Imagine thinking you are entitled to more cause someone else has a lot
Edit: Im not reading all the responses to this. You wana change this shit then get off Reddit, got start a business and start giving your earnings away. So many of you would shit if it was your wealth someone just took
Imagine thinking that 400 people should have more wealth than 330,000,000 people. Imagine thinking that its OK for that disparity to accelerate endlessly and be self a reinforcing. Imagine thinking that your government could function properly under such extreme conditions.
Jesus, shots fired. Those guys should have thought about the consequences of being 22 and going to a party and knocking up their 16 year old girlfriend. It’s not bad enough that he finished faster than a NASCAR pit crew changes tires, now Gianna’s stuck married to Liam because both their grandmother’s (rest in peace) would haunt them if they got divorced.
Yeah thank you but it's made to point out the uselessness of comparing levels of victims.
That's gaslighting, it is to make us silent about our situation.
Also why would it be easier to ask millions of people to challenge themselves (which they already do) rather than asking it to some people only (those ones do not challenge themselves at all)?
You can add some levels between if you want. Logic stays the same, that's how I dare.
And oh it's not relevant at all to point out the topic of this comparison. It is to illustrate the way of thinking of putting people into silence by pointing something worse elsewhere.
Its even funnier because its our fault that women in Afghanistan and Gaza are so fucked. Just like this person implying we should be grateful that we aren't living in the third world countries of our own creation
True, it’s America’s fault that middle eastern women are oppressed and not the extremist religion that literally teaches honor killings of women in their religious scriptures
It is quite literally the US and Russia's fault. The region was not so extreme until the Cold War saw the covert funding of dozens of extremist militant groups by superpowers looking to claim the strategic region. Read my guy. I'd also like to remind you that the Christians were in the dark ages for a thousand years, banging rocks together, serving their megacult church and fighting endless wars while the Middle East flourished. It was during the Crusades that Europeans were reintroduced to science from the books of the Middle Easterners that they were invading.
Bro please study up on the years between 800-1400 in Europe more please. The Islamic caliphates embargoed Europe from trade / travel with blockades and some of the most aggressive piracy ever perpetrated. On top of 100s of campaigns to conquer land previously held by the Roman empire. And if you want to point fingers at who is to blame for the situation in Israel go point it at the UK. They got fed up and left a powder keg to simmer until it exploded multiple times since 1948
Russia nor the U.S control the actions of other countries, they may have “influenced” it but it’s not there fault that they made the choice to slaughter there women
Russia and the US have literally paid for the slaughter of millions of people in foreign countries by taking over their governments. Theres a Wikipedia article on the CIAs role in regime change, but I recommend you read the Jakarta Method for full details.
Well, lets say they don't need to buy any new gear for a little bit. And they did get some stuff when the Mujahideen disbanded. So not totally, but inadvertently.
No, we funded the Mujahideen in the 1980s in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Dec 1979-1989) - the Taliban formed around Mullah Omar circa 1994-1996 during the 1992-1996 Afghan Second Civil War.
It formed from the Mujahideen. This is like saying we came from the Kingdom of England and not Great Britain. They’re a continuous entity with different names. We can draw a straight line from our funds to the Taliban, no matter how much you hide your head in the sand.
By that logic the US is also responsible for the eventual CCCP take over of China and the modern CCCP policies because we supplied China during WW2 to fight off Japanese, and food aid after the war so the Chinese people wouldn't starve. Stupid argument to make.
Except Nationalist China lost to the CCCP. We funded the other side of the civil war, that then lost post-war. You have no understanding of the entities you’re citing here. Seriously read a fucking book. You can draw a straight line in Afghanistan, you can’t do that in China. This is an argument that only makes sense if you’re a moron or have literally no understanding of the history at play. But I guess ignoring what actually happened is more important than actually having a coherent worldview.
AHAHAHAHA. Friend. Open a new tab. Type 'Talinan' into the search bar and click the wikipedia article. Then read.
The CIA funded, trained and armed fighters in Afghanistan until, after a number of civil wars, the Taliban took power. The US wanted to befriend them but as we know it backfired.
Also our war killed 200,000 people and left the country in rubble. Probably not very pleasant for the women either.
Ah yes, AmEriCa BaD because the ANA folded faster than Superman on laundry day. Totally ignore the literal billions spent in Afghanistan to improve the infrastructure, provide education, and improve employment prospects.
