Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If capitalism is based around creating inequality

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If capitalism is based around creating inequality

    How could more “market freedom” ever result in the opposite? Because that seems pretty illogical to me.

  • #2
    Originally posted by tOSUfanboi2 View Post
    How could more “market freedom” ever result in the opposite? Because that seems pretty illogical to me.
    Thought this was a Spartan thread. I'm for regulating capitalism. The problem in either capitalism or socialism is the same problem you face elsewhere is that people suck.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tOSUfanboi2 View Post
      How could more “market freedom” ever result in the opposite? Because that seems pretty illogical to me.
      because you can only be in the market if you have money. Its like this - if you have 1000 bucks to play the stocks the max you can ever make in a lifetime is 10x or 10K - if you have 1M to play in the stock market you can make 10M - so what would give you freedom to do or buy shit? 10K or 10M? 10K wouldn't buy you a car but 10M would buy you tons of shit.

      freedom means different things to different people - to someone making minimum wage - it means freedom to buy a beer and drinking it in his living room. to someone making middle income - it means going on vacation and drinking a beer in a resort- to the ultra rich - it means buying a yacht and drinking beer on a boat anchored in St. Tropez
      Last edited by sctrojan; 03-13-2021, 08:44 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by sctrojan View Post

        because you can only be in the market if you have money. Its like this - if you have 1000 bucks to play the stocks the max you can ever make in a lifetime is 10x or 10K - if you have 1M to play in the stock market you can make 10M - so what would give you freedom to do or buy shit? 10K or 10M? 10K wouldn't buy you a car but 10M would buy you tons of shit.

        freedom means different things to different people - to someone making minimum wage - it means freedom to buy a beer and drinking it in his living room. to someone making middle income - it means going on vacation and drinking a beer in a resort- to the ultra rich - it means buying a yacht and drinking beer on a boat anchored in St. Tropez
        Sct may be painfully bad at math, but he's absolutely correct. In capitalism, your "freedom" isn't the same as the wealthy's "freedom." It's not even meant to be the same. The vast majority of working people are supposed to be satisfied with whatever scraps the wealthy offer to keep them quiet. And if the wealthy change the rules because the poors figured out a way to exploit systems that the wealthy created to benefit the wealthy? Poor people just need to get over that, too.

        I don't believe in socialism because the economy will not benefit people more in the hands of few wealthy people any more than it will in the hands of many wealthy people. But American style capitalism is broken beyond repair because it's already in the hands of the few wealthy people. We have accepted that monopolies are good for us because if wealthy people have more money, they're going to hire more people, right? But this horse and sparrow bullshit is the worst combination of what people think socialism is and the shortcomings of capitalism.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tOSUfanboi2 View Post
          How could more “market freedom” ever result in the opposite? Because that seems pretty illogical to me.
          I like Capitalism to an extent, but you have to do something to even the playing field for kids as well as cap the top. Such as you can make up to a billion, everything after that goes to schools, etc.

          I mean if we actually broke up monopolies that would be a start.

          Bell systems was worth 150 billion(equivalent to $370 billion in 2019) and it was broken up. Apple is worth 5-6x that 390 billion Bell was worth.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by FuqMizzou View Post

            I like Capitalism to an extent, but you have to do something to even the playing field for kids as well as cap the top. Such as you can make up to a billion, everything after that goes to schools, etc.

            I mean if we actually broke up monopolies that would be a start.

            Bell systems was worth 150 billion(equivalent to $370 billion in 2019) and it was broken up. Apple is worth 5-6x that 390 billion Bell was worth.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System
            The AT&T breakup was an illusion. It sounded good on the news, but they never suffered for it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by daCat View Post

              The AT&T breakup was an illusion. It sounded good on the news, but they never suffered for it.
              I don't know what that means, they no longer exist as an entity and numerous others spun off from it.

              Microsoft, Apple, Google, and many other could be broken out into parts.

              But thy won't.

              Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by FuqMizzou View Post
                I don't know what that means, they no longer exist as an entity and numerous others spun off from it.

                Microsoft, Apple, Google, and many other could be broken out into parts.

                But thy won't.

                Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
                https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...up-spinoff.asp

                The government loosened telecommunications restrictions, and the Baby Bells began to merge and buy out each other to increase their service areas. By 2018, most of the Bells were together again as a single company called AT&T.

