Socialism in a Classroom:

Everyone takes a test. The average score is a 75. The people who studied hard and got all the questions right get mad, while the people who would otherwise have failed are ecstatic.

Next test. Given that they'll never get an A anyway, the top performers study less and give less effort, while the fail students simply go on as before, not studying and slacking off. The next test result is a D-.

Not a single student passed the class by the time the semester was out.

>>392893

Capitalism in a classroom:

The kids with rich parents pay the teacher to give their kids straight As.

The biggest and most popular kids steal answers from the smart kids and force them to do their homework.

The average or poor students are failed despite their best efforts and forced to take the class over and over again.

>>392921

You're retarded if you think this happens in more than 0.1% of classes.

>>392921
If they're "average" then why do they fail..?

>>392921
Holy fuck. You honestly believe that? I bet you think 9/11 was an inside job too.

>>392893

But that's not how socialism works you retard.

Pro-capitalism, market anarchist, because I believe voluntarism is the foundation of an emotionally sound society. Not getting into a debate because I've talked lefties down so much over the last few years and I'm sick and tired of it now, I don't need to get you to come around to my views in order to benefit from your ignorance. Good day sirs.

>>392893
Lol no.

We Scandinavians pay taxes for education, health care etc. You obese murricans pay for war. Which is also why every single nation hates you.

>DURRR socialism means TAXES HURRRRR derp I'm OBESE
>HURRRRRRR LET'S INVADE INSTEAD AND TEACH THEM ABOUT MCDONALDS DERP

>>392973

>Scandinavia
>More socialist than America

Pick one.

>>392975

Because those who have nothing to share can't share you mouth breather.

>>392975

>implying theft isn't theft just because you lie to yourself and call it sharing

>>392964
>I could win this argument but I choose not to because...
Ha ha ha, oh wow.
>Americans

>>392964
To what extent do you think a regal government (only occupying itself with matters necessary for a free market) should fight private incursions in its policy (lobbyism, corruption, etc.) and if you think it should at all, how should it manage to do it?

Fascism reporting in, niggers.

>>392990
>Implying linguistics mean shit
>Implying its better to invade Vietnam and Iraq instead of using the money to pay for proper education and healthcare

Europe laughs at every poor, obese american who gets bankrupt for breaking an arm. You fat fucks deserve nothing better

>>392993

I'm not American and I'm not interested in arguing with you because I don't need to win an argument with you to beat you.

>>392997

Government is a stain on civilisation, a disgusting anti-social parasitic institution. There is no place for it in a free market society.

>>392997
You wont get an answer simple because there is none. He hasn't thought things through, and will hopefully grow up some day.

>>393025

It's better to do neither. I never implied that one was better than the other. Stop putting words in my mouth. Theft is theft is theft.

>>393034
>Implying private actors such as huge companies will not take the place of government

6/10 if troll, otherwise retarded beyond belief

>>393041
>Implying linguistics mean shit

>>393034
>Government is a stain on civilisation, a disgusting anti-social parasitic institution. There is no place for it in a free market society.
Then by which action a fresh government-free free market society won't grow a corporate government?

Death to Americablox

Communism currently only works in theory. Capitalism is the lesser evil of the remaining two.
/thread

>>393056

I don't care what you think.

>>393063

So basically, you acknowledge that it is theft, but you don't care to meet me on an intellectual level? It's good to know where we stand.

>>393064

Corporation = incorporated business. If there's no government to incorporate business then corporations can't exist.

>>393080
>Corporation = incorporated business. If there's no government to incorporate business then corporations can't exist.
I'm really curious as to how you'd police society to prevent the rise of governments, especially since you have no police force.

this thread is insipid and one of the most grating things i've ever read.

none of you have a single clue what the fuck you're harping about so cut it out and go read a book.

preferably a book about the socialist calculation debate.

>>393080
I think you're confused.

If you removed all regulating bodies one minute, the next minute would be completely regulated again by completely self-serving regulating bodies.

>>393103

There wouldn't be 'no police force', private companies would fill the gap.

