Capitalism really just luck

Discussion in 'Finance' started by Pardy, May 10, 2014.

  1. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, it's kind of a metaphor..draw your own conclusions
     
  2. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, anarcho-capitalism can be said to have elements of luck. Capitalism can always fail as long as Socialism can bail it out.
     
  3. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Too simplified (and what's up with person B) I view getting money as a gift as well. Some of us have that gift, most of us don't. It's a talent, like being artistic or musical or being able to tell a story. Look at the number of people that have everything handed to them. Successful musicians, actors, lottery winners that have ended up bankrupt. Either you know how to make money, keep it and make it grow, or you don't. No matter how you were born. The advantage those born to wealth has is the person in the family, that had the talent to make the money knew that there was more to it than simply having money. So their heirs get managed money or get paid by a fund or foundation of some kind.
     
  4. Pardy

    Pardy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,437
    Likes Received:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How do we know they're self-made? I've heard people say that Donald Trump was a self-made billionaire, but he was left a fortune from his father.

    Just because somebody is rich doesn't mean that they're self-made, and even if they are self-made, it may be completely by chance -- getting lucky again and again.

    What about people who are born very poor and stay poor despite working just as hard as the guy who makes it to the middle class? It's all a game of chance.

    So, people who work hard and have good marriages and aren't addicts are all millionaires?
     
    Meta777 and (deleted member) like this.
  5. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Capitalism isn't beautiful at all. It is based upon an economics of all resources being scarce, which cannot allow all of humanity to thrive or even survive, and so it is a system that allows some of humanity to have much more than they could ever need, as others literally starve from not having the basics. That isn't beautiful at all.

    Now what would be beautiful, and now with modern tech it is finally possible, is for ALL of humanity to thrive, but it gets rid of the rich and the poor. We would have to get rid of the hoarders, which is a mental illness, and sociopathic in nature, by moving to a resource based economic model and away from market capitalism which is without a doubt no sustainable. For market capitalism is consumerism, it is consuming more and more, even as we live on a plant with finite resources. Capitalism is deeply flawed, and cannot be sustained. That is a fact.

    It also is a great factor in creating most of our crime and social ills, for most crime comes from the poor, who do not have enough, in a nation that celebrates excess, and worships excess, worships the hoarders.

    Market capitalism will implode, creating a depression that we will never get out of, unless we change what causes depressions, market capitalism. Human intelligence is in the process of evolving, and this will end market capitalism, but the catalyst will be the implosion of what cannot be sustained.

    Capitalism worked for awhile, but it was always limited in its life. Robotics and automation is the paradox in a market consumption based economic model. Back in 1932, under FDR we were even considering stopping all advances in automation, for even back then smart men saw the end results of this, which removed the human element, thereby taking away the money needed to buy what the machines would make.
     
  6. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Privatize the profits, socialize the risks? That is what has happened, so you do have a point.

    I am opting for the Resource based economic model, a model which can now exist due to the advancement in technology, and which will end market capitalism for it's an exercise in insanity, given the earth's finite resources, including the 800 pound ape residing in the corner, peak oil. Add to that we will have perhaps 9 billion people by 2050, and consumerism is like a cancer upon the earth's finite resources.

    These people who think market capitalism is sustainable just are not using their brains for much except to parrot what their leaders of ideology are telling them. Why isn't it obvious, given reality? I am afraid market capitalism will have to crash and burn before they can see the facts of the matter. And that implosion is not that far off, less than a lifetime. It is inevitable.
     
  7. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe socialism should bailout capitalism with simple benchmark Standards. Full employment of resources in any given market but especially markets in human capital should be one such Standard. Thus, we should be correcting for any market failures or inefficiencies such as capitalism's, "natural rate of unemployment".

    One way to correct for a natural rate of unemployment by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual; is by solving for a natural rate of unemployment. We can do that through unemployment compensation and at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines for Individuals. We could be lowering our tax burden by cost shifting "market share" from more expensive, means tested welfare onto something as simple as the concept of employment at will can make it.

    In my opinion, means tested welfare should be for those for whom simply solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough.
     
  8. Moriah

    Moriah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,646
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No, but if you work hard, have a good marriage and are not an addict, your chances of doing well financially are much better than if the reverse is true. I do not believe life is all a game of chance. If I believed that I never would have went to school and worked hard all these years. Luck may play some role in our lives, but I wouldn't count on it.
     
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe more in the socialism of the rule of law.
     
  10. Pardy

    Pardy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,437
    Likes Received:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That increases the odds. But does working hard always pay off. If not, why?

    Neither do I. But I believe that capitalism is a crap shoot. You put your chips on the table and anything can happen.

    I got "lucky" in life. I do alright for myself. However, there have been people who have worked much harder than me and ended up with nothing through no fault of their own.
     
  11. galant

    galant Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sure, sometimes luck is a part of it, perhaps even most of the time and a major part of it. but most success is from long, hard work and many briliant insights into what will succeed, and how to go about doing it. I've had many claim that I had a 'natrual talent" for shooting and karate. But the fact is, they are ignoring the hundreds of hours of disciplined practice that I put in, and the thousands of $ spent. Same way with most other things.
     
  12. galant

    galant Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People are unemployed, because they lack the ability (and often, the willingness) to do anything that other people value enough to pay (a decent amount of money) to have them do. All it takes to end poverty is for the poor to STOP HAVING KIDS. Presto, after 3 generations, no more poor people. Quite a simple thing, so why don't they wise up? Get sterilized, people. Raising a kid (properly, without mooching off of the taxpayers and others) costs 1/2 million $, in CURRENT money values and it will be a million $ in 20 years, due to inflation. So you can either retire after 10-15 years of work (and intelligent living/investment) or you can have a couple of kids, and still be working 40years later, never having had anything, done anything or gone anywhere. take your pick.
     
