Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Rich vs. Poor

  1. #1
    Averroes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    ESI-H 936 Sp
    Posts
    1,113
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Rich vs. Poor


  2. #2
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,131
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't understand why someone should intentionally pay more taxes to make other people feel better. If it's legal, why wouldn't someone take advantage of the loopholes?
    The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.

    The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".

  3. #3
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,131
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The guy said he doesn't want to be rich, but he also doesn't want other people to be either. So to me that's a problem.

    Edit: I stopped watching after they said "Billionaires should not exist"
    The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.

    The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".

  4. #4
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,880
    Mentioned
    1516 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudaimonia View Post
    I don't understand why someone should intentionally pay more taxes to make other people feel better. If it's legal, why wouldn't someone take advantage of the loopholes?

    Well, this has been my practical and "give-myself-a-pass" attitude, too, but I can't help thinking of Abraham Lincoln's view on making the world a better place.

    August 1, 1858: On Slavery
    "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is not democracy."


    Just because you CAN avoid paying taxes (probably because you, or someone very much like you, bought some politicians who changed the tax code to be more favorable to the rich) or own slaves, does not mean that either one is good for society in general.

    If you want to see what staggering wealth inequality does to a nation, just visit any of the countries on the top of the following list:
    https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/ind....GINI/rankings
    Last edited by Adam Strange; 12-27-2021 at 09:29 PM.

  5. #5
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,880
    Mentioned
    1516 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudaimonia View Post
    The guy said he doesn't want to be rich, but he also doesn't want other people to be either. So to me that's a problem.

    Edit: I stopped watching after they said "Billionaires should not exist"

    I agree with the statement that "Billionaires should not exist", because money is power, and lots of money gives an individual a disproportionate amount of power, should they choose to use it.

    Furthermore, since most really rich people became rich by accident, not by merit (this is provable), you can't use the argument that "Oh, they have money so their judgement must be better than mine, therefore they deserve to rule."

  6. #6
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,880
    Mentioned
    1516 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    While I'm on the topic, the richest guy I know also has the most fucked up family of anyone I know. His wealth has enabled his children, their spouses, their kids, and his grandchildren to misbehave in spectacularly destructive ways without serious (to them) consequences.

    He and I were talking about this the other day. He told me that if he had it to do over again, he'd not give his kids a cent. He'd help with college so they'd have an education, but nothing after that. Then they could rise or fall on their own merits. Lol.
    He's LSE, but that really doesn't matter here.

  7. #7
    EIE Ni H dewusional entitwed snowfwake VewyScawwyNawcissist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    uNdeR yOur SkIn
    TIM
    bNF 641sx/spVELF
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    take what doesn't belong to them and blame you for not trying hard enough to earn it despite u would have had it if it wasnt for their bs to take it. they can take the time efofrt and resources, make their life about learning to exploit others but not to give what they owe. just because u have to struggle to be a parasyte doesn't mean u are entitled to be. that said most ppl deserve to be poor bc if they had the means, they would be rich, and they wouldnt make the effort to lift others up along with themselves, not out of spite like myself, but apathy.

    i keep seeing generosity as backed by bad intentions. taking advantage of poor vulnerability to make oirr owe them. basically a temporary bank and poor's life's value to serve them. thats what happens to children of narcissists too actually. they also see someone they owe as someone trying to take more from them than what they provide back.

    theres intentions, conscience, opportunity and abiliites as factors to what one can give back, so u cant judge people as inferior and underserving if they cant measure up to a standard depending on what it is. this assessment results in bleeding of resources and life degeneration. people dont understand their own and others place in society. the cycle has happenned multiple times before. they teach themselves to take suffering as not mattering for the sake of money. small thins are as small as ur awareness of the implications are. thus they project the inferiority of their own minds on the external world. someone's poor bc someone evil didnt try hard enough.
    Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
    I want to care
    if I was better I’d help you
    if I was better you’d be better
    HELLO??? COME BACK!!!!
    i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.



  8. #8
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,880
    Mentioned
    1516 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    “I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”

    J. Gould, LIE

    I’m truly conflicted a lot of the time. If I give my Te/Ni free rein, then I look at the fact that you can hire many people for next to nothing and drop them as soon as you are done using them, as a boon and a convenience to my ambitions.

