What's wrong with this depiction of Capitalism?

[lib3rtarian]

This picture has been making the rounds of FB, and seeks to portray Capitalism in a bad light. I want to counter this. Give me a good argument as to why this is incorrect please.

 

[pcgame]

..

 

[Grubb556]

The guy with the hat is a squeegee kid, but instead of washing your car, he builds roofs and asks for money.

 

[lib3rtarian]

at the very end the guy is sad

no1 forced him to buy the house

That's your argument? He was getting shade from the tree before for free. Now, for the same shade, he has to pay. How is that fair, and how does that show Capitalism in a good light?

 

[talkingpointes]

He took raw materials and made something of value. The lazy ass just had some buyers remorse. No offense but if people believe this to be like the coup de grace against capitalism I don't think there is much to discuss. Tell them to go live in the forest I guess. (Although ironically they probably will whine about subsidizes for their needs like of all things -- housing.)

 

[lib3rtarian]

He took raw materials and made something of value. The lazy ass just had some buyers remorse. No offense but if people believe this to be like the coup de grace against capitalism I don't think there is much to discuss. Tell them to go live in the forest I guess.

How is it something of "value" though? The value the tree provided was shade, and the value the shed providing is shade too. Nothing changed from the perspective of value. In the second scenario you are paying for something you had for free earlier.

No good answers so far. :-(

 

[green73]

Whose land was the tree on?

 

[lib3rtarian]

Whose land was the tree on?

That's a very good question. It's not clear from the picture. I would have to assume public land? So if it was public land, then the banker/rich guy wouldn't have been able to cut the tree off, right?

 

[green73]

That's a very good question. It's not clear from the picture. I would have to assume public land? So if it was public land, then the banker/rich guy wouldn't have been able to cut the tree off, right?

There shouldn't be public land.

 

[Sullivan*]

If it was the guy on the stool's land, then in a truly free country he'd be able to sue his ass for vandalism and fraud. If it wasn't his land, WTF was he doing there in the first place?

 

[awake]

It implies that the capitalist stole the resource then sold it back to the owner for profit. It is an ignorant understanding and depiction of free exchange under full property rights.

It is true that the cartoon does reflect that certain corporatist entities use the government to take property of others against the owners consent.

 

[talkingpointes]

How is it something of "value" though? The value the tree provided was shade, and the value the shed providing is shade too. Nothing changed from the perspective of value. In the second scenario you are paying for something you had for free earlier.

No good answers so far. :-(

There is too much open variables for a good answer. Like I said if people think this is like "AHA" capitalism is bad, then they suffer mentally. The worlds best answer can't fix dumb or ignorant.

 

[lib3rtarian]

green73's simple question was enough for me to see the light on why the cartoon was wrong and I feel dumb for not thinking of it myself. Thanks man.

 

[The Gold Standard]

That's your argument? He was getting shade from the tree before for free. Now, for the same shade, he has to pay. How is that fair, and how does that show Capitalism in a good light?

If he is sitting on someone else's land then he has no right to anything on that land.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Where in the hell did he get that money? He gets paid to sit in that chair or something?

 

[otherone]

FIFY

 

[centure7]

The picture is complete nonsense. A way to counter that? How about a cartoon with the same situation but have the guy wearing an Uncle Sam outfit and label the picture "socialism" and the pricetag "FREE". We all know nothing like that would happen under capitalism, but it happens every day under socialism in any given social program. For example, Medicare "helps" people by giving them "free" medicine and then ends up jacking up the rates for everyone to astronomical numbers and nobody can get health care. Gee, thanks for nothing.

 

[Victor Grey]

It implies that the capitalist is not the owner of the tree and has stolen it without permission or compensation.

It implies that the buyer is buying because the capitalist somehow has forced the buyer into it

It implies that the buyer is no better off with a rain-addressing building, than merely with the tree.

It implies that the capitalist takes away from the buyer, without actually giving anything back in return.

I find it a somewhat enjoyable joke, but who would actually believe the notion outside humorous absurdity, aside a primitivist, or else a socialist.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

FIFY

Can't. Stop. Laughing. Too true.

 

[Anti Federalist]

How is it something of "value" though? The value the tree provided was shade, and the value the shed providing is shade too. Nothing changed from the perspective of value. In the second scenario you are paying for something you had for free earlier.

No good answers so far. :-(

The shed and the tree both provide shade.

The shed provides shelter from rain and snow, the tree does not.

The shed provides shelter from the wind, the tree does not.

The shed provides privacy, the tree does not.

Value added to the tree's raw material.