The Rich Earned Their Wealth

[MattShizzle]

Anyone who has read my posts since I joined this site (or on other sites I've been on) obviously knows this isn't my belief but I hear it a lot from Libertarians and Right-wingers. I say for the most part the people they exploited by paying next to nothing earned it for them. Saying the owners earned it is like saying slave-owners "earned" their wealth. They often say people don't have to work for them if they don't like it - as if homelessness and maybe even starvation is a real choice.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

First we need to know what you mean by rich.do you mean the people who inherited their wealth? The capitalists which exploited labor? Or the small success stories of the lucky?

[CommunityBeliever]

I was going to say that the rich earned their wealth about as much as a bank robber or a common thief, but that isn't really true because robbery can be a lot of work :cool:

[Bud Struggle]

Anyone who has read my posts since I joined this site (or on other sites I've been on) obviously knows this isn't my belief but I hear it a lot from Libertarians and Right-wingers. I say for the most part the people they exploited by paying next to nothing earned it for them. Saying the owners earned it is like saying slave-owners "earned" their wealth. They often say people don't have to work for them if they don't like it - as if homelessness and maybe even starvation is a real choice.

All depends on what you meaned by "earned." All in all--some do and some don't. It really doesn't matter (at least to me) what other people do. All I care about is what I do for myself.

And FWIW, what wealth I have: I earned myself.

[CommunityBeliever]

All I care about is ... myself.

I've noticed.

[Klaatu]

The rich are parasites of the workers' wealth.

[Caj]

So long as there is private property, the propertied class will be able to accumulate wealth without creating it (and thus without earning it).

[Bud Struggle]

I've noticed.

Smooth! :D

And if you read my posts--that's not the case. Not that it matters.

[Robert]

the people they exploited by paying next to nothing earned it for them. Next to nothing? You know what the median wage (not the minimum) is in the USA? Take a guess before you hit the link. Sorry, it's from 2006. you can prolly find 2011.

http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=2050

Now compare it to the minimum wage.


Saying the owners earned it is like saying slave-owners "earned" their wealthSlave owners paid wages?



The rich are parasites of the workers' wealth.

No need to over-do it, Klaattu.

[MattShizzle]

Slave owners paid wages?






No, but they certainly paid to feed clothe and house their slaves. Plus paying to buy the slave in the first place.

[MattShizzle]

Next to nothing? You know what the median wage (not the minimum) is in the USA? Take a guess before you hit the link. Sorry, it's from 2006. you can prolly find 2011.

http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=2050



Autoworkers are among the highest paid of workers - thanks to unions. And I wouldn't believe what the right wingers put on the net anyway. The poor make minimum wage or nearly so which is little if any better than slavery.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Next to nothing? You know what the median wage (not the minimum) is in the USA?

Now compare it to the minimum wage.


Did you know that half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day? :cursing:

[thriller]

They call it wage-slavery for a reason.

[Susurrus]

A counter-argument in a cartoon critique of capitalism:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7Se7iswAanA/SKoukoZkKYI/AAAAAAAACLM/2CvpacVlMLA/s1600/capitalism_cartoon.PNG

[Robert]

Did you know that half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day? :cursing:

The OP is from Pennsylvania, not Guatemala or Zimbabwe, and he's making pretty sweeping generalizations. I assumed they included "wage slavery" in the USA.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Somewhere around half of wealth is inherited, and possibly more, depending on what study you look at. Also, wealthy benefactors often give start-up capital to family members, so the number is even higher if you include that.

And of course none of that wealth would be possible without a lot of spadework from the state, which provides (or tries to provide, at least) a stable business environment for the rich to exist in. There's plenty of ways that the wealthy manipulate the state in order to further increase their wealth, too, and we all know how much conservatives/libertarians dislike "statism". ;) There are a lot of mitigating factors that subtract from how much independent agency one used in order to accumulate wealth. Although of course there are wealthy individuals who achieved that position by being legitimately shrewd business operators, and exploiting their own little economic niche, to a certain extent.

you may find this thread helpful:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-most-rich-t134886/index.html

[Misanthrope]

Labor creates wealth. Unless you create it, it isn't yours, you don't earn it. The capitalist exploits the worker for this wealth.

