This is why Individualism is better than Collectivism

[luis9343]

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Intro. youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA
Part 1. youtube.com/watch?v=qXOrJtn1h2M
Part 2. youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I
Part 3. youtube.com/watch?v=_AgcVNzObWE
Part 4. youtube.com/watch?v=VKPPe78pX5w
Part 5. youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0

This video makes very clear and coherent arguments to why individualism or libertarianism is better than collectivism/socialism, etc. What are the socialist arguments against this? Why is this video wrong? Or does it prove that individualism is better than collectivism, proving marx, and all other socialist thinkers flat out wrong.

Basically these video's argues that socialism, or communism, while the ideologies have good intentions, they end up giving to much power to the state. Which in turn always leads to corruption and violation of peoples rights. Therefore the best way of government is neither 0% gov control or 100% gov control even if the intention is good. In essence they both are the same, mob rule. Therefore the way to best protect everyones liberty, the individuals, rather than a groups, or the majorities, is a republic, with limited government. (A politician who exemplifies these ideals is Ron Paul)To give the most power to communities, rather than to the state. This way people can have a greater effect in their community and their lives, and this would also make for different communities, were people can chose to move to if they prefer the ideals of a different community. In conclusion the most important role of the government should be to protect the people rights, not to help, the poor, not to give welfare, not to take from the rich and give to the poor, not to try to be robin hood. The implementation of big government be it for good or bad always ends up in the government having too much control. And that ends up in taking away peoples liberties.

[Raúl Duke]

What if this:


Individualism vs. Collectivism

is a false dichotomy?

Capitalism requires collective effort to operate; I don't see much lonely self-employed people each putting their product/service on sale...
Corporations/companies/businesses are hierarchical collectives of sorts for the purpose of maximizing profit for it's abstract self (as a corporation) and, more concretely, the executives and shareholders.

[Sentinel]

Why should we watch this? How do the videos allegedly prove any of that? Why not give us a brief review first, so that we see that you understand what you are agreeing with? Then we'll see if it's worth the time to watch 5 videos in a row on youtube..:rolleyes:

It is polite to provide a proper opening post when posting links to videos, except in stickies assigned for that specific purpose.

[luis9343]

Why should we watch this? How do the videos allegedly prove any of that? Why not give us a brief review first, so that we see that you understand what you are agreeing with? Then we'll see if it's worth the time to watch 5 videos in a row on youtube..:rolleyes:

It is polite to provide a proper opening post when posting links to videos, except in stickies assigned for that specific purpose.

ok, firstly i don't completely agree with the video and neither do i consider myself a libertarian, i still have a lot of things to sort out in my brain. The thing is though this video makes a lot of sense to me, on how it shows that individualism is better than collectivism. So i thought, there must be arguments from the opposing side, defending collectivism, etc., which is the main reason i created this thread. Anyway, basically it argues that socialism, or communism, while the ideologies have good intentions, they end up giving to much power to the state. Which in turn always leads to corruption and violation of peoples rights. Therefore the best way of government is neither 0% gov control or 100% gov control even if the intention is good. In essence they both are the same, mob rule. Therefore the way to best protect everyones liberty, the individuals, rather than a groups, or the majorities, is a republic, with limited government. (A politician who exemplifies these ideals is Ron Paul)To give the most power to communities, rather than to the state. This way people can have a greater effect in their community and their lives, and this would also make for different communities, were people can chose to move to if they prefer the ideals of a different community. In conclusion the most important role of the government should be to protect the people rights, not to help, the poor, not to give welfare, not to take from the rich and give to the poor, not to try to be robin hood. The implementation of big government be it for good or bad always ends up in the government having too much control. And that ends up in taking away peoples liberties.

[Sentinel]

Thanks for clarifying your political views at least a bit. What are your economic views? Do you consider yourself a 'revolutionary leftist', or do you think that your present views collide with the spirit of this board?

I promise to give the videos a try, if you just answer this. :)

[luis9343]

Thanks for clarifying your political views at least a bit. What are your economic views? Do you consider yourself a 'revolutionary leftist', or do you think that your present views collide with the spirit of this board?

I promise to give the videos a try, if you just answer this. :)

To be honest, i don't know too much about economic ideas or ideologies. I don't consider myself a revolutionary leftist, and i dislike applying labels to myself. Though i do like a lot of the motives and ideas that socialism is founded upon. I'm trying to understand most ideologies and take the best from them. I don't think there is a perfect solution or one sole way of governing, but i do think some methods are more effective than others.