  13. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well we all know they're not going to take that advice.
    And yet they'll whine and complain and ask for more welfare to support them.
    And then the dems will continue to force us ALL to oblige them.

    Perhaps what we need is forced sterilization for the poor? Just mandate that every individual under a certain income or wealth threshold must be sterilized by a certain age. Or, better yet, we just tell them straight up; either get sterilized or get cut off from welfare and go die in ditch...along with your kids.
    Then like you said, we'd save a ton of money, and after a while all the poor people would one way or another simply die off.

    -Atem
     
  14. Judicator1

    Judicator1 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure, but the problem here isn't that they are gambling, the problem is that they are in such poor circumstances that the boat. Consider the high death rate in border crossings from Africa-Europe (across the Mediterranean) and from Mexico to the US (across the desert). The problem here isn't that crossing the desert or sea is dangerous - the problem is that standards of living are so different in the two places that it motivates people to take huge risks to get from one place to another. In short, the problem is the fact that it is "forced" not that it involves luck.

    I agree as rule of law becomes stronger, societies become more meritocratic. If a warlord can take all of your possessions at random (bad luck), the best merchants in the world will still struggle. But even with a strong legal system - there is always going to be uncertainty in the system. You don't know if your new restaurant is going to succeed or not but you take the chance and find out with trial and error. I think without people taking chances on new things, we wouldn't have as much variety (taking the restaurant industry as an example). We can't predict the future and that's why there will always be luck. Insurance and a predictable legal code work to remove as much of this as possible, but there will always be chance and that is okay.

    You have complete control over it in the sense that you can choose which gambles you take. I can't be lucky or unlucky at blackjack if I never play. I can't make it (or not) in New York if I never move there. etc.

    Is making sure you have the skills the job market wants really "luck?" People who are career-oriented in college will probably have better opportunities overall than people who aren't, and this has very little to do with luck. This is just their attitude and expectations about the college experience.
     
  15. Judicator1

    Judicator1 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its beautiful because it works. Even if there are people who aren't rewarded as much by the system (their job skills are poor, mental health issues, etc) capitalism provides enough extra to fund huge transfer payments - the US is able to spend over $2 trillion/year on social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.

    People are thriving now more than ever before, and the planet is able to support more people than ever before, thanks in part to capitalism. Hundreds of millions in China have been lifted out of poverty from "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" (really capitalism).

    How do you suppose we "get rid of the hoarders" without destroying the incentive to "hoard." When really by "hoard" you mean provide goods and services that people want in exchange for payment.

    Look at crime rates in pre-capitalist societies. Duals were commonplace, people killed each other all the time, wars of territorial conquest were common, etc etc. Look at crime rates in wealthy (i.e. advanced capitalist) nations today - far lower. Capitalism makes many people rich which reduces the crime rate. It makes very little sense to steal bread when a week of US minimum wage buys around 150 loaves of bread.

    Easy there Marx....

    Machines enhance productivity, making you richer, not poorer. Do you really think the Luddites had it right?
     
  16. galant

    galant Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    we're going to have 9 billion people a LOT sooner than 2050, barring a pandemic or really horrible war. In fact, we'll have that many by 2030, or perhaps a lot sooner. People jus never learn, man.
     
  17. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not really. This idea of classes staying stagnant is just unfounded. Someone who is born into the top 20% only has about a 38% chance of staying in it (there are various studies, each reporting usually within a few percent of 38% - this nice graph shows a 40% chance).

    [​IMG]

    Does being born into wealth help you grow into wealth? Yup. But this is just as true of socialism (as I think you're admitting). But the idea that it's just a roll of the dice is silly. Take a look at the middle quintile. If you're born in the middle quintile, you have pretty much the same chance of ending up in any of the five quintiles. If it was about luck in birth, wouldn't you think that there would be far less mobility?

    Let's put it this way - those born in the top have are just as likely to fall from it as those born in the bottom are to rise from it and, in both cases, that is the statistical norm (for those born in the top to fall from it, and those born in the bottom to rise from it).
     
  18. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think anyone claims that the classes are completely stagnant,
    but what your chart clearly shows is that, under our current system, those born at the top are more likley to stay at the top,
    and those born at the bottom are more likley to stay at the bottom.

    -Meta
     
  19. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only question worth asking is: where ought sovereignty be placed? In global government? Regional government? National government? State government? Local government? With the individual himself?
     
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    If market conditions at any given time are conducive to luck, then why isn't capitalism just luck?
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Or, since time is money, why are so many false capitalists wasting so much time not having Pareto Superior public policies?
     
  22. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, it was said that how you make it in capitalist society is essentially a luck of the draw and, as I demonstrated, it isn't.

    But what exactly do you think is necessary for it to be fair - that those born in the top and bottom quintile have the same exact chance of ending up in the top quintile?
     
  23. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope; just solving simple poverty is enough for some to not stay poor on an at-will basis if that is not what they want.
     
  24. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The leftist Utopia can be described as a completely 'regulated' market and populace so that THEY (the 'special ones') can be assured of lifetime entitlements by controlling the flow of capital instead of giving the most weight to the free 'arm's length' monetary transactions based on basic market forces that naturally rewards the successful and creates great societies.
     
  25. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    That's great for the rest of them, but what about the left in the US, that has this social Contract and mission statement to consider:

     

Share This Page