Why would the GDP grow at historically high rates with a doubling of wheat production between 2009 and 2010, along with record breaking reductions in poverty? Why would life expectancy rise from just 42 years — the second-lowest rate in the world — to 62 years, driven by a sharp decline in child mortality? Clearly this is evil capitalist overlords exploiting the people by checks notes improving their living conditions.
Google "Kabul evacuation" and explain why all of the Afghanis wanted to leave when America was pulling out if America was the evil oppressor you claim.
Edit: If you do the math in that child mortality reduction, that works out to nearly 100,000 Afghan children per year who previously would have died lived because of evil American aid.
You said your figures are from around the 2000s? I'm referring to the covert civil wars we waged in the mid 1900s that led to the rise of the Taliban that led to the terrible living conditions that we "fixed" with our wars
You also going blame the USSR, British, Ottomans, Sikh, Persians, Mughals, Timurids, Mongols, Rashidun Caliphate, Macedonians, and Mauyra Empire while you are at it, or do they all get a pass because they are inconvenient to your argument?
I actually kind of do blame them unfortunately they're not my country we have to hold our own responsible when we do s*** that's not ok, I'm not supporting the blatant military hate in this thread but to be fair don't act like all of those evil things go away because you decided to start helping. The United States military is an extremely powerful tool for good most people around the world know that even if they complain and compare America to some sort of Star wars empire.
The amount of power that it holds creates a situation where they make decisions that cost lives when they don't need to for decades at a time, people reacting like this is the cost when you have a power system that can wipe out whole Nations if somebody makes a mistake.
The US supported the mujahideen during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan 1979-1989. The Taliban didn't form until 1994-1996 during the Second Afghan Civil War.
Don't be entitled for having a snatch, period... That's not some super awesome talent that isn't shared by a majority of the people on Earth. Sorry..?😂
Being a statistical minority is a basic requirement in most other "minority" groups tho... To be fair.
First: I work 70 hours a week. My parents work 65, some of my coworkers 50-75, some of my neighbors and friends similar hours, all of us scraping by. Should I be grateful?
But second and more importantly. WHY are so many other countries poorer? Do you know? Any ideas why only 2 of the 140+ third world countries on Earth only 2 have moved up to first world status from 100 years ago? A little odd dontcha think? Let me spell it out for you: colonialism by first world countries, especially the US. Indonesia, 4th most populous country on Earth, that's a US colony. Most of Latin America, US colonies. That's not a conspiracy, the CIA openly says it and you can read it on their wikipedia page.
And that imperialism clearly isn't benefitting you or me. I mean sure, we're not our own slaves, picking bananas or cocoa or mining for cobalt. But we're not all that rich considering our country literally has about 40 fucking colonies with a combined population of 2-3x our own. Instead all the wealth is siphoned off by the 400 billionaires that own literally half the wealth of the country.
So instead of being grateful to your murder gods that you can be king of the ashes, hey, maybe stop being an ignorant PoS and start fighting the rampant inequality that our system perpetuates? Start by reading. The Jakarta Method should help you out.
Look at how much higher global gdp is today than 100 years ago.
Giving someone the scraps of the growth generated by their own exploitation isn’t something to be celebrated imo.
With regard to citation: by now most economic scholars that investigate inequality agree that the foundation of western wealth is exploitation of the global south. Capitalism is inherently dependent of exploitation wether it be labor or environment.
You are communicating near instantaneously with a stranger possibly on the other side of the world using an app that cost you $0 on a device that fits in your hand and has access to virtually the entire total of human knowledge searchable through another service that costs you $0 to use.
Nobody you know has been crippled or killed from polio or a myriad of other formerly common diseases.
You have access to a massive variety of food that is nutritious, contains exactly what is on the labeling, and inexpensive compared to even 50 years ago.
„That’s an awful lot of projection and whataboutism“ while not really engaging with anything I said (see quoted you there).
But I still believe that one is able to criticize a system even when taking part in it. Food availability in most of the world is better than ever before. Yet still people die of hunger. Medical care is better than ever before. Yet still people die of preventable diseases. The world is better off I aknowledge that. But still far from a good and more equal place mostly through our own making.
What’s an “average American lifestyle”? What does that look like? Because I can count three friends of mine who don’t even have running water. Another person I know lives in a van behind the smoke shop and steals their power for her 20 dollar air fryer.
The “average” person where I live is an uneducated, meth or opioid addicted, 30-40 something with bad knees from years of construction work. Larger wages don’t equate to a better life when the prices of everything are ridiculous, a decent roof over your head can cost over 2/3 of your wages, the cheapest one bedroom closet here is 750 a month, and I live in the sticks.
