continent.

You seem to be operating under the false assumption that being more productive equals being more valuable, when in reality, how valuable you are depends not on your absolute productivity but on your productivity relative to others. Everyone has become more productive thanks to technology, but the average Joe is still interchangeable with any other average Joe, of which there's always plenty.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of labor arbitrage. It isn't a net economic gain and we won't see the closing of the arbitrage opportunity; the system itself has a vested interest in the suppression of wages, benefits, and basic labor & environmental regulation. If the standards in the country with cheap labor rise much, the exploiters of the labor will leave--re-impoverishing the aforementioned labor--to seek new, cheaper labor. The only thing that occurs, net of everything, is an enormous gap between the wealthy and poor and global labor becomes akin to old-world serfs.

Add to that that these printed money is handed out to banks aka directly to most rich.

Jews, Hitler did nothing wrong.

less capitalism, more socialism

youtube.com/watch?v=TcOnPrNWAPM

Automatization. More and more jobs are being replaced by machine. Soon enough employing flesh and blood to work for you will not be profitable unless you pay them cents an hour (like in asia for example). More and more people will be out of jobs. I think it will hit full force in like 25-30 years.

Outsourcing and unfettered immigration

>no gold standard
>capitalism

I want a real currency.

>This trend will persist until the 3rd world builds up their capital base and restores the balance.
World literally can't afford that 3rd world consumes same amount of resources as 1st world per capita.

>what went wrong?
Mexicans

And feminism!

>automation meme

Globalism.

Why pay good wages when there's a billion people on the planet who could do it for a cent. This wouldn't be so bad if there weren't a minimum age because then you could fight it but most western countries were foolish enough ti impose one.

You must be a lolbertarian. Who really cares if we have to pay more for a product if it means companies will stay in the country and hire our people.

>b-but muh cheap iphones!

fuck off, jew

you are destroying local industry and jobs to help China

I wonder when women started entering the work force?

>disconnecting dollar from gold?

This has nothing to do with the gold standard.

The simple fact is that higher wages are not required to attain workers nowadyas. There is no incentive for companies to pay workers more because there is very little competition for employees. This is a direct result of capitalism.

Free trade ecinares efficiency yes, but says nothing about income distribution. Last 35 years trend is that fruits of GDP growth don't reach 90% of population. Real wages stagnated.

#firstworldproblems

almost everyone on the planet has benefited tremendously during this period

only uneducated people in high income countries have lost out

it's literally impossible to be opposed to globalization for economic reasons without being a nationlist or racist who is upset about a stagnation of standard of living while billions of people in Asia have finally gained a small fraction of the prosperity we have

this is actually the only period in the entire history of human civilization in which the absolute number of people living in poverty globally has declined

>You'd still be paying more than otherwise in the absence of free trade.
Are we? Free trade carries the cost of lost jobs, lost wages, wage suppression, lost demand (see: lost wages and wage suppression), lost benefits, substantial loss of tax revenue, lost property value, lost growth, loss of economic independence, etc.

Yeah, sign me up for some tariffs please.

>A free market by definition has no domestic limitations on free trade.
A free market is a market in which governing authorities, with reasonable limits of specific things (like uranium and such), do not dictate what can be sold on the market. This says nothing about what price may eventually be paid for said products or services. Free trade has to do whether taxes or limits be imposed on goods originating from outside the country.

A tariff might make a good superficially more expensive by a slight degree, but I am fully free to still purchase it. Therefore tariffs and free markets are not conflicting ideals.

>only uneducated people in high income countries have lost out
Why 90% of these countries population should give a fuck about it and vote to make their richest even more rich and create middle class in China again?

>this is actually the only period in the entire history of human civilization in which the absolute number of people living in poverty globally has declined

Yeah, for about 10 seconds. Meanwhile automation is taking over and the rich are making bank like never before.

>$1 dollar has been deposited in your account

Life is shit for the Chinese "Middle Class" anyway

wages and living standards are nowhere near western levels despite what all the yellow fever Chinaboos say

What's amazing is that we were all warned about this decades ago and nobody listened

youtube.com/watch?v=q-PlqqK9B9Y

Living standards are being ruined throughout the entire world and no one cares because a few billionaires who speculate on financial assets are making more money.

Daily reminder:

Productivity now depends more to machines than direct labor.
The rise in productivity is due to technological innovation. This is Solow.

This went wrong.
You Cred Forumslacks know shit.

Exactly

automation meant higher wages for decades, but then all the jobs started being outsourced to 3rd world countries and the 1st world was flooded with cheap labor in order to keep wages done

Now Billions of US consumer dollars are being used to finance China's military expansion.

All while the Chinese people get to live in a bizarre hell hole based around keeping wages and living standards as low as possible.

no idiot

wages increase with productivity

and increase in production automatically increases wages due to the surplus of goods and therefore demand that is created.

The only thing that can lower wages is either

1 outsourcing

or

2. flooding the labor market with mass immigration

And guess what that is what 1st world countries have been doing since the 70s

We fucked up by electing Reagan

>without being a nationlist

OH NO HEAVEN FORBID SOMEONE CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN PEOPLE

> i don't know basics of economic theory
Economists always thought that productivity has 3 keystones: qualification of labor, amount of capital and technological innovations. Last two are your automation. It is nothing new.

Second and third world industrialism got going.

After the 70s, the American labor force started competing with Chinese labor. This is often hailed as some kind fo victory for peace and harmony in the world but really it just meant that America could buy cheap crap of China but ended up generating less purchasing power for itself. The middle-class who was largely involved in the previous era of American development got fired at one point or another in the past few decades as their jobs ended as cheap jobs ended up being exported to other countries. Of course, it's not just cheap jobs but also low level managers who would otherwise be rising through the career ladder or end up making more money later by starting their own business. Maybe you're just out of colllege and you're gonna manage some younger kids, you'll be doing some easy paperwork and they'll do the actual work. Of course, you'll have to deal with people your business makes business with as well. The end of these kinds of jobs completely ruins an important stepping stone in some people's careers.

