[deleted]
[deleted]
It may not be a perfect system, but it's the only one that's ever truly worked, compared to all other forms of governing a society.
Feudalism didn't work
Imperialism didn't work
Socialism still doesn't work
Communism definitely didn't work
Capitalism is the only system that rewards people for doing hard work, as opposed to the latter two on the list.
While it would be easy to flock to the "Scandinavian model works" argument, it should be noted they do not actually practice socialism. They actually have a Free Market economy, and the only reason they aren't broke is due to Norway having vast oil reserves off their coast, as well as practicing Free Trade. Free Trade, by the way, is something America does.
Cuba does not have a high standard of living. In fact, it's been a shithole for over 60 years. Most of the people who live there are basically slaves to the Castro Regime. Some only join the military so they can get a full meal and slightly better healthcare. Basically, the Castros have lived like rogue kings, getting all the best healthcare, the best homes, the finest things to live on, and didn't give a rat's ass about the people. There are three tiers of healthcare on that godforsaken island: Tier 1 is the best of healthcare for the Castros and any celebrities/VIPs stupid enough to visit and fall for their lies about how things are doing there. Tier 2 is what the soldiers get, which is similar to the socialized medicine in Europe. Tier 3 is what everyone else in Cuba gets, which is, you're on your own and you better hope you don't get injured or catch a serious illness. They have trouble even finding band-aids, let alone any doctors willing to help them. They're little better off than people out in the wildernesses of Russia.
Frankly, life there as been so "great," that for decades, Cubans have been putting together makeshift rafts out of garbage, and risking their lives in attempting to escape to Florida and to be free of the evil Castro regime. You want people who qualify as refugees, Cubans who have escaped that hellhole most certainly count.
Communism in China actually hasn't worked at all. It was only when they adopted a Free Trade Capitalist model to their economy, that they were able to keep their people from starving. If you look into the first years of Mao's rule, you'll find that millions of people (many whose deaths were never documented) died from bad harvests. While their government is still a brutal communist one, their economy has evolved into a hybrid of communism and capitalism.
The issue in Venezuela was, basically one president had some "great" ideas for his people, and everyone drank the kool-aid. The socialist system "worked" for a few years because the country was selling oil and raking in a profit to fund their programs. But then, the price of oil went down, and the country started to run out of money. That, and a newer, power-mad guy took over the joint and started using the army to clamp down on dissenters. Things have gotten so bad, that your average Venezuelan has lost 14 pounds from starvation, people have to wait 5 hours in line every day just to get simple, everyday things they need, hardly anyone gets paid or even goes to work more than a few hours each week, they have had to break into zoos and eat endangered animals out of desperation, people have been beaten and thrown into prison, and many have fled to other countries to escape.
There's a reason people use Venezuela as a model of how socialism fails. It's something that's going on right now, in front of our very eyes, and yet there are still idiots out there, plugging their ears, and screaming "La! La! La! Socialism works! They just haven't done it right! We'll always believe!"
[deleted]
Every time it has been implemented, someone always got screwed over. Oftentimes it is little more than mass theft, disguised as a goodwill gestured towards one group, while the other group has their hard-earned rewards stolen. You end up with everyone being equally miserable, and have no motivation to do their best. Production suffers, creativity stagnates, and pretty soon, that stolen commodity runs out, and everyone suffers. Then you end up with a tiny group of elite, living like kings, while the rest of the population is enslaved to them. The people who are not part of the oligarchy end up being equalized in suffering, rather than living together in the paradise their government promised at the beginning.
shareEgalitarianism is about equality, it does not against private ownership. I think communism is a form of egalitarianism but egalitarianism is not communism.
shareThe problem is, humans are naturally selfish creatures. We don't like to share unless it benefits us in some way. Now there are people willing to share unto the point of starvation, but they are rarities (as well as idiots). Others might want to help out of the goodness of their hearts, but they don't want to be forced by governments to do it. They want to do it of their own free will.
I challenge you to go to a commune and see just how well egalitarianism works for you. You'll leave in a few months when you realize that you're the only one doing any work, and the other utopian cloud-heads are mooching off of your hard work and don't care about contributing so long as you keep them happy.
