The Hypocrisy of Capitalism

The issue was whether or not businesses had the right to not provide equal access to goods and services.

Refusal to make a wedding cake might seem frivolous, but behind that is legal precedent. If a company has the right to refuse to make your gay wedding cake, companies have the right to refuse you housing, food, services, etc. It’s an incredibly dangerous precedent.

It isn't but they are nothing compared to Youtube.

Wedding cakes aren't a human right tho, according to law. It can be refused for a private company, I'm not sure about the public companies tho.

This is comparable to arguing that we should force the best baker in town to bake the gay wedding cake because "the other bakers are nothing compared to him". It's still hypocritical.

You're in the wrong neighbourhood.

As said, it falls under a different category, and free speech is a human right. Cakes aren't.

The point is that they refused service, which sets the precedent that companies can refuse service to customers on a personal, discriminatory basis.

Of course they are. It's just that they don't care. Neither should you - it's no great victory to catch an opponent in a contradiction absent actual power to punish him.

It's not abstract, free speech is a human right and is protected by the US constitution. That's why Facebook came under fire for free speech violations.

Facebook is a private institution. If a company can reject to service fags for being fags, then it would be hypocritical for you to then get pissed off when a company that holds a platform decides they don't like what you're saying and toss you out to the way side.
Actually this would be a great way for us to get some "chuds" to join our side, simply by saying that the 1st amendment would need to be enforced by the government because youtube 2.0 nationally owned edition is nationalized.

Also, free speech isn't some holy thing worth defending on it's own merits. Free speech is an element of cultivating and maintaining a broader concept of pluralism, that society ought to have a range of diverse political, philosophical and religious views, ethnic background, etc. The group of people who whine the most about free speech are also the ones who either don't care about, but more often are directly opposed to pluralism. This makes them (and you) come across and highly disingenuous and opportunistic when you call for it. Maybe some libs are fooled, but we aren't.

Youtube does not need to be nationalized, it just needs to keep in line with the laws in regards to free speech and censorship, especially because the laws are stricter for companies that hold majority in the market shares.

Before going on, what is your solution?

Youtube needs to be nationalized for reasons outside of the first amendment. Such as the fact that google could very well go under and all of it's videos could just go away with a snap of the fingers. If it was nationalized, history won't be lost.
Are you unironically some sort of liberal or some shit?

Imagine being this dishonest.

Attached: 58266a57be46780767ecdc09468e0abc4041a66d97ebc4eb0ee856a9dc864e87.gif (100x100, 23.14K)

The issue with that, as long as it can make money of it, it won't. But if it wants to shut down, I think they'd announce it and let their users download videos or upload them on cloud servers. But considering its size, I don't think it will do that.
Yes.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

My solution is the dissolution of private property altogether, but short of that, "human rights" that can be violated whenever you're on or using someone else's property is, in effect, simply an extension of property rights. If you were to genuinely have "human rights", rights that you get for being human and not for holding property, then said rights should overrule property rights.

The right to own property, is a human right tho.

Not anymore it won't be.

is the right to own slaves or serfs a human right?

Good luck in that.

I assume that you know my answer.

Why do I need luck to change a law? "Human rights" are just laws. You take power and change the law.

I would not agree to that, nor would, a lot of people I assume.

the overwhelming majority of humans would benefit from it.

I'm aware, which is the purpose of establishing a proletarian state to suppress bourgeois society and ultimately abolish it.

I wish you all the luck with that.

So who'd be the first slave again?

With the abolition of private property, slavery becomes impossible.

But what becomes a possibility is that we all become slaves of the state.

You can't be a slave to the state retard.

Since the state is a tool of class domination, with the abolition of private property, and thus class society, the state will wither away having become redundant.

Nah, just you.

Attached: 06092299cdaa6c1aad3d8b993bf3139d5f3df274ebc2cd28483825564a31d57c.jpg (800x800, 150.32K)

Because, human rights and the rule of law prevent that.

I'm not sure I agree with you.

Be my guest.

CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE MY FRIEND

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (916x710, 1.18M)

It really comes down in U.S. law involving "public accommodations" and "protected classes." Not private businesses per se. This is a legal architecture that was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and expanded to prevent discrimination against various groups like race, national origin, religion, sex and so on. Gays are actually not protected at the federal level but they are in various states and municipalities.

