Are Capitalism and women's nature in conflict ?

[Phi-]

Making money is acquisition of resources. That is today's survival of the fittest, unless you'd rather go back to the "natural state" of physical conquest.

You completely missed the point. You don't have to be fitter at the acquisition of resources if you have a huge amount of wealth already, because there is a systematic unbalance that will help you amass more wealth by basically doing nothing. As I've said, I've met borderline retarded people in my life that inherited big money. They don't bother with things like money, they are basically sitting on their hands trying not to destroy anything. They are unfit by any definition of the word, yet they will raise their net worth more than anybody busting his ass and actually being a good businessman that doesn't get extremely lucky by some coincidence. There are entry levels to illustrious club of century old money nobility.

So you see, it's really not "survival of the fittest", no matter how you look at it. That's just the idea rich people managed to implant into the usual gullible citizen so they believe today iteration of capitalism is a meritocracy or based on the actual marketplace of goods. It isn't. The most common way people get rich is by inheritance, which means that most of that money stops circulating and concentrates on few individuals, which is inherently bad for any economy as described by the consumption equation.

 

[nostradumbass]

You completely missed the point. You don't have to be fitter at the acquisition of resources if you have a huge amount of wealth already, because there is a systematic unbalance that will help you amass more wealth by basically doing nothing. As I've said, I've met borderline retarded people in my life that inherited big money. They don't bother with things like money, they are basically sitting on their hands trying not to destroy anything. They are unfit by any definition of the word, yet they will raise their net worth more than anybody busting his ass and actually being a good businessman that doesn't get extremely lucky by some coincidence. There are entry levels to illustrious club of century old money nobility.

So you see, it's really not "survival of the fittest", no matter how you look at it. That's just the idea rich people managed to implant into the usual gullible citizen so they believe today iteration of capitalism is a meritocracy or based on the actual marketplace of goods. It isn't. The most common way people get rich is by inheritance, which means that most of that money stops circulating and concentrates on few individuals, which is inherently bad for any economy as described by the consumption equation.

You'd be right if your assumptions were true, but they aren't. It's just something poor people tell themselves to not take responsibility. In reality, 80% of millionaires didn't inherit any money at all and less than 3% of millionaires actually inherited their millionaire status. Millionaires inherited money at exactly the same rate as the rest of the population.

Your scenario doesn't even make sense and kind of sounds like you just watched Billy Madison. How is somebody who's "borderline retarded" and "doesn't bother with things like money and are just sitting on their hands" increasing their money? Money today and money 100 years ago isn't worth the same amount, so just sitting on that money and dividing it by however many kids you have and then again by however many kids they have, and then again by however many they have leaves everyone with about 1 month of an average salary from the initial large fortune.

The US has more new millionaires every year than any other country, meaning people who do not come from money and get rich on their own. The fact is that "the most common way people get rich is by inheritance" is demonstrably and laughably wrong and it's kind of sad how many people think that and then use the misapprehension to excuse and justify their poor spending habits.

We recently released the findings of the largest study of millionaires ever conducted, with 10,000 people participating. We also surveyed the general population, and we found out that 74% of Millennials believe millionaires inherited their money. So do 52% of Baby Boomers.

Our study of millionaires blows that theory out of the water. Only 21% of millionaires received any inheritance at all. Just 16% inherited more than $100,000. And get this: only 3% received an inheritance at or above $1 million.

Think about that: 74% of Millennials believe millionaires inherited their money, but the vast majority of millionaires didn’t get any inheritance at all, and those who did certainly didn’t get enough to make them millionaires!

https://www.chrishogan360.com/investing/how-many-millionaires-actually-inherited-their-wealth

 

[DespicablePeep]

That you're an imbecile with the mind of a teenager who is mashing out the same halfwit epiphany that millions of poorly educated right wing children before you have.
What the fuck is the point of this? lol

WOKE

 

[brackis1]

WOKE

Are you more hurt or triggered by how this accuracy reflects on your life?

 

[Phi-]

You'd be right if your assumptions were true, but they aren't. It's just something poor people tell themselves to not take responsibility. In reality, 80% of millionaires didn't inherit any money at all and less than 3% of millionaires actually inherited their millionaire status. Millionaires inherited money at exactly the same rate as the rest of the population.

Your scenario doesn't even make sense and kind of sounds like you just watched Billy Madison. How is somebody who's "borderline retarded" and "doesn't bother with things like money and are just sitting on their hands" increasing their money? Money today and money 100 years ago isn't worth the same amount, so just sitting on that money and dividing it by however many kids you have and then again by however many kids they have, and then again by however many they have leaves everyone with about 1 month of an average salary from the initial large fortune.