Of course it was a great boon to countries like China and India, but in the case of China it seems to have triggered a pretty sizable economic bubble. Because of how loans and assets are regulated in the country, people ended up buying a shit load of houses all over the place. People built entire cities and just sold each piece of to the highest bidder. They've built housing for billions more than who are currently living in the country. Either they are planning on just magically producing over a bllion people to use all these apartments, houses and commercial buildings. Not every city will be Beijing, but it'll be like if that city was made into a ghost town, all over the country. Yes, eventually, assuming the buildings don't fall apart because of people cheated on the concrete mix and ended up earning themselves a fat paycheck while the building is soon condemned.

reagonomics

Gold no more.

Everything

Oil shocks
May '68
(((American))) response to Soviet War in Afghanistan
And much, much more!

Technically Carter began outsourcing, neoliberalism, and a globalist economic policy

jacobinmag.com/2016/04/chait-neoliberal-new-inquiry-democrats-socialism/

Ironically originally the Republicans AND Democrats were against outsourcing, mass immigration, etc

But the "Atari Democrats" convinced the Democrats otherwise while the Republicans started buying Milton Friedman's globalist propaganda.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Democrat

But yes Regan did end up continuing those same policies,

After the 1970's manufacturing moved to the third world

Meanwhile the us financializd its economy ctratig the massive debt driving economy we have now.

That's why there is such a huge gap between productivity and pay compared to before

lol. burger thinks he knows shit.
hourly wages do not increase with productivity. hourly wages rise with prices under certain conditions.

wtf do you expect boy? a blue collar worker who has close to zero competencies should see his wage increase because the machine he operates is more productive?
you live in a fictional world.

machines increase productivity and it always has been like this.
humans got to their apex productivity in the mid 1800's.

the hourly wage-productivity relationship is a meme. the first part of the graph is a contingency.
pay may only increase with incentives which have nothing to do with hourly wages.

>America could buy cheap crap of China but ended up generating less purchasing power for itself

but you are contradicting yourself, lars.
ipads would be unaffordable for everyone but the upper class, if not for chinese labour.

i think its a double-edged sword.

>Either they are planning on just magically producing over a bllion people to use all these apartments, houses and commercial buildings.
>he thinks China has excessive amount of real estate

I agree, but the main problem is that Carter is easy to dismiss but old Republicans tend to think anything Reagan did is perfect.

Except life is still "shittier" than ever in India and the rest of asia

the whole point of outsourcing is that they pay low wages and must continue to do so perpetually

Hourly wages increase demand

technological and organizational improvement increases production which increases the surplus of goods which lowers costs which frees up more money to be spent on other goods, which spurs consumer demand which increases prices and which ultimately increases wages

you're the one that doesn't know shit.

>humans got to their apex productivity in the mid 1800's

The Industrial Revolution literally was all about efficient machinery invented by britbongs not humans.

how are you this out of touch with reality?

When you issue money by purchasing credit at interest, that demand for repayment on the original can never be met.

In many repsects, it has forced creativity and productivity to spike ever upwards (at the cost of wrecking the concept of worker security, of course) yet even then there comes a time for either jubilee or an impossible repayment.

There is a reason usury is forbidden by every god in history. Mammon is Hell on Earth.

computers and globalism

Can we at least agree that wages haven't kept up with inflation?

>ipads would be unaffordable

No, they wouldn't

All that would happen would be production of Ipads would increase until the price inevitably lowered

But no one wants to do that because that means more money fore workers and not CEOs

They get low wages, but if those factories were not they would still be subsistence farmers needing to live off charitable donations.

Then again, the stable income means they can have more children which just makes more of a problem.

What is the loss of jobs/income?

Anyway:
>ipads would be unaffordable
America currently has tariffs on sugar and automobiles (among others) yet we have an overabundance of both.

no healthy communist competitor

so globally there was no capitalism :^)

>Except life is still "shittier" than ever in India and the rest of asia

Not really. It lifted millions out of poverty.

1rst world middle class wages. CEOs and 3rd worlds wages outpace inflation by big margin.

>he thinks China has excessive amount of real estate

Its not that they have excessive amounts of real estate, its that they have excessive amounts of high end real estate and not enough affordable housing. So they've got entire apartment complexes that are empty because their people can't afford them.

Case in point of what happens when you have central planners dictate demand rather than letting the market do it.

They would be vastly more expensive, if manufactured in the US. Which is why they are not manufactured in the US.

they obviously haven't kept up with inflaiton

this is mainly because trillions of dollars are being pumped into financial speculation (FIRE sector, finance, Insurance, Real Estate) by the FED which is ultimately unproductive and results in ludicrous housing prices that no one can afford

No money goes into the real, productive economy so wages are relatively stagnant

No

If those factories weren't there then there would have to be investment in the economy based on domestic consumption and raising wages and living standards in that country

that's exactly how the west industrialzed

by forcing globalism on the rest of the world you are essentially condemning them to lives of perpetual poverty.

No it didn't, at least not by western standards

you should look at what "not being in poverty" means in India.

If you checked the sources for these statistics you'd learn that global povery appers have been reduced because of China's economic growth. It's responsible for pretty much all of it, jack shit has happened in the rest of the developing world. Hell, subsaharan Africa got worse for all of the 90s and has basically stagnated since.

whilst real wages stagnated, feasible buying power has gone up.

our parents could never have afforded the goods we take for granted today.