A "public accommodation" is a private business that serves the general public: think restaurants, hotels and movie theaters and so on. The legal argument here is that outlawing discrimination in public accommodations does intrude on private property rights to some extent, but the government has a (much greater) compelling interest in preventing discrimination – which tramples on the rights of protected classes to engage in commerce. Basically rights have to be balanced, since they are often in contradiction, with the government saying: if you serve the general public, serving X group (even if you don't like them) does not substantially burden your private property rights and does not imply that you endorse them, because your relationship with your customers is just a commercial transaction.

I'm not making a moral argument here. I'm gay and don't particularly care about bakeries, but this is the legal precedent for this.

And political views are not a protected class in any case, anywhere in the U.S. as far as I know.

Also, private organizations are different from public accommodations. Think the Boy Scouts of America. It is an organization and a club, so they can ban gay scouts if they want. There was actually a lawsuit suing the BSA for discrimination which failed at the Supreme Court. Ironically, perhaps, but a gay softball league later used this case as precedent to ban straight and bisexual players from the league: as the softball league had no expectation of "serving the general public."

Attached: PublicAccommodationsFFAA.png (896x450, 96.87K)

You should learn how states function. It's the interests of the ruling bourgeois class (which the state serves) that determines what the state will or will not do.

By your account then, you switch it over to the bureaucrats in power. The state always was in control of a small percent, but this way, we get to have a restriction, than their power is limited and that we avoid, mob rule.

Quite right! Better that a cabal of us financial and economic oligarchs - the masters of humanity, I should say - make the important decisions for you uncivlized rabble.

Imagine how the schools would look like if they were ran by children?

Imagine thinking workers are to bosses like children are to men.

Nothing freudian going on there at all!

If you actually paid attention in school, you might realize how that's a shitty comparison and not really an argument either.

The charming thing is that you probably figure you’re not the “mob” or the “child” in these situations.

But a comparison to a school is ridiculous. The bourgeoisie are not the parents or teachers of the proletariat.

I think they'd be mature enough to vote, considering they are, above the age of 18.

Do tell, how does a mob rule work, and where?

Because I'm an individual that does not want to associate with the mob.

Okay, moviebob, but do you think the ruling class sees it that way?
If you think you're not a part of the "mob", but the quote above basically described your economic situation, I've got bad news for you.

sargoy pls go

Attached: 191c85f8fbbd639781494e53953d67838dc0b629948897255af598dcd20e9a58.jpg (448x612, 46.28K)

So, what should I if I'm being, oppressed and exploited by your account? Because I'm not, feeling either of those things.
They have the right to see me as they see fit, I know who I am.

reals

It doesn't matter how you feel. Oppression and exploitation aren't when you feel bad, they're political and economic facts. The state exists to ensure your subjugation to the bourgeois class, your oppression is a political fact. If you are employed, you must produce more value for your employer than you are compensated for in your wage, your exploitation is an economic fact.

How you see yourself means nothing.

So I should fit inside your characteristic because I fit inside of the Marxist definition of x,y and z. Should I convert to christianity because, I am a "sinner" and must repent?

If we ought to banalize things so much, do you own the pan you were given under a position of pancake maker?

You need to actually explain your thoughts, boyo. Are you saying that wage-labor don't real or something?

And typically you don't own the tools at your place of employment, your employer is supposed to provide those himself.

...

Classic

Exactly, if I use it, it does not mean it's mine.
I don't mean to throw an ad hominem, but when we are talking about the person, his life was a great reflection of him, because behind all ideologies lies a mentality that justifies it, and he wasn't the shinning example of optimal ethics nor moral conduct, nor a good life.

Firstly, marxists make a distinction between personal property and private property. Secondly, we call for the abolishment of capitalism, so this argument that abides by the "rules" of capitalism does not in anyway mean anything to us because it's the system we're seeking to end.

But wouldn't it be better if it were?

That's some spooked nonsense right there. Von Braun was a shameless opportunist and a nazi, didn't mean his missiles didn't fly. Einstein fucked his cousin, should we therefore discard his theories on physics? Of course not. The test of a theory is how well it holds up empirically. Marxist economic analysis has proven to provide a useful framework for understanding our society, and continues to prove incredibly prescient to this day. It is valuable because it accurately describes the workings of the world we live in, unlike for example Christian mythology.

