The Poor Abuse the Rich (not the other way around)

[axia777]

The system does not work for everybody.

Sorry to break it too you man, but life will never, ever work for "everybody". Someone always gets screwed in the end. That is a fact of life. Life feeds on life and all that shit. If you think it ever will work for everybody all the time you are dreaming of a fantasy.

 

[curlycrouton]

Like most arguments around here, its idealic but completely wrong. You are missing so many factors i cant even begin to argue against you. Either way nice try, poor execution.

Please do, although a socialist calling me idealic causes me to chuckle. I'll admit it ain't perfect (nothing is) but it's a damn sight more perfect than any other economic theory.

Yup, because sitting in your mansion drinking champagne on your king size bed while children starve and die on the other side of the world is damn fine.

I say, you jumped to a rather hasty conclusion there.

Communism combined with human nature does not work.Capitalism has many problems, but at least it works to a significant degree.

How do you know human nature even exists?

Are you being serious?

I've witnessed it. Countless times. On a daily basis.

In fact, there's a whole science based around it.

It's called Psychology.

Psychology and human nature are not the same thing. Psychology is limited to an individual and is not collective.

Sociology, then.

"Sociology
?noun
the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society; the science of the fundamental laws of social relations, institutions, etc."
-www.dictionary.com

Not human nature. At all.

"Sociology is the scientific study of human societies. It is a branch of social science (often synonymous) that uses systematic methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social structure and activity, often with the goal of applying such knowledge to the pursuit of social welfare. Its subject matter ranges from the micro level of face-to-face interaction to the macro level of societies at large."

The internet very much disagrees. Note especially the last sentence.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Yup, because sitting in your mansion drinking champagne on your king size bed while children starve and die on the other side of the world is damn fine.

Unfortunately, I spent all my money on a king size bed and cheap champagne which I don't even like. So I don't have the funds to travel to the other side of the world and give those starving children a bit of bread.


Yes people are suffering needlessly. But what can I do? I am one man, not a bad guy. I help old ladies across the road, I have a comfortable life, let me enjoy it for Christ's sake. I bloody well earned it.

There are people who work a lot harder than you (there's always someone who works harder regardless of who you are) who earn a lot less.

Everyone can do something. It's not that hard. If we all work together, we can make the world a better place.

 

[Cptn_Squishy]

Like most arguments around here, its idealic but completely wrong. You are missing so many factors i cant even begin to argue against you. Either way nice try, poor execution.

What you're then supposed to do it point out arguments. Otherwise you're just telling him he's wrong, dusting off your lapel, and walking away.

First place I'd go is to point out that the difference between the top 10% of earners (in the US, Im guessing that the OP is from Britain) is MUCH wider now than it was, say, 10-12 years ago.

But seriously, simply saying 'Youre wrong' and then folding your arms triumphantly is not good enough.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Like most arguments around here, its idealic but completely wrong. You are missing so many factors i cant even begin to argue against you. Either way nice try, poor execution.

Please do, although a socialist calling me idealic causes me to chuckle. I'll admit it ain't perfect (nothing is) but it's a damn sight more perfect than any other economic theory.

Yup, because sitting in your mansion drinking champagne on your king size bed while children starve and die on the other side of the world is damn fine.

I say, you jumped to a rather hasty conclusion there.

Communism combined with human nature does not work.Capitalism has many problems, but at least it works to a significant degree.

How do you know human nature even exists?

Are you being serious?

I've witnessed it. Countless times. On a daily basis.

In fact, there's a whole science based around it.

It's called Psychology.

Psychology and human nature are not the same thing. Psychology is limited to an individual and is not collective.

Sociology, then.

"Sociology
?noun
the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society; the science of the fundamental laws of social relations, institutions, etc."
-www.dictionary.com

Not human nature. At all.

"Sociology is the scientific study of human societies. It is a branch of social science (often synonymous) that uses systematic methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social structure and activity, often with the goal of applying such knowledge to the pursuit of social welfare. Its subject matter ranges from the micro level of face-to-face interaction to the macro level of societies at large."

The internet very much agrees. Note especially the last sentence.

That's still not human nature.

 

[axia777]

Like most arguments around here, its idealic but completely wrong. You are missing so many factors i cant even begin to argue against you. Either way nice try, poor execution.

Please do, although a socialist calling me idealic causes me to chuckle. I'll admit it ain't perfect (nothing is) but it's a damn sight more perfect than any other economic theory.

Yup, because sitting in your mansion drinking champagne on your king size bed while children starve and die on the other side of the world is damn fine.

I say, you jumped to a rather hasty conclusion there.

Communism combined with human nature does not work.Capitalism has many problems, but at least it works to a significant degree.

How do you know human nature even exists?

Are you being serious?

I've witnessed it. Countless times. On a daily basis.

