Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

People invest money into investment funds because it will increase the money they have. Doing so is logical. You cannot fault people with money investing them into the investment funds.

That means that the richer you are, the richer you will be. Without working, and without merit of any kind. This blow up the idea that capitalism is a meritocracy

The thing is, capitalism is efficient at exploiting of resources, and , in case of materials goods, producing them at low prices.

It's neither good at long time planning of resource usage, and doesn't do anything to redistribute the benefits of work equally.

The trick is, some poeple want to make believe that taxes aren't part of capitalism.
It's false : the taxes are a production cost like any other.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

The size of your wallet is neither a physical attribute nor a skill to be acquired.

Going from having nothing to being wealthy comes neither from hard work nor skill, though both help to a degree. It comes from luck. And once you've landed on top, by luck of the draw, you can just pay other people to pay others to pay others to work, and the results of that labor trickle back to you, while you fill some figurehead position, paying others to do your thinking for you, and otherwise live a life of opulence.

Further, at that point, you are gaining the most out of government services, both protection of your (vast) property from fire and theft, the creation of an educated workforce to employ, roads for your employees to reach work on, social welfare programs to prevent an angry, starving mob from lynching you in the streets and stealing your assets, institutions to enforce conditions of business transactions, an army to prevent other powers from seizing your assets... So why the fuck shouldn't you pay a larger percentage of your income than some poor bastard who's making minimum wage (which is, even were it untaxed, still several thousand below the amount required to maintain the minimum acceptable standard of living), who also pays outrageous sales taxes on things required to survive?

[Nikov]

So you're all saying if I earn a few hundred thousand dollars and buy a few hundred acres of farmland, then retire and had that farmland tenant-farmed, I don't deserve to earn money because I'm not doing anything?

[ed boy]

Wouldn't that depend upon things like the economic situation of the country and the work ethics of the populace?

True. The precise point of maximum tax revenue varies with the portion of the population you're looking at. Practically all economic theory is based off approximations, though.

That means that the richer you are, the richer you will be. Without working, and without merit of any kind. This blow up the idea that capitalism is a meritocracy

You are rich because you have already worked (or have inherited). Pensions work in a similar way. You work hard initially, and then later in life you keep on reaping the benefits of your hard work. Are you saying that pensions should be gotten rid of?

As for the inheritance, it means that you personally haven't worked for that money. Although inheritance does get rid of the hard work part, it cannot be avoided. It is natural for people to want to provide for their offspring, and to see them enjoy a high quality of life. Even if we were to get rid of direct inheritance, then people would give their offspring advantages in other ways, like paying for a high-quality education.

doesn't do anything to redistribute the benefits of work equally.

I think you may be confusing the concepts of equal and equitable.

If a society is equal, then person A earns the same as person B, regardless of their qualities. If society is equitable, then person A earns a different amount to person B. However, the reasons for them earnign different amounts are relevant - for example, productivity would be relevant, but skin colour would not.

[Phmcw]

So you're all saying if I earn a few hundred thousand dollars and buy a few hundred acres of farmland, then retire and had that farmland tenant-farmed, I don't deserve to earn money because I'm not doing anything?

Ok, I won't be sarcastic for a change.

If you buy a few acres of farmland and try to make money out of it, you have to face competition from other seller.
If all of them are as small as you no problem. If they are bigger hen this might be a problem : they can work more efficiently than you, and then make you bankrupt. No problem here, it's capitalism, it's all about efficiency.
Now two things : First without social care, you're good for the street, despite your hard work.
Second, there is other way to make you go bankrupt : for instance dumping. lowering your prices under the cost of production for a time to kill concurrents. The fact that you choose farming is very interesting, because they have a lot of problem now : the supermarket have agreements with the big corporation such as Materne, Danone... and can't sell their product at a correct price.

Capitalism work well when you cannot control the prices directly.

it's only an example, I could go on and on about University easily available to the rich thus giving an unfair advantage to their child (the correct answer being accessibility to all of course) the fact that you don't have to work to get that capital, the subtle way of fooling the system when you are on top of it, the jobs necessary but overlooked, ....

[ed boy]

University most available to the rich?