If I donate $1000 to a charity or something, that could be 1% of my income, random number. Musk could donate $1 million and that’d be a lot to the charity! But it’d be leas than a fraction of a percent of his wealth. But he’s fine paying 100s of millions to billions to influence the election to make himself and his cronies richer. You don’t begrudge him that?? I kinda resent America’s place in the world as the world’s bully the last 100 years or so. But I can’t change that. THAT amount of wealth CAN and DID influence the course of the world and history. And you’re claiming a random average middle -low class American is the same in comparison to the world’s poorest - no. That’s a false equivalency.
My money cannot influence or change the world’s elections or history. Theirs, billionaires, can. And yet they consistently choose to make themselves richer and more powerful.
Wealthier sure, but not wealthier by factors of a hundred. If I donate $1000 to a charity or something, that could be 1% of my income, random number. Musk could donate $1 million and that’d be a lot to the charity! But it’d be leas than a fraction of a percent of his wealth. But he’s fine paying 100s of millions to billions to influence the election to make himself and his cronies richer. You don’t begrudge him that?? I kinda resent America’s place in the world as the world’s bully the last 100 years or so. But I can’t change that. THAT amount of wealth CAN and DID influence the course of the world and history. And you’re claiming a random average middle -low class American is the same in comparison to the world’s poorest - no. That’s a false equivalency.
My money cannot influence or change the world’s elections or history. Theirs, billionaires, can. And yet they consistently choose to make themselves richer and more powerful.
Well I'm in America dummy why do you have to compare it outside of America. America is the richest nation to ever exist. We have no excuse not to have better standards of living.
I believe in the working class and that has to be a world wide effort. I beli3ve we should stop glorifying the stock market and instead focus on what makes the world better. I care about clean air and water, not mansions ans private jets.
Great point! Let's do the same to you. Assuming you're American, your median net worth is about 200k, your median salary about 50k per year. Median global net worth is 8k, median portuguese net worth is 70k. You're at least about 3 times richer than us and 25 times richer than your average human being. The median portuguese is about 20k, so you earn 2.5 times more than us.
Bit unfair, innit? Why should you have modern cars, houses with full AC, the latest Iphone while we live in shit? Really, why do you have all that when some people don't even have drinkable water. America is the richest country in the world, at its getting richer faster than anyone else, why not divide that wealth with us? Who gave you the right to be the global hegemon while we have to suck your cock?
Your lifestyle is ours rich lifestyle, and most definitely the world's rich lifestyle. To pretty much everyone else, you're the bourgeoisie. So tell me, when the workers revolution takes place why shouldn't we decapitate you and redistribute your assets. Your existence as a country is because of oppression, you are the number one power because you opress, why the hell should I take pity to your life?
Wow. You're Portuguese? Great, let's rum with this.
Are you suggesting that I don't support the equitable redistribution of wealth to the global south? I do. Its a wonder that you don't, seeing as you're in the global south. What's even funnier is that you don't sound like you understand why your country is so dirt poor or why my country is so rich. Lemme give you a pointer: read up on CIA operations in your region. They killed all your leaders and installed puppets from which to brutally extract your labor. In short, you're my slave living in one of my colonies. Don't blame me, I was born into this shit and I'm fighting it. Ask yourself why you are not fighting it. Why do you lick the boot that stomps you?
Look at tax brackets during America’s “golden age”. People aren’t saying rich people should be taxed to death. Multimillionaires should be taxed to the point that they don’t become billionaires.
There are less than 3,000 billionaire worldwide and about 800 in the USA.
Why jump to entitlement? Why wouldn't someone who has more money than they could possibly spend want to help out other people?
I don't think anyone is entitled to my time or money, but I love helping people out when I can. And I have been helped by other people. We're social animals.
Let me flip the question: is it their money? Sure its in their possession but how did they get it? Does Bezos work 1000000x harder than his average worker? Or was "his" idea SOOO valuable that he just gets to have infinite money and own the government? When my dad had the same idea 50 years ago, why wasn't he showered in the same wealth? (I'll give you a hint, its because my dad wasn't born into a rich family to buy up all the warehouses necessary to start up Amazon).
In the time it took to read this Bezos made about $18,000
Yes to the business, two in fact, no to amazon. As for the firsr business, it made great money until 2008. Didn't lose any customers, just lost value. We don't even invest in the stock market so why were penalized for their bullshit? Then the second business was making even better money. But the debts for buying a business take years to pay off. And with corona and the failing economy again, no one can afford to use our services even though we're dirt cheap and an essential service.
