• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Do the rich steal from the poor? Capitalism

But, in my opinion, rich people should have the FREEDOM to be selfish assholes.

And poor people should have the FREEDOM to be rich, and yet that opposes the interests of the rich, and thus some mechanisms act, by nature or design, as barriers to social class mobility restricting the freedom of the masses.
 
We are arguing for income redistribution? There is income redistribution in the United States..I believe the top class pays 35%, while other classes pay less in taxes. It is a progressive tax system. Many feel that it will become even more so with the new administration.

And many of those that 'very rich' people are now suffering like 'those poor' people. Just to show how volatile wealth can be. Whatever 'wealth' is..

Auto, I was right, I'll show you my source later..
 
Erne by rich do you mean accummulate a big pile of cash ?
 

And poor people should have the FREEDOM to be rich.

They do.

Ask any of the MILLIONS of people who came to this beautiful country of ours with NOTHING - MANY NOT EVEN KNOWING THE LANGUAGE - MANY OF WHOM WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST MERELY FOR THEIR RELIGION/ETHNICITY - and who worked their motherfucking asses off, and took the time and energy to learn English, and who valued family and education, and who sacrificed so that their children could have it better than they had it, and so on and so on.

It's Two Thousand And Fucking Nine!

And I had thought that it had been well established that this is THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY many many many decades ago.

You (the universal "you") can keep making excuses, or, in the alternative, you can get off your motherfucking ass and make something of yourself.
 
The point is, SURE, in a vacuum, overall utility might actually rise if the billionaire is taxed at a much higher rate than the pauper.

But that neglects three extremely important things:

(1) That the billionaire entrepreneur *IS* discouraged from taking risks when the tax on his potential successes are dramatically increased - and these are risks that when he takes them, and they are successful, benefit EVERYONE;

Is he discouraged? Or does he simply have to work harder for it? Which in turn means he would do more 'good works'? The human desire for acquiring power isn't going away anytime soon. It should be harnessed for the common good.
and

(2) It simply IS NOT FAIR.
Oh, boo the fuck hoo. It's also not fair to be born into circumstances where acquiring an education and the means to wealth are not realistic.
I've never met either one of them in my life, but I would bet just about anything that Bill and Melinda Gates feel a whole lot better about all of the help they do because they got to CHOOSE to donate humongous amounts of money, rather than if the exact same amount of money was STOLEN from them by poor people (via the government, of course) through ridiculously high taxes on the successful.

This point is mute, because the government provides tax relief for such charity. Also, its rather ironic that you would use bill as an example because he believes the rich should be taxed more. Also, I don't care if the rich 'feel better' about their contributions, I care about how effective those contributions are.

and
(3) Further, when people who NEED actually CONTRIBUTE (anything - make a product, sell a service, write a song, play the trumpet on the subway platform, ask someone for help POLITELY and actually contribute utility via politeness - ANYTHING), I guarantee you that they feel a whole lot better about themselves than if they were to receive the money by government handout.

Your perspective seems skewed about how taxes are actually spent. I don't have the budget in front of me, but on the whole, most goes to the military. Most of the rest goes into services not 'handouts'. Schools, roads, hospitals, infrastructure, shit the rich need just like the poor.
As to your statement that "everyone should be paying what they can toward the common good," that's a fine personal opinion to have, but your opinion, in my opinion, does NOT give the government the right to play Robin Hood.

No the collective will of the people does.

I thought that this past century has shown that, even with its flaws, Capitalism is CLEARLY preferable to any other economic system that's been tried.

Yes it generally is because of the general principal of 'not putting all your eggs in one basket.' Not because unrestricted economic agents lead to good societies. We've had that, it was called Feudalism.
And as to the original thread title of "Do The Rich Seal From The Poor," I would answer this:

SOME rich people/corporations do indeed take advantage of SOME of the less sophisticated, and that is a shame.

Oh, you think?
But for every one of those people and corporations, I can point to a boatload of people (professional entertainers, people/corporations who are ethical and actually DO NOT take advantage of the poor, and who actually treat their employees well, because they feel better about themselves by doing so - the list goes on and on and on).

This wouldn't even be relevant if it weren't the exception.

And as to taxing the rich SLIGHTLY more, just so we can give the lazy and the irresponsible enough so they won't start a revolution, I personally consider that to be self-defense - a coerced "choice" by the successful to give out hand-outs so that evil envious people will have less incentive to do evil things to those whom they envy.

This is about as selfish and cynical of a statement as I've ever read or heard. Are you really this afraid of people?
And thanks for the "enjoy your self satisfying rationalizations" in your post to me, Shakti - was that you "substantively engaging" this conversation, or, alternatively, just a cheap ad-hom?

Not ad-hom, but an attack none the less. Did it not work?

