What is wrong with our culture?

[Crni Vuk]

Even if you did steal their riches (and let's not sugarcoat it by calling it "taking away") you would be able to feed the people you want to feed for how long? A month? A week? A day?
.

Of course it's flawed! But it is a thought experiment, nothing more. With the intention to hightlight and pose questions. The question, of what we see as morale, or in which way the capitalistic system we have in effect right now for most of the western world, actually REALLY works to the benefit of the masses. As this is, what very often people that follow capitalism claim. The answer is, it doesn't.

The average citizen, is NOT a capitalist. You are not a capitalist and I am not a capitalist. Most of us just happen to live in that system. Just as how the average Soviet citizen was for the most part not a fanatic communist or the average citzen of the Third Reich was not a die hard Nazi. There is not much of a choice as far as the economy goes, simply because the range of your decisions is rather small. The system we currently live in, is one that is a democracy on the outside, but ruled by elites from the inside. As far as I see it, if you really value freedom, than you can not be content with the system that is in charge right now.

The question however is, as falwed as it is, if you're presented with a box and 2 buttons. One of those buttons kills 200 people, but saves billions. The other button, places billions of people at risk, of which millions will (randomly) die. But it saves the 200 people. So what do you do? You can make it even less drastic by just disseisin the 200 people.

The challange in our time is distribution. And there is a clear gab here. And you don't have to be a fanatical communist to agree on that! How to solve the problem, is a whole differnt question entirely. Of course killing the rich would solve nothing.

A rather small political and financial elite is currently runing the show. It has for decades. And it is absolutely NOT(!) a new thing. Already in the past, when ever a financial crisis happend, certain individuals and politicans had a hard time to fight banks or larger industry sectors. The US at the end of the great depression was close to a new civil war. What ever if the new deal or WW2 changed things, is a whole different question.

What we can't do, is to ignore the dangers of this wealth gab that we currently see. The effects of it can easily lead to people, the average citizen, loosing thrust in democracy and in the worst case replacing it a different, more radical system in the end. Who knows what the United states or Europe will look like in 20 or 50 years from now. Particularly if the poverty and social preasure is increasing. Even die hard republicans and conservatives, of the old guard, understand that much, since they see the current unfair distribution of wealth as very critical for the future.

Did you now what weapons Bismark used to fight communists/socialists? Socialist reforms.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

Of course it's flawed! But it is a thought experiment, nothing more. With the intention to hightlight and pose questions. The question, of what we see as morale, or in which way the capitalistic system we have in effect right now for most of the western world, actually REALLY works to the benefit of the masses. As this is, what very often people that follow capitalism claim. The answer is, it doesn't.

The average citizen, is NOT a capitalist. You are not a capitalist and I am not a capitalist. Most of us just happen to live in that system. Just as how the average Soviet citizen was for the most part not a fanatic communist or the average citzen of the Third Reich was not a die hard Nazi. There is not much of a choice as far as the economy goes, simply because the range of your decisions is rather small. The system we currently live in, is one that is a democracy on the outside, but ruled by elites from the inside. As far as I see it, if you really value freedom, than you can not be content with the system that is in charge right now.

The question however is, as falwed as it is, if you're presented with a box and 2 buttons. One of those buttons kills 200 people, but saves billions. The other button, places billions of people at risk, of which millions will (randomly) die. But it saves the 200 people. So what do you do? You can make it even less drastic by just disseisin the 200 people.

The challange in our time is distribution. And there is a clear gab here. And you don't have to be a fanatical communist to agree on that! How to solve the problem, is a whole differnt question entirely. Of course killing the rich would solve nothing.

A rather small political and financial elite is currently runing the show. It has for decades. And it is absolutely NOT(!) a new thing. Already in the past, when ever a financial crisis happend, certain individuals and politicans had a hard time to fight banks or larger industry sectors. The US at the end of the great depression was close to a new civil war. What ever if the new deal or WW2 changed things, is a whole different question.

What we can't do, is to ignore the dangers of this wealth gab that we currently see. The effects of it can easily lead to people, the average citizen, loosing thrust in democracy and in the worst case replacing it a different, more radical system in the end. Who knows what the United states or Europe will look like in 20 or 50 years from now. Particularly if the poverty and social preasure is increasing. Even die hard republicans and conservatives, of the old guard, understand that much, since they see the current unfair distribution of wealth as very critical for the future.

Did you now what weapons Bismark used to fight communists/socialists? Socialist reforms.

Capitalism does in fact work for the masses. People don't get rich by providing things nobody wants (unless they're part of the state apparatus). Every single person is a potential customer. How does that not work for the masses?

Since you mention the great depression, you might be interested in this presentation.

Just how is the current distribution unfair? Those more skilled have more than those less skilled, providing more resources for them to reproduce. This increases the chances of future human beings being more skilled or intelligent in general. If any kind of wealth distribution would be unfair, it would be complete equality.

 

[Crni Vuk]

About the New Deal. I never claimed that it saved the economy. Just saying. However, to keep large enterprises, finances and the ecnomoy unchecked, is probably the fastest way to a serious disaster.

Just how is the current distribution unfair? Those more skilled have more than those less skilled. If any kind of wealth distribution would be unfair, it would be complete equality.

You ... you are really serious with this?

Please, enlighten me how in a capitalistic system everyone can become rich or wealthy - under the assumption that wealth is in this context money and possesion.

I can present you also with "interpretations". If we still talk about this 1% and hard working rich people - I am sure many do, but let us put this a bit in to perspective, with people that earn in 1 hour more than some people earn in 1 year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-w-orlando/the-rich-arent-rich-becau_b_4791626.html
The article points out that while many rich people DO work more, they don't work necessarily always harder. And this is also shown by their life style. Big difference if you're sitting in your office, chosing your own work times, doing something you enjoy. Or if you're on your second or third shift in the hospital cleaning the vomit away. Or hard physical labor as constraction worker beeing exposed to the elements.

You will really have a very difficult time to explain to me how someone can work so much "harder" than the rest of the population while he is earning 300, 400 in some cases 1000 times more per year than the average worker. You might say, Wait! Well, they get their money for the responsibility! Because they are in charge! That risk they take must surely be compensanted! Well, compare that to the typical work of people runing public fascilities. And I am not talking about popular politicans - albeit I am not sure how much the "average" wage of a Senator is these days, but I doubt it is 400 times the wage of the average worker. I am mainly talking about people on the lower ranks, including politics. But mainly those that run hospitals, nuclear plants, that sort of stuff. Or what about military personal? They sure have a lot of responsibility! Do they earn several millions per year? Nope! A military general sure earns a lot. But not millions.