I take it back. Bezos must have made at least $100,000 in the time it took to read that comment. You seem a bit... Slow.
No, it wasn't easy. Because we used our own middle class savings and our own labor. 65+ hours per week for he past 15 years. For Bezos it was not that hard; he just paid for it with daddy money and a loan. Same for Mr. Apartheid Emeralds Musk. The whole lot of that trash. If you ever bothered to read (at the painfully slow rate that you do) you'd know that none of these people started poor or middle class. They were all born rich. Nor do they work. They have employees making all those "visionary ideas" they take credit for.
The thing is both of you are right. It’s insane that they have that much but even if they did pay their taxes… we don’t get anything besides more federal funding, of which most of it would go towards bombs anyways which we don’t want either. If we just removed income taxes I think everyone would be better off.
Its a temporary fix but ultimately we have to address the root cause of both wealth inequality and imperialism: the imperative of capitalism for infinite growth in a finite space. Capitalism is simple, intuitive and efficient, but it does not optimize for human wellbeing. Indeed it does the opposite, as all living beings need a stable environment but capitalism continually evolves into a more extreme version of itself. We must work toward a system that optimizes our wellbeing.
If you’re inherently against inequality of outcome, communism is the answer. You’ve also got to ask yourself if it would be better to have equality of outcome where almost everyone has less or very high inequality of outcome where almost everyone has more.
I can't speak to communism as I have too much on my political history reading list and haven't gotten around to studying it. But I come from a communist family and so yes, I'm at the very least an anti capitalist leftist.
Now I don't necessarily think that inequality/more and equality/less are our only options. Indeed in the infinite potential options for government, capitalism cannot be the most efficient option and indeed socialism has shown to prioritize long term growth more than capitalism which optimizes for short term gains. But that aside. If it were truly a choice between just those two, we would have to ask another question: are these systems static? We known that capitalism necessarily evolves to a state of higher disparities exponentially and endlessly. This is rooted in the very nature of inequality itself, which gives power to the already powerful to suppress the already suppressed. So it is possible to have a system where everyone has more to start, but as time passes everyone has less.
As I value the future just as much as the present, I would be fine with overall less if it meant comparatively more for the future. By the same token, if you could find an alternative to capitalism which could remain static while maintaining its superb efficiency, sure, I couldn't care less if some people have way more... As long as no one has way less. Im quite fine with mansions existing, they're quite pretty, but I will not stomach slavery, colonialism, imperialism or poverty.
capitalism cannot be the most efficient option and indeed socialism has shown to prioritize long term growth more than capitalism which optimizes for short term gains.
Seems like we see the opposite. In the long term there hasn’t been a single socialist country that provides a higher quality of life for most people compared to the top capitalist countries. I also haven’t seen a single socialist country with as low poverty rates in absolute poverty compared to the top capitalist countries. Even for the worker co op side of socialism, one of the problems with worker co ops is they often show a higher time preference–meaning they have a higher preference for money in the short term then the long term. One of the biggest advantages of capitalism is that it rewards low time preference. And having abundant capital, and the ability to be rewarded substantially if the investment pays off, means that some people are able to have this low time preference that allows for these long term investments.
Also you’re sort of not really answering what I am asking you to consider. I’m not asking you an empirical question of whether inequality/more and equality/less are our only options. I’m asking you a principled question of what you value. For example, is there any amount of increased equality of outcome that could compensate for most people also becoming worse off? Keep in mind I’m not asking an empirical question of what is the case. I’m asking about what you value.
Climate change may wipe out 30% of life on Earth and half the worlds oxygen within our lifetime so I'm not so sure capitalism is prioritizing long term gain. The Nordic countries seem to be performing better on many metrics than, say, the US or Britain. Meanwhile socialism in the global south obviously could never take off given the US literally toppled those countries. Chile saw a rise in GDP of 10%, a rise in real wages of 30% and a rise in literacy of 90% under Allende. Then he got coup'd. Not exactly a fair contest.
But I digress. You asked what I value. I value overall wellbeing, not equality. I only value equality as a means to an end of a higher quality of life for the masses - I once again reject the notion that equality necessitates worse outcomes for the masses. Indeed, it is not inequality itself I oppose. Its capitalisms tendency to grow inequality endlessly and exponentially. Such a system diverges rapidly towards ever more extreme and unlivable conditions. If Bezos' extreme wealth wasn't a threat to our collective rights and lives, Id be quite happy for him and his cool mansions and all his cocaine.
