2020 Presidential Election Discussion

Originally posted by Newjak
There will always exist some king of wealth inequality but to believe it is only caused by the variables works harder and is smarter is ridiculous. There are countless others as well. Environment, natural talents, when you were born, where you born, who you were born to, what random chance events impact your life, and so on all play a part in one's ability to accumulate wealth.

Also it's important to note that from a historical context we can see that once income inequality hits a certain threshold it generally means bad things for that country.

Originally posted by wxyz
I would like to point out that wealth inequality is fair.

A person who works harder and smarter should make more, and have more than a person who does not.

Yeah. I think almost everyone agrees with that, whether they are hardcore capitalists or hardcore communists, the degree is important, though. But if you work harder and more, and contribute more it is ok for you to have more as well. I don’t think that’s what we really see in society though, those at the very top generally don’t work harder or smarter, they often just inherited or lucked into the wealth to consolidate their positions. And then they can leverage this position to get much more of the pie than their contribution would warrant.

Karl Marx was not a capitalist lol. He was far from it.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Words like capitalism and socialism have lost their meaning.

Socialism seizes the means of production and centralizes power.

You're describing the "how" of socialism not the "what" of socialism.

A simple definition of socialism is the public control (government) of goods and services. How to get there, in one way, is the government seizes the means of production.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
It destined to fail, almost by design. There are no European countries that are socialist. Social safety nets and regulation are not socialism or anti-capitalism. For capitalism to thrive, we need anti-trust regulations, small amounts of safety nets that encourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship are also vital. Regulatory capture, wealth inequality, and power consolidation are the end result of socialism ironically.

No, those are definitely socialist policies. But they are operating in concert with some forms of capitalism, too. They are referred to as "mixed economies." Because they are a mixture of socialism and capitalism. The US is a mixed economy, as well.

You're referring to pure socialism or absolute socialism when socialism is a very broad umbrella.

Like so:

Originally posted by Artol
Yeah. I think almost everyone agrees with that, whether they are hardcore capitalists or hardcore communists, the degree is important, though. But if you work harder and more, and contribute more it is ok for you to have more as well. I don’t think that’s what we really see in society though, those at the very top generally don’t work harder or smarter, they often just inherited or lucked into the wealth to consolidate their positions. And then they can leverage this position to get much more of the pie than their contribution would warrant.

People at the top, CEOs, entrepreneurs... Have a skill set the vast majority of people do not have.

Originally posted by wxyz
People at the top, CEOs, entrepreneurs... Have a skill set the vast majority of people do not have.

For the most part, almost all of them are part of the oligarchy and do not possess a special skill set beyond what a significant portion of middle managers could do. In many instances, the middle managers could do better. For example, my current CEO is just really damn smart. A brilliant and highly effective man. But he's rare among CEOs. Of all my CEOs, I could definitely do their job better than they could. But I lack the oligarchical connections so I toil away in middle management until a connected oligarch recognizes my ability enough to promote me. Or I could create my own (which is what I want to do) and become my own success. My story is quite common. I know tons of very capable and successful people who would be far better CEOs than most CEOs.

But when it comes to the entrepreneurs who started from nothing, I tend to agree. It's called conscientiousness and openness. They posses both to a high degree.

Originally posted by Newjak
I just wanted to point out these things happen in a capitalistic society as well. Especially the wealth inequality and power consolidation parts. You can look at the various industrial revolutions of the world to see this. You can look at the history of the coal mining and steel industries in the U.S. as well.

One of the benefits of capitalism, and one of its key characteristics are checks and balances. That means anti-trust laws, limitation of the centralization of power, bankruptcies, and regulatory supervision of industries. Capitalism doesn't discourage failure but it punishes complacency. Socialism discourages failure and rewards complacency.

Like you said, inequality has risen up before, but has been dealt with by the different checks and balances. How many socialist countries have gotten better without mass death, revolution, or starvation? It's true that a lot of changes in the U.S. happened because of some crises (Great Depression followed by WWII etc.) but it's never been on the scale of the gulags, Mao's famines, the collapse of the USSR etc.

Unfortunately there is a class of oligarchy developing in the West for the last few decades that is creating the inequality we saw during feudalism.

None of these things are without flaws, but capitalism is still superior to socialism.

Democrats reportedly lambaste party's embrace of far-left policies, socialism: 'It's killing us'

^They are correct

Originally posted by Surtur
None of these things are without flaws, but capitalism is still superior to socialism.

👆

Socialism would destroy the U.S.

Originally posted by wxyz
👆

Socialism would destroy the U.S.

And without capitalism we couldn't pay for any of our social programs.

I bring that up cuz I know certain folk will come scream about those, but they do not make us a socialist country so I thought I'd slap it down before someone went there.

I've seen Leftists say we should liquidate all billionaires net worth and redistribute it equally among households so everyone has the same amount of wealth.

Since when are other people entitled to the wealth of others?

Originally posted by Surtur
None of these things are without flaws, but capitalism is still superior to socialism.

Far superior.

Originally posted by wxyz
I've seen Leftists say we should liquidate all billionaires net worth and redistribute it equally among households so everyone has the same amount of wealth.

Since when are other people entitled to the wealth of others?

They're not entitled to it. That's thievery.

What will they do when they run out of other peoples' money? Socialism just sucks ass.

Originally posted by wxyz
I would like to point out that wealth inequality is fair.

A person who works harder and smarter should make more, and have more than a person who does not.

Originally posted by wxyz
I would like to point out that wealth inequality is fair.

A person who works harder and smarter should make more, and have more than a person who does not.

A certain amount of wealth inequality is fair. but do you really think it's fair for say Jeff Bezos to be worth 183 billion, while a lot of his employees work grueling hours, are on food stamps and have shit healthcare?

Bezos is a p-o-s and I say this as someone who orders stuff off of Amazon several times a week.

Bill Gates and George Soros are both far worse though.

Originally posted by NemeBro
What a bold statement. You're so brave.

wxyz doesn't seem gay

Originally posted by Surtur
wxyz doesn't seem gay