The bourgeoisie aren't that bad.
I've never studied Marxist economics in great detail; but, one thing stands out in my mind about treating the bourgeoisie as villans. Mind you, this isn't a conservative glorification of their worth to the economy. Everyone ought to know that 10 people with a million is simply flat out better than one person with 10 million in any sort of socio-economic dynamical equilibria (perhaps barring monopolies, and even that is a stretch).
Namely, one has to understand that the Rothchilds or Rockefellers, cannot maintain their intergenerational mobility. The workings of the market and animalistic spirits manifesting in the works of it, by people, simply dissuade most people from holding onto their savings for the entirety of their life. Had Trump held onto his inherited wealth from his father and invested it in an index fund of the S&P 100, he'd be a much richer man than he is today. Yet, he didn't choose to do so. I assume this was out of pride rather than a purely rational decision. Hence, why I never put much value in conspiracy theories, like the Jews owning the FED or some such... stuff. Sure, the rich Rothschild or Vanderbilt might know that it is better to save their money to entertain the luxuries of the market, but, if one understands that they can't hold onto their wealth forever, then the conspirational chain breaks down.
Here's what I would like to point out. Namely, that despite growing inequality, and hatred towards Boomers by my generation, that the rich still desire what the poor might as well desire too (please don't confuse this with trickle-down). They are neither malicious, nor alien lizards hoarding all the wealth in the world. And, if what they desire is the same as what one poor bloke may want, then the realization of that want is made easier by economies of scale and other deflationary tendencies that make goods cheaper and better, relatively speaking, than they were 10 or 100 years ago.
There are a multitude of factors, that make this so, which I won't delve into here; but, can if anyone is interested.
Namely, one has to understand that the Rothchilds or Rockefellers, cannot maintain their intergenerational mobility. The workings of the market and animalistic spirits manifesting in the works of it, by people, simply dissuade most people from holding onto their savings for the entirety of their life. Had Trump held onto his inherited wealth from his father and invested it in an index fund of the S&P 100, he'd be a much richer man than he is today. Yet, he didn't choose to do so. I assume this was out of pride rather than a purely rational decision. Hence, why I never put much value in conspiracy theories, like the Jews owning the FED or some such... stuff. Sure, the rich Rothschild or Vanderbilt might know that it is better to save their money to entertain the luxuries of the market, but, if one understands that they can't hold onto their wealth forever, then the conspirational chain breaks down.
Here's what I would like to point out. Namely, that despite growing inequality, and hatred towards Boomers by my generation, that the rich still desire what the poor might as well desire too (please don't confuse this with trickle-down). They are neither malicious, nor alien lizards hoarding all the wealth in the world. And, if what they desire is the same as what one poor bloke may want, then the realization of that want is made easier by economies of scale and other deflationary tendencies that make goods cheaper and better, relatively speaking, than they were 10 or 100 years ago.
There are a multitude of factors, that make this so, which I won't delve into here; but, can if anyone is interested.
Comments (83)
If those who 'hate the rich' could be 'magically' made billionaires, it would be fun to see what they would do or not do with those billions. While I think we poor nobodies should tax them big time, I also think there's some silliness in hating them for their wealth alone. It's easy for poor people to talk a big game. Resentment/envy is 'obviously' a possibility.
In short, I agree that lots of the ultra-rich are probably good people or OK people. And of course many of them do give millions away.
Right? I've heard that argument formalized into:
Makes me wanna puke, if anyone actually believes that.
You know what differentiates an Ivy League college from a "normal" one, right?
No, to me those are different thoughts. My point is that it's easy for poor people to brag about their greatness of soul. At the same time many poor people 'worship' fame and comfort and travel. Basically we humans are often full of shit. So the real test is what we do with power or money or fame when we get it.
When people hate 'the rich,' it's not that far from hating women, men, blacks, Catholics, Jews, etc. Basically the risk is always that we're hating a cartoon that sketches some part of ourselves that we don't want to see and therefore project elsewhere. (An old, basic idea.)
This sounds like the rational approach. At the same time I think we're only rational at our best.
Responding to this thought: I personally think that a certain type of person will tend to gather coins. That doesn't make them better or worse. Even among us relatively poor people we see those who are more careful with their money than others, those who trade free time for wage-labor and the reverse. And we are also dreamers as a species.