I believe this is called "the worst argument in the world". "X believes in something, which is kind of like religion, therefore it is exactly like religion". Marxist concept of exploitation describes an objective economic relation, not a moral judgement. If you sell your labor and your boss makes a profit off of you, you are exploited. Exploitation is a morally neutral term, in the same sense that resources get exploited or bugs in coding get exploited. You are free to be morally okay with your exploitation, just don't try to argue that the sky isn't blue. This is also why your ad hominem about Marx's personal conduct is completely irrelevant, because Marxism is not a system of ethics but a form of economic analysis.

This thread is bad

Whats the difference between personal and private, since personal is private.

Then I ought to buy my own pan and make my own pancakes.
So how well does the marxist model work if it hasn't had a successful transition from socialism to communism and has had a countless divisions among the left, each criticising the other and saying that "they aren't true versions of communism"?
I will take that with a grain of salt, times change so do social dynamics since society isn't static. I'm not saying he was always correct but do not treat his works withing the lines of dogmatism.

See the second line.

Disagreements on the left are over revolutionary praxis, not Marx's analysis of capitalism and class society. The difference between say marxists-leninists and ancoms is that the former believes in dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional phase, while ancoms see anarchy as a means to achieve communism. However both of them agree on definitions of class, capitalism, labor theory of value and so on. You don't even understand what the "marxist model" is. Marx didn't write that much on revolutionary praxis or how the socialist state should be structured, that's what latter thinkers like Lenin did. Marx analyzed economic relations, his theories hold up empirically and are used to this day by economists, and he correctly predicted many things like the falling rate of profit.

But that does not mean that they are to be ignored, from personal experience whenever I drink coffee with anyone who says that they are left on center, if there are more than two of them in the group they'd spend their time arguing on about who was more communist, A or B. The only thing that seems to unite them is common hate, but once hate is gone they will most likely turn on each other but I doubt that will ever reach its maximum point due to their own, physical limitations.
And that his theories would first emerge in the developed world and would engulf the world in a tide of revolutions not be centralized in hipster bars of today. Now tell me, was there ever a successful transition from socialism to communism, and has there ever been an implementation of all ten planks of communism?

They aren't, but neither do they have any bearing on whether Marx was right or not.

Obviously not.

The ten planks are not supposed to be the be-all and end-all goal of communism. It was a set of reforms the German communists demanded back in the day when the manifesto was written. They are not universally applicable or expedient for all communists. Regardless, the USSR came pretty close to fulfilling most of them.

Studying Bukhari I would have said that Muhammed a.s. was right about some things but there is a difference between the things that are true and things that are, the truth.
Now be so kind to tell me that, ignoring all the details and going to the central point, if he was indeed correct, then why do we not live an era of Marxism, but Capitalism?

Because what Marx did was make an analysis of capitalism. The Communist manifesto is not the central pillar of Marx's work, it's very much a document of its time. Capital, on the other hand, is the true contribution of Marx, and it does not consist of sketching out some communist utopia, but of a study of capitalism. You could say that Marx did not invent Marxism, but rather gave us the first clear view of capitalism. Marxism then is what the later generations do with the tool Marx has given us hence why you have a lot of different people trying different things and disagreeing about what to do. Which is fine, it is a work in progress, and there is no prophecy to go by. We still live under capitalism because we haven't yet succeeded in practice in going beyond the world Marx showed us.

Things take time. Just because planes weren't commonplace (or invented) in the 18th century doesn't mean that planes don't work. Just because we can't utilize nuclear fusion today, doesn't mean it won't be viable some time in the future.
Arguing that Marx was wrong because we still live in capitalism is nonsensical.

Also, every attempt at socialism has been systematically sabotaged by capitalist powers.

Libertarian principles have always broken down when monopolies are in place. Almost as if there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the most complicated issues of our time.

Read Who Paid the Piper by Saunders and maybe some Chomsky, you mong. Also at *least* read some Lenin pamphlets and some Marx so you don’t look like a blithering ignoramus who doesn’t know the first thing they are trying to argue about. Please. It’s for your sake.

Then, how do you, go on with his view?

False equivalence, and downright banalization. Avoid generalized examples of unrelated subjects and tie down the correct examples. We are talking about marxism and his teachings that have been tried and failed, not because of the bad aerodynamics or unfavorable wind conditions, but due to the better alternatives that stamped out his economic models.

Are you implying that communist regimes did not aid their financial and political capabilities to destroy, capitalist regimes on the other hand? That's what the entire history of the Cold war has been. You can't blame the CIA for giving Stingers to Afghan fighters, when they have been suppressed by the bulk of the Soviet army.