[Dean]

ok, firstly i don't completely agree with the video and neither do i consider myself a libertarian, i still have a lot of things to sort out in my brain. The thing is though this video makes a lot of sense to me, on how it shows that individualism is better than collectivism. So i thought, there must be arguments from the opposing side, defending collectivism, etc., which is the main reason i created this thread. Anyway, basically it argues that socialism, or communism, while the ideologies have good intentions, they end up giving to much power to the state. Which in turn always leads to corruption and violation of peoples rights. Therefore the best way of government is neither 0% gov control or 100% gov control even if the intention is good. In essence they both are the same, mob rule. Therefore the way to best protect everyones liberty, the individuals, rather than a groups, or the majorities, is a republic, with limited government.
How does an extremely centralized form of government coupled with free corporate reign possibly indicate a free society?


(A politician who exemplifies these ideals is Ron Paul)To give the most power to communities, rather than to the state. This way people can have a greater effect in their community and their lives, and this would also make for different communities, were people can chose to move to if they prefer the ideals of a different community.
That sounds good because it is good. But the libertarians / anarchocapitalists don't give a damn about communities. This portion here is more a description of a soviet style system, and if it could fit with anythign else it would be primitivism. Capitalism is directly opposed to community power, it seeks to centralize power into the hands of a few and to break down local allegiances in order to ally humans with abstracts such as IBM, ITT, U.S.A., NATO, Lockheed Martin and Microsoft.


In conclusion the most important role of the government should be to protect the people rights, not to help, the poor, not to give welfare, not to take from the rich and give to the poor, not to try to be robin hood. The implementation of big government be it for good or bad always ends up in the government having too much control. And that ends up in taking away peoples liberties.
Waht rights do I have if I don't own land? How are economic rights, which dictate your very ability to live and how you can live, off limits to protection whereas the right to perpetuate private property as it is has some worth? Why the hell should I care if Joe Blo who owns 5 factories gets one taken but not care if John Doe is starving because he was born into society with nothing, and therefore deserves no chances?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Part one of this video assumes an inseparable wall between individualism and collectivism exists. To reach such a conclusion you would have to ignore the relationship between democracy and autonomy. In the wild a person is entitled to whatever actions he wishes to pursue. However, the moment said individual chooses to associate, he enters a contract with the existing persons that can only be broken by disassociating. Rights derive from the consensual bidding of all parties. Young children, for example, may be part of the association, but they are not granted voting rights. The author of this video stumbles on his definitions. In the beginning he quotes Mao by saying rights are won at the end of a gun, but then later on he says rights are inherit.

Touting individualism is all well and good, until your neighbor's music keeps you awake until 5 o-clock in the morning. Proclaimed individualists typically have a bad habit at dismissing positive liberty. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty)


Therefore the best way of government is neither 0% gov control or 100% gov control even if the intention is good.

The state and governance do not act in the same manner. A mutual association of individuals creates a government. A state is formed when the association no longer becomes mutually recognizable.


(A politician who exemplifies these ideals is Ron Paul)To give the most power to communities, rather than to the state.

Libertarian socialism is quite more the positive force than any capitalist alternative. I would even go so far as to claim libertarian capitalism is an oxymoron (so would the classical libertarians).

[BurnTheOliveTree]

In essence they both are the same, mob rule.


Bullshit. Non-government can result in mob rule, sometimes. Say we did away with all state intervention in economics et cetera, only there in an administrative capacity. We'd have something like anarcho-capitalism. This can deviate into mob rule, but it doesn't have to and probably won't.

Non-government combined with co-operative economics, i.e. Utopian socialism or communism, could be summed up as "no rule at all". :)

Full government, provided it is still democratic, is only mob rule if you think democracy is mob rule.

-Alex

[Dimentio]

The truth is that capitalism and bourgeoisie society is very collectivist, because it makes your life - whether you are a worker or a businessman - an issue for other people. You must produce products or services which they like in order to survive in society. Hence, you could never be completely free, but must act in a way which maximises your output.

[Luís Henrique]

What if this:

is a false dichotomy?

Capitalism requires collective effort to operate; I don't see much lonely self-employed people each putting their product/service on sale...
Corporations/companies/businesses are hierarchical collectives of sorts for the purpose of maximizing profit for it's abstract self (as a corporation) and, more concretely, the executives and shareholders.

Yes...