[Robert]

MAYBE I'LL START A METHLAB MY FRIENDS MAKE A LOT SELLING DRUGS

Please don't do that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

IMO simply saying that "labor creates value, rich people got rich by stealing it" isn't the best way to argue against libertarians. Hit them where it hurts and illustrate how the wealthy and corporations in general have succeeded because of how interlocked they are with the state. Trust me, there's a TON of info available on this subject.

[black magick hustla]

nobody "earns" anything. an unemployed man on welfare that cons the system by using his food stamps for cigs and booze with the local sketchy corner store guy deserves cigs as much as charlie sheen. the premise that "u work on it therefore you deserve it" is unacceptable for me. of course, i am going to defend my shit against motherfuckers who want to steal it, but has nothing to do with whether i deserve it or not.

[black magick hustla]

the point is that capital is driving the earth, both socially and materially, to the fuckin ground

[Bardo]

Next to nothing? You know what the median wage (not the minimum) is in the USA? Take a guess before you hit the link. Sorry, it's from 2006. you can prolly find 2011.

http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=2050


These are averages (means), not medians.

I think if an entrepreneur can create vast amounts of wealth entirely on his own, without the exploitation of labor he's not only a freak of economics but of nature as well. Right up there with the Flash and Superman.

[kapitalyst]

Right, right... the only way to become wealthy is blue blood, "exploiting" the workers or getting "lucky". I mean, what is it with me? How could I get "lucky" time and time again? How was I lucky enough to make sacrifices and sell everything I owned to raise a little trading capital? Lucky enough to do odd jobs for even more? And then after working my ass off and going hungry just to save $1000, how do I manage to get lucky every single day and maintain a success/failure ratio in my day trading of around 14:3? To generate returns of over 1000% in a few months time? Just luck, definitely... Working hard for something and sticking to it had nothing to do with it... :rolleyes:

@ Bardo: Then I guess I'm an "economic freak" then...

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

I was going to say that the rich earned their wealth about as much as a bank robber or a thief, but that isn't really true because robbing a bank can be a lot of work :cool:

Teach them basic human psychology. People will do almost anything for food, starvation is possibly the worst way to die.


That's a good post.

[RGacky3]

Right, right... the only way to become wealthy is blue blood, "exploiting" the workers or getting "lucky". I mean, what is it with me? How could I get "lucky" time and time again? How was I lucky enough to make sacrifices and sell everything I owned to raise a little trading capital? Lucky enough to do odd jobs for even more? And then after working my ass off and going hungry just to save $1000, how do I manage to get lucky every single day and maintain a success/failure ratio in my day trading of around 14:3? To generate returns of over 1000% in a few months time? Just luck, definitely... Working hard for something and sticking to it had nothing to do with it... http://www.revleft.com/vb/rich-earned-their-t162080/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


Don't think anyone said the ONLY way.

Your not even in the real economy, your not in production or markets, your not actually in real finance (loans and the such), you buy and sell stocks.

[Veovis]

Right, right... the only way to become wealthy is blue blood, "exploiting" the workers or getting "lucky". I mean, what is it with me? How could I get "lucky" time and time again? How was I lucky enough to make sacrifices and sell everything I owned to raise a little trading capital? Lucky enough to do odd jobs for even more? And then after working my ass off and going hungry just to save $1000, how do I manage to get lucky every single day and maintain a success/failure ratio in my day trading of around 14:3? To generate returns of over 1000% in a few months time? Just luck, definitely... Working hard for something and sticking to it had nothing to do with it... :rolleyes:

@ Bardo: Then I guess I'm an "economic freak" then...

1. You were lucky to have stuff to sell in the first place.

2. You were lucky enough to have those odd jobs offered to you.

3. You were lucky that you had enough income that you could save $1000.

You're not looking at the big picture. Some people work their asses off, go hungry, and only make $2 a day! :glare:

[RGacky3]

and lucky enough to be born in a country with protected capital markets.

[kapitalyst]

Don't think anyone said the ONLY way.

Your not even in the real economy, your not in production or markets, your not actually in real finance (loans and the such), you buy and sell stocks.

Your notions of what is "real" are simply false...

And this is not the only thing I'm working on. It's a vehicle for raising financial capital and generating income until I launch my full-out enterprise and incorporate in 2012.