>The simple fact is that higher wages are not required to attain workers nowadyas. There is no incentive for companies to pay workers more because there is very little competition for employees

we are forced to hire women and minorities/ are not allowed to refuse service based on their race or gender

>This is a direct result of capitalism.

lol women and non whites benefit so much from chowderheads like you

Of course it's more expensive

And that money goes to worker's salaries who use it to buy goods and services that spur consumption and production in your economy

That's called the circular flow of income which, if you outsource is being drained from the economy and worker's pockets.

wtf

>technological and organizational improvement increases production which increases the surplus of goods which lowers costs which frees up more money to be spent on other goods, which spurs consumer demand which increases prices and which ultimately increases wages

this dumb assumption is fat american-tier. do you think that technological innovation aims to increase production?

productivity=efficiency,

dumb fuck. it's not 'producing moar goods', it's lowering marginal input per marginal output, thus lowering costs.
This is productivity you obese fuck.
increasing volumes 'as mentulam' is bullshit which no firm aims to. firms aim to increase productivity not production.

>bongs
you dumb fuck think that machines were somehow advanced in the mid 1800's. think twice, back then it was all about labor.
Why is marx obsessed with labor? because human labor was the key back then. now human labor is shit compared to machine labor.

>capitalism. What went wrong?
Capitalism ended, that's what went wrong

Fine furniture maker here. I charge £55.00 an hour. If I kept up with that line I would be charging something like £150.00 an hour.

Food and consumer items are cheaper than ever. I sometimes wonder why they both charging anything for food it is so cheap?

In short. If you have an income you are better off than ever.

It's the exact opposite

Our parents could afford things we never could today without going into endless debt

...

with all these motorized carriages, horseshoe makers will never work again! They surely won't find something else to do

>No it didn't, at least not by western standards
It did. Stating that the Chinese are not better off today than they were a generation ago is something only a non-Chinese would do, as the opposite is obvious to everyone who was in China.
There is no need to talk about Subsaharan Africa, since jobs were never outsourced there and their plight is not a result of a global development.

By admitting that China, pretty much the only country where outsourced manufacturing went to, became much wealthier, you admit that globalization was good for them.

...

While that is true, you do not share your wealth with China by donating charity. You buy their stuff and benefit from it.

>They would be vastly more expensive
If margins were maintained, the difference would be a negligible 2-7% depending on the product.

I don't know

too be honest, I am better off than a KANG in africa (if the west wasn't involved there).. so i'm pretty sure it's working

>No it didn't, at least not by western standards

It did. The poor in hovels in Indian cities have televisions just like the poor in the West.

The person who made that graphic conveniently sets the disparity at 1980 when you can clearly see the separation began earlier.

What went wrong? Low-income individuals started receiving more compensation from government. Government taxes businesses to pay for benefits which used to be paid for with wages. The compensation indicated on that graph does not include benefits.

In short,

That may be somewhat true in the US, but in Europe, our parents did not have it better than we do. They had vacation in their own federal state, or even city, bought only one car per family, refridgerators and televisions were not self-explanatory, etc.

would love to see an source on that.

wrong

the more the workers make the more they are taxed

The Federal Reserve diluted the money supply and destroyed savings, resulting in the cost of living doubling every 20 years.

There wasn't a President elected around that time that deregulated a bunch of stuff and destroyed unions or anything, right? Like some mentally retarded hollywood actor who allowed a bunch of greedy Jews to control his presidency in order to maximize money made for corporations, right?
Like, some dumb little faggot with an ugly wife who supported terrorists around that time, right? I don't know, I'm not an expert on American history, or anything, but there's no way the majority of the country would elect someone like that and then celebrate his horrible presidency years later, right? No such population could possibly be THAT cucked, right?

One of the largest contributors to the Great Depression was the introduction of new tariffs in the late 20s and especially the Smoot–Hawley Tariff of 1930. Further interventions by Hoover and FDR are believed by many economists to have made the Depression longer and worse than it would've been if the economy were left alone.

That's not "capitalism" "collapsing". That's government intervention failing.

>you admit that globalization was good for them.
I wasn't trying to refute that. Although you must admit that the growth has exponentially increased environmental problems so it wasn't solely a good development.

inflation is much lower today than it was in the period of high growth

It is exact opposite. Nowadays Americans are forced pay larger proportion of their income to mandatory payments before they beging actual spending's on consumer goods.

iPhones were worth $200 in parts and labor. I don't see how if Americans ($8 hr) makes no it would raise it all that much.

Dogma overtook common sense. People have been trading freely for millenia before people put a name to it.

debunked

economics21.org/html/busting-myth-earnings-lag-productivity-880.html

Also, pic related

classes.igpa.uiuc.edu/jgiertz/jgiertz/ECON512/Old-2012/A01_Larrimore.pdf

Another yet unexplored (in this post) factor behind the lowering average wage in the US low skill immigration starting in force in the 1960s

>implying socialism/government intervention could fix these problems, even if they were legitimate problems

>dumb fuck. it's not 'producing moar goods'

Yes it is

Supply and demand determines prices

Even after all these years it's amazing that people subscribe to the labor theory of value

The only difference is that instead of being systematically starved to death by their government they are being systematically poisoned and economically exploited

i.e. you send money over to them so they can finance their military power

it's amazing you believe this

Indians don't have basic utilities like electricity or water

Maybe you hadn't noticed but outside of Germany the EU is economically stagnating

I know you don't care though since you are essentially profiting from outsourcing yourself

taxation is unrelated to productivity

Jews, it's alwas the jews.

When it's the bankers, or the lobbies, or currency shenanigans, it's the jews behind it.

which is why we have stagnation

let's not forget that the great depression was also caused by the Federal Reserve collapsing the BASE money supply (M0) by almost a third

...

Tution and fees, medical care costs exploding are due to the mishandling of these goods by the US, creating nearly limitless income sources for the financial industry.

All thats left should cost roughly the same, if adjusted for nominal wage growth since 1980.

