How would Zig Forums argue against this?

I can't tell if this post is being ironic or not.

Does it matter?

Attached: cartoon_privatizeProfits_socializeLosses_432x285.jpg (432x285, 135.14K)

Requiring people to invest their own money into something is bad in itself. It prevents normal people from starting businesses and makes it easier for the already rich to get richer by starting more businesses. Because of statistics, investing lots of money over a large range of bussinesses substantially lowers risk. So using "i risk muh money" (ignoring for a moment most of the time its a loan in a LLC and you arent personally liable for losses) is a circular argument made to appeal to the hypothetical old man making teacups, to justify the much lower risk venture capitalists who often times just dump their money into hedgefunds without having to put in even more than an hour of work.

Lastly, the initial investment will eventually be paid off by the exploitation of the workers and at that point the bussiness enters into a perpetual state of generating free money for whoever invested first, while the workers continue to pay for the "privilege" of making the owner money. If you insisted on "investment equals payout", then the following options would be actually consistent with that ideology and less exploitative (though it is still exploitation and shit).

Of course this still leaves the issue that propertyless people (like young adults) wont be able to participate under this "fair capitalism" system due to needing money to survive and not being able to live off the profit of their initial shares. And already rich people would still stand to profit disproportionately from all this due to the fact that they can invest in companies where the total profit increases quicker than than the number of shares. And they can just set the initial investment equal to a ridiculous figure (one dollar investment = 100 years of work) to never have their real share amount impacted in the slightest. And other shit.

But in short your picture is a strawman and small businesses like that do not account for even a significant part of the total amount of jobs under capitalism.

Of course a managing owner does work and deserves something for the work they do, but that isn’t the reason he gets the profits and ends up much welathier than everyone else. It’s the legal recognition of his monopolization of the business, nothing more nothing less.

That fact that in capitalism being an entrepreneur is taking a risk with your capital only shows how broken capitalism is.
What good is there in a system that actually harms the people that is supposed to make best use of it and ripe its biggest benefits?
The porky that fell from grace is ignore both left and right but I think we need to put attention to it to show that capitalism also harms porkys and at the end we all lose be porky or not

Attached: 1537381944738.jpg (1280x720, 94.64K)

Once he makes enough profit to zero out his loss of investments, then he is extracting surplus labor and thus exploiting workers. It's absurd capitalists think having a neat idea is equal to lifetimes worth of profit from other's manual labor.

I'm more of a mutualist on economics, but here's your answer:

He might own the factory/whatever. He doesn't own anyone's labor. He needs coops to profit off from the means of production. This is because you cannot profit off from a means of production; a means of production requires labor; therefore, he is profitting off from labor, not the means of production.

Long-story-short: Nobody's forcing him to "hire" anyone. If he can effectively run the means of production all by himself, so be it. If he can't, then he requires cooperation. He's entitled to the fruits of his own labor, not from other's labor. It's that simple.

Slit that old mans throat

Fuck his teacups

Someone edit it so the last panel says "so if I'll be doing all the labour, how come you're entitled to more than what you've invested?"

Remember broquest?

Actually, he's profiting from a vast variety of things. Sure, labor is a part of it, which he compensates them for, at a price they agree upon.
He's also profiting off of his market analysis.
He's also profiting off of the machine he bought.
He's also profiting off of the nation's infrastructure which allows him to move his goods to other places, the retailers which sell his goods, etc.
To dumb everything down to the singular component of "le labor" is stupid.

labour
built by someone's labour - or do you think the machine just appeared out of thin air?
built by labour
labour

...

There user conflate the moral connotation of exploitation and the technical meaning to make appear the argument absurd.
Just raising the price makes you profiterreing more of your wagy's labour, even if the conditions of work haven't budged.

The point of any type of investment is that you're getting more out of it than you put into it. If the game was "either you can break even or lose", nobody would invest in anything.

It probably has something to do with the fact that it's his company, and did all the work in making it happen. That's the reason why the job applicant isn't making his own teacup factory.