The first thing I'm doing is establishing a financial subsidiary (which will primarily operate a hedge fund) to provide investment services and retirement investment for everyone from institutional investors and millionaires to regular working class families. Then I'm opening the tech/software subsidiary to get the projects I've funded out-of-pocket for the last three years to the market quickly. I also hope I can, some day, launch my own bank and small loans services that doesn't fuck people through stupid policies wrapped in legalese bullshit. I have full confidence that the business plan will be a resounding success -- treating people right makes more money than screwing them out of nickles and dimes.

[RGacky3]

Your notions of what is "real" are simply false...


Let me put it this way, if every stock trader on earth died tommorow, society would be fine, we'd have some bumps and have to restructure a bit, but we'd be up and running in no time, if every plumber on earth died tommorow we would be in deep shit in a week.


treating people right makes more money than screwing them out of nickles and dimes.

Which is why the big banks are the big banks :), the one financial institution I am for is credit unions personally.

[La Comédie Noire]

The first thing I'm doing is establishing a financial subsidiary (which will primarily operate a hedge fund) to provide investment services and retirement investment for everyone from institutional investors and millionaires to regular working class families. Then I'm opening the tech/software subsidiary to get the projects I've funded out-of-pocket for the last three years to the market quickly. I also hope I can, some day, launch my own bank and small loans services that doesn't fuck people through stupid policies wrapped in legalese bullshit. I have full confidence that the business plan will be a resounding success -- treating people right makes more money than screwing them out of nickles and dimes.

You will have to screw people eventually, even if just a little, although if you want to be really successful it's going to have to be a lot. The need to accumulate capital is an all consuming need, until it gets to the point where you must accumulate capital in order to survive. Do I think capitalists are evil or greedy? No, they're just bowing down to the law of value.

[kapitalyst]

1. You were lucky to have stuff to sell in the first place.

2. You were lucky enough to have those odd jobs offered to you.

3. You were lucky that you had enough income that you could save $1000.

You're not looking at the big picture. Some people work their asses off, go hungry, and only make $2 a day! :glare:

1) I worked my ass off doing things like remodeling ratty mobile homes and working in warehouses to buy what very little I had. Then I realized I should sell it (for much less than I paid for it) to raise some startup funds. This is not luck, in any sense of the word.

2) That's not luck... you're attributing everything to luck, which is absurd. You just don't want to admit people can succeed and that it's not a roll of the dice. Winning the lotto could be called "luck". There's no effort or skill involved other than just spending $1 on a ticket. Painting a picture is not luck... it takes dedication, persistence and much more. Being financially successful is just the same. As long as you continue to think this way you'll always be unhappy with your own material and financial situation.

3) I really didn't have enough income. I went hungry and would forgo practically everything except what I needed to stay alive. I became severely malnourished and underweight as a result of it. But I survived, and that's what counts.


Gacky:
and lucky enough to be born in a country with protected capital markets.

We've already talked about this Gacky... Yes, being born in a capitalist nation in the west, full of opportunity, was the only stroke of luck I ever had. I sincerely feel sympathy for people who are born in places which never embraced America's founding principles... people born into communist countries, for instance. And I dream of doing something to impact those peoples' lives in a positive way someday, other than just sending money to charities.

[kapitalyst]

Let me put it this way, if every stock trader on earth died tommorow, society would be fine, we'd have some bumps and have to restructure a bit, but we'd be up and running in no time, if every plumber on earth died tommorow we would be in deep shit in a week.


If that's what you think... No, you'd be totally fucked when you woke up in the morning.

Actually, if every socialist, communist, "progressive" and "revolutionary" died tomorrow we wouldn't even have any bumps or have to restructure. We would probably just have a big fiesta with balloons and everything! :lol:



Which is why the big banks are the big banks :), the one financial institution I am for is credit unions personally.

Like the teacher's credit union that fucked over my mom and grandmother? Yeah, those guys are great... lol


You will have to screw people eventually, even if just a little, although if you want to be really successful it's going to have to be a lot. The need to accumulate capital is an all consuming need, until it gets to the point where you must accumulate capital in order to survive. Do I think capitalists are evil or greedy? No, they're just bowing down to the law of value.

That's not true, and I still wouldn't do it if it was. If I can only enjoy moderate success from treating people right, then so be it. But you're wrong...

What will pose the biggest challenge to me, if I do indeed try to start a bank, will be the crony system, an anti-business regulatory environment, political obstacles and the nature of a fiat monetary system. But I'm not thinking those things are going to last much longer, and they can still be overcome.