Increasing welfare benefits and increasing sense of entitlement among the lower class, especially the blacks who are convinced they deserve the white man's money just for existing.

meanwhile in reality

cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

the iPhone is a unique case, Apple manages to sell it grossly overpriced because of marketing.

there are competitors everywhere that offer phones with similar components for half the price.

lol. open a fucking firm and try to produce a shitload of goods with no reason.
you will 100% end up with a big fat warehouse of unsold goods.
productivity is not volumes.

McPolitical Economist. Go to college.

>taxation is unrelated to productivity
Not in the sense that if people know that their accomplishments and wealth will be forcefully taken away, they will choose to work as little as possible. Happens a lot in subsaharan Africa where the elites either tax the shit out of everything or just directly take a 90% cut. It's one of the reasons why african farmers and businessmen appear so scarce and incompetent.

The US completely detached its currency from gold in 1971. Breton Woods was the beginning of the end, and terminating the agreement was the curtain call.

This abolished any need for monetary discipline and the Fed had completely free reign to print and leverage credit out the ass.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-25/china-vs-dot-the-u-dot-s-dot-its-just-as-cheap-to-make-goods-in-the-usa

Additionally, tariffs in the US by historical standards have been around an average of 9%, suggesting that such tariff rates are sufficient to strip out the cost differential.

In reality, we'd only really need average tariffs around 2-4% to narrow the spread enough that the risk of having manufacturing outside the country may exceed the financial benefit. In other words, it would largely eliminate the benefit of labor arbitrage so foreign products have to compete on a level playing field, rather than just a cost differential due to exploitation of their environment and desperate labor.

>Cred Forums thinks whites are superior
>Cred Forums is against a system that rewards the best

really makes you think

Meanwhile according to Socialist economists*

The abolishment of the gold standard in 1971(?)

Who will lose? Companies? I dont give a fuck about them.
If they want to sell their shit here they have to produce it here.

oh so now you understand how supply and demand works

The US expanding credit and debt and limiting the supply of certain goods has led to a catastrophic increase in debt and prices in health, real estate, education, etc

yet you can't seem to understand something so basic in regards to wages

>produce a shitload of goods with no reason.

at this point you're just ranting incoherently

I meant that there's no reason to assume that taxes will increase with productivity.

Tax increases are a political decision.

>stopping jewish financial fraud is socialism

Oy vey

>Cred Forums is one person
>Cred Forums is the one person in this thread that is being BTFO by everyone else

rly makes you think

>The only difference is that instead of being systematically starved to death by their government they are being systematically poisoned and economically exploited

the difference lies in the sharp decrease of absolute poverty, rapidly rising wages, (a teacher makes around 1000 dollars, thats two times more than in parts of europe) consumption of milk and meat, the ability to buy real estate in canada and australia ...

End of the gold standard + making the employer pay for health care and shit

>I know you don't care though since you are essentially profiting from outsourcing yourself

what is that supposed to mean

>Tax increases are a political decision.
Obviously, since tax rates are fairly arbitrary in the first place.

My neighbor David Goldbergstein said that we need to give the bankers and large corporations more tax benefits. What do you think Cred Forums, should we do as David Golbergstain says, since all of you 140+ IQ geniuses will one day own one of these institutions?

Greater government involvement in the market

Yep, work for a gigantic software company and if you don't work from home all the time, you can ask your manager to work from home two days a week and they have to allow it (assuming you're not middle management).

Why is it blaming the 80s when the trend already started in the early 70s?

she ded?

Outsourcing awards whoever is willing to live in the shittiest living standards possible

and yet absolute shit living standards not even remotely close to the west, the places from which they are taking jobs

I mean the rest of the EU loses their domestic industry to you and you are profiting from it then blaming them for "being poor" when you destroy their local economy

Yeah, we all know what terrific automation there was in 1979

No one, not even Milton Friedman himself, has ever claimed that wealth would "trickle down."

>ranting incoherently
as before, you know shit. take some CF and managerial accounting courses and not some macro/micro assumptions which work in models with 1000 assumptions.
You will then know how REAL firms operate.

So who said that?

>and yet absolute shit living standards not even remotely close to the west
depends on what you mean by "the west". compare the chinese middle class to the working class in italy and you will get pretty close.

We went off the gold standard

THIS

Population boom + women flooding the job market starting in late 60's.

Simple case of supply and demand.
Oversupply in labor = lower wages.

>stopping jewish financial fraud is socialism
The Center for Economic and Policy Research has a literal Communist on their board of directors, along with Socialists and other very left people. It has no one with opposing views and operates entirely within the sphere of belief in government authority.

Many people who otherwise would afford luxuries like overpriced or cheap tablets now can't, even at the reduced price because they have simply lost their careers or it simply peaked early. Rather than making more money over time, they ended up being fired or simply never let in the door past a certain point.

They might still be married to a person who has a independent career, but maybe that too has crashed or stagnated as well. Meanwhile their kids don't make it past the first barriers of entry and just end up never having a job because nobody seriously wants to hire 18-22 year olds for wages adjusted to per capita production value since the 1960s. Plenty of people started out making shit wages back in the day, now people simply make no money at all for a good chunk of their early lives, a period which used to be considered a persons most productive period.

Of course, if it's spent in study then you might produce plenty of technically skilled engineers who design shit that China eventually ends up stealing and some nameless subsidiary of a faceless Asian Megacorp making instead.

>mean the rest of the EU loses their domestic industry to you and you are profiting from it then blaming them for "being poor" when you destroy their local economy
while that is partly true, this is how market economies work in general. we make better goods, so we walk home with the profits.

Automation of production via robots. It's pretty clear and retards on this site (and liberals fighting for $15/hour) haven't caught on yet or do not understand.

that's nice

An Italian makes more in 2 months than a Chinaman makes in a year

>wanting basic laws enforced makes you a communist

kek

who actually believes this?