These days my daughter and me passed by a McDonalds just before it opened to the public, and we could hear some kind of "motivational" exercise inside it, with people shouting something like, "hooray, hooray, hooray, Mc-Mc-Mc Donalds, hooray".

I very much doubt there was room for individual refuse of such shit.

So much for "individualism" in capitalist corporations.

Luís Henrique

[IcarusAngel]

I see capitalism as collectivist. Corporations are collectivist in nature, and they succeed by appealing to the greatest number of people in certain sectors. Usually, this is done only for profit. Of course, they never justly acquired the property in the first place, the property was most likely handed down in land grabs or even given to them by the government. Microsoft, GE, and so on, have all had help from the government. So capitalism is inherently collectivist, and relies upon the collectivist government to protect itself. Thus, capitalist is anti-individualist anarchist.

Capitalists' version of taxation is rent; corporations become governments in and of themselves because they control so much of the resources; they acquire power and profit through property and prestige because this is supposedly a "natural right." Thus everybody else has to pay the corporate taxation in order to survive and get goods, and the "change" in government only comes when another corporate elite figures out how to compete effectively. But people are never equal enough to compete with the corporations. Thus, capitalism is anti-collectivist anarchist.

Capitalism is also inherently statist, because it says that everybody must agree with THEIR definition of property (this concept is collectivist too btw...), and if anybody violates it, they're in the wrong. So they need some higher order (usually the govt.) to protect themselves. Thus, capitalism is anti-collectivist anarchist. Thus, capitalism is anti-anarchist altogether.

This is just stupid, no system can be right on everything or absolutist. That's why anarchists believe you should let the people themselves figure things out, probably through democracy (yes there will be mistakes at times, but no system can be perfect). So, capitalism is inherently collectivist, statist, tyrannical, and elitist, and the more you "privatize" things, the worse they seem to get. This is why many anarchists said that capitalism is one of the worst tyrannies imaginable. It's no surprise capitalism has only succeeded with the government's help and has failed miserably on its own.

Capitalism is derived from the state, and past tyrannical systems like feudalism, and it is derived from tyrants like Ludwig von Mises who are inherently statist idiots.

It is a fact that all individualist anarchists, as well as collectivist anarchists, opposed capitalism. That is the definition they have come up with.

You merely claim to be an individualist even though Spooner etc. would have seen you as a collectivist.

So you have come up with your own system that is out of line with the individualist anarchists considering you support collectivist institutions like corporations and so on.

It is true I'm not against collectivist like some "egoist" anarchists (who also are anti-capitalism) were, and are. Collectivism has proven useful in the sciences and so on, so I don't see why you'd oppose it. It's like not giving engineers the same set of measuring standards to build their building. It seems to me that some common agreement and so on can be a good thing, and you'd reject anything that doesn't make sense.

I am opposed to bad collectivism, though, make no mistake. Corporations, businesses capitalistic governments, etc., are all bad forms of collectivism, forcing people to accept outcomes that they probably wouldn't otherwise accept if they were free.

[RGacky3]

Socialism is all for individualism, individualism for eveyrone, Capitalism is for individualism for those who can afford it.

[pusher robot]

The truth is that capitalism and bourgeoisie society is very collectivist, because it makes your life - whether you are a worker or a businessman - an issue for other people.
That doesn't make it collective, that makes is cooperative. It's not collective because the fundamental political, economic, and social unit is the individual.
You must produce products or services which they like in order to survive in society. Hence, you could never be completely free, but must act in a way which maximises your output.
No you don't. You can still surivive in the same way that all humans survived before cooperative society. In fact, it would be substantially easier now than it was then because you can free-ride off the common knowledge and the unwanted surplus produced by the cooperative society. But the key concept here is that just as you are not required to cooperate with society, the rest of society is not required to cooperate with you. It's voluntary on both sides; fortunately, cooperation usually occurs because it is so obviously beneficial to do so.

[IcarusAngel]

It's not really "cooperative" because you're forced into your trade, your only other option being starvation. Obviously, individuals in capitalism don't get to power without the help of the government or society as well, and their interest, as I said, is for profit. Which means they come to power through advertising, lying, cheating their workers, cheating their buyers, cheating the government, cheating citizens, etc.

[pusher robot]

It's not really "cooperative" because you're forced into your trade, your only other option being starvation.

So let me get this straight, I'm trying to understand how your bizarre sematics here. Suppose that a dozen people survive a plane crash to be stranded in the wilderness. Alone, any of them lack the knowledge to survive and would die, but by exchanging skills and information with each other, they are able to stay alive.