[molotovcocktail]

I agree with you kapitalyst, everybody that are rich have worked hard for it, and every poor man is lazy. All the african gold miners that work 16 hours every day for a dollar and a half are lazy.:rolleyes:

[La Comédie Noire]

That's not true, and I still wouldn't do it if it was. If I can only enjoy moderate success from treating people right, then so be it. But you're wrong...

What will pose the biggest challenge to me, if I do indeed try to start a bank, will be the crony system, an anti-business regulatory environment, political obstacles and the nature of a fiat monetary system. But I'm not thinking those things are going to last much longer, and they can still be overcome.

You will be running a bank, not a charity, and sometimes that requires not being a nice guy. You must accumulate and expand your capital, otherwise you risk losing it all. More than likely if you do become successful you will rationalize away the people who fail to pay their loans or their mortgages as lazy or unwise, while paying into charity as a penance.

But that's if you do become successful.

[RGacky3]

We've already talked about this Gacky... Yes, being born in a capitalist nation in the west, full of opportunity, was the only stroke of luck I ever had. I sincerely feel sympathy for people who are born in places which never embraced America's founding principles... people born into communist countries, for instance. And I dream of doing something to impact those peoples' lives in a positive way someday, other than just sending money to charities.

What you mean to say is you were born into a country that came out of WW2 untouched and thus had a huge market to build, and a country with a government that protects capital markets, and corporations, i.e. big daddy government making sure you capitalists can make a profit. And Also born into a country that extracted wealth for decades from third world countries who had no say on the matter. THATS what this is about.

These rags to riches story have no place in a discussion about economics, its irrelivant, maybe its relevant to being an annoying douch at a dinner party, but its irrelivent to the bigger picture.

[RGacky3]

Like the teacher's credit union that fucked over my mom and grandmother? Yeah, those guys are great... lol


Because your mother and grandmother are the economy, get it straight, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL STORIES, we are looking at the big picture, we are looking at economics here, not your family.


If that's what you think... No, you'd be totally fucked when you woke up in the morning.

Really? How, we'd be fine, society does'nt need traders, never have, they don't produce anything.

Your not making any arguments here, your pointless.


Actually, if every socialist, communist, "progressive" and "revolutionary" died tomorrow we wouldn't even have any bumps or have to restructure. We would probably just have a big fiesta with balloons and everything! http://www.revleft.com/vb/rich-earned-their-t162080/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif


Good argument.

[kapitalyst]

I agree with you kapitalyst, everybody that are rich have worked hard for it, and every poor man is lazy. All the african gold miners that work 16 hours every day for a dollar and a half are lazy.:rolleyes:

Always must it be some example about Africa or another third world country where the people have suffered from dictators, disease, wars and the likes?... when that's not who/what we're talking about? Nobody is calling those people lazy. And they may be uneducated and ignorant, but they're not stupid.

How many people here are actually doing anything to help them?

La Comédie Noire:
You will be running a bank, not a charity, and sometimes that requires not being a nice guy. You must accumulate and expand your capital, otherwise you risk losing it all. More than likely if you do become successful you will rationalize away the people who fail to pay their loans or their mortgages as lazy or unwise, while paying into charity as a penance.

So if you borrow money from me and say "fuck that guy" and stop paying, we should just toss out the terms of the loan and you get off scott free? That doesn't make sense...

When a loan is made from party A to party B, there are terms in place that each must uphold. It depends on what the agreement is. There's no need to rationalize anything beyond that.

I'm not exactly going to give you a lecture on my business plan, but you seem to have misunderstood what I'm talking about. For starters, most poor people who are out there working hard have no credit options other than BS credit cards, pawn shops and payday loans. You ought to look up what the payday loan industry does to people (for a good laugh, look up "Western Sky Financial")... it's basically legal loan sharking. If you get a credit card, it's full of hidden fees and legal trickery, and most people don't even realize their interest rates are at the whim of the creditor. And pawn shops just aren't a good enough creditor, and require collateral. Furthermore, simply having a checking account is very expensive when you're operating on a slim budget -- been there, done that. They do everything they can (even if it means reordering transactions) to rack up overdraft fees. And those are typically $25 - $35! Yes, you overdraft by just $6 and you get charged $35. You then buy a pack of gum for 25-cents with your debit card, and you just bought the world's most expensive pack of Big Red. This is simply bullshit... One of the reasons I hate my own bank (Capital One) and deal almost strictly with my brokers (all of whom treat me wonderfully). Yes, the banking industry sucks and needs fresh competition to clean their clocks.