    However, having been extremely poor* while working to make a millionaire even richer at one point in my life, I want to wipe wealth inequality from the face of the earth. Right along with a lot of the wealthy.

    *

    To put numbers on my situation, I spent almost two years working at a job that paid, after taxes and rent, $3500/year. That’s $292/month to live on. My rent then was $600/month, so if you assume that an average rent today is $1100/mo, then I was living on about $540/month in today’s dollars. From that, I had to pay for food, electricity, gas, water, gasoline, clothes, and every month I worked, I got poorer.

    And because those two years were during a recession, I COULD NOT GET A BETTER JOB. Not even with two strong arms and an IQ of 147. Lol.
    Last edited by Adam Strange; 12-27-2021 at 11:53 PM.

  9. #9
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,708
    Mentioned
    278 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    “I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”

    J. Gould, LIE

    I’m truly conflicted a lot of the time. If I give my Te/Ni free rein, then I look at the fact that you can hire many people for next to nothing and drop them as soon as you are done using them, as a boon and a convenience to my ambitions.

    However, having been extremely poor* while working to make a millionaire even richer at one point in my life, I want to wipe wealth inequality from the face of the earth. Right along with a lot of the wealthy.

    *

    To put numbers on my situation, I spent almost two years working at a job that paid, after taxes and rent, $3500/year. That’s $292/month to live on. My rent then was $600/month, so if you assume that an average rent today is $1100/mo, then I was living on about $540/month in today’s dollars. From that, I had to pay for food, electricity, gas, water, gasoline, clothes, and every month I worked, I got poorer.

    And because those two years were during a recession, I COULD NOT GET A BETTER JOB. Not even with two strong arms and an IQ of 147. Lol.
    I am in full agreement but from a different angle. I've thought of that first quote seriously for a moment, but if you've ever heard of the "Evil Overlord List" you'd know why that plan would fail hardcore right out of the gate. It's one-dimensional solipsistic villainy that lacks any form of tact, planning, or sophistication in the ultimate analysis. Clearly that dude was surrounded by either low IQ individuals on all sides or never met a high functioning ILI like myself. Not that a billion dollars can't net you next to most any outcome you want to "brute force" by paying people off but there is a limit to that (ironically likely imposed by other Gamma types and double ironically by ILI's).

    See, a pure materialist could and would believe that money is everything. Thus, it would stand to reason that, if you have enough money, you can literally pay for genocide and not suffer any negative repercussions. Yeah... not how this works G. Might shock some people but we ILI's can get pretty gosh darned moral and spiritual. I don't give a flying FUCK if you literally backed a dump truck of money onto my front yard. I get the whole damn thing if I but compromise on my morals and demand I recite lies? Yeah, gimmie a second...

    I accept! Oh, I just want you to do one thing for me as I arrange this massive pile of cash into a throne for you. To really sell it. Oh, don't mind that smell of petrol. It's just your imagination. Now sit down here and *throws lit Zippo lighter* at their face.

    Modern day Witch burning. The disciples of Mammon/the Lord of This World are so friggin' gullible

    Overblown theatrics aside most people would balk at the concept of killing other people for money no matter how large the sum on offer is. If it's working class folk it's harder still. Killing your co-workers, at least the ones you don't hate, is a tough hurdle to get people over.
    Last edited by End; 12-29-2021 at 03:10 AM.

  10. #10
    Averroes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    ESI-H 936 Sp
    Posts
    1,113
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I’m pro-capitalist (or at least some of the incentive structures associated with it - I like the idea of being able to work my way to buying luxury items and a large house for myself in some low cost area) but think the economy and work culture in the US ought to be more worker and consumer friendly than it currently is and dislike haughty business owners and landlords
    Last edited by Averroes; 12-28-2021 at 05:43 PM.

  11. #11
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,708
    Mentioned
    278 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Averroes View Post
    I’m pro-capitalist (or at least some of the incentive structures associated with it - I like the idea of being able to work my way to buying luxury items and a large house for myself in some low cost area) but think the economy and work culture in the US ought to be more worker and consumer friendly than it currently is and dislike haughty business owners and landlords
    Capitalism, if it was ever allowed to actually work, faces two very important flaws. The first is that Pareto-distribution is a thing in most every field. 80 percent of your results come from 20 percent of your process. That is, what's likely to happen is 80 percent of the wealth is gonna end up in the hands of 20 percent of the people. This wouldn't be all that bad by itself but this is where the really big problem gets off the ground.

