Why I hate capitalism rule

I like that this also illustrates how pointless a million extra layers of boxes are for improving anyone's life.

It also does not illustrate what motivates a billionaire. It just makes their behaviour seem totally irrational which does not do you any favours.
- It is irrational but the same sort of irrational everyone is. Monkey need to survive winter so monkey stocks up on food/resources. Monkies never needed a ceiling for this behavior as there was never enough food. Now you have apes with a billion winters worth of stockpile yet that voice in their heads is still as loud as ever.
- It's a mix of 'losing touch with value if you have lots' and validated 'more = feel good' and competitive behavior.
  
  In short, irrational.

I really really hate the original version of this meme. No one uses equality, equity, and justice to mean the things the meme implies >:|

What do you mean no one uses those terms that way?
- Not in this meme, but in the original. It implies that equality is not a good thing because surely the people calling for it haven't taken into account that everyone is different and has different needs. It shows equity as being the same situation but tailored for everyone's needs, and justice as being the same situation but with whatever created the inequality in the first place as having been removed.
  
  My issue is that people don't use these words in this way, the people calling for equality always want to provide according to peoples needs, and to remove the things causing inequality.

I get the thought, but capitalism is the fence, the reason people need boxes just to watch the game in the first place.

I'd draw the man with the million boxes using just the one to see over the fence.

He's blue shirt guy, who didn't even need one to see over it.

This is american version of capitalism (meaning it is oligarchy, not capitalism).

A fundamental principle of capitalism is competition. In US, lobbying (aka legal bribery) has eliminated competition. So it has changed from capitalism to oligarchy.

Norway is also capitalistic, but everyone is rich there. US could and would have been there if politicians were not sold.

Capitalism and being an oligarchy are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive, nor is the presence or absence of competition neither mutually inclusive or exclusive of oppression of others for gain. One could argue, though, that capitalism tends to eventually lead to oligarchies and, as the graphic suggests, oppression for gain as these are both strategies to maximize gain and the capitalist operator with the most gain can use that gain to further increase future gain, and so on. This can lead to the systematic selection for oligarchic, oppressive capitalists.

Norway is rich, like many other countries, due to its economic oppression of the global South. While its distribution of that wealth is more equitable than the United States, it still relies on the same system of oppression to accrue disproportionate wealth.
- What I am reading from your comment is: Norway is not perfect, therefor the argument you were replying to is invalid or diminished. Might not be what you intended, but that's what it reads like.
  
  I don't think oppression of the global south is a valid criticism of Norway. I do think the things Norway needs to improve upon are largely similar to things the US has to improve upon. Only Norway is miles ahead in many of these key aspects.
  
  Like corruption, most Norwegians want less corruption.
  
  Equity, most Norwegians think there is not enough equity
  
  Healt care and welfare, most Norwegians think people don't get good enough help with low enough friction
  
  Of course there are more points, and some points don't have overlap.
Norway is also capitalistic, but everyone is rich there. It's pretty good here, but not that good.

Wage inequality is way lower here in Norway than in most of the world, but it's unfortunately on the rise, in addition to right wing politics becoming increasingly prevalent. Things are good here because inequality was always low, and therefore unions could "win", unlike in the US where unions were successfully opposed by powerful corporations.

Norway is slowly becoming worse, but way slower than the rest of the world because unions and the welfare state stops foreign and domestic companies from exploiting us as much as they want to.
REAL capitalism hasn't been tried it's just a theory those countries aren't really capitalism they just call themselves capitalism.

People like you mock those on the left using similar arguments all the time....
A fundamental of capitalism is also that you’re paid based on the amount of work not the value
I'm visiting my Norwegian family in October. 4th visit and 2nd to meet family.

Wish I could stay. Maybe I could bribe a cousin to let me live in their basement. 😉

Curiously in Economics 101 circa 1985, there was a whole section on wealth disparity, featuring a graph with a diagonal line (perfect distribution), and the plotted chart that bowed underneath that line, showing how much extra wealth the rich have over the poor. When the area between those two lines gets too large, it leads to all the shit we hate about capitalism: suffering, regulatory capture, eventually state failure and civil war (followed by famine and pestilence).

The point of the section was don't let this happen. And the state was supposed to do anything necessary to preserve a low disparity, or a pretty even distribution.

And by a pretty even distribution something like the richest people having 100x the average wealth, and the poorest having 1/100 the average wealth, so there's a significant amount of latitude.

These days, the top three richest have more money than the bottom 160 million poorest in the US. So we are well beyond the civil-war and failing state points.

But then the state is failing and civil war may be imminent.

Econ 101 is designed to obfuscate the real issues. Even talking about specific wealth distribution ratios is falling for the misframing of the issues that Econ 101 wants to lead people into with the pie metaphor. In the capitalist firm, the employer holds 100% of the property rights for the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs while workers qua employees get 0% of that. The entire division of the pie metaphor in Econ 101 is based around hiding this fact

@196
I think your definition of "we" is what's holding this back. They did not have "we" in mind when making precaution.
- I guess, then, we're soon going to see if a we emerges, or if the new order is able to dispose of the potential wes one them at a time.

Under socialism, the tower belongs to The People, and is used by their representatives in the Party.

Socialism doesn't dictate a government structure, there's authoritarian socialism and there's anarchist socialism and there's socialism in-between.

What's ironic about your point is that you're advocating for a literally authoritarian economic system where the owning class dictates what laborers do. You spend most of your waking hours working for a dictator.

Socialism is about making the economy worker owned and giving the workers control over what gets produced and how. That could be via worker cooperatives, it can be via anarchism, it can be via an authoritarian state that (claims to) represent the worker.
- Socialism doesn’t dictate a government structure
  
  I disagree! Socialism by definition requires the people to own their own homes and the places where they work, which is difficult in a government not run by the people. Socialism must be democratic, anything else is just red fascism.
  
  it can be via an authoritarian state that (claims to) represent the worker.
  
  I may have been hasty, seems you agree! But I would like to stress that any government which claims to be socialist but makes unions illegal and enforces capitalism and private property shouldn't really get to call itself socialist or communist. They're just state capitalist oligarchies.
Zizek has a joke like that:

in Russia, members of the nomenklatura ride in expensive limousines, while in Yugoslavia, ordinary people themselves ride in limousines through their representatives.
used by their representatives in the Party

Nah, mate. Not the USSR nor Cuba were like this. You simply couldn't find wealth disparities in those countries as you can in modern capitalist ones, not even remotely close.

Hey, USA isn't the only capitalist country in the world!

But the most extreme. They literally go to war for capitalism.

Most conservatives are the child in the red shirt telling the cops to stomp harder on the child in the purple shirt, because the guy in the blue shirt told them that's who stole their box.

well urss was exactly like the third option, the problem isn't capitalism/communist is lack of functional democracy

I would of done capitalism where the billionaire has all the boxes then showed three people fighting over one box.

idk if fighting would make sense. i dont see people fighting to get eachother's salary, i see people suffering for not having enough money to live a healthy life or working together to live a good enough life (example: a person not able to afford both rent and food vs living in a house with someone, making both food and rent possible even if still not enough).

so either i'd make it 2 people who need 2 boxes to see, but each only has 1 box and theres another person who has hundreds of boxes;
or 2 people on top of the same 2 boxes and a rich guy again with hundreds of boxes.

Every time I see equality vs equity I want to draw equality vs equity vs cooperation response, where in equality scenario one person sees match, in equity none and in cooperation all, where one is on shoulders of other and third is on two boxes.

We live in a society

I thought I was on upvoteexeggutor for a sec

liberalism is the capitalist buying a ticket and then equity