Inequality really is bad for society

But not how you'd think.

http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/appeal-american-elites-one/

A little theory called "Elite overproduction" essentially claims that when too many people "make good", and you have a glut of rich assholes, that they'll use every dirty trick in the book to make sure they become top dog over their rich ******* peers.

This results in, say, bullshit propaganda mud smears from Fox News and CNN, both owned by rich assholes with axes to grind against other rich assholes.

At its worst, you could end up in a civil war situation, with armies of angry Joe averages and "wanna be elite's" whipped into a frenzy against political rivals.

I like the theory, because I'm familiar with some Roman history, and how really bad things happened when, for example, a Roman general was motivated by his wife to murder a caesar friend who was becoming too big for his britch's. When it turned out the General couldn't realize his ambitions even after killing his friend, he sat and ate dinner as Rome was sacked and looted.

The article is worth reading.

Nonsense, everyone has the same opportunities in life and if they fail, it's because they didn't pull hard enough on their own bootstraps.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nonsense, everyone has the same opportunities in life and if they fail, it's because they didn't pull hard enough on their own bootstraps.

Did you pull on your bootstrap so hard it broke? Well that's your own fault, dummy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Did you pull on your bootstrap so hard it broke? Well that's your own fault, dummy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nonsense, everyone has the same opportunities in life and if they fail, it's because they didn't pull hard enough on their own bootstraps.

You jest but that's mostly true.

It's just that most people are not born with the willpower and intelligence to succeed. And those are cold hard facts that the world (mostly ultra-capitalist right-wingers) are not prepared to acknowledge.

Edit - People are born with stubbornness or unrelenting drive. Very few people are made that way. It's a genes thing. Same with intelligence. All of it "sinks into place" once you get into adulthood and it really really sucks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You jest but that's mostly true.

It's just that most people are not born with the willpower and intelligence to succeed. And those are cold hard facts that the world (mostly ultra-capitalist right-wingers) are not prepared to acknowledge.

Edit - People are born with stubbornness or unrelenting drive. Very few people are made that way. It's a genes thing. Same with intelligence. All of it "sinks into place" once you get into adulthood and it really really sucks.

Being born into a poor war torn village in Africa does not net you the same opportunities as being born to millionaire parents in say Germany.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You jest but that's mostly true.

It's just that most people are not born with the willpower and intelligence to succeed. And those are cold hard facts that the world (mostly ultra-capitalist right-wingers) are not prepared to acknowledge.

Edit - People are born with stubbornness or unrelenting drive. Very few people are made that way. It's a genes thing. Same with intelligence. All of it "sinks into place" once you get into adulthood and it really really sucks.

Being born into a poor war torn village in Africa does not net you the same opportunities as being born to millionaire parents in say Germany.

Now both can go on to become surgeons, but the former is going to have to work very much harder.

Just to clarify, the issue elite overproduction is less about who has access to success.

It's more that there are too many successful people at the upper levels, and they are all competing for too few top positions.

Imagine The Hunger Games, only populated by the top 1% with complete access to all their resources.

Or better yet, Game of Thrones.

That's how empires crumble. When the conquests are all done and there's nothing left to conquer but where you live.

Originally posted by cdtm
A little theory called "Elite overproduction" essentially claims that when too many people "make good", and you have a glut of rich assholes, that they'll use every dirty trick in the book to make sure they become top dog over their rich ******* peers.

(As an aside, I have a friend who wants very much to be the richest person he knows. He holds onto every penny, and has pointedly said that when he's around people wealthier than him, it pisses him off.)

History has attested, time and again, that those with power (ie, financial, political) often use their power to acquire more power, usually to the detriment of those without power: the 1% vs the 99%, to use colloquial terms. At some point, when the disparity reaches a critical threshold, the 99% revolt and overthrow the old power structure (if they can). A new power structure is set in place, and over time - given the corruption of power - the new elite start using their power to acquire more power ... and the cycle repeats.

One would think, that after 5000 years of this, we'd learn that it may be best, for a society's long-term interests, to avoid the growth of extreme power disparity. But nooOOooo.

Emotional short-term thinkers are we. And depending on what happens to America over the next 80 years (whether or not we can successfully role-model for the world how people from diverse backgrounds can get along), I'm beginning to think the human race may well illustrate one of the resolutions of the Fermi Paradox: that a civilization destroys itself before it can colonize space. I mean, if one nation can't unify, what chance does the whole world have.

Originally posted by Mindship
Why "trickle-down economics" didn't work in the 80s (from whence part of the anger that got Trump elected came from), and it won't work now. You need long-term, disciplined altruism for that to succeed, and humans are much more emotional, short-term thinkers.