Some people are more clear-eyed about practical matters than others. Freedom allows us to do stupid things, go into credit card debt for stupid objects that we don't need, etc. So freedom + property rights will indeed lead pretty quickly to the rich and the poor.
But, as I said, I'm all for taxing the rich and working against severe inequality.
Not necessarily. Depends who they are.
Well, my point is that there's nothing unique about being rich or coming to that status.
How-so? Teach me! I wanna be rich too!
What do you mean? Are you referring to drug addicts or other types that squander their wealth?
I suppose this can be true; but, if you're a billionaire the point kind of becomes moot, unless your buying Ferrari's to every person you met in life.
So, rich people get richer or stay the same because they know more about money than Joe from Starbucks does?
Some would end up poor or rich like they were before, because they have/don't have the habits, skills and connections to do so. It's not all luck or birthright.
If you took all of Musk or Beezos' money, do you think they just end up homeless? Or do they go and pitch some ideas to venture capitalists and start a new business?
Lottery winners and plenty of athletes often blow their money in a few years, because they don't understand how to maintain their wealth and invest wisely.
So, being or becoming rich is a sort of inside thing? I mean, really, what differentiates some guy off the street scrounging from a dollar from a person in a Bentley driving around town and flaunting his or her wealth?
Sometimes, but also it's being able to pursue an idea at the right time, and being willing to risk failing. And then succeeding enough to garner recognition. Silicon Valley has a motto of failing fast and often, and real artists ship their product. It means get your stuff out there and be ready to pivot.
Not everyone is willing to do that, and they're okay with just a normal job. And then there are people who wreck their lives or don't care to bother.
So while we can certainly criticize the various issues around wealth imbalance, we also don't want to disincentive people from being skilled and creative and increasing the economic pie.
I have no interest in living in a society in which we're all equally poor.
I was just pointing out that the individual talents count rather than the number of people. Not everyone with money hoards money for the sake of hoarding money, anymore than every poor person has ten children and a drug habit.
So no, I don’t think everyone with some wit would agree with your statement at all.
OK, but that sounds like luck to me.
Quoting Marchesk
I read Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert T. Kiyosaki, a long time ago; but, it was all there on paper, just like Warren Buffett tell most people that it's all about value and growth and maintaining a balance between the two on the stock market.
I suppose we ought to define what does "being rich" at all even mean?
To the individual or the economy as a whole?
To an extent. You also don't get to be lucky if you don't try. But I'm not against increasing taxes on the wealthy. I'm against the idea of equal outcome. We're not all equal in ability.
Circular, but, I get the point. So, then if not being lucky, then maybe talent or knowledge?
So let's restrict the domain to sports. If you want to become a rich athlete (starting off as a youth), it's certainly possible. But it takes a tremendous amount of work. You don't just luck into it by occasionally playing a sport as you're growing up.
Now luck certainly enters it with injuries, timing and where you go to play college or what club or what not. And some people are more marketable than others, and get offered nice endorsement deals.
But none of that happens without trying.
So, I'm sensing some conservative undertones here.
What is good for the individual is good for the economy as a whole, is that correct?
Nothing about being rich is Darwinian in nature. Is that what you have in mind?
Is there something wrong with that?
Quoting Wallows
It can be.
I'm not making blanket statements. But also, what's wrong with the Darwinian part when it comes to being rich?
Now note I'm not saying that's good for being poor or huge wealth imbalances, I'm just asking about financial success. We can use progressive taxation to address that.
Not per se; but, I've never been much of a supply-side economist if we're going down that path, and neither do I think any particular 'ism has the astute and right view on the matter, which both either Democrats or Republicans would like to assert, try as they might.
Quoting Marchesk
In what way?
Because you end up being a Randian if you advocate such a view on the matter. Being rich then becomes a matter of 'fact' or 'natural right'.
Typically, if you hire someone who isn't at the bottom end of the socio-economic spectrum, as an illegal immigrant, they tend to demand things that they haven't yet earned, which is actually a good thing contrary to the conservative sentiment of hatred against 'entitlement'... Instead, such behavior shows confidence and competence for the job to be performed. Paying someone more than they think they ought to earn is also a strategic tactic utilized by employers to decrease turnover, which can be costly in a job environment that requires a lot of training.