Capitalism works if you are on top, if you aren't then you are pretty much fucked and you want a change.
Communism only works on paper, in real life it could never be implemented.
Socialism is a good idea, yet a complete social change to it would take several revolutions and even then it'd be hard to just have a country turn around.

>>393109

I think you're confused, you're putting words and ideas in my mouth and you don't seem to understand my level of discourse.

I used to be a market anarchist but I guess I'm a socialist these days. Wealth inequality is a more significant issue than a slight deviation from optimal market efficiency or whatever the fuck. Literally all of western europe stands as a testimony to the fact that, no, the world will not explode if you have robust social welfare programs, so fuck that slippery slope bullshit. Who do you think you are, Ayn Rand?

IF YOU GIVE A MOUSE A COOKIE THEN INEPT COMMUNISTS WILL BLOW UP THE TAGGART TUNNEL

>>393077
This. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it reflects how nature works. Equality should be about giving everyone equal opportunity to work for success, not just "well you're alive so here you go!". What you get is what you work for. It's just fair and balances itself out. No, its not perfect, but it makes sense.

>>393080
>big business can only act badly when the gubmint forces it to do so
>hey, what if it won't be there without governments in the first place, let's just pretend that formation of oligopoles isn't inherent to any unsupervised market

This is what Dr. Paul's fanboys actually believe.

Improving production is no longer economically beneficial. Look at the music industry: they have the means of spreading all music to everyone, but they don't choose to because the cost of distributing something is now less than the cost of living. Copyrights have shown their fault: no one can 'own' an idea, it is more beneficial to humanity to disperse ideas freely without artificial shortages. But what will drive man to come up with ideas, if he can't support himself? The ideas should benefit the good of mankind, and the only way this can be accomplished is if the division of labor is put to an end and all is put up to common property. By working amongst his common man in the fields and factories, not only will production increase and workhours decrease, but the poet will have more relation to the world around him, the philosopher will be more grounded in the human condition, and the inventor will find out problems that need solution. Bakunin put figures of only needing to work five hours a day for 100 days a year in 1892, but with advances in distribution and production, it could be much less, which leaves more time for leisure, education, and thinking.

>>393123

well it does work, just not very successfully unless you employ it like stalin did.

the bottom tier of capitalism is a harsh reality that exist because we live in a world that isn't catered to human beings. the best thing for them is to let them continue on until they progress to the point we (top tier capitalist) are at now.

Capitalism and Socialism both suck.

They are both attempts by the modern world to make the world a better place. They have either failed miserably (socialism) or are unsustainable (capitalism).

I would prefer an economy that accepts private property and free trade, does not rely on debt or high finance, and is not dominated by big business/ big government. Basically, I want the economy to be like it was before the 20th century. I know it had a lot of faults (everything does), but at least people were not pretentious about how it is the "ideal" system, unlike capitalists or socialists, who think their ideologies are the only way to happiness

>>393146

Oligopolies only form when government allows them to.

>>393141
>it reflects how nature works

How is that a justification for anything?

>>392931
I think you are the retard. Its obviously a methapor on how the money rules everything in the capitalist word. Of course what would be expected of a capitalist pig sucha as you-

The market does have natural swings due to speculation and currency variation and a variety of other things. The trouble is, poor people adsorb the brunt of these swings. If the US dollar appreciates by 5% that can mean a loss of 100,000 jobs. "So what, get a new job", you say. Well, if you've specialized in one field your entire life, there are retraining costs associated to entering a new field. This means if you're poor, you end up borrowing money just to retool for a different field that also, much like your first, might not be there for you at some point. Guess what a perfectly reasonable way to mitigate this would be? If you said "Unemployment insurance", or some other kind of social welfare program, then ding ding ding! You are correct! But no, apparently that would be bad for some reason. Those poors have to WORK (twice as hard) to earn a living (that is substantially below the mean average income of the country).

>>393123

Denmark has a socialist government.

Not my ideal choice, but we're doing fine.

>>393180
so how do you feel about the socialist calculation debate?

>>393178
Because nature has a way of balancing itself out? You're stupid.

>>393141
>It's just fair and balances itself out.
I know right, this is why those people who work eight hours a day for six days a week their entire lives are all millionaires!

>>393113
Then what would stop a ruthless company to "take over" the freedom of people, of becoming a mafia?