You are still thinking of the soviet model and community property, but it does not have to be that way. The Amish I think are a form of egalitarianism, at least very similar. What if that could be a starting point like I mentioned below in a separate post.
shareThen go live with the Amish and tell us how it went. They'll love you.
shareI am not religious, at least not that religious, so that won't work.
And like I mentioned below I prefer Amish style community but with modern amenities.
We are here to talk about ideas, I have no intention to force anyone to believe what I believe, so you don't have to be so guarded.
Or do you think the current level of extreme inequality is a good thing? There are people, even quite poor people think that way, that I understand.
shareIt's called getting a job, stop blaming your circumstances, find ways around the obstacles in your life, and quit whining about how unfair life is. Changing society to benefit laziness benefits no one, not even the whiners.
shareI agree American Girl. What the far left refuse to accept is that if you have the government paying for everybody's needs it will result in everyone's taxes being raised so much that nobody will have much money at all. I personally don't think it's the government's job to provide everyone's needs.
I do think people who have disabilities should have food stamps and medical assistance but that should be a state thing. Not a federal thing.
You are still thinking in terms of liberals or conservatives, if you read my discussion on liberal democracy you would probably know I support neither.
My discussions did not mention taxation or government assistance at all. For me that is more of bland reaction than fixing things intelligently.
It's fine to help people who literally can't work (and some of them are ashamed because they want to, but can't). I won't argue with that.
There's a reason why the majority of government power should be taken care of by the states. Often states have issues that don't require federal government intervention. These are simple problems that the states can take care of on their own. Last thing we need is big government micromanagement, when they can't even handle their regular jobs.
What's scary is, often that extra money taken from high taxes in democratic socialist countries doesn't go where it's supposed to. There's a reason Canada's infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, is terrible. Europe is just as bad in some areas, if not worse.
Actually I am what they call the 1% and I did not come from money. I retired at 41 about 6 years ago. I run out things to do about 2 years ago and that is probably why I started to study political system.
I was born in a not wealthy but reasonably well to do family so I had a decent education and various opportunities. But I bet those are not available to everyone.
I am a quite lazy person and that is one of the reasons I retired almost as soon as feasible. Most of the money I made was from disciplined saving and investments in financial market, which did require learning but not much time or efforts. I would not go as far as saying the current system benefits or rewards laziness, but laziness was not a problem.
So you can see my study is mostly academic. I have no intention to call for changing the current system unless I have seen evidence that a new one is going to benefits society as a whole. I support mostly small scale social experimentation.
You're not what I expected.
Perhaps there is nothing wrong with small-scale experiments, so long as the people you're working with consent to it and know what's going on.
The trouble with government today is the fact that they're doing social-engineering without the public's consent, and that's not okay.
Well, that is understandable. Most people into politics are fiercely partisan, and think their ideas are only ones would work and have no problem forcing them on people.
The current political system and the dominance of corporate media mean only liberals or conservatives can be chosen. They are the corporate representatives but different factions.
Then again I don't have a good political or social system that I am convinced is ready to replace the current system. So one problem at a time.
But I am happy you have an open mind.
The difference of egalitarianism I think is about against mass wealth created but unevenly distributed like capitalism. But actual form of implementation could vary greatly.
shareThere are two reasons there is wealth inequality:
1 - resources are finite
2 - Not everyone is qualified to work a high-paying job, and those who do, mostly had to earn it and work their way up the job ladder. Some cheat their way to the top, but that does not represent the majority of working Americans.
Wealth/class envy is not the way to go through life, and thinking the world owes you something due to either your ancestry, class level, or education level, is not only not productive, it's a sign that you don't want to work for what you want. You want people to hand it to you in some form of "righting perceived wrongs" in society. The only person preventing people from getting ahead in life, is not the wealthy corporate CEOs; it is the very people who claim they can't get ahead in life. They have no one but themselves to blame for not advancing.
