Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Don't forget all the dachas on the lake and the mistresses.

Or the Swiss bank accounts - add those three in, and you've got your real version of the New Soviet Man.

[Sirotnikov]

I think I got some of the issue figured out.

Commies, what you have been constantly saying is that people like Bush Jr. or Bill G. have not actually made opportunities for themselves but have recieved opportunities that they were inherited by their rich family line. They were "born rich". Other people, have sadly not, and thus what is unfair is that some people get more opportunities that others don't, simply for being lucky enough to be born rich.

I think the point is mute, since if Bush Jr. (or lets say, Bush 3 or 4, when both leading Bushes fade out) will be total slackers, their opportunities will waste away and doors will slowly close for them. A person who is born rich has more opportunities but if he doesn't exploit any of them, he might die poor.

But let's assume you don't accept that and think that Bush Sr. will awlays be in the picture, and then Bush Jr. since even a no good slacker like him gets more privelages since he did get to be president.

Let's cancel privelages that go with family name. You can think about that, but then you would have to legally and morally deal with inheritance. How can you prevent Bush Sr. from inheriting his properties and name to Bush Jr.? You can't really. That's the whole point of inheritance and that's the point of life. We better ourselves in an attempt to create better starting ground for our children and to allow OUR genes to succeed better in the evolution struggle.

Our whole life goes by the way of accumulating wealth in hope to create better starting position for your kin. That goes not only for us as individuals, but also as a race. If we would stop accumulating things like wealth, knowledge and status, and would stop becoming more successfull, we will die out as a species. So we do have to accumulate 'stuff'.

So you might suggest, that to give a fair chance to all newborns, you can't inherit things directly to them. Rather the money goes to a govt. which will use it for public good, and will distribute equal money to all newborns, from which they can have a fresh clean start. But the universal knowledge and wealth are still acumulated.

However, one can't look at life as an issue of personal achievements. It's rather a string of achievements passed on through generations, as it's intended to be. One tries to improve his life in order to leave a better world first and foremost for HIS children. His kin are seen as a natural continuation of his life process. In many ways breaking family inheritance and taking away what someone's fathers have earned, is just as logical as taking away everything you own at the age of 40, saying that you have to start all over, to give a fair chance to those who did not do so well until the age of 40. Wealth and status is meant to be given to the next generation.

Inheritance being taken away, is against evolution in many ways. To an extent, it's down right impossible. No one can take away for instance, talent, mind and beauty. Suppose some people are born pretty and talented while others are not. Is this 'fair'? They did nothing active to gain the opportunities that their genes give them. Should we also forcefully randomize genes? That OBVIOUSLY goes against evolution and against natural processes.


Therefore, you can't possible eliminate inheritance, and claim that having everyone start from point blank, without extra, inherited opportunities, is in any way more productive (as seen before) or just (since the father has to see his fruits of hard labour go down the drain).


So capitalism can't fight inheritance, which does create a situation in which not everyone start from point blank. However capitalism is still fair enough, to let anyone, given he is talented and willing enough, be the started of a new 'thread' of successfull genes and wealth, by rewarding those with enough motivation and effort and proper reading of the market.

If you start a bussiness, and inherit it to your son, he can find a way to improve it and broaden it, and after 3 generations you can possibly be the next Bush.

Why is it promised that you will not 'run out of space'? Because the human species keeps growing in size and new products and gain opportunity will appears. 150 years ago it looked like people who owned horses and railways would rule transportation forever, until a couple of silly brothers invented flight.

Why are you assured that the same families won't keep winning, pushing you aside? Because sometime there will always be a f*ckup who will be a total loser and a slacker.

Think of Rome. It had everything. All the opportunities, all the money, all the military, all the culture. And it accumulated it too. It technically should have ruled the world forever. But then came a few bad, incompetent rules, and then arrived, fairly weak and burtal raiders from other places, who took advantage of that.


So yes, you, personally probably don't have a chance to become bill gates. But you have a chance to be a start of a process that might produce someone bigger.

[Velociryx]

Ahhh, but I can almost hear the drum beats now....watch for responses like these, coming to a thread near you:

* What gives your kids the right to lord your wealth over my kids?

* We should confiscate the wealth you pass on to your kids and disperse it equally to everyone (and even better, periodically take accumulated wealth from everyone as you sugessted and make them start over! Good plan!)

* You should not worry about providing for your kids. Your kids aren't important. The group is important. Sacrifice yourself and your posessions to the group, even though they did nothing to help you earn them.

Good stuff, huh? Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated, or you will be sent to the new Gulag.

-=Vel=-
(Hey! I'm getting better at this! I musta missed my calling!)

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Velociryx
.......

If BECAUSE he has more, these others have less, of course, but economics is not a zero-sum game. In short, it doesn't work that way. Bill Gates' wealth did NOTHING to deny you wealth. Thus, the fact of his obvious affluence should do an equal amount (ie - NOTHING) to afford you more.

-=Vel=-

You could even make the argument that because Bill Gates managed somehow to improve productivity by offering his products in the marketplace, and thus created some wealth, a percentage of which he has managed to retain, that the pie is bigger, and thus Bill Gates (and anyone who adds something to the economy) actually increases your chances of achieving a given level of wealth by growing the "pie".

[JohnT]

You could make that argument. Problem is, nobody on the other side will buy it because, well, it doesn't fit in with their theology.

[Tuberski]

I'm suprised that this went to 500 posts, more suprised that I posted here before this.

Doesn't more people getting wealthy also mean that the wealth they have is worth less?

Beat ya to it skywalker!

ACK!

[Kuciwalker]

Wow.... 500 posts.

I've never personally witnessed this.

[DinoDoc]

Speer's got to be happy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

time to sent this thread off to count trees.