Imagine a bank that offered simple and straightforward checking services... and instead of the overdraft fee scheme, a built-in line of credit at a low rate. Imagine small/payday loans at low, fixed rates that undercut all competition to a huge degree -- rates that don't fuck over the debtor and no fees. If you've ever struggled to run a checking account or desperately needed to borrow a couple hundred bucks, you'll know exactly what a godsend this would be for millions. And imagine a lender that approached larger loans in a very straightforward, transparent fashion unlike the rest of the industry, and offered superior rates and policies. It would be a mass exodus... and a harsh wake up call for the banking industry.
But that's if you do become successful.

I don't know for sure that I'll actually try to open a bank. But it's something I'd love to do. The industry has begun to stink something awful in recent decades... no surprise after being in bed with Uncle Sam for years and never having a bath. It's about time for a new kid to come on the block and school them. And it's about time there are some reasonable options out there for consumers, instead of just "would you like to be fucked fast or slow?" Of course, the government will probably hate this, and label it "predatory pricing" to protect their babies. So not sure what sort of obstructions the state will throw my way...

[kapitalyst]

Because your mother and grandmother are the economy, get it straight, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL STORIES, we are looking at the big picture, we are looking at economics here, not your family.

It's not some isolated incident, Mr. I-LIKE-TO-TYPE-IN-ALL-CAPS-TO-REPRESENT-YELLING...

Really? How, we'd be fine, society does'nt need traders, never have, they don't produce anything.

Your not making any arguments here, your pointless.



Good argument.[/QUOTE]

[Robert]

These are averages (means), not medians.

Thanks for the correction. The point is that you guys make it sound like the capitalist pays workers only what he has to pay and no more. Clearly he does not, not in the USA anyway. The reason he pays John Doe $17.50 or whatever instead of the $7.50 minimum or whatever is that he knows John Does might leave either to work for himself or for another company. That's not a very good example of slavery.

Does the employer benefit from the arrangement? Sure. But he brings things to the table too: goodwill, business experience, and capital that he has accumulated from his own work or borrowed from family, friends or the bank.

I actually think goodwill is the most important. It's an intangible, but some guys got it, and some don't.

[Tim Cornelis]

IMO simply saying that "labor creates value, rich people got rich by stealing it" isn't the best way to argue against libertarians. Hit them where it hurts and illustrate how the wealthy and corporations in general have succeeded because of how interlocked they are with the state. Trust me, there's a TON of info available on this subject.

Then they will argue "well, but I'm against corporatism, so you are not criticizing [free market] capitalism".

Like you said, most wealth of the rich is inherited. In Robin Hahne's The ABCs of Political Economy I recalling reading it was almost or more than 80%. Even if we assume that the "self-made man" "earned" his wealth fairly, he is the exception to the rule.

[Tim Cornelis]

Right, right... the only way to become wealthy is blue blood, "exploiting" the workers or getting "lucky". I mean, what is it with me? How could I get "lucky" time and time again? How was I lucky enough to make sacrifices and sell everything I owned to raise a little trading capital? Lucky enough to do odd jobs for even more? And then after working my ass off and going hungry just to save $1000, how do I manage to get lucky every single day and maintain a success/failure ratio in my day trading of around 14:3? To generate returns of over 1000% in a few months time? Just luck, definitely... Working hard for something and sticking to it had nothing to do with it... :rolleyes:

@ Bardo: Then I guess I'm an "economic freak" then...

Take your appeals to emotion elsewhere. Being a slave owner is hard work too, keeping your slaves in line, going to the market buy slaves (investing in capital) and thereby taking risks, whipping them, etc.

Regardless of how hard you might work you are doing it at the expensive of your subjects, be it the slave or the worker.

[kapitalyst]

Because your mother and grandmother are the economy, get it straight, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL STORIES, we are looking at the big picture, we are looking at economics here, not your family.

It's not some isolated incident, Mr. I-LIKE-TO-TYPE-IN-ALL-CAPS-TO-REPRESENT-YELLING... Cool your jets, man. You're way to quick to get hostile/angry...