So, again. Why do you think someone, anyone, deserves millions, if not even billions? For what kind of work? The stuff Steve Jobs did? Or the people behind google? There are thousands if not millions of equally skilled engineeres and individuals out there. But because they decided to move in a completely different direction, they might never even have a chance to achieve the same success. Working as engineer in the public transportation system, might earn you good money. But it probably is not the way to become "rich" and earning millions per month. Or a mathematician working for the environmental authority, what about teachers? Police officers? Firefighters? How high is the chance to become rich trough hard work as teacher on a public school.

Or what about this guy?


Why don't we throw Trump out and give his riches to this officer. I am sure he could do a lot with that wealth as well! - I am beeing sarcastic here.

The issue and topic of the wealth gab - and the problem I am mainly talking about really - has even reached John Oliver. And it hurts the nation and it's well beeing, the social and economical stability not just today, but also for future generations.


And it has not only become a national, but actually a global problem by now.

I can tell you why we "think" the capitalistic system works - but it only works, for a very small group of people, the people that are in charge. Because it has been hammered down in our heads since childhood. Beacause every popular news paper and news programm one way or another follows it. Because there is almost no difference between the Republicans or Democrats. The big names in politics. They all do more or less the same. Serving the same financial sectors and lobbys that pay both, democrats and republicans. They simply cant lose.

This idea that every man or woman can become "rich" and succesfull trough "hard work" alone is such a pipe dream ... that I am really baffled anyone would really believe in it. YOu could also believe in the tooth fairy or to win the lotery.

Let us for a min. assume that everyone actually COULD become in a realistic way rich. What would that mean? Everyone earning 1 million dollar per year? Or even more? In which jobs do you think can this even be achieved. Certainly not as security guy doing nightshifts. Or the nurse in a retirement home. Sanitation workers? Channel Diggers? Janitors? If they all become rich, who's going to do their work? Only very few fields of work actually allow you to reach such kind of wealth. Most of the time in the financial sector. So unless we have this utopian kind of world with robots that can do every work - and ultimately taking over the world, I see no realistic scenario where EVERYONE can be rich. Under no circumstances. Not with the system we have in charge.

Hard work alone, is not more likely to make you rich than playing the lotery. Even if some COEs, like Sam Zell, sure want to tell you this! But is it actually the truth?

Sadly, reality knocks on your door, as even the most unrealistic scenario, can't provide you with it.

http://viapopuli.com/working-hard-thinking-you-will-get-rich-by-hard-work
You still stand at a $7.5 million. You couldn’t even gather HALF the wealth required.

So, what happened?

• You were someone little short of a genius
• You had a doctorate degree – an expert in your field
• You didn’t have to pay for your education – you got it free
• Your expertise was in-demand all your life
• You worked 3-5 times harder than all of your peers
• Your career is full of successes and achievements
• You lived like a hermit to cut your expenses
• You never had any major problem in your life
• You didn’t marry, you didn’t have kids
• You worked a full nonstop 40 years of your life
• You saved and managed to increase your savings

You STILL couldn’t make it even into the low-level ranks of the rich.

Because this is the truth. Plain and simple. This is the reality of 99% of the people on this planet. And when you accept this as the reality. Than you simply have to get to the conclussion, that capitalism, only benefits a very small group of people, and only a very particular group of people. Mainly those dealing with finances, money and trading. You don't even need capitalism to get a job for people or to provide them with the goods they need for their live. We do already produce to much of (almost) everything. So much, that many industries have to artifically CREATE(!) demands. It's called manufactured demands. - Before we missunderstand each other, this is not necessarily always a bad thing, it is a tool in economy and marketing. But what happens when you start to see every problem as nail? Exactly.

Our current way of life, is simply not beneficial to a large part of the population on this planet. Like a chain where the weakest part is always exploited by the stronger chain above it. And what we currently see, not just in the US, is the rich isolating them themselves. The Rich Europe from the poor parts of the world, the rich parts of Europe from the poor European states. The rich from the middle class, the middle class from the poor.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

About the New Deal. I never claimed that it saved the economy. Just saying. However, to keep large enterprises, finances and the ecnomoy unchecked, is probably the fastest way to a serious disaster.


You ... you are really serious with this?

Please, enlighten me how in a capitalistic system everyone can become rich or wealthy - under the assumption that wealth is in this context money and possesion.

I can present you also with "interpretations". If we still talk about this 1% and hard working rich people - I am sure many do, but let us put this a bit in to perspective, with people that earn in 1 hour more than some people earn in 1 year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-w-orlando/the-rich-arent-rich-becau_b_4791626.html
The article points out that while many rich people DO work more, they don't work necessarily always harder. And this is also shown by their life style. Big difference if you're sitting in your office, chosing your own work times, doing something you enjoy. Or if you're on your second or third shift in the hospital cleaning the vomit away. Or hard physical labor as constraction worker beeing exposed to the elements.

You will really have a very difficult time to explain to me how someone can work so much "harder" than the rest of the population while he is earning 300, 400 in some cases 1000 times more per year than the average worker. You might say, Wait! Well, they get their money for the responsibility! Because they are in charge! That risk they take must surely be compensanted! Well, compare that to the typical work of people runing public fascilities. And I am not talking about popular politicans - albeit I am not sure how much the "average" wage of a Senator is these days, but I doubt it is 400 times the wage of the average worker. I am mainly talking about people on the lower ranks, including politics. But mainly those that run hospitals, nuclear plants, that sort of stuff. Or what about military personal? They sure have a lot of responsibility! Do they earn several millions per year? Nope! A military general sure earns a lot. But not millions.

So, again. Why do you think someone, anyone, deserves millions, if not even billions? For what kind of work? The stuff Steve Jobs did? Or the people behind google? There are thousands if not millions of equally skilled engineeres and individuals out there. But because they decided to move in a completely different direction, they might never even have a chance to achieve the same success. Working as engineer in the public transportation system, might earn you good money. But it probably is not the way to become "rich" and earning millions per month. Or a mathematician working for the environmental authority, what about teachers? Police officers? Firefighters? How high is the chance to become rich trough hard work as teacher on a public school.

Or what about this guy?


Why don't we throw Trump out and give his riches to this officer. I am sure he could do a lot with that wealth as well! - I am beeing sarcastic here.

The issue and topic of the wealth gab - and the problem I am mainly talking about really - has even reached John Oliver. And it hurts the nation and it's well beeing, the social and economical stability not just today, but also for future generations.


And it has not only become a national, but actually a global problem by now.

I can tell you why we "think" the capitalistic system works - but it only works, for a very small group of people, the people that are in charge. Because it has been hammered down in our heads since childhood. Beacause every popular news paper and news programm one way or another follows it. Because there is almost no difference between the Republicans or Democrats. The big names in politics. They all do more or less the same. Serving the same financial sectors and lobbys that pay both, democrats and republicans. They simply cant lose.