That is why I don't support absolute equality such as communism but relative equality. If you have watched 1987 movie "Wall street" you would probably remember the line "One third of wealth was from hard work, two third from inheritance", which I checked and it was and still is true. You can't possibly think that is a good system.
People went to college should have higher paying jobs that reward their knowledge and efforts but not everyone became janitors is because they are lazy and stupid.
What I am talking about here is mostly about equal opportunities, not everyone were born equal, their environment factors greatly influence their future.
I don't know if you have watched the 1983 movie "Trading Places". I would not call it scientific study but it has a point.
Egalitarianism I think is about reducing the inequality to a manageable extent.
Various studies show about more than half of the wealth is owned by few percent of people or something like that, so resources are really not that finite.
What shouldn't parents be allowed and expected to wish to pass the benefits of their labor on to their children, and subsequent generations?
shareThere is nothing wrong with providing your children with decent education but beyond that I don't think it is helping that much.
Like I mentioned before two third of wealth is from inheritance, that is not benefit. That is encouragement of doing nothing in their lives. I would not go so far as saying that is ruining their children, but I think in majority of the cases that means spoiled children living a life of drinking and partying.
Like I said before I don't support absolute equality and relative equal opportunities is healthy and productive, encourages competition.
Like AmeriGirl26 so eloquently put before we don't want a society encourages laziness.
That's a stretch. Most kids go through a party phase, regardless of class. Kids that do it their whole lives eventually piss it away and have nothing to pass on. Most wealthy kids want to maintain or expand on the family empire, but money isn't infinite, and if squandered it will run out, which is self correcting.
shareThere is a 2006 documentary called "The One Percent" (we are after all on a movie chat site), it is actually filmed by a rich kid with huge inheritance, talking about the life of himself and his mates, as you probably would have guessed most of them did nothing with their lives.
If you watched that before you probably would not think the way you do now.
Also a rich person 101 (you are probably not wealthy, but I am), once money reaches certain amount, when cash flow from your investment exceeds your spending significantly and your investment is indexed with inflation like equity or real estate, money is never going to run out unless you are actively throwing it away like those sports or movie stars (the new money).
Rich families and their children usually have reputable investment managers and they don't just use one, some use four or five to diversify. Their money is only going to grow as they spend it.
I retired 6 years ago my wealth grew about 80% since then, even as I spend it. Of course that is partially because I am good at managing money, but even if I just put it in an average mutual fund or index fund, it would still have grown at least 30% by now.
For most wealthy people, money would never run out, even if they were immortal.
"Also a rich person 101 (you are probably not wealthy, but I am)"
Hahaha, you just won the douchebag of the year award, and half of what you just said is nonsense, making me strongly question your claim. I'll move on to a conversation that doesn't make me role my eyes.
That is OK. You are not the only one. Even my previous colleagues don't believe me, even after 6 years of retirement. But it is for the best, otherwise I probably have to help them with their investments. As I said before I am quite lazy.
share"Capitalism is the only system that rewards people for doing hard work"
1) You're forgetting that slavery was a part of capitalism.
2) Exploration and settlements in foreign countries were financed by companies like the Dutch East India Company. They were instrumental in the exploitation, land theft and enslavement of the New World. Native Americans, African slaves, and exploited immigrants were not rewarded for hard work.
3) This graph disproves that capitalism rewards people for doing hard work. It shows that productivity went up while workers' salaries stagnated or went up only a little. Productivity 1979–2018 +69.6%; Hourly pay 1979–2018 +11.6%.
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
4) Since 1978, CEO compensation rose 1,007.5% for CEOs, compared with 11.9% for average workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
"Socialism still doesn't work"
Actually, it does work. The Nordic model practiced in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc. allow people to have a high standard of living.
"Communism definitely didn't work"
It worked in China. One billion people to feed. I believe it was needed to prevent mass starvation and poverty. Now they introduced some capitalism too to further grow their economy.
It also worked in Cuba which has the highest standard of living in Latin America.
I don't believe in one size fits all. There are many capitalist countries that are impoverished which would benefit under communism or socialism because there would be more sharing of limited resources instead of a few rich people hoarding it.
