How is it possible that so few families have built any form of capital?

[PC2]

Which is a lie considering you consistently blame the injustices in communist regimes on the ideology, not the individual leaders.

Miss me with that bullshit.

The difference is that with state communism you can't actually separate the ideology from the leaders. What the state leaders think is the ideology.

Stateless anarcho-communism is the opposite of this, but 99% of communists are state communists because they want to grow the role of government instead of shrink it down to statelessness.

[Elegiac]

The difference is that with state communism you can't actually separate the ideology from the leaders. What the government leaders think is the ideology.

And yet with capitalism you can't separate the ideology from the owners of the businesses responsible. Huh.

[Shadowferal]

And then you get Alan Greenspan ruining the economy with his libertarianism bullshit:

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.

[Elegiac]

And then you get Alan Greenspan ruining the economy with his libertarianism bullshit:

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.

It doesn't count because it's not state communism. /s

[PC2]

And yet with capitalism you can't separate the ideology from the owners of the businesses responsible. Huh.

Like I said earlier it's good to criticize businesses when they do something harmful just as it's good to blame the government when it does something harmful. The asymmetry here is that in capitalism it's possible to boycott a business and make it fail without disproving the entire theory of capitalism. With a state government though, there is only 1 of those, if the 1 state government fails then the entire theory fails in that country.

[Elegiac]

Like I said earlier it's good to criticize businesses when they do something harmful just as it's good to blame the government when it does something harmful. The asymmetry here is that in capitalism it's possible to boycott a business and make it fail without disproving the entire theory of capitalism. With a state government though, there is only 1 of those, if the 1 government fails then the entire theory fails in that country.

Okay, what you're describing here is just a difference in scale.

Please do illustrate why we can't separate the ideology from the businessman.

[Shadowferal]

Never met a ceo that didn't come across as some stereotype of evil.
Always found that disheartening.

[Hardringham]

Like I said earlier it's good to criticize businesses when they do something harmful just as it's good to blame the government when it does something harmful.

You also have to take into consideration the dereliction of duty of a government.

Something that pisses me off consistently about yanks is that they let millions of their countrymen die from treatable diseases and injuries and then lecture socialist countries about all the people they've killed. Well, you killed a bunch of people too AND you let all your countrymen die if they get cancer. Great system.

[Freighter]

Like I said earlier it's good to criticize businesses when they do something harmful just as it's good to blame the government when it does something harmful. The asymmetry here is that in capitalism it's possible to boycott a business and make it fail without disproving the entire theory of capitalism. With a state government though, there is only 1 of those, if the 1 state government fails then the entire theory fails in that country.

Not in any meaningful manner if they deal with things you need. You're just hurting yourself then if you try to boycott them. Others will continue buying/selling from/to them.

Companies should be regulated by the government if they are getting people hurt. It shouldn't be possible to not provide any safety for your workers and then just Oh, too bad, tough luck if they get maimed or killed at work.

[omeomorfismo]

I wish I actually lived in your fantasy universe.

but its true.

for example i live in a "poor" family (more or less 20k € for year in north italy) but i can still study a master's degree without problem and i really never felt any deprivations even when my parents had to pay the house's loan.
we dont smoke, we dont throw our moneys in clothing or cosmetics. and thats all i can thing that is different from the standard.

[JohnBrown1917]

but its true.

for example i live in a "poor" family (more or less 20k € for year in north italy) but i can still study a master's degree without problem and i really never felt any deprivations even when my parents had to pay the house's loan.
we dont smoke, we dont throw our moneys in clothing or cosmetics. and thats all i can thing that is different from the standard.

It varies greatly depending on what country you live in. The US is a great example of this.
Its great that Italy has a lot of safety nets, but that is hardly universal.


But my post had nothing to do with how middle class families get around, it was a reply to a post about class mobility.
So... eh.. good job, Italy? I dunno.

[Vorkreist]

If only we actually lived in that modern fantasy world.
Sadly, we live in reality and those below living wage don't make enough to save money. Would be nice if they could, but hey, the rich you love so much gotta buy an extra yacht somehow, right?



And those who can save up some parts of their small income. Well... they better hope they don't get sick, because then it'll all be gone. How fun.

Why are you talking like 90% of people die of hunger and they can't do nothing about it? Besides your obvious commie agenda.

[JohnBrown1917]

Why are you talking like 90% of people die of hunger and they can't do nothing about it? Besides your obvious commie agenda.

That is one hell of a reach.

[Vash The Stampede]

“Why don’t poor people buy more money?”

Right now the Banks have failed and they're getting trillions of monies from the Federal Reserve for free to save the repo market. The rich just get monies for free.

[unbound]

Why are you talking like 90% of people die of hunger and they can't do nothing about it? Besides your obvious commie agenda.

Because math. Seriously, sit down and start doing some math.

Minimum wage in the US is $7.25 / hr (yes, many adults are stuck in such jobs). There are 2,080 work hours in a year...that is 40 hours / week, 52 weeks a year, with never being sick and never taking a break (most minimum wage work doesn't offer full time employment or any real benefits such as sick leave).

That adds up to $15,080...and even minimum wage people get hit with FICA (SS and Medicare), so they actually can only get $13,926. Now, this is supposed to house and feed someone.

The average rent in the US is $1,025 / mo or $12,300. So people can't even afford that (or at least can't afford that and actually do things like have clothes and eat). So, how do they save money? They can live in a crime ridden area or in housing that is so bad that there are likely a lot of things like rats and bugs just to afford clothes and food (so no money for exterminators, and slumlords don't care to provide such things).

And while that is a rather extreme example, my understanding is that this exchange has been about the poor. The median family in the US (2 adults, 2 children) makes about $74k. That makes them, by definition, middle income. Start doing math with that...if you are being realistic, even a middle income family doesn't have a lot of leeway to save up a lot of money.

As for ability to move up to a better economic class goes, the US is among the worst for the advanced economies. Most Americans fool themselves into thinking that the US is the best place to move up economically, but the reality of the matter says otherwise.

[petej0]

So, this thought just struck me and I'm curious of your take on it.

How is it possible that so few families have built any form of capital through the generations? I'm honestly "impressed" that no one in my family have been able to save/invest enough and pass on through the generations so that we'd have a sizeable capital. The majority of families have basically gone +-0 for generations. Doesn't anyone save money? Invest it?

There are many reasons from racist policies, job security, financial discipline to number of times a family sells their home. It cant be summed up in a 20 second sound bite, because it is much more complex than that. Every situation is different because every family is affected by different factors.

[segara82]

Entrepreneur-ship requires funds, either by having it amassed before or being supported by someone.
Inheritance plays a very big role too, just look at these. https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-fa...s-in-florence/
Do some people move up the socio-economic ladder? Yes, but in general social mobility has decreased in the US over the last few decades, several parts of the country never recovering from the 2008/09 crash. Shorter live-expectancy, more and more homeless people, wage rises below the inflation rate since 1977 ...
People have less money, and that makes us dumb. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydKcaIE6O1k

[KrayZ33]

Wars

/10char