This idea that every man or woman can become "rich" and succesfull trough "hard work" alone is such a pipe dream ... that I am really baffled anyone would really believe in it. YOu could also believe in the tooth fairy or to win the lotery.

Let us for a min. assume that everyone actually COULD become in a realistic way rich. What would that mean? Everyone earning 1 million dollar per year? Or even more? In which jobs do you think can this even be achieved. Certainly not as security guy doing nightshifts. Or the nurse in a retirement home. Sanitation workers? Channel Diggers? Janitors? If they all become rich, who's going to do their work? Only very few fields of work actually allow you to reach such kind of wealth. Most of the time in the financial sector. So unless we have this utopian kind of world with robots that can do every work - and ultimately taking over the world, I see no realistic scenario where EVERYONE can be rich. Under no circumstances. Not with the system we have in charge.

Hard work alone, is not more likely to make you rich than playing the lotery. Even if some COEs, like Sam Zell, sure want to tell you this! But is it actually the truth?

Sadly, reality knocks on your door, as even the most unrealistic scenario, can't provide you with it.

http://viapopuli.com/working-hard-thinking-you-will-get-rich-by-hard-work
You still stand at a $7.5 million. You couldn’t even gather HALF the wealth required.

So, what happened?

• You were someone little short of a genius
• You had a doctorate degree – an expert in your field
• You didn’t have to pay for your education – you got it free
• Your expertise was in-demand all your life
• You worked 3-5 times harder than all of your peers
• Your career is full of successes and achievements
• You lived like a hermit to cut your expenses
• You never had any major problem in your life
• You didn’t marry, you didn’t have kids
• You worked a full nonstop 40 years of your life
• You saved and managed to increase your savings

You STILL couldn’t make it even into the low-level ranks of the rich.

Because this is the truth. Plain and simple. This is the reality of 99% of the people on this planet. And when you accept this as the reality. Than you simply have to get to the conclussion, that capitalism, only benefits a very small group of people, and only a very particular group of people. Mainly those dealing with finances, money and trading. You don't even need capitalism to get a job for people or to provide them with the goods they need for their live. We do already produce to much of (almost) everything. So much, that many industries have to artifically CREATE(!) demands. It's called manufactured demands. - Before we missunderstand each other, this is not necessarily always a bad thing, it is a tool in economy and marketing. But what happens when you start to see every problem as nail? Exactly.

Our current way of life, is simply not beneficial to a large part of the population on this planet. Like a chain where the weakest part is always exploited by the stronger chain above it. And what we currently see, not just in the US, is the rich isolating them themselves. The Rich Europe from the poor parts of the world, the rich parts of Europe from the poor European states. The rich from the middle class, the middle class from the poor.

I never said that everyone can become rich, and I don't see why everyone should. I said that competent people can.

Who can decide what "harder" means? I find doing paperwork to be a lot harder than any physical labor, while for some people it's a breeze. Besides, it's not about how much or how hard you work, it's about the value you create.

The people who get these huge paychecks are rare, and their talents are needed. Of course they are going to be paid far more than someone doing a job anyone can do.

People who run private hospitals and nuclear plants also make good money, I would imagine. And you can't really compare the importance of a producer to a general.

Steve Jobs and the guys at Google earned millions because they gave the people what they wanted. What a perfect example of capitalism not catering to the masses.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I never said that everyone can become rich, and I don't see why everyone should. I said that competent people can.

Yes, in the same sense as when you say that competent people can win the lotery or find oil under their (seemingly) worthless ground.

The question isn't if people can become rich or not. The question is if the capitalistic system, which BENEFITS the rich, is actually one that works for the MAJORITY of the population. Because, as far as I know, we are not using democracy because it is a benefit to a small part of the population.

Your idea is (I guess?) that someone can get rich trough his skill and hard work. I think, maybe one from 100 000. If ever. Which puts it almost in the same ballpark as wining the lottery. And the fun fact is. Hard work alone, doesn't make anyone rich. Like ever.

Not mathematically. Not economically. Not realistically. That is if we completely excluse luck from the equation, like finding Oil on your ground.

How do you actually get rich? Not by hard work. But by making others hard work. And earning the profits while paying the workers a small as possible salary.

This is true for Jobs as it was for the Google guys, the people behind Amazon and Bill Gates. No matter if they worked 9, 10 or 12 hours per day, each day in their own offices. They would have never ever made their fortune, if they had not OTHERS work for THEM. I am not even saying this with the intention to judge. This is a part of owning a company. That's ok! There are millions of people out there owning their own buisness, and they do work hard as well. But just a very very small fraction of the population, is making the same kind of income as Jobs did with Apple. Or as any COE of a very large company, like Sony, Ford, BP, you name it. And their income only skyrocketed at a certain point. That is trough capital. Not their skill.

The plane truth is. You simply can't get rich just by hard working or selling your skill alone. That's simply not doable. Or it would be a lot more common! But it isnt.

According to the IRS, which recently released 2009 data from the 400 richest individual income tax returns, the real runaway growth in wealth has come from capital gains. In the last years of the bubble, the "Fortunate 400" made nearly half their income from capital gains (a.k.a.: profit from the rising value of an investment, such as stocks or property) and less than 10% of their income from old-fashioned wages. The average income of a top-400 earner grew by 650% between 1992 and 2007 to a whopping $344 million. Over that time, the average salary barely doubled. But the average capital gains haul increased by 1,200%. How do the richest get richer? Not from their wages. From their investments. (...) Derek Thompson, The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...est-400-people-in-america-got-so-rich/259520/

My point is, the capitalistic system as we have it in place now, at least the one we followed for the last 30 years, since Reagan, only benefits a VERY SMALL portion of the population.

The people who get these huge paychecks are rare, and their talents are needed. Of course they are going to be paid far more than someone doing a job anyone can do.

No, no it isnt. At some point, the wealth you earn is completely seperated from the skill and value that you can bring to the table. Because the money that we are talking about, simply is in no relation to the work they do. Be it as COE, or what ever. As much as people respect Jobs, Gates etc. but there is no amount of skill or work that can be put in relation with billions of dollars which are gained only by the use of capital. Like trough investments or stocks.

Someone like Gates can make billions, because most of his employes earn only a very small part of the profits that his company makes. Not because Gates is doing all the "work" alone trough his "skill". - Which doesn't mean that he is not a very intelligent man or that he doesn't possess skill. But many do. I would even argue that there are more or at least equally skilled people out there. It's just that when it comes to dividing the cake, he as individual get's the biggest piece.

Steve Jobs and the guys at Google earned millions because they gave the people what they wanted. What a perfect example of capitalism not catering to the masses.