That's because Marx's "labor theory of value" is utterly absurd.

see

Attached: not an argument.png (1350x1023, 1.91M)

I thought liberals were banned from here.
You may as well try to claim that someone who purchased a bunch of individual parts to build his own car somehow didn't built his own car

what does this even reference?
But That's Labour, You Fucking Dumbass
you are the retard claiming that capitalists actually build the MoP when all they do is hold capital and invest in a M-C-M' cycle

This is a fantasy that doesn't happen IRL.
horrible business idea
no you faggot you analyzed the market to see what "beloved designs" you could convince people to buy with ads
buying MOP isn't a risk, and neither is employing people to work them
the risk is your dumb business model
clearly has a better idea of what's going on than baldy

Actually, all you're doing is conflating a dozen different concepts, and calling it all "capitalism".
Apparently I'm literally Porky because I bought some stock in DOW chemical, which means I own the means of production.
Either that, or you're so retarded that you unironically believe that creating a business takes no work on the part of the person who creates the business.

if you live off rent (absentee ownership) you are.
not necessarily, literally all you need is some capital. you can use that capital to buy labour which can then 'create the business' for you

Once again: You own the means of production; you might call it your own property. You do not own anyone else's labor. Labor isn't something tangible, therefore it's not property and cannot be owned, nor it's fruits.

Again, you cannot profit off from a means of production without labor. If you can solely run the means of production, via you own labor, good for you. If you need labor cooperation, in order to correctly exploit your means of production, then you're entitled to your own labor, not anyone else's. How's that hard to grasp?

Now go away, "an"cap. You don't belong here.

Incredible. I didn't think there was anyone who knew less about how business works than Marx, but here you are.

I'm not really sure why you felt the need to bold that. Of course you don't "own" it, it's an agreed upon transaction lasting for the duration that both the employer and employee agree on it.
Literally an unjustifiable position. Property and ownership exist, deal with it.
It's not. How is it hard to grasp that what occurs is a transaction, and some form of slavery the way you're acting like it is? It's a simple transaction. The business owner isn't "entitled" to "their" labor any more than the prospective employee is "entitled" to a career. One can hire someone else, and the other can go work somewhere else if they can't reach an agreement, same as everything else.

the problem is that that the work of the enterpreneur is not diected to getting a wage like for the proletariat. The work of the enterpreneur is directed at managing the exploitation of either rent or labor. And thus it is not labor.
If you read wage labor and capital you'd knew that the idea that "everyone gets its share" under capitalism is a mere illusion. The worker is paid in a system that is exactly the contrary of paying him his "fair share", in fact the profit of the buisness owner is, if there is no aspect of renting, entirely built on exploiting the worker.
So yes there is work to create a business. Altought as some other user suggested you could just buy the labor of someone that does that for you. A thing that, obviously, a proletariat can't do: think about it it makes entirely 0 sense for him to try and apply this mechanic. And you know why? because that of the bourgoise is NOT LABOR, he can run around his factory 18 hours a day but in essence what he is doing is organizing his capital machine.
You want to produce your beloved teacups? Do them on your own. You want to get rich from it? There are no other ways than exploiting labor or rent, there is no "giving fair shares" to anyone since business does not work like that.

Attached: nod an argumend.jpg (728x843, 60.16K)

...

Shoulda sent it to the patent office

With smug anime pics.

Attached: teacupboss.jpg (720x718, 110.8K)

Why didn't they all just make their own business, then?

What's funny is that is exactly what a lolbert would unironically say.

It wasn't a rhetorical question, and one which you didn't answer.

Attached: rly.jpg (1920x1080, 692.35K)

Kek! Poe's Law is even more powerful that Rule 34.

You are not recognizing that employment agreement is not in a vacuum, if the option is either working for crumbs so you don't starve to death, or starving to death, I wouldn't say taking a job where your labor grants the owner vast wealth is a very fair arrangement. When all of the means of production are owned what real options does the average person have other than to become a wage slave and continue the bourg's wealth accumulation?
Well not all rewards are tangible objects. Salk's didn't need to exploit the world for a polio vaccine to line his pockets, knowing his progeny would be polio free was profit enough. I don't understand why anyone would want an economy based solely on man's greed to fuel it.

Uni was full of these people. They can go fuck themselves!

Attached: download.jpg (184x273, 6.04K)

Perhaps the dude working for Chiang Kai-Shek could negotiate an employee stock ownership plan. Thus, he would be owning a share of the company.

The analyst, the designer, the engineer who made the machine and the kid who will operate the machine will perhaps be more motivated to perform as their performance will directly result in greater profits for them.

So this is literally just an envy thing for you?

Banks.

Codemonkey revolt!