This, to you, is NOT an example of cooperation, because the individuals are forced into helping the others because the only other option is starvation. Is that right?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Except yours is quite predictably an inaccurate comparison. It would be better for you to amend the scenario to have a man shoot the plane down so that it would crash on a remote island. He then greets the twelve survivors and tells them he'll offer food in exchange for their obedience from 5 in the morning to 7 at night.

Capitalism is exactly that. We're all born to our individual class, and few actually possess the luck, know-how, and ability to move up. Social mobility is the largest myth of it all. Children born to poor-income families have less than a 1% chance at reaching the top 5%, and middle-class children have less than a 2% chance - whereas children born to the top 5% have a 22% chance of remaining there, with about double the likelihood of remaining in the top 6-10%. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html I'd like to see statistics which show many people actually reach the capitalist class - the top 1%.

[luis9343]

Full government, provided it is still democratic, is only mob rule if you think democracy is mob rule.

-Alex


yes, i think thats what the video is trying to say, that democracy is essentially mob rule, at least the type of democracies humans have been able to run


Yes...

These days my daughter and me passed by a McDonalds just before it opened to the public, and we could hear some kind of "motivational" exercise inside it, with people shouting something like, "hooray, hooray, hooray, Mc-Mc-Mc Donalds, hooray".

I very much doubt there was room for individual refuse of such shit.

So much for "individualism" in capitalist corporations.

Luís Henrique

i think the video actually argues that we live in a capitalist/socialist society

[Joby]

Capitalism is exactly that. We're all born to our individual class, and few actually possess the luck, know-how, and ability to move up. Social mobility is the largest myth of it all. Children born to poor-income families have less than a 1% chance at reaching the top 5%, and middle-class children have less than a 2% chance - whereas children born to the top 5% have a 22% chance of remaining there, with about double the likelihood of remaining in the top 6-10%.


So what? Capitalism isn't here to promise anyone a mansion.

But to say that "moving up" isn't really a viable option in the current system is ridiculous. Almost everyone who is now midle lass moved up at one time or another, many just recently.

And by the way, the argument that all rich people were born into it is crap. Here's the breakdown of America's millionaires:

*Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives. * Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm

From the great book The Millionaire Next Door

(the basics are a.) write a budget b.) spend less than you earn c.) invest d.) don't care what people think about your 7 year old used car)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

yes, i think thats what the video is trying to say, that democracy is essentially mob rule, at least the type of democracies humans have been able to run



That's such an elitist wanker position to take, though. Democracy, when it's unobstructed by economic and social structures, is what we should all be aiming for. Presumably you think that we humans are just too savage to all be given a say, and we ought to have the most refined of us take decisions instead? Pfft. I spit on your anti-people shit.

-Alex

[luis9343]

That's such an elitist wanker position to take, though. Democracy, when it's unobstructed by economic and social structures, is what we should all be aiming for. Presumably you think that we humans are just too savage to all be given a say, and we ought to have the most refined of us take decisions instead? Pfft. I spit on your anti-people shit.

-Alex

ok, but don't you agree that if your community had more power and your state had less, it would benefit you more. How much can i effect my government? Not much, how much can i effect the small town i live in? A lot more, and thats the idea of a republic, to give more power to the states and communities and take it away from the big state. To protect individual rights and give us a bigger voice. Also, the more power you give to the government, the bigger possibility it is going to be corrupt, take the US for example, (even though its supposed to be based on the US constitution which is the blueprint for a republic and small gov, and never mentions the world democracy) it is a democracy, founded on the right ideals of democracy, but it is corrupt. Votes are bought, media is biased, kids are dying in Iraq for oil, and corporations control the government. If the gov didn't have so much power, the corporations wouldn't have so much power, because thats were they get their power from, by that laws of the government, by lobbying etc.

[pusher robot]

Except yours is quite predictably an inaccurate comparison. It would be better for you to amend the scenario to have a man shoot the plane down so that it would crash on a remote island. He then greets the twelve survivors and tells them he'll offer food in exchange for their obedience from 5 in the morning to 7 at night.

I'm baffled why you think so. Suppose for a moment that everyone on the planet except you and your mother instantly vaporized the moment you were born. Accordng to your analysis, this ought to be very good for you, since nobody is stealing what's yours or sabatoging you, right? If capitalism weren't around to be oppressing you every waking moment, you ought to find life much easier, oughtn't you? Yet I suspect this would not be the case.