Again. THe point is not if capitalism is catering to the masses, but if it is actually beneficial to the masses. If it actually helps the people. Or if it only helps a small part of the population. Right now, the wealth gab has done nothing but increasing, while mobility has decreased. If that is how capitalism is meant to be benefical to the masses ... than we both have a very different definition of beneficial.

 

[DVL]

My brother works as a nurse and hospital systems are textbook examples of where capitalism is flawed and not some perfect system adjusted by the Invisible Hand.

His first job was in a step-down floor that is way understaffed and has high turn over as young nurses quit the job as soon as they get something better. Mind you, this is a dirty job where you're dealing with the demented, pathologically obese and/or the infirm. You have to help them go to the bathroom and clean them. And when you're understaffed, being yelled at by cranky or insane patients and working 12-hour shifts, it becomes stressful.

Now mind you, this isn't a poor hospital by any means. Its medical school is lauded as a national leader and the areas around the hospital is rampant with construction, to the point that old roads are built-built over, dead-end in odd places and where it becomes near impossible to find parking. Some of these buildings are affiliated schools for other healthcare professions or expansions of the original hospital campus. But his system is flagrantly anti-union and keeps sending him to seminars about "compassion fatigue" which he regards as a useless waste of time. He's overworked in a job with a great deal of responsibility and some personal health risk. Doctors and nurses who were grandfathered-in get dramatically better benefits than he'd receive if he stayed with the system for two decades. If you have money to pay, then your actual level of care is demonstrably better than if you do not.

Non-sexy functions of the hospital, like this unit, just go understaffed and ignored. There is no incentive to because it has little bearing on the hospital's prestige. But you need it the way that cars need tires.

My brother grumbles that while this system wants to claim to be the cutting edge in medicine, it doesn't really want to pay to be the best by trying to retain staff or treating them well. They'd sooner subcontract for a weekend rather than hire new nurses. It may pretend to value his loyalty but its behavior says otherwise. And it distracts from the actual issue by pretending that there's some endemic problem with healthcare culture or something.

It's gotten to the point where he mistrusts letting the management schedule his shifts for him, and while he doesn't say so, I can now interpret this as just a disrespect for his time and symptomatic of the issues laid out above. You can't have a nurse work three 12-hour graveyard shifts back-to-back. A person needs time in between to catch up on sleep and just be human. And this isn't possible if you were up late last night come home and barely have time to decompress. There are days when he's more a pizza and soda-fueled zombie than a person. And mind you, this is a job where it actually makes sense for your workers to be as sane as possible because of their responsibilities.

I can draw deliberate parallels to triple A gaming. Capitalism doesn't always incentivize actually carrying out your ostensible mission, but pretending that you do while cutting corners for the bottom line. I need point no further than Bethesda to tell you that they are just riding around in the hollow shell of the Fallout IP to show you that companies will pretend just fine that they're carrying out some mission that they're not. There are horror stories about being in QA for video games and it really doesn't look much different from the hospital situation above.

Nobody is proposing you take money from people and reassign it, but the wealth disparity issue is still obvious. If you have capital then you get richer simply for having it. It's a system that rewards you for having inertia, and punishes you for trying to change it, not necessarily because you produce value.

Again gaming is still a great example. People would pay for a Half-Life 3 or a true-to-lore Fallout game. It's not theoretically impossible. Those are things that have value, but they'll never happen in practice.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Now go and tell your brother that he can become (probably™) rich, a millionair or even a bilionair, all he has to do is just to work hard enough in his current job.

*Edit
This idea, that in our current system, EVERYONE, regardless of his profession has a chance to become wealthy (in the sense of owning/earning a ton of money), simply trough hard work, is an outright lie. I have no other way to say this. Infact almost no one can actually gain a lot of wealth trough his job.

 

[DVL]

Even then, getting rich isn't his goal. What he really wants is a little bit of justice in how he does his job and some more benefits, but instead the board gives itself bonuses.

 

[Theinnerfish]

First and foremost Crni Vuk, you're a cool person reading Sapolsky

Anyway i know i'm falling from the sky to this argument however capitalism does not favor or nurture hard working. It favors being innovative, deviant, daring, sly, relentless and flexible. I find this belief about capitalism that it holds hard work in high place, rather silly.

Like it's the only defining difference and strength of capitalism that it's not about hard work.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

Yes, in the same sense as when you say that competent people can win the lotery or find oil under their (seemingly) worthless ground.

The question isn't if people can become rich or not. The question is if the capitalistic system, which BENEFITS the rich, is actually one that works for the MAJORITY of the population. Because, as far as I know, we are not using democracy because it is a benefit to a small part of the population.

Your idea is (I guess?) that someone can get rich trough his skill and hard work. I think, maybe one from 100 000. If ever. Which puts it almost in the same ballpark as wining the lottery. And the fun fact is. Hard work alone, doesn't make anyone rich. Like ever.

Not mathematically. Not economically. Not realistically. That is if we completely excluse luck from the equation, like finding Oil on your ground.

How do you actually get rich? Not by hard work. But by making others hard work. And earning the profits while paying the workers a small as possible salary.

This is true for Jobs as it was for the Google guys, the people behind Amazon and Bill Gates. No matter if they worked 9, 10 or 12 hours per day, each day in their own offices. They would have never ever made their fortune, if they had not OTHERS work for THEM. I am not even saying this with the intention to judge. This is a part of owning a company. That's ok! There are millions of people out there owning their own buisness, and they do work hard as well. But just a very very small fraction of the population, is making the same kind of income as Jobs did with Apple. Or as any COE of a very large company, like Sony, Ford, BP, you name it. And their income only skyrocketed at a certain point. That is trough capital. Not their skill.

The plane truth is. You simply can't get rich just by hard working or selling your skill alone. That's simply not doable. Or it would be a lot more common! But it isnt.

According to the IRS, which recently released 2009 data from the 400 richest individual income tax returns, the real runaway growth in wealth has come from capital gains. In the last years of the bubble, the "Fortunate 400" made nearly half their income from capital gains (a.k.a.: profit from the rising value of an investment, such as stocks or property) and less than 10% of their income from old-fashioned wages. The average income of a top-400 earner grew by 650% between 1992 and 2007 to a whopping $344 million. Over that time, the average salary barely doubled. But the average capital gains haul increased by 1,200%. How do the richest get richer? Not from their wages. From their investments. (...) Derek Thompson, The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...est-400-people-in-america-got-so-rich/259520/

My point is, the capitalistic system as we have it in place now, at least the one we followed for the last 30 years, since Reagan, only benefits a VERY SMALL portion of the population.


No, no it isnt. At some point, the wealth you earn is completely seperated from the skill and value that you can bring to the table. Because the money that we are talking about, simply is in no relation to the work they do. Be it as COE, or what ever. As much as people respect Jobs, Gates etc. but there is no amount of skill or work that can be put in relation with billions of dollars which are gained only by the use of capital. Like trough investments or stocks.