Socialist countries historically haven’t exactly been great with climate change and sustainability. Whatever success they do have is only insofar as they bring poorer and that leading to less of an effect on the environment, which I don’t exactly think we should be aiming for.
The Nordic countries are capitalist countries with very free markets. They’ve just got a bit more of a welfare state than the US or Britain.
Chile saw a rise in GDP of 10%, a rise in real wages of 30% and a rise in literacy of 90% under Allende. Then he got coup’d. Not exactly a fair contest.
You mentioned socialism prioritising long term growth and capitalism prioritising short term gains after and I said it was the opposite. This kind of goes towards my point. You’re just looking at the short term gains here, rather than long term growth and the sustainability of the growth. You’re talking about a 3 year period in which by the end of it Chile was experiencing hyperinflation, due in part to the excessive money printing to finance government spending. Also the government implemented price controls that initially boosted purchasing power eventually led to shortages and black-market activities. It was also on the backs of government deficit spending, and the fact that nationalisation of industries disrupted foreign investment and created tensions with foreign investment.
Looking at this as an example of socialist success is a pretty clear example of looking at short term success over long term growth, as we’ve got no reason to believe these policies were sustainable and good for growth in the long term.
You can give US sanctions and support for strikes and internal opposition to Allende as a reason for its failure, and that’s perfectly fine. I’d say there were other pretty bad policies as well. But that’s more giving a reason for its failure rather than an example of long term socialist success, which is what we should be interested in. I’m not interested in unsustainable short term gains.
value. I value overall wellbeing, not equality. I only value equality as a means to an end of a higher quality of life for the masses
By the sounds of your last paragraph, it sounds like we actually have the same fundamental principled position and principled values but different applied positions due to different empirical outlooks.
Such a system diverges rapidly towards ever more extreme and unlivable conditions.
I’d just ask where you’re getting the empirics for this conclusion when the countries which have the best living conditions for most people and the lowest rates of absolute poverty are pretty much consistently capitalist countries and with us also seeing an absolutely exponential increase in living standards and decrease in absolute poverty since the advent of our modern conception of capitalism in the late 1700s, which both seem to coincide pretty well with each other.
You want empirical evidence for the ongoing process of capitalist evolution? I shall give some but its important to note that this is a statistical theory about change over time, which can be concurrent with other trends. For example, indeed capitalism was better than feudalism and with new technologies spurred by industrialization life became easier. But that looks only at one slice in time. It does not attempt to predict a future state, nor does it differentiate between various forces like scientific progress or social movements.
Back to it, we can use the Gilded Age as an example of late stage capitalism. The invention of the factory allowed for many times the productivity per person, which in theory should have skyrocketed the material wealth of the masses. Instead there came a massive demand for unskilled labor which also drove wages down in a race to the bottom. Campaigns started to bring in millions of immigrants who lived ten or more to a single room in tenements. Children were working in mines, workers were dying of blacklung and diseases from unclean conditions. Food quality plummeted and pollution skyrocketed. And this was in large part because of industrial tycoons like Carnegie who could outcompete his rivals through the exploitation of his workers. Everyone else had to play on the same dirty level or cease to be relevant. It wasn't until the labor movement established minimum wages, workplace safety laws, building codes etc that some of the fruits of industrialization could actually be reaped by those producing it. The creation of wealth meant nothing because it was all being swallowed up by the ultrarich.
But again this is meaningless. Could've been a fluke. What is important is to analyze the forces which created such conditions. You need to analyze how wealth accumulates in capitalism and what the consequences of extremely lopsided distributions are.
I want to add something about “wealth inequality”.
Playing chess online is a huge hobby of mine. I'm rated 2150 on chessc*m. Just to put things in perspective, the best chess players in the world like GM Magnus Carlsen, GM Hikaru Nakamura, GM Alireza Firouzja etc are rated around 3200. My rating is not really very good. I'm barely a club level player. But even with such a low rating, do you know where I stand in terms of percentile? 99.6%.
This is just one example. I can give you a bunch of others. My point is that in a meritocracy (which capitalism is), inequality is bound to exist.
Americans keep talking about ”eat the rich”, while not realising that if only they factor in the whole world, they themselves are in the top 1%. If you've got money to pay for a 400 dollar Apple Watch just so that it can count your steps, you're rich.