So, my point is, that neo-classical (pay the least you can get away with), isn't always the most rational thing to do.
Ha. Well I've never been much of a coin collector, though I am good at spending them slowly. I love grocery stores. As mundane as they are, so much of one's philosophy is manifest there.
I think I know what you mean. And there's truth in that. But isn't there also truth in 'a fool and his money are soon parted.'? I've seen people squander tens of thousands of dollars. Others would use a small inheritance to invest, etc.
Hmm, grocery stores are the best, as are malls. You can see the invisible hand working its magic thereabouts.
Yes, there is some truth to that. I am a fool. Not quite as mad as @TheMadFool, though. I'm working on it though. Maybe someday... who knows?
Nice contrast. I do like H&M. Lots of there stuff is too...something. But occasionally they really nail it, and it's a good price. But I scoff at diamond stores. Even Apples stores. My older iphones are good enough. And yet I need the monied to keep buying the latest. I depend on other lifestyles for my own.
All true. But, caveat... credit, borrowing, venture capitalism comes to save the day!
"Fashion" is a concept I never did entirely get. The whole industry is probably worth maybe a trillion.
Well I guess I'm a peacock. But I like to work with the most understated, classic elements. A person just projects competence and self-respect when they are dressed carefully. And what one doesn't do is perhaps more important than what one does.
I'm just opinionating here, but I do indeed believe in the 'language' of clothing. And in my book one can err by spending too much. For me the game is nailing it via taste. In same way that bad cooking can always involve too much salt, fat, or sugar...so can bad dressing involve excessive expenditure. But all of this is relative. If a person is rich and hangs with the rich, they may need a suit that costs 2K. Background is 'part' of foreground. IMO we have to account for context. And this applies even to intellectual fashion.
One 'has' to learn to see one's self from the outside, in context, to be good at a certain kind of game. Now whether that's a worth game is another issue. But I personally love clothes that are just so. But that applies to other objects in life. I like the idea of living art. I like the idea of necessary life tools also being beautiful.
Very Wittgenstian. I like! :up:
Can I like, build a tent or something and prosper here?
I don't think it matters much, as long as the conversation is permitted to continue. I never pay attention to the categories. Like never.
Hmm, but I like being a philosophical celebrity, don't you? xD
Oh yeah, I am trying to squeeze out a fresh meme now and then. But I like anonymity too. A nice compromise is launching a meme and see a few people assimilate it into the personality / system.
I want to be contagious. And yet I was never really here.
A contagious meme! Dennett would approve.
This to me is the second, secret purpose of philosophy. It's not just about truth. It's also creative enterprise, a form of poetry. It's not non-fiction, exactly. It instead creates reality, installs new software. I think we live 'in' language, 'in' a field of shared concepts. And we can modify this 'field,' but usually only in small ways. The 'geniuses' (like Wittgenstein) seduce us with there memes. That seduction feels like a revelation of the real, and to some degree I think it is, but it is also a construction of a our shared conceptual reality. We swim in an ocean of signs. As 'spirits' we are chains of signs that talk about themselves. Something like that...
It's almost as if philosophy and not mathematics, were the true universal language, no?
Is this why nothing ever changes.
Quoting Wallows
Not only do I not know this I find it to be incorrect because it is a very poor generalisation.
What determines the ‘better’ is what is done with the resources NOT how equally they are distributed. What people do with what they’ve got matters more than the amount they have. I don’t see a way to avoid this point.
Better than nothing. And, if the idea pays off (being reasonable here, like patenting a new way to open a canned beer) then your set for life.
There was no mention of distribution here. I find it hard to fathom why you think one person with 10 million is a better consumer than 10 people with 1 million each??
I may have read more into what you wrote than you intended though. If it is just individuals working independently then it is generally better to have ten people with clout than one person with clout - that said someone with ten million would likely have gotten to that point by mutual exchanges and will likely continue to feed back into the system. This is basically down to the individuals social attitudes and concerns.
I’d hazard a guess that a great number of successful business types are obviously stuck in a bit of a bubble, but I would say it is wrong to assume they’re completely blind to societal difficulties as well as inactive. Some don’t care and some do.