The US has more new millionaires every year than any other country, meaning people who do not come from money and get rich on their own. The fact is that "the most common way people get rich is by inheritance" is demonstrably and laughably wrong and it's kind of sad how many people think that and then use the misapprehension to excuse and justify their poor spending habits.


https://www.chrishogan360.com/investing/how-many-millionaires-actually-inherited-their-wealth

Millionaires? You think somebody has "a huge amount of wealth" with a couple million dollars?

I'm talking about people that have hundreds of millions, I'm talking about billionaires. People that can pay others millions and won't feel it. The millionaires you are talking about are mere peasants compared to the people I'm talking about. I know relations are hard and it's only a single letter between million and billion, but it does matter.

You have any articles talking about them?

 

[DespicablePeep]

Are you more hurt or triggered by how this accuracy reflects on your life?

Both! But thanks for taking the time to screen grab my avatar.

WOKE

 

[DespicablePeep]

Millionaires? You think somebody has "a huge amount of wealth" with a few million?

I'm talking about people that have hundreds of millions, I'm talking about billionaires. The millionaires you are talking about are mere peasants compared to the people I'm talking about. I know relations are hard and it's only a single letter between million and billion, but it does matter.

There are 540 bilionares in US, I think his point makes more sense than yours. Yes some families amast wealth effortlessly but its a minority and does not mean that their money won´t change hands with time. Take the biggest companies in the world today, mostly tech, they were all self made people.

 

[brackis1]

Millionaires? You think somebody has "a huge amount of wealth" with a few million?

I'm talking about people that have hundreds of millions, I'm talking about billionaires. People that can pay others millions and won't feel it. The millionaires you are talking about are mere peasants compared to the people I'm talking about. I know relations are hard and it's only a single letter between million and billion, but it does matter.

You have any articles talking about them?

Exactly.
Anyone who thinks a millionaire is rich in America is only showing the trajectory of their own understanding of wealth while ignoring the insane inertia of institutional level wealth. The same families that were wealthist in italy in the fucking 1400s are still there today lol.

I would know; I've been afforded some insane boosts in my life thanks purely to lineage and connection.

 

[brackis1]

There are 540 bilionares in US, I think his point makes more sense than yours. Yes some families amast wealth effortlessly but its a minority and does not mean that their money won´t change hands with time. Take the biggest companies in the world today, mostly tech, they were all self made people.

You have no clue how many billlionaires there are and the idea of a billionaire being "in a country" is laughable.
I personally know someone who is a legitimate billionaire (one a retired founder of a financial firm) and he isn't on a forbes list and he most definitely has dual citizenship on a Caribbean island country. Owns a 200 ft Yacht. I got to go fishing on a 30 ft sport boat that...SITS ON THE DECK AND GETS CRANED INTO THE WATER BY AN ONBOARD CRANE.
Then surprise surprise that dude's kid went nutzo on drugs and I don't talk to them anymore.

Point being much of this money is dancing around through private banking, not core of US gdp.

 

[BForrester]

Sherbros and Shergals: Women, historically, have shunned away from the ideals of rugged Capitalism, choosing instead a more egalitarian approach which has seen more women then ever supporting (what they think) is socialism. It doesn't matter how many bodies the Bolsheviks and Stalin and Mao buried - what matters is the idea of equality.

Equality of what, you ask; equality of results, NOT OPPORTUNITY.
From my observations and discussions throughout the years, it seems to be that women, for the most part, don't think like men; we are wired differently in how we see the world, our purpose. Our views on nationalism, patriotism, etc .... seem genetically in conflict.

The 19th Amendment - which gave women the right to vote - has been instrumental in leftist, progressive, more social based policies being pushed to the forefront.

Capitalism is about freedom and survival of the fittest.
Socialism is about the idea of the collective good.
Women by nature will vote for security over freedom; it's in their genes.

What say you ?

Are you familiar with the concept of a "mixed economy"?

 

[jeremyemilio]

To begin, it's always silly to discuss women and men as though they are two different species. We work so well together. And we are so totally useless apart. In a generalized sense, we are different, but our differences are complimentary, and they are not absolute.

Applying that to the subject at hand, it's pretty well established by history that if you want to improve the plight of all, you need to start by improving the plight of women... but that you need to find a way to do that without throwing out men in the process, because we tend to do the (literal) heavy lifting.

Likewise, it's pretty clear that maintaining a certain balanced tension between left and right is important to widespread quality or life. The right is extremely good at producing wealth. The left is much, much better at making sure that wealth gets spread around a little. If you have one without the other you either get a society where a very few wealthy people lord over an overwhelmingly poor minority, or where everyone shares from a much smaller pie.

But with both keeping one another in check, you get a society that creates wealth to the benefit of all (well... most).

Ditto for men and women (although, again, there aren't clear lines here... only general tendencies that don't always hold with specific individuals).

Edit: Dammit... while I was writing all of that, @BForrester slipped in and put it all a hell of a lot more succinctly...