No that's how superstates exploit an entire economic region in order to benefit one nation while fucking over the rest

But I can see how you don't care about causing suffering, Germans rarely do

That's why they flood the EU with Muslims while demanding the rest of the EU not only take them in and pay for them, but demand they also cut government spending for native Europeans.

>he doesn't know what the proliferation of the microchip did
if every microchip on earth disappeared right now, the world economy would crash within an hour and wouldn't be repaired until ~2030.

Leftists said it, but no actual economists allegedly in favor of it said it.

How many times do I have to repeat myself to you uneducated niggers!?

>Economic Redpill incoming

whilst real wages for entry-level employees have stagnated, they have not, in fact, fallen since 1990. and as goods deemed luxury generations ago got cheaper, that pretty much evens it out.

yeh..

>Capitalism
>what went wrong?

Nothing went wrong, capitalism worked perfectly. It was peoples abandonment of capitalism which is the problem. What we have now is not capitalism, it's crony capitalism.

If you want a stronger economy then take govt out of regulation and remove their power to do things in business via force, and you

Race war now

>An Italian makes more in 2 months than a Chinaman makes in a year
the average wage in a major chinese city is around 900 dollars. i know a teacher that earned 800 dollars.

tell me how an italian worker makes more than 6 times that.

PRODUCTIVITY - NOT Divergent From Income!
Many contend that productivity rates have doubled while our wages remained roughly flat.[3] An extension of this argument is that the minimum wage would've today been $22 an hour had it merely kept pace with productivity. [1] But did you know these figures weren't adjusted using the same methodologies thus distorting the picture quite considerably?[2] Furthermore, as we'll demonstrate, changes in productivity vary from industry to industry, which renders comparisons of wages from one industry to the productivity rates of the entire economy useless.
• For instance, from 2013-2014, several industries increased in productivity 1-9% while others declined 1-8%. [4]
• In manufacturing, productivity has grown faster than the average of all non-farm businesses for the past 2 decades. [5]
• The point is; productivity gains are not equal by sector, so while the technology sector may have expanded over the past 20-30 years that doesn't mean a burger flipper can flip twice as many burgers as they did in the 70s. In fact, the gap between a fast food employee’s productivity and their compensation is nearly non-existent. [6] So no, minimum wage earners aren't necessarily being deprived the fruits of their productivity, as the above concerns regarding the minimum wage had implied.

>Part II inc

what went wrong ? every dollar the federal reserve prints is worth less and less but the prices and the taxes go up. Its similar with the euro.

• As for the disparity between income and total productivity, that's due to several methodological errors. First, total compensation vs wages. "Because of the rise in fringe benefits and other non-cash payments, wages have not risen as rapidly as total compensation. It is important therefore to compare the productivity rise with the increase of total compensation rather than with the increase of the narrower measure of just wages." [7] This is a common error which leads people to understate changes in earnings, since they exclude health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, paid leave, vacation, sick time, bonuses, paid parking (if working in the city), retirement funds, 401K plans, pensions, company cars, etc.
• Also, in adjusting for inflation, we must acknowledge that the commonly misused Consumer Price Index doesn't properly account for consumer choice or substitution of goods, which is why alternate deflators, such as the PCE or IPD should be utilized instead. [8]
• In doing so, we see that from 1979 to 2013, real median compensation actually rose by 38%, which is a sharp contrast to the supposed gains of only 6% had CPI and hourly wages been incorrectly used instead. [9]

>Part III inc

• Even then, two different price deflators are still being used - one to measure compensation and another to measure productivity. Instead, to compare apples to apples, you must apply the same inflation adjustment to both the productivity data and the compensation data. [7] We can do this via the “Implicit Price Deflator,” which accounts for goods and services that businesses sell to other businesses, or exports to other countries. (something the CPI doesn't reflect) It's also not limited only to a "fixed" basket of goods, as the CPI is, and therefore reflects changes in consumption patterns such as substitutions or the addition of entirely new goods/services. [10] Furthermore, compensation deflated by CPI is NOT appropriate when evaluating its relationship to productivity, since CPI adjusts for imported final products (which are not part of domestically produced final products). [7]
• Once adjusted using the same deflator, the gap between productivity and compensation almost vanishes. [11] [12]
• Additional research corroborates this. In a paper entitled “DID WAGES REFLECT GROWTH IN PRODUCTIVITY?” Harvard economist Martin Feldstein found that, while productivity doubled in the U.S. nonfarm business sector from 1970-2006, TOTAL compensation per hour increased at approximately the same annual rate as productivity so long as the same measure of inflation was used to adjust both earnings and productivity. [7] Even the BLS acknowledges that – once adjusted using IPD – compensation growth followed productivity growth up until around year 2000. [13] (Below, we'll explain what needs to be adjusted in the BLS data - and why - as to account for changes after 2000.)

Part IV inc

>That's why they flood the EU with Muslims
the EU is being flooded with refugees partially due to foreign US policy, but thats just saying
>exploit an entire economic region in order to benefit one nation while fucking over the rest
as i told you, we are not "exploiting" them. we are outcompeting them. the same happens on micro levels of the economy, with some companies being better than others. does BMW "exploit" Fiat?