Oh, how viciously people will defend what is 'theirs'.

I really question your assertion that the rich 'are the most productive.' It seems to me that your definition of the value of actions is its ability to produce wealth. This is ridiculous. There is a certain type of individual that can contribute nothing to society because he is rich and he gets richer. Furthermore our emphasis on personal material wealth has endangered the survival of our species do to excessive consumption. This is something the rich are certainly generally guilty of. The combo of increased production and consumption by the rich is destabilizing our grasp on survival. Also, the rich elevate it be of great importance and dupe a great deal of people into greater consumption, which only exacerbates the problem.

I want to ask you, what is money good for if not being used for the general welfare of humanity? We can question the general efficacy of current governmental programs all we like, that is a different issue, but in general are not taxes put to this purpose? Is that stealing? Is that not our collective will?
 
Last edited:
Do those with capital exploit those without? yes.

yes, we do. we = the people in the western industrial-states.
and im not sayin im guilt-free- im owning more money than its comfortable with me. the feeling that i do own things that were taken away from others (even if i didnt do it) is pretty evil to me... so all that im able to do is this:
use that f***in money to do smth. good.
the worst part about this is that there are lots of people that have got tons of money and would never think about others and their needs...
i do benefit from capitalism but nonetheless i hate it.
 
Apology accepted for assuming.

I've been quite wealthy and I've been quite poor - such is life when one makes a nice income, has zero dependents, but has a penchant for for "investing on margin" (read: "gambling") on risky NASDAQ tech upstarts.

But my personal situation is completely beside the point.

The point is, SURE, in a vacuum, overall utility might actually rise if the billionaire is taxed at a much higher rate than the pauper.

But that neglects three extremely important things:

(1) That the billionaire entrepreneur *IS* discouraged from taking risks when the tax on his potential successes are dramatically increased - and these are risks that when he takes them, and they are successful, benefit EVERYONE;

and

(2) It simply IS NOT FAIR.

I've never met either one of them in my life, but I would bet just about anything that Bill and Melinda Gates feel a whole lot better about all of the help they do because they got to CHOOSE to donate humongous amounts of money, rather than if the exact same amount of money was STOLEN from them by poor people (via the government, of course) through ridiculously high taxes on the successful.

and

(3) Further, when people who NEED actually CONTRIBUTE (anything - make a product, sell a service, write a song, play the trumpet on the subway platform, ask someone for help POLITELY and actually contribute utility via politeness - ANYTHING), I guarantee you that they feel a whole lot better about themselves than if they were to receive the money by government handout.

As to your statement that "everyone should be paying what they can toward the common good," that's a fine personal opinion to have, but your opinion, in my opinion, does NOT give the government the right to play Robin Hood.

I thought that this past century has shown that, even with its flaws, Capitalism is CLEARLY preferable to any other economic system that's been tried.

And as to the original thread title of "Do The Rich Seal From The Poor," I would answer this:

SOME rich people/corporations do indeed take advantage of SOME of the less sophisticated, and that is a shame.

But for every one of those people and corporations, I can point to a boatload of people (professional entertainers, people/corporations who are ethical and actually DO NOT take advantage of the poor, and who actually treat their employees well, because they feel better about themselves by doing so - the list goes on and on and on).

And as to taxing the rich SLIGHTLY more, just so we can give the lazy and the irresponsible enough so they won't start a revolution, I personally consider that to be self-defense - a coerced "choice" by the successful to give out hand-outs so that evil envious people will have less incentive to do evil things to those whom they envy.

And thanks for the "enjoy your self satisfying rationalizations" in your post to me, Shakti - was that you "substantively engaging" this conversation, or, alternatively, just a cheap ad-hom?



have you ever lived for a year, being really poor?
have you ever had problems paying your rent?
have you ever had to think about where you`d get your next meal from?
have you ever noticed someone looking at you in a strange way at a supermarket because you were buying only the cheapest of all goods?

honestly, i dont think that you can even imagine what it means to be poor.
 
I think that in general profits do derive from the appropriation of the product of working classes' labor. I also think that there are exceptions of class-mobility and innovators receiving just rewards for their contributions.

You think we'd all have these neat little laptops with which to have this discussion, if, hypothetically, the people who had the intelligence, the persistence and willingness to take risks to try to invent the laptop KNEW BEFOREHAND that even IF they WERE successful in inventing the laptop, that most of their profits would be essentially stolen from them so that the unintelligent, the lazy, and the risk-averse could legally gain value without giving up anything in exchange??

Here, I believe that you are conflating individuals who allocate starting capital and individuals who provide innovative ideas. When a venture capitalist teams up with an inventor, who do you think receives the majority of the spoils? Is this just? Why?

Accordingly, do you think that the majority of scientists are motivated primarily by material gain?