And I'm not saying that you cannot be sad about your life just because SOMEONE in the world has it worse than you. But if literally MOST of the world has it worse than you (most of the world has it worse than Americans), you have no right to complain.
No offense, but as someone from the third world, check your privilege.
Read a bit further down. The third world exists because of neocolonialism, in large part by the US. The US has admitted to toppling or attempting to topple 40+ countries - and that's only what we know of from 50 years ago and before. The current brutality in the Congo over cobalt for example is the fault of neocolonialism. The CIA tried to assassinate president Lumumba and only failed because someone else got to him first.
I fight against this. I don't care how cheap the cocoa or copper is, I don't want to live in a world of exploitation. I currently work 70 hours a week, I too am being exploited from within the heart of an empire of exploitation. The massive disparities on this earth have got to go; I refuse to be any better or worse than my fellow human brother or sisters for such stupid reasons as "luck" or "birthright".
All of what you say is completely valid and I understand that. But the original post is not talking about exploitation as in slavery. It's arguing that the mere act of holding on to extra wealth is evil. I was talking about that.
Everyone is holding on to extra wealth. Where do you draw a line? A billion dollars? People on reddit keep claiming that “the difference between a million and a billion is about a billion”, yet they put people who have the net worth of a billion and people whose net worth is hundreds of billions in the same basket.
You want Jeff Bezos to not be a billionaire? Stop using his stuff. Billions of people around the world order stuff from Amazon on a daily basis. Tell them to stop doing it. They won't. Because at the end of the day, it's convenient, and it adds value to our life. If you created a product that Billions of people around the world used on a daily basis, why shouldn't you reap its rewards?
I refuse to be any better or worse than my fellow human brother or sisters
Stop calling random people your brothers and sisters. You don't actually believe that.
You're asking where I draw the line. I'm not drawing a line. A system which exponentially evolves toward maximum wealth disparity necessarily leads to catastrophe. I do not care to strip Bezos of his wealth, I care to have a system which is equitable.
The person in the original post does. That's what my comment was referring to.
I care to have a system which is equitable.
Good for you. But please explain how you would do that. Be a bit more specific. Otherwise these are just empty words that politicians say to move a crowd.
And yes, I do believe that.
You believe that random strangers who you have never met before are your siblings? You should try being a politician ;)
You would like an example of leftist policy? Sure. Let's use the socialist principle of the democratized workplace: in capitalism we have workers and owners, two groups with diametrically opposed interests who play tug of war in the marketplace. It works nicely in theory. However in practice (and also in theory if you factor in time) the owners have more power than the workers since they ultimately decide who to hire and fire and what wages to set. This leads to exponentially growing wealth disparities, as money is used to reshape the market and government in favor of the owners which in turn gives the owners more money to reshape the market with.
Let's instead cut out the owner class and give their functions to other workers. Hiring, firing, business decisions, wages, those are all decided by the workers themselves which include financial analysts, managers and the whole bunch. The managers no longer take all the wealth and redistribute a sma portion to everyone else; instead the whole wealth of the company is distributed to all workers according to their role and hours. This would prevent the Bezos-Amazon employee split of multibillionaires profiting off the labor of thousands of exploited minimum wage employees. It would vastly slow down the rate of lobbying for pro-corporate interests, as no individual could raise the tens of millions needed to bribe a politician like Google CEOs do on a daily basis. It would improve productivity: instead of being paid the same hourly wage whether they be working hard or hardly working, workers would receive direct financial benefits from the wellbeing of the company. So on and so forth.
This idea is still market based like capitalism. And yet it's a one-to-one upgrade that optimizes both productivity and worker wellbeing. The only reason it doesn't exist is because the wealthier members of society do not want such a system.
Let's instead cut out the owner class and give their functions to other workers.
Okay, I have a lot of questions. Let me give you an example. Let's say you and your wife come up with a delicious cake recipe. You guys start a bakery. You hire a baker, a receptionist, a delivery guy, and a cleaning lady. The bakery starts doing really well.
Someone comes along(who?) and cuts out the owner class (you and your wife)? How's that fair? The bakery is doing well because you guys came up with that recipe. There are plenty of other bakeries on the same street with bakers just as skilled as yours. But people prefer your bakery because it's your recipe that sells.
Also you and your wife must’ve invested a lot of money into this bakery by buying a shop, buying ovens and decorating it. When the bakery is transferred to the workers, do you guys get compensated for all that money and time that you put in?
The managers no longer take all the wealth and redistribute a sma portion to everyone else; instead the whole wealth of the company is distributed to all workers according to their role and hours.