Attached: nigga-is-you-serious.jpg (240x239, 23.59K)

Attached: feudalism is human nature.png (1365x393, 169.74K)

story to discredit your efforts and talk like taking risks is no big deal, because Im a little edgy ignorant faggot acting smartass after reading some shitty book most popular among children in their puberty?

This is what I don't understand when talking with idiotic leftists.
They act like business owners are part of the 0.000000001% of humanity that literally just fart money and make businesses out of nowhere, when in fact the very idea of "creating a business" is such a waste of time to these people that the very thought is insane. They can't even be bothered with "investment banking". They're the kind of people who pay others to hire other people to invest in things. They don't "own the means of production", because the very "means of production" is so far beneath them that it's microscopically irrelevant.
Yet somehow that's also synonymous with being a business owner, who's life literally depends on the success of his business, which is also synonymous with your average middle class stock trader, who owns 0.0000000001% of the total share of Google, which apparently makes him a Porky.
These retards haven't updated their philosophy in over a century and a half, and have never bothered to actually analyze any sort of business from any perspective other than Marx, who was never part of any manufacturing process in his entire life.

So shit most Burgers “the richest people in the world” have

Do you honestly believe one man could actually do these things single-handedly, setting aside the fact that he'd generally need to be quite rich to do any of this in the first place?
This bullshit again. The only thing he risks is to end up the same way as all the people laboring for him. More or less everyone that works in his company is objectively in a more risky position AND does more demanding, dangerous and uncomfortable labor than him.
The capitalist does not receive "some" of the money in the same way his laborers receive wages, he extracts their surplus value to make profit, thereby not paying them the full value of their labor (which is shown by the simple fact that his profits exist). This holds true for all businesses regardless of the size, but is most obvious with major companies such as Amazon, where Jeff Bezos amasses amounts of wealth never seen before in human history while his manual workers barely make enough to survive. It's absurd to talk about this situation as if the CEO is just getting "some" of the money as if the profits he makes aren't extremely disproportionate to the labor he is carrying out. This is the modern-day equivalent to someone in antiquity defending slavery because the slave master provides his slaves with food and shelter, as if this suddenly makes the entire system justified.

no one's denying they got that money from somewhere, bucko

Attached: get off this estate.jpg (540x720, 80.02K)

>>so all you did was pay someone else to create this business plan, pay someone else to do all the book keeping and calculations and paperwork and taxes, pay someone else to go through hundreds of retards to find the right people to hire, a bank paid for my training, a bank paid for all of us ahead and the materials and machines, a bank took the full risk of us fucking up our job and created something we apparently couldnt convince a bank to manage to do without you and now you feel entitled on all of the profits as much as you would have to convince a bank to deal with any losses yourself to the bank, because we never had enough leverage over you to force an agreement on profit sharing?

Who owns the banks, hmm?
Reminder such people are basically irrelevant to most companies, and in the case of many firms such as Google, the public isn't actually allowed to own majority voting stock that appoints board members.

Attached: stock-ownership2.jpg (545x363, 44.63K)

Really? Because I'm pretty sure all the people he employed are perfectly able to walk away no worse than they were before, to either seek other employment or create their own businesses, whereas the failed business owner is the one who actually lost absolutely everything.

Attached: e8b91465dd6112b6a814cd655170300ee75cb8eb_hq.jpg (500x538, 40.26K)

Attached: donald-trump-the-bankruptcy-shyster.jpg (816x517, 149.76K)

Trump simultaneously owns literally hundreds of businesses. Declaring bankruptcy on the few that didn't work does nothing but destroy your own argument. Stop acting like a liberal NPC.

Citation needed

youtube.com/watch?v=GFEzJovH2yo

Yeah, that is how unemployment works.

Attached: AtTheLimitOfPatienceForRetards.jpg (720x579, 79.51K)

They have no job anymore which makes them objectively worse off than before. Besides, you ignored my point that they are constantly at a high risk even without losing their jobs because those are typically more dangerous, intensive and stressful than the business owner's.
Unemployment is massive, it should speak for itself that this is far from evident (apart from the fact that the transition period can be highly difficult and stressful).
More or less impossible for people in their financial situation.
Oh yeah, if you're talking in absolute terms of the drop in wealth from one amount to another, he probably is. That wealth wasn't obtained in any legitimate way though, nor does every single penny matter that much when you're obscenely rich whereas a small drop in income can already be disastrous for an impoverished prole. Believe me that the laborers will starve before the business owner will.