In fact, there's a whole science based around it.

It's called Psychology.

Psychology and human nature are not the same thing. Psychology is limited to an individual and is not collective.

Sociology, then.

"Sociology
?noun
the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society; the science of the fundamental laws of social relations, institutions, etc."
-www.dictionary.com

Not human nature. At all.

"Human nature is the concept that there are a set of characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all 'normal' human beings have in common.[1] The branches of science associated with the study of human nature include sociology, sociobiology and psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology. Philosophers and theologians have also carried out research on human nature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

Everyone can do something. It's not that hard. If we all work together, we can make the world a better place.

Good luck on that.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Like most arguments around here, its idealic but completely wrong. You are missing so many factors i cant even begin to argue against you. Either way nice try, poor execution.

What you're then supposed to do it point out arguments. Otherwise you're just telling him he's wrong, dusting off your lapel, and walking away.

First place I'd go is to point out that the difference between the top 10% of earners (in the US, Im guessing that the OP is from Britain) is MUCH wider now than it was, say, 10-12 years ago.

But seriously, simply saying 'Youre wrong' and then folding your arms triumphantly is not good enough.

Sometimes that's what you have to do. Many of us have debated for hours and hours on end and are quite simply tired, and this is our way of getting our point across under those circumstances.

 

[Alex_P]

Absolute-free-market capitalism doesn't exist.
Regular old mostly-free-market capitalism does exist.

Under the form of capitalism that actually exists, rich people abuse poor people.

-- Alex

 

[iamthehorde]

So that's my argument against two common capitalist facilies. Do you agree? Am I right? Got a better argument?

Counterpoint: the entire banking industry.

Bankers are rich.
Banks have a fee structure that fucks over poor people. For example: minimum balance requirements, overage fees, overage fees incurred when the bank charges you the first overage fee. Bank accounts are a money sink for anyone living even remotely close to paycheck-to-paycheck.
Other major systems -- the structure of which is controlled by rich people -- tend to require bank accounts. Try renting an apartment without a bank account. Hell, unless you're in a country where it's common to just pay you in cash (e.g. Japan), you need either a bank account or a check-cashing place to actually do anything with your paycheck. So, not using banks also fucks over poor people.

Therefore, banks enable rich people to fuck over poor people.

-- Alex

Hmmm, this is where the lax definition of capitalism doesn't help me. In my opinion the baking industry is not an example of capitalism (by which I mean free markets). Indeed the banking industry has a Central Bank that inteferes with it and seeks to control it. In fact i would say that the banking industry is one of the few remaining examples of a centrally planned industry. The reason for the current economic crisis and the power of the banking sector is due to the government granted special treatment of the industry through central bank institutions.

dude, you need to get real. you can´t come up with a defence of capitalism and then negotiate the side effects just because you want to be right. say fuck i don´t care, like you don´t care about small companies, or defend that too. you constantly dodge questions regarding the giant holes in your argumentation. do you want to discuss your custom-capitalism or how it´s going down?

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Like most arguments around here, its idealic but completely wrong. You are missing so many factors i cant even begin to argue against you. Either way nice try, poor execution.

Please do, although a socialist calling me idealic causes me to chuckle. I'll admit it ain't perfect (nothing is) but it's a damn sight more perfect than any other economic theory.

Yup, because sitting in your mansion drinking champagne on your king size bed while children starve and die on the other side of the world is damn fine.

I say, you jumped to a rather hasty conclusion there.

Communism combined with human nature does not work.Capitalism has many problems, but at least it works to a significant degree.

How do you know human nature even exists?

Are you being serious?

I've witnessed it. Countless times. On a daily basis.

In fact, there's a whole science based around it.

It's called Psychology.

Psychology and human nature are not the same thing. Psychology is limited to an individual and is not collective.

Sociology, then.

"Sociology
?noun
the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society; the science of the fundamental laws of social relations, institutions, etc."
-www.dictionary.com

Not human nature. At all.

"Human nature is the concept that there are a set of characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all 'normal' human beings have in common.[1] The branches of science associated with the study of human nature include sociology, sociobiology and psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology. Philosophers and theologians have also carried out research on human nature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

http://menso.wordpress.com/2006/06/27/human-nature-does-not-exist/

 

[curlycrouton]

Like most arguments around here, its idealic but completely wrong. You are missing so many factors i cant even begin to argue against you. Either way nice try, poor execution.

Please do, although a socialist calling me idealic causes me to chuckle. I'll admit it ain't perfect (nothing is) but it's a damn sight more perfect than any other economic theory.

Yup, because sitting in your mansion drinking champagne on your king size bed while children starve and die on the other side of the world is damn fine.

I say, you jumped to a rather hasty conclusion there.