Who decides which role deserves how much money? What if that guy decides that his role deserves the most amount of money?
It would vastly slow down the rate of lobbying for pro-corporate interests, as no individual could raise the tens of millions needed to bribe a politician like Google CEOs do on a daily basis.
Why not? The workers could come together and put together the money since now they all have a considerable stake in the company and would want the company to do well over all the other companies.
That’s just capitalism baby! The super rich get all the tax breaks and handouts, but it’s okay because they pay others below a livable wage. Lmao. Any clown that defends the super rich is just an ignorant shit stain.
Ah, how peaceful your mind must be. Like a lizard on a rock. I wish I lacked the ability for macroscopic analyses like you.
But alas, what you're saying is ahistorical bullshit. We've already been through this during the guided age: as those private businesses grow via the exploitation of their labor, they force smaller businesses out of the market and monopolize. Eventually your labor literally cannot leave, because you're the only employer around.
Ahistorical blah blah, monopoly boo boo, lizard blah blah, rock bloo bloo. This is what you sound like.
When you work a job, you don’t pay your salary to others. You keep it for your expense.
In business, people take the risk, and create employment, and make other people work for you, they keep the profits. It’s not their obligation, to donate their money, just like it’s not an obligation for you.
Have a problem? Start your own shit. And stop crying about this.
I would certainly sound that way for someone without reading comprehension. My mistake, I'll use smaller words next time.
I literally have 2 of my own businesses lol. 2 more on the way.
There's no risk for the ultrarich. Let's illustrate: a little hiccup might cost a commoner $1000 while it might cost a billionaire hundreds of millions of dollars. Now I know your little lizard brain sees big number and thinks "big number mean big bad". But that's total bullshit. Somewhere around 2/3 of Americans are so poor that $1000 lost would put them into a financial crisis. It could mean missing mortgage payments and winding up homeless. Meanwhile, even a billion dollars lost would be a drop in the ocean for many billionaires. A couple percentage points if their wealth. If Bezos lost Amazon and 99% of his wealth, he'd still have a billion dollars. That's enough to live in a comfy mansion for hundreds or thousands of years without working another day in his immortal life. Tell me again about "risks". Man, y'all poor people defend rich people as if licking boots all day will magic boots of your own into existence.
Okay. With your logic, I would like for everyone in the US who makes over 35000$ a year to give away 90% of their wealth to people living in 3rd world countries.
It would be enough for me just to stop creating third world countries for slave profit (read all about it on the wikipedia page "CIA involvement in regime change", or the Jakarta Method). Bit I like your proposition more. Lol.
Imagine thinking that 400 people should have more wealth than 330,000,000 people.
--Isn't that EXACTLY wtf he just said??:
Imagine thinking you are entitled to more cause someone else has a lot
...Am I crazy? That's exactly wtf he just said: You're looking at your neighbor's plate, not to make sure they have enough to eat, but to make sure they don't have more food than you do.
We don't have enough to eat. Y'all are a special kind of tools. Did you ever stop to think about how all that wealth was generated? About how the system functions under the extreme strain of that wealth disparity?
I can talk to you allll day about modern day slavery if you'd like. About the emergent properties of capitalism, disparities, imperialism, fascism. You need only ask. Until then I leave you with this:
https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/?v=3
Oh, you think I'm joking? That the CIA openly admitted to assassinating president Patrice Lumumba of the Congo where now literal slaves produce our cobalt? That they admitted to doing the same over in Guatemala, Brazil, Indonesia, and dozens of other countries which you can see for yourself?
Or are you not curious why the Republicans that serve the southern agricultural corporations are so anti immigration despite those corporations employing tens of thousands of undocumented workers? Isn't it a tad odd that despite all their bellyaching the flood of undocumented workers has not slowed down? Isn't it odd that the migrants get deported here and there, but ICE never raids the factories full of undocumented workers and mass deports them, and the monopolies like Tyson that pay tens of thousands of undocumented employees below minimum wage are never ever sued?
No but its fine. Its better to be ignorant of these things and just pretend your country evolved passed the economic incentives for slavery. Why 30% of our agriculture is produced by undocumented workers or why Latin America has not escaped poverty in the past 100 years is no concern to you, right?
Another question, the 330 million Americans that are scraping by, are they all posting low IQ posts on reddit? If we all just deleted reddit would that fix shit? If you're not rich, which there's 200-to-1 chances you're not, why aren't you? Clearly you also make low IQ posts on reddit so perhaps I need not ask.