                As of 2019, AT&T was a telecommunications giant, led by its mobile and fixed telephone services. It also made a big move into the media space, acquiring DirecTV in 2015 and Time Warner in 2018.
                +

                Comment


                • #9
                  I know a lot of them merged back, then break them up again. Eventually they'll get the point.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Spartan View Post

                    Sct may be painfully bad at math, but he's absolutely correct. In capitalism, your "freedom" isn't the same as the wealthy's "freedom." It's not even meant to be the same. The vast majority of working people are supposed to be satisfied with whatever scraps the wealthy offer to keep them quiet. And if the wealthy change the rules because the poors figured out a way to exploit systems that the wealthy created to benefit the wealthy? Poor people just need to get over that, too.

                    I don't believe in socialism because the economy will not benefit people more in the hands of few wealthy people any more than it will in the hands of many wealthy people. But American style capitalism is broken beyond repair because it's already in the hands of the few wealthy people. We have accepted that monopolies are good for us because if wealthy people have more money, they're going to hire more people, right? But this horse and sparrow bullshit is the worst combination of what people think socialism is and the shortcomings of capitalism.
                    Someone is always going to try and exploit the system whether its a system whether the means of production are owned privately or publicly. Which is why you need regulation but regulation is always a never ending war. Because people will always be trying to exploit the system whatever it is.

                    People like capitalism because they have hopes that they will become the wealthy people through competition or innovation. That they can become Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, etc. Also its hard to get people to sign off to government takeover things when you see what that can turn into in other countries. Its also hard to do here because government is made up of those wealthy people. Who are not going to willingly give up their power. Especially you have rubes who will vote for them. We have Ivy league lawyers running like they are blue collar workers making fun of country club elites when the last President they supported owns and now lives at a country club. Also their favorite guy on Fox went to bordering school in Switzerland. Then the other side rather than just make the class argument and try to win on that they want to sort people into boxes making appeals based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. How does it help people living in poverty to split them up in that way? Does this help break up monopiles? Does it take power from the wealthy elites?
                    Last edited by TTURedRaider; 03-14-2021, 04:48 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

                      Someone is always going to try and exploit the system whether its a system whether the means of production are owned privately or publicly. Which is why you need regulation but regulation is always a never ending war. Because people will always be trying to exploit the system whatever it is.

                      People like capitalism because they have hopes that they will become the wealthy people through competition or innovation. That they can become Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, etc. Also its hard to get people to sign off to government takeover things when you see what that can turn into in other countries. Its also hard to do here because government is made up of those wealthy people. Who are not going to willingly give up their power. Especially you have rubes who will vote for them. We have Ivy league lawyers running like they are blue collar workers making fun of country club elites when the last President they supported owns and now lives at a country club. Also their favorite guy on Fox went to bordering school in Switzerland. Then the other side rather than just make the class argument and try to win on that they want to sort people into boxes making appeals based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. How does it help people living in poverty to split them up in that way? Does this help break up monopiles? Does it take power from the wealthy elites?
                      Huh. You make some solid points. Progressives — especially younger ones — seem obsessed with fitting people into boxes. They also seem to want to add as many boxes as they possibly can. No one can be left out. I’ve often wondered if this is an outgrowth of being part of a generation in which everyone gets a trophy. But, their litany of exotic causes has the effect of becoming noise. It’s distracting. And, it seems more about being the most woke individual on social media than anything else.

                      It reminds me a skit with Steve Buscemi playing the Mad Hatter on SNL. Which, by the way, is Buscemi improving at his creepiest.

                      https://nbc.app.link/KfmzmhWpEeb

                      But, if you insert the word Woke for Mad, this is basically what it’s like with these people on social media. Each of them trying to out-woke the other.

                      It’s not like they’re trying to affect actual change. It’s all for show. It’s people pretending to be deep but whom are actually quite shallow.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

                        Someone is always going to try and exploit the system whether its a system whether the means of production are owned privately or publicly. Which is why you need regulation but regulation is always a never ending war. Because people will always be trying to exploit the system whatever it is.

                        People like capitalism because they have hopes that they will become the wealthy people through competition or innovation. That they can become Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, etc. Also its hard to get people to sign off to government takeover things when you see what that can turn into in other countries. Its also hard to do here because government is made up of those wealthy people. Who are not going to willingly give up their power. Especially you have rubes who will vote for them. We have Ivy league lawyers running like they are blue collar workers making fun of country club elites when the last President they supported owns and now lives at a country club. Also their favorite guy on Fox went to bordering school in Switzerland. Then the other side rather than just make the class argument and try to win on that they want to sort people into boxes making appeals based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. How does it help people living in poverty to split them up in that way? Does this help break up monopiles? Does it take power from the wealthy elites?
                        As to the other point, I think a lot of us who grew up in the 80’s and 90’s were inundated with Michael J. Fox movies, like Secret of My Success, which more or less illustrates your above point. If you just try really hard, think creatively and never give up, great things will come your way. Fun fact... this is certainly true for some, but it’s still the exception and not the rule. To wit, most of the guys you mentioned had all manner of advantages growing up. Cuban might be the exception, having attended Indiana University... which is still a top-10 business school. If you grew up in coal country, watching Fox outwit New York as a concierge had to be like seeing another world.