Well, then I should have been more specific and just said that the aggregate demand for goods produced by and for 10 consumers with 1 million each, would surpass the demand created by 1 person with 10 million.
Would 10 people with 10mil each and 1 person with 10mil in terms of consumer demands compared to 10 people with 1mil each and 1 person with 10mil? If so, how and why?
Really Sushi? OK.
Let's assume the typical et ceteris paribus maxim here and assume nothing creative is being done with the net sum of 10 million. 10 people with a million dollars each are going to consume MORE than one person with 10 million.
Is there disagreement with the concept or wording thus far?
If we mix philosophy, politics, and religion, then yeah. Tho math is clearly useful, it's something that many only do because they have to. We like our dreams. We like characters.
It's not the being rich part, it's the allowing people to attempt to become rich. Some of it is luck and who you know. Some of it is starting out with money. But some of it is innovation. And we want people to be free to start their own businesses and try out new ideas. Also, if you do start out with wealth, it's better for the economy if you invest it and fund business adventures than it is to just sit in a bank account.
:rofl: At least I got mentioned. Good day folks
Aye...
No actually, quite worse than nothing, as I had just explained. Having access to credit doesn't improve your odds of winning or losing, you're still every bit as likely to fail and just as unlikely to succeed; going into debt to do it it just makes your losses worse and your (still very unlikely) wins worse, to the benefit of those who gambled on you.
Consider the clear-cut case of someone literally gambling at a casino, where the odds are explicitly stacked in favor of the house, so by definition of that you're more likely to lose than to win. Does extending credit (at interest) to the poor schmucks playing there anyway make the situation better for them, or worse?
Well, you presupposed that they won't win anyway. So, if those poor schmucks can't win then credit is bad for them? Am I getting you right here?
Quoting Pfhorrest
Presumably these odds your talking about are more than just your opinion. If you’re talking about borrowing money just to get by then yes you’re likely to end up in trouble. But to borrow money for development of a product or for growth of a business is what’s behind all the jobs out there.
Yeah, well this is why we have underwriters and assessors in banks who weigh the probability of success for a startup along with the interest on the loan being a reflection of that...
Quoting Pfhorrest
This is such rubbish.
It’s true, as you say, that more business fail than succeed, but that’s generally about small business. They fail because the owners have very little understanding of what they’re doing. Sadly they lose their money and end up with only debt.
Business doesn’t borrow from itself. Where do you get that from? They borrow against their good credit rating.
Quoting Pfhorrest
More of it than those who have a lot? More nonsense. The basic cost of living is the same for everyone. The rich are able to spend more than that. What you might mean is that they spend more of their income.
If you want to bring down the rich then at least look at the real animal instead of creating something that looks easier to demolish.
And yes, the entire point of that second comment is that poor people spend more of their income, because the cost of living is a greater fraction of that income. So the same money split across more people will end up with more of it being spent. Give me $10,000 and I'll stuff it in my retirement account. Give a bum on the street $10,000 and he'll spend it all staying off the streets for a few months. So more of the $10k gets spent in the bum's hands than in mine.
So, the straw man of why the poor are poor is complete?
Don't take that too seriously, although I hope it comes off as sincere.
It's my thread so GTFO.
You better not come to The Lounge then.
Millions of Americans struggle to pay for medical bills and hundreds of thousands go bankrupt from it, but sure yeah they aren't that bad, in fact owning more wealth than the bottom 60% of Americans is great.
Yes, well can't argue with that, apart from the fact that once you dip below the poverty line, there is always Medicare to rely on. Though, that doesn't console much in regards to the matter.
In regards to inequality, that's a thorny topic within economic circles. I believe [s]Krugman[/s] (Stiglitz) touched on this issue in his The Price of Inequality, which I have on my bookshelf; but, haven't gotten around to reading.
When reading the passages of Marx where he is describing a good life for a person, it reminds me a lot of what getting to have a bourgeoisie lifestyle might provide, if such self fulfillment is the desire of the said bourgeois.
This observation combined with Marx's antipathy regarding unions suggests to me that he separated the means to get certain benefits from the idea that what was desired was negated in the process of reaching for it.