    I have mentioned elsewhere the concept of "generational wealth" and how a compelling argument can be made that it handily explains today's absolutely staggering wealth inequality and, perhaps by extension, why the world is so fucked up right now. The wealth distribution today makes the Pareto-distribution seem egalitarian in a utopian sense! Basically, from that initial Pareto-distribution the original "wealthy" set about constructing a system that would lock themselves and their progeny into the absolute top of their society regardless of their merit. Money=Power and Power=Money. There is sadly no way around this that I can see save for "utopian flights" as H.L. Mencken put it (e.g. If a crooked official gets murdered and it is discovered he was crooked the murderer walks).

    Thus the theoretically initial "pure capitalism" is corrupted, inevitably, by the wealth it generates in general and by the individuals to whom the wealth accumulates in particular. A hybrid system results that keeps a lot of the trappings and surface level appearances of Capitalism, but in reality is a "rigged market" in which it is essentially impossible for certain players, firms, actors, etc. to fail. One need only look at the housing Crisis of 2008 in America to see this fact laid out for them in brazen detail. The rules of "the game" will be changed in an instant the second those rules would result in one of those "people" losing their fortune or otherwise drop out of a dominant position over society.

    I can sadly see no real counter to this fact of fallen human nature. The same thing basically happens in Communism too. If you're "in the party" life is good (especially if you're at the top like Xi or Lenin). If you're not, well, it's not. As George Carlin so eloquently put it: "It's a big club. And You ain't in it! You and I are not in the big club!"

    Club membership was open a few hundred years ago. Invitation only and only the wealthy need apply. They still take applicants, but it's not for any actual leadership position or anything. They need patsies ya see. They can make you a millionaire or a famous actor or what have you. You just gotta do the king's bidding as you take the king's shilling. I and others like myself call it "Taking the Ticket". Worldly success and all the luxury you could ask for. All they ask is that you render unto them your soul in turn...

  12. #12
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    I’m truly conflicted a lot of the time. If I give my Te/Ni free rein, then I look at the fact that you can hire many people for next to nothing and drop them as soon as you are done using them, as a boon and a convenience to my ambitions.
    Adam hits it on the head. Nails it.

    There were no slaves without slaveowners, and vice versa. There were no serfs without lords, and vice versa. There are no capitalist wealthy without poor people, vice versa. The creation of wealth in capitalist countries requires a whole body of people who must be either poor, poor adjacent, or permanently economically suppressed, in order to create rich people.

    This is the basic problem with "capitalist ideology", that market forces can eradicate the poverty that we see today both in the west and in the global south. capitalist forces eradicated the poverty of serfdom, it created the poverty of capitalism, which capitalism simply doesn't have the power to eliminate.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  13. #13
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Averroes View Post
    I’m pro-capitalist (or at least some of the incentive structures associated with it - I like the idea of being able to work my way to buying luxury items and a large house for myself in some low cost area) but think the economy and work culture in the US ought to be more worker and consumer friendly than it currently is and dislike haughty business owners and landlords
    i think everyone can sympathise with the "I work and I get what I want as a result of working" mentality because that's fundamentally how all of us engage the material world.

    that being said, i think it's important that everyone recognises that while you, the ordinary person who interfaces with capitalism may want that, the other side, the capitalists [to speak generally] have directly contradicting interests, they need you to be able to work more for less. if this wasn't their interests [because i'm sure someone will contradict me] one might wonder why something like 1% of the worlds population owns something like 50% of its wealth.