>>393206
Nature has a way of balancing itself out by undergoing mass extinctions once in every while. One should be much more concerned about the welfare of its species than complying to "natural" events.

>>392993
Hey fuck you, not every one in Murrika is a republicanfag. I, for one, want for a higher taxation of richfags and stricter laws on what companies can do, mostly concerning them exporting murrikan jobs.

>>393227

>so tax is theft too, right?

Yes it is.

>I guess you should stop paying taxes.

I damn well would if hired goons weren't on hand to kidnap me and put me behind bars simply for wishing to be free.

>>393198
no they don't you idiot.

they have a hybrid of a planned economy and a market economy. the only countries that are socialist right now are cuba and north korea which have such splendid living conditions.

>>393261

> Moving the goalposts

>>393243

People direct the market with their money which is far, far, far more effective than voting in a democratic election and then waiting and hoping that the candidate you voted for, should they even win the election, to get in and do what you want them to do. The real question you should be asking is how would such actions be possible if the institution that enables violent coercion, the government, didn't exist.

>>393261
>implying North Korea isn't Best Korea
>2011
costanza.tga.png.jpeg.tiff.jpg

>>393270

This arrangement, in the language of your contrived metaphor, essentially gives the wealthy "veto" power over any interests which the poor might advance. Which, in addition to being antithetical to democracy, is also a good way to piss a lot of people off

>>393265
Those Northern European countries are not socialist in the correct sense of the term. They are only called socialist because it is a more statist model than the Anglo-American model

>>393270
How would individuals stand up to an organization more numerous and more powerful than them intent of doing their harm?

>>393277
really hope you're trolling.

>>392797
goddamn it go to >>>/pol/

fuck
polblox
fuckblox

> ITT : Retards who think humans could ever be "equal" when all of them have completely different aptitudes and potentials
> Thinking that the system is to blame and not the humans

Some rise, some don't, life isn't fair; get used to it.

>>393303
those countries aren't fascist, they're socialist. you really really don't know what you're talking about.

>>393300

They have programs designed to address issues of wealth inequality. "Communism" = state appropriation of the means of production for the alleged benefit of the population. "Socialism" = state appropriation of productive output, IE capital, for the alleged benefit of the population. Socialism grew out of the social welfare agenda of communists who accepted the refutation of their core economic principles which was given by the soviet union et al

ITT: People who don't know what Capitalism, Socialism OR Communism are or the theories behind each

>>392893

this guy is a fucking idiot and the reason why we can't discuss politics on the internet.

>>393296
>>393301

But the perceived legitimacy of government doesn't exist. You don't need to appeal to government to fix the evil corporations, you just go and fix the wealthy people you have a problem with yourself.

>>393328
yes, but they have markets which completely contradicts socialism. they could kind of be called market socialist but that's essentially the same things as social democrats.

>>393338
They have an army of starved exploited workers at their disposal, and many more in the unemployment pool who would gladly stop you for food and shelter.

>>393338
>you just go and fix the wealthy people you have a problem with yourself
But you can only do that violently since there are no laws. And you are less powerful than them and their dynasty.

>>393338

If you expand this statement to mean what it actually means, instead of just talking around the subject, you're suggesting something that is liable to produce *cough* greater overhead costs in the long run than a minarchist state.

Without social programs like welfare, unemployment, food stamps, and disability(too obese to work) I couldn't sit at my computer and browse 4chan all day, because i might actually have to work to survive.

thank god that the taxpayer subsidizes my living

suckers

>>393260
So you like mexico? Taxes provide for infrastructure, which is shit in mexico. So no taxes, would mean even worse infrastructure. No funding for an army, which whatever you think, still serves as protection for the country in wars, invasions n shit. And, taxes also allow for public schools (you seriously want more retards around than they already are?), cops (you want to have a fucking chaotic wasteland?), firefighters (imagine not paying, or being late on your payments, fuckers don't put out your fires), etc.

Government is funded by taxes for the most part.