• As for the remaining gap, this is because productivity rates are slightly overstated in two ways:
1. For one, the BLS doesn't properly account for the prices of imported goods that are then used in domestic production. [2] Imagine a factory which uses inputs from India but then switches to China because the materials are being sold to us cheaper there. The BLS would observe our final products being created at lower cost and reason that productivity had increased. But because the positive benefit arose from foreign trade rather than from worker productivity, one might confuse the source of the gains. [2] This is notable since part of this remaining gap between productivity and income corresponds with our ever expanding trade relationship with China. Even Benjamin Mandel of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors concluded that the official numbers overestimate productivity. In his paper, "Offshoring, Terms of Trade and the Measurement of U.S. Productivity Growth" he argues that “the mis-measurement in the terms of trade spills over into productivity growth" and that when trade is understated productivity then becomes overstated. [5]
2. The other factor to consider is capital depreciation, which has accelerated in recent decades due to the rapid rate in which computerized assets become obsolete. An investment in a building, for instance, lasts a lot longer than investment in computers. It follows, then, that since firms now rely more heavily on computers than they did 40 years ago, their “depreciation rates have increased.” [2]

>Part V inc

Thread should've ended here.

Communism, socialism, capitalism, it all works if you rid yourself of the rats in the system.

The BLS, however, measures GROSS productivity (total), not NET, so they do not account for this increase in depreciation rates. In other words, if a company had to replace its computers every five years instead of every ten, investors and business owners would have fewer dollars left over to dispense among workers – after production - since the cost of replacing those computers was part of the productive process. Because of this added cost, productivity often wouldn't be as high as the BLS reports since they didn't adjust it when comparing to the reduced depreciation rates of the past. This is why “Real NET GDP per Hour," or NDP, should instead be used to help calculate productivity as opposed to GDP.
• When using Real Net GDP Per Hour to calculate productivity, it turns out, compensation increases DID match productivity increases and have for decades. [14]
CONCLUSION:
Notice that none of these adjustments distorted the well established and non-debated link between productivity and income from 1945- 1975. Rather, they managed to accurately reflect the distant past while also accurately reflecting the more recent past. This is an extremely important point to observe since, if these adjustments weren't rooted in sound logic, they would have entirely distorted the 1945-1975 era. It's quite clear that didn't happen.

>Sources next

>the average annual salary of a worker in China's private sector was 28,752 yuan (about $4,755)

kek

$4755/12= about $400 a month

Italy

$32,593

= $2716 a month

stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AV_AN_WAGE
qz.com/170363/the-average-chinese-private-sector-worker-earns-about-the-same-as-a-cleaner-in-thailand/

It's not even close

Take your autism somewhere else, Kraut

Spending money for growth that we don't have.

now go back and read what i have stated

>compare the chinese middle class to the working class in italy

and i also dont need to tell you that a dollar has more buying power in italy than it does in china?

>and i also dont need to tell you that a dollar has more buying power in italy than it does in china?

the other way around, lel

>due to foreign US policy,
The US does not control Mama Merkel's domestic policies

>we are not "exploiting" them. we are outcompeting them
>we are not invading them we are just occupying their territory with a military

You are part of a superstate that denies them economic and political sovereignty all the while controlling the "legislature" and executive branch against which they have no say.

So yes you are exploiting them through austerity and outsourcing and ruining Europe all for your own benefit.

The worst part is how sanctimonious you are about it like you are doing everyone a favor by decimating the economy.

>People worked harder back then compared to this current lazy stuck up generation
anyone else think this is government propaganda?

Women's wage laws.

>That may be somewhat true in the US, but in Europe, our parents did not have it better than we do. They had vacation in their own federal state, or even city, bought only one car per family, refridgerators and televisions were not self-explanatory, etc.

And very little debt.
Europe is soaked in debt, just like Merica.

There is your 'lifestyle' enhancements,
just financed by debt.

>dollar has more buying power in China

literally nothing supports this claim

>>compare the chinese middle class to the working class in italy

I did and I proved you wrong

Just admit it

you're a Chinaboo with a yellow fever fetish and will say anything to defend the Chinks.

Nixon removed the gold standart on Dollar: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock

i also know a lot about the way the eu is designed and managed. and i agree that germany has benefited, whilst others have suffered.

lets move to the actual topic.

Sources:
[1]
cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage1-2012-03.pdf

[2]
economics21.org/files/e21ib_1.pdf

[3]
Original EPI graph up to 2011: epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/
Source of slightly updated graph up to 2013: (can't post google link)

[4]
bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prin2.pdf

[5]
gwu.edu/~iiep/waits/documents/Mandel-Offshoring.pdf

[6]
(Can't post google link)

[7]
nber.org/papers/w13953.pdf?new_window=1

[8]
investopedia.com/terms/p/pce.asp

[9]
urban.org/urban-wire/why-earnings-havent-stagnated-despite-what-you-may-have-heard

[10]
investopedia.com/terms/g/gdppricedeflator.asp

[11]
thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/OpportunityForAll.pdf

[12]
bls.gov/news.release/archives/prod2_12032014.pdf

[13]
bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/01/art3full.pdf

[14]
economics21.org/html/workers-get-same-slice-pie-they-always-have-1186.html

>TLDR watch this

youtube.com/watch?v=fHm7P4TA97U

Exactly

every globalist ignores low wages, high private debt, and credit bubbles while they're waxing poetically about how "great" globalism is

>the actual topic

Which is that you personally benefit from outsourcing so you defend it

and then you blame the countries you are fucking over.

>I did and I proved you wrong
nah. you compared average chinese wages with average italian wages.

i asked you to compare chinese middle class wages with italian working class wages. you will see that china has amazingly catched up.

>Which is that you personally benefit from outsourcing so you defend it

the actual topic is why middle class wages have stagnated. and the discussion whether they actually did, as we can buy things our parents never dreamed of.

It is

>we can buy things our parents never dreamed of
This is just technological advancement. It says nothing whatsoever about an economy other than technological progress wasn't intentionally hindered.

neither have you provided anything whatsoever to prove that the economy was "intentionally hindered". a conspiracy theory.

globalization had and has mixed results, but its not entirely negative and not a plot to "hinder" someone.

>Nixon removed the gold standart on Dollar: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock

No, that happened in 1973.

>buy things our parents never dreamed of.

and they bought things THEIR parents could only dream of, like a fridge or an automatic machine.