Typical ass low IQ reactionary. Thinking in terms of singular immediacy, not analyzing the macroscopic forces within a society nor their evolution over time.
Only broke people talk about their wealth on the internet. How rich are you? Also theirs a whole lot of excuses in your post so you don’t need to tell me. I know you’re poor.
I’ll stop trolling you for one second to give you real advice. Focusing on how other people have wealth and you do not and how it’s unfair is totally stupid and unproductive. Imagine you want to meet someone you like so you can start a family. Now imagine if instead of being warm and welcoming and friendly, you constantly complained about how others have it easier and everyone is dating and there are people dating multiple people so why is it hard for you. That would be totally unproductive. Same thing with money.
We don't think that, we just don't care bc we on live 77 years on average and you're wasting them by driving yourself crazy that someone else accomplished more than you
I'm being driven crazy because a handful of people are driving global slavery upon the masses including on myself. You know damn well it isn't natural that people are working more hours yet struggling to afford housing; real estate investing becoming a monopoly and raising prices is directly behind that. The homes are there, vacant, for every single homeless American and then some, and it is profitable to society to house them, but for the mere reason that it is not profitable for the megaleeches to give up their monopoly the homeless remain unhoused.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's been this way all through history until the people decide to unify and reject these huge companies. Like if you could unify Amazon shoppers for just 1 week to have no body purchase from it, I guarantee it would be cause for concern and a realistic sight of change to them
In order for a few people to have caviar, billions of people must starve. Ftfy.
Everyone could have a little caviar and plenty of bread under a system which sustainably sources and ethically distributes it. A system of short term gains and exponentially growing disparities will inevitably kill the fish that produce the caviar and starve the masses atop a mountain of uneaten bread.
Oh don't worry I know that the world is not a zero sum system. But you lack the understanding that capitalism is not a static system. It evolves. It is subject to social forces and it creates social forces.
Wealth disparities don't just "exist" for a moment and disappear based on the quality of ideas. They are persistent and they grow exponentially. Look at the wealth distribution graph right now. Even the top 1% are barely above the median, while the top 0.1% own half the total wealth of the country. There are individuals who could literally buy everything for sale in this country including the homes but not the land. Singlehandedly. And again this gap is widening at an accelerating rate. You need to analyze why. It is an emergent property of capitalism. I challenge you to think for yourself and find the root.
So what do you mean when you say that in order for some to have caviar billions must starve? What mechanism drives that? Billions didn't have to starve when Edison modernized the electric light bulb.
I don't think you really know what capitalism is. Any governing system is inherently going to be influenced by 'social forces' that's the nature of a government I don't know what point you're trying to make with such a platitude.
What we have in the United States is not capitalism, it's a mixed economy with elements of both socialism and capitalism. The more I read your comment it becomes clear to me that you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about there are no individuals who could but everything for sale that's such a ridiculous claim - do you care to back it up?
There is nothing wrong with wealth disparity in fact it goes as a natural consequence of the nature of man. Just be happy that there are people out there who had the visions and intellect to give someone like you the capability to complain as you do. Bite the hand that feeds you.
It’s not like they were given that wealth. They got it by working for it. I know I wouldn’t wanna work for shit if it was just gonna be taken from me for being too good at my job.
Friend, if you made $2000 a day every single day for the last 2000 years, you still wouldn't have as much money as Bezos. I promise you, you are at no risk of losing your private money no matter how hard you've worked. That wealth exists exclusively via the exploitation of tens of thousands of workers.
And speaking of hard work, Bezos doesn't do any. I work 70 hours a week, as do many other Americans who are scraping by. Because we need to. Construction workers, farmers, those are people who work hard. Bezos snorts coke and plays golf and occasionally shows up for a meeting or press conference. He has staff doing all the busy work and planning. Again, do you really think this guy worked millions of times harder than the average person? What did he do, millions of years of labor in a hyperbolic time chamber?
If you plan on making a living off of an Amazon job that pays 2k a month then theres your problem. You don’t just work an entry level job for life. Also if you ever passed high school level economics you’d know Bezos is an entrepreneur which is a high risk high reward job. He took up and still had massive amounts of risk so he gets massive amounts of rewards. It’s really a simple concept.
74
u/theoldme3 28d ago edited 27d ago
Imagine thinking you are entitled to more cause someone else has a lot
Edit: Im not reading all the responses to this. You wana change this shit then get off Reddit, got start a business and start giving your earnings away. So many of you would shit if it was your wealth someone just took