>>393348

You seem exceedingly content to talk around the conversation other people are trying to have. You can define socialism however you like, except that when other people have defined it differently, it is best to at least temporarily accept their definition for purposes of discussion. Otherwise you're basically just getting territorial over a few phonemes and using that as a basis to refrain from engaging the ideas other people are trying to convey through those phonemes.

>>393328

Just proved you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Socialism = Common ownership of the means of production.

Communism = Marxian version of Socialism, a theoretical classless and stateless society that would naturally arise with time once we got common ownership of the means of production.

None of these are possible de to the economic calculation problem, a problem first recognized by sociologist Marx Weber and economist Ludwig von Mises. With out a private market for Capital goods, you do not have a price mechanism for them, and with out a price mechanism, there is no way to determine the scarcity and desirability of resources, no way to calculate the costs of different factors of production and compare one with each other, and thus no way to rationally organize the economy. Socialism is thus an impossibility (unless of course it exists alongside Capitalism and it can copy it's prices. But doing this would be inneficient).
>http://mises.org/books/econcalc.pdf

>>393296
He's living in a magical world, in which he thinks poor people won't eventually get pissed and overthrow the rich minority. Never heard of France.

>>393394

listen to this guy. the socialist calculation debate pretty much proves that socialism without markets will always fail.

>>393315
Equality as I see it isn't everyone being the same, but rather starting off the same, and not getting advantages that aren't really fair. So you don't get fucked over cause you're poor, but if you're born a retard, too bad.

>>393394
If at one point in the future it became so trivial to produce goods and resources that they didn't need a monetary value of exchange we would go into communism.

It's an Utopian idea that can't function in the current world.

>>393387

See

>>393394

Literally nobody gives a shit about your intro level textbook definitions. Either keep up with the conversation or keep quiet. Yes, in Marxist theory Socialism is a teleological step towards communism. It is also defined not by common ownership of the means of production but by state ownership. Common ownership doesn't arise until Communism.

But that isn't what the word fucking means in this context. Words mean different things in different contexts. Derp

>>393198
I'm speaking from an American point of view (hurr durr Americunt, fatass, etc).
What I meant was that for our country, it'd be hard to have a change to socialism or anything other than capitalism because of the fact that it'd be too hard to do a total 180 and switch everything around.
Like how the Caste System is in india (not a good example but the only one I could find) the government had outlawed it yet because of hundreds of years of tradition, it'll be in place for a while.

>>393422

> isn't really fair

Yeah, exactly, the only way it can ever be. If everybody were capable of becoming successful businessmen, nobody would be poor! Only, most people can't, and they'll stay poor. Such is life.

Also, poor != unhappy. Gonna be hard to get that through to materialistic-instant-gratification-amerifats, though.

>>393394
You are being silly, there is already no way to determine the scarcity and desirability of goods. There are already constructed shortages which create fixed prices not in the interest of anyone but the capitalists. Price is no longer based on supply and demand; the only way to meet this model is through literal 'free' exchange of goods from the end of private property and the division of labor.

>>393497
Poor = more difficulty of being happy if you value things like health and spare time though.

>>393417
>>393394

Really, the moment he said "Socialism grew out of the social welfare agenda of communists who accepted the refutation of their core economic principles" he proved he had no fucking idea what he was talking about.

Socialism precedes Communism. Saint-Simon, Proudhon, Bakunin, Engels, Marx, all of those guys coined the term "Socialism", and Communism has nothing to do with State. What he preaches is "Social Democracy", a completely different concept.

>>393387

What you argue for is "Social Democracy". "Socialism" is a concept from the 19th century and has been a really fucking important concept, and it is not what you preach. Given that the concept of Socialism as common/State ownership is established for over 2 centuries, do you think you can get to use a different definition with out any trouble?

You preach Social Democracy. Socialism is a completely different thing. And Socialism is an impossibility.

And Social Democracy has a lot of issues too.

>>393296

You argue that the market and consumer demand aren't really similar to democracy because rich people have more buying power. You forget that real profits exist in mass production for the masses, the real profit is in the demands of the masses. That's why Capitalism has been so good: It IS the fiirst system of mass production to attend to the masses, rather than a system dominated by a Feudal hierarchy or a State nomenklatura that privileges producers, it is the only system that privileges consumers. Under Capitalism, the masses decide what is produced, rich people will lose money if they try to go against the masses of consumers.