 

[Phi-]

There are 540 bilionares in US, I think his point makes more sense than yours. Yes some families amast wealth effortlessly but its a minority and does not mean that their money won´t change hands with time. Take the biggest companies in the world today, mostly tech, they were all self made people.

Through the extreme surge of wealth because of booming internet and globalization there are many self made billionaires. But Zuckerberg and Bezos didn't get rich because of their amazing products were the best in a competitive marketplate and "survival of the fittest" like stated in the initial assessment of capitalism. Each of the self made billionaires will tell you it had very much to do with luck as well.

 

[brackis1]

Through the extreme surge of wealth because of booming internet and globalization there are many self made billionaires. But Zuckerberg and Bezos didn't get rich because of their amazing products were the best in a competitive marketplate and "survival of the fittest" like stated in the initial assessment of capitalism. Each of the self made billionaires will tell you it had very much to do with luck as well.

Well and also being rich/funded.
You can have a great idea but if your parents don't have $250k (amazon in a garage in 1995 from Bezos' rich fam.) to throw at some idea that 95% chance fails then you'll also have trouble getting those seed round meetings that someone else with a similar idea got because of social capital.


I went to highschool with a dipshit who ended up selling a shitty payments app company for 350+ million. Guess how that happened? His parents were already worth about 50 million, he dropped out of the Ivy League, and he got 1 million dollars in high publicity seed funding from a venture capitalist whose daughter was his friend.

Is that "self made"? Hardly. It's a parlay that allows wealthy folks to win the sprints when new industrial opportunities arise.

 

[DespicablePeep]

You have no clue how many billlionaires there are and the idea of a billionaire being "in a country" is laughable.
I personally know someone who is a legitimate billionaire (one a retired founder of a financial firm) and he isn't on a forbes list and he most definitely has dual citizenship on a Caribbean island country. Owns a 200 ft Yacht. I got to go fishing on a 30 ft sport boat that...SITS ON THE DECK AND GETS CRANED INTO THE WATER BY AN ONBOARD CRANE.
Then surprise surprise that dude's kid went nutzo on drugs and I don't talk to them anymore.

Point being much of this money is dancing around through private banking, not core of US gdp.

So you think an anecdote proves a point?

 

[jeremyemilio]

If you look at various indicators: life expectancy, infant mortality, student performance, socioeconomic mobility, annual leave, etc, the US is the bottom of western countries in pretty much every objective indicator. So in your grand quest to craft a society where you make yourself feel better by lording over poor people, you've made a society that overall performs worse than everybody else's.

It's a well-known phenomenon in psychology that being the best among a set of social comparison is associated with happiness (related to the Easterlin Paradox). In other words, if you're the richest person living in a ghetto you get a boost of happiness. That's literally your individual strategy; "I need all these poor people around because they make me feel better," even though you're probably not impressive in the slightest when compared to peers and people of higher status.

Well... point taken. But it's also worth noting that the most Left Leaning nations in the world are so far down on the list in those various indicators that they don't even cross your mind as being legitimate points of comparison.

Which is fair enough, but we do want to keep in mind that while the evidence you presents does suggest that some western nations have struck a better, more effective, balance between left and right policies and structures, it doesn't suggest that the goal should be to move ever leftward.

 

[Phi-]

Well and also being rich/funded.
You can have a great idea but if your parents don't have $250k to throw at some idea that 95% chance fails (amazon in a garage in 1995 from Bezos' rich fam) then you'll also have trouble getting those seed round meetings that someone else with a similar idea got because of social capital.

That's also not my point. I support anybody getting rich through a little help of their parents, it's absolutely fine. At least they want to do something with the money and invest it. What I don't support is people inheriting half a billion and sitting on it while leading a lifestyle that's so far removed from reality it's not even funny and still making money because their dynastic companies, portfolios and foundations are getting tax cuts to the point where they are effectively being supported by the tax payer instead of the other way around.

Capitalism how it's supposed to be in theory simply doesn't exist. And you definitely can't substitute it with "freedom" or "survival of the fittest", it's clearly just the way capitalists look upon themselves and would like others to look upon them as well.

 

[brackis1]

So you think an anecdote proves a point?

When the original point is that there's some supremely finite amount of billionaires, yes, anecdotal evidence is a significant proportion of that cohort and provides insight that runs counter to your point.

I'll repeat myself: the ultra wealthy are not wed to a single country or banking system, making it extremely difficult to understand the extent and location of hoarded resources, whether just for pure tax evasion or to hide lobbying/market rigging behaviors.

 

[brackis1]

That's also not my point. I support anybody getting rich through a little help of their parents, it's absolutely fine. At least they want to do something with the money and invest it. What I don't support is people inheriting half a billion and sitting on it while leading a lifestyle that's so far removed from reality it's not even funny and still making money because their dynastic companies, portfolios and foundations are getting tax cuts to the point where they are effectively being supported by the tax payer instead of the other way around.