(As an aside, I have a friend who wants very much to be the richest person he knows. He holds onto every penny, and has pointedly said that when he's around people wealthier than him, it pisses him off.)

History has attested, time and again, that those with power (ie, financial, political) often use their power to acquire more power, usually to the detriment of those without power: the 1% vs the 99%, to use colloquial terms. At some point, when the disparity reaches a critical threshold, the 99% revolt and overthrow the old power structure (if they can). A new power structure is set in place, and over time - given the corruption of power - the new elite start using their power to acquire more power ... and the cycle repeats.

One would think, that after 5000 years of this, we'd learn that it may be best, for a society's long-term interests, to avoid the growth of extreme power disparity. But nooOOooo.

Emotional short-term thinkers are we. And depending on what happens to America over the next 80 years (whether or not we can successfully role-model for the world how people from diverse backgrounds can get along), I'm beginning to think the human race may well illustrate one of the resolutions of the Fermi Paradox: that a civilization destroys itself before it can colonize space. I mean, if one nation can't unify, what chance does the whole world have.

The book Animal Farm really does seem to say a few things about it.

Someone else already tried making this point, and was attacked for trying to apply an anti Stalinist story to Capitalism.

But think about it. You've obviously got your pigs lying to the public and exploiting everybody. You have your work horses defending the status quo against all evidence, and believe all things can be solved by working harder. You even have "attack dogs" as thugs in the fbi, cia, and various agencies who brazenly told Malcolm X right to his face that they make people disappear.

Originally posted by cdtm
Someone else already tried making this point, and was attacked for trying to apply an anti Stalinist story to Capitalism.

Originally posted by Mindship
FWIW, I'm all for capitalism, just not the anything-goes variety. As I've often said to my friend, you want to be the richest man on earth, go for it. Just, along the way, Do No Harm.

People murder for less money then the top 10% fight for, let alone the 0.1%.

Asking for morality from people weighing in terms of millions of dollars for the slightest move is asking a lot. Not to mention the fact a lot of top money is mixed up in organized crime as money laundering operations, meaning some companies are literally run by the mafia.

Originally posted by Robtard
Being born into a poor war torn village in Africa does not net you the same opportunities as being born to millionaire parents in say Germany.

Now both can go on to become surgeons, but the former is going to have to work very much harder.

You're not wrong.

But you're not right, either. They can just as easily study and move to where the opportunities present themselves. Like MANY of them already do. I'm sure you've worked with a few of those over the years. Hard working, brilliant, and dedicated individuals who worked their butts off and did everything possible to make it to a place with better opportunities.

Slowly, your type of reasoning is no longer the case. As we get full coverage internet and IoT devices into the hands of literally anyone, no longer can we use the excuse that we are solely the products of our environment. We must acknowledge that people are born with a specific set of genes that allows them to succeed.

So we will be faced with acknowledging the fact that most people, probably 9 out of 10, are simply born with a set of genes that prevents them from experiencing stark socioeconomic mobility. Their very programming holds them back.

Disagreed on 'Just as easily", the poor person from the war torn village is going to have to work harder to get themselves into a position where they can move to where they need to be to express their talents.

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed on 'Just as easily", the poor person from the war torn village is going to have to work harder to get themselves into a position where they can move to where they need to be to express their talents.

You don't disagree. You agree. You paraphrase almost exactly my point. You've come around full circle to my point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They can just as easily study and move to where the opportunities present themselves.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So we will be faced with acknowledging the fact that most people, probably 9 out of 10, are simply born with a set of genes that prevents them from experiencing stark socioeconomic mobility. Their very programming holds them back.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Lol holy shit that's the most out-of-touch, delusional thing I've ever seen you write. Your sincere belief in early 20th century social darwinism is why I love you 🙂

You're absolutely right. Magically, all over the world, no matter which circumstances people were born into, Socioeconomic Mobility is extremely high with very little exceptions: from poor nations to rich nations.

What ever would we do without your fierce intellect?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're absolutely right. Magically, all over the world, no matter which circumstances people were born into, Socioeconomic Mobility is extremely high with very little exceptions: from poor nations to rich nations.

What ever would we do without your fierce intellect?

Take the Arab Spring for example.

Lot of social mobility there.

Or Puerto Rico, and the mobility of those asses fortunate enough to only lose their careers, considering they joked about bodies piling up from a disaster.

Maybe we need some of that mobility over here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You don't disagree. You agree. You paraphrase almost exactly my point. You've come around full circle to my point.

Okay, you're trolling me again.