Ludwig von Mises worked on this concept a lot, and Murray N. Rothbard worked it even better.

>>393397

Ever heard of Robespierre, the "Comittee of Public Safety" or Napoleon? Tell me, how did France end up?

It's a shame the French revolutionaires pursued Rousseau's ideals rather than Locke's.

>>393432

lol so you expect everyone on a website of random users to cater to your incorrect definition of communism and socialism? what a twat.

>>393304
So a country's worth is based on how much energy they waste at night. You people are lucky that we have not reached peak oil yet. Those you harp on about how industrial capitalism is supposedly superior don't realize that the wealth creation in such a system is simply a result of consuming more resources and destroying the environment. Modern capitalism is not ecologically sustainable.

>>393519

Given that that is an incredibly common use of the word, yes I do think I can use it without trouble. The only trouble I am getting is from elitist fucks who are more eager to prove their familiarity with antiquated discourse than they are to engage in present discourse.

You can't vote against the market through a market, is the problem

In a world with finite resources, some fools insist on exponential growth.

>>393508

Spare time? Yeah cause everybody needs to work 100 hours a week to afford basic needs.

Ask yourself, if you lived alone on a farm, how much hours you would need to put in to sustain yourself.

>>393531

> Pretends they even knew the "correct" definitions prior to the posturing of posters ITT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Nation - debt as % of GDP
UK - 400%
Belgium - 266%
Switzerland - 229%
Portugal - 217
Austria - 200%
Sweden - 187%
France - 182%
Denmark - 180%
Greece - 174%
Finland - 155%
Spain - 154%
Germany - 142%
Norway - 141%
Italy - 108%
Zimbabwe - 103% (for reference i know it's not a eurofag country but the majority of eurofag nations are less fiscally responsible than Zimbabwe just so you know hahahhahaha)
USA - 99%

Protip: if you're spending more than 100% of your gdp you're doing it VERY wrong
>mfw eurofags imply socialism is better
>mfw they think that they can spend their way out of debt
>mfw no face

>>393270
Without government, there is no motivation to accrue wealth through capitalistic ventures. As without government, there is no one to say group A isn't allowed to steal everything everyone else has simply because group A has guns.

>>393543

No, a country's worth is based on the living standards of the population.

Also, "peak oil" translates to
>I have no idea how resources and economics work, and i believe Neo-Malthusian shit

See:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y

People have been arguing that oil will end "in the next 20/30 years" EVER SINCE WE DISCOVERED OIL, even in the late 19th century people were already saying it would end.

The price mechanism regulates consumption of resources. As technology progresses we keep finding alternatives to resources or new sources of resources and we can dig deeper and deeper into the Earth (or even go to outer Space in the future) for more.

We currently explore a very small part of the Earth, and every time one of you people argued our resources would end, we managed to dig deeper. There are strong mechanisms that regulate resource usage, and given how big the Earth is, by the time resources effectively end for good we'll either be mining other planets or extinct.

Socialism is the system that lacks a mechanism to regulate waste and consumption of Capital goods, as it lacks a price mechanism, and would be the system to kill our resources quickly.

>>393584

There are many other words that are also used. "Social Democracy", "Welfare-State", "Mixed Economy". Leave "Socialism" to the actual Socialists.

>>393588
Ask yourself, if everyone worked on a large farm sufficient to feed them all, how much hours you would need to put in to sustain yourself.

Account for the fact that 0.005% of the population(834,000 agricultural workers in a labor pool of 145 million) is able to feed most of the population from working full time.

>>393619
then take away their guns retard.
problem solved!

>>393619

NOPE.jpg

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0
>http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
>http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html
>http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

>>393622 people have been saying we'll run out of oil for a long time, therefor we will never run out of oil

The exponential growth of our dependency on oil means at any given period, we require more oil than has ever been pulled out of the ground in history to meet our yearly needs. A trend that can't, by definition, continue forever.

Exponential growth of dependency on a limited resource also means the resource will run out very suddenly.

>>393636

That is exactly what i'm saying. It's easy to live. Grow a few veggies and keep a few cows and chickens and you're set.