Really? How, we'd be fine, society does'nt need traders, never have, they don't produce anything.


Hmmm.... Well, asset markets would collapse first... Debt markets second... And the FOREX market would go haywire. You would have a systemic, global financial meltdown. Business would grind to a screeching halt as the tap runs dry... everyone goes out of work... before long the entitlement checks stop coming.

This is like saying you could cut out the backbone of you horse and it would still run fine and win races. Or saying you don't need blood in your veins because it's actually your stomach that nourishes the body. It's easy to complain about how Goldman-Sachs doesn't produce any goods, but if it wasn't for their crucial role in the world marketplace (and others like them) there wouldn't be much producing going on...



Good argument.

I was foxing with ya... I thought it very crude that your what-if scenario involved all traders dying instead of just saying "if they all stopped trading". I guess I know what is planned as my ultimate fate when revolution comes. Bring it on! :lol:

[Tim Cornelis]

Your notions of what is "real" are simply false...


No, real economy = "The part of the economy that is concerned with actually producing goods and services, as opposed to the part of the economy that is concerned with buying and selling on the financial markets."

(source: Financial Times Lexicon).

[molotovcocktail]

Always must it be some example about Africa or another third world country where the people have suffered from dictators, disease, wars and the likes?... when that's not who/what we're talking about? Nobody is calling those people lazy. And they may be uneducated and ignorant, but they're not stupid.

The reason why so many talk about third world countries is because it is a very good example on capitalism failure.

How many people here are actually doing anything to help them?
I do, i give away around hundred dollars every month to charity organisations like Unicef and red cross, and if it was a socialist economy in the world, i wouldnt need to give away money.

[kapitalyst]

Take your appeals to emotion elsewhere. Being a slave owner is hard work too, keeping your slaves in line, going to the market buy slaves (investing in capital) and thereby taking risks, whipping them, etc.

Regardless of how hard you might work you are doing it at the expensive of your subjects, be it the slave or the worker.

Who? Please tell me that... I don't have any workers.

Secondly, appeals to emotion? You've just perfectly described most leftist arguments. Even all of the Marxist terminology (like "wage slavery") is designed to appeal to emotion. We're constantly bombarded with nonsense about how we "exploit the worker", how we're "thieves", blah, blah, blah... It's all emotional ranting. None of it's even true. I don't own diamond mines in Uganda. I didn't build bridges on the bones of workers. I'm a 23-year-old individual trading and investing from my home office.

[kapitalyst]

The reason why so many talk about third world countries is because it is a very good example on capitalism failure.

Except the problem is that it's not because of capitalism. A dictator taking over a country and committing genocide is not capitalism. AIDs and HIV is not capitalism. Cultural and clan warfare between rival tribes, religious sects and political groups is not capitalism. You've come to view this, no offense, in a very irrational way. Socialism is never going to fix any of these things, and there are better ways to solve problems anyway.



I do, i give away around hundred dollars every month to charity organisations like Unicef and red cross, and if it was a socialist economy in the world, i wouldnt need to give away money.

I salute your effort, as I'm sure you're one of the very few who does a damn thing and practices what he/she preaches.

I hope you will, personally, become more prosperous and well-off, and able to donate more to noble causes. Your $100 does more for real people than the government does with $1M.

[Tim Cornelis]

Who? Please tell me that... I don't have any workers.

Secondly, appeals to emotion? You've just perfectly described most leftist arguments. Even all of the Marxist terminology (like "wage slavery") is designed to appeal to emotion. We're constantly bombarded with nonsense about how we "exploit the worker", how we're "thieves", blah, blah, blah... It's all emotional ranting. None of it's even true. I don't own diamond mines in Uganda. I didn't build bridges on the bones of workers. I'm a 23-year-old individual trading and investing from my home office.

Could you tell me in what category any of the supposed appeal to emotion fall?

1) Wage Slavery. Although I don't like the term personally, draws an analogy between the circumstances and similarities of and between slaves and wage labourers. (It is not Marxist terminology by the way). It comes closest to an appeal to emotion, but I still don't see how it qualifies as such.
2) Exploiting the Workers. It's not an appeal to emotion, it is a description of the relation between workers and capitalists, the workers create the wealth, the capitalist appropriates it. Whether this is accurate is another discussion, but it's definitely not an appeal to emotion.