Over in the UK, the people with rich parents who go to expensive schools have to do much more to get university places. University offers should not be based on your income, yet the poor get much better offers than the rich.

[Leafsnail]

University most available to the rich?

Over in the UK, the people with rich parents who go to expensive schools have to do much more to get university places. University offers should not be based on your income, yet the poor get much better offers than the rich.

I'd... like to see a source on that.  Top universities generally have a lot more people from private schools in them.  And there's nothing forcing people to send their children to private schools if they perform worse...

[kuro_suna]

So you're all saying if I earn a few hundred thousand dollars and buy a few hundred acres of farmland, then retire and had that farmland tenant-farmed, I don't deserve to earn money because I'm not doing anything?

On the other hand are you ok with being tenant farmer that has no chance of ever being more than slave due to a total monopoly on land. This is a reality in many African and middle eastern countries and seems like the worst fear come true of capitalism devolving into something resembling medieval Europe.

EDIT:
The problem I have is it seems like the libertarian utopia would look like North Korea except the government would call itself a corporation and justify its power through a monopoly on land and transportation.

[ed boy]

I'd... like to see a source on that.  Top universities generally have a lot more people from private schools in them.  And there's nothing forcing people to send their children to private schools if they perform worse...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205360/Poor-students-given-grade-head-start-applying-university-places.html

As for top univsities with more private school people, that's because people who go to private schools tend to be smarter than those who go to state schools.

[Leafsnail]

You're taking the Daily Mail as a source?  The same paper that called Nick Clegg a Nazi?

(Interestingly, the Daily Mail actually supported the Nazis.  Making it even more hilariously retarded).

In any case, there's an easy way to justify it.  If you've done well in spite of going to a state school, you're probably smarter than someone who did well at a private school.

[Phmcw]

"Last night, critics slammed the schemes as an indictment of the Government's failure to improve state schools."

That mean that not only is it more difficult for poor poeple to pay for the university fee, but also that their children had crappy hight school. Double discrimination, that your minister stupidly proposed to counter with another discrimination. Also it's a project, done in response to the very problem I was pointing out.

[ed boy]

You're taking the Daily Mail as a source?  The same paper that called Nick Clegg a Nazi?

It was the first result that google popped up for me.

In any case, there's an easy way to justify it.  If you've done well in spite of going to a state school, you're probably smarter than someone who did well at a private school.

The exams are the same across the country, regardless of the school. There is only observed to be a correlation between private schools and exam results, not causation. It may be that private schools cause people to be smart, private schools attract people who are already smart, or something else might cause the both of them.

That mean that not only is it more difficult for poor poeple to pay for the university fee, but also that their children had crappy hight school. Double discrimination, that your minister stupidly proposed to counter with another discrimination. Also it's a project, done in response to the very problem I was pointing out.

Don't be so quick to use the word discrimination in such a way. Discrimination is indeed treating people differently, but it is only bad when the discriminatory factor is unrelated to the task at hand. Let us imaigne that I was looking for someone to play basketball professionally. Discriminating people based on their physical attributes would be okay, as they are relevant to playing basketball. Discriminating people based on their skin colour is not.

As for the problems with state schools, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

[Leafsnail]

The exams are the same across the country, regardless of the school. There is only observed to be a correlation between private schools and exam results, not causation. It may be that private schools cause people to be smart, private schools attract people who are already smart, or something else might cause the both of them.

Not what I meant.

Think about it - who's smarter, the guy who goes to the best school in the country and gets straight A's like everyone else there, or the one who went to a terrible school where most kids get nothing at all and still managed to get straight A's?

[Sir Pseudonymous]

The problem I have is it seems like the libertarian utopia would look like North Korea except the government would call itself a corporation and justify its power through a monopoly on land and transportation.

In a libertarian utopia everyone would be a rugged survivalist with a small cabin in the woods that protects themselves from bandits and them gubmint folk with their daddy's old huntin' rifle and their manly perma-stubble. :3

[ed boy]

Think about it - who's smarter, the guy who goes to the best school in the country and gets straight A's like everyone else there, or the one who went to a terrible school where most kids get nothing at all and still managed to get straight A's?

Well, I think it would be best to define what precisely we mean when we say "smart".