The value of labor shouldn't be LOWER in other professions. So if you're working your ass off and think you're "poor", you are throwing your money out the window, or don't realize that what is necessary for "happiness" is extremely small.

>>393675

But the total amount of resources on Earth is fucking gigantic, and as technology progresses, we can get more and more of it. The price mechanism stimulates searching for resources and regulates consumption. Socialism lacks this mechanism and would waste resources more.

With our current technology, we explore less than 1% of the Earth's crust. By the time available resources on Earth effectively end, we'll either be on space, building matter replicators or already extinct.

>>393706

I have to put together ~$100k in cash, up front, to pay for medical expenses that will allow me to have a crude approximation of basic physical attributes everyone else has at birth. If I continued to work my present job and lived perfectly within my means it would take me until the age of 43 before I could manage.

What is necessary for happiness differs from person to person because of natural variance among people

>>393751

Yeah, so of course, everybody else should do extra work so YOU can be "normal". Not sure why you think you're entitled to have people giving you their labor's fruit ?

(Note that i agree with this, because i think wealth only promotes waste and that nobody needs to be "rich", but the question remains)

>>393751

So you're unhappy because you're not quite normal?

I bet you think all blind people are unhappy too?

>>393706
>It's easy to live. Grow a few veggies and keep a few cows and chickens and you're set.
Augh, it almost physically hurt me to see such idiocy.

>>393798

Wealth has diminishing returns. In a utilitarian moral system, taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor is perfectly justifiable to the extent it doesn't destroy the wealth generation mechanisms of an economy. Which is a reasonably large extent. I'm not "entitled", it's just a positive utility action all things being equal. The idea of things like rights and entitlements is more or less nonsensical in a utilitarian system.

If you want an actual, robust answer that is liable to answer all your criticisms just read Rawls

>>393820

Do you think love is necessary to be happy? And by love, do you mean a romantic partnership that includes fucking, like all would-be romanticists actually mean? Because my present disfigurement is a barrier to that.

>>393844
Socialism wont get you laid, however. Under capitalism, you have a small chance of getting rich, thereby being able to overcome your physical flaws in your quest to get laid

>Live in a capitalist country
>be born into a poor family
>go to Uni and get two majors
>get a good job
>cant make any money because Im so in dept from paying for school
>had to pay for school so I could get a good paying job to live
>Will be stuck with no money because of the capitalist system
>capitalists

>>393844

I don't. I'm a foreveralone and i'm happy.

>>393873

Based on the terrible performance of the NHS and other such systems that have taken this issue under their mantle, you may be right. Or it may just be that the NHS and other such systems are terrible for other reasons, such as poor implementation. Either way, I shouldn't have to become rich just to attain something everyone else is given at birth. I am certainly capable of it and I am on the road to it; the vast majority of my demographic are not, however.

>>393903

You are only alone on the dimension of romance, though. There is also a severe social stigma against people like me, and for many of us it could only be rectified (in their lifetime at least) by expensive cosmetic surgery that isn't covered by insurance, if it can even be rectified at all. A similar issue concerns youth, who could avoid all of this hardship through early treatment; but early treatment is, again, expensive and not covered by insurance.

In this thread, a breath of what /r9k/ was like in the first 6 months of its existence.

>>393889
>Major'd in Civil and Mechanical Engineering
>Minor'd in Nuclear and Electrical Engineering
>Have a awsome job I love
>still 400k in dept
>thats capitalism

>>393873
If you start poor (no money, no education, from previously poor and uneducated generations) you have a much, much greater chance of dying before reaching any comfortable level of wealth. Like over 9000:1.

Then if you are of those few who actually get rich you will never know it because you will never have enough.

That's mostly dream. So keep buying those lottery tickets and don't worry staying on welfare if you feel better there than running the rat race to pay your drugs and therapies to keep running the rat race. It will take generations of rats to figure out what actually matters, you will be dead long before.

