Capitalism only helps those with capital
Capitalism only helps those with capital
“socialism is cancer”
~temporarily embarrassed millionaire
“socialism is cancer”
car door shuts loudly
gets on public road
Trucks transporting goods to stores would pass that cost on to consumers
but price elasticity

Extending less than two miles eastward from Peachtree Street, Auburn Avenue was the commercial, cultural, and spiritual center of African American life in Atlanta prior to the civil rights movement. “Sweet Auburn” boasted a concentration of Black-owned businesses, entertainment venues, and churches that was unrivaled elsewhere in the South. Its bustling retail trade and wealthy […]
I figured that’s what Aeao was referencing to begin with, considering that he wrote “blow it up” and I don’t think he was being figurative.
Frankly, even though we’re citing both of them as examples of black wealth being suppressed for the purpose of this discussion, I would struggle to call them “the same” because the tactics were so much more brutal in Tulsa (firebombing and mass-murder vs. eminent domain).
I brought up Sweet Auburn because it was a particularly rich Black neighborhood and therefore an example supporting the point about what happened after “white people would get envious,” specifically.
If we’re just talking about historical Black neighborhoods that were razed for public works projects, I could cite plenty more examples just in Atlanta alone (Lightning, Butttermilk Bottom, etc.) 'cause pushing out poor Black people like that happened all the time (and in fact still does, albeit somewhat less blatantly).
Segregation was illegal but building a freeway, or in many cases a railroads in-between the colored, and the white park of town was somehow legal.
People are fucked.
Capitalists love these dumbass platitudes.
“Socialism is cancer” >>> Absurd
The problem is people gaming the system and stepping on peoples faces to keep all the capital for themselves.
Yeah but they’re also sociopaths that have bought into “effective altruism” and thus believe their becoming more rich and more powerful not only feels great for them, but it’s also a net good overall in a moral sense.
The problem overall IMO is sociopaths. They game every system. The only fix is legal and structural changes to eliminate — or at very least greatly lessen — their ability to do so.
Effective altruism doesn’t deserve to be slandered like this.
Dude, effective altruism sucks. A movement is what it does, and what this movement does is spawn cults and give sociopaths cover for getting rich via any means possible.
They are diametrically oppositional and anyone who says otherwise is completely ignorant of political theory.
Capitalism is an economic system which utilizes a system private ownership over the means of production. Socialism is a system of collective ownership. You cannot have private and collective ownership simultaneously.
Do not confuse capitalism with commerce.
You cannot have private and collective ownership simultaneously.
Well, there is state capitalism like China, where production is theoretically operated publicly via representatives of the people, but in practice is more like private ownership with extra steps.
I’ve said something along these lines before but that was when I was much newer to socialism.
Now I’d say that if a community owned the means of clothes production that is not capitalism. If they give/sell them that also does not have to be capitalistic as long as the goal is not using commodities to make money for money’s sake.
If you take that money and put it towards building other commodities thats also fine, any most political systems need a way to make new things. Marx called this C-M-C where you sell a commodity ©, transform it into money (M) and then use that money to get a new commodity ©. This makes sense because a commodity is only as valuable as you can use it, it’s use-value BUT if the end goal is money. Then it becomes a M-C relationship. Now the goal is money. Money is spent to buy stuff for the sole purpose of making money, there is no desire to use it only to extract the markup costs
Lastly the people working there must own it. If a state-like figure owns it and makes the decisions in a heavy top-down fashion and profit is not openly shared then I think that is just state capitalism.
“Jeffrey, go to college, man! Make something of yourself. Me and the fat man, we messed our lives up. We fucked up in the game, man. We products of the environment. Don’t be a idiot, man. Make us proud. Do shit different, baby.” - Sweet
Source - GTA SA The Introduction short film.
Securities tax, payable in shares of the security. 2% of all registered securities (stocks, bonds, other financial instruments; anything the SEC would regulate) are transferred to the IRS every year. The IRS liquidates those shares on the open market over time, such that no more than 1% of total traded volume is from the sale of liquidated shares.
Exempt the first $10 million in a portfolio held be a natural person. No exemption for corporate portfolios.
This will drive business ownership and returns away from the ultra-wealthy and toward the working class. If you’re a business seeking investor capital, you’re getting it from the general public, not the billionaires. The billionaires will be busy pulling their money out of the markets.