Because by using that "tax the rich to the hilt because they can afford it" reasoning, that takes away their FREEDOM, and, in my opinion, FREEDOM is more important than ANYTHING.

I view the unfreedoms accorded by disparities in beginning life-circumstances as great (likely greater) a threat to us as redistribution of wealth by the state.

ebola
 

have you ever lived for a year, being really poor?


Yes.

have you ever had problems paying your rent?

Yes.

have you ever had to think about where you`d get your next meal from?

Yes.

have you ever noticed someone looking at you in a strange way at a supermarket because you were buying only the cheapest of all goods?

No - because thankfully, I do not possess the affliction of giving a shit about what strangers think about me.

honestly, i dont think that you can even imagine what it means to be poor.

Well, then you would be incorrect in your assumption.

And do you know what I did when I was in those unfortunate situations?

I ADDED FUCKING VALUE.

Be it working through graduate school,

working 100 hours a week at times,

shoveling snow as a teenager,

and most importantly, I make it a practice of helping others - this leads to solid friendships, and solid friends help each other.

Be keep guessing that I'm some add-no-value-profit-by-taking-advantage-of-people-selfish-asshole just because you're bitter that some other people are.
 
And do you know what I did when I was in those unfortunate situations?

I ADDED FUCKING VALUE.

Be it working through graduate school,

working 100 hours a week at times,

shoveling snow as a teenager,

and most importantly, I make it a practice of helping others - this leads to solid friendships, and solid friends help each other.

Be keep guessing that I'm some add-no-value-profit-by-taking-advantage-of-people-selfish-asshole just because you're bitter that some other people are.


1. no reason to be impolite. yes, im bitter about some people doing the things you mentioned above. that does NOT mean im accusing you of doing the same. i`ve just asked you some questions, nothing else.

the real problem is that capitalism makes it impossible for the biggest part of the population to "add value".


"working 100 hours a week at times,

shoveling snow as a teenager, "
--> these are possibilities that dont exist for anyone, and even if they exist - theyre only tightening existing circumstances.

"and most importantly, I make it a practice of helping others - this leads to solid friendships, and solid friends help each other."
---> yep thats cool, but is hat got nothing to do with capitalism, except that being poor makes it harder to help others, sometimes even impossible. it `ll always sound good to advise others to "help their environment" - but in most of the cases that advise comes from the people that are suckin out the blood of the lives of others.

imo youre only telling the points that every capitalist states to justify the system...
 
You think we'd all have these neat little laptops with which to have this discussion, if, hypothetically, the people who had the intelligence, the persistence and willingness to take risks to try to invent the laptop KNEW BEFOREHAND that even IF they WERE successful in inventing the laptop, that most of their profits would be essentially stolen from them so that the unintelligent, the lazy, and the risk-averse could legally gain value without giving up anything in exchange??
we have scientific and technological advancement because we want to find ways to kill people that try to stick their flag on land we want our flag to be on, and because we have entire communities of scientists (universities) dedicated to increasing our understanding of the universe and our ability to use it to its best use

you are implying that we only progress because we want profit, because we are greedy and want to step on everyone else. while some are indeed like that, many are not. so i will admit that some progress does come from economic incentive--however i also believe that most does NOT
 
How many lawyers, investment bankers, financial analysts, doctors, engineers and scientists WOULD gladly trade their careers in exchange for all of the value they COULD add by TEACHING?

But almost none of them do.

Because of money.

I largely agree with you that SOME people are driven to succeed and to add value even without financial incentives (hell - I personally invested 2,000-plus hours last year on Stand-Up Comedy and actually LOST money on comedy for the year - and it was well worth it), but I suppose where you and I differ is that I am of the opinion that not just "some" but rather, MOST talented people who work their asses off, even if SOME of it is motivated by contributing to progress, are largely motivated by economic profit.

Respect,

LL
 
They do.

Ask any of the MILLIONS of people who came to this beautiful country of ours with NOTHING - MANY NOT EVEN KNOWING THE LANGUAGE - MANY OF WHOM WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST MERELY FOR THEIR RELIGION/ETHNICITY - and who worked their motherfucking asses off, and took the time and energy to learn English, and who valued family and education, and who sacrificed so that their children could have it better than they had it, and so on and so on.

It's Two Thousand And Fucking Nine!

And I had thought that it had been well established that this is THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY many many many decades ago.

You (the universal "you") can keep making excuses, or, in the alternative, you can get off your motherfucking ass and make something of yourself.

The American dream is the biggest load of bullshit every spun, however it is a testament to the marketing ability of Americans, on the flip side it also shows how naive people are to buy into the American dream.

For every man and woman who succeded in the American dream, making it big and getting rich and SHIT, how many others failed? how many others were trampled on the way to the top? How many people were exploited by the successful American Dreamers?