                        The allure of capitalism is greed. And, this is perhaps best encapsulated in Gordon Gekko’s speech in the movie Wall Street.

                        https://youtu.be/PF_iorX_MAw

                        “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

                          Someone is always going to try and exploit the system whether its a system whether the means of production are owned privately or publicly. Which is why you need regulation but regulation is always a never ending war. Because people will always be trying to exploit the system whatever it is.

                          People like capitalism because they have hopes that they will become the wealthy people through competition or innovation. That they can become Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, etc. Also its hard to get people to sign off to government takeover things when you see what that can turn into in other countries. Its also hard to do here because government is made up of those wealthy people. Who are not going to willingly give up their power. Especially you have rubes who will vote for them. We have Ivy league lawyers running like they are blue collar workers making fun of country club elites when the last President they supported owns and now lives at a country club. Also their favorite guy on Fox went to bordering school in Switzerland. Then the other side rather than just make the class argument and try to win on that they want to sort people into boxes making appeals based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. How does it help people living in poverty to split them up in that way? Does this help break up monopiles? Does it take power from the wealthy elites?
                          I do believe that the social aspect is important. There are serious problems that, no matter how much is done on the economic side, will continue to negatively affect groups of minorities.

                          However, I have come to recognize that the economic side is utterly vital and that no changes made on the social side will stick until economics have been addressed. The same people who have a vested interest in robbing the vast majority of Americans are the ones who push perpetuate the social problems as a means of control while virtue signaling their belief that those same problems are important on their corporate social media accounts. And as much as you personally may hate to hear this, that goes for international interventions, too. They use the exact same yellow journalism to drum up the need to send Americans to kill people in Syria or Iran or North Korea because it will make them more money and rallying people around a cause make them easier to control. The economics must be addressed so that their outsized voice in society can be brought down to size.

                          If that makes me a socialist, so be it. But I honestly believe that this path is the most likely one to eventually lead is out of the situation that we're in before it turns to collapse and dissolution of the Union.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Deschet View Post

                            Huh. You make some solid points. Progressives — especially younger ones — seem obsessed with fitting people into boxes. They also seem to want to add as many boxes as they possibly can. No one can be left out. I’ve often wondered if this is an outgrowth of being part of a generation in which everyone gets a trophy. But, their litany of exotic causes has the effect of becoming noise. It’s distracting. And, it seems more about being the most woke individual on social media than anything else.

                            It reminds me a skit with Steve Buscemi playing the Mad Hatter on SNL. Which, by the way, is Buscemi improving at his creepiest.

                            https://nbc.app.link/KfmzmhWpEeb

                            But, if you insert the word Woke for Mad, this is basically what it’s like with these people on social media. Each of them trying to out-woke the other.

                            It’s not like they’re trying to affect actual change. It’s all for show. It’s people pretending to be deep but whom are actually quite shallow.
                            Don't pretend that it's just the young or the left who virtue signal. Rafael Cruz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lorena Boebert are each quite good at it. As are their followers. It's an outgrowth of social media. They can show how committed they are to a cause without actually doing anything for likes. More likes mean more people like them. And people liking them mean that they can finally be the cool kids for once.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Deschet View Post

                              As to the other point, I think a lot of us who grew up in the 80’s and 90’s were inundated with Michael J. Fox movies, like Secret of My Success, which more or less illustrates your above point. If you just try really hard, think creatively and never give up, great things will come your way. Fun fact... this is certainly true for some, but it’s still the exception and not the rule. To wit, most of the guys you mentioned had all manner of advantages growing up. Cuban might be the exception, having attended Indiana University... which is still a top-10 business school. If you grew up in coal country, watching Fox outwit New York as a concierge had to be like seeing another world.

                              The allure of capitalism is greed. And, this is perhaps best encapsulated in Gordon Gekko’s speech in the movie Wall Street.

                              https://youtu.be/PF_iorX_MAw

                              “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."
                              If we're talking movies, I'd argue that the height of the pro capitalist, anti leftist, manufactured selling of the American dream is Forrest Gump.

                              On the one hand, you have a simple man who follows the rules, does as he's told, joins the army and becomes a war hero. He makes millions of dollars just by being there and staying between the lines.

                              On the other hand, you have a woman who leaves home early, associates with minorities and radicals, and tries to live a life outside the constraints of mainstream culture. After she fulfills her biological imperative and gives the man a son who sees dead people, she gets sick and dies an early death.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X