That might be the easiest short rundown on the fundamental problem of capitalism I've seen. As the top comment says, Wolff is a bit short-sighted when talking about 20th century socialism (or just hiding his power level) but his explanations on economy are absolutely spot on.
I'd recommend Cockshott's videos to OP as a follow up, maybe starting here: youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q

Wow I have not seen this, great video as well.

You're right, not only did they get free training and skills, but they also get to collect unemployment at his expense, while the actual business owner who's business goes under gets to put a bullet in his own head.

Attached: i9ui7gy7wwvz.png (720x775, 454.29K)

All business owners should put a bullet through their head.

:mailto:bump

What did he mean by this?

reminder that this is coming from the same kind of people who will screech "FREE DOESNT EXIST!!!!" when you mention free education, public transport and healthcare

The government pays that, with tax taken from other workers mostly since corporate tax gets cut by the week.

youtube.com/watch?v=YVVRnmQ3yKw

That depends on where you are. States that are not as shitty as most expect employers to pay some unemployment benefits for the employees that they fire.

Because one is being paid for by the company, whereas everything you just mentioned is being paid for by yourself through taxes (assuming you ever actually work).

Implying we couldn't get it 100% from the elites by imposing far-reaching progressive taxes, or by simply not spending billions on unnecessary luxury projects and military expenses.

Lmao, I take a bank loan (not my own money) to start a business. If it fails, I have to be just like the workers I exploit - I will have to sell my ability to work to another guy who took out a bank loan (or, like in 90% inherited it)

NPCs have this inability to understand I don't give a fuck if they make more money than me. Money is just the ejaculate of the system which creates it. You break it down to its axioms and what you find is class disparity and exhaustion.

My ex girlfriend fucking robbed me. I wasn't even mad. I was just like bitch you're gonna pay me back. You're gonna work 40+ hours a week and see what its like having to do so much for so little and if you think it's ok to rob someone whose always loved and supported you after that than I can't argue against it. But I doubt it.

Ofcourse she never paid me back because she's a fucking woman and women are entitled gorilla parasites that get away with everything because stinky pussy pheromones. But the fact remains. I don't care about wealth or if someone has more than me. What I care about is what am I doing with my time and why isnt my time or my thoughts or my freedoms as valued as someone else's?

Noone gives a fuck if I work myself to death. But some slut broke a nail? Better elect the Bernie Sandals!!!

Noone gives a fuck if I can't say or do anything. Every five minutes getting banned somewhere. Alex Jones gets deplatformed for literal libel? Well I mean you're not ACTUALLY gonna do shit about it…but you're frustrated and empathetic on Jones behalf. Which is more than i get.

I play Yugioh and God damn this game is fucking terrible. I could design something so much better. And conservatives would argue I should. Well I would if I could you fucking Capitalist but I don't have the resources. If we lived in the big scary controlled economy, even a capitalist one, I could probably make a court argument that my ideas could generate bigger profit returns and they might implement them. Basically a loan with more steps. I can't just go to the bank and ask for a million dollar loan to make a better version of a card game that may in the long run be more functional but short term won't see returns because it doesnt have the brand name yugioh or magic the gathering does. So again there's an internalized inequality.

Attached: 82501dfea9366d3c214b1d6fd41c9453440d9f48fa6520e52a8e8f6ab5610883.jpg (255x191, 16.05K)

who mined the steel? who refined the oils? who made the plastics? who programmed the computer for the injectors? who mined the gold/coppper/coltan for those computer parts? who assembled the refinery for the oil? who maintains the forge that casts the parts? who drives the boat to ship the parts across the ocean? Who sorts the boxes at the distribution center? who maintains the roads that delivery trucks drive on? who grows the food to support this complex of production? who raises the children to become adult individuals who will carry out the above tasks? who built the garage that gives you shelter to put together this car? who made the tools that you use to assemble it?

its coercion, John Locke, Adam Smith etc agree

Mises, Freidman are hacks and modern "economics" is a psuedoscience that is not mathematically sound

Nobody gives a fuck about your tail chasing busy 'work'. Its not productive labor. Get back to me when you actually create something.

When socialism wins you will be conscripted to 10 hours weekly productive labor, hopefully with reeducation through labor you will see the error of your ways.

bonus lolbert meme: why doesn't Warren Buffet invest in gold?

the old man should get some money. But the worker should also get a fair share, not some poverty-level wage.
And where's the risk when we have government bailouts?

also this.