Your right it is the land of opportunity. Very few people have a good chance at realizing the opportunity and even fewer will actually succeed, but many people will try, and they will work their asses off while the fat cat capitalists reap the rewards, while people work for an illusion.
 
Thuglife said:
And do you know what I did when I was in those unfortunate situations?

I ADDED FUCKING VALUE.

Be it working through graduate school,

working 100 hours a week at times,

shoveling snow as a teenager,

and most importantly, I make it a practice of helping others - this leads to solid friendships, and solid friends help each other.

Be keep guessing that I'm some add-no-value-profit-by-taking-advantage-of-people-selfish-asshole just because you're bitter that some other people are.

Yes, this is a good philosophy for guiding personal activity.
However, this does not mean that such a philosophy generalized describes society accurately.

I largely agree with you that SOME people are driven to succeed and to add value even without financial incentives (hell - I personally invested 2,000-plus hours last year on Stand-Up Comedy and actually LOST money on comedy for the year - and it was well worth it), but I suppose where you and I differ is that I am of the opinion that not just "some" but rather, MOST talented people who work their asses off, even if SOME of it is motivated by contributing to progress, are largely motivated by economic profit.

And my argument, if you looked at it, is that the current system doesn't for the most part accord monetary wards via to talent, hard work, innovative insight, etc. This entails that even under the current system, those who push our society 'forward' are already motivated primarily by other concerns. This means that systems set in motion through ethics other than the profit motive might be viable.

ebola
 
No one can refuse to work, so there is no freedom involved in the negotiation of a labour contract with an employer who has the ability to stipulate the terms of any contract to dispossessed employees who amount to little more than wage slaves living at the whim of the wealthy.
Look at interest rates or oil prices, their upward movement causes incredible suffering for the poorest, hardest working families in any country and the business channel analysts use euphemisms like "there's a softening of the labour market" to describe the experiences of these real flesh and blood people. As oposed to and was noted in another thread, the rich people who lost out in this down cycle are still rich and in the end they aren't really affected. Sure profits are down, but it's business as usual. There's a disconnect between the nightly business, money honey's economic statistics and the dispossessed people out in the real world. We need to see economics as more than just figures.
 
No one can refuse to work, so there is no freedom involved in the negotiation of a labour contract with an employer who has the ability to stipulate the terms of any contract to dispossessed employees who amount to little more than wage slaves living at the whim of the wealthy.
Look at interest rates or oil prices, their upward movement causes incredible suffering for the poorest, hardest working families in any country and the business channel analysts use euphemisms like "there's a softening of the labour market" to describe the experiences of these real flesh and blood people. As oposed to and was noted in another thread, the rich people who lost out in this down cycle are still rich and in the end they aren't really affected. Sure profits are down, but it's business as usual. There's a disconnect between the nightly business, money honey's economic statistics and the dispossessed people out in the real world. We need to see economics as more than just figures.

Indeed, when recession hits, the ill affected Rich Folks, cut down on caviar and delay the purchase of luxury autos, while Poor Folks, don't buy new clothes and don't eat as well.

Who is more affected by recession, rich people losing millions, or poor people losing tens of thousands of dollars?
 
My biggest concerns in this issue are proportionality/fairness throughout social strata and barriers to social mobility.

1) I am happy enough for people to be rewarded for adding value, however I do not believe that the people at the head of businesses/organisations need to receive such a vast share of the profit, particularly I feel the other people they need to help them (employees and other stakeholders) should receive a greater share of the profits. Therefore i would like to see measures introduced that would make sure they distribute more wealth to stakeholders, and for them to be taxed punitively if they do not. I.e. reward those who help you to succeed or lose it. I like to see the multiple between those at the top of the wage scale and those at the bottom be reduced until it came to rest at maybe a multiple of around 10x.

2) Social mobility. I do not like to see wealth being tied up within families over many generations. If you are a 'trust fund kid' what impetus is there for you to add value? I like to see inheritance tax be huge (nearly total maybe), and for it to go directly into education and healthcare for all. I'd allow those who succeed to set aside a limited (but generous) amount for their retirement and another pot for education of any offspring.
 
Money beyond a certain point is in fact simply a tool of control.

So effectively the rich are stealing the illusion of control ( sometime reality) from the poor
 
Capitalism is an archaic system, end of argument. We don't need a "wide variety of goods and services" anymore. All it does is drive greed and the division of wealth, fuck that, it is time to start worrying about the well being of others, of everyone, and stop looking up to the super rich as examples of 'success'. That isn't success, it is DISGUSTING. Anarcho-Communism FTW, we have the technology and wealth to leave this crappy system behind forever, unfortunately too many people are unwilling to change.
 
Top