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

[Machismo]

You do understand that Kinder Eggs have actually killed people right?

You still haven't told us how someone gets a broken arm fixed without having a friend who previously had government qualifications. I am asking you to put yourself in someone else's shoes and figure out how they would do it. You're outright refusing to answer the question.

Sure, so have cookies, water bottles, pens, cotton balls, phone chargers, water, and grapes.

The simple act of purchasing a Kinder Egg causes zero harm.

You asked how I would do it, I told you. If you want to know how someone else does, that's up to them. They could go to a doctor, nurse, clinic, hospital, or wherever the hell they wanted.

- - - Updated - - -

This thread demonstrates which people have literally lived paycheck to paycheck, with no real means to accrue excess wealth, and those who have been coddled by their parents providing them with extra money to get their life started or make big life changing expenses like moving.

Socioeconomic Mobility is a thing, and it's getting lower and lower in the US. You start out rich, your life situation ensures you stay rich as you move out of childhood as your parent's connections and paying for your schooling provides with extreme levels of privilege, or your parents are poor, and because of lack of skills and money for schooling or connections to rich people, it remains difficult to come out of poverty.

I simply love that we have Americans working 80 hours a week and people in this thread, especially the Swede with their hefty welfare system, calling people "lazy".

So, if it's clear, which do you think I am?

[XangXu]

The OP of this thread is probably a listener of True Capitalist Radio the way he talks about “capital”

I bet he loves Johnny Walker blue label

[Ivanstone]

Sure, so have cookies, water bottles, pens, cotton balls, phone chargers, water, and grapes.

The simple act of purchasing a Kinder Egg causes zero harm.

You asked how I would do it, I told you. If you want to know how someone else does, that's up to them. They could go to a doctor, nurse, clinic, hospital, or wherever the hell they wanted.

No, you're dodging the question because you don't want to or incapable of seeing something through someone else's eyes.

Furthermore, your entire argument against government regulations consists of absurd examples of over-regulation but you'll gleefully ignore examples of under-regulation in the name of some stupid quest for more freedom.

So, if it's clear, which do you think I am?

A sociopath who has no empathy for his fellow humans. I'd say your opposition to Trump and his merry pack of racists is noble but quite frankly I think you're only doing it because they hurt the conservative libertarian brand.

I'll leave this Lee Atwater quote for you. He was a campaign manager for Reagan and Bush.
"Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone."

The bolded part is why American libertarianism exists. Its not there for any principled reason, its there for racism.

[Shadowferal]

Most regulations originate from dead bodies.

[Mihalik]

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?

1, You need disposable and surplus income to be able to save. You need to save to invest. Or you need access to credit and hope that you make a high enough return to pay back your credit and be able to invest.

All this... Is a tad difficult in an economic system that is inherently structured on the principle of winners and losers and where economic gravity inherently creates an unequal distribution of wealth.

2, Even assuming that various previous generations have accumulated wealth all it takes is economic mishap, one bad investment, one wasteful generation, one idiot, one war, one revolution, one political upheaval to lose everything forcing following generations to start from scratch.

Both sides of my family emigrated to the US in the 50s with little more than what they could carry as refugees, one side fleeing the Russians the other fleeing Fascists. They all lost generations worth of accumulated wealth.

But they had a good head start, one side was highly educated, the other had access to credit to almost immediately start a business.

In turn the most valuable asset I inherited from my parents and grandparents was an excellent education and an open mind which allowed me to prosper on my own later on.

Most people cannot afford their children those opportunities, thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

[Machismo]

No, you're dodging the question because you don't want to or incapable of seeing something through someone else's eyes.

Furthermore, your entire argument against government regulations consists of absurd examples of over-regulation but you'll gleefully ignore examples of under-regulation in the name of some stupid quest for more freedom.



A sociopath who has no empathy for his fellow humans. I'd say your opposition to Trump and his merry pack of racists is noble but quite frankly I think you're only doing it because they hurt the conservative libertarian brand.

I'll leave this Lee Atwater quote for you. He was a campaign manager for Reagan and Bush.
"Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone."

The bolded part is why American libertarianism exists. Its not there for any principled reason, its there for racism.

I literally just answered your question.

I was pushed to provide examples of regulations that were in place that didn't restrict harmful actions. Don't complain to me, that I was able to easily provide examples that completely refuted the belief that all regulations and restrictions are justified. It's your argument, and I blew it the fuck up in about 10 words. Otherwise, you'd have to say that Trump's concentration camps are justified. After all, he's just trying to prevent harm... right?

That's the part you don't realize, you are arguing in defense of racist shitbags like Trump. You are arguing in his cause of ethno-nationalist.

[Ivanstone]

I literally just answered your question.

I was pushed to provide examples of regulations that were in place that didn't restrict harmful actions. Don't complain to me, that I was able to easily provide examples that completely refuted the belief that all regulations and restrictions are justified. It's your argument, and I blew it the fuck up in about 10 words. Otherwise, you'd have to say that Trump's concentration camps are justified. After all, he's just trying to prevent harm... right?

That's the part you don't realize, you are arguing in defense of racist shitbags like Trump. You are arguing in his cause of ethno-nationalist.

No, I'm not. Every example you provided causes harm in the eyes of someone. That belief might not be justified but it is what it is. Furthermore, many of Trump's actions in particular were not found to be legal because of.... regulations.