I don't own diamond mines in Uganda. I didn't build bridges on the bones of workers. I'm a 23-year-old individual trading and investing from my home office

And you are not representative of capitalism! We are discussing capitalism in general, not you. You personally didn't build bridges on the bones of workers, but the system you advocate certainly does.

You are a 23 year old trader who contributes nothing to society, and therefore have no earned the money you are making. The money you are trading is, what Marxists call, surplus value appropriated by capitalists brought into circulation through the stock exchange.

[Metacomet]

Hey guys awesome idea.

I'm gonna buy and sell tulips. I know I know, it sounds crazy, they aren't actually worth anything, but someone will pay right? We could base our whole economic system on them! It will last forever! No one will laugh at us in 400 years or anything AmIrite?

[RGacky3]

It's not some isolated incident

yes, it is some isolated incident, your grandmas story, your moms story and yours is only that, if its not an isolated incident show me statistics, show me facts.


Cool your jets, man. You're way to quick to get hostile/angry...


Just wanna make sure you read whats written.


Hmmm.... Well, asset markets would collapse first... Debt markets second... And the FOREX market would go haywire. You would have a systemic, global financial meltdown. Business would grind to a screeching halt as the tap runs dry... everyone goes out of work... before long the entitlement checks stop coming.


Food producers would still grow food, commodity producers would still produce commodities, distribution systems would still distribute, assets of the bankers and financers would just be taken and used by the productive economy.

We would'nt need to borrow because the capital would not be controlled by the institutions any more.

All the CEOs go people can still take the means of production and produce and distribute and consumer.

The financial meltdown only happens because the financeers control the capital.

Doctors can still treat people, stores can stay open, plumbers can still fix pipes.


This is like saying you could cut out the backbone of you horse and it would still run fine and win races. Or saying you don't need blood in your veins because it's actually your stomach that nourishes the body. It's easy to complain about how Goldman-Sachs doesn't produce any goods, but if it wasn't for their crucial role in the world marketplace (and others like them) there wouldn't be much producing going on...


Its not the backbone of the economy at all, all it does is move around capital.

[molotovcocktail]

Except the problem is that it's not because of capitalism. A dictator taking over a country and committing genocide is not capitalism. AIDs and HIV is not capitalism. Cultural and clan warfare between rival tribes, religious sects and political groups is not capitalism It is not because of capitalism itself, but because of multinational companies, that exploits third world countries. As a result the majority in those countries cannot live a descent life. When they dont have a descent life, they get desperate, and people can do everything when they are desperate.

Your $100 does more for real people than the government does with $1M.
__________________
No it doesnt. You have an irrational view on charity. Just because the government do somthing, it dont corrupt it and make it usless. Its just that the government dont give nearly enough.

[Ocean Seal]

IMO simply saying that "labor creates value, rich people got rich by stealing it" isn't the best way to argue against libertarians. Hit them where it hurts and illustrate how the wealthy and corporations in general have succeeded because of how interlocked they are with the state. Trust me, there's a TON of info available on this subject.
And then they'll give you, the well if there wasn't a state, then we would all be more equal and the corporations wouldn't have their unfair loopholes that they have now. So in fact unregulated capitalism == equality.

[Jose Gracchus]

If kapitalyst is such a brilliant trader and third-legged man-beast, why doesn't he take his show on the road? Surely such a successful and important person has something better to do than to go to the Internet's left ghetto and hurl tired Horatio Alger and von Misean arguments at people who take him for a crock, right?

[La Comédie Noire]

So if you borrow money from me and say "fuck that guy" and stop paying, we should just toss out the terms of the loan and you get off scott free? That doesn't make sense...
Of course it doesn’t make sense, because it’s all about getting a return on your capital and expanding it, not providing a reasonable service, for a reasonable price. Why do you think there are so many predatory lenders in the ghettos of America? Because there’s profit to be made there, but it’s a very risky investment. To use your terminology you gotta “fuck em fast” and hard because they may not have anything left tomorrow given the tenuous nature of employment and their utter lack of assets.


I’m not saying you don’t have noble intentions or you haven’t worked hard to get where you are, but you have to think like a trader in order to be successful and that means minimizing risk when and where you can. If you want to use a slow bleed method, your best bet is opening up shop in a higher income area where the loans will be less risky and come at regular intervals.