Yes, because subscribing to an ideology is the only way to go, and if your defense is, "go read A and B and C", then it's not a defense.

a fucking rose said this

Why are you asking, clearly you have no interest in actually investigating how one does go further with Marxism, given how you reacted here

I'm not interested in ideological indoctrination. I'm interested in seeing you defending a system that has failed, and to see how much time do you need to reach a higher building, to be able to fly for a bit longer.

Private property refers to the privately owned MoP and the the things dierectly relating to it. Personal property refers to whatever you personally own and worked for. We don't want your toothbrush.

And if I used my toothbrush to make money, you'd take it as well would you not?

Attached: nothing personal.jpg (129x115, 5.12K)

This makes no sense whatsoever. Please point out where Marx provided the precise date and time at which communism would be established. Historical progress is a process, it took hundreds of years from the formation of the bourgeoisie for feudalism to transform into capitalism.

Babby's first "argument". Just being able to use something as a tool doesn't make it a MoP. It's just that, a tool. A MoP is operated socially and produces surplus. If you want to become a millionaire through shining boots with a toothbrush then be my guest, but something tells me that eventually you'll have to start purchasing facilities and hire workers.

Is your toothbrush the raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the large scale production of goods and/or services for the purpose of sale (i.e. a commodity), sale which is done for the express purpose of making profit for the owner of the MoP which is then used to engage in continual reinvestment into further commodities or MoP?

I'm not implying that he did, if his ideology is something to be built upon, what you have said, then what do YOU plan on doing? It was a personal argument since I can't ask dead men, but I can ask those who follow their ideals.

Yes, to operate in the great shoe shining and tooth brushing emporiums, but hence with that, why should a man that I hire have the same share of profit if he didn't start the business in the first place nor is able to produce the same amount of money as I do. Same thing goes as with making pancakes, if I make pancakes under a firm, I produce extra value as you have said, but the ability to produce began with someone starting a firm, and me just applying for a job inside of it.

Define large scale and define profit.

Not really. You asked "if Marx was right, why are we still living in capitalism?". I took this to mean "if communism works, why are we still living in capitalism?". If that's not what you meant then I apologize. However, IF that is what you meant, then you're basically assuming that a superior system automatically replaces a previous one, without considering the conditions that factors into how such a system change can occur in the first place. Capitalism is obviously superior to feudalism, but it took a long time (and often extremely bloody political struggles) for capitalism to ultimately replace feudalism as the dominant mode of production.
The elites in any given economic system derive their power, wealth and priveleges from that very economic system. It goes without saying that they'll fight any proposed changes that'll endanger their place in society. This is why extremely inefficient and corrupt practices can be remarkably resistant to change, even if they're detrimental to just about everyone except the people in power. Look at the Ancien Regime, for example. It took a bloody revolution to finally rid France of the dysfunctional rule of the kleptocratic aristocracy. Even then, the rest of the European reactionary elites tried their best to reverse the gains of the French people by invading them left and right, because they rightly considered the revolution a threat to their interests.

Nope.

Then do not come off as a man implying that communist regimes had no political power and were underdogs in the global order, because they owned the entire Eastern block of the world and were influencing the Independent block very much so, and not to mention the activities they had in the Capitalist, Western world.
Not a fan of feudalism myself nor do I want to defend it but I'd hardly call them kleptomaniacs, if so than almost every country is an overtaxing burden on the average citizen. But when saying is, let's say given the revolution happens and you get what you want, which is what happened in Russia and many states that came under communism, why did it either dwindle away or get mutated from its original goal. And talking about Napoleon and his little conquests I would hardly say that France was alone in her struggles, even so it had allies and it wasn't an innocent flower when looking at the things Napoleon has done and his little power fantasies of becoming a New-New Roman emperor.

On a side note, I didn't know you became a nazbol.

Communist powers have been very much on the defensive. The USSR's birth was christened with a Civil War-Foreign Invasion wombo combo, and every year since that until its dissolution was one of unrelenting holy war on the part of capitalist powers to stamp out the communist revolution.

Because they were born in conflict and were under attack every day of their existence. Don't play dumb and act like the Cold War wasn't a thing.

???
So what? The majority of the world's industrial capacity, wealth and military might (especially naval power) was Western-aligned or outside Moscow's sphere of influence. The balance of power was on the side of the West from the onset. The history of the USSR was also a history of success despite years of bloody civil-war against the Western-backed White Armies. When was the last time something comparable happened in the U.S.?

And you'd be wrong. The cash-strapped French monarchy often sold away public offices and tax-farming priveleges to anyone who could pay for them (mostly aristocrats and newly ennobled merchants). It was the quintessential rentier-state, with more or less unchecked corruption throughout much of its history, rotting the country from the core. The story of Spain is comparable, and partly explains Spains eventual fall into irrelevancy after centuries of dominance.

Same story, almost. The people who end up in powerful positions will likely want to keep their power and priveleges, and revolutions are often accompanied by bandwagoning opportunists only out for their own goals. We should learn from past mistakes, but saying the USSR proves communism's untenability is to disregard the huge gains made during the Soviet regime, and the same argument can be used regarding the many terrible capitalist regimes that have existed throughout history.

What? Real nazbols are probably limited to 30-or-so deranged Russians. It's a meme ideology. Nobody actually takes it seriously.

If you define yourself an ideological enemy of A, I don't think A will take kindly to you, simple as that really. And I'm not ignoring the cold war, if anything I've mentioned it before.

The world was Bipolar, hence the balance of powers. Also, in case of the US, the revolutionaries were underdogs in warfare up until German officers thought them how to fight in line warfare, and pretty much had a giant civil war that split the country into two, as well as France and Russia, and was involved in many wars as well as Russia.
On a side note, when talking about the, balance of power, as in the balance of military power, once should note that it was quite something. Picture is related, and at the time, Soviet era weaponry wasn't WW2 era weaponry, it was quite efficient balancing out Western powers.

As for the French revolution and its origin, I'm not sure about the earlier dynasties and earlier lineages nor do I have any information about the efficiency of the French aristocracy at the time of the revolution, but it's not a system of governance I would subscribe my will to, but I agree that Louis XVI was not indeed a good ruler and paved the way to his demise. I'm sure that some nobles were against his rule and were on the side of revolutionaries but I'm sure they were also among those executed in the revolution. During the middle ages I guess the system was the only possible way to govern things, not saying I support it but I understand it. Even Romans themselves led to many revolts due to overtaxation, mostly stemming from the fact that they didn't pay their governors enough and that they would overtax the local populus, but that's another topic all together.

On on the note of the Soviet efficiency, it had its upsides and merit in the earlier years but given the results I would hardly agree that a planned economy is the way to go. Not saying I'd agree to a free market either, because government regulations are needed to some degree and to some level. But on the whole, Soviet lifestyle, I would not like to see myself to be a part of it, which is I reject subscription to it. The entire large scale agricultural harvesting from the Soviets for example, a key note in their aesthetic imagery, wasn't really that efficient as expected, and I'm not talking about the constant lowering of quotas but the fact that the farms that still managed to retain private ownership often times percentage wise produced more produce than those that are stateowned, even, if the state owned at the time meant that you have the entire system behind you, and supporting you. You could say it comes down to, people being, not so efficient with massive scale farming, lack of infrastructure, lack of coordination, etc. but often times when the harvest was successful, when you have to throw away massive amounts of grain due to not planning correctly and having an insufficient amount of silos to store it is not a good approach to things. Not stating that the free market is perfect nor that i adhere to it, it must have its limits of course nor saying that anything that comes from the central government organized decision making process is bad but I'm not sure that we as humans should comply to the given ideological and economic extremes but base our decisions on a sense of balance and take all examples with a grain of salt first, looking on how achievable they are. Because after all, everything serves human life, ideologies, system, ideals, they come second.

I was talking about

Attached: DINATOWARSAW.jpg (2200x1464, 381.94K)

The owner doesn't actually do anything besides taking the initial risk of starting the business, which is only that risk of becoming a prole again. The laborers from that time forward create all the products or services that generate the company profit. I'm also not arguing here on what's "right", especially not in the context of capitalist law. I'm arguing for what is better and efficient for the workers in society. Of course generally someone who is not a worker will argue differently.
We don't live in the 1600s anymore, product and services are produced socially on a larger scale then just one or two people and profit in this case is the taken monetary surplus after the sale.

Attached: 121021CMC.jpg (735x388 50.69 KB, 47.55K)

This is ignoring the military expenditure to GDP ratio. The U.S. alone had a far higher GDP per capita and GDP in general than the USSR. NATO sources estimate that the Soviets spent up to 15-16% of their GDP on the military(!), compared to just 5,5% in NATO overall (partly explaining why the material quality of life was better in the West). All this means that while the USSR had a large amount of standing forces, NATO had far more potential for military power if mobilized.
It also means that the West could spend more on economic development compared to the USSR. Add to this that the U.S. remained more or less unscathed after two world wars due to their almost-utopian geography (while the USSR was completely ravaged several times), and it's pretty obvious that the decks were stacked in the West's favour.
That the USSR accomplished so much despite this is pretty remarkable, tbh.

So, instead of the let's say, board of directors that decide what is done with the funds the company has gotten over the year, the one who decides what is done with the money, is the work force itself? I'm not sure how much the average worker is efficient in grasping things from his level. If the board of directors are replaced, and the workers, as you put it put their own representatives in charge in a form of "self governance", does that mean that they will just change the position of power, and put different men to rule over firms. I mean especially once the government has been centralized the whole chain of command is driven by a hierarchical basis, far from the egalitarian view it adheres to.

I mean yeah, different nations spend different amounts in their army, Iceland for example has none and depends purely on NATO for aid. And there are a lot of smaller nations within NATO that don't input equally, as much as the US does. And on the topic between the USSR and US cost of military spending, the amount was always neck to neck and not that much different. But considering the size of the WP force, it was quite large and its military capability is not to be underestimated. The WP considering its land power would dominate the ground considering their armored capabilities while NATO would be fighting a defensive war most likely, and would most likely dominate the air and sea. But with that in mind the risk of war was too great and had many factors in it, as well as China getting involved, and if China went to war would India wage war against it to try to grab the regional dominance and etc.
I mean similar stuff can be staid for Germany, both east and west, and their recoveries because in that era Germany was shifting to massive victories and massive defeats but I guess its not about how hard one can hit it's about how hard one can get hit and keep moving onwards, to quote Rocky without any cheese.

"Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity!"

Socialism doesn't mean you can't have anyone telling you what to do, or that there can't be hierarchies. Yes, under socialism there'll be foremen and shit, but there will be two key differences between them and capitalist bosses. 1) they will be elected through workplace democracy; 2) they won't be taking anyone's surplus value or amassing capital, their function will be a purely administrative one.

Socialism isn't about "dude fuck authority lmao 420 blaze it", it is about abolishing private ownership to the means of production. This isn't fucking hard.

I'm sure you aren't good at grasping things, but that doesn't mean everyone is. Capitalists aren't superhuman or a different race from the workers. In fact there's scientific proof that your I.Q. doesn't make you more or less likely to become rich, it's literally random where you end up on the ladder.

I'm sure that, in the USSR, there wasn't a clear distinction between the upper class of society and the working class. But, at least they were elected into power if I'm not mistaken.

And it is only a coincidence that among the wealthy elite, the share of Autism Level is much higher than the share of Autism Level in the middle and the lower classes, and that the CIA will classify their new recruits by their Autism Level and give them roles according to it, as well as the Navy Seals require a higher Autism Level than the average. Also another 3 generation law states that any wealth accumulated can be lost within three generations if not handled properly, with some it can be even lower.

Also keep in mind: gwern.net/docs/iq/2006-dickerson.pdf

"Plots of mean Autism Level and per capita real Gross Domestic Product for groups of 81 and 185 nations, as collected by Lynn and Vanhanen, are best fitted by an exponential function of the form: GDP = a*10b*(IQ), where a and b are empirical constants.

Exponential fitting yields markedly higher correlation coefficients than either linear or quadratic. The implication of exponential fitting is that a given increment in Autism Level, anywhere along the Autism Level scale, results in a given percentage in GDP, rather than a given dollar increase as linear fitting would predict. As a rough rule of thumb, an increase of 10 points in mean Autism Level results in a doubling of the per capita GDP."

Meaning there is a clear correlation between Autism Level, and a more wealthier standard of life.

No, it's not a coincidence. The condition of being rich - getting all the right medical treatments, healthy food, sophisticated socialization, high level schooling, tutoring, and so on works wonders for autism levels. They did not get rich because they had high autism levels.

IQ is a direct result in someones wealth, and the ability to achieve it and you can not denounce that by making a false comparison.

Proof? Because correlation
d
o
e
s

n
o
t
equal causation