Communism combined with human nature does not work.Capitalism has many problems, but at least it works to a significant degree.

How do you know human nature even exists?

Are you being serious?

I've witnessed it. Countless times. On a daily basis.

In fact, there's a whole science based around it.

It's called Psychology.

Psychology and human nature are not the same thing. Psychology is limited to an individual and is not collective.

Sociology, then.

"Sociology
?noun
the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society; the science of the fundamental laws of social relations, institutions, etc."
-www.dictionary.com

Not human nature. At all.

"Human nature is the concept that there are a set of characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all 'normal' human beings have in common.[1] The branches of science associated with the study of human nature include sociology, sociobiology and psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology. Philosophers and theologians have also carried out research on human nature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

You beat me to it. I was about to paste the exact same sentence.

You cannot deny human nature. It is evident in the everyday actions of humans, and is part of our genes. It's an evolutionary trait, that is wholly provable.

 

[Flishiz]

I like Rand too but I feel as if you just finished Atlas Shrugged and forgot to notice just about everything in the book was a hypothetical what-if, spot on existentialist lazziez-faire based philosophy aside.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Like most arguments around here, its idealic but completely wrong. You are missing so many factors i cant even begin to argue against you. Either way nice try, poor execution.

Please do, although a socialist calling me idealic causes me to chuckle. I'll admit it ain't perfect (nothing is) but it's a damn sight more perfect than any other economic theory.

Yup, because sitting in your mansion drinking champagne on your king size bed while children starve and die on the other side of the world is damn fine.

I say, you jumped to a rather hasty conclusion there.

Communism combined with human nature does not work.Capitalism has many problems, but at least it works to a significant degree.

How do you know human nature even exists?

Are you being serious?

I've witnessed it. Countless times. On a daily basis.

In fact, there's a whole science based around it.

It's called Psychology.

Psychology and human nature are not the same thing. Psychology is limited to an individual and is not collective.

Sociology, then.

"Sociology
?noun
the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society; the science of the fundamental laws of social relations, institutions, etc."
-www.dictionary.com

Not human nature. At all.

"Human nature is the concept that there are a set of characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all 'normal' human beings have in common.[1] The branches of science associated with the study of human nature include sociology, sociobiology and psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology. Philosophers and theologians have also carried out research on human nature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

You beat me to it. I was about to paste the exact same sentence.

You cannot deny human nature. It is evident in the everyday actions of humans, and is part of our genes. It's an evolutionary trait, that is wholly provable.

If you would click the link that I posted earlier....

 

[Xvito]

Why can't Richard give the phone to Fred instead?

Well, it cost Richard to make the phone, however, it was a $10 total parts and labor to make it, but $100 to sell it. That's quite a mark-up.

Of course, but Fred would be really happy if Richard gave it to him.

Yes, but it would screw Richard. That is not the nature of business. Profit the nature of business. As it should be.

Capitalism is the best economic system. It has made this nation what it is. Anyone complaining about that should go live in a Third World nation for a year or so. Than come back and tell us if capitalism sucks or not.

Richard would get, in return, a "thank you" and a warm smile. That's all the payment he needs.

Also, why is it, do you think, that "third world"-countries exist?

Richard cannot buy food, cars, or anything else with smiles and hugs.

Also, Third World nations exist for to many reasons to discuss here. But it is certainly not Americas fault.

I wonder...

Nope I never said anything about America, that's what I thought.

Also, Richard would obviously be given food and shelter, that's how niceism works. And yes, people are really cute and cuddly and will always share out of the kindness of their hearts (or brains, or whatever).

 

[curlycrouton]

Like most arguments around here, its idealic but completely wrong. You are missing so many factors i cant even begin to argue against you. Either way nice try, poor execution.

Please do, although a socialist calling me idealic causes me to chuckle. I'll admit it ain't perfect (nothing is) but it's a damn sight more perfect than any other economic theory.

Yup, because sitting in your mansion drinking champagne on your king size bed while children starve and die on the other side of the world is damn fine.

I say, you jumped to a rather hasty conclusion there.

Communism combined with human nature does not work.Capitalism has many problems, but at least it works to a significant degree.

How do you know human nature even exists?

Are you being serious?

I've witnessed it. Countless times. On a daily basis.

In fact, there's a whole science based around it.

It's called Psychology.

Psychology and human nature are not the same thing. Psychology is limited to an individual and is not collective.

Sociology, then.

"Sociology
?noun
the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society; the science of the fundamental laws of social relations, institutions, etc."
-www.dictionary.com

Not human nature. At all.

"Human nature is the concept that there are a set of characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all 'normal' human beings have in common.[1] The branches of science associated with the study of human nature include sociology, sociobiology and psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology. Philosophers and theologians have also carried out research on human nature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

You beat me to it. I was about to paste the exact same sentence.