>>394012

By next fall I will have a Computer Network Technology AAS, a Computer Technician AAS, an Associate of General studies, an EMT-B, my A+, Net+, Linux+, and Security+ industry certifications at minimum, and I will be going on for a double major in Electrical and Computer Engineering and Engineering Physics, for which I will be pursuing a graduate degree. I'm a 4.0 student. I know for a fact that I'm capable of all of this and I also know that I'm going to be fucked over pretty hard even in spite of it. I would really love to just line people up against the wall at this point. I almost don't care about whether or not it's justified.

>>394095
I'm working with a nuclear power company atm, we (a team of workers) are designing a new plant. Im going to be in dept for atleast another 10 years even with the good pay.

>>394156

Fortunately I should be able to get by with only $100k in debt at most. $60k if I pull the heavy scholarships that I know I'm qualified for. The undegrad cap for federal student loan borrowing is $50k, and I can rock the Electrical and Computer Engineering degree with just that (IE, no scholarships or private borrowing). So, I'll be in school for 5 more years and be in debt for probably 3-4 more years after that. I'll be able to afford nice things at the age of 33-35. It beats being able to afford only one nice thing at age 43, like I mentioned earlier... gah.

>>394156

Don't blame capitalism, blame your idiotic amerifat mentality of spending money you don't have.

Durrr banks have all the money hurrr.

Stop borrowing from them, then, retards.

>>393710
The volume of the earth's crust is around 2 billion cubic miles. Around .01% of that is oil. We're using 1.2 cubic miles per year. The oil we're getting is under intense pressure. Being pushed to the surface by great force. Once said pressure runs out, the well is considered "dry." Meaning we're accessing a very, very small percentage of the oil that's actually there. To compare it to a bottle of soda pop, the oil we've been using for the last century amounts to the release of gas when you first open a bottle/can. The amount of energy required to pull oil from a dry well is is more than could be gained.

Just because there is, theoretically, enough oil in the earth's crust for a few thousand years (under our current exponential growth models), does't mean it's accessible. Once the oil stops being easily accessible, we no longer have the capacity to utilize it.

Peak oil isn't, "omgigawsh theres no oil left anywhere," peak oil is, "we've just about used all the oil that's profitable to access."

>>394250

Not actually tenable. Unless you have rich parents who can afford to put you through school (in which case you don't even need school), debt financing is the only option

>>394250
Im not American dumb shit

Haven't read the thread. Just dropping in to say that the USSR/Eastern Bloc/Cuba/China were/are not 'Communist' but State Capitalist.

>>394270
A college degree isn't valuable enough to get deep into debt to obtain. Better to go to a trade school

>>394328

Most trades are vulnerable to outsourcing. Most degrees lack value, but professional degrees are still good value propositions in many cases.

>>394270

See

>>394328

If people stopped going to universities, the prices of education would drop and become viable again. It's just a bubble right now, and a waste of time.

>>393873
I'll ignore how you have to shit this up even further with your virginity issues.
Let's just stick to this :

>Under capitalism, you have a small chance of getting rich

How small this chance is varies a lot from society to society.
The odds are actually highest in Northern European countries, which are not actually socialist, but still pretty statist in their economic policies.
In Finland, there is next to no connection between how much you earn and how much your parents earned.
Similar things can be said for Norway or Sweden.
Odds of getting rich depend on your skill, not your upbringing, unlike in, say, the UK.

I think it's fairer to reward people for their own achievements instead of what their grandparents did.
It's just one example of how a third way approach combining capitalims and socialism can work better than either system in its pure form.

Not saying that this will work in every country all oer the world- Americans would likely start a civil war if the were taed as high as the Fins.
Still, capitalism isn't the be-all end-all to economic policies just because the USSR was a steaming turd and has gone down in history.

>>394382

I don't have a choice. I'm unemployable at present in any sort of meaningfully valuable position, and the hiring managers who lord over lesser positions have a tendency to be bigoted drooling retards. My job is just to try and take the odds by the biggest margin I can, or leave them by the lowest margin I can if it comes to that. Essentially the only alternative in the present economy and given present social attitudes would be prostitution, and I would have to discount due to my hideous appearance.

>>394382

Moreover, the internet is causing it to lose value dramatically over time. I'm studying software engineering in canada and i don't even go to class because they are terrible and a waste of time. I can find all the info for free and much faster on the interbutts.

I'm an above average student, btw.