[Apollodorus]

Touting individualism is all well and good, until your neighbor's music keeps you awake until 5 o-clock in the morning.

Comrade Gene Costa has won. Sorry, guys.

Now, in response to the original post, or rather, the videos in the original post, it is stated that all political stances can be reduced to collectivism and individualism. That's bollocks. How is racism collectivist? How is environmentalism individualist? In my opinion, racism is not individualism and environmentalism is not collectivism; but, if I was to reduce these two stances into collectivism and individualism, that is how I would do it. I mean, you have a very nice encomium of individualism there, but if you try to write an encomium of anti-environmentalist racism-individualism, no matter how much pretty/scary music or rhetoric you use, no one will fall for it.

[Faux Real]

ok, but don't you agree that if your community had more power and your state had less, it would benefit you more.That kind of relation would mutually benefit everyone in the community.

How much can i effect my government? Not much, how much can i effect the small town i live in? A lot more, and thats the idea of a republic, to give more power to the states and communities and take it away from the big state. To protect individual rights and give us a bigger voice.No, not a republic. Republicanism was founded on the idea that a few representatives "of the people" can make better decisions for the people than the people themselves. Republicanism is inherently statist. The USSR and just about every "Communist country" you've seen or heard of was a republic, communist in nothing more than party name. Some were genuinely trying to push forward towards communism with implementation of some socialist ideals, like public health care, but there was never any democracy from below.

Likewise, the USA is a republic, and fails to live up to its proclamations of democracy. If holding elections is the primary method of affecting state policy then democracy here is just as minimal as in the former USSR. Republicanism was substituted for the word democracy in the American lexicon. Just like how authoritarian planned economies have been labeled communist by the right wing press.

In any case, what you seem to be yearning for is anarchism, not centralized/statist socialism or republicanism.

Also, the more power you give to the government, the bigger possibility it is going to be corrupt, take the US for example, (even though its supposed to be based on the US constitution which is the blueprint for a republic and small gov, and never mentions the world democracy) it is a democracy, founded on the right ideals of democracy, but it is corrupt. Calling the state "corrupts" ignores the possibility of there being a symptom inherent in the system that inevitably "corrupts" or gives way for economic/social oppression/inequality to arise. Have you ever though it's the economic interests that's espoused by the ideals of the constitution? Hell, Thomas Paine even acknowledged that what was laid out in the US constitution would not last forever, being that inequality in property ownership would lead to another American revolution that would aim to redistribute property in a more equitable/socialist form.

Votes are bought, media is biased, kids are dying in Iraq for oil, and corporations control the government.Voting has never solved anything. The media is owned by a handful of capitalists. I could care less about these "kids" you speak of(whom I assume are American soldiers, I care more about the Iraqi child who loses their entire family if not killed themselves under indiscriminate fire, but then again what's the life of one of "our troops" to an Iraqi's? :rolleyes:). And will your type please ever get over the word corporation? Under any form of laissez-fare economics there will be a natural merger at some degree between those with access to capital and policy makers of the state. They're joined at the hip.

If the gov didn't have so much power, the corporations wouldn't have so much power, because thats were they get their power from, by that laws of the government, by lobbying etc.Wrong. Even if there was no state yet private property was not abolished in favor of communal property there will always be the threat of capital accumulation leading to an inequality in power, both politically and resourcefully. As long as there are capitalist economic systems at play there will always be a ruling class who can buy their way into power either through lobbying politicians or hiring armed mercenaries...and yes, even in a Ron-Paul utopia! :lol:

Also, learn to distinguish government from the state, there will always be government. I'm all for local-level governance according to consensus.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

So what? So what if the system is lopsided to favor those born with a golden spoon in their mouth? Are you actually pursuing that question?


But to say that "moving up" isn't really a viable option in the current system is ridiculous. Almost everyone who is now midle lass moved up at one time or another, many just recently.The "middle" class jargon thrown around by media pundits means nothing. Most middle class individuals in the West are still workers; their livelihood relies on submitting to a boss.


And by the way, the argument that all rich people were born into it is crap. Here's the breakdown of America's millionaires:I didn't say they were. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.



*Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives. * Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.Assuming the article is accurate (which is a large leap of faith, considering the source), you've failed to counter my original point. How many of these people married into wealth? How many were born to the top 5-10%? I know right off the top of my head the three richest men in America were living more than just a decent life before their ascension into wealth.

You also incorrectly assume millionaires equate to capitalists, when in reality that's not true at all. We're talking about big money, not the chump change that is thrown away at lottery winners, athletes, or actresses.