The standard of living for the poor increased when Chavez introduced socialism.
A problem that has to be addressed is the attack or exploitation of poorer countries by richer ones which hurts their economies.
As for the U.S., the percentage of middle-class has been dropping.
[deleted]
I had to google. It appears there are at least two definitions so I'll ask which one do you mean?
share[deleted]
You mean...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I don't believe in discrimination or persecution based on skin color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, etc. You get the idea.
[deleted]
You're forgetting that slavery was a part of capitalism.
No it's not. Slavery is a distinct phenomenon practiced almost universally around the world through most of human history. It's coincided with about every system but was eventually abolished at home and across the planet by the UK and USA, the most "capitalistic" nations. Slavery violates foundational free market principles that treat humans as essentially equal agents capable of rational decisions and engaging in voluntary exchanges. Contrary to moronic racial blather like "this country was built on the backs of slaves", slavery only enriched the few people who owned slaves, while creating market distortions that held back economic development for broader society.
This graph disproves that capitalism rewards people for doing hard work.
No it doesn't. EPI is a leftist think tank/lobbying outfit whose original "research" is garbage. I have extensive experience dealing with their opaque methodologies and how their results are contradicted by all other outfits on issues like tax incidence.
Aside from the question as to whether two juxtaposed metrics like "productivity" and "wages" should necessarily always increase in a one to one ratio anyway, this EPI chart has been thoroughly debunked.
1. They admit to only counting "non supervisory" workers, about 80% of the workforce, but productivity for the entire economy. That's an apples and oranges comparison that invalidates the chart immediately. Assuming that the top 20% of workers have no impact on productivity is absurd. They likely have the most. Manual labor, for example, can only be done so fast.
2. The "compensation" metric used is the standard "wages" one that includes some legally required benefits but excludes employer benefits that have increasingly formed a larger percentage of compensation. This chart shows the gap almost entirely disappearing when total compensation is counted.
https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/es/07/ES0707.pdf
3. The funniest, and stupidest trick EPI pulls is using two different inflation deflators for productivity and compensation. They use NDP (the BEA's IPD) for productivity and the much faster moving CPI for compensation, so of course it looks like compensation is growing more slowly over time. That hackishness is straight up dishonest.
This chart is only useful in proving what an unscrupulous, incompetent joke EPI is.
Actually, it does work. The Nordic model practiced in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc. allow people to have a high standard of living.
Amerigirl has already refuted this. While those nations are mostly capitalist, I’ll add that you’re cherry-picking Europe’s rich neighborhood, a few racially homogenous nations with small populations, and comparing them to the continental-sized US. It’s telling that Americans are amazingly still more prosperous overall than the more left leaning Scandinavian nations. Most of the richer European nations are roughly equivalent to the poorest US states, and even the richest tiny European states are less wealthy than various US regions with similar or larger populations. But the fairer comparison would be with the more left leaning EU as a whole:
Per Capita GDP PPP 2018, World Bank
USA - $62,641
EU - $43,715
Americans are over 43% wealthier than Europeans on average, which is astounding when you think about it. Americans are even about 20% wealthier than the vaunted Swedes…
Denmark -$55,105
Sweden - $52,725
Finland - $47,930
…and even Canadians are significantly less prosperous.
Canada - $48,107
"Communism definitely didn't work"
It worked in China. One billion people to feed. I believe it was needed to prevent mass starvation and poverty. Now they introduced some capitalism too to further grow their economy.
Wrong. Communist collectivization policies caused tens of millions to die and kept the Chinese people dirt poor until market reforms began in the late 20th Century. That’s why many consider Mao to be the worst mass murderer in history, rivaling fellow communist Stalin for the dismal title. Chinese are still dirt poor compared to Americans.
China - $18,210
It also worked in Cuba which has the highest standard of living in Latin America.