That's only technically progress.

Why middle class stagnation ?

Liberalised divorce laws, putting
many more women into work, lowering avg wages.
Opening of markets to start outsourcing production to the 3rd world.
Beginning of automation, replacing workers.
Our debt ridden lifestyle

It's never just one thing.

Everybody who says this was caused by the gold standard or Thatcher/Reagan is an idiot. Just look at the graph! Wages started stagnating around 1973 or so.
Fuck off with your stupid pseudo-economy.

What was the actual reason for this change? A shift towards more capital intensive instead of labor intensive economy.

Also, consider the effect of a post-war economy that made a boom once WW2 was over.

No one in China is paid a remotely decent wage

as the article above stated a cleaner in Thailand makes the same as the average Chinese worker

>why middle class wages have stagnated

outsourcing and mass immigration

What does that have to do with anything? So what if we can buy cool toys?

Excuse you. I suggest you reread what I wrote.

Sources?

> Capitalism

Capitalism (noun): Private ownership of the means of production.

You're welcome

>as we can buy things our parents never dreamed of
This doesn't change your social value, or allow you to attract a wife and provide for your children or anything.

It's just "oh neat I can fling the bird at the pigs." Useless.

Will the jobs ever come back Cred Forums or are we stuck having no work?

>No one in China is paid a remotely decent wage
except a distant relative that moved to China. she earns 800 dollar as a teacher.

one in eastern europe earns around 500.

B-but we have smartphones now!
I-isn't that everything you could ever want?

Boomers fell for the globalisation meme.

All of you are missing a major happening at the end of the 1970s... the separation of the USD from Gold.

We turned down the capitalism and turned up the socialism

what else do you want to buy? the middle class could never afford private jets, and probably never will.

People started supporting communism and rejecting capitalism more.

Why yes, I couldn't live without flappy bird; so what if worthwhile things are more out of reach than before?

Who needs a home or even an apartment? Why are milliennials so entitled?

>Will the jobs ever come back Cred Forums or are we stuck having no work?

Nuke china, that will bring the jobs back.

automation/computers killed jobs but kept productivity high.

not rocket science here.

This

must be the reason both wealth and income inequality skyrocketed.

really, read a book. the age of universal prosperity has been far more regulated and egalitarian than today.

Chyna

Jews started taking advantage of the massive loopholes for siphoning wealth away from the American people inherent in capitalism.

Boomer detected get out you old fuck youth only

The whole system

RISE UP, AMERICAN FASCISTS!

I know right?! Melliennials aught to just live in a box on the street. We don't need cars either, that's what legs are for!

This. Computers killed the working man

Automation/Technological Development, Crony Capitalism, and Outsourcing.

It's amazing how you cucks will take the exact operation of capitalism, and everything it was ever predicted by its detractors to do, and turn it around and claim it to be proof of creeping socialism.

Now I know why the revolution hasn't happened yet: the proles are too stupid to stop eating shit!

But China Mexico globalism therefore you're wrong.

>CTR BTFOOOOOOO
>KEK SHILL KEK SHILL KEK SHILL JEW

except we're talking about OUTSOURCING
So those jobs and products were already manufactured in the USA.
The US corporation sends the factory overseas then charges consumers the same price - increasing profitability.

Increasing profitability = outsourcing
lowering prices for consumers is not the point, and its reflected.

Don't such a cock sucking textbook reading faggot and use your brain and common sense.

All that comparative advantage asian countries have? Its the result of not adhering to the same safety and environmental standards of the US. So either way, free trade, between the USA and third world countries is a fucking scam, not only for American employees, but for the foreign workers and the earth in general.

Get on the right side of this issue. WAKE UP

An increase in population also means an increase in demand for goods and services, this means a demand for more workers.

...

>You'd still be paying more than otherwise in the absence of free trade.
Really? When was the last time a company moved overseas and the price of a good went down?

>You can not have tariffs and a free market, they're effectively subsidies.
Subsidies for what though? They are subsidizing all the regulations that American voters WANT on their corporations - worker protections and environmental protections MUST be subsidized, or they are ineffective, aren't they? If you want to argue against regulations, be my guest.

But as a person who lives in reality and not fake-libertarian-lalaland, I can tell you with some degree of certainty that the US will not give up its worker protections, minimum wage or environmental standards.

>>b-but muh cheap iphones!
funny you mention iphones
I doubt the price would even go up if they moved production to the US.
They have quite the buffer with which to resist competition (see the blue sector).

Not with globalisation. You can build all of your shit in China and then just ship it over for people to buy.

It'd be interesting to do this graph with a bunch of other consumer goods through various industries.

great picture
so, what % of the decline is due to production efficiency increases?
and what % is due to outsourcing?

yup.

but also consider that no one forces you to buy an iPhone. there are models from, for example, Huawei, that offer the same for less money.

>I doubt the price would even go up if they moved production to the US.
They would force the price up as much as they can to get their shekles.

Source for the image?

Bretton Woods ended. Our own politicians dismantled the new order that FDR and Truman set up.

>ctrl+f jew
>16 results
Bit low desu Cred Forums

>books and college 200% times more expensive
>TVs 100% cheaper

lol, it looks like something out of Idiocracy

Material quality has declined substantially~

Glass coke bottles and genuine wood cased TV's were the shit. Not to mention the frequent use of steel in a bunch of stuff. Now it's all low-grade plastic that falls apart after using it.

you are free to buy a wood cased tv today

The price of consumer goods has dropped largely due to stagnant incomes. You simply cannot sell those things at high prices and expect to get many sales any more.

Nope, no one makes it.

jokes on you, wages are stagnant only if adjusted for inflation. so this is false.

The answer is the same whatever question you ask.