Capitalism how it's supposed to be in theory simply doesn't exist. And you definitely can't substitute it with "freedom" or "survival of the fittest", it's clearly just the way capitalists look upon themselves and would like others to look upon them as well.

I mean those very conditions you're describing are why rich parents can fling money at their children's failures: because even if the kid fails the dynastic wealth would continue and 250k in 1995 is a fuckton of money unless you've got a gravy train coming in to offset it. If Jeff Bezos failed with Amazon he still would have been rich and allowed to carry on to his next idea or fall back on another upper class job.

 

[brackis1]

That's also not my point. I support anybody getting rich through a little help of their parents, it's absolutely fine. At least they want to do something with the money and invest it. What I don't support is people inheriting half a billion and sitting on it while leading a lifestyle that's so far removed from reality it's not even funny and still making money because their dynastic companies, portfolios and foundations are getting tax cuts to the point where they are effectively being supported by the tax payer instead of the other way around.

Capitalism how it's supposed to be in theory simply doesn't exist. And you definitely can't substitute it with "freedom" or "survival of the fittest", it's clearly just the way capitalists look upon themselves and would like others to look upon them as well.

I mean those very conditions you're describing are why rich parents can fling money at their children's failures: because even if the kid fails the dynastic wealth would continue and 250k in 1995 is a fuckton of money unless you've got a gravy train coming in to offset it. If Jeff Bezos failed with Amazon he still would have been rich and allowed to carry on to his next idea or fall back on another upper class job.

 

[nostradumbass]

Millionaires? You think somebody has "a huge amount of wealth" with a couple million dollars?

I'm talking about people that have hundreds of millions, I'm talking about billionaires. People that can pay others millions and won't feel it. The millionaires you are talking about are mere peasants compared to the people I'm talking about. I know relations are hard and it's only a single letter between million and billion, but it does matter.

You have any articles talking about them?

Hang out with a lot of billionaires, do you? Your fake claim 2 posts ago was that these are people you know, then you went on to describe Billy Madison. Lol, you made a claim, it was demonstrably false, now you've gotten lost having to walk it back and pretend you were talking about something else.

Most of us consider millionaires to be "rich", but now your threshold for "rich" is billionaire? Ok fine, how many people are you pretending inherited billions of dollars? The top 5 richest people in the US are Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Ellison. Which of them inherited billions of dollars?

From the Forbes 400 list, only 16% inherited their wealth(none in the top 10), another 16% did have a smaller inheritance that they grew, and the other nearly 70% of the 400 richest people in the country are completely self-made. That kind of shoots down your little theory about "the man" holding you down.

You don't even know what you're talking about anymore. This is stemming from your ridiculous claim that "most people's wealth doesn't come down to successful businesses, but by inheritance", and "the most common way to get rich is by inheritance". That is straight up not true no matter how move the goal post, and it's a delusion that only poor people have that everything is rigged against them and they can't get ahead no matter what they do and everyone who's not poor either got it dishonestly, stole it from someone else or inherited it, and that's just not the case no matter what shifting standard you'd like to use.

 

[brackis1]

Hang out with a lot of billionaires, do you? Your fake claim 2 posts ago was that these are people you know, then you went on to describe Billy Madison. Lol, you made a claim, it was demonstrably false, now you've gotten lost having to walk it back and pretend you were talking about something else.

Most of us consider millionaires to be "rich", but now your threshold for "rich" is billionaire? Ok fine, how many people are you pretending inherited billions of dollars? The top 5 richest people in the US are Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Ellison. Which of them inherited billions of dollars?

From the Forbes 400 list, only 16% inherited their wealth(none in the top 10), another 16% did have a smaller inheritance that they grew, and the other nearly 70% of the 400 richest people in the country are completely self-made. That kind of shoots down your little theory about "the man" holding you down.

You don't even know what you're talking about anymore. This is stemming from your ridiculous claim that "most people's wealth doesn't come down to successful businesses, but by inheritance", and "the most common way to get rich is by inheritance". That is straight up not true no matter how move the goal post, and it's a delusion that only poor people have that everything is rigged against them and they can't get ahead no matter what they do and everyone who's not poor either got it dishonestly, stole it from someone else or inherited it, and that's just not the case no matter what shifting standard you'd like to use.

Are you confused? I am the one who knows/knew the billionaire (and probably at least a handful of people worth 100+ mil).
And when I say billionaire I'm not basing that off them having some nice house. I've literally flown on private jets to this person's megayacht that can be googled, had them drop a grand to let me ski with them at their chalet type bullshit.

Where are you getting your "self made" criteria from btw? Magazine have been promoting Kylie Jenner as self made for her cosmetics line lol.