You cannot deny human nature. It is evident in the everyday actions of humans, and is part of our genes. It's an evolutionary trait, that is wholly provable.

If you would click the link that I posted earlier....

I find his/her comments almost laughable. Evidently, he understands little about such issues. I haven't quite got the time to engage in lengthy debate about this, but for now we shall agree to disagree.

 

[axia777]

I wonder...

Nope I never said anything about America, that's what I thought.

Ok then, the deplorable state of Third World nations is not the fault of any Capitalist nation, not just America.

Also, Richard would obviously be given food and shelter, that's how niceism works. And yes, people are really cute and cuddly and will always share out of the kindness of their hearts (or brains, or whatever).

Really? That is some view on life man.

 

[asinann]

Secondly who really cares about the smaller company that say only employs a hundred people?

In the US, small business owners employ more people overall than the large corporations do overall. Something to the tune of 5:1. For every 5 people the small business employs, the large one employs 1, that's why people care, that's why governments care. Corporations also use loopholes to get out of paying their taxes while the smaller ones can't afford to use them providing the government with money.

 

[TheReactorSings]

What's a "poor person," for the purposes of this discussion? Anyone who didn't found News Corp?

 

[Alex_P]

In detail:

Thread title:

The Poor Abuse the Rich (not the other way around)

So, is this a thread about poor people and rich people in the real world? Or a thread about an idealized version of capitalism wherein the rich don't actually abuse the poor?

First: the richer get richer at the expense of the poor. The root of this argument lies in the fact that people see a trade as a one way experiance.
...

Let's rip off Terry Pratchett here...

Fred the Poor Man and Richard Branson both need shoes. Without shoes, neither Fred nor Richard Branson will be able to get to work during the winter. Richard Branson buys $50 shoes. Fred the Poor Man doesn't have $50 he can spend on shoes right now, so he buys $10 shoes. Richard Branson's fancy leather shoes wear out in ten years; Fred is lucky if his stupid cardboard shoes last him a single winter. The net effect is that, as a result of being poor, Fred has to pay more for his shoes -- despite also having objectively shittier shoes. Compared to Fred, Richard Branson is saving money every time he bus shoes. In this scenario, the poor are getting poorer while the rich get richer.

No monopolies or anti-free-market action here! But it still sucks to be poor.

Next is the argument that the rich abuse the poor.
...

You're conflating "poor" with "consumer" and "rich" with "producer". Both groups play both economic roles in different transactions. There are also consumer-consumer and producer-producer relationships between the rich and poor as well.

EDIT: A lot of points mention that advertising confuses the masses into valuing products too highly. This does not nagate the fact that an indivdual human will always make a rational choice. In hindsight it might not seem to be rational but at the exact moment of purchase the product they buy is valued higher than the money they spend. Secondly I rather doubt that the vats masses are as stupid as you are protraying them to be in a rather unequal fashion i might add.

A "rational" choice that hurts you is still a choice that hurts you.

-- Alex
(First version of this post was a botched halfway-done post. Sorry.)

 

[hamster mk 4]

The argument the OP makes for capitalism is a convincing one. It shows is how capitalism should and for the most part does work. The cell phone is an excellent example of this because it is optional, valuable, and has plenty of competition.

The problem is the capitalism model does not apply as well to all goods and services. The following are examples are areas of our lives where a heavy handed government approach (socialism) is more suitable:

Defense and Safety: This is not optional, we can not choose to forgo the protection of the police and army. I guess it could be argued we can move to Somalia and revel in the anarchy but lets not go there. Defense and safety needs to be provided in a socialist manner. Every one pays what they can afford (in taxes) for the protection they need.

Electricity: This is lacking in competition. Your house is wired up to one electric grid. Who ever owns that electric grid has a monopoly on your electric consumption. While the consumer has a choice in how much electricity they use, they don't have a choice in who they give their money to and how much. This industry must be, and is strongly regulated by the government.

Insurance: I say this lacks value. For a long time insurers have argued that they provide "peace of mind". But without their constant scare tactic advertising I would not have lost my "peace of mind" in the first place. In our day to day lives we do not see the benefits of having insurance. It is only in the rare instances where accident or illness befalls us that we get anything of value out of the insurance companies. In most cases the premiums we have been paying over the years far exceed the reimbursement the insurers give in these rare cases. I know most people can not be trusted to hoard money for unforeseen events, but leaving it to private companies to protect us from the unknown is a mistake. A single government run or at least government regulated organization would be far better than a dozen profit hungry businesses trying to bill as much and pay as little as they can.

Recap:
I think capitalism works for the aspects of our life where there is tangible value, competition, and the option of not partaking. However for the parts of our lives where one or all of those attributes is missing I say let the government take over. We pay taxes for a reason.