The Baby Boomers

Post WW2, jobs were plentiful - because everyone was dead

Promotions were plentiful - because everyone was dead

Money was plentiful, because there was infinite room for growth - because everyone was dead

then like the fungus that springs up after a rain, came the sown seeds of the Greatest Generation - the Baby Boomers.

Feckless, backwards, and ignorant, they cling to society and the economy like a cancer, to stupid to realize times have changed, too selfish to change with them.

Strip out the cancer and free market capitalism will work again.

It's very easy.
>The workplace invaded by immigrants and women
>Second wave feminism giving them the right to divorce for literally no reason
>End of the gold standard
>Women gaining the right to vote a few decades ago, their actions start to have consequences
>Baby boomers

And then we started to destroy our industries and jobs by sending them to China.

Free market capitalism has literally never existed.

Neither has communism but that doesn't stop us from using the terms as short hand and recognizing what does work and what doesn't.

Protip: Communism doesn't, Capitalism does

Admittedly you have to RESTRAIN capitalism because people are masturbatory short sighted dicks who will fuck their neighbor in the ear for a two dollar bill and then wonder why everything is on fire lmao oh well got out with my 2 dollars

>who will fuck their neighbor in the ear for a two dollar bill and then wonder why everything is on fire
I'm not sure I follow the story...

Amazing how many people here want to give 'jews' as an answer because the awkward truth is that Thatcher and Reagan coming to power and the resulting right-wing political hegemony is what has lead us to where we are.

In america at least, the unions were broken up and demonized around that time. I know unions can be horribly corrupt but not as corrupt as this. Also if you keep tabs on management you could stamp out the corruption. They were very effective demonizing unions though. My dad is a pretty red-pilled guy but he absolutely hates unions. He owns his own business now now I kinda get it, but even before he did he hated them.

But you had much better stats under Thatcher than you had before, user.

Real wages have completely stalled since 1980 in the UK in exactly the same fashion as the OP graph

meant for

>Cred Forums complains about leftism
>complains about capitalism
>does not actually want to roll back liberties and rights
Soon they will realize they are actually socialists.

then why do republicans swear it'll happen

Immigration Act of 1965
Medicaid

ITT: OP does not understand long-term debt cycles and small-term debt cycles

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder........

The problem is Cred Forums when capitalism goes bad it become feudalism. I hear people complain about communism this, and communism that, but nobody complains about feudalism which leaves capitalism right open for an assfucking. Feudalism was what started communism, feudalism is the opposite of communism, it is where you worship the rich and only the rich are allowed to have rights. Feudalism was probably about 10 times worse than communism and enslaved millions of people. But now that we've seen the failure of communism and socialism, people are starting to believe again that only the rich should have rights, which let me tell you, is not gonna have a good outcome. You need to respect both the rights of the rich and the poor equally, if you don't, you get either feudalism or communism. Feudalism is both worse than communism, and inevitably leads to communism. After 100 years of slavery under feudalism, nobody is going to want to practice capitalism, so then they have to experience 100 years of communism before they can start practicing capitalism again.

Wages deflated right when women started entering the workforce in massive numbers.

And 34% of that manufacturing goes into the parts, then 0.9% goes to the rich chinese guy who runs the factory, and 0.01% goes to the factory slaves.

>Value can only be created by owning land
The pasta

I don't see the problem. Productivity is at an all time high.

What are you talking about? I'm just saying if you suck rich people dick, you get feudalism. If you suck poor persons dick, you get communism.

i really doubt this.
wages may have rosen rather slowly, but there is no way the standard of living in the uk is no higher than almost 40 years ago.

Well, they still sell glass cokes down the street at the Gas Station for a dollar. Ironically, It's the Mexicans keeping up the glass tradition.

Then when you suck the middle-classes dick you get socialism. So the trick here to having a good economy is pretty simple, just don't suck anyone's dick!

What can rich people get away with that poor people can't? Excluding politicians oc

I don't know it's subtle, I'm just saying we should not give any extra-rights to the rich. In a hypothetical situation society could begin to worship the rich again, then the rich could start treating the poor like shit, then we would get feudalism all over again.

>invent computer
>'WOW Productivity went waaaay up'
who'da thunk

But automation will make lower-classes obsolete, while capitalism has completely ruined the upper class.

Why NOT suck middle-class dick?

The proper solution is gov't funded reeducation of labor force. Not subsidizing low paying jobs of the past.

We're not producing anything, we're shifting debt around.

computers and automation (i.e. most humans are useless or easily replaceable)

>muh free markets
Markets are not free. They cost money to build and maintain. Would you construct a movie theater, and allow some peddler with a cart wheel his operation into the lobby and undercut your concession stand on price? No, of course not - the idea is ridiculous. You built the theater, so it is your right to control concessions, and charge a premium so you can offset the cost of maintaining that commercial enterprise. So why is it, that every lolbertarian thinks it's acceptable to give priority to anyone who can crawl across the border with a marketable product, and not charge them a fee? I'll tell you why: because they have been brainwashed, because they have been impregnated with pure ideology, and they are too much animal and not enough man to recognize their own situation.

Couple billion chinks, indians and womyn were added to the western labor market.

Maybe I just believe freedom too you authoritarian faggot.

A little bit of socialism has actually been proven to work, the emancipation manifesto freed Russian serfs and forced the rich to sell their land instead of being permanent eternal landlords. This then allowed the short and sweet practice of capitalism in Russia before communism inevitably took over. So yes, happy merchants from other countries should be taxed a little bit.

Mmmmm what happened in the 1960s?

Hart cellar act maybe?

Productivity is no longer tied to anyone you'd have to compensate.

The purchasers of products now do so with money that isn't tied to real material wealth but debt.

As western countries primary industries have been replaced by services, their debt has risen. While countries whose money still gets chopped down, dug up and pumped out the ground haven't borrowed as much.

First post best post.