Or wait - do you think these people deserve that large amount of money too? :laugh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm baffled why you think so. Suppose for a moment that everyone on the planet except you and your mother instantly vaporized the moment you were born. Accordng to your analysis, this ought to be very good for you, since nobody is stealing what's yours or sabatoging you, right? If capitalism weren't around to be oppressing you every waking moment, you ought to find life much easier, oughtn't you? Yet I suspect this would not be the case.

Wow, you're really pushing for something, aren't you?

[pusher robot]

Wow, you're really pushing for something, aren't you?

That is incorrect
Pushing is inferior
Shoving is the answer

[Joby]

Assuming the article is accurate (which is a large leap of faith, considering the source), you've failed to counter my original point. How many of these people married into wealth? How many were born to the top 5-10%? I know right off the top of my head the three richest men in America were living more than just a decent life before their ascension into wealth.

You also incorrectly assume millionaires equate to capitalists, when in reality that's not true at all. We're talking about big money, not the chump change that is thrown away at lottery winners, athletes, or actresses.

Or wait - do you think these people deserve that large amount of money too? :laugh:


As was pointed out by the facts, very few were in the top 5-10%. As it said, "Fewer than 20% inherited more than 10% of their wealth."

That right there takes out the Gates, Rockeffelers, et al.

As for the rest, most live in an upper-middle class home, or drive a 2-year old used car.

Yes, they deserve every dime they have. The average American worker will earn millions over their career, yet why aren't many millionaires?

Because they're addicted to spending. It's that simple.

And unlike the commies here, these people realized they had to sacrifice extravagance to attain wealth; it wasn't going to be handed to them.

It's not the evil cappie robbing them; Many choose to spend $5 at a Cappie dry-cleanrs instead of ironing their shirts. Many choose to spend $20 a week to have their lawns mowed. Or go out to MickeyD's instead of making PB&J.

Or get some "Creative Financing" on a house they can't afford.



The authors suggest that an "Average Accumulator of Wealth (AAW)" should have a net worth equal to one-tenth their age multiplied by their current annual income from all sources. E.g., a 50-year-old person who over the past twelve months earned employment income of $45,000 and investment income of $5,000 should have an expected net worth of $250,000. An "Under Accumulator of Wealth (UAW)" would have half that amount, and a "Prodigious Accumulator of Wealth (PAW)" would have two times.
Most of the millionaire households that they profiled did not have the extravagant lifestyles that most people would assume. This finding is backed up by surveys indicating how little these millionaire households have spent on such things as cars, watches, suits, and other luxury products/services. Most importantly, the book gives a list of reasons for why these people managed to accumulate so much wealth (the top one being that "They live below their means"). The authors make a distinction between the 'Balance Sheet Affluent' (those with actual wealth, or high net-worth) and the 'Income Affluent' (those with a high income, but little actual wealth, or low net-worth).


Some other info to combat the "all cappies live on the hill and eat working class babies for breakfast" attacks:


The Russian ancestry group ranks first, the Scottish ranks second, and the Hungarian ranks third. Although the Russian ancestry group accounts for only about 1.1 percent of all households in America, it accounts for 6.4 percent of all millionaire households. We estimate that approximately 22 of every 100 households headed by someone of Russian ancestry has a net worth of $1 million or more. This is in sharp contrast to the English ancestry group, in which only 7.71 in 100 of its members are in the millionaire league. How much wealth does this Russian American millionaire group have in total? We estimate approximately $1.1 trillion, or nearly 5 percent of all the personal wealth in America today!

How does an immigrant group amass this wealth? Scots, too, are very highly concentrated.

In one word: frugality.

Now, when it comes to the big earners in income, they pay huge amounts of taxes and are obvioulsy preforming a task society has made for them. Who am I to complain?

Though I would hardly call a million "chump change"

[Joby]

Now, in response to the original post, or rather, the videos in the original post, it is stated that all political stances can be reduced to collectivism and individualism. That's bollocks. How is racism collectivist? How is environmentalism individualist? In my opinion, racism is not individualism and environmentalism is not collectivism; but, if I was to reduce these two stances into collectivism and individualism, that is how I would do it. I mean, you have a very nice encomium of individualism there, but if you try to write an encomium of anti-environmentalist racism-individualism, no matter how much pretty/scary music or rhetoric you use, no one will fall for it.

Racism is absolutely a collectivist idea. You no longer judge people on an individual basis, but on which collective they belong too.