    there's no capitalism without capitalists [and no capitalism without workers] and in a very real sense the feeling that "I want to work to get what I want" fundamentally summarises the worker's perspective on capitalism, as opposed to the capitalist feeling "You need to work to get what I want" to such an extent that although you phrased your post as being pro capitalist, it's actually a good demonstration of an anti-capitalist feeling [especially since you rounded it off with landlords, the ultimate parasitical class of people]
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  14. #14
    EIE Ni H dewusional entitwed snowfwake VewyScawwyNawcissist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    uNdeR yOur SkIn
    TIM
    bNF 641sx/spVELF
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think everyone can sympathise with the "I work and I get what I want as a result of working" mentality because that's fundamentally how all of us engage the material world.
    whenver i was praised for achievements i was thinking how easy my life is compared to others in those regards and how unfair unnecessary it was for people to put more effort than me, achieve less and get scolded for it. narcissists believe everything they've achieved is all they did and despite the obstacles of others' incompetence. this can be true to an extent even but most people with this mentality are simply entitled exploiters.
    Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
    I want to care
    if I was better I’d help you
    if I was better you’d be better
    HELLO??? COME BACK!!!!
    i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.



  15. #15
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VewyScawwyNawcissist View Post
    whenver i was praised for achievements i was thinking how easy my life is compared to others in those regards and how unfair unnecessary it was for people to put more effort than me, achieve less and get scolded for it. narcissists believe everything they've achieved is all they did and despite the obstacles of others' incompetence. this can be true to an extent even but most people with this mentality are simply entitled exploiters.
    mmmmmmmmm yeah, production happens in a social sense but unless people personalise their role in the labour force they will immediately realise that it's extremely fucked up, so practically all existent ideology works to keep people on the "i work, i eat bread, you dont work, you eat less bread than me" train which is basically what prevents us from all uniting and guillotining the bourgeoisie
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    TIM
    ILI - H/C 4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    674
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's always be an elite class in society. People born unequal, fighting to get to a better place, or get wrecked. Unlucky or incompetence? Doesn't matter. Communist try it before, but no different.

    But people from lower class have always been fighting again the upper class, one way or another. That's what keep everything balance.

  17. #17
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,880
    Mentioned
    1516 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by totalize View Post
    Adam hits it on the head. Nails it.

    There were no slaves without slaveowners, and vice versa. There were no serfs without lords, and vice versa. There are no capitalist wealthy without poor people, vice versa. The creation of wealth in capitalist countries requires a whole body of people who must be either poor, poor adjacent, or permanently economically suppressed, in order to create rich people.

    This is the basic problem with "capitalist ideology", that market forces can eradicate the poverty that we see today both in the west and in the global south. capitalist forces eradicated the poverty of serfdom, it created the poverty of capitalism, which capitalism simply doesn't have the power to eliminate.
    Hi, @totalize. Nice to see you're back.

    With regard to inequality under capitalism, it's perfectly possible to modify capitalism to be something less virulent than what it would be in it's pure form, and we've done that to a great extent, while retaining it's incredibly productive aspects. But the people who want a more equal society keep running into people who LIKE UNEQUAL societies.
    That is, they like unequal societies as long as they have someone they themselves can look down on. They will fight tooth and nail, not to elevate themselves necessarily, but rather to put you in a lower position than them.*

    I first realized this when I discovered that full employment is both possible and profitable in a capitalist society. Keynes pointed this out, and Michael Kalecki expanded on it in his book The Last Phase in the Transformation of Capitalism, which was written around 1943, when people were still able to discuss this stuff. Before the Forces of the Unequal Society removed this kind of thing from open discussion.

    Here's a link to an essay from that book. https://delong.typepad.com/kalecki43.pdf

    When I read the following excerpt, item (iii), I was stunned, and my eyes were opened.

    The reasons for the opposition of the 'industrial leaders' to full employment
    achieved by government spending may be subdivided into three categories:


    (i) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as such;

    (ii) dislike of the direction of government spending (public investment and subsidizing consumption);
    (iii) dislike of the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment.


    In other words, there are a lot of people who need to be able to look down on others in order to feel good about themselves. These people should be given a cookie and be placed on a remote island. Together with others who share their beliefs. Without their privileged positions. Just to see how things would turn out for them if they weren't born rich, or white.