Someone like Gates can make billions, because most of his employes earn only a very small part of the profits that his company makes. Not because Gates is doing all the "work" alone trough his "skill". - Which doesn't mean that he is not a very intelligent man or that he doesn't possess skill. But many do. I would even argue that there are more or at least equally skilled people out there. It's just that when it comes to dividing the cake, he as individual get's the biggest piece.


Again. THe point is not if capitalism is catering to the masses, but if it is actually beneficial to the masses. If it actually helps the people. Or if it only helps a small part of the population. Right now, the wealth gab has done nothing but increasing, while mobility has decreased. If that is how capitalism is meant to be benefical to the masses ... than we both have a very different definition of beneficial.

I don't understand why you obsess over the idea that everyone should become rich, and talk as if someone is saying that everyone can. Of course you have to choose a marketable profession, and people generally tend to choose the highest-paying jobs they are capable of doing. If you don't like the fact that most people aren't smart and wonderful, and are incompetent to become rich, you should blame it on mother nature before any man-made system.

I know a man who went from being a heroin-addicted absolute nothing to a millionaire because he saw an opportunity and seized it.

Hard work can help you, but it's not the most important. The most important thing is having a product that's in demand, even if it's your labor.

If the people like their iTrinkets better than what you would think is good for them, that's their prerogative. If something bad happens to them as a result of it, I say call it natural selection and move on.

My brother works as a nurse and hospital systems are textbook examples of where capitalism is flawed and not some perfect system adjusted by the Invisible Hand.

His first job was in a step-down floor that is way understaffed and has high turn over as young nurses quit the job as soon as they get something better. Mind you, this is a dirty job where you're dealing with the demented, pathologically obese and/or the infirm. You have to help them go to the bathroom and clean them. And when you're understaffed, being yelled at by cranky or insane patients and working 12-hour shifts, it becomes stressful.

Now mind you, this isn't a poor hospital by any means. Its medical school is lauded as a national leader and the areas around the hospital is rampant with construction, to the point that old roads are built-built over, dead-end in odd places and where it becomes near impossible to find parking. Some of these buildings are affiliated schools for other healthcare professions or expansions of the original hospital campus. But his system is flagrantly anti-union and keeps sending him to seminars about "compassion fatigue" which he regards as a useless waste of time. He's overworked in a job with a great deal of responsibility and some personal health risk. Doctors and nurses who were grandfathered-in get dramatically better benefits than he'd receive if he stayed with the system for two decades. If you have money to pay, then your actual level of care is demonstrably better than if you do not.

Non-sexy functions of the hospital, like this unit, just go understaffed and ignored. There is no incentive to because it has little bearing on the hospital's prestige. But you need it the way that cars need tires.

My brother grumbles that while this system wants to claim to be the cutting edge in medicine, it doesn't really want to pay to be the best by trying to retain staff or treating them well. They'd sooner subcontract for a weekend rather than hire new nurses. It may pretend to value his loyalty but its behavior says otherwise. And it distracts from the actual issue by pretending that there's some endemic problem with healthcare culture or something.

It's gotten to the point where he mistrusts letting the management schedule his shifts for him, and while he doesn't say so, I can now interpret this as just a disrespect for his time and symptomatic of the issues laid out above. You can't have a nurse work three 12-hour graveyard shifts back-to-back. A person needs time in between to catch up on sleep and just be human. And this isn't possible if you were up late last night come home and barely have time to decompress. There are days when he's more a pizza and soda-fueled zombie than a person. And mind you, this is a job where it actually makes sense for your workers to be as sane as possible because of their responsibilities.

I can draw deliberate parallels to triple A gaming. Capitalism doesn't always incentivize actually carrying out your ostensible mission, but pretending that you do while cutting corners for the bottom line. I need point no further than Bethesda to tell you that they are just riding around in the hollow shell of the Fallout IP to show you that companies will pretend just fine that they're carrying out some mission that they're not. There are horror stories about being in QA for video games and it really doesn't look much different from the hospital situation above.

Nobody is proposing you take money from people and reassign it, but the wealth disparity issue is still obvious. If you have capital then you get richer simply for having it. It's a system that rewards you for having inertia, and punishes you for trying to change it, not necessarily because you produce value.

Again gaming is still a great example. People would pay for a Half-Life 3 or a true-to-lore Fallout game. It's not theoretically impossible. Those are things that have value, but they'll never happen in practice.

If your brother doesn't like it, he shouldn't have become a nurse. Everyone knows that it's a stressful and dirty job.

Investments are not inertia. You think the bank gives you interest on your savings because of capitalist solidarity? They use that money to give out loans, which give people opportunities to do business. If you think handling the stock market is so easy, why don't you give it a shot?

And the market did recognize that a true-to-lore fallout game would sell, hence New Vegas.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I don't understand why you obsess over the idea that everyone should become rich, and talk as if someone is saying that everyone can

No, listen to what I say. Not what you think I say. I never said that everyone SHOULD become rich. I am talking about social mobility. The whole idea of our capitalistic system is build on creating and accumulating wealth, economical growth, productivity, increasing profit. Even if that is not always possible, nor even always desireable - nature, for example doesn't work like that.

I am not against capitalism, nor do I support it. It's just simply put, not a system that benefits the masses. That simple. If you ever had even one single economy class you should actually understand that. That's not socialism, nor communism. That's simple math, really. 1 on 1 of ecnomy.

You can be a capitalist, or supporter of the system, and still aknowledge this. Just as how you play and like the lottery, while knowing that the chance of winning it, are so small that it's almost not worth trying it. The more capital, the more income you have, the more beneficial is the system for you. People that own or earn a lot of money will naturally feel comfortable in such a system, and of course support it.

And that has nothing to do with skill, knowledge or working hard. Just as Göbels didn't deserve his role in the Third Reich bause he was the most skilled person to be the minister for propaganda. Or how Musolini or Stalin deserved it more than anyone else to be the leader of their nation because they worked harder than anyone else. Every system has it's elite. And beeing a part of a elite, is not necessarily tied to your skill or how hard you work.

How comes that we saw such a huge rise of oligarchs in Russia over the last 10-20 years? free use of capital and investment since the fall of the Sovietunion. However, this access to wealth, was only possible for a very small elite of the former East-Block states, while the largest part of the population still strugles.

What I challange is your idea on capitalism, beeing a "fair" and "beneficial" system. Because aparantly, neither skill, knowledge nor profession is actually a guarantor for gaining wealth. It can only increase your chances. However, if we are talking about social mobility, even THAT, can many times, not be enough. The studies and data about it, simply don't lie. 200 000+ million people in the US can not be simply to lazy or not intelligent enough. Not all of them.

Of course you have to choose a marketable profession, and people generally tend to choose the highest-paying jobs they are capable of doing. If you don't like the fact that most people aren't smart and wonderful, and are incompetent to become rich, you should blame it on mother nature before any man-made system.

Ah! I see, so the people that decide to become a nurse, cleaning your garbage, maintining the power grid, water supply, those that actually make sure that the society is runing are just not "intelligent" enough. Just because they didn't chose a career in one of those rare prestige fields that have a chance to get you wealthy and giving you a huge income. Because hands down, certain jobs, simply will never ever give you chance to get wealthy.

What about those that are maybe to sick? Dealing with handicaps, since their birth? Accidents that leave someone disabled? What if it happens that you become suddenly paralysed due to a car accident that broke your spinal cord? Even IF what you say is true - which I DO NOT believe! - you should be extremley happy, that many people are not as intelligent and skilled, as you say. For your own sake really. Imagine how long society would survive if every firefighter, police officers or teacher would suddenly chose to pursue a career with finances, or as engineer, because that is where you can make the most money - for now, because not even that is always true.

You do understand, that this isn't a question about intelligence or skill. Do you want to tell me that someone who loves to work with mechnics and cars is less inteligent compared to someone who just happend to chose the right career path? You do also understand that this is completely arbitary right? What gains you a lot of wealth or what is a markatable profession is simply changing over time! I am curious how much this "intelligence" around capital and finances will help you if the US would suffer from a massive famine tomorrow because of dying crops, caused by ecological disasters, and suddenly the wealthiest would be farmers! Or if suddenly 60 or even 70% of the workforce would suddenly die, for what ever reason.

If the people like their iTrinkets better than what you would think is good for them, that's their prerogative. If something bad happens to them as a result of it, I say call it natural selection and move on.

Yeah, like Bernard Madoff.

Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff (/ˈmeɪdɒf/;[1] born April 29, 1938) is an American fraudster and a former stockbroker, investment advisor, and financier. He is the former non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock market,[2] and the admitted operator of a Ponzi scheme that is considered to be the largest financial fraud in U.S. history
(...)

I don't even want to know how many people lost their pensions due to this guy. Natural selection man! You have to move on.

Or the real estate bubble that lead to the financial crisis of 2007-08.
The financial crisis of 2007–08, also known as the global financial crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to have been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It threatened the collapse of large financial institutions, which was prevented by the bailout of banks by national governments, but stock markets still dropped worldwide. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment.

And the funny part is, the 400 top richest, managed even to increase their wealth trough the crisis. But we are all just to dumb and not intelligent enough to get it.

If your brother doesn't like it, he shouldn't have become a nurse. Everyone knows that it's a stressful and dirty job.

While beeing an important work that someone has to do. The moment you need medical care, and there are not enough nurses around to treat you, because it is such a shitty job, you might see the need for it as well.

There is nothing wrong with demanding better conditions for a very important job. Or fair payment to a service that is without a question very important to the well beeing of society. Including yours.

Complaining about something that isn't correct or should be improved, doesn't mean that he (or anyone) hates his job. The movitation could be also to improve the situation of the patients. Overworked and overstressed nurses due to understaffed work conditions can lead to increase in mistakes and bad situations for the patients.

My own Sister worked 15 years as a geniatric nurse. She quit her job. Not because she didn't loved it. But because she was not ready anymore to do the job under those harsh conditions. She simply could not do her job well, because she was forced very often to do the job of two nurses. Due to understaffing. And there is no way in threating people correctly if you don't have the time and resources to do so. And she wanted to threat people as people, and not as industrial objects on some assembly line. The fact that work was hard, never ever bothered her.

 

[DVL]

If your brother doesn't like it, he shouldn't have become a nurse. Everyone knows that it's a stressful and dirty job.

Wow, that's up there with, "If you don't like the country, you should leave."
Aside from just being callous, it misses the point. These things wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't understaffed and his hospital system wasn't doing everything it could to cut benefits, salaries and keep unions from forming. It's the naked hypocrisy of saying that you want to be the nation's leader in medicine and talking about "compassion fatigue" of medical workers when the real problem is flat-out greed.

Investments are not inertia. You think the bank gives you interest on your savings because of capitalist solidarity? They use that money to give out loans, which give people opportunities to do business. If you think handling the stock market is so easy, why don't you give it a shot?

And the market did recognize that a true-to-lore fallout game would sell, hence New Vegas.

That's exactly what inertia is. If you own capital, you make more capital in a feedback loop. After a certain point, you're rewarded for doing nothing more than owning more stuff than everybody else.

New Vegas happened in spite of inertia, not because of it. Obsidian is never going to make another Fallout game and Bethesda won't let them because it's their IP they're going to milk for the bottom line. Obsidian can pull off a better job in 18 months than Bethesda can in four years and Bethesda will still refuse them royalties.

That alone should indicate that creative input has value sure, but since Bethesda owns all the capital (i.e. the IP), they profit far more off of the sales of Obsidian's work.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

@Crni Vuk

It seems that our definitions of benefit are fairly different.

And that has nothing to do with skill, knowledge or working hard. Just as Göbels didn't deserve his role in the Third Reich bause he was the most skilled person to be the minister for propaganda. Or how Musolini or Stalin deserved it more than anyone else to be the leader of their nation because they worked harder than anyone else. Every system has it's elite. And beeing a part of a elite, is not necessarily tied to your skill or how hard you work.

The amount of money you have at your disposal has everything to do with skill, knowledge and working hard. Maybe not just your skill, knowledge and hard work, but that of your ancestors as well. Of course there are some scenarios where people have greater expenses and find it harder to accumulate money as a result (for example, having a child one can't afford) but that too can be averted by good planning.

How comes that we saw such a huge rise of oligarchs in Russia over the last 10-20 years? free use of capital and investment since the fall of the Sovietunion. However, this access to wealth, was only possible for a very small elite of the former East-Block states, while the largest part of the population still strugles.

You come from a post-privatization society, you know as well as I do that the privatization was handled in a manner that has nothing to do with the free market.

What I challange is your idea on capitalism, beeing a "fair" and "beneficial" system. Because aparantly, neither skill, knowledge nor profession is actually a guarantor for gaining wealth. It can only increase your chances. However, if we are talking about social mobility, even THAT, can many times, not be enough. The studies and data about it, simply don't lie. 200 000+ million people in the US can not be simply to lazy or not intelligent enough. Not all of them.

Nothing is certain in life. And are you seriously doubting our species' aptitude for laziness and stupidity?

Ah! I see, so the people that decide to become a nurse, cleaning your garbage, maintining the power grid, water supply, those that actually make sure that the society is runing are just not "intelligent" enough. Just because they didn't chose a career in one of those rare prestige fields that have a chance to get you wealthy and giving you a huge income. Because hands down, certain jobs, simply will never ever give you chance to get wealthy.

Maybe that's just what they want to do, and they go into those jobs knowing that they won't get rich doing them. Either way, if they could do better, most of them would.

What about those that are maybe to sick? Dealing with handicaps, since their birth? Accidents that leave someone disabled? What if it happens that you become suddenly paralysed due to a car accident that broke your spinal cord?

I don't see how the handicapped have anything to do with this.

Even IF what you say is true - which I DO NOT believe! - you should be extremley happy, that many people are not as intelligent and skilled, as you say. For your own sake really. Imagine how long society would survive if every firefighter, police officers or teacher would suddenly chose to pursue a career with finances, or as engineer, because that is where you can make the most money - for now, because not even that is always true.

On the other hand, a society with less unintelligent people would need far less firefighters, policemen and teachers.

You do understand, that this isn't a question about intelligence or skill. Do you want to tell me that someone who loves to work with mechnics and cars is less inteligent compared to someone who just happend to chose the right career path? You do also understand that this is completely arbitary right? What gains you a lot of wealth or what is a markatable profession is simply changing over time! I am curious how much this "intelligence" around capital and finances will help you if the US would suffer from a massive famine tomorrow because of dying crops, caused by ecological disasters, and suddenly the wealthiest would be farmers! Or if suddenly 60 or even 70% of the workforce would suddenly die, for what ever reason.

You can get rich working with cars. And what gains you a lot of wealth changes over time because people's needs and wishes change over time. Because, y'know, capitalism totally isn't benificial to the masses at all. And knowledge of capital and finances is always useful. Even in a post-apocalyptic scenario.

Yeah, like Bernard Madoff.

Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff (/ˈmeɪdɒf/;[1] born April 29, 1938) is an American fraudster and a former stockbroker, investment advisor, and financier. He is the former non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock market,[2] and the admitted operator of a Ponzi scheme that is considered to be the largest financial fraud in U.S. history
(...)

I don't even want to know how many people lost their pensions due to this guy. Natural selection man! You have to move on.

You're equating being a victim of fraud to being stupid. While there is some correlation, it's not nearly the same.

Or the real estate bubble that lead to the financial crisis of 2007-08.
The financial crisis of 2007–08, also known as the global financial crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to have been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It threatened the collapse of large financial institutions, which was prevented by the bailout of banks by national governments, but stock markets still dropped worldwide. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment.

And the funny part is, the 400 top richest, managed even to increase their wealth trough the crisis. But we are all just to dumb and not intelligent enough to get it.

They didn't get to be the top 400 for their beauty.

While beeing an important work that someone has to do. The moment you need medical care, and there are not enough nurses around to treat you, because it is such a shitty job, you might see the need for it as well.

As will the hospital, since the ones you are less likely to die in are the ones that would dominate the market.

There is nothing wrong with demanding better conditions for a very important job. Or fair payment to a service that is without a question very important to the well beeing of society. Including yours.

Whether you can demand anything or not depends on the agreement you have with your employer. If he's breaking his end you have every right to complain.

Complaining about something that isn't correct or should be improved, doesn't mean that he (or anyone) hates his job. The movitation could be also to improve the situation of the patients. Overworked and overstressed nurses due to understaffed work conditions can lead to increase in mistakes and bad situations for the patients.

If the patients aren't complaining about their situation, why should the nurses complain for them?

My own Sister worked 15 years as a geniatric nurse. She quit her job. Not because she didn't loved it. But because she was not ready anymore to do the job under those harsh conditions. She simply could not do her job well, because she was forced very often to do the job of two nurses. Due to understaffing. And there is no way in threating people correctly if you don't have the time and resources to do so. And she wanted to threat people as people, and not as industrial objects on some assembly line. The fact that work was hard, never ever bothered her.

If your sister lives on the same continent as you, her bad working conditions in the health care sector have nothing to do with capitalism.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It seems that our definitions of benefit are fairly different.

Yeah, it seems so. For me a System where around 50-60% of the population is loosing wealth while the top 10% is even gaining wealth, is not beneficial. But hey. You already said, our definitions may vary.

Sadly, what I described, is even a global phenomenon.

Germany’s rich profit from the financial crisis
"According to the report, the net assets of the German state have fallen considerably during the last two decades: by a total of more than 800 billion euros. Over the same period, net household wealth has more than doubled from just under 4.6 to around 10 trillion euros. Included in the estimates of wealth are real estate, investments, land and claims from company pensions.


Dividing this figure by the German population of 81 million, one arrives at a per capita average of 123,000 euros [$US 160,000]. In reality, these assets are very unevenly distributed. The wealth of the top ten percent of households, according to the report, comprises “more than half of total net assets."

So despite of slightly droping living standards - from the late 1960 early 70s, including the US - the top wealthiest people on earth managed to increase their wealth. I know the americans don't like to hear this, but what we have today IS a form of class warefare.

But you don't have to blieve me. Why not look at what one of the top-investors has to say about it?

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
- Waren Buffett

As far as Germany goes, you pay around 45% taxes for EVERYTHING you earn trough work, mostly physical labor. Like carpenting, repairing cars, bricklaying, nursing you get it. Now guess how much taxes from capital gains? Stocks, interests, revenues and the like? 25%. That's right. This is the basis in Germany. Depending on type of gain it can be sometimes between 10% and a maximum of 30%. The taxes on income trough interests though is 25%.

You come from a post-privatization society, you know as well as I do that the was privatization was handled in a manner that has nothing to do with the free market.

Actually, I am born in Germany but my parents are from Seribia. If you think that the growth of wealth has nothing to do with free flow of capital on the market, than you are more naive than I thought you are.

Right now, getting money was never as cheap like it is today. This is based on the average interest rate for credits. But, we are not talking here on the average joe that want's to get a credit for his house or to open a small buisness. No. We are talking about billions. States like Germany offering a credit to Greece for 4% while they get it from the EZB for 1%. Nations like Germany gained a huge profit from the crisis. We like to complain a lot about those states, but if you look at the system in place, they actually pay our interests, while buying our exports.

A comedian once compared the global capital market today, like a drug cartell. And it's not that far away from the truth ...

You flood the market with cheap money to low conditions. This is possible since money is not tied to any goods in the real world - see the Dollar. Banks like the EZB give nations credits with conditions of 1%, while the average populationgets them to conditions between 4 and 7% - Talking about making money from thin air!

Once, the nations and people are hooked, living over their standards for decades, buying homes, enterprises, pensions based on interests, you start to pull the plug. But they still need the money, to keep the state runing. So, you give them even more. But they have to get it to worse conditions now. Like Greece, Spain, Italy, Ukraine etc. While nations like the US and Germany get it to the best conditions - thx to the rating agencies

In this system the banks have the role of the drug dealer. Did you ever heard about the term Plutocracy?

I am not even claiming that I grasp or understand the whole system of the financial world. But the parts I do understand, seem more like that is a system build on exploiting the masses.

Nothing is certain in life. And are you seriously doubting our species' aptitude for laziness and stupidity?

Noohoo? Where did I said no one is ever lazy in his whole live. What I don't understand why you think that owning a lot of money is the best indicator if someone is or is not lazy, skilled and intelligent.

We are talking about about billions of people here. Literaly. Yeah! I am sure the sobs in Somalia or the Ukraine are just lazy as fuck.

If the patients aren't complaining about their situation, why should the nurses complain for them?

Yeah! Those douches! Damn infants! Elders with dementia and/or incapable of expressing themself! Coma patients! Why don't they complain and fight for themself! That nerve of nurses to even DARE to improve their situation.

If your sister lives on the same continent as you, her bad working conditions in the health care sector have nothing to do with capitalism.

One day, you will get old as well. And unless you're one of those insanely rich, you might end up counting of the benolovence of people like my sister or DVLs brother.

The issue with capitalism is, that social systems, are simply not a very profitable field. Infact, a social reforms and regulations, trough free health care, social security etc. are one of the most expensive parts of a modern society, next to the infrastructure. Hence why their is a serious effort to keep it all privatized. You have the money? You get the best treatment. If not? Well *shrugs*.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

Yeah, it seems so. For me a System where around 50-60% of the population is loosing wealth while the top 10% is even gaining wealth, is not beneficial. But hey. You already said, our definitions may vary.

Sadly, what I described, is even a global phenomenon.

Germany’s rich profit from the financial crisis
"According to the report, the net assets of the German state have fallen considerably during the last two decades: by a total of more than 800 billion euros. Over the same period, net household wealth has more than doubled from just under 4.6 to around 10 trillion euros. Included in the estimates of wealth are real estate, investments, land and claims from company pensions.


Dividing this figure by the German population of 81 million, one arrives at a per capita average of 123,000 euros [$US 160,000]. In reality, these assets are very unevenly distributed. The wealth of the top ten percent of households, according to the report, comprises “more than half of total net assets."

So despite of slightly droping living standards - from the late 1960 early 70s, including the US - the top wealthiest people on earth managed to increase their wealth. I know the americans don't like to hear this, but what we have today IS a form of class warefare.

But you don't have to blieve me. Why not look at what one of the top-investors has to say about it?

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
- Waren Buffett

As far as Germany goes, you pay around 45% taxes for EVERYTHING you earn trough work, mostly physical labor. Like carpenting, repairing cars, bricklaying, nursing you get it. Now guess how much taxes from capital gains? Stocks, interests, revenues and the like? 25%. That's right. This is the basis in Germany. Depending on type of gain it can be sometimes between 10% and a maximum of 30%. The taxes on income trough interests though is 25%.


Actually, I am born in Germany but my parents are from Seribia. If you think that the growth of wealth has nothing to do with free flow of capital on the market, than you are more naive than I thought you are.

Right now, getting money was never as cheap like it is today. This is based on the average interest rate for credits. But, we are not talking here on the average joe that want's to get a credit for his house or to open a small buisness. No. We are talking about billions. States like Germany offering a credit to Greece for 4% while they get it from the EZB for 1%. Nations like Germany gained a huge profit from the crisis. We like to complain a lot about those states, but if you look at the system in place, they actually pay our interests, while buying our exports.

A comedian once compared the global capital market today, like a drug cartell. And it's not that far away from the truth ...

You flood the market with cheap money to low conditions. This is possible since money is not tied to any goods in the real world - see the Dollar. Banks like the EZB give nations credits with conditions of 1%, while the average populationgets them to conditions between 4 and 7% - Talking about making money from thin air!

Once, the nations and people are hooked, living over their standards for decades, buying homes, enterprises, pensions based on interests, you start to pull the plug. But they still need the money, to keep the state runing. So, you give them even more. But they have to get it to worse conditions now. Like Greece, Spain, Italy, Ukraine etc. While nations like the US and Germany get it to the best conditions - thx to the rating agencies

In this system the banks have the role of the drug dealer. Did you ever heard about the term Plutocracy?

I am not even claiming that I grasp or understand the whole system of the financial world. But the parts I do understand, seem more like that is a system build on exploiting the masses.



Noohoo? Where did I said no one is ever lazy in his whole live. What I don't understand why you think that owning a lot of money is the best indicator if someone is or is not lazy, skilled and intelligent.

We are talking about about billions of people here. Literaly. Yeah! I am sure the sobs in Somalia or the Ukraine are just lazy as fuck.




Yeah! Those douches! Damn infants! Elders with dementia and/or incapable of expressing themself! Coma patients! Why don't they complain and fight for themself! That nerve of nurses to even DARE to improve their situation.


One day, you will get old as well. And unless you're one of those insanely rich, you might end up counting of the benolovence of people like my sister or DVLs brother.

The issue with capitalism is, that social systems, are simply not a very profitable field. Infact, a social reforms and regulations, trough free health care, social security etc. are one of the most expensive parts of a modern society, next to the infrastructure. Hence why their is a serious effort to keep it all privatized. You have the money? You get the best treatment. If not? Well *shrugs*.

Most (if not all) of your negative examples are only made possible by government meddling.

The oligarchs who got rich during the privatizations could only do so because they had corrupt governments by their side.

Most of the social systems are financed by money stolen from rich people, despite them being taxed less.
And if the social systems weren't profitable, why would there be a "serious effort to keep it all privatized"? And where do we see this? Europe sure isn't keen on privatizing them, and the US is also passing more and more regulations every year.

Also, Ukraine has the problem of being a corrupt backwater where half of the people don't even want to be a part of it and practically everyone is infected with common post-socialist apathy. Somalia has an average IQ of 68.

My apologies for not responding for so long.

 

[DouglasAdams]

we produced fallout,batman,avengers,matrix,west side story,pulp fiction,american graffiti,citizen cane,the car industry,fast food,hairspray(the product and film) pioneered modern democracy,landed on the moon,created silicon valley,blade runner,became the largest multicultural nation,created one the most deadly military this worlds ever seen,built the internet so really nothing is terribly wrong with are culture.

 

[Vergil]

Liberalism

 

[DouglasAdams]

Liberalism

what about it ,you think liberals are to blame for every anti-american post?

 

[Vergil]

What about it, you think liberals are to blame for every anti-American post?

No, not all. Just most of them.

 

[DouglasAdams]

No, not all. Just most of them.

the only reason why people liberals and conservatives criticizes is because they care not because they actual hate America.