When a loan is made from party A to party B, there are terms in place that each must uphold. It depends on what the agreement is. There's no need to rationalize anything beyond that.It sounds so nice in concise, legal terms, but in reality it usually involves a court order and a police issued battering ram, both courtesy of the state you bemoan so much. In fact one of the most ingenious aspects of capitalism is the fact the state and the ruling class are separate, it allows capitalist ideologues to keep their hands clean while the state does all the dirty work and gets the blame.

[Revolution starts with U]

Except the problem is that it's not because of capitalism. A dictator taking over a country and committing genocide is not capitalism. AIDs and HIV is not capitalism. Cultural and clan warfare between rival tribes, religious sects and political groups is not capitalism. You've come to view this, no offense, in a very irrational way. Socialism is never going to fix any of these things, and there are better ways to solve problems anyway.

When those dictators get their funding from Exxon Mobile and the US Government, that's capitalism. When we can't get effective medical treatment to africans because it's not profitable, that's capitalism. When clans go to war to decide who is going to sell the bannanas to Dole, that's capitalism.




I salute your effort, as I'm sure you're one of the very few who does a damn thing and practices what he/she preaches.

I hope you will, personally, become more prosperous and well-off, and able to donate more to noble causes. Your $100 does more for real people than the government does with $1M.

You don't know that, you suspect it. I don't have the money to give anymore, but I still put change in all the charity boxes and I am headed to an opiate treatment seminar this thursday.
And I have never been fed by the Red Cross. But I have been fed by foodstamps. My parents had payed the bills with unemployment (Ive been self-employed my whole life... and on that note, you can fuck off when you talk about taxes. Nobody gets taxed like the self-employed. Thanks Reagan.)
I salute the red crosses efforts, and donate when I can. But I personally have recieved nothing from them, and can personally thank the government for being where I am today; a college graduate, who didn't starve as a child'

[Drosophila]

I earned $50 but I beat up an old man to get it.

[La Comédie Noire]

I earned $50 but I beat up an old man to get it.

Stay Hungry. :cool:

[Os Cangaceiros]

And then they'll give you, the well if there wasn't a state, then we would all be more equal and the corporations wouldn't have their unfair loopholes that they have now. So in fact unregulated capitalism == equality.

The vast majority of libertarians are not "anarcho capitalists". The latter only really exist on the internet, and I pretty much just ignore them.

In other words, most libertarians are more Cato Institute than they are Mises Institute.

No, the vast majority of libertarians fall quite easily for the false state/business tension. Read some Gabriel Kolko, Butler Schaffer and Kevin Carson (to name just a few...there are many more writers, especially if one dives into literature relating to imperialism) and then fire away. Then mention that "small business", darling of the anti-corporatist libertarians, frequently exercise their power through their city's Chamber of Commerce and restrict competition through zoning laws and other regulations. In other words, through the power of Leviathan.

Then you'll probably get into debates regarding "actual existing capitalism" and "actual existing socialism", and there's a good chance that it'll just devolve into a big longwinded bicker session. But arguing in the context of political economy and the state's involvement with creating and sustaining a suitable business environment is infinitely more fruitful than just saying "hurf durf surplus value dawg!" Unless you're a baller Marxian economist and can clearly elaborate on your views.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have recently been saying "You go to work and create $5 in value for the company. Your boss keeps $4 of that. Your government takes $.30. And you are left with $.70. Who's the taxman now?" :lol:
It seems fairly simple to me. Idk if it works tho. I thought "anyone with interest bearing investments should know a progressive tax IS a flat tax." But I had to argue that one a lot.
But this one seems even simpler and un-refutable. It can only be diverted to conversations on whether or not your boss deserves that money. And that is a much more fruitful conversation.

[Judicator]

I suppose in the sense that nobody "earned" their genetics or any of their external influences, than nobody earns anything ever; it's all just luck.

[CommunityBeliever]

I suppose in the sense that nobody "earned" their genetics or any of their external influences, than nobody earns anything ever; it's all just luck. We prefer to use the term *determinism* instead of "luck."

[Judicator]

We prefer to use the term *determinism* instead of "luck."

You can live in a universe with randomness, so one that's non-deterministic, but still have no control, so I think "luck" captures this option as well.