Hogwash. Cuba was one of the more prosperous countries in Latin America before Castro seized power. For decades it’s been a shithole due to communism. That’s why millions risk the lives of their families to escape across the ocean on shaky rafts while no one but criminal fugitives try to move there. We can’t even get real stats out of the repressive socialist island prison, but we know modern Cubans are infamously driving around in cars that are more than half a century old and have only begun to access basic amenities like microwaves in recent years…..decades late.
share
I don't believe in one size fits all. There are many capitalist countries that are impoverished which would benefit under communism or socialism because there would be more sharing of limited resources instead of a few rich people hoarding it.
One of the stupidest things ever posted on this board. No place benefits from communism. A few corrupt individuals might, but the historical empirical track record on communism’s miserable failure is more clear cut than perhaps on any other issue. Communism is inherently evil in conception and has resulted in the largest scale atrocities of all time.
Socialism makes people poorer. Capitalism leads to wealth creation. At its core "capitalism" is also freedom from violent coercion, which makes it morally superior anyway.
share
A load of nonsense. The Nordic model is doing well under social democracy.
European slavery of Africans was run by large companies therefore a part of capitalism and it stripped black people of being considered human. Slavery elsewhere was mainly a result of warfare and they were still considered human. Stop defending slavery.
A few people were rich in Cuba but most were poor. There were also a lot of gangsters and crime. It's their country. If they're happy with communism then that's their business. Ditto China.
Your retort is weak BS. Americans are more prosperous than the Nordic nations as I just showed. Slavery was abolished by capitalists and you ignored everything I said about slavery conflicting with free market principles. Black slavery (only one small part of the slavery story) was started in Africa by blacks, enriching numerous black kingdoms, long before the Transatlantic trade started and continued long after it ended. In fact after Thomas Jefferson banned the import of new slaves, black slave trading actually INCREASED with the Islamic world more than making up the sales gap. Islamic slavery, following Mohammad's example, lasted well into the 20th Century before US/UK pressure finally ended it. And slavery in Africa, Asia, and Europe in the pre-Christian era was often every bit as dehumanizing and horrific as slavery in the Americas. In fact even slavery in the Americas long predated Columbus, with Amerindians practicing slavery up and down the hemisphere.
Stop trying to sugarcoat and support non-US slavery. You should oppose it across the board like I do.
How do you know Cubans are happy with communist rule? Neither they or the Chinese get to vote on that. The millions risking their lives to flee Cuba or protest in Hong Kong indicate they aren't happy.
Well said, Amerigirl26.
share[deleted]
The only difference between socialism and communism is the way they are implemented. Socialism is gotten through voting and a democratic process (of which the voters end up selling their souls), whereas communism is implemented through guns and brute force. In fact, the biggest problem with socialism (other than eventually running out of other people's money), is that you can vote your way in, but you have to shoot your way out.
It should also be noted that the biggest supporters of socialism/communism, don't actually live in socialist/communist countries. In fact, they live happily in Capitalist countries and whine about how unfair life is instead of appreciating what they have, and working for what they want. Either that, or they are rich and have no idea that changing society entirely would make them equally as poor as everyone else.
They will take an Uber to Starbucks, where they post on social media using an iphone to complain about Capitalism, which is hypocritical because it was Capitalism that gave them all those luxuries they're now enjoying. You really think life in a socialist/communist nation would be that cushy? Think again.
Every person who has fled from socialist nations typically hate it, and hope never to have to deal with that crap again. Every single one of them feels as if they died and went to heaven the moment they enter the States.
The concept of egalitarianism is just a pretty wrapper on a smelly gift nobody wants except people who don't actually wanta live it.
[deleted]
None of them really do. There are always gonna be winners and losers because that's how human nature is in even today's society, and beyond. Every system besides capitalism we have used to try and help the poor and end poverty has failed, miserably.
Capitalism works because it gives everyone an equal chance at the starting line; it is not there to guarantee an equal result at the finish line. That's up to the people running in the race, and to stand around whining that "the game is rigged" just shows you don't have the balls to keep going and overcome those obstacles.
You want to change the entire game so everyone [including you] gets participation trophies, even when some people never reach the finish line. Life doesn't work that way.
If you hate capitalism so much, why do you live in a capitalist country? You make no sense and sound hypocritical towards your own ideology.
Capitalism works because it gives everyone an equal chance at the starting line
I think you and I both know that is not true. Inheritance and schooling made sure of that. If you live in poor neighborhood you are almost guaranteed to have poor schools. Segregation by wealth is prevalent at least in US.
You don't really support equality, you are just pretending it is already there. If we can't be honest on internet, where can we be honest? share
You're still indicating that people are blaming their circumstances instead of taking responsibility and finding ways around their obstacles.
You really honestly think everyone's going to end up stuck in the same social class all the time? This isn't India. This isn't Europe. Lots of people started out with poor, crappy backgrounds and found a way to succeed, regardless of how much their culture and peers tried to hold them back. There are thousands of stories about people who found ways to get out of poverty, and none of it included a handout by the government.
You aren't exactly being honest about how "equal" the other forms of how to run a country are either. People are peddling the exact same lies to the younger generation today as they did a century ago, and they're falling for it all over again. Read up on your history. Every time "equality" was promised by past regimes it always ended in suffering and mass starvation/poverty for everyone. Don't kid yourself if you think "taxing the rich" and getting a "guaranteed income" is gonna lift anybody out of poverty. They've got nobody but themselves to blame for how they ended up that way. Quit blaming the system and grow up.
You want to learn what's really going on behind the scenes here, read up on Saul Alinsky, as well as Cliven-Piven. They wrote the book on how to bring down America and turn it into a socialist hellhole. A certain nameless party is following those to the letter in trying to destroy America from within. Part of it is crushing America with unpayable debt, and another step is taking over the health system.
Lots of people started out with poor, crappy backgrounds and found a way to succeed
There are, but I wouldn't say "lots of", vast majority of them did not. Are you honestly saying kids living in poor neighborhoods have the same opportunities as rich kids?
You aren't exactly being honest about how "equal" the other forms of how to run a country are either.
When did I say anything about any of that? Who are you talking to? share
Sounds like someone has a bad case of class envy. Contrary to popular belief, most people do not get rich through inheritance. Many get there through hard work and having a goal, as well as believing in themselves, and pushing to do better, and having the support of friends and family.
To hate someone for having more money than you because they worked hard for it, is exactly the same mentality that the lazy, shiftless Karl Marx had in his time. It gets nothing done, and you go nowhere, and trying to change the system so everyone gets their "fair share" not only is not productive, it produces a kind of equality most people would rather die than have. Is that what you really want?
Tell you what, I'm gonna tell you a parable of your average socialist, and it describes their mentality perfectly.
Joe, Marty, and Bill were three poor men, who perchance came upon a lamp, and a genie emerged. The genie was willing to grant one wish per person. Joe wished for a goat, so he could help his family out. Marty wished for a cow to help his family out too. With the resources the animals would provide, their families could pay their bills, earn more money, and be able to improve their lot in life.
Up until that point, Bill had only been friends with Joe and Marty because the three of them had all been in the same circumstances. But Bill was the jealous type, and was angry at his friends being able to lift themselves out of poverty when he would have nothing. He refused to admit that part of his problem in succeeding in life, was that he was a lazy, bitter, hateful man, and nobody liked him or wanted work with him. He figured, "If I can't succeed in life, nobody should!"
He came to the genie, and the genie asked him "Do you want a farm animal too?" Bill said "No, I wish you would kill Joe's goat and Marty's cow."
If you can't get it through your thick skull just what kind of system you're pushing for, after all this, then I can't help you. I don't cater to stubborn, stupid idiots that drink the kool-aid that the tv has been serving you for the past 10 years, and this conversation is done.
To hate someone for having more money than you because they worked hard for it
I have more money than the most of you, but it did not come from hard work, it came from time and patience (and good education). You keep saying capitalism rewards hard work, but that is not the case in my experience.
That reminds me another dialogue from the 1987 movie "wall street" (I just love that movie):
Bud: What about hard work?
Gekko: What about it? You work hard? I bet you stayed up all night analyzing that dog shit stock you gave me. Where'd it get you? My father worked like an elephant pushing electrical supplies till he dropped dead at 49 with a heart attack and tax bills. Wake up, will ya, pal?
That is the movie got me interested in finance and made me a rich man today. That is also the movie made me understand the uselessness of hard work (but that might be an excuse, I think I was born lazy). Hard workers are just good slaves of a corrupt system.
If you can't get it through your thick skull just what kind of system you're pushing for, after all this, then I can't help you.
What system have I been pushing for? I repeatedly said to do more social experiments, to come up with a better system, with real democracy, not the plutocracy ironically named "liberal democracy" we have today (inequality is always rooted in political systems).
The funny thing is I think you understand what I said, just do not have an effective argument against it.
I guess that is why you go on personal attacks, and since you have nothing on me you start to make up things and tell an irreverent story. Clearly you are not here for the knowledge or truth, you are actually pushing something, maybe for the conservative 2020 election win?
I thought you were different, but in the end you are dishonest and shameless. No wonder conservatives got such bad names.
PS: I dislike democrats equally, I believe they are also a part of this corrupt system. If anyone interested to know why please read my post on liberal democracy: https://moviechat.org/tt4172710/Princes-of-the-Yen/5c4eabb42a152068f80dd43d/Finally-I-understand
And the follow on discussion: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d96e0dfd652de7674ac082a/Liberal-democracy share
Did you earn your money, yes or no?
Are you saying we should make money illegally?
Instead of pushing for social experiments, why don't you experiment directly with your own money?
I made majority of my money through investments in financial markets.
Social experiments need to be self sustainable. I am willing to join a social experiment I believe in, but a funded social experiment defeats it's own purpose.
And the money you invested, was it your earned income, yes or no?
Why can't you fund your own social experiment? You would be in charge of the parameters you want to setup and make sure they are followed stringently. You can easily set up a social commune and have everybody share their income and property.
And again, do you condone Bud Fox and Gordon Gekko's illegal activities as a substitute for "hard work". Do you condone the message of the movie of Greed is good?
And the money you invested, was it your earned income, yes or no?
Yes, my investment income is more than I can spend.
Why can't you fund your own social experiment? You would be in charge of the parameters you want to setup and make sure they are followed stringently. You can easily set up a social commune and have everybody share their income and property.
Then that is a lot of hard work for me. I am a very lazy person as I previously said.
And again, do you condone Bud Fox and Gordon Gekko's illegal activities as a substitute for "hard work". Do you condone the message of the movie of Greed is good?
No, I don't condone any of it. The movie in those parts is actually quite shallow, it meant to have a good guy vs bad guy situation for dramatic effects. Gekko has to break the law to be the bad guy, otherwise he is just doing his job.
But in actuality especially after I started learning finance and read books such as "Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco" and started to understand how private equity (I think that is what Gordon Gekko does) works, and it is not how it works at all in real life. I know most people would rather not to believe it but the majority of corporate raiders avoid inside information like the plague, they are too wealthy to risk breaking the law.
But the parts about how wealth is created and the futility of hard work are absolutely true. The essence of the movie is not the "Greed is good" speech, which everyone seems to be focused on. It is the conversation between Bud and Gordon Gekko after Bud found out Gekko's plan and stormed his office. Many realities of the world were revealed in that conversation (I think most people dismissed it somehow maybe because they thought Gekko was evil and he was lying).
I learned many more things about wealth and how it works since then. I read more and more books about Warren Buffett and started to put my money to work. The system is designed to work in certain ways and in my youth I was all about taking advantage of it. It would have been foolish not to. share
So with your money, am I entitled to any of it? If I am, I'll give you my venmo account.
If you have money to burn, you can pay somebody to do it for you.
So you don't condone it, yet you quoted Gekko that hard work doesn't pay off. Thus, doing things illegally. Everything you're saying now is contradictory.. If you believe what you say, then that's doing work, is it not?
How is hard work futility, exactly? How many stories have you heard about people coming here with only a couple of bucks in their pocket and they managed a successful life? These people don't live off of government subsistence nor do they want to and they aren't asking for wealth redistribution. I know some of these types first hand.
If you have more than enough to spend and you feel your wealth should be distributed among the needy, you are more than welcome to give as much of it away to charity and not ask for a receipt.
I guess you don't really understand anything I just said. Or at least pretend not to.
And I have no interest talking to people just want charity.
If you have more than enough to spend and you feel your wealth should be distributed among the needy, you are more than welcome to give as much of it away to charity and not ask for a receipt
I only advocated equal opportunities. Is that not OK with you? Or are you like AmeriGirl26, can't find effective arguments against what I said, so you start trying to put words in my mouth? share
AmeriGirl26's go to response when she can't find effective arguments seem to be accusing people of class warfare.
Yours seem to be please give away all your money.
Neither of you seems to be interested in knowledge or truth. Do you guys know each other?
So let's clarify your position.
You're for equal opportunity.
Are you for equal outcome, yes or no?
Are you for wealth distribution, yes or no?
Again, you quoted Gekko saying that "hard work" is "futile" to quote you, but don't condone his illegal activities, which was the point of that entire conversation in the limo. Betting on a sure thing.
Bud Fox stormed into his office because he found out about the liquidation of Blue Star, thus proving his dad was right about Gekko. He got played and it weighed heavy on his conscience. The entire conversation in his office is about greed. How many yachts does he need?
Whatever you got out of it personally, is you and that's fine. I actually like the fact that you saw Gekko as a role model minus the insider trading. His backstory is he came from nothing.
You're for equal opportunity. Are you for equal outcome, yes or no?
Of course not. I think when given equal opportunities we will have relative equality.
Are you for wealth distribution, yes or no?
Not really, but I am against young people taking large inheritance. That is not even relative equality. So I am not against a progressive inheritance tax or something to that effect. Inheritance should be capped at certain level. Anything more than, say 500K to $1 million, is excessive to me. The children of wealthy families could be given money to do something but not the sort of money to do nothing.
Right now the "widows and idiot sons" (according to Gekko) hold majority of the wealth, "interests on interests accumulating" to them, everyone else is living in debt and spending their entire lives paying it off. It is very difficult not thinking of parasites.
you quoted Gekko saying that "hard work" is "futile" to quote you, but don't condone his illegal activities, which was the point of that entire conversation in the limo. Betting on a sure thing.
Bud Fox stormed into his office because he found out about the liquidation of Blue Star, thus proving his dad was right about Gekko. He got played and it weighed heavy on his conscience. The entire conversation in his office is about greed. How many yachts does he need?
You don't seem to really understand finance. You focused on the main conversations, but if you understood finance you would understand that the gems of these conversations were what Gekko said unrelated to the main conversations. About hardwork, wealth and sobering thoughts on inequality and democracy, etc.
share
So you're not a socialist. I'm glad to hear, but you want an inheritance tax. Is that the only change?
I disagree with that because it is double taxation. Yes, there are idiots receiving inheritance money and some are not idiots. Why does the state get to double dip because you deem some people don't deserve the inheritance they receive? If that is what the person willed it to, how is it fair that your morals supersedes a person's direct wishes for his/her own assets?
You seem to have an issue with young people specifically. I don't disagree with you that there are some young rich wasters, but can't enact a policy that is so specific. It's not the state's job to teach them to be more productive with their money, but the inheritor's job and put their inheritance in a trust and only fully available at a certain age.
So how would you change the current system other than an inheritance tax?
It sounds to me what you got was work smarter not harder. If you ask me, that's even more basic then the conversation they had. But again, whatever you got out of it that worked for you, is fine. I don't care.
The idea is not taxation or giving government money (they probably waste it anyway) but to cap the level of inheritance. Inheritance tax would probably force wealthy people to give majority of their wealth to charity.
If the state is not stepping in then who could?
Inequality is always rooted in political systems, the current liberal democracy is controlled by the wealthy (Gekko also was pretty clear on that), so what I said is very unlikely to happen under the current system.
There was a separate discussion on liberal democracy: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d96e0dfd652de7674ac082a/Liberal-democracy