    I heard a joke when I was a kid that went like this: There was a peasant farmer in Russia who heard a crash of thunder and rushed outside to find that his only cow had been struck dead by lightning. This was a disaster for him, for he now had no way to feed his family. He looked over at his neighbor's property, where his neighbor's only cow was grazing, and he got down on his knees and prayed to God.
    "God", he said, "all my life I've been a pious man. I've prayed on the holy days and I've obeyed your laws and I've given to the church, and I don't know why you decided in your great wisdom to kill my cow, but now I would ask only one thing of you."
    "Please kill my neighbor's cow."
    Last edited by Adam Strange; 12-29-2021 at 04:28 PM.

  18. #18
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Hi, @totalize. Nice to see you're back.

    With regard to inequality under capitalism, it's perfectly possible to modify capitalism to be something less virulent than what it would be in it's pure form, and we've done that to a great extent, while retaining it's incredibly productive aspects. But the people who want a more equal society keep running into people who LIKE UNEQUAL societies.
    That is, they like unequal societies as long as they have someone they themselves can look down on. They will fight tooth and nail, not to elevate themselves necessarily, but rather to put you in a lower position than them.*

    I first realized this when I discovered that full employment is both possible and profitable in a capitalist society. Keynes pointed this out, and Michael Kalecki expanded on it in his book The Last Phase in the Transformation of Capitalism, which was written around 1943, when people were still able to discuss this stuff. Before the Forces of the Unequal Society removed this kind of thing from open discussion.

    Here's a link to an essay from that book. https://delong.typepad.com/kalecki43.pdf

    When I read the following excerpt, item (iii), I was stunned, and my eyes were opened.

    The reasons for the opposition of the 'industrial leaders' to full employment
    achieved by government spending may be subdivided into three categories:


    (i) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as such;

    (ii) dislike of the direction of government spending (public investment and subsidizing consumption);
    (iii) dislike of the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment.


    In other words, there are a lot of people who need to be able to look down on others in order to feel good about themselves. These people should be given a cookie and be placed on a remote island. Together with others who share their beliefs. Without their privileged positions. Just to see how things would turn out for them if they weren't born rich, or white.




    I heard a joke when I was a kid that went like this: There was a peasant farmer in Russia who heard a crash of thunder and rushed outside to find that his only cow had been struck dead by lightning. This was a disaster for him, for he now had no way to feed his family. He looked over at his neighbor's property, where his neighbor's only cow was grazing, and he got down on his knees and prayed to God.
    "God", he said, "all my life I've been a pious man. I've prayed on the holy days and I've obeyed your laws and I've given to the church, and I don't know why you decided in your great wisdom to kill my cow, but now I would ask only one thing of you."
    "Please kill my neighbor's cow."
    while on the topic of jokes, a joke from eastern europe/russia in 90s: a woman wakes up in a heavy sweat, immediately runs downstairs to check the fridge, medical cabinet, looks outside the window etc, finally sighs and gets back into bed. the husband has woken up and asks her: "what happened?"

    "oh, I had a nightmare," she says. "the fridge was full of food, we had lots of medicine and the streets were safe and clean."

    "how the fuck's that a nightmare?" husband asks.

    "oh, well I dreamt that the communists were back," wife replies.

    i think there's something to be said about the society requiring people on the bottom and on the top - after all human society has been fundamentally competitive in this manner since at least century XVII, but i'm not really aware if this is how life was like during feudal period or not, and certainly we have no record or way of knowing if it was like this in pre-antiquity. the social structure of pre-civilisation humans can only be inferred by looking at the societies that remained during centuries XIX and XVIII when they were studied by anthropologists, but those studies don't suggest that humans then were particularly hierarchical. this must have happened at least before christianity since "don't covet thy neighbours ferrari [or cow]" is something written into the bible, implying there was some level of both coveting and ferraris [or cows] going on.

    rather I think that this psychological consciousness - like you said, "not liking the social changes" are a result of the consciousness developed by capitalism and post-industrial capitalism. in fact those things were likely necessary developments of capitalism and perhaps part of the reason capitalism became such a powerful, socially changing force.

    nevertheless I think the full employment arguments, while convincing in the 1940s and 50s, become less convincing today. we still had three quarters of the worlds population under our thumb at that time, we were able to determine their economic destiny and carried out economic exchange with them on very, very favourable terms - this surplus could have been redistributed in the form of full employment and a welfare state, which it was in some countries, and mainly capitalists capitulated to these demands under fear of revoution.

    that situation is changing rapidly now as the third world is becoming increasingly independent from our economic control. we simply can't buy off our working poor by offering them cheap imports/guaranteed jobs via rigged exports anymore. all world systems change by the destinies of history: capitalism is on the way out, just as it saw out and defeated feudalism and mercantilism. everyone serious about social change has to accept that. the question is who is willing to fight for what replaces it.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  19. #19
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,827
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't care whether or not we have billionaires, trillionaires, or quadrillionaires, so long as they can't use their money to influence politics, news media, and all other civic institutions. If all they wanted was to own luxury yachts and luxury spaceports, then I wouldn't even think about them.