Meanwhile your constantly bashing the idea of government action (and its dreaded taxation) even when government action provides a sound benefit like single payer healthcare as an example. But that's socialism! Can't have inexpensive, effective healthcare amirite?

[Jonnusthegreat]

Capitalism is a zero sum game where winners really win and losers lose.

[Machismo]

No, I'm not. Every example you provided causes harm in the eyes of someone. That belief might not be justified but it is what it is. Furthermore, many of Trump's actions in particular were not found to be legal because of.... regulations.

Meanwhile your constantly bashing the idea of government action (and its dreaded taxation) even when government action provides a sound benefit like single payer healthcare as an example. But that's socialism! Can't have inexpensive, effective healthcare amirite?

Please, show me how the fuck the simple act of purchasing a Kinder Egg causes harm.

I'll wait.

Hell, you are even now arguing that such claims are not justified... and it's your fucking argument. Thanks for admitting your own argument isn't justified, that makes it easy.

I support your freedom to push voluntary socialism, by all means, have at it. I simply oppose your desire to force others into it against their will.

If your system is so goddamned good, why do you feel the need to hold a gun to someone else's head to get them to participate?

[Kraenen]

Please, show me how the fuck the simple act of purchasing a Kinder Egg causes harm.

I'll wait.

Hell, you are even now arguing that such claims are not justified... and it's your fucking argument. Thanks for admitting your own argument isn't justified, that makes it easy.

I support your freedom to push voluntary socialism, by all means, have at it. I simply oppose your desire to force others into it against their will.

Wouldn't voluntary socialism really just be your own form of conservative/libertarian politics anyway? Just seems like kind of a wash either way

[Machismo]

Wouldn't voluntary socialism really just be your own form of conservative/libertarian politics anyway? Just seems like kind of a wash either way

If people want to be a part of it, great. If they prefer something else, they can do that, instead.

[Spectral]

Capitalism is a zero sum game where winners really win and losers lose.

In this model, what happens to surplus value created from manufacturing goods or improving land? Who gains consumer surplus from trade?

[Ivanstone]

Please, show me how the fuck the simple act of purchasing a Kinder Egg causes harm.

I'll wait.

Hell, you are even now arguing that such claims are not justified... and it's your fucking argument. Thanks for admitting your own argument isn't justified, that makes it easy.

I support your freedom to push voluntary socialism, by all means, have at it. I simply oppose your desire to force others into it against their will.

If your system is so goddamned good, why do you feel the need to hold a gun to someone else's head to get them to participate?

Kinder eggs have killed people. When something kills people, there's an impulse for government action against it. Simple.

Why is it that you're incapable of understanding what politics is? You live with other people, you have to negotiate with other people. Your libertarian fantasy doesn't exist no matter how much you wish it did.

[Jonnusthegreat]

In this model, what happens to surplus value created from manufacturing goods or improving land? Who gains consumer surplus from trade?

The ones who own it. Often times, as seen at Amazon, it's it the wealthy's best interest to destroy excess goods instead of giving them away.

[Machismo]

Kinder eggs have killed people. When something kills people, there's an impulse for government action against it. Simple.

Why is it that you're incapable of understanding what politics is? You live with other people, you have to negotiate with other people. Your libertarian fantasy doesn't exist no matter how much you wish it did.

Once again, all those other things have "killed" people.

I'm well aware of what politics is, I simply oppose your authoritarian nature. I oppose your desire to have government solve all your problems for you, instead of taking some personal fucking responsibility.

If you don't want Kinder Eggs, then don't buy them.

[Spectral]

The ones who own it. Often times, as seen at Amazon, it's it the wealthy's best interest to destroy excess goods instead of giving them away.

If surplus value is accruing, the game isn't zero sum though. To believe in a zero sum economy, you have to deny the existence of the creation of surplus value.

[Jonnusthegreat]

If surplus value is accruing, the game isn't zero sum though. To believe in a zero sum economy, you have to deny the existence of the creation of surplus value.

Value such as public roads isn't seen as part of an economic model. Quality of life improves, but capital is still zero sum. Inflation helps a bit with non-contributors, but the wealthy few aren't interested in losing capital so that the many can gain.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Really simple capitalism is collapsing, the lie that you can have anything and everything you want if you work hard enough is a lie. Even those that do achieve they are in effect meaningless and unhappy and have lured themselves into cult like state, Life Coaches and Pyramid schemes.

There isn't enough for everybody because too few have too much and in between them are those dying to defend them for the slight chance they might be on of them too.

Being wealthy has never been about the smartest, or the hardest working, it has always been about lying, and getting over on someone else before they have any chance to realize what is going on.

As much as I loath and hate hip hop today, these clowns pretty much sum up the reality for anyone who has learned anything, it's why we have an elected moron in the WH.

[Spectral]

Value such as public roads isn't seen as part of an economic model. Quality of life improves, but capital is still zero sum. Inflation helps a bit with non-contributors, but the wealthy few aren't interested in losing capital so that the many can gain.

This seems like a really weird claim - are you actually saying that there's absolutely no surplus value generated to consumers as a result of private economic transactions?

[Weeps]

In the USA, when you retire you have to sell your house in order to pay medical bills.

I can't wait for republicans to realize this when their baby boomin' ass starts to get sick and they can't give their money or house to Baby Tommy because they voted against healthcare.