Is first grade arithmetic to capitalism as kryptonite is to Superman?

Between the concentration of wealth and directly proportionate distribution of poverty, the capitalist inserts a blackboard full of complex theory, calculation and formula then asserts no action or result are ever related, and wealth and poverty are purely coincidental, while when we express the equation in first grade arithmetic, we easily recognize that 1-1=0 and 1+1=2. Doesn't the 'non-zero sum game' theory produce vast excess for some only because zero some gain?Is first grade arithmetic to capitalism as kryptonite is to Superman?because corporate leaders have stopped trying to convince anyone that they are worth the outrageous pay they extract from corporations (owned by shareholders).



it has been clear for at least 3 years that the leaders of the banks and investment companies are BAD at what they do - i.e. make money for their investors.



they now take their outrageous bonuses because it's in their contract - i.e. they take simply because they can, not because they are actually worth the money.



conservative pundits no longer are trying to make an arguement - they now give carefully rehearsed answers to scripted questions from media outlets owned by large corporations that are themselves usually conservative.



now, they just try to 'get away with it' for another year.



if they would just leave americans alone, it wouldn't be so bad, but now they insist that whenever one of these 'too big to fail' companies shows a loss on the balance sheet - they plead poverty to the american people and look for welfare from the very people they have ripped off.



america has ceased to have true capitalism - meaning that there is no longer any loss involved.



the profits end up in the pockets of the senior executives and the losses end up being 'bailed out.'



too big to fail means too big to exist - period.Is first grade arithmetic to capitalism as kryptonite is to Superman?
Is voting as to subservience?Is first grade arithmetic to capitalism as kryptonite is to Superman?Not all Capitalist economists use "complex theory" (by which I assume you are referring to sophisticated econometric models). Look up the Austrian School of Economics.



It was Marx after all who invented "Scientific Socialism". . .let's see who's really conjuring up "complex theory".Is first grade arithmetic to capitalism as kryptonite is to Superman?
zero growth is still a positive, yes the numbers dont make sense but on paper they do. 10 people working all paying tax, week later 5 are paid off and now claiming welfare. 5+ - 5=0. its still a positive of sorts its static, better than a negative, week later another is paid of so the remaining 4 are paying for their welfare. now its a negative. its minus 2. as long as the number keeps reading to zero, its a positiveIs first grade arithmetic to capitalism as kryptonite is to Superman?I do not know what is more entertaining, your creepy avatar or your inability to form a reasonable analogy. A better alternative is the govt controlling everything and doling out what they think you need? How about the govt decide what you are worth? How about we let everyone work hard, invest wisely and be free to succeed? Now, there is a novel idea!Is first grade arithmetic to capitalism as kryptonite is to Superman?
No. You didn't pass first grade arithmetic did you?



"...and directly proportionate distribution of poverty" What's it directly proportionate to? It can't be concentration of wealth because if you have wealth concentrated, you're clearly not poor.



No one asserts that action and result are not related. They clearly are. If I go to work today I get money increasing my wealth while directly reducing my poverty. If I don't (not taking action) I still have bills to pay with less money. Reducing my wealth and increasing my poverty because bills are static and my income is solely based on my going to work (taking action).



How are wealth and poverty coincidental? There are many different actions you can take to directly affect either. In my previous example going to work increases wealth just as setting my money on fire will increase my poverty. There are variables (winning a lottery, or getting into a car wreck) but that doesn't make the whole equation a variable.



You are correct. 1-1=0 and 1+1=2, that doesn't appear to have anything to do with your other assertions though.



No. When I send money on a product I like, I'm not poorer for having done so. While I may have less capitol, I have the product that I desire in it's place which has value (hopefully) at least equal to the product I purchased perhaps more if I've done well. Who ever I bought the product from now has more capitol to do with has he pleases.



What's wrong with a voluntary transaction such as this?