  20. #20
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,747
    Mentioned
    444 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    I don't care whether or not we have billionaires, trillionaires, or quadrillionaires, so long as they can't use their money to influence politics, news media, and all other civic institutions. If all they wanted was to own luxury yachts and luxury spaceports, then I wouldn't even think about them.
    What do you think money is, exactly?

    Money represents abstract human labor time. Billionaires are billionaires because they control (or their money controls) an unthinkable quantity of human labor. You're imagining that money is something that it isn't, like some score in a video game you can somehow separate and manipulate apart from other game mechanics. You can't have billionaires that "just" use their money to buy yachts because how they make that money is inextricably tied to millions or billions of human lives.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 01-02-2022 at 05:35 AM.

  21. #21
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,827
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    What do you think money is, exactly?

    Money represents abstract human labor time. Billionaires are billionaires because they control (or their money controls) an unthinkable quantity of human labor. You're imagining that money is something that it isn't, like some score in a video game you can somehow separate and manipulate apart from other game mechanics. You can't have billionaires that "just" use their money to buy yachts because how they make that money is inextricably tied to millions or billions of human lives.
    Yes, I missed that.

    I understand the Marxist concept of surplus value. And that without even invoking Marxism, and by relying only on mainstream economics, it is possible to argue — correctly — that the market is rigged (by law) to undeservedly siphon money upwards. If billionaires couldn't control politics or the news, it would be easier for their workers to unionize and to organize in other ways, up to and including the creation of fully autonomous cooperatives.

  22. #22
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,747
    Mentioned
    444 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Yes, I missed that.

    I understand the Marxist concept of surplus value. And that without even invoking Marxism, and by relying only on mainstream economics, it is possible to argue — correctly — that the market is rigged (by law) to undeservedly siphon money upwards.
    Not "possible to argue;" that is obviously how it works.

    If billionaires couldn't control politics or the news, it would be easier for their workers to unionize and to organize in other ways, up to and including the creation of fully autonomous cooperatives.
    Oh boy that sounds great -- workers laying themselves off democratically, and voting to lower their own wages to compete in the market. Spare some dreams for the rest of us!

  23. #23
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,827
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Oh boy that sounds great -- workers laying themselves off democratically, and voting to lower their own wages to compete in the market. Spare some dreams for the rest of us!
    How does that follow from I said? And what alternative would you suggest?

  24. #24
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,747
    Mentioned
    444 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    How does that follow from I said?
    I was making fun of "up to and including co-ops."

    And what alternative would you suggest?
    Communism.

  25. #25
    roger557's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,122
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    How does that follow from I said? And what alternative would you suggest?
    A system I just invented (it might be "centre", neither left or right, or something): basic necessities provided by the government (housing, healthcare, and UBI), if you want anything "extra", you have to work. Almost same wage for everyone (with minor variations and bonuses for occupations which directly benefit society). No private businesses (banned). You have claim to whichever things you require, and also right to have them replaced if they break. Food stores offer things for free, at a first come first serve basis. If you want luxury items, you have to pay them, either spending UBI, or your own wage from working. Everything else is covered by the goverment. Credits (money) are personal and un-transferrable, as well as non-inheritable.

    With this system, selfishness and greed, instead of being encouraged, are discouraged.
    Last edited by roger557; 01-14-2022 at 01:16 AM.

  26. #26
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,827
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Communism.
    Can you be more descriptive? There are different ways to interpret the word 'communism': everything from top-down state control over the economy to workers' co-operatives.

  27. #27
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,747
    Mentioned
    444 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Can you be more descriptive? There are different ways to interpret the word 'communism': everything from top-down state control over the economy to workers' co-operatives.
    Abolition of markets, abolition of value, abolition of the state, abolition of class.

    The fact that Reaganism has become the sweetest dream of progressives will never not be funny to me.

  28. #28
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,827
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Abolition of markets, abolition of value, abolition of the state, abolition of class.
    Even in a communist society, stuff still needs to get manufactured; there is still some basic unit of industry. Don't workers' cooperatives fill that niche as opposed to hierarchically-structured firms? Even markets would need to exist in some trivial form as the medium of exchange of goods. I don't suppose that they would be remotely cut-throat or as deregulated as ours are.

    The fact that Reaganism has become the sweetest dream of progressives will never not be funny to me.
    Politicians (of all stripes) will often say something and not mean it.

    Conservatives, in particular, support freedom of speech at liberal universities while shamelessly barring anti-Trump speakers from conservative campuses (like Liberty University). Viktor Orban — a sensible actor according to many American conservatives, having even met on favourable terms with the self-appointed "free speech warrior" Jordan Peterson — closed down a George Soros-funded university and banned the teaching of gender studies.

    When it comes to markets, conservatives have routinely supported anti-free market reforms designed to limit the amount of competition, reforms like extending the lengths of patents and copyrights. Google "Mickey Mouse laws" for one such example.

  29. #29
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,747
    Mentioned
    444 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Even in a communist society, stuff still needs to get manufactured; there is still some basic unit of industry. Don't workers' cooperatives fill that niche as opposed to hierarchically-structured firms? Even markets would need to exist in some trivial form as the medium of exchange of goods. I don't suppose that they would be remotely cut-throat or as deregulated as ours are.
    The short answer is no. Again, one of the points of communism is to abolish the market.

    The problem with "capitalism" is not that capitalists exist. They're almost incidental, and it's more correct to say that the capital which they nominally possess takes on a life of its own and is what really has agency. Whether this capital is controlled by a single individual or "democratically" managed makes little difference; the same economic forces apply and promote the same incentives. If a worker-owned co-op does not make required layoffs when an individually-owned company does, that individually-owned company can outcompete the worker-owned one and drive it out of business. And vice versa.

    Politicians (of all stripes) will often say something and not mean it.

    Conservatives, in particular, support freedom of speech at liberal universities while shamelessly barring anti-Trump speakers from conservative campuses (like Liberty University). Viktor Orban — a sensible actor according to many American conservatives, having even met on favourable terms with the self-appointed "free speech warrior" Jordan Peterson — closed down a George Soros-funded university and banned the teaching of gender studies.

    When it comes to markets, conservatives have routinely supported anti-free market reforms designed to limit the amount of competition, reforms like extending the lengths of patents and copyrights. Google "Mickey Mouse laws" for one such example.
    That politicians are hypocrites isn't news. But why would Reagan lie about liking worker co-ops? The rationale he lays down seems pretty convincing to me, and aligns with the interests of the voting core of the Republican party.

  30. #30
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,827
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    The short answer is no. Again, one of the points of communism is to abolish the market.

    The problem with "capitalism" is not that capitalists exist. They're almost incidental, and it's more correct to say that the capital which they nominally possess takes on a life of its own and is what really has agency. Whether this capital is controlled by a single individual or "democratically" managed makes little difference; the same economic forces apply and promote the same incentives. If a worker-owned co-op does not make required layoffs when an individually-owned company does, that individually-owned company can outcompete the worker-owned one and drive it out of business. And vice versa.

    That politicians are hypocrites isn't news. But why would Reagan lie about liking worker co-ops? The rationale he lays down seems pretty convincing to me, and aligns with the interests of the voting core of the Republican party.
    Sure. A system, market-based or otherwise, produces inequality when capital can be accumulated. What exact alternative would you suggest?

    I don't have time to elaborate at the moment, but I'm personally inclined to believe that markets can be tweaked with different incentive structures; that the incentive structure we currently have, which prioritizes short-term individual profit, and which leads to drastic inequality, is only possible due to unique historical, political, and social forces; and that 'economics' should more correctly be called 'political economy' (or even 'social economy') to highlight politics' role in shaping even basic economic assumptions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •