Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/r8qgrq/eat_the_rich/hn9158u/
THE FORCE OF COMPETITION, BABY holy fucking shit these people are out here comparing gravity to some economist masturbation fantasy bullshit
"There has to be poor people because the curve, measuring a society with a large wealth gap, is beautiful. Because that kind of curve can bee used to measure physical systems. "
This is like those photos where people erroneously see the golden ratio in everything but we're supposed to be impressed because nature.
I really don't understand what they even meant by "The Lorenz curve will redistribute the wealth"
Even outside of the fact that it's a graph that doesn't do jackshit itself, even in a socialist society with like a 10% difference between the richest and the poorest there would still be a lorenz curve
i know what the word exponential means. do you know what it means? i bet not. it's fairly advanced mathematics. sometimes my genius scares me. i try to hit pedestrians with my car sometimes for fun.
It reminds me of my roommate (a progressive Bernie voter lol) who claimed Communism would never work because the hot, smart people would all marry each other and hoard the resources.
There is a big problem with your egalitarian "redistribution" from the rich to the poor: it reduces the difference between the top and the bottom.
I don't... what... that's literally the fucking point?????
I get that you want to do the thing, but have you considered that doing the thing would lead to the thing being done?
Listen gravity is always good. That's why it's fine to jump off of a small box and the edge of the grand canyon, because it's always 9.8m/s^2,which means you'll be fine both times.
I'm not reading this. Anyone who's gonna write this much about rich people being better than them should just be shot.
You know they say that all economies are created equal, but you look at me and you look at the communism and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you go one on one with another superpower, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a economic freak and I'm not normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, at beat me. Then you add TERF Island to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See the 3 way, at the economy, you got a 33 1/3 chance of winning, but I, I got a 66 and 2/3 chance of winning, because TERF Island KNOWS they can't beat me and they's not even gonna try!
So communism, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25% chance and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning at the economy. But then you take my 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 2/3 per cents, I got 141 2/3 chance of winning at the economy. See communism, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at the economy.
rolling my face across my keyboard while I'm screaming until my vocal cords tear produces more logical and legible theories of economics than what I just read
This reminds me of all that Malthusian population arguments, it's actually eerily similar. Fucking Malthus saw population growth in the wild and in petri dishes and assumed the same would be true for human population, and thus advocated for (to sickeningly great success) eliminating any help for the poor and that it's good and natural to let poor people die, etc. etc. And we know how that turned out. Even Marx and Engels pointed out how he was wrong at the time (of course) but it has just been shown repeatedly how fucking stupid he was for taking a mathematical concept that fit some data and extrapolated it out assuming it would also fit other data he percieved as similar. But as we know now, human population actually tapers off (and does so in correlation with women's empowerment in general but of course specifically over their bodies) and we can reach a state of zero or even negative growth when all resources are provided, instead of just exponentially fucking and having more kids until we live in a soylent green world. Malthus was so utterly and obviously wrong, but everyone thought he was brilliant and correct for tying mathematics and population statistics the way he did.
And that's what's happening here. This person is looking at data gathered in a capitalist world where competition plays a major role, and then assumes the same mathematical tendencies will continue in a totally different kind of world with different rule sets for how things work as would be the case under socialism. Like, "Hey, this neat mathy thing happens when I apply it to a free market economy. But if we do this mathy stuff so that there's less inequality very bad things will happen," without understanding that the very fucking rules he's using to do the mathy shit are contingent on the rules of a free market economy. In a PLANNED ECONOMY that ruleset doesn't apply because the behaviors that are causing what he's observing happen as a result of a free market economy. It's a fucking category error that this person has taken to be an statistical-economic insight. ARGH! It's BULLSHIT.
sorry, I'm really high right now.
It's also just stupid because his claims are unrelated to the data.
The argument is basically "If you do thing to data, a pattern emerges."
And then, "This value we've created we've created is what creates economic growth."
With absolutely no rationale for how you get from point A to point B. All he did was provide a conjecture. He doesn't reference any data or research that shows a bigger wealth gap being correlated with higher net productivity. He's just assuming that it's true.
Yup, the whole argument is based on fantasy and assumptions, it’s hilarious
Yes, well said. And some of that is what I was trying to get at in my weird long-winded way.
Also, I just really really hate what Malthusian economics did to so many people and the suffering it caused (and is causing) because of a bourgsie stemlord who thought he had all the answers to human population and everyone believed his utter, cruel, nihilistic and flat wrong bullshit for a couple hundred years. And this nonsense really does just reek of that specific kind of faulty thinking imo.
Mathus was a desaster for the human race.
Also malthus was used for centuries by :TERF-island: to justify purging people the rulers didn't like.
Human is life isn't figures or statistics or other make believe nonsense it turns out.
Exactly true. I mean, we absolutely can model humanity and human life using those tools and get great insights into ourselves and how our species functions on a large scale, but to say that doing so with an accurate representation of reality is complex is like saying the universe is just kinda big. But then we have these fucking arrogant stemlord types coming along who learned how solve partial differential equations last week and think the whole of human experience can fit snuggly into some little mathematical curve they thought up in November while desperately trying not to masturbate. And lo and behold, they are full of shit, and no matter how sound their math is, it means fuck all if they're basing it literally on a category error they can't even see because they just can't seem to stop looking at their beautiful, ever-so-smart reflection of themselves in the pond.
Math is powerful. We can use it to better our condition and understand things about ourselves. Hell, it's not as if Marx didn't explain things in mathematical terms at times. But that's just it, we can use it to fuck humanity and the entire biosphere just to ensure line goes up, or we can actually apply it to the real problems we face, i.e., the shit commies talk about.
Using the distribution of particles in the atmosphere to justify capitalism is just lobster bullshit for smooth-brained economists.
Bold of this clown to assume people just want wealth redistribution, not the abolition of capitalism and currency as we currently know it.
Also, leading your argument about how wealth redistribution won't work with
There is a big problem with your egalitarian 'redistribution' from the rich to the poor; it reduces the difference between top and bottom
ThatsTheIdea.gif
But wait, that reduces incentive for people to work hard, so they won't! Except that's not true anyway
Intuitively, one would think that higher pay should produce better results, but scientific evidence indicates that the link between compensation, motivation and performance is much more complex. ... The results indicate that the association between salary and job satisfaction is very weak
:funny-clown-hammer:
Almost like people want meaningful work and to not be dependent upon their job to not be destitute.
Also, fuck the incentive to work hard. We don't need to keep working harder and harder year over year. One of the major faults of capitalism is its tendency towards the crisis of overproduction, which results in devastating recessions/depressions/panics. This causes large swaths of the population to get pushed into the masses of the unemployed because surprise surprise, we didn't actually need to be producing that much shit and the market is over-saturated.
That is the consequence of organizing all of society's labor around the whims of a capital owning class whose only motivation is the endless accumulation of more and more profits. If we instead organized our own labor around providing ourselves what we needed and wanted, then we would all be able to work less and actually enjoy our lives instead of spending our lives at work.
"if x and y therefore z"
Mate try connect something you're talking about with reality
these CS freshman make me grind my teeth to the gums i swear. they learn that there's such a thing as formal logic and they take stats 101 and they think mimicking the discursive forms of those fields makes their century-old braindead arguments about how HUMAN NATURE UNDER COMMUNISM NO ONE WANTS TO WORK sound smart.
i've decided torture is okay, when done to redditors
Stopped reading at "amazing smoothness" because i got lost in pondering the